Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[cev08241971]

Fantasy Check needs a reality check

Can you give a list of citations to the scientific literature that shows that stellar fusion models are falsified by every observable property or behaviour of the sun?

I can readily give you a short list of observable properties of the sun that falsify stellar fusion models:

o - "temperature minimum" in the corona - unexplainable if heat source is internal radiating out
o - extremely high corona "temperature" - spectrum inexplicable except by electric discharge
o - "solar wind" acceleration - unexplainable EXCEPT in terms of electric discharge
o - rigid calcium-rich and iron-rich surface - unexplainable, unanticipated by the "self compressing gas ball" stellar fusion model
o - CME's and "solar flares" - inexplicable by stellar fusion models without resorting to untenable ideas like "magnetic field line reconnection"

This is a very short list, but as I pointed out, virtually every observable feature of the sun falsifies the self-compressing gas ball stellar fusion model.

Or should I conclude that thsi is a fantsy of yours backed up by no evidence?

Your conclusions as a whole don't show any sign of being in any way backed up by evidence, so why should this conclusion of yours be any different?

 

[Reality Check]

There is nothing about the idea that the sun is powered by electric currents that is in any way "flawed".

Yes there is, e.g. the absence of the required electric currents, etc.

You are apparently under the misguided impression that wikipedia is a science journal.

No I am not. It is a conveniant place to linke to when the article is backed up by tscitarions to teh literature.

Your claim that plasmas can not have electric discharges within them is demonstrably false. Perform a Google web search for "electric discharges in plasma" if you want to satisfy yourself that you are indeed exactly wrong and wholly misguided in this claim.

I have. I see plenty of references to the generation of plasma.
I also know that the defintion of electrical discharge rules out an electrical discharge in plasmas.

Indeed, the rigid iron-rich and calcium-rich surface of the sun is a plasma. So is the photosphere above it, the corona above that. A reasonable and logical explanation for such plasma that ignores electric discharge can not be found.

Then you are lying trice:

• You lied about it being rock.
• You are still lying about it being "rigid iron-rich and calcium-rich".
  0.16% is not iron-rich. Calcium is even rarer.
• A reasonable and logical explanation for the photosphere and corona can be given that ignores electric discharges.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post, as you essentially call me a liar shortly after this bit.

Well if you do not lie then I will not call you a liar.
But you can easily prove me wrong - just give citations to the literature.
In hindsight, maybe you are just ignorant about solar phsyics. But you seem to be really, really sure that you are right, even without any citations.

 

[cev08241971]

science is not practiced as a religion

Perhaps you can start with the creation of the observed neutrino flux.

It's interesting you bring up "neutrino flux", another nail in the coffin of stellar fusion. The "observed neutrino flux" is a third of what's predicted by stellar fusionists, and no attempt is made to rule out other causes of these supposed "neutrinos" (which only last for fractions of a second, how do they get from the sun to Earth, that's an eight-minute trip). People who cite this "neutrino evidence" clearly don't even understand what a "neutrino" is, it's a transient side effect, like a flash or a bang from an explosion. Bombs aren't made of flashes and bangs, though, and the sun isn't made of fusion.

Or should I conclude that thos is a fantsy of yours backed up by no evidence?

Again, I've seen no indication that evidence in any way plays a part in what you believe or conclude or try to contradict, so why should that change. You are going to "conclude" what you already believe, despite any evidence to the contrary. That's not science, that's religion, basically.

 

[D'rok]

o - rigid calcium-rich and iron-rich surface - unexplainable, unanticipated by the "self compressing gas ball" stellar fusion model

What rigid surface? Show it to us.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you're just going to arbitrarily redefine words so they "support" your claims, why stop with mom, dad and Santa, just redefine the definition of "word" to "whatever Ziggurat says it is at any time; subject to continual revision and internal contradiction".

I didn't come up with the definition of "magnetic reconnection". And it doesn't matter how much you object to that definition, that's still all you're objecting to. The actual magnetic field changes which the term is used to describe still happen. You have not, you can not, challenge what happens to the actual fields. And the definition isn't continually changing, and it has no internal contradictions, it only contradicts what you want the words to mean (ie, your objection is semantic). That's why the math always works out. That, in fact, is how you can tell if there are any internal contradictions.

But there's more than a touch of irony here. On the one hand, you're trying to argue for the immutability of terminology when discussing why magnetic reconnection is wrong, but arguing that not only language but also math is arbitrary when trying to dismiss the magnetic field I presented you with. Does the cognitive dissonance hurt?

