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

[cev08241971]

so there

Then they measured neutrino oscillations from multiple sources:

Feel free to explain how these "oscillations" were measured, and how multiple sources of "neutrinos" have been considered by researchers. Also bear in mind that we don't need fusion to explain "neutrinos", and fusion apparently can't explain "neutrinos". We can't replicate this hypothetical brand of fusion said to take place inside the sun, so we have no factual basis for making claims about what it would produce, if it were really taking place (which it clearly isn't).

All of them show that neutrino oscillate and now the numbers match up very very well with what is expected.

This is an utterly manufactured claim, and a common one. No attempts to show this "neutrino oscillation" have met with anything even remotely resembling success, all we have is bald announcements and computer generated cartoons. Further, to say that any of the revelations were "expected" is disingenuous to say the least. Every observation of the sun puzzles astronogers because they try to filter all the observations through their erroneous stellar fusion model.

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

What is the basis for you making the claim that I don't "understand Maxwell's equations"?

the difference between cosmology and astronomy

And the basis for this claim that I don't understand the difference between astronomy and cosmology?

or apparently, the very model he's telling us is a load of rubbish.

Funny, i was just going to say the same thing...about you.

 

[cev08241971]

oh really

[A neutrino] is a particle whose existence is required by conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum, and which has been detected.

Okay, show me experiments that have successfully managed to accumulate and store "neutrinos". They're real, right? They're particles, right? Go collect some and put them in a suitable container. Also, your application of "conservation of energy" and "conservation of momentum" and "angular momentum" are non sequitur on the scale you're addressing. In other words, what you say makes no objective sense.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is the basis for you making the claim that I don't "understand Maxwell's equations"?

Well, for starters, when faces with an actual equation for a magnetic field, rather than deal with that equation rather than testing if it conforms to Maxwell's equations and has the properties claimed, you simply object to the terminology and resort to claiming that math doesn't mean anything.

And the basis for this claim that I don't understand the difference between astronomy and cosmology?

Well, THAT one is easy: you tried to substitute one for the other.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay, show me experiments that have successfully managed to accumulate and store "neutrinos". They're real, right? They're particles, right? Go collect some and put them in a suitable container.

Your criteria for acceptance are arbitrary and irrelevant.

Also, your application of "conservation of energy" and "conservation of momentum" and "angular momentum" are non sequitur on the scale you're addressing. In other words, what you say makes no objective sense.

You have a strange definition of "objective", but then, that's par for the course. Just consider perhaps the simplest example: neutron decay. Without a neutrino, the process violates all three conservation rules. I don't care what "scale" you think that occurs on, either those quantities are conserved or they are not. You evidently think they are not.

 

[cev08241971]

hrm

Actually, [neutrinos] pretty much [are evidence that stellar fusion models are valid].

This couldn't be further from the truth. This brand of fusion said to take place inside the sun has never been successfully reproduced. It's safe to say it's not understood. If it were understood, it would be reproducible. It's fairly safe to say it's just dead wrong, as well. If we can't reproduce the phenomenon, it probably doesn't exist. Given that we have yet to reproduce this phenomenon for study, we can't say what it would produce (we especially can't say we know how many "neutrinos" it would produce).

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.

You mean the "assumed pressure" at the "core of the sun". As of yet we have no in situ measurements of that pressure, only wanton speculation that is demonstrably false. Stellar fusion models predict the sun is gaseous. We know from direct observation this is not the case. The dodge that we can't reproduce the conditions is weak. We can reproduce CME's with electric discharge, but not with "fusion". Electric discharge CME is a reality, therefore we can readily reproduce it in the lab. Stellar fusion is a monstrously stupid idea, therefore it will never be reproduced in the lab.

But since we can only create such high pressures temporarily, that's rather to be expected.

You keep using the word "rather". I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[Reality Check]

It's interesting you bring up the Ulysses mission, which passed by comet McNaught. In passing, the discovery was made that cometary "tails" influence the acceleration of "solar wind" locally, more evidence of the electrical nature of both comets and the sun and the "solar wind".

Astronogers were typically "surprised" at this, none of their models predicted such a phenomenon, with such a tiny object, so far away from the sun, having such a huge influence.

What are "Astronogers"? There are spelling chekers that you can get for forum posts. Or maybe this is an ignorant attempt to smear astronomers with the woo of astrology.

