Electric universe theories here.

[Sol88]

Just have read of the paper you linked too...

The Sunward Electron Deficit: A Telltale Sign of the Sun’s Electric Potential

Telltale Sign?

Of

We show a sample of the results from the fifth PSP perihelion, together with contextual information, in Figure 3. We find that the magnitude of the cutoff velocity increases with decreasing heliocentric distance, consistent with an origin related to the interplanetary electric field. The cutoff velocity reaches ∼10,000 km s−1 near perihelion, corresponding to a potential drop of ∼285 V between the observation location and the outer heliosphere.

Interesting to see if the SAFIRE double layer Electric Sun experiment suggest a stair step in this voltage drop?

I’ll dig out Scott’s transitor model of the solar electric field. Electric fields everywhere.

All trying to maintain quasi neutrality.

 

[Sol88]

But if we are still here

I don't think so, because as far as I know the solar wind is neutral, which would mean equal amounts of positive and negative moving at the same speed, ergo no current

tusenfem

I think we’re sunk.

 

[Sol88]

Don Scott’s transitor analogy for sun.

Note a potential drop required for this model to work.

Jd116 may also like to note the sun just doesn’t fry us all with gamma ray...

 

[tusenfem]

nested dropping

I'll just leave this here.

 

[Sol88]

Don Scott’s transitor analogy for sun.

Note a potential drop required for this model to work.

Jd116 may also like to note the sun just doesn’t fry us all with gamma ray...

 

[jonesdave116]

Just have read of the paper you linked too...

The Sunward Electron Deficit: A Telltale Sign of the Sun’s Electric Potential

Telltale Sign?

Of



Interesting to see if the SAFIRE double layer Electric Sun experiment suggest a stair step in this voltage drop?

I’ll dig out Scott’s transitor model of the solar electric field. Electric fields everywhere.

All trying to maintain quasi neutrality.

Don't bother digging anything out by the clown Scott. He is as clueless as you when it comes to plasma physics.

And Alfven told you why the solar wind has to be quasi-neutral. Want to show me the plasma physicist claiming otherwise? Thought not. Just unqualified mythologists.

 

[jonesdave116]

Don Scott’s transitor analogy for sun.

Note a potential drop required for this model to work.

Jd116 may also like to note the sun just doesn’t fry us all with gamma ray...

No, it needs a violation of the laws of physics to work, Scott is clueless.

And if his idiotic claim of fusion on the surface were correct, violating more laws of physics, then we would most certainly be fried by gamma rays. Do you think fusion does not produce gamma rays? Wouldn't surprise me! I think I learned that in high school. I doubt you got that far.

 

[jonesdave116]

But if we are still here


tusenfem

I think we’re sunk.

No, you are sunk, due to not having a clue what you are talking about. Neither does Scott.

Who said this?;

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.

Care to show us where Scott has shown that loser to be wrong? Thought not.

 

[jonesdave116]

Interesting to see if the SAFIRE double layer Electric Sun experiment suggest a stair step in this voltage drop?

SAFIRE was a scam, according to the only plasma physicist on the project! Who also did not believe in the electric sun idiocy.

 

[Steve]

But if we are still here


tusenfem

I think we’re sunk.

Appropriate use of the royal "we".

 

[W.D.Clinger]

With my highlighting:

I’ll dig out Scott’s transitor model of the solar electric field. Electric fields everywhere.

Don Scott’s transitor analogy for sun.

Don Scott’s transitor analogy for sun.

Upon first reading, I assumed Sol88 was trying to say "transistor", but then I discovered Bill Howell's 2014 draft "Review of Don Scott's model for Birkeland current structures", which twice refers to Scott's "npn transitor model of the sun". On the other hand, Howell also refers (once) to Scott's "npn transistor model of the sun" and uses the word "transistor" once again in "Appendix I Addenda - Corrections, omissions, afterthoughts".

It seems I cannot credit Sol88 with teaching me a new word, because Sol88 was just copying a fellow delusionist's misspelling.

 

[steenkh]

The turbulent solar wind you mean?

The ones with Birkeland currents threaded thru it? The ones with the electron current running toward the sun nested with the ion current?

You say so, but I do not see on what basis you claim this, in the light of your own definition of a Birkeland current.

 

[Sol88]

The dynamic instability leading to the thick shell of disorganized field is discussed at greater length elsewhere (Parker 1958a, 6). We have mentioned it here as a warning to the reader against taking too literally any of the smooth idealized models which we have constructed in this paper.

Parker 1958

Your version of the solar gas flow...

 

[Sol88]

The dynamic instability leading to the thick shell of disorganized field is discussed at greater length elsewhere (Parker 1958a, 6). We have mentioned it here as a warning to the reader against taking too literally any of the smooth idealized models which we have constructed in this paper.

Parker 1958

Your version of the solar gas flow...

 

[Sol88]

What’s up with forum? Keeps trying to double post...weird.

 

[jonesdave116]

Parker 1958

Your version of the solar gas flow...

Parker wasn't an idiot. Unlike Scott. He said precisely the square root of zero about Birkeland currents. There are no Birkeland currents in the solar wind. And nobody sane or qualified is claiming otherwise.

 

[Sol88]

Parker warned you. So DID Alvfen.


Your cartoonish version of the solar wind is dead. Do you think tusenfem may change his mind in the SOLAR WIND?

Or at least drop his scale down the the electron gyro radi…

 

[jonesdave116]

Parker warned you. So DID Alvfen.


Your cartoonish version of the solar wind is dead. Do you think tusenfem may change his mind in the SOLAR WIND?

Or at least drop his scale down the the electron gyro radi…

And what did Alfven say? Hmmm? Care to comment instead of chickening out every time?

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.

So you, and the idiot Scott, are saying Alfven didn't know what he was talking about, yes? Good to know where the Velikovskians stand re Alfven!

 

[steenkh]

Parker 1958

Your version of the solar gas flow...

Where does he mention Birkeland currents?

 

[jonesdave116]

Where does he mention Birkeland currents?

Well......... it's likely that he did. However, the peer-reviewers (AKA mainstream enforcers) likely made him change the wording to 'flux tubes', just to annoy a Velikovskian cult that didn't even exist when he was writing!