 

[Reality Check]

I can readily give you a short list of observable properties of the sun that falsify stellar fusion models:

That is not what I asked for: Citations please.

But your entire list is wong

o - "temperature minimum" in the corona - unexplainable if heat source is internal radiating out
o - extremely high corona "temperature" - spectrum inexplicable except by electric discharge
o - "solar wind" acceleration - unexplainable EXCEPT in terms of electric discharge
o - rigid calcium-rich and iron-rich surface - unexplainable, unanticipated by the "self compressing gas ball" stellar fusion model (a lie since such a surface has not been observed) o - CME's and "solar flares" - inexplicable by stellar fusion models without resorting to untenable ideas like "magnetic field line reconnection"

(my highlight added)
All of these are explained (but not completely) by standard physics, including magnetic reconnection and wave heating.

You have explained none of these by citing the electric dicharge literature.

 

[Reality Check]

It's interesting you bring up "neutrino flux", another nail in the coffin of stellar fusion. The "observed neutrino flux" is a third of what's predicted by stellar fusionists, and no attempt is made to rule out other causes of these supposed "neutrinos" (which only last for fractions of a second, how do they get from the sun to Earth, that's an eight-minute trip). People who cite this "neutrino evidence" clearly don't even understand what a "neutrino" is, it's a transient side effect, like a flash or a bang from an explosion. Bombs aren't made of flashes and bangs, though, and the sun isn't made of fusion.

What a display of ignoirance cev08241971 !
FYI

• The neutrino flux has been explained - neutrino oscillations.
• Neutrino last for ever. They do not decay. They do not have a half life. They do oscillate between types.
• The sun is made of hydrogen, helium, and other trace elements.
  Fusion is a process, not an element.

 

[Ziggurat]

o - "temperature minimum" in the corona - unexplainable if heat source is internal radiating out

The temperature minimum means that there must be a secondary heating mechanism for the corona. But the corona is mostly transparent. Even at much higher temperatures, the corona radiates much less heat than the photosphere. The power output from the corona is therefore MUCH smaller, and consequently the heating mechanism for the corona is much weaker than for the photosphere. So this is in absolutely no way at odds with the primary heat source being internal.

o - extremely high corona "temperature" - spectrum inexplicable except by electric discharge

The spectrum is explicable by a high temperature. Again, the corona is mostly transparent, which conversely means it radiates very little. High temperatures can be sustained with low power inputs when radiative heat losses are low, and they are. You don't need electric discharge. In fact, you cannot get electric discharge in the sun. For electric discharge, you need an electric field to drive a first-order phase transition from an insulating to a conducting state. But plasma is already conducting, even in the absence of any field. It cannot experience a first order phase transition from insulating to conducting phases. Currents will vary smoothly with applied field, but you just get current, you don't get a discharge.

o - rigid calcium-rich and iron-rich surface - unexplainable, unanticipated by the "self compressing gas ball" stellar fusion model

There is no such surface.

This is a very short list, but as I pointed out, virtually every observable feature of the sun falsifies the self-compressing gas ball stellar fusion model.

Funny, but aside from being completely wrong on every point (I haven't addressed them all, but others have in past threads here), you seem to have forgotten the rather most important observable feature of the sun: the total power output.

Fusion explains the total solar power output. Electric sun models... cannot.

 

[Reality Check]

We see abundant evidence of the electric field powering the sun.

No we do not - see the Ulysses mission results.
We see plenty of evidence of small scale electrical effects on planetary surfaces. I especially like the electrostatic discharges on the moon.

Once again: If you make unsupported assertions that are obviously wrong then I will call you out on it. I will even call you a liar if they are really outrageous, such as your assertion that the phsotosphere is made of iron-rich, calcium-rich rock which you then changed to plsma.

If I am wrong then produce evidence for your assertions. That evidence is not yet more unsupported assertions.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've given you several lines of evidence that falsify stellar fusion. Though you again call me a liar in this post, I will answer this charge. Go do your own research if you're not satisfied that there is a temperature minimum in the sun's corona. That's pretty firmly established by all accounts (except yours, apparently). This temperature minimum can not take place if the sun is lit by internal heat radiating outward.

Your understanding of thermodynamics is rather lacking. Why do you think there can't be a minimum with internal heating? There most certainly can be. All that's required is 1) a secondary heating mechanism, and 2) transparency in the outer, hotter layer.

