Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[DeiRenDopa]

Why do we need to invent "dark matter," when matter in the plasma state is a known fact?

Um ...

... perhaps because no one has yet come up with an explanation, using "matter in the plasma state", for the many observations, of many different kinds, that lead to the conclusion 'here be CDM'?

If you know of any papers which present such explanations, would you be kind enough to reference them please? I, for one, am most interested in papers which address all classes of such observations, of all classes of objects so observed.

 

[Belz...]

Not at all, its fact. The fusion process thought to ocur in the sun has never yet been achieved continuosly on Earth.

So we don't have a solar mass' worth of hydrogen to play with...

So you still havent cracked it quite yet? eh? Even if it was achieved on Earth in a continual reaction in the near future, I still think that other fusion mechanisms are possible contendors.

In other words you cannot, will not and do not want to change your mind about this.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Wallace Thornhill, a case of apparent (intellectual) dishonesty and (academic) fraud - background remarks.

Before presenting this case, I need to be very clear on what I mean by some key terms, and also on the background.

The scientific community has developed a set of conventions and standards regarding what is acceptable and what is not re the 'doing' of science.

Many of the conventions address communication, specifically what is acceptable in communicating scientific findings (results of experiments, details of observations, development of models and theories, etc) within the community and what is not. Many of these conventions are similar to those of other, broader communities - for example, if you quote something, you should give the source; if you use others' work, you should attribute your use properly; if you say you did such-and-such an experiment, you should have actually done it. However, I think these conventions are both more fixed and much more strict in the scientific community, so much so that deliberate, persistent breaking of the conventions almost always earns the offender the title '(academic) fraud', and there are serious consequences (such as being fired).

(Intellectual) dishonesty is also, I think, in general a much bigger issue in the scientific community than outside it; of course, one can adhere to the (scientific) conventions regarding communication while at the same time being (intellectually) dishonest in what one communicates.

Communication among scientists happens via many media and in many ways. There's an informal hierarchy to the perceived value and rigour of different forms: publication in a peer-reviewed journal is at the top (the most exacting standards, the greatest opprobrium for violating the conventions), followed by conference papers, (conference) posters, and conference presentations. Preprints, such as can be found on arXiv, occupy a rather unique position - the authors nearly always aim (or, sometimes, hope) to get them published (in a relevant, peer-reviewed, journal), and have generally tried to follow the conventions for such publication, but implicitly acknowledge that the preprint may contain errors, mistakes, omissions, and so on.

Of course, even for published papers, mistakes etc are sometimes made ... and as you'd expect, there are conventions about what to do when they are discovered. (Aside: Interestingly, there are (it seems to me) not so many (if any) clearly stated conventions about what to do if a paper is later discovered to be fraudulent (in the academic sense)).

re 'fraud': in no shape or form do I intend to use this term (or related ones, such as 'fraudulent') in a legal sense; my intent is the normal, everyday meaning ('deliberate misrepresentation' or 'intentional twisting of the truth to gain something of value' or similar) and/or as a shorthand for 'academic fraud'.

The IEEE have published a series of Thornhills publications, which passed their peer reviewed process, where over twenty scientists had to proof read it and cross check all the material in it. Who are you to write so disparagingly of Thornhill, or the IEEE? It just comes across as rather arrogant...

Would you also say the same thing about the journals that have published arps controversial material? Or any of the other copyrighted publications from any journal? Much of that is not available to see either, aswell as the IEEE publications, and many other journals, it totally depends on the journal publishing it and what their copyright policy is. Some are public, some are not, just selecting a few papers and accusing them of not being open, not adhering to the sceintific method and being frauds is a bit silly, really...

"internet fora are nice that way", to quote sol invictus ... "When confronted with proof in the form of his own old posts [...]"

When confronted with a detailed, word for word comparison, Zeuzzz freely admitted to copying (with (very) minor edits) without attribution:
No, that would be Donald E. Scott (sole author).

