Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
sol invictus said:
Anyway, according to Paravolt there are about 10^8 Coulombs of charge accumulating on the sun every second. Anyone want to estimate how many seconds would have to pass before the sun exploded under its own electrostatic repulsion?
Click to expand...

Less than 8 seconds. My calculation showed that for 8x108 C, the sun would explode. But I didn't calculate a bound on when it would explode, so the 8 seconds should be considered an upper bound, not the actual time it would take.

But actually, this is somewhat backwards: the current would serve to discharge the sun, not charge it. So the problem isn't that the sun would explode after 8 seconds, the problem is that the sun would explode at the start, before any current started flowing to it. That calculation I linked to was done assuming a measly 1x1010 volt potential on the sun. And potential is determined by charge distribution. To get a potential of 3.8x1018 volts between the sun and the rest of the galaxy, you'd need a charge on the sun of about 3x1017 C, more than 8 orders of magnitude larger than what's needed to make the sun explode. And note that that's not a factor of 8, it's a factor of more than 100,000,000.

And the kicker is that even if we assume the sun has this physically impossible voltage and charge which would cause it to explode, and we feed it your massive current, the whole thing won't even last 100 years before it's discharged, and the power is gone. There isn't enough energy in this theory to keep the sun powered. So the irony is that the forces are too large to be real, but the energy is too low to be real.

Which is also how we can tell the problem isn't fixable. Make the forces realistic, and the energy is preposterously small. Make the energy sufficient, and the forces get absurdly large (or more correctly, absurdly larger, since they're already absurdly large).
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
So how come Birkeland's sphere didn't "explode"?
Click to expand...

Two obvious ones come to mind. The first is scaling (oh, but that requires doing calculations to really understand). The charge on his sphere simply wasn't big enough. The second reason is something I've mentioned to you before, but which you never seemed to understand the significance of: the work function. Birkeland's sphere had one. The sun doesn't.
 
From this post in the "Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?" thread we have to add "opposite" and "falsify" to the list...

The terms Michael uses, the definitions of which he clearly does not understand include, but are not limited to:

  • atmosphere
  • black hole
  • blackbody
  • cathode
  • chromosphere
  • control mechanism
  • controlled experiment
  • current flow
  • dark energy
  • dark matter
  • electric universe
  • electricity
  • empirical
  • falsify
  • general relativity
  • geometry
  • gravity
  • idiosyncratic
  • limb darkening
  • model
  • nuclear chemistry
  • Occham's razor
  • opaque
  • opposite
  • photosphere
  • predicted
  • quasar
  • rigid
  • running difference
  • simulations
  • solar model
  • sputtering
  • structures
  • Sun's activity
  • theory
If Michael's arguments contain any of these words or phrases, we can accept the arguments as meaningless gibberish because he has demonstrated that he doesn't have the qualifications to understand them.​
 
Michael Mozina said:
So how come Birkeland's sphere didn't "explode"? FYI, I love how the Lambda-CDM thread and this thread are coming together, don't you? :)
Click to expand...


Because Birkeland's little brass ball didn't have any more in common with the Sun than the fact that it was round? Duh. Maybe Birkeland got it horribly wrong like he did with that moronic idea about Saturn's rings? Or maybe Birkeland was too much of an idiot to understand scale? :D
 
Ziggurat said:
Two obvious ones come to mind. The first is scaling (oh, but that requires doing calculations to really understand).
Click to expand...

Evidently Birkeland understood them, scaled them, and didn't think it would "blow up". Why might that be?

The charge on his sphere simply wasn't big enough.
Click to expand...

Well, the sphere size will also scale, won't it?

The second reason is something I've mentioned to you before, but which you never seemed to understand the significance of: the work function. Birkeland's sphere had one. The sun doesn't.
Click to expand...

How did you come to that conclusion? What's all that solar wind about?
 
Michael Mozina said:
When were you going to add civil and spam to that list GM? You don't have a clue what those words mean either.
Click to expand...


With all the time you spend crying about being duly criticized you must be pretty far along on this...

Michael Mozina said:
Now that I finally understand how to go about destroying mainstream theory, I'll start working on it. I think *THAT* little project might even motivate me to do a little math.
Click to expand...


When can we expect you to do a little math, Michael? :p
 
GeeMack said:
Because Birkeland's little brass ball didn't have any more in common with the Sun than the fact that it was round? Duh.
Click to expand...

Birkeland did not calculate the mass of space based on brass GM. Why not? What did he use to calculate that number?

Maybe Birkeland got it horribly wrong like he did with that moronic idea about Saturn's rings? Or maybe Birkeland was too much of an idiot to understand scale? :D
Click to expand...

And you think that was a "civil" sort of way to respond? I've read Birkeland's work. I'm sure he understood how to scale things properly. Did you see some calculation he made to suggest otherwise or is this another example of something you just pulled out of your back pocket?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Birkeland did not calculate the mass of space based on brass GM. Why not? What did he use to calculate that number?

And you think that was a "civil" sort of way to respond? I've read Birkeland's work. I'm sure he understood how to scale things properly. Did you see some calculation he made to suggest otherwise or is this another example of something you just pulled out of your back pocket?
Click to expand...


Did you see some calculation he made to suggest he was scaling that little brass ball to be an iron crusted 6000K surface on the Sun? How about you point out that particular calculation for us, Michael? :p
 
Michael Mozina said:
So how come Birkeland's sphere didn't "explode"? FYI, I love how the Lambda-CDM thread and this thread are coming together, don't you? :)
Click to expand...
Um, because it was part of an electrical circuit?

Because charge which was deposited on its surface was quickly removed (or, if you prefer - I'm not sure how Birkeland would have characterised it - charge removed was quickly replaced)?

But perhaps the most appropriate answer, given that we're all trying to focus on the MM solar "model"*, is that Birkeland's sphere wasn't a Mozode.

* except for you, it seems
 
I belive if the sun is shining due to electrical processes - it shurely must be a part of a larger electrical circuit with electrons flowing in Bircelands currents (twisted plasma-ropes carrying charge).

My best guess is that there should be an electrical "input" in the polar regions and a "output" on the rest of the sphere - but the where the solar wind organizes itself close to one plane resembling the spiraling arms of a "galaxy".

I'm not that into the different EU solar models - but shurely there would need to be a electrical circuit one way or another - so not to accumulate charge.
 
Paravolt said:
I belive if the sun is shining due to electrical processes - it shurely must be a part of a larger electrical circuit with electrons flowing in Bircelands currents (twisted plasma-ropes carrying charge).

My best guess is that there should be an electrical "input" in the polar regions and a "output" on the rest of the sphere - but the where the solar wind organizes itself close to one plane resembling the spiraling arms of a "galaxy".

I'm not that into the different EU solar models - but shurely there would need to be a electrical circuit one way or another - so not to accumulate charge.
Click to expand...

Where is this magical current coming from? What's creating the voltage differential, if not a charge large enough to make the sun explode? If the incoming current is contacting the pole, why isn't the pole significantly brighter than the rest of the sun? Why doesn't that incoming current create a magnetic field that we could observe?

It just doesn't make any sense, paravolt. None of the electric sun models can ever come up with numbers which are even remotely close to what we observe, or what makes any physical sense. The forces are too large, and the energy densities are too small. That may seem contradictory at first glance, but it's not. It's reality, and crunching the numbers will demonstrate it every time. The reason that's NOT a problem with fusion is because the energy densities are huge, and nuclear forces are short range. The sun is powered by fusion at the core, not by electricity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom