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

[cev08241971]

x-rays can be quite well absorbed by plasma and

It isn't x-rays that TRACE and SOHO and the others use to peer through the photosphere. Do a little more research.

For example, the TRACE satellite routinely peers through the photosphere using a 171 angstrom filter, a filter especially sensitive to iron emissions.

there is no "surface" that can be seen under the photosphere

exactly wrong

you are right!

exactly right

It turns out that the photosphere is ~5700K at the surface and gets hotter with depth to ~9400K at some hundreds of km.

No such measurements have been taken. It is assumed, based on erroneous stellar fusion models, that the temperature should get "hotter with depth" until it reaches the temperature at which the "fusion" is said to take place. I've gone over many lines of evidence that utterly moot this investigation.

 

[Tubbythin]

Feel free to cite any instances of which you're aware that demonstrates the process of sustained, gravity-driven, self-collapsing, gas ball fusion that's supposed to be taking place inside the sun. I'll wait.

That would be what one calls moving the goalposts. You claimed that with the fusion model we could make no claims about how many neutrinos were produced due to our apparent lack of knowledge of the processes. I explained that this was wrong because we know how many should be produced because of our understanding in the fields of nuclear and particle physics. Now, you can either retract your claim about our inability to predict (I would highly recommend this if you want to save face) or you can explain to me what you would like to reject from the following:
1) Essentially the whole of nuclear physics;
2) Essentially the whole of particle physics;
3) Energy and momentum conservation.

When you've answered this, then we can think about moving on to gravity-driven gas balls, OK?

 

[Ziggurat]

What you're characterizing as "fact" is more accurately labeled wishful thinking and flights of fancy.

Those spectra I posted comparing the sun and a fluorescent lamp were simply works of fiction? You remember, the ones that falsified your claim about the sun acting like a fluorescent light and not a blackbody? I think not.

Stellar fusion models are readily falsified by many lines of clearly observable evidence, yet you still defend it.

What lines of evidence? The only one you've given so far is the temperature minimum, which is merely evidence that you don't understand thermodynamics or the standard model. The difficulty of reproducing sustained fusion here on earth doesn't falsify the model, since if the model is right, we can't reproduce those conditions. That doesn't prove the model, but it sure as hell doesn't falsify it.

That is testament to just how emotionally entrenched you are in this idea. When you start defending ideas from emotional appeals it's time to reexamine your assumptions.

Oh, the irony.

Still can't give that estimate for total current and voltage, can you?

 

[Tubbythin]

What you're characterizing as "fact" is more accurately labeled wishful thinking and flights of fancy. Stellar fusion models are readily falsified by many lines of clearly observable evidence, yet you still defend it. That is testament to just how emotionally entrenched you are in this idea. When you start defending ideas from emotional appeals it's time to reexamine your assumptions.

And yet, despite all these readily falsifiable observations you present 0 quantitative evidence to support your claim. You have, however, presented huge amounts of evidence showing you haven't even the slightest clue what you're talking about. Especially when it comes to neutrinos. Funny that.

 

[Tubbythin]

You can say what you like, none of what you say will change the fact that the TRACE, SOHO and other research teams operating solar-observing satellites have been directly imaging the surface of the sun beneath the photosphere for over a decade now.

They haven't. SOHO does helioseismology (among other things). This tells us about what is underneath the surface from the oscillations of the surface (pretty much the same idea as normal seismology really).

 

[Reality Check]

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

Stellar fusion is not falsified by nearly every observable feature of the sun. Your refusal to accept this or present aby evidence for you fabyasy doesn't make it any less factual.

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

It is related to the fact that his electric sun idea has been debunked for about 10 years now.

• 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
• 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.

While it is true that a plasma is not a "solid" as defined by chemistry,
...

Plasmas are defined as ionized gases in all branches of science.
Rocks are defined as solids in all branches of science.
If someone thinks that a gas is a solid or vice versa then then they are abysmally ignorant.

 

[Ziggurat]

It isn't x-rays that TRACE and SOHO and the others use to peer through the photosphere. Do a little more research.

For example, the TRACE satellite routinely peers through the photosphere using a 171 angstrom filter, a filter especially sensitive to iron emissions.

What's the penetration depth of 171 angstrom light through 5700 K hydrogen plasma? You're the teacher, teach us.