Well, way to go on completely taking what I wrote out of context and leaving out the main points I made. You conveniently made it look like I said that everything I write is copied from somewhere, when it was only that post, that I fully explained before. Do i have to repeat myself? This is about the fifth post you have brought this up, you obviously have an axe to grind. I have to wonder why to continually try to shoot the messenger and not the message, it really doesn't come across very well, DRD.

 

[Zeuzzz]

In other words you cannot, will not and do not want to change your mind about this.

I'm an agnostic when it comes the fuel source of the sun. It could be nuclear, it could be Z-pinch, it could be focus fusion, it could be magnetic confinement fusion, it could be electric (like pulsars), or it could be another.... I dont think that any have been proved conclusively, and most have not been fully ruled out. I just think that the original assumption that it had to be H-fusion over sixty years ago should be taken with a pinch of salt, now we know other methods. But most astronomers would hotly contest that any of them are contendors for the power source of the sun, as most of their models are based on H-fusion, although I have not heard any decent reason to dismiss alternatives as of yet...

 

[Reality Check]

I'm an agnostic when it comes the fuel source of the sun. It could be nuclear, it could be Z-pinch, it could be focus fusion, it could be magnetic confinement fusion, it could be electric (like pulsars), or it could be another.... I dont think that any have been proved conclusively, and most have not been fully ruled out. I just think that the original assumption that it had to be H-fusion over sixty years ago should be taken with a pinch of salt, now we know other methods. But most astronomers would hotly contest that any of them are contendors for the power source of the sun, as most of their models are based on H-fusion, although I have not heard any decent reason to dismiss alternatives as of yet...

Perhaps you can give use the testable predictions from these models in a new thread since they have nothing to do with Plasma Cosmology. I assume that their predictions of the neutrino flux from the sun matches the observations.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I'm an agnostic when it comes the fuel source of the sun. [...] it could be electric (like pulsars),

... snip ...

Just so that I do not misunderstand ...

Are you claiming that source of the energy which produces the observed (electromagnetic) output of neutron stars (pulsars, magnetars, etc), across all wavebands (gamma, x-ray, UV, visual, IR, microwave, radio), both in the pulses (if there are any) and non-variable parts is "electric"?

A simple "yes" will do; or if "no", then please elaborate on just what you are claiming.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

"internet fora are nice that way", to quote sol invictus ... "When confronted with proof in the form of his own old posts [...]"

When confronted with a detailed, word for word comparison, Zeuzzz freely admitted to copying (with (very) minor edits) without attribution:
No, that would be Donald E. Scott (sole author).

Well, way to go on completely taking what I wrote out of context and leaving out the main points I made. You conveniently made it look like I said that everything I write is copied from somewhere, when it was only that post, that I fully explained before. Do i have to repeat myself? This is about the fifth post you have brought this up, you obviously have an axe to grind. I have to wonder why to continually try to shoot the messenger and not the message, it really doesn't come across very well, DRD.

Way to go Zeuzzz!

What I wrote is correct, in context ... the context which includes the link to the post you wrote.

And yes, on this topic, I do wish to be very persistent.

For example, I have asked you several times now about several other posts you wrote ... what parts of those did you (largely) copy, and from where. You have, as yet, not answered any of those (yet you have found the time to write very long posts, in several threads, with lots of links and quotes).

I have even asked you if you'd like me to list the places that seem to me to require at least an attribution, if not an admission of direct copying; I'll repeat the offer: would you like me to list for you the various OTHER posts of yours that contain what I think is unattributed material?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Just so that I do not misunderstand ...

Are you claiming that source of the energy which produces the observed (electromagnetic) output of neutron stars (pulsars, magnetars, etc), across all wavebands (gamma, x-ray, UV, visual, IR, microwave, radio), both in the pulses (if there are any) and non-variable parts is "electric"?

A simple "yes" will do; or if "no", then please elaborate on just what you are claiming.

Yes, I would suspect that the electrical energy powering much of the pulsars covers most spectrums, but I cant say conclusively about all of them, I haven't really looked at every spectrum admittedly. The X-ray and radio spectrum have been pretty well matched to the electric star model, I know that for sure.