Scientists love to be surprised. That means that

The current flow out of the sun is equal to the current flow into the sun. That should be obvious, even if the sun weren't primarily powered by electric discharge (which it is).

Wrong: The sun is powered by fusion as explained before.

The Ulysses mission showed that this current fluctuates (as expected and predicted by electric universe adherents).
Wrong: Electric universe adherents (not the EU idea which is an idea without any predictions) such as Dr Donald E. Scott predict a flow of electrons in from one side of the Sun and a flow of electrons out from another side, this turning the Sun into a giant light bulb.

The Ulysses mission showed that there was a varing solar wind outflow throughout its mission. At no point did it detect a net inward current as predcited by electric universe adherents.
See The Electric Sky: Short-Circuited (PDF).
There is a rebuttal by Scott (which from memory does not address the Ulysses results). Bridgman addresses these on his blog.
And I may as well throw in

• On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis by Tim Thompson
• Tim Thompson - A Rebuttal (a rebuttal from Thornhill? that seems to have vanished)
• Tim Thompson Responds to Thornhill on the matter of the Electric Star Hypothesis

To sum up, Ulysses (like every other research satellite) provides data that adds strong verification to the electric universe hypotheses. Claims to the contrary are generated only under clouds of ignorance that blot out all of the sunlight of knowledge.

To sum up, Ulysses (like every other research satellite) provides data that adds strong falsification to the electric universe ideas.
Claims to the contrary are generated only under clouds of ignorance that blot out all of the sunlight of knowledge.

I said the sun's surface is rigid, that it is made of calcium-rich and iron-rich rock, and that it is in a plasma state. None of those claims conflict with each other, except in your mind, and owing only to your ignorance and superstitions.

Sorry cev08241971 but this is defintiely only in your mind and and owing only to your ignorance and superstitions.
A basic physical fact: There are a certain set of states of matter that include

• Solids (like rock)
• liquids
• gases
• and plasmas

A plasma is never a rock. It is a different state of matter. Your claims thus conflict.

 

[D'rok]

No attempts to show this "neutrino oscillation" have met with anything even remotely resembling success...

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v87/i7/e071301

 

[D'rok]

Hey cev08241971. For the sake of the lurkers, could you please do the following:

1) Explain the Electric Sun Model
2) Show the evidence for the rocky surface of the Sun.

Much obliged.

 

[cev08241971]

Scientists love to be surprised.

What scientists love is irrelevant, as are all emotional appeals made along this vein.

Wrong: The sun is powered by fusion as explained before.

Stellar fusion is falsified by nearly every observable feature of the sun. Your refusal to accept this doesn't make it any less factual.

...Dr Donald E. Scott predict a flow of electrons in from one side of the Sun and a flow of electrons out from another side

You apparently misunderstood Dr. Scott. I have his published works in hard copy, I'm well familiar with them. Your characterization of his predictions is inaccurate. He predicted (in addition to fluctuation) a radial electric field and polar jets. Both have since been verified (and previously have both been predicted by many EU adherents).

I'm not sure what your point is bringing up an unrelated discussion between Dr. Donald Scott and Timothy.

A basic physical fact: There are a certain set of states of matter that include

• Solids (like rock)
• liquids
• gases
• and plasmas

A plasma is never a rock. It is a different state of matter. Your claims thus conflict.

While it is true that a plasma is not a "solid" as defined by chemistry, it is not true that plasmas can not be "solid", as in "rigid", as opposed to fluid (liquid, gaseous). Iron(III) is a readily accessible and simple example. The semantic argument you make would hold some merit, if I were to say that plasmas behave as do "neutral" solids (the term used in chemistry). They do not. Plasmas are negligibly affected by gravity. They are dominated by electromagnetic forces. This is one more nail in the coffin of gravity-driven self-compressing gas ball stellar fusion models. Never mind the known behaviour of gasses in vacuo...

 

[Ziggurat]

You mean the "assumed pressure" at the "core of the sun". As of yet we have no in situ measurements of that pressure, only wanton speculation that is demonstrably false.

If we can't measure it, and you won't accept predictions based on models, then you can't exactly demonstrate it's false either. Simple logic.

Stellar fusion models predict the sun is gaseous.

Well, plasma, not gas. I thought an electric sun and plasma cosmology advocate would be sensitive to the distinction. Not the first irony here, though.

We know from direct observation this is not the case.