No such measurements have been taken. It is assumed, based on erroneous stellar fusion models, that the temperature should get "hotter with depth" until it reaches the temperature at which the "fusion" is said to take place. I've gone over many lines of evidence that utterly moot this investigation.

Your ignorance is showing again. Perhaps you should read up on limb darkening, but it's completely independent of the power source for the sun. And it's not assumed that the temperature gets hotter the deeper you go, it's proven by limb darkening. The only way limb darkening can occur without temperature increasing towards the center is if the object is transparent. Which the sun (obviously) isn't. Now, it's conceivable that the temperature vs. depth profile is wrong, because the darkening depends on both optical depth and temperature and maybe we've got the optical depth wrong. But it's quite definite (and definitive) that the sun gets hotter the deeper you go under the photosphere.

 

[cev08241971]

Dr. Donald Scott good reading for "pseudoskeptics" who dobt electricity in space

Those spectra I posted comparing the sun and a fluorescent lamp were simply works of fiction?

I don't recall you posting anything of this kind. Perhaps I missed it. All I remember is telling you that fluorescent light tubes are rated in "temperature" in degrees kelvin, and that "temperature" does in no way correlate to an actual physical temperature of the tube, it's a number produced by black body formulas. We know for a fact that fluorescent tubes are not black body radiators. They do not produce light by heating material until it glows like iron in a blacksmith's forge. If you doubt that, touch a fluorescent light tube, you'll find it's nowhere near its rated "thousands of degrees kelvin" (which has more to do with color of the light than actual "temperature", but is of course rooted in the "black body" continuum).

You remember, the ones that falsified your claim about the sun acting like a fluorescent light and not a blackbody?

That the sun is not a black body radiator is evidenced by, once again, the "temperature" minimum in the corona. While this "temperature minimum" is readily explained in terms of electric discharge in plasma, it has no explanation if the sun is a black body radiator shining from internal heat radiated from inside. This is just a fact, deal with it, it's not a consequence of anyone's hypothesis, it's a consequence of the definitions of these words and observable reality.

What lines of evidence?

I cited several. Scroll up and read them.

The only one you've given so far is the temperature minimum, which is merely evidence that you don't understand thermodynamics or the standard model.

Your implication that a "temperature" minimum in the sun's corona is an expected consequence of the laws of thermodynamics, or that the "standard model" (stellar fusion) is verified by any evidence is laughable in the extreme.

The difficulty of reproducing sustained fusion here on earth doesn't falsify the model, since if the model is right, we can't reproduce those conditions.

Yet more evidence suggesting the model is wrong. If your model suggests "impossible" conditions, it is not falsifiable. In the fifties it was pretty firmly established that if a hypothesis is not falsifiable, it is not science. Ergo, stellar fusion is not science. QED

That doesn't prove the model, but it sure as hell doesn't falsify it.

What it shows is that "stellar fusion" models are not falsifiable, and therefore are not science.

Oh, the irony.

Indeed...

Still can't give that estimate for total current and voltage, can you?

As I explained already, the amount of current bears a direct correlation with the sun's total energy output.

I also explained that the "voltage" of the (note: VARIABLE) electric field powering the sun is not known. That said, there are estimates of the energy density near the surface, based on firmly-established and well-understood principles of electrical engineering. Dr. Donald Scott produced just such an estimate of the energy density in the corona, illustrating the "water slide" effect (again, firmly established principles of electrical engineering) that completely account for the observed "temperature" minimum in the corona. Go research Dr. Scott's work, it's very illuminating, particularly to people who deny there is electricity in space.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nothing I've said is incompatible with nuclear physics as it is understood.

Sure it is. You reject neutrinos. They are central to nuclear physics. Even fission, which, well, you're not going to pretend we haven't mastered that, are you?

I'm not sure what it is here you think I'm disagreeing with. Particle physicists use electricity and magnets in their research, not gravity-driven self-compressing balls of gas that undergo spontaneous fusion. Nobody studies that, because it never happens.

Except people do study that, they're called astrophysicists. And it happens all the bloody time. And we can't do it in a lab because the masses are obviously too large to put in a lab.

How does the electric universe model in any way violate conservation of either momentum (which is what?) or energy.