I'm just showing you already existing theories, like I always do. I would recommend you take a look at this much cited publication for a start;


An electrically powered binary star?

We propose a model for stellar binary systems consisting of a magnetic and a non-magnetic white-dwarf pair which is powered principally by electrical energy. In our model the luminosity is caused by resistive heating of the stellar atmospheres due to induced currents driven within the binary. This process is reminiscent of the Jupiter-Io system, but greatly increased in power because of the larger companion and stronger magnetic field of the primary. Electrical power is an alternative stellar luminosity source, following on from nuclear fusion and accretion. We find that this source of heating is sufficient to account for the observed X-ray luminosity of the 9.5- min binary RX J1914+24, and provides an explanation for its puzzling characteristics. [....]

Alternatives include a double degenerate Algol system (also proposed independently by Marsh & Steeghs 2002), a neutron star-white dwarf pair and a unipolar-inductor model (or electric star model). The latter model would represent a third form of stellar energy after nuclear and accretion power. [....]

We propose that short-period magnetic and non-magnetic white-dwarf pairs with short orbital periods (∼ 10 min) are efficient cosmic unipolar inductors. Provided that the spin of the magnetic component and the orbit are not in perfect synchronism, a large e.m.f. can be produced across the nonmagnetic white dwarf. The resistive dissipation in the white dwarfs is sufficient to power luminosities significantly above solar values; most power is dissipated at the hot spots on the surface of the magnetic white dwarfs, which are footpoints of the field lines connecting the two stars. Electrical power is therefore an alternative luminosity source, following on from nuclear fusion and accretion.

The X-ray source RX J1914+24 is a candidate unipolar inductors consisting of a magnetic and non-magnetic whitedwarf pair. The two small X-ray spots on the magnetic white dwarf predicted by the unipolar-inductor model are compatible with the X-ray light curve of RX J1914+24. The luminosity
and temperature predicted by the model is also in agreement with the observed values derived from fits to the X-ray spectra. The model also explains the variation in the optical/infra-red luminosity, and the detection of only a single period. The variations in the long term X-ray intensity can be attributed to variations in the current flow. The two main inadequacies of the current accretion model (Ramsay et al. 2000a) — the lack of any polarised flux and the lack of any detectable line emission (Ramsay et al. 2000b) are naturally explained.[......]

Or any other of the publications on the electric star model of pulsars.... Did you read my posts on the pulsar thread?

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions on Peratt's galaxy formation model.

Zeuzzz: Outstanding questions on Peratt's galaxy formation model.

• Is Peratt's galaxy formation model disproved by the actual observation of dark matter?
• Why do we not see the over 200 billion galactic plasma filaments that the model predicts? Every one of about 100 billion galaxies should have 2 or more filaments extending from them. They should be producing radiation due to the currents running through them. They definitely will have gravitational effects.
• Why did Peratt compare the results of his simulation (maps of plasma density) with optical photographs of galaxies?
  Optical photos show light density, e.g. the spirals in spiral galaxies are areas of young (bright) stars. The density of stars between the spiral arms is almost as high as in the arms. Somewhere Peratt must have plasma density profiles of his maps but I have not seen them. Without them I have to assume that his simulation maps have a plasma density of zero (or maybe 50%) between the arms. This does not match the actual structure of galaxies.
• His model of galaxy formation is a plasmoid (created from 2 galactic plasma filaments) that is rotated by electromagnetic forces. His model may include gravity though this is not explicitly stated. Galaxies contain stars. His model does not go to the level of star creation. So there are a couple of alternatives for actual galaxy rotation after stars form:

1. The rotation of the galaxies continues to be dominated by electromagnetic forces (no dark matter is needed). This requires that the orbits of the stars are dominated by electromagnetic forces.
2. The rotation of the galaxies becomes dominated by gravity. The orbits of the stars in the galaxy are then mostly determined by gravity. The velocity dispersion curves then over time reduce to the usual gravity dominated prediction. The prediction is then that we will see various stages of this in the velocity dispersion curves of galaxies and that it will be correlated with the age of the galaxy.
   But we do not observe this and need dark matter.