Wrong. A solid surface is ruled out for many reasons. The thermodynamics don't work (it must be hotter than 5700 K to not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and no solids exist at that temperature), even the basic material strength doesn't work. You'd need an impossibly strong, impossibly heat resistant material. Your claims to discount the standard model because of a lack of laboratory confirmation is inconsistent with the standards you apply to your own model.

Oh, and how's that whole total power output calculation going? Surely the model has already been developed, hasn't it? You aren't just making **** up as you go along, are you? So you should be able to produce those key parameters of your own model at the drop of a hat. What are they?

 

[Tubbythin]

Feel free to explain how these "oscillations" were measured, and how multiple sources of "neutrinos" have been considered by researchers.

The original measurements of solar neutrinos were only sensitive to electron neutrinos. This is no longer the case. We can now measure the total flux of neutrinos and in scattering experiments the approximate direction which they are coming from ie the Sun or not the Sun. We also expect a completely different ratio (without oscillations) from cosmic rays (IIRC its 2 muon to 1 electron neutrino). This is not what is observed and in fact what is observed is a mixing angle that is consistent with the other measurement. We also have neutrinos from reactors which should all start off as electron type. If they don't start off all as electron type then the whole of nuclear physics is wrong! We've also got neutrino beams made from the decay of (IIRC) pions. Here again we know exactly how much of each type of neutrino is being made (or else the whole of particle physics is wrong). In both the latter too cases the numbers and types of neutrinos can only be explained by oscillations.

Also bear in mind that we don't need fusion to explain "neutrinos", and fusion apparently can't explain "neutrinos".

Well we could have the decay of a Z⁰ for example. That can create neutrinos. Unfortunately the mass of the Z⁰ is far too high for it to be of any relevance to the Sun. What did you have in mind. What on Earth do you mean by fusion can't explain neutrinos. Nuclei that are too proton rich decay by emission of a beta particle and a neutrino. The neutrino is needed for energy and momentum conservation and has been observed in countless experiments.

We can't replicate this hypothetical brand of fusion said to take place inside the sun, so we have no factual basis for making claims about what it would produce, if it were really taking place .

Of course we can't reproduce it. If the cross section was big enough that we could observe it easily then the stars would last for a matter of seconds before they'd burnt all their hydrogen. It is only because the reaction cross section is so tiny that stars last for so long. And of course we do have factual basis for the claim. If beta-decay doesn't happen then the whole of our understanding of nuclear and particle physics is wrong. And if beta decay does happen and there is no neutrino then everything we know about nuclear physics and everything we know about particle physics is wrong. And everything we know about energy conservation. And everything we know about momentum conservation. Hell, if energy

(which it clearly isn't)

Then explain the neutrinos.

This is an utterly manufactured claim, and a common one. No attempts to show this "neutrino oscillation" have met with anything even remotely resembling success, all we have is bald announcements and computer generated cartoons.

Completely wrong. There are many many quantitative papers showing results indicating neutrino oscillations.

Further, to say that any of the revelations were "expected" is disingenuous to say the least. Every observation of the sun puzzles astronogers because they try to filter all the observations through their erroneous stellar fusion model.

I haven't the slightest idea what an astronoger is. But since you are making claims that amount to the whole astronomy, the whole of nuclear physics the whole of particle physics and Maxwell's equations are wrong (and possibly conservation of energy and momentum too) then, to be honest, unless you can show me otherwise I will assume your assertions about astronogers (whatever they may be) is nonesense.

What is the basis for you making the claim that I don't "understand Maxwell's equations"?

You claimed that MR was impossible.

And the basis for this claim that I don't understand the difference between astronomy and cosmology?

You think stellar systems and cosmology are in the same field.

Funny, i was just going to say the same thing...about you.

That would be odd when I haven't disputed your model. Not that I'm saying it isn't completely ridiculous, you understand. Just pointing out how your attempt at a clever comment failed miserably.

 

[dasmiller]

Plasmas are negligibly affected by gravity.

Are they affected less by gravity than, say, solids? Does g M₁ M₂/R² not apply to them?

 

[cev08241971]

If we can't measure it, and you won't accept predictions based on models, then you can't exactly demonstrate it's false either.

If we can't measure it and all we have are models predicting it, it is false. This is the case if we're talking about Santa Claus, or black hole, or stellar fusion.

 

[Ziggurat]

While it is true that a plasma is not a "solid" as defined by chemistry, it is not true that plasmas can not be "solid", as in "rigid", as opposed to fluid (liquid, gaseous).

