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

[Michael Mozina]

I have seen no electric solar model that produces the observed energy output, lifetime or neutrino flux of stars.

Pardon me, but Dungey, Alfven, Bruce and OTHERS have all used the STANDARD solar model whenever and wherever possible. Why do you *ASSUME* that *EVERYONE* who proposes electrical solar theories is necessarily required to start from scratch? I don't get it?

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm talking about real forces that we can generate in a lab, manipulate by either amplifying it or impeding it. We can't do that with "gravity" or "nuclear strong forces", so we can not set up a controlled experiment to measure the hypothesized effects.

"Real forces". Are you telling us gravity and nuclear forces aren't real?

We can and have done so with electric discharges, though. Electric discharges are the only known way to accelerate charged particles. This is elementary particle physics here. They don't use "nuclear strong force" at CERN or the Large Hadron Collider, they use electric and magnetic fields.

Yes, they use electric and magnetic fields, no they do not use electric discharges.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You haven't seen the electric star model, either? This is astonishing. Why are all these people trying to refute an idea they don't even understand and haven't ever investigated?

Beats me. Shrug. It seems like the most vocal and aggressive EU critics are the least educated in terms of the materials they have actually read.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Leaving aside the fact that you made no mention of such conditions...

I have to mention I'm talking about real things in a science discussion?




WTF???

 

[Arthur Mann]

"Real forces". Are you telling us gravity and nuclear forces aren't real?

it should be clear that what I meant is exactly what I said, that gravity and nuclear forces can't be generated or manipulated by amplification or impedance? Is this statement wrong? Has somebody discovered how to generate gravity or amplify the strong nuclear force while I was taking a dump?

Yes, they use electric and magnetic fields, no they do not use electric discharges.

CLUE: psst...magnetic fields are generated only by electric discharges

 

[Arthur Mann]

A) I never said this.

You never said the sun was powered internally by fusion? Great!

B) This is a claim that has repeatedly been shown to false.

The temperature minimum of the sun is shown to be false? Where? Citation, please.

 

[Ziggurat]

Willful denial on your part.

And yet, you can't actually produce such a description. Seems like that would be the easiest thing to do. Instead, you just insult me, because really, that's so much more effective in demonstrating that you're right and I'm wrong. Never mind putting forward facts. Nope, no point in bothering.

Oh well, at least you've stopped denying that the stellar fusion model is at its heart based on (and only on) the total output of the sun, which a hundred years ago was deemed unimaginably huge and generated inside, like a camp fire or a compost heap.

One hundred years ago people didn't know about fusion. Do you deny the existence of fusion? Do you think that it doesn't produce immense amounts of energy? Do you think that the potential energy that could be gained by the fusion of an amount of hydrogen equal to the mass of the sun is incapable of producing 3.8x10²⁶ Watts of power for many billions of years? If think any of these things, we can examine them in greater detail. If you don't, then the amount of energy involved is not, in fact, "unimaginably huge", but is in fact within the energy budget of a fusion model. That doesn't prove a fusion model, but it does demonstrate that a fusion model is not inconsistent with observations in terms of total energy budget. Older models such as gravitational heating are inconsistent with the total energy budget, which is why they were discarded.

That the sun is powered by external forces is the only reasonable response to this nonsense.

That remains to be seen. The total energy budget is satisfied by fusion. Depending on the details, it might be possible to satisfy it with some model using external energy sources. But what are those details? You haven't said. You, in fact, won't say, even though I keep asking. What's the total energy budget for your model?

To think that the sun is somehow isolated and unaffected by all that other matter is delusion. To think that the sun powers itself is like suggesting plants power their own photosynthesis. There are no closed systems in the universe.

To think that a car powers itself is a delusion. Obviously cars must have hoses which connect them to gas stations, or else they wouldn't be able to move.

What's wrong with the sun powering itself? It's not perpetual motion. It's burning fuel. The process may take a long time, but it's not infinite. What about your model? Where does the energy come from? How much total energy is there, and when will it run out? Do tell.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have to address a couple of common fallacies here:

The fact that plasma is a conductor is irrelevant. An 'electric discharge' can and frequently does occur inside of a plasma, specifically under the conditions cited by Peratt. That "pinched" copper pipe illustrates the power of the magnetic 'pinch' that is caused by the "discharge' through that "conductor". The current flows *BECAUSE* it's a "conductor", or because *IT BECOMES* a (better) "conductor" via (further) ionization.

The fact a plasma is a conductor is irrelevant. A discharge can still occur under the conditions outlined by Peratt. We typically *DO* observe FURTHER ionization of the plasma during "discharges', along with filamentation, z-pinches, high energy photons, etc.