So what case do you support (or do you have another alternative)?
​

One of these days Peratt really should publish the code for his simulation so that people can repeat it.

Interesting little fact: The source code for the latest Lambda-CDM computer simulation is available to the public. So anyone can test their results (if you have a spare supercomputer, lots of time or run a really small simulation.)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

The IEEE have published a series of Thornhills publications, which passed their peer reviewed process, where over twenty scientists had to proof read it and cross check all the material in it. ... snip ...

They have?

As in 'The IEEE did publish "a series of [Wallace] Thornhills publications"'? Could you please give some more details (date(s), title(s), and so on)?

I checked the IEEE website (www.ieee.org), and found many references to "Thornhill", but only the following seem relevant to Wallace Thornhill (or even "Thornhill, W."):

* "Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and the implications for supernova remnants Thornhill, W.W.; Ransom, C.J."

* "Radius scaling of titanium wire arrays on the Z accelerator
Coverdale, C.A.; Deeney, C.; Spielman, R.B.; Douglas, M.R.; Nash, T.J.; Whitney, K.G.; Thornhill, W.; Apruzese, J.P.; Clark, R.C.; Davis, J.; Peterson, D.L.; Beg, F.N.; Ruiz-Camacho, J.; Schneider, R." (not, apparently, 'our' Thornhill; there are some more like this)

* "Was the 1908 Tunguska Explosion an Electrical Event? Thornhill, W.W.; Ransom, C.J."

* "The Electrical Nature of Comets Thornhill, W.W."

You have cited the first (and kindly offered to send the PDF to anyone who asks, by PM); do you have access to either of the others?

 

[Zeuzzz]

They have?

As in 'The IEEE did publish "a series of [Wallace] Thornhills publications"'? Could you please give some more details (date(s), title(s), and so on)?

I checked the IEEE website (www.ieee.org), and found many references to "Thornhill", but only the following seem relevant to Wallace Thornhill (or even "Thornhill, W."):

* "Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and the implications for supernova remnants Thornhill, W.W.; Ransom, C.J."

* "Radius scaling of titanium wire arrays on the Z accelerator
Coverdale, C.A.; Deeney, C.; Spielman, R.B.; Douglas, M.R.; Nash, T.J.; Whitney, K.G.; Thornhill, W.; Apruzese, J.P.; Clark, R.C.; Davis, J.; Peterson, D.L.; Beg, F.N.; Ruiz-Camacho, J.; Schneider, R." (not, apparently, 'our' Thornhill; there are some more like this)

* "Was the 1908 Tunguska Explosion an Electrical Event? Thornhill, W.W.; Ransom, C.J."

* "The Electrical Nature of Comets Thornhill, W.W."

You have cited the first (and kindly offered to send the PDF to anyone who asks, by PM); do you have access to either of the others?

Yes.

You just listed a series of publications published by the IEEE by Wallace Thornhill. So the answer to your question "They have?" Is yes, they have!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Zeuzzz, some time ago I formed the opinion that your comprehension of the science that you read leaves, shall we say, something to be desired.

Your response to my simple question is rather strong evidence that you do not really understand much of what you read ...

Just so that I do not misunderstand ...

Are you claiming that source of the energy which produces the observed (electromagnetic) output of neutron stars (pulsars, magnetars, etc), across all wavebands (gamma, x-ray, UV, visual, IR, microwave, radio), both in the pulses (if there are any) and non-variable parts is "electric"?

A simple "yes" will do; or if "no", then please elaborate on just what you are claiming.

Yes, I would suspect that the electrical energy powering much of the pulsars covers most spectrums, but I cant say conclusively about all of them, I haven't really looked at every spectrum admittedly. The X-ray and radio spectrum have been pretty well matched to the electric star model, I know that for sure.

I'm just showing you already existing theories, like I always do. I would recommend you take a look at this much cited publication for a start;


An electrically powered binary star?