Well, I'm not sure whether it's the model, or just you, but your disbelief in neutrinos requires that energy, momentum, and angular momentum are not conserved quantities.

And if you don't know what momentum, or the conservation of momentum, is, then you really need to find a new pastime.

Actually we can skip that entirely, as the very idea violates known, established properties of gases. Go take an elementary chemistry course if you haven't learned this already.

And what, precisely, do you think the "established properties of gases" are that are being violated?

 

[dasmiller]

Actually we can skip that entirely, as the very idea violates known, established properties of gases.

Can you elaborate on that?

ETA: d'oh, Zig beat me to it again!

 

[Reality Check]

It isn't x-rays that TRACE and SOHO and the others use to peer through the photosphere. Do a little more research.

For example, the TRACE satellite routinely peers through the photosphere using a 171 angstrom filter, a filter especially sensitive to iron emissions.

Some basic physics: 171A light is emitted fom material at a temerature of 160,000 K to 2 million K. That is the corona. The photosphere is at a temperature of ~5700 K and increases to ~9400K at a few hundeead km depth.

exactly wrong

exactly wring.

exactly right

Except for:

• x-rays can be quite well absorbed by plasma and
• there is no "surface" that can be seen under the photosphere

No such measurements have been taken. It is assumed, based on erroneous stellar fusion models, that the temperature should get "hotter with depth" until it reaches the temperature at which the "fusion" is said to take place. I've gone over many lines of evidence that utterly moot this investigation.

You have not - you have posted unsupported assertions that are easily debunked and show a basic ignorance about solar physics.

Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IX by Tim Thompson

We can see about 100 km below that layer and combine our observations with our knowledge of the laws of physics, and determine a temperature of 9400 kelvins (e.g., Solar Astrophysics, Foukal, page 153; adopted from the photosphere reference model in Maltby, et al., 1986). This is where the high resolution models stop, but a linear extrapolation down to -400 km shows an expected temperature ~18,400 Kelvins. I simply note that all of these temperatures are significantly higher than the boiling point for iron, 3134 Kelvins. Now, the boiling point in-situ in the sun might be higher due to higher pressure, but it's not going to be that much higher (no doubt this can be quantified by someone with more expertise and greater industry than myself).

Furthermore, see my earlier post Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible VII ...

I was wrong - it is a calculation of ~9400 Kelvin at 100 kilometers from measurements and the laws of physics.

 

[cev08241971]

this is not rocket surgery but basic chemistry...sheesh

Can you elaborate on that?

Gases do not self-compress. This is in accordance with the known principles of gases that are taught in chemistry courses all over the world, in every country that has chemistry classes. if you want to satisfy yourself that this is the case, go and (for once in your life) take an elementary chemistry course.+

 

[Tubbythin]

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. The matter under discussion was whether or not one could make realistic predictions about the neutrino flux coming from the Sun or not in the fusion model. You chose to shift the goal post by talking about something else.

That is true. This hypothetical form of fusion said to take place inside the sun is not reproducible despite a century of effort to do so. It's safe to say it's a dead end.

Once again you haven't even the slightest idea what you are talking about. Nobody is trying to reproduce the p-p reaction at astrophysical energies. That would be utterly stupid, The claim that people have been trying to do it for a 100 years is utterly stupid and completely totally and utterly unequivocally false. DO you understand that? Maybe I should make it clear again, for arguments sake. NOBODY is trying to reproduce the p-p reaction at astrophysical energies. Not now, not any time in the near future and certainly not for the last 100 years. Your claim is wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

You explained why you think it's wrong, but that in no way overturns a century of observational and experimental science overturning the notions to which you subscribe.

So present this evidence. Don't make wild claims that are completely wrong such as:
1) We can't predict the neutrino flux;
2) People have been trying to reproduce the fusion reactions in the Sun for the last 100 years.

I retract nothing, except the benefit of the doubt I gave you when you first started this quixotic quest of yours against me. Clearly you have a hardon for this information. Why's that, did a plasma cosmologist scare your mother when she was pregnant with you? What a pity she didn't miscarry.

You are such a pleasant character aren't you.

Nothing I've said is incompatible with nuclear physics as it is understood. The stellar fusion model is the model that's still waiting for verification from this branch of physics. I fear they'll be waiting forever.

