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

[Arthur Mann]

Erm, yes you are.

False.

I'm not inclined to tell people over and over again that they are simply wrong. I don't enjoy it. I'm the only one in this discussion who's in a position to make statements of fact about what I'm inclined to do. You are in no position to and have no basis to challenge or contradict me. The rest of the participants in the discussion only know about what I'm inclined to do that which I'm inclined to tell them. in other words, all they know about it is hearsay.

 

[Arthur Mann]

Pardon?

a polite way of saying pound sand

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm under no obligation to justify anything I say to anyone. If I do so, consider it a courtesy.

You're on a science forum. IF you're not going to justify your assertions on a science forum the logical conclusion is that you are a troll. Personally, I consider this even worse than repeating unsupported assertions. NO, I have better things to do right now than feed trolls.

 

[Arthur Mann]

IF you're not going to justify your assertions on a science forum the logical conclusion is that you are a troll.

Which assertions? Do you even remember what it is you disagree with? You've spent so much time telling me all the dishonest and terrible things you think I'm doing and I really do think you've lost sight of whatever it is that got you riled in the first place. Why don't you retrace your steps, and see if you can come up with these assertions you so vehemently disagree with. Then read the explanations I've provided and pursue the avenues of research I outline if you want to learn more. If you still think I'm wrong at least you'll be able to tell me exactly what it is I'm wrong about, instead of just "everything".

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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?

This is one (of four, the others are posts #791 to 793) posts in which I asked you questions about the electric sun/star idea you have been posting about, in this thread, Arthur Mann.

I did not see any response from you (if you did, would you please give the post#?); would you please respond?

[NOTE to mods (and anyone else): is this an appropriate way to re-ask a question, relevant to the thread, that seems to have been overlooked? If not, what is an appropriate way to do that?]

 

[Perpetual Student]

Arthur Mann:
I have been making a considerable effort to understand these EU theories of yours. Am I correct in concluding that, in your view, what we experience as gravity is an emergent property of electrical forces? The link you provided in post # 812 includes the following:

What is gravity?
Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons.[18] The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies. The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause. The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity (one thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion times less than the electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field.

So, do I understand this correctly? You are not denying the existence of the force we call gravity. However, you do not view it as a fundamental force because, in your view, it is due to the electrical forces described above?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Arthur Mann:
I have been making a considerable effort to understand these EU theories of yours. Am I correct in concluding that, in your view, what we experience as gravity is an emergent property of electrical forces? The link you provided in post # 812 includes the following:


So, do I understand this correctly? You are not denying the existence of the force we call gravity. However, you do not view it as a fundamental force because, in your view, it is due to the electrical forces described above?

Could we create a separate gravity thread for that discussion?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I find this response quite confusing. You claim that gravity does not exist and so electrical phenomena are responsible for effects like my weight. I stated the well known Newtonian equation that would determine the force I would feel due to gravity, which we commonly interpret as weight. Since you claim that gravity does not exist, and electrical stuff is really causing my weight, I am asking you to provide the correct electrical configuration and accompanying mathematics to account for my weight. In what way is that off topic?

In this thread, yes.

Frankly I'd love to hear his answer myself, *BUT IN A DIFFERENT THREAD*.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Dear Mr. Spock,

Where did we leave off, and where would you like to pick up the conversation?

I'd like to focus on Dungey's paper if you don't mind, and talk a bit about the PURPOSE behind the criteria Alfven discussed in terms of where 'MR' theory should or should not apply. Does that sound reasonable?

Have you had a chance to look at current density at N in Dungey's presentation?

 

[GeeMack]

Could we create a separate gravity thread for that discussion?

In this thread, yes.

Frankly I'd love to hear his answer myself, *BUT IN A DIFFERENT THREAD*.

It's on topic for this thread. There is an alleged electric Sun "model" in which gravity is critical to the supposed explanation, and another alleged electric Sun "model" in which the consideration of gravity's relevance is, how was that phrased, "an obscene mockery of science." Which of these wholly contradictory "models" matches each of the "models" allegedly proposed by Peratt, Birkeland, Alfvén, Dungey, and Bruce? Provide citations to the specific comments these folks made regarding how gravity played into their "models". Cite or show the calculations that each of them applied to their consideration of gravity and explain its relevance to their alleged opinions about an electric Sun.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's on topic for this thread.

No, it is NOT on topic for *THIS* thread. Bruce did not propose a unique energy source, nor did Dungey. You're blowing smoke.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Michael Mozina

Posts: 5,658 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student
Arthur Mann:
I have been making a considerable effort to understand these EU theories of yours. Am I correct in concluding that, in your view, what we experience as gravity is an emergent property of electrical forces? The link you provided in post # 812 includes the following:


So, do I understand this correctly? You are not denying the existence of the force we call gravity. However, you do not view it as a fundamental force because, in your view, it is due to the electrical forces described above?

Could we create a separate gravity thread for that discussion?

I was merely asking for clarification of a link posted by Arthur Mann that is very relevant to this thread because it deals with the force that binds the sun.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I was merely asking for clarification of a link posted by Arthur Mann that is very relevant to this thread because it deals with the force that binds the sun.

We seem to be drifting very far away from the original topics of flares, and basic electric solar theory. Since Dungey and Bruce never proposed any unique energy sources for *THEIR* theories, I see no purpose in associating these two conversations, and I see every logical reason to keep them separate.

 

[GeeMack]

No, it is NOT on topic for *THIS* thread. Bruce did not propose a unique energy source, nor did Dungey. You're blowing smoke.

The incivility and the ignorance of the relevant question asked is, as always, noted.

Forward: This thread is the electric Sun thread. There is an alleged electric Sun "model" in which gravity is critical to the supposed explanation, and another alleged electric Sun "model" in which the consideration of gravity's relevance is, how was that phrased, "an obscene mockery of science." Gravity and the implications of how it affects all things solar and supposedly electric is on topic.

So the question which was ignored is... which of these wholly contradictory "models" matches each of the "models" allegedly proposed by Peratt, Birkeland, Alfvén, Dungey, and Bruce? Provide citations to the specific comments these folks made regarding how gravity played into their "models". Cite or show the calculations that each of them applied to their consideration of gravity and explain its relevance to their alleged opinions about an electric Sun.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I was merely asking for clarification of a link posted by Arthur Mann that is very relevant to this thread because it deals with the force that binds the sun.

OK, fair enough, I will cease and desist, but I would like Mann to answer this one last question about the (apparently) emergent force "gravity." If the discussion persists I will start a new thread.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Dear Mr. Spock,

Where did we leave off, and where would you like to pick up the conversation?

According to Wal Thornhill, a prominent proponent of the electric universe and electric sun, those "theories" require us to reject conventional theories of