We propose a model for stellar binary systems consisting of a magnetic and a non-magnetic white-dwarf pair which is powered principally by electrical energy. In our model the luminosity is caused by resistive heating of the stellar atmospheres due to induced currents driven within the binary. This process is reminiscent of the Jupiter-Io system, but greatly increased in power because of the larger companion and stronger magnetic field of the primary. Electrical power is an alternative stellar luminosity source, following on from nuclear fusion and accretion. We find that this source of heating is sufficient to account for the observed X-ray luminosity of the 9.5- min binary RX J1914+24, and provides an explanation for its puzzling characteristics. [....]

Alternatives include a double degenerate Algol system (also proposed independently by Marsh & Steeghs 2002), a neutron star-white dwarf pair and a unipolar-inductor model (or electric star model). The latter model would represent a third form of stellar energy after nuclear and accretion power. [....]

We propose that short-period magnetic and non-magnetic white-dwarf pairs with short orbital periods (∼ 10 min) are efficient cosmic unipolar inductors. Provided that the spin of the magnetic component and the orbit are not in perfect synchronism, a large e.m.f. can be produced across the nonmagnetic white dwarf. The resistive dissipation in the white dwarfs is sufficient to power luminosities significantly above solar values; most power is dissipated at the hot spots on the surface of the magnetic white dwarfs, which are footpoints of the field lines connecting the two stars. Electrical power is therefore an alternative luminosity source, following on from nuclear fusion and accretion.

The X-ray source RX J1914+24 is a candidate unipolar inductors consisting of a magnetic and non-magnetic whitedwarf pair. The two small X-ray spots on the magnetic white dwarf predicted by the unipolar-inductor model are compatible with the X-ray light curve of RX J1914+24. The luminosity
and temperature predicted by the model is also in agreement with the observed values derived from fits to the X-ray spectra. The model also explains the variation in the optical/infra-red luminosity, and the detection of only a single period. The variations in the long term X-ray intensity can be attributed to variations in the current flow. The two main inadequacies of the current accretion model (Ramsay et al. 2000a) — the lack of any polarised flux and the lack of any detectable line emission (Ramsay et al. 2000b) are naturally explained.[......]

Or any other of the publications on the electric star model of pulsars.... Did you read my posts on the pulsar thread?

So ...

You made a claim about pulsars.

I asked for clarification, and extended the scope to (all) neutron stars, and magnetars.

You replied with a paper about white dwarfs!

Zeuzzz, I have some bad news for you ... white dwarf stars are not neutron stars.

Oh, and thanks for the clarification ("covers most spectrums, but I cant say conclusively about all of them, I haven't really looked at every spectrum admittedly") ... I look forward to reading papers explaining how the observed gamma ray spectrum from neutron stars (for example) is derived from resistive heating ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Yes.

You just listed a series of publications published by the IEEE by Wallace Thornhill. So the answer to your question "They have?" Is yes, they have!

Thank you.

That's it? No other IEEE publications "of [Wallace] Thornhill's publications"?

And how did you determine that all these publications "passed [the IEEE's] peer reviewed process, where over twenty scientists had to proof read it and cross check all the material in it"?

You have cited the first, elsewhere (and kindly offered to send the PDF to anyone who asks, by PM; does the offer still stand?); do you have access to either of the others?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Zeuzzz, some time ago I formed the opinion that your comprehension of the science that you read leaves, shall we say, something to be desired.

Your response to my simple question is rather strong evidence that you do not really understand much of what you read ...
So ...

You made a claim about pulsars.

I asked for clarification, and extended the scope to (all) neutron stars, and magnetars.

You replied with a paper about white dwarfs!

Zeuzzz, I have some bad news for you ... white dwarf stars are not neutron stars.

Oh, and thanks for the clarification ("covers most spectrums, but I cant say conclusively about all of them, I haven't really looked at every spectrum admittedly") ... I look forward to reading papers explaining how the observed gamma ray spectrum from neutron stars (for example) is derived from resistive heating ...

