• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Electric universe theories here.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tangled magnetic fields reconnecting...geez whoda thunkit!

Though, 2.3.2. Approach Two: Field‐Aligned Hydrodynamic
Modeling was interesting.

You are going to need a bigger CPU!

In summary, the heating of the solar atmosphere
involves universal, fundamental physical processes such
as waves, magnetic reconnection, turbulence, and particle
acceleration. In addition, it is important for understanding
the solar wind that fills the solar system, and space
weather interactions with Earth and other solar system
planets, as well as for understanding stellar atmospheres
and how they create and modulate the space environment
around their exoplanets.
Click to expand...

Mmmm...particle acceleration...weeeee!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
First objection? IT must be possible for an outer layer to be hotter than a cooler layer Great, name ONE example OTHER than the solar coronal heating problem (for the mainstream)

Direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics = The Mystery of Coronal Heating

Although, you've apparently solved it! Radiatively Coupling! Geez, ya good!
Click to expand...

I just explained to you the critical difference: the corona is transparent and the photosphere is not. And what did you do? You ignored it.

What's more, you don't even understand what the problem is that we're even discussing. I'm not talking about what heats the corona. But REGARDLESS of what heats it, because it's transparent, the photosphere can still be cooler than the photosphere.

The photosphere is NOT transparent. Therefore, REGARDLESS of what heats the photosphere, whatever is under the photosphere cannot be cooler than the photosphere.

Identifying the mechanism which heats either the corona or the photosphere is not thermodynamics. But that heat must still obey thermodynamics, which constrains what can happen next. In the case of the corona, thermodynamics permits what's inside (ie, the photosphere) to be colder since it's transparent. In the case of the photosphere, thermodynamics does not permit what's inside to be colder since it's not transparent. It's really quite simple. And neither you nor Scott have any clue about this incredibly basic stuff. At this point, it's not even funny, it's pathetic.
 
Sol88 said:
DOI: 10.1002/9781119815600.ch2

Donald E. Scott: Quintessence of Solar Winds | Thunderbolts

Both problems (for the mainstream) solved. Using PLASMA physics.

Amazing!
Click to expand...

So I clicked on the video, and up pops an ad for a MasterClass with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I'm not particularly a fan of him, but it amused me deeply because he starts out saying, "One of the great challenges in science is when you know enough to think you know the answer, but not enough to know you're wrong."

Turns out, you don't really need to know any science to think you're right, and you and Scott both don't know enough to know that you're wrong. Dunning-Kruger in action.

And this isn't a solution. It's hand-waving. Scott is appealing to the Juergens solar model, which I've debunked before. What's of particular note here, though, is that he won't attach any numbers to it. He can't attach any numbers to it. And the reason is quite simple: once you attach numbers to it, the whole thing immediately falls apart, as it becomes apparent that either the sun must be so highly charged that it would explode, or the charges are so small that they cannot account for the required power. Or (and this is really the best part) both at the same time. Yes, it's possible for the sun to be so charged it would explode and simultaneously insufficiently charged to power it.

Which you would know if you actually tried doing any calculations yourself. But again, you're not capable of doing any calculations. Ever. And if Scott is capable, then he probably knows on some level that he's a fraud because he refuses to actually do any.
 
Sol88 said:
DOI: 10.1002/9781119815600.ch2

Donald E. Scott: Quintessence of Solar Winds | Thunderbolts

Both problems (for the mainstream) solved. Using PLASMA physics.

Amazing!
Click to expand...

How can Scott solve anything using plasma physics? He doesn't know any. See his ridiculous video? He has electrons heading in towards the Sun. Care to tell us how he is getting them past the magnetic field, heading out with the solar wind, at ~ 400 km/s? Physically impossible. Unless they have relativistic energies. And they would be bleedin' obvious. However, he insists that they are merely drifting in.

He claims that only ions are heading out, and calls it a current! Lol. Well, that is not what is measured, is it? As Alfven explained, in 1939;

The correlation of the magnetic storms and aurorae with the solar activity indicates that they are due to some agent emitted from the sun. As this agent causes magnetic and electric disturbances on the earth, it probably consists of charged particles. But, as Schuster has shown, the emission of a sufficient amount of particles, all having the same sign, is impossible because it would give rise to an enormous space charge. This difficulty is avoided if the emitted agent is assumed to consist of the equal amount of positive and negative particles.
Consequently the general nature of the current system during the main phase of a magnetic storm must be somewhat as follows. The stream approaching the earth contains positive and negative charge in equal amounts so that the electric current is zero.
Through the action of the magnetic field of the earth the paths of the positives and of the negatives become differentiated, but until the particles reach the forbidden region, the space charge is always zero because the positives and negatives neutralize each other.
Click to expand...

So, who is correct? Countless in-situ measurements of the solar wind over ~ six decades, and Alfven, or your clueless ex-EE?
 