Yes it is. You made claims about neutrino physics that are utterly incompatible with nuclear and particle physics.

I'm not sure what it is here you think I'm disagreeing with. Particle physicists use electricity and magnets in their research, not gravity-driven self-compressing balls of gas that undergo spontaneous fusion. Nobody studies that, because it never happens.

Particle physics tells us all about the fundamental particles. That includes neutrinos. What we know about neutrinos from particle physics tells us that your claims are wrong. So either you're wrong or particle physics is wrong.

How does the electric universe model in any way violate conservation of either momentum (which is what?) or energy. You can throw out red herrings all day long, it won't make your case.

You really don't understand it do you? We know neutrinos exist from studies of nuclear and particle physics. That includes the electron/positron energy and momenta distribution in beta decays which is standard every day nuclear physics. Now, that means we know exactly when neutrinos are produced and in what quantity. That means we can make precise predictions as to how many should be produced in nuclear fusion in the Sun. The only way for this to not be the case is if that everyday understanding of nuclear physics is wrong. But that would mean we had no explanation for energy and momentum conservation in beta decay. Get it yet?

Actually we can skip that entirely, as the very idea violates known, established properties of gases. Go take an elementary chemistry course if you haven't learned this already.

I think I'll ignore the claims of the person who accused others of failing plasma 101 whilst simultaneously failing even to show the most basic understanding of the subject, if its all the same to you.

 

[dasmiller]

Gases do not self-compress. This is in accordance with the known principles of gases that are taught in chemistry courses all over the world, in every country that has chemistry classes. if you want to satisfy yourself that this is the case, go and (for once in your life) take an elementary chemistry course.+

Ah. So, the earth's atmosphere has a uniform density, then?

 

[cev08241971]

no

Ah. So, the earth's atmosphere has a uniform density, then?

No.

 

[Reality Check]

cev08241971 asserts that TRACE 171A images look below the photosphere

Originally Posted by Ziggurat
What's the penetration depth of 171 angstrom light through 5700 K hydrogen plasma?

According to the TRACE research team, it's deep enough that they can see entirely through the photosphere as if it's transparent. Argue with them, not with me.

First asked 6 December 2010
cev08241971
I will argue with you since you have stated yet another unsupported assertion.

Give citations to where the TRACE research team state that their 171A images look below the photosphere.

 

[Tubbythin]

Gases do not self-compress. This is in accordance with the known principles of gases that are taught in chemistry courses all over the world, in every country that has chemistry classes. if you want to satisfy yourself that this is the case, go and (for once in your life) take an elementary chemistry course.+

And this is where the ES/EU/PC ooh we can do it in a lab blah blah blah nonesense fails completely. Please show us all, using the laws of physics, what stops a gas from contracting under its own gravity.

 

[D'rok]

According to the TRACE research team, it's deep enough that they can see entirely through the photosphere as if it's transparent. Argue with them, not with me.

Citation, please.

 

[Tubbythin]

I've done nothing of the kind, despite your straw man suggesting I did. All you seem to have is straw men, and appeals to authority, and of course your passive aggressive ad hominem implying everyone and anyone who disagrees with what you say a "liar".

Ahem:

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

I wonder who said that?

 

[Reality Check]

Timothy's bald assurance that he is right doesn't convince me, or any other scientists.

Some basic physics for any physics textbook: 171A light is emitted fom material at a temerature of 160,000 K to 2 million K. That is the corona.
Or even look at the what scientists say about the TRACE instrumentation.

Tim Thompson scientifically supported assertion is
Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IX by Tim Thompson

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
We can see about 100 km below that layer and combine our observations with our knowledge of the laws of physics, and determine a temperature of 9400 kelvins (e.g., Solar Astrophysics, Foukal, page 153; adopted from the photosphere reference model in Maltby, et al., 1986). This is where the high resolution models stop, but a linear extrapolation down to -400 km shows an expected temperature ~18,400 Kelvins. I simply note that all of these temperatures are significantly higher than the boiling point for iron, 3134 Kelvins. Now, the boiling point in-situ in the sun might be higher due to higher pressure, but it's not going to be that much higher (no doubt this can be quantified by someone with more expertise and greater industry than myself).

Furthermore, see my earlier post Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible VII ...