Okay, calm down. It just so happens that this was the first publication that sprund to mind, and yes, it is about white dwarfs. If you read my post on the pulsar thread, you will see what my position is on the actual difference between a so called "neutron star" and other stars like white dwarfs or otherwise. They are very similar. And the above paper I quoted was the pioneering paper that brought the electrocmagnetic PC interpretation of pulsars, (and other similar objects that have these emmissions anyway), into the mainstream a few years ago, so its very relevant to this thread, no matter what you say.

If you wanted a publication on an electrical interpretation of the output of pulsars, just ask! no need to get angry now, is there? Using large sizes just comes across as shouting. And now your changing your position and want just an electrical explanation of the gamma rays? OK.

a quick search came up with these possible contendors;


The electromagnetic model of gamma-ray bursts

Abstract. The electromagnetic model (EMM) of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) and a contrast of its main properties and predictions with the hydrodynamic fireball model (FBM) and its magnetohydrodynamical extension are described. The EMM assumes that rotational energy of a relativistic, stellar-mass central source (black hole-accretion disk system or fast rotating neutron star) is converted into magnetic energy through a unipolar dynamo mechanism, propagated to large distances in the form of relativistic, subsonic, Poynting flux-dominated wind and is dissipated directly into emitting particles through current-driven instabilities.

http://www.bracuniversity.ac.bd/journal/contents/412007/Mafiz & Dipen.pdf

Rotating and conducting neutron stars can be
understood within a model of a unipolar inductor
generating very large v x B electric fields capable
of pulling charges from the neutron star surface
against the force of gravity. Hence, the
magnetosphere of the neutron star is filled with
charge separated plasma that tends to oppose the
induced v x B electric field. The resulting field is
capable of shorting out the E|| (parallel to the
magnetic field) everywhere except a few locations.
Two places where strong E|| may accelerate
particles and generate radiation are i) near the
magnetic poles (polar caps) or ii) in the outer
magnetosphere (outer gaps). In this paper, we will
summarise pulsar gamma-ray generation models,
including the polar cap and the outer gap models
and some observational verificationss of those
models.[.....]

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507697

We estimate that the vacuum electric field associated with a spinning Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object MECO (www.phys.uni-sofia.bg/~astro/abbrev.html) could be higher by a factor of ~ 10^4 than the corresponding pulsar value because of extreme relativistic Frame Dragging Effect. Thus isolated spinning MECOs could be source of UHE cosmic ray acceleration and VHE gamma-ray production. However because of the steeply varying gravitational field close to the surface of the MECO, any signal generated there would be both extremely redshifted and distorted. As a result, there may not be any significant pulsed X-ray or Radio emission from close to the surface, and consequently, the $\gamma$-ray source may appear as ``Unidentified'' and the particle accelerator may appear as ``Dark''.

And you may want to check out Beskin's interesting electromagnetic unipolar inductor theory of gamma rays from all sources in general, including for AGNs, which is overviewed here; http://www.cita.utoronto.ca/TALKS/Beskin-Mar15-07.pdf

Maybe Alfven was right when he proposed the electric unipolar inductor model for galaxies and stars, now over fifty years ago.

And you may want to check this one out too;

The state of pulsar theory

Abstract

I summarize the status of pulsar theory, now 35 years after their discovery. Although progress has been made in understanding the relevant processes involved, there are several widely held misconceptions that are inhibiting further advances. These include the idea that plasma “must” be accelerated from the magnetic polar caps (the basis for the “Hollow Cone Model”) and the idea that winds would be driven away by centrifugal forces, with large amplitude electromagnetic waves playing no role whatsoever. However, recent theoretical work is converging on a picture that closely resembles the latest HST and Chandra images, providing hope for the future. No less than three groups have recently confirmed the early Krause-Polstorff–Michel simulations showing that the fundamental plasma distribution around a rotating neutron star consists of two polar domes and an equatorial torus of trapped nonneutral plasma of opposite sign charges. Unless a lot of new physics can be added, this distribution renders the Goldreich–Julian model irrelevant (i.e., along with most of the theoretical publications over the last 33 years).