Sol88 said:
DOI: 10.1002/9781119815600.ch2

Donald E. Scott: Quintessence of Solar Winds | Thunderbolts

Both problems (for the mainstream) solved. Using PLASMA physics.

Amazing!
Click to expand...

Yes, magnetic reconnection. Not to mention Alfven waves. Plasma physics. The latter suggested as a heating mechanism by Alfven decades ago. The former dismissed as impossible by the clueless ex-EE. So he hasn't solved anything, has he? How else did you think coronal heating was going to be solved, other than by plasma physics? So, why don't the likes of Scott stick to the day job, and leave plasma physics to those that understand it? He doesn't. Neither do you.
 
Sol88 said:
Ziggurat, why is a sunspot cooler than the "surface" of the sun?

If you'd like a real challange to your assertion that Scott is a numpty, fill us in on the details if you can.


"strong magnetic field inhibiting convection", are you able to elaborate on the HOW?

It's a FATAL flaw to your model if you are unable.
Click to expand...

Scott is a numpty, as his inability to understand why drift electrons cannot ignore a moving magnetic field shows. And you already answered your own question - magnetic inhibition of convection.

And anybody that thinks the solar interior is cooler than the 'surface' is as ignorant as Scott. It is measured to be hotter the deeper you go;

PH3010 - Solar Limb Darkening
Joseph Bayley
Dr Stewart Boogert (2015)

https://twiki.ph.rhul.ac.uk/twiki/pub/Public/Solar_Limb_Darkening_Project/Solar_Limb_Darkening.pdf

By observing the limb darkening of the sun, it was possible to measure the temperature as a function of optical depth ,τλ, for different wavelengths, λ. With no filter the surface temperature of the sun rose from (5710 ± 120)K at the surface to (6653 ± 120)K at an optical depth of 1.
Click to expand...

However, we've known that for decades.
 
Ziggurat said:
Scott is appealing to the Juergens solar model, which I've debunked before.
Click to expand...

Apart from the sheer impossibility of the 'model', one particular thing about it amazes me - how old do they think the Sun is? For how long has it been spewing out ions, making it more negative, whilst also attracting electrons, rendering it further negative? And yet it is still an anode! How many protons did it start off with? I can see no other explanation than it must have been pretty much all ions, therefore causing it to explode long before life arose on this planet. And probably before this planet had even formed! Or the planet Saturn, for that matter, that we supposedly orbited in a polar configuration quite recently.
It really is a staggeringly stupid 'model'.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Apart from the sheer impossibility of the 'model', one particular thing about it amazes me - how old do they think the Sun is? For how long has it been spewing out ions, making it more negative, whilst also attracting electrons, rendering it further negative? And yet it is still an anode! How many protons did it start off with? I can see no other explanation than it must have been pretty much all ions, therefore causing it to explode long before life arose on this planet. And probably before this planet had even formed! Or the planet Saturn, for that matter, that we supposedly orbited in a polar configuration quite recently.
It really is a staggeringly stupid 'model'.
Click to expand...

Isn't the polar orbit for Saturn a Velikovsky thing? There's always a lot of overlap in these delusions, but I didn't think Jeurgens had much to say about the planets per se.
 
Ziggurat said:
Isn't the polar orbit for Saturn a Velikovsky thing? There's always a lot of overlap in these delusions, but I didn't think Jeurgens had much to say about the planets per se.
Click to expand...

Juergens was a Velikovskian. He was an editor, and associate editor, of a couple of Velikovskian journals, back in the day.
All EU woo inevitably leads back to Velikovsky. Although, to be fair, I think the Saturn woo was a particular claim of David Talbott, and not Velikovsky.

EDIT:

To add to my previous comment, not only has the Sun remained an anode over its long existence, but the heliopause, which is supposed to be the cathode, has been accumulating all the ions spewed out by the Sun for ~ 4.5 Ga!
 
Last edited:
jonesdave116 said:
Juergens was a Velikovskian. He was an editor, and associate editor, of a couple of Velikovskian journals, back in the day.
All EU woo inevitably leads back to Velikovsky. Although, to be fair, I think the Saturn woo was a particular claim of David Talbott, and not Velikovsky.

EDIT:

To add to my previous comment, not only has the Sun remained an anode over its long existence, but the heliopause, which is supposed to be the cathode, has been accumulating all the ions spewed out by the Sun for ~ 4.5 Ga!
Click to expand...

Seems the potential for quite a show of sparks.

...

Which leads me to a question for the electric universe buffs: Where are all the cosmic thunderstorms? Look at even some puny earthly convection cell, and behold the fireworks. Where are the giant astronomic lightning that all these fantastic charge build-ups are bound to cause? Even if they may be out of sight, we would be able to detect the radio-wave bursts from them, like you can hear a thunderstorm for a hundred miles on short-wave.