The second condition is rather directly measurable. And the standard solar model includes the first condition.

So what you think of as a contradiction is really only an example of your own failure to understand basic physics - not just stellar physics, but simple thermodynamics as well.

 

[dasmiller]

I wasn't aware it was "his" idea, but it's been pretty firmly established by direct observation that the sun does have a rigid surface. Running difference images from TRACE, SOHO and a slew of other solar-observing satellites have shown this beyond doubt. Spectra indicate it is made of calcium-rich and iron-rich rock.

Indeed, the rigid iron-rich and calcium-rich surface of the sun is a plasma. So is the photosphere above it, the corona above that.

So . . . it's a plasma rock? Do we have laboratory confirmation of such a thing?

A reasonable and logical explanation for such plasma that ignores electric discharge can not be found.

I believe that . . .

 

[Ziggurat]

Your own conditions falsify your premise, that "internal heating" can accomplish a temperature minimum as you travel from the source. As you point out, that can only take place with "secondary heating" that is external. You've falsified your own thesis, congratulations.

My thesis is that the temperature minimum doesn't contradict the standard model, which contradicts your claim that the minimum does. Since neither the standard model nor anything I said asserts that there is no secondary heating (of MUCH less power), you are simply constructing a straw man.

You call it a contradiction but then you prove that it's not. Make up your mind, stay on one side of the issue or the other.

Try paying attention next time. I never called it a contradiction. YOU did. I said it's not.

Either that or learn from your mistakes and from the knowledge of others like myself.

You have displayed no knowledge, but have revealed ignorance. And poor reading skills

 

[cev08241971]

thesis is wrong, hence its wrongness

My thesis is that the temperature minimum doesn't contradict the standard model

and your thesis is wrong...next...

 

[Ziggurat]

What the "temperature minimum" means is that stellar fusion is wrong.

No it doesn't.

The "temperature" is really the spectrum, it's called "temperature" because it's based on black body formulas that consider every emission of light to be due to radiant heat. This assumption doesn't hold, even here on Earth, where we routinely use the same technique to "measure" the "temperature" of fluorescent light tubes, "temperatures" that range in the thousands of kelvins, clearly this is not "temperature" in the sense that you measure with a thermometer.

The "temperature" used to rate fluorescent lights is a visual equivalent, based upon the sensitivity of the human eye, not the full spectrum. They are intended to approximate how our eyes perceive the color of a source, they do not represent the actual temperature of the source in any way. These calculations are completely different, and yield completely different numbers, than calculations of the actual temperature based on the observed spectrum plus thermodynamics. So you have, yet again, revealed your ignorance.

Second, the only assumption is that the source is not too far from equilibrium. And guess what: that's plenty true.

The sun is not a black body radiator, it is much more like a fluorescent light tube than it is glowing iron in a blacksmith's forge.

Yeah, not so much.
Sun:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png
Fluorescent lamp:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fluorescent_lighting_spectrum_peaks_labelled.png

Yes, you can try to explain the sun's spectrum in terms of temperature and black body formulas.

Indeed. And it works great.

The problem arises when you compare that derived "temperature" to the observed, very rigid, very solid surface of the sun. Clearly it's not "millions of degrees".

First off, the surface of the sun isn't solid. Second, indeed, clearly it's not millions of degrees. That derived temperature tells you it's not millions of degrees.

That the sun is a black body radiator is readily falsified by direct observation.

Direct observation (see above graph) shows that it is a black body radiator.

The corona, however, is not.

Nothing about the sun's power output is inconsistent with electric sun models.

Sure it is. You can't get an electric model to produce the necessary power without encountering complete absurdities, like an exploding sun.

But since you're so sure, what's the voltage and total current driving this power output? We're constrained by P=IV, so give me I and give me V. Those are fundamental parameters in an electric model, surely you should know those. Otherwise, you don't really have a model, do you?

Nothing about the sun's output is consistent with the calculations of stellar fusionists, on top of that.

Wrong again.

The hypothetical processes have never been demonstrated in the lab

What, fusion? Sure it has. Plenty of times, and in many ways.

electricity is well understood

Indeed, but not by you. In fact, it is precisely because we understand electricity that we know it cannot account for the power output of the sun.

why leap to the conclusion of magic when we have the very real electromagnetic forces to draw on for explanation?

Fusion is magic? That's a novel argument.

 

[Ziggurat]

and your thesis is wrong...next...

Except it isn't. You can't actually give a reason for why, other than that it offends your sensibilities. But your sensibilities are founded on ignorance.

 

[cev08241971]

yes rock can become charged

So . . . it's a plasma rock? Do we have laboratory confirmation of such a thing?

If you're asking me is there experimental verification that rock can become ionized (charged, plasma), then yes, there is abundant experimental verification of that. For example when lightning strikes rock. Experiments done by C.J. Ransom have shown this effect can be reproduced readily in the lab.

 

[Tubbythin]

It's interesting you bring up "neutrino flux", another nail in the coffin of stellar fusion. The "observed neutrino flux" is a third of what's predicted by stellar fusionists, and no attempt is made to rule out other causes of these supposed "neutrinos" (which only last for fractions of a second, how do they get from the sun to Earth, that's an eight-minute trip).

Stunning. Giving it the the Billy Big Balls about how everyone is an idiot and clearly the fusion model is wrong when in fact you haven't even the faintest clue what you are talking about. The observed electron neutrino flux was previously measured to be about a third what was expected. Then they measured neutrino oscillations from multiple sources: the Sun, the atmosphere, nuclear reactors and now in "home-made" beams. All of them show that neutrino oscillate and now the numbers match up very very well with what is expected. And no, they don't only last a fraction of a second. They are completely stable. They oscillate in flavour because the mass eigenstates are not the same as the flavour eigenstates (something similar was observed with Kaons in about the 1960's), but they do not decay.

People who cite this "neutrino evidence" clearly don't even understand what a "neutrino" is, it's a transient side effect, like a flash or a bang from an explosion.

It is quite clearly you that does not understand what a neutrino is.

Bombs aren't made of flashes and bangs, though, and the sun isn't made of fusion.

Of course it isn't made of fusion. That doesn't even make any grammatical sense.

Again, I've seen no indication that evidence in any way plays a part in what you believe or conclude or try to contradict, so why should that change. You are going to "conclude" what you already believe, despite any evidence to the contrary. That's not science, that's religion, basically.

Says the person who's been giving it the lip for the last two pages but it turns out doesn't understand Maxwell's equations, the difference between cosmology and astronomy, or apparently, the very model he's telling us is a load of rubbish.

 

[Tubbythin]

Excuse me? What is it you think I don't understand? What is the distinction between cosmology and astronomy that you think I don't understand? I find this post of your to be banal and pointless (in other words spam).

You clearly seemed to think that an electric Sun model would have some bearing on cosmology. That means you don't know the difference between astronomy and cosmology.

 

[Tubbythin]

If you're asking me is there experimental verification that rock can become ionized (charged, plasma), then yes, there is abundant experimental verification of that. For example when lightning strikes rock. Experiments done by C.J. Ransom have shown this effect can be reproduced readily in the lab.

If a rock is turned into a plasma then it isn't a rock anymore is it? Or can we add states of matter the list of things you make wild proclamations about whilst being completely ignorant of too?

 

[Ziggurat]

A "neutrino" is just "noise" produced by certain nuclear reactions.

Nope. It is a particle whose existence is required by conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum, and which has been detected.

That "neutrinos" even come from the sun in the first place is not evidence that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion.

Actually, it pretty much is.

Such sustained fusion has never been demonstrated in the lab

So? If we could sustain pressures as high as the core of the sun and weren't able to sustain fusion, that might be worth worrying about. But since we can only create such high pressures temporarily, that's rather to be expected.

so whether or not it would produce "neutrino flux" is utterly hypothetical.

Except, of course, that it's not.

They do make "neutrinos" at the Large Hadron Collider, though. Do they use fusion to do it or do they use electricity and magnets? The safe money is on electricity and magnets, unless they're lying to us.

You really don't know what they're doing, or how they do it, do you?

Neutrinos get generated through nuclear reactions. Once can create nuclear reactions through a variety of mechanisms, including electromagnetically-powered particle accelerators, but it's not the only way.

This claim is demonstrably false, and is based solely on hypothetical sustained fusion reactions that (for some strange reason) we can't reproduce.

It's not strange at all. We can't contain the necessary pressure, for rather obvious reasons. No mystery at all. The fact that you think it's strange just reveals your own ignorance.

While the sun most certainly contains the elements you list, it also contains many others, such as silicon and metals. (rock)

What, you think metals and silicon can only exist as solids?