And thats it for today, I can see no matter what I post, it will either be ignored, or just receive a hand waving responce from you. I provided a paper that said that a star could recieve energy from external electrical activity, and no comment. Other people asked before why I thought that stars could be powered electrically, but no doubt will ignore this and ask me another question without addressing this material. I really wonder why I bother, I may aswell post on other science fora where I usually get a far warmer and interested reception discussing PC material.

 

[Dancing David]

it could be electric (like pulsars), or it could be another.... I dont think that any have been proved conclusively, and most have not been fully ruled out...

I take it back



You are saying that it is even a possibility that electricity makes the sun shine.

Boom goes the sun, no more light, unless you still want to violate gausses law.

 

[Dancing David]

Or any other of the publications on the electric star model of pulsars.... Did you read my posts on the pulsar thread?

Why, you just said that the sun might be powered by electricity like a pulsar.



I can't wait to see how you either run away or blame us for misinterpreting what you said
"I'm an agnostic when it comes the fuel source of the sun. It could be nuclear, it could be Z-pinch, it could be focus fusion, it could be magnetic confinement fusion, it could be electric (like pulsars),"

 

[Dancing David]

And thats it for today, I can see no matter what I post, it will either be ignored, or just receive a hand waving responce from you. I provided a paper that said that a star could recieve energy from external electrical activity, and no comment. Other people asked before why I thought that stars could be powered electrically, but no doubt will ignore this and ask me another question without addressing this material. I really wonder why I bother, I may aswell post on other science fora where I usually get a far warmer and interested reception discussing PC material.

Ah yes, the other science fora where you don't have to produce numbers or evidence and you can just engage in fuzzy minded speculation. You are the one who says things not supported by the numbers and evidence, when asked for numbers, you don't have them.

And I can see you have already forgotten that for enough energy to flow electrically into the sun to make it shine at it's current luminosity, it would go boom.

No electric sun.


-Sun go boom!

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm an agnostic when it comes the fuel source of the sun. It could be nuclear, it could be Z-pinch, it could be focus fusion, it could be magnetic confinement fusion, it could be electric (like pulsars), or it could be another.... I dont think that any have been proved conclusively, and most have not been fully ruled out. I just think that the original assumption that it had to be H-fusion over sixty years ago should be taken with a pinch of salt, now we know other methods. But most astronomers would hotly contest that any of them are contendors for the power source of the sun, as most of their models are based on H-fusion, although I have not heard any decent reason to dismiss alternatives as of yet...

So... of these alternatives, which of them are consistent with the following:
1)The fact that the Sun is in hydrostatic equilibrium
2)The closeness of the Sun's spectrum to a blackbody.
3)The observed neutrino flux.
4)The abundances of the elements up to iron-56.
5)The Hertzprung-Russell diagram.
6)The mass-luminosity relation.

???

ETA: if it can explain 6) together with being consistent with 1-5 then that would make it more impressive.

 

[Zeuzzz]

So... of these alternatives, which of them are consistent with the following:
1)The fact that the Sun is in hydrostatic equilibrium
2)The closeness of the Sun's spectrum to a blackbody.
3)The observed neutrino flux.
4)The abundances of the elements up to iron-56.
5)The Hertzprung-Russell diagram.
6)The mass-luminosity relation.

???

ETA: if it can explain 6) together with being consistent with 1-5 then that would make it more impressive.

I dont know. It would be nice if some astrnomers considered these questions, but they dont seem to have ever considered alternatives. If we see certain oscillations and fluctuations in any set of data we can always ‘model’ them – fit a mathematical curve to the data by ‘least squares fit’ or some other criterion. But then to claim that this model ‘proves’ what is occurring inside the Sun, where no observation has been made (or is possible), is logically unsupportable.

 

[Reality Check]

I dont know. It would be nice if some astrnomers considered these questions, but they dont seem to have ever considered alternatives. If we see certain oscillations and fluctuations in any set of data we can always ‘model’ them – fit a mathematical curve to the data by ‘least squares fit’ or some other criterion. But then to claim that this model ‘proves’ what is occurring inside the Sun, where no observation has been made (or is possible), is logically unsupportable.

Any answers to Outstanding questions on Peratt's galaxy formation model yet?