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

[Ziggurat]

You think gravity is real?

Yes. Do you think gravity is not real? That's a yes/no question, so please provide a yes/no answer.

Go prove it in another thread. This thread is about the electric star model, which supposes that the entire universe is filled with plasmas, negligibly affected by gravity. It isn't just me that's ignoring gravity, over 99% of the observable universe routinely does so.

You have asserted that plasma is negligibly affected by gravity, but that is precisely the assertion I am challenging. If my challenge is correct, then gravity is not irrelevant to electric star models or plasma cosmology. My challenge is thus on topic, no matter how much you want to ignore it.

 

[Arthur Mann]

So we are required to ignore a force of nature to discuss your "theory"?

If you can generate gravity, or amplify it, or block it, then I'll entertain the notion that it's real. Can you store gravity? Can you empty an object of gravity? Is there any experimental verification of this imagined force? I don't suggest attraction does not take place in the universe, I merely point out that "gravity" is a serious misunderstanding. Like Ptolemy's epicycles, it is not a valid pedagogical model, even though it may produce the right answer. And Ptolemy's epicycles were actually better at that, even here on the surface of Earth where gravity seems to work most of the time, it still fails, and it always fails when we apply it to space. Galaxies don't obey gravitational "laws", because they are plasmas, not because they have "unobservable" stuff all in them exactly where needed to "fix" gravity models. I suggest to you that most of what you think constitutes "science" is a collection of fables and wishful thinking based on millennia of uninformed caveman-style bias.

 

[Arthur Mann]

the observed fact that the solar wind consists of electrons and ions moving both awaz from the sun?

Repeatedly claiming that this is an "observed fact" will not make it so. Cite these observations.

 

[dasmiller]

Your belief is quite common, I'd venture to say it's almost exactly as common as belief in imaginary deities. Are you prepared to cite consensus as one of the fundamental tenets of science? If not, we may safely dismiss this.

Wow. Just wow. Your best argument for proving that the conventional gravity model is wrong is . . . it's popular?

Why would I not take this as a concession that my description was correct?

Let's assume we wanted to contradict your position, though. I take it that it is also your belief that the sun is a ball of gaseous material. Can you show some experiments that demonstrate gases held together by their own gravity?

Gravity is quite well-demonstrated in small-scale laboratory experiments, and when we scale the resulting models up to large scales, the models show that large quantities of hot gas (say, 10^30 kg) should compress themselves quite nicely.

And I know that you're a big fan of using large scale factors on laboratory experiments.

Let's take it even a step further, to re-examine your initial assumptions. Can you generate gravity?

I'm creating gravitational attraction even as we speak. About 800N of force on the Earth, 2x10^-9 N on that coffee cup to my left.

Can you block it or amplify it? Can you manipulate it in any fashion?

Sure, just a second.

There, I moved closer to the coffee cup. I'm now exerting about 6x10^-9 N on it.

If you can't, that suggests quite strongly that it is fictional.

I've found that I cannot block, amplify, or manipulate the island of Madagascar. Should I conclude that it's fictional?

 

[tusenfem]

You think gravity is real? Go prove it in another thread. This thread is about the electric star model, which supposes that the entire universe is filled with plasmas, negligibly affected by gravity. It isn't just me that's ignoring gravity, over 99% of the observable universe routinely does so.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed uncivil remark

In Cosmical Electrodynamics the

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed uncivil remark

Alfvén discusses gravity!!

Page 115:
As a very simple illustration of an unstable configuration we may
consider a dense fluid superposed on a less dense fluid, the two fluids
being separated by a horizontal boundary, and gravity—or an inertia
field—pointing downward .

However, as EU is usually more in love with Cosmic Plasma we go to that book and see:

Page 106:
P1.10 .1 .4 . Gravitation
Gravitation is, of course, one of the dominating forces in astrophysics . However, as electromagnetic forces are stronger by a factor of 10^39 , gravitation is important only when electromagnetic forces neutralize each other, as is the case for large bodies . In our solar system, gravitational forces do not seem to be of primary importance in producing high energy phenomena.


But wait wait wait, this cannot be true!!!! What is Hannes saying here "electromagnetic forces neutralizing each other" it cannot be, he must have a delirium.

Or on page 122:
Applying this to our problem, we conclude that the `expulsion' of an externally energized magnetic field in a cloud is a complicated process which can be understood only if we know the conditions in the whole circuit . The circuit may keep the cloud magnetized until the power of the whole circuit is dissipated there . Should, however, gravitational forces begin to dominate the contraction of the cloud, a conversion of gravitational energy into circuit energy (and hence magnetic energy) is likely to take place.

I wonder, could it be that our good friend Arthur Mann does not know the scientific works by Alfvén? (and then I just forget Peratt where gravitation is discussed on pages: Gravitational force, 1, 17, 59, 60, 63, 65, 67, 285, 286, 299, 300, 325)

 

[Ziggurat]

Let's take it even a step further, to re-examine your initial assumptions. Can you generate gravity? Can you block it or amplify it? Can you manipulate it in any fashion? If you can't, that suggests quite strongly that it is fictional.

Of course we can manipulate gravity. We've been doing so for over 200 years now.

 

[sol invictus]

If you can generate gravity

As much as I can any other force, yes.

amplify it

Yes, as above.

block it

That's harder, just as the theory predicts. Incidentally the reason for that is why gravity is the only relevant force for planetary motion.

I'll entertain the notion that it's real.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed uncivil remark

I suggest to you that most of what you think constitutes "science" is a collection of fables and wishful thinking based on millennia of uninformed caveman-style bias.

Yes, I know - back to the dark ages!!

 

[tusenfem]

Repeatedly claiming that this is an "observed fact" will not make it so. Cite these observations.

How about all the data on THE ACE SCIENCE CENTER or on the Wind data centre our solar wind monitors, or you could look at the Cluster data when the spacecraft are in the solar wind, or for that case the THEMIS data.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

If you can generate gravity, or amplify it, or block it, then I'll entertain the notion that it's real. Can you store gravity? Can you empty an object of gravity? Is there any experimental verification of this imagined force? I don't suggest attraction does not take place in the universe, I merely point out that "gravity" is a serious misunderstanding. Like Ptolemy's epicycles, it is not a valid pedagogical model, even though it may produce the right answer. And Ptolemy's epicycles were actually better at that, even here on the surface of Earth where gravity seems to work most of the time, it still fails, and it always fails when we apply it to space. Galaxies don't obey gravitational "laws", because they are plasmas, not because they have "unobservable" stuff all in them exactly where needed to "fix" gravity models. I suggest to you that most of what you think constitutes "science" is a collection of fables and wishful thinking based on millennia of uninformed caveman-style bias.

One of the most certain, surely earliest, astronomical observations is that the Sun appears to be round, a circle. And it seems to not change its shape.

Fast forward to the last half century or so, and examine the quantitative results from a wide range of astronomical observations, both on the Earth's surface and from spacecraft. The conclusion (well, one conclusion) from those observations is that the Sun is a sphere, with zero oblateness (to within the observational limits) and zero second-order deviations (ditto).

How does the Electric Sun account for these observations, quantitatively?

 

[tusenfem]

Of course we can manipulate gravity. We've been doing so for over 200 years now.

I remember doing that experiment when I was a student.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

You think gravity is real? Go prove it in another thread. This thread is about the electric star model, which supposes that the entire universe is filled with plasmas, negligibly affected by gravity. It isn't just me that's ignoring gravity, over 99% of the observable universe routinely does so.

Please provide a quantitative account, based on "the electric star model", of the observed, long-term average electromagnetic spectral energy distribution of the Sun, from 350 to 700 nm.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

This thread is about the electric star model, not gravity. If you think your little idea about gravity is in some way relevant to the electric star model, try and demonstrate that. Perform experiments. Publish papers. Even interject here if you think it's warranted. Otherwise, if you don't think it's relevant to the electric star model, keep mum.

In everything published in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (I think Peratt is an executive editor of this journal), you will find (I think) only one thing with Wallace Thornhill as sole author (at least up to 2009); "Electric Stars" are two of the words in the title.

For a given spectral class - M, say, or A - what is the average value of the current at the photosphere, in amps per square metre, according to "the electric star model"?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Can you show some experiments that demonstrate gases held together by their own gravity?

Can you show some experiments that demonstrate currents producing ~3.8 x 10^26 W, in the form of electromagnetic radiation, from a sphere with a radius of ~700,000 km?

Let's take it even a step further, to re-examine your initial assumptions. Can you generate gravity? Can you block it or amplify it? Can you manipulate it in any fashion? If you can't, that suggests quite strongly that it is fictional.

Can you generate the current which you claim powers the Sun? Can you block it or amplify it? Can you manipulate it in any fashion? If you can't, that suggests quite strongly that it is fictional.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection VII

So, to start we see that the term "magnetic energy" is in fact defined in the book, despite complaints to the contrary, ...

I also never made claims about this book, ...

I present documentary evidence to the contrary, added hilite emphasis by me.

It's funny you should cite this book. Out of the hundreds of pages, and the dozens of times the authors use the term "magnetic energy", they never once define the term, just as you haven't defined it. They use this term dozens of times without ever putting forth a working definition of the term. What is "magnetic energy", Timmy-Thom?

You never cited any objective evidence to support your claim regarding the absence of a definition for "magnetic energy" in the book. On the other hand, I did, namely the index at the back of the book.

... found on page 73 by looking in the index for the subject "magnetic energy".

Did you look at the index before making your claim?

You cite various definitions, just one is contained in the book you reference, and which doesn't agree with the definition proposed by your "hyperphysics" web site.

Actually, no. I cited one and only one definition for magnetic energy, and that one and only one definition is the volume integral of the magnetic energy density. In fact, my definition of magnetic energy is not only in agreement with the definition from the hyperphysics webpage, it is in fact a necessary logical consequence of the definition from the hyperphysics website, since it is quite impossible for the total energy of a magnetic field volume to be incompatible with the integral over the volume of the magnetic field energy density.