Actually, yes, it is true that a plasma can not be "solid". And fluids include liquids, gasses, and... plasmas!

Iron(III) is a readily accessible and simple example.

Iron(III) is not a plasma.

The semantic argument you make would hold some merit, if I were to say that plasmas behave as do "neutral" solids (the term used in chemistry). They do not. Plasmas are negligibly affected by gravity.

Really? You've got experimental evidence to demonstrate this, I'm sure?

I guess we know the secret to antigravity: plasma! Is there anything it can't do? I mean, except for that whole fusion thing.

They are dominated by electromagnetic forces.

That rather depends on the size of the fields involved. If the fields are zero, then gravity will rather obviously dominate. Additionally, since plasmas are conductors, the electric fields inside plasmas are shielded, so plasmas generally don't experience significant force from electric fields on large scales. And on large scales, magnetic fields tend to be small as well. In fact, dipole magnetic fields fall off much faster than gravitational fields, so at large enough scales gravity should always win out over magnetic forces.

This is one more nail in the coffin of gravity-driven self-compressing gas ball stellar fusion models. Never mind the known behaviour of gasses in vacuo...

And what behavior might that be?

 

[cev08241971]

plasma 101

Are they...

I'll say it again, plasmas are negligibly affected by gravity, they are dominated utterly by electromagnetic forces, which affect plasmas FORTY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more strongly than does "gravity". This is plasma 101 here.

 

[Ziggurat]

If we can't measure it and all we have are models predicting it, it is false.

No. It might be false, and you can call it uncertain, but you can't call it false unless you know what it is. But you have ruled out any method for determining that, so you have ruled out your ability to call it false.

 

[Tubbythin]

Okay, show me experiments that have successfully managed to accumulate and store "neutrinos". They're real, right? They're particles, right? Go collect some and put them in a suitable container.

And how does one collect particles with a mean free path of a light year of lead?

Also, your application of "conservation of energy" and "conservation of momentum" and "angular momentum" are non sequitur on the scale you're addressing. In other words, what you say makes no objective sense.

In what way are they non-sequiturs? Why does the energy spectrum of decay electrons/positrons come in a continuum and not discretely if this is not a three-body problem? What about the decay of the Z⁰? What happens to those events which aren't quark/antiquark or lepton antilepton pairs?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'll say it again, plasmas are negligibly affected by gravity, they are dominated utterly by electromagnetic forces, which affect plasmas FORTY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more strongly than does "gravity". This is plasma 101 here.

I doubt you even know where that figure comes from. But if you did, it should also be apparent how irrelevant it actually is.

 

[D'rok]

In short, the electric sun model proposes that the sun is powered by electric discharge, not by internal heat of fusion caused by a self-compressing ball of gas, radiated outward. The energy source of the sun is galactic-scale electric currents known as "birkeland currents", a well-understood effect of electric discharge in plasma.

Thanks. Can you give a bit more detail? Where is the evidence that these currents have been detected on a galactic scale and at the necessary power? How much external power is actually required?

While anyone can make claims about the composition or surface of the sun, it's up to you to convince yourself as to what is the case. My assurance or the assurance of others that the surface of the sun is rigid is clearly not convincing. Go to the data put forth by the TRACE, SOHO and other research teams operating solar-observing satellites. The imagery from these satellites show beyond doubt that the surface, beneath the photosphere, rotates uniformly (not differentially as the photosphere does), and has persistent surface features that last indefinitely (certainly for weeks on end). If we saw this on any other body in the universe we would pronounce it a solid body. Prior dogma, however, prevents this from being applied to the sun. Stellar fusion mythology has crippled people's minds, just as christainity and other religions have polluted people's minds and the societies in which we all live.

How can these satellites capture images from beneath the photosphere - a region that is opaque by definition? That is like sailing north of the north pole.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'll say it again, plasmas are negligibly affected by gravity, they are dominated utterly by electromagnetic forces, which affect plasmas FORTY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more strongly than does "gravity". This is plasma 101 here.

Then once again you haven't even the slightest idea what you are talking about. The force between a single electron and a single proton may be 40 orders of magnitude larger at a given distance, but the gravitational force between something with a solar mass and a charge of e is most certainly not 40 orders of magnitude bigger than the electromagnetic force.
Quite clearly you have failed plasma 101.