Not all plasmas conduct equally everywhere. The "pinches" tend to evacuate the regions directly around the filament and compress all the materials into that filament. That filament then acts like a "conductive wire", and Alfven directly compares it to a wire.

 

[Arthur Mann]

We CAN manipulate gravitational forces. You do it the same way you manipulate electric forces: you move sources of such forces around. Manipulation of such forces is the standard method for measuring G.

Note that I said "generate or manipulate by amplification or impedance". These conditions are not met by your claims. You are addressing a straw man, not my statements. Can we amplify gravity or generate more of it when we want? Can we impede it?

And we can manipulate strong nuclear forces too. Particle accelerator experiments do so regularly.

Please describe this process of manipulating the "strong nuclear forces" in particle accelerator experiments.

I notedishonestly suggest that you've moved your goalpost.

Your error is noted and corrected above.

 

[Michael Mozina]

..magnetic fields (in a plasma) are generated only by electric discharges

You might want to quality the 'in a plasma' part less the legaleeze hardware team show up and start talking about solids.

 

[Tubbythin]

It should be obvious that the sun is powered by external forces.

Well it isn't. And you haven't provided the slightest shred of quantitative support. Funny how something that is so obvious has no quantitative support whatsoever.

To suggest otherwise is lunacy.

Not at all. We have quantitative support for the view that the Sun is powered internally and quantitative support that it is not powered externally. What we do not have is quantitative support that it is powered externally. It is thus fairly sensible to conclude that the Sun is powered internally and I will continue to do so until someone provides evidence that shows that an external source makes better quantitative predictions.

Oh, you haven't seen the quantitative models? Then why are you trying to bash them?

Nobody has provided a quantitative model despite making claim after claim after claim. The default assumption therefore is that they do not exist (although it could just be complete incompetence on the part of the proponents). If the models are not quantitative then they just aint science. And if they just aint science they'll get bashed on a science forum. Now, you could provide us with evidence of these quantitative models if they exist couldn't you?

Arguing against an idea from a point of ignorance like this is a weak move. How can you "refute" something you don't even have knowledge of? Perhaps there are other subjects you'd be better at. I can suggest some privately for you if you get stuck.

That's true, it is a weak move. Which is why your arguments are bizarre.

This is a no-brainer. Black hole is said to be utterly unobservable, so there can never be any observational support for this idea. Further, since the energies are said to be impossible to reproduce, we have no burden to falsify this notion. As you can see from a tautological examination, "black hole" is not science.

This is completely wrong. You don't seem to know the difference between what we can see and what we can observe.

Since we have abundant observations of electricity and magnetic fields in space, we may safely conclude that they exist and don't rely on unproven speculations or concepts that are impervious to either verification or falsification. We can actually reproduce the electrical effects in the lab, also, and observe them at our leisure.

Yes, and we have an excellent understanding of them. Which means we can make quantitative predictions. These quantitative predictions completely rule electric sun models. The wonders of quantitative science.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have to mention I'm talking about real things in a science discussion?




WTF???

You said, "I'm talking about real forces that we can generate in a lab, manipulate by either amplifying it or impeding it". It's not the "real" part you failed to specify, but everything else. The inability to manipulate something in a controlled fashion in a lab doesn't mean it's not real. Many limitations are purely practical, not in-principle.

And, of course, you're STILL wrong, as I already pointed out, since we can (and do) manipulate gravitational forces, for example.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I have seen no electric solar model that produces the observed energy output, lifetime or neutrino flux of stars.

Exactly which solar model do you think Dungey and Bruce used? Now I"m just really confused......

 

[Ziggurat]

Note that I said "generate or manipulate by amplification or impedance". These conditions are not met by your claims. You are addressing a straw man, not my statements. Can we amplify gravity or generate more of it when we want? Can we impede it?

We sure can. Are you honestly at a loss to figure out how? Because I'll tell you if you ask, but if you can't figure it out on your own, that's kind of sad.

Please describe this process of manipulating the "strong nuclear forces" in particle accelerator experiments.

We smash different particles into other different particles at varying energies. Depending on the particles and energies involved, they will feel different strengths of the strong nuclear forces.

Particle physics 101.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well it isn't. And you haven't provided the slightest shred of quantitative support. Funny how something that is so obvious has no quantitative support whatsoever.

When you say "you", do you mean "him/her personally"? Alfven, Bruce and many others provided quantitative support. You do realize that the conversation doesn't start all over every time someone new comes into the conversation, right? You read that paper by Dungey didn't you?

 

[Tubbythin]

Pardon me, but Dungey, Alfven, Bruce and OTHERS have all used the STANDARD solar model whenever and wherever possible. Why do you *ASSUME* that *EVERYONE* who proposes electrical solar theories is necessarily required to start from scratch? I don't get it?

Steady-on. This most definitely not what Arthur thinks of as an electric sun model and is not the opinion I have generally found from other proponents.
But if you're talking about fusion on the outside and non-mainstream electric phenomena on the outside how can you claim parsimony?

 

[dasmiller]

It should be obvious that the sun is powered by external forces. To suggest otherwise is lunacy.

<sigh> then by your standards, I'm a lunatic, because I'm going to suggest that it's not obvious that the sun is externally powered.

Oh, you haven't seen the quantitative models? Then why are you trying to bash them?

If there are such quantitative models, then let's see them. If there are not, then saying that EU explains all the aspects of flares is simply speculating that an EU-based model could be created that explained all aspects of the flares and then taking credit for the predictions of that yet-to-be-created model.

Arguing against an idea from a point of ignorance like this is a weak move. How can you "refute" something you don't even have knowledge of?

I don't claim to have refuted it. I question its existence, which is why I asked you for a link. Do you have one?

Perhaps there are other subjects you'd be better at. I can suggest some privately for you if you get stuck.

It's not that I'm not flattered by your offer, but I'm already in a relationship.

This is a no-brainer. Black hole is said to be utterly unobservable, so there can never be any observational support for this idea.

That's simply not true. Being unobservable means that there can be no direct observation, but that doesn't mean that there's not observational support. We can't directly observe electrons, either; would you regard them as pseudoscience?

Further, since the energies are said to be impossible to reproduce, we have no burden to falsify this notion. As you can see from a tautological examination, "black hole" is not science.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean "impossible to reproduce in a laboratory?"

Since we have abundant observations of electricity and magnetic fields in space, we may safely conclude that they exist and don't rely on unproven speculations or concepts that are impervious to either verification or falsification. We can actually reproduce the electrical effects in the lab, also, and observe them at our leisure.

And AFAIK, nobody on this thread has questioned the existence of either electricity or magnetism, but if they do, you may rest assured that I'll refer them to your post.

But since you raised the question, what sort of observation would falsify EU?

 

[Michael Mozina]

And yet when asked to present this alleged solar model all the cranks can do is flail around some names of usually dead scientists.

That's like bitching about GR theory because Einstein happens to be dead now. So what if Alfven is dead now? Does his work become worthless in your mind somehow? Did you earn a Nobel Prize in your lifetime, and was it in MHD theory?

What is the point of providing you with MORE information when you HAVEN"T READ what's already available to you?

 

[Michael Mozina]

<sigh> then by your standards, I'm a lunatic, because I'm going to suggest that it's not obvious that the sun is externally powered.

Don't feel bad. I'm a fence sitter myself.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Never mind putting forward facts.

And yet I've done so, as have others.

One hundred years ago people didn't know about fusion.

Okay, 90 years then, not 100:

1919: Francis Aston, hydrogen fusion to helium will release a lot of energy

Do you deny the existence of fusion? Do you think that it doesn't produce immense amounts of energy?

No. No. (Unless you want to get into a metaphysical debate on the meaning of "existence" and "produce" and so on.)

Do you think that the potential energy that could be gained by the fusion of an amount of hydrogen equal to the mass of the sun is incapable of producing 3.8x10²⁶ Watts of power for many billions of years?

This is irrelevant, since we know from direct observation that stellar fusion models are baseless and unpredictive, to say nothing of unfalsifiable and unverifiable. We can verify or falsify electrical models in the lab...strangely.

Further, the derived mass of the sun is based on "gravity" models, which have been shown not to apply to charged bodies in plasma. Under such circumstances electromagnetic forces dominate, "gravity" vanishes to insignificance. The conclusion to draw is that the derived mass of the sun is wrong, as are the derived masses of most if not all of the planets. The only mass we have a reasonable chance of guessing is our own, from sampling it, not using "gravity" models which clearly don't apply in the solar system at large.

This failure of "gravity" models doesn't just apply to our solar system, though. It's been known for quite some time that "gravity" models don't accurately describe the behavior of galaxies (angular momentum and so on). Why is that? Galaxies are also dominated by electromagnetic forces. Stellar fusionists don't understand the electrical nature of the universe, all they have in their toolbox of explanations is "gravity", so they had to invent "black hole" in the center of every galaxy, then "dark matter" to patch the holes blown in the model by "black hole", then "dark energy" to patch the holes blown in "big bang", on and on like that. It's pathological, not science.

What's wrong with the sun powering itself?

The most damning thing "wrong with" the sun powering itself internally is that we observe a temperature minimum in the sun's corona, inconsistent with the stellar fusion model, unless the laws of thermodynamics are wrong.