Hans
 
Ziggurat said:
So I clicked on the video, and up pops an ad for a MasterClass with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. I'm not particularly a fan of him, but it amused me deeply because he starts out saying, "One of the great challenges in science is when you know enough to think you know the answer, but not enough to know you're wrong."

Turns out, you don't really need to know any science to think you're right, and you and Scott both don't know enough to know that you're wrong. Dunning-Kruger in action.

And this isn't a solution. It's hand-waving. Scott is appealing to the Juergens solar model, which I've debunked before. What's of particular note here, though, is that he won't attach any numbers to it. He can't attach any numbers to it. And the reason is quite simple: once you attach numbers to it, the whole thing immediately falls apart, as it becomes apparent that either the sun must be so highly charged that it would explode, or the charges are so small that they cannot account for the required power. Or (and this is really the best part) both at the same time. Yes, it's possible for the sun to be so charged it would explode and simultaneously insufficiently charged to power it.

Which you would know if you actually tried doing any calculations yourself. But again, you're not capable of doing any calculations. Ever. And if Scott is capable, then he probably knows on some level that he's a fraud because he refuses to actually do any.
Click to expand...

Just like a big pith ball, ay!

:rolleyes:
 
Sol88 said:
Just like a big pith ball, ay!

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Is that what your script tells you to respond with? Or are you being forced to ad lib because your script doesn’t cover this, and you can’t think of a response that actually addresses any of the substance of the argument because you don’t actually know or understand any of the material?

What feels worse: seeing your cherished model crumble around your feet, or realizing the years you wasted on a delusion which could have been saved by doing just a bit of arithmetic?
 
Well, your pith ball ran out of heat/charge to "blow" off your "wind" The Day The Solar Wind Disappeared, Scientists Sample Particles Directly From The Sun

Starting late on May 10 and continuing through the early hours of May 12, NASA's ACE and Wind spacecraft each observed that the density of the solar wind dropped by more than 98%. Because of the decrease, energetic electrons from the Sun were able to flow to Earth in narrow beams, known as the strahl. Under normal conditions, electrons from the Sun are diluted, mixed, and redirected in interplanetary space and by Earth's magnetic field (the magnetosphere). But in May 1999, several satellites detected electrons arriving at Earth with properties similar to those of electrons in the Sun's corona, suggesting that they were a direct sample of particles from the Sun.
Click to expand...

A narrow "beam" of electrons? Tell me how your pith ball does this Ziggurat?

How charged is the Sun, by your bestest calculation, Ziggurat? What would stop the solar wind?
 
Last edited:
if you go back about 6000 posts you will see that the discussion was basically the same.
you can take a sol to a plasma, but you cannot make him understand.
 
Sol88 said:
Well, your pith ball ran out of heat/charge to "blow" off your "wind" The Day The Solar Wind Disappeared, Scientists Sample Particles Directly From The Sun



A narrow "beam" of electrons? Tell me how your pith ball does this Ziggurat?

How charged is the Sun, by your bestest calculation, Ziggurat? What would stop the solar wind?
Click to expand...

No more than a few hundred Coulombs. Which is tiny. And given that the Sun must contain equal numbers of ions and electrons, that charge is obviously not due to an excess of one or the other. It is due, as I'm sure I've explained before, to the difference in mass between ions and electrons, and arises to preserve quasi-neutrality.

And the narrow beam is the strahl. It does not violate quasi-neutrality. To quote from elsewhere;

The density in the strahl also increases; however, the density of the halo plateaus and even decreases at perihelion, leading to a large strahl/halo ratio near the Sun. As at greater heliocentric distances, the core has a sunward drift relative to the proton frame, which balances the current carried by the strahl, satisfying the zero-current condition necessary to maintain quasineutrality
Click to expand...

Electrons in the Young Solar Wind: First Results from the Parker Solar Probe
Halekas, J. L. et al (2020)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4365/ab4cec
 
Sol88 said:
Well, your pith ball ran out of heat/charge to "blow" off your "wind" The Day The Solar Wind Disappeared, Scientists Sample Particles Directly From The Sun



A narrow "beam" of electrons? Tell me how your pith ball does this Ziggurat?

How charged is the Sun, by your bestest calculation, Ziggurat? What would stop the solar wind?
Click to expand...

The sun is most definitely not a pith ball, that's your delusion, not mine. And I'm far from an expert on solar winds or the corona, though I don't need to be in order to debunk your nonsense.

As for how charged the sun is, I don't have a good calculation of my own. I can, however, provide you with a peer reviewed journal article with an estimate from someone who likely knows much more than I do (and much more than you or Scott or any of the other EU followers).

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2001/24/aah2649.pdf

Their estimate is about 77 Coulombs, which is quite small on the scale of the sun. You can't power the sun on 77 Coulombs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom