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

[Michael Mozina]

Where did Peratt, Bruce, Alfvén, and Scott specify that the Sun has a solid iron surface?

When are you going to admit that electric sun theories aren't limited to a solid cathode surface model of the sun?

 

[Reality Check]

Am I to understand that you don't have faith in Peratt's work but you want to cite it as evidence of an imagined conflict between scientists?

Your understanding is wrong.

• I have "faith" in Peratt's work, i.e. I trust it when it is backed up by science.
  I do distrust his work when it comes to Plasma Cosmology (N.B. this is Alfven & Kleins invalid theory niot the psuedo-science of not plasma cosmology).
  See Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation
• I did not cite it as evidence for anything - Michael Mozina did.
• There is no conflict, imagined or otherwise.
  The defintion of an electrical discharge is that it happens by the breakdown of a dielectric material.

Peratt clearly states that electrical discharges happen through the breakdown of a material. He comes from an electrical engineering background. In electrical engineering a breakdown is the transition of a dielectric medium to a conducting state.
That page in his book does not mention electrical discharges within plasma.

But since Michael Mozina cannot anser this question:

Where are Peratt's many pages of the physics and mathematics of electrical discharges within plasma?
​

maybe you have a copy of his book and can answer it?

 

[Arthur Mann]

The iron usually falls back due to gravity.

To suggest that any of the observable properties or behaviors of the sun are explicable in terms of "gravity" is an obscene mockery of science. Gravity only negligibly affects charged bodies able to interact electrically. The sun is one such body, so are all the other known bodies in the solar system. Gravity is mooted, therefore.

 

[GeeMack]

Mostly Iron and Nickel actually. Don't worry, you won't run out. The iron usually falls back due to gravity.

Where did Peratt, Bruce, Alfvén, and Scott specify that the Sun has a solid iron surface?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Then please show, in detail, how, to within an order of magnitude the Sun produces a steady ~3.9x10^26 W, in the form of electromagnetic radiation, over time periods of at least 100 years, according to the Electric Sun model.

Which electric sun model? Bruce used the standard energy source, so what point are you trying to make exactly?

 

[Arthur Mann]

As we've already established, you and I have different views of "obvious."

Of that, there can be no doubt.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Where did Peratt, Bruce, Alfvén, and Scott specify that the Sun has a solid iron surface?

They don't. You don't even care about what they *DO* say (like discharges and circuits), so why do you care what they DON'T say? FYI a "cathode sun" theory isn't limited, nor will it ever be limited to a 'solid surface' model.

 

[GeeMack]

The iron usually falls back due to gravity.

To suggest that any of the observable properties or behaviors of the sun are explicable in terms of "gravity" is an obscene mockery of science. Gravity only negligibly affects charged bodies able to interact electrically. The sun is one such body, so are all the other known bodies in the solar system. Gravity is mooted, therefore.

Quoted for posterity.

Which electric sun model? Bruce used the standard energy source, so what point are you trying to make exactly?

So there isn't any quantitative objective agreement on what an electric Sun model actually is.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm looking forward to an honest attempt to answer this one!

The ironic part of the "willful ignorance" parade is that I don't think either one of them even realizes that the question has already been answered. EU opponents are just a goofy lot IMO. It's like "ignorance is bliss" is their credo.

 

[Arthur Mann]

FYI a "cathode sun" theory isn't limited, nor will it ever be limited to a 'solid surface' model.

This is an important thing to remember. Regardless of whether the sun is rigid or gaseous, the fundamental aspects of plasma cosmology dictate still that they will be powered by electricity, not "gravity" collapse of a gas. The idea that gases compress themselves under their own weight is laughable, that's never been demonstrated in the lab, and is readily falsified by a fourth grade chemistry experiment.

 

[GeeMack]

I'm considering all posts like this to be spam, given that you've asked this same question four times already, it's been answered, if you don't like the answer that's fine, but that doesn't give you the right to continually badger people and press them for an answer that's never going to change.

I've reported this post as badgering and spam, and I suggest everyone else reading this do the same.

So the electric Sun crackpots don't really have any quantitative answers.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK, humor me and DeiRenDopa:

Since Bruce and Dungey used a standard solar model, its the same freaking calculation as the standard solar model. Look it up.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

See a previous post of mine where I refer another poster to Donald Scott's book, Electric Sun. It's a good read, if you have decent reading comprehension. If one is generally uneducated, however, most of it won't make any sense.

To repeat, where (on what page(s)) in that book does Scott show, in detail, how, to within an order of magnitude the Sun produces a steady ~3.9x10^26 W, in the form of electromagnetic radiation, over time periods of at least 100 years, according to the Electric Sun model?

{bottom of page 17. Does anyone remember "Alice's Restaurant"? and if 60 people a day!}

And if one more person does it, there will be more than just a movement afoot.

Stop the flooding. Get back to actual discussion. You've moved from clever debate tactic to annoying badgering.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Reality Check]

How does Dungey's electrical discharge occur?

The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism, J.W. Dungey, 1958
Electromagnetic Phenomena in Cosmical Physics, Proceedings from IAU Symposium no. 6. Edited by Bo Lehnert. International Astronomical Union. Symposium no. 6, Cambridge University Press, p.135

Dungey's "electrical discharge" is in the context of the existence of a large current density (page 136). It is not an actual electrical discharge because by definition that requires the breakdown of a dielectric medium. It is a discharge of current.
Read the bottom of page 136 onward for the explanation for the large current density (from ""Consider a neutral point")

 

[Perpetual Student]

Since Bruce and Dungey used a standard solar model, its the same freaking calculation as the standard solar model. Look it up.

Just as I suspected, you are unable to produce the mathematics required.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Dungey's "electrical discharge" is in the context of the existence of a large current density (page 136). It is not an actual electrical discharge because by definition that requires the breakdown of a dielectric medium. It is a discharge of current.

It helps if researchers attempt to adhere to agreed-upon standards in communication. Using a novel or boutique definition of a word because it lends more credence to your hypothesis is not science.

 

[dasmiller]

The idea that gases compress themselves under their own weight is laughable, that's never been demonstrated in the lab, and is readily falsified by a fourth grade chemistry experiment.

so, cev, you're saying that our sea-level atmosphere is not being compressed by the weight of the atmosphere above it?

 

[Arthur Mann]

The standard solar model isn't powered by electricity.

You're right, and in the absence of experimental verification of the notions therein, the "standard" model seems to be powered by wishful thinking. Plasma cosmology, by contrast, is supported by a century of observation and experimental verification.

 

[kmortis]

I've closed the thread while I deal with the various infractions, post moves and edits.
Ok, I've moved the worst offenders out. I've reopened the thread. Understand, this threa generates a lot of reports and is therefore watched quite closely. Any further shenanigans will be dealt with. Stay on topic. Do not attack the arguer, even in a passive-agressive manner. If it's not about the topic at hand, don't post it. If you find that you cannot post about the topic without commenting on the other posters, then stop...leave, ignore this thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[The Man]

Here is a passage from Sandia's web site, explaining about their "z machine", an apparatus developed to study "z pinch" phenomena in plasmas:



Keep in mind this power output is generated in a fraction of a second, by an electric discharge through a conductor (hand-built matrix of wires). A sustained current would produce this effect in a sustained fashion. A star is the focus of a "z pinch" in a birkeland current, planets are formed by similar "z pinches", that's why they're all spherical, stars, planets, moons, because they all essentially slag from an electric arc, just like the spherical slag produced when an arc from an arc welder impinges on a surface. And the math is very solid on this, using the known properties and behaviors of electromagnetic forces, not appeals to "unobservable" stuff or imaginary processes that can't be reproduced in the lab.

Keep in mind that the "z pinch" is used only as an X-ray source, the "power output is generated" by inertial confinement fusion of a fuel load. The "(hand-built matrix of wires)" is destroyed by that " electric discharge" and thus a "sustained current" in this application is not possible.