... and how do you avoid circularity in all of these definitions?

There is no circularity. If you think otherwise, consider yourself invited to provide an objective & quantitative demonstration of this alleged circularity.

Oh, so you're defining "magnetic energy" with an equation? That's a novel approach to defining words, using math.

In physics one defines concepts in terms of equations. It is the standard practice throughout all of the physical sciences, and many non-physical sciences as well. If that bothers you, perhaps you should abandon this thread and find one where no equations are to be found.

Magnetic field lines are not even physical, they are imaginary, how can they "reconnect", or for that matter do anything real? How can you manipulate imaginary objects?

I have addressed this in the past, and see no reason to alter my opinion of nearly 2 years ago (13 Feb 2009):

The argument that magnetic field lines are without physical substance, and therefore cannot reconnect, is purely a semantic argument with no basis in physics. The lines represent the topology of the magnetic field, and the change in the topology of the magnetic field is the physical manifestation of magnetic reconnection. The phenomenological consequence is a transfer of energy from the magnetic field (which loses internal energy) to the plasma (which gains kinetic energy). As noted in the papers cited above, the observations of laboratory plasma are consistent with the predictions based on magnetic reconnection theory. Furthermore, we know that double layers are not involved, because the topology of the field is observable before, during and after reconnection, so double layers would be obviously visible. Furthermore, the result of a collapsing double layer is observationally distinguishable from that of reconnection. The observations in fact are consistent with the latter, and inconsistent with the former.

[ ... ]

Magnetic reconnection, as a physical phenomenon, regardless of the argument over words, is an integral & fundamental aspect of plasma physics. Denying the validity of magnetic reconnection is quite the same as simply denying the validity of laboratory plasma physics altogether.

 

[Tubbythin]

Close, but false.

Close and true in fact.

Actually the opposite is the case, no experiment has ever verified this supposed "neutrino" flux from the sun. Researchers who do claim success announce that they've found only a third of the neutrinos required by the "standard model". Do they let this falsify the model? No. They invent new "flavors" of neutrinos, and announce that some of them are changing "flavors" en route from the sun.

They didn't invent new flavours at all. The others flavours have to exist otherwise the Standard model (of particle physics) is completely and utterly wrong. And probably energy and momentum conservation too. And they don't announce that some of them are changing flavours. They observe that some of them are changing flavours for solar neutrinos. They also observe that some of them are changing flavour from atmospheric neutrinos. They observe that they are changing flavour from nuclear reactor neutrinos too. Anf finally, if that wasn't enough, they observe changes in flavour from those produced by beams in labs too (like the MINOS experiment I linked). These results give very good agreement.

Their "proof"? They detect neutrinos by "flavor" and find an exact 1-1 ratio for all three "flavors"! How convenient.

Not conveinient, expected. You have a model that predicts given some number X, some other number Y. If the actual value of Y differs from the expected value of Y then you have a problem. It either means your model is wrong or that your input value is X wrong. Now, we have three sources, completely independent of the solar neutrino data, that illustrate that the value of X was wrong. When we sub in the corrected value of X (using these three independent sources) we get a value of Y that is in good agreement with the observed value. This is a very nice illustration of the reliability of the model.

This reeks of ad hoc invention, and is not how science is waged.

No, it reeks of the wrong input value to the model. If it were an ad hoc intervention we wouldnt see the same effect from atmospheric, reactor and beam produced neutrinos. That is THREE independent sources.

Scientists allow their models to be falsified. If your model predictions are off by an order of magnitude, your model is likely utterly wrong.[/QUOTE]
Err. You think a factor of 3 constitutes an order of magnitude? No wonder you're struggling to produce any quantitative answers!

 

[Tubbythin]

You're right, and I'm not going to answer it, because it's an irrelevant distraction.

This thread is about the electric star model, not gravity. If you think your little idea about gravity is in some way relevant to the electric star model, try and demonstrate that. Perform experiments. Publish papers. Even interject here if you think it's warranted. Otherwise, if you don't think it's relevant to the electric star model, keep mum.

Of course its relevant. As that simple calculation that you repeatedly refuse to do would show. Don't blame others for you repeated failure to do a simple calculation.

 

[Tubbythin]

You think gravity is real? Go prove it in another thread. This thread is about the electric star model, which supposes that the entire universe is filled with plasmas, negligibly affected by gravity.

Except it isn't negligibly affected by gravity. And you have completely failed time after time after time to provide any quantiative evidence to the contrary.

It isn't just me that's ignoring gravity, over 99% of the observable universe routinely does so.

No it doesn't, as the nice, straightforward calculation I suggested would illustrate.

 

[Tubbythin]

Can you manipulate it in any fashion?

Yes.

 

[Tubbythin]

I remember doing that experiment when I was a student.

Me too. I hated it.

 

[Tubbythin]

Because Tim already defined it. It's the same definition that pretty much every textbook uses. I can even cite several, from undergraduate general physics to graduate electrodynamics, including the page number, if you really care.

One can add (Sears and Zemansky's) University Physics (with Modern Physics) 11th Edition by Young & Freedman, p 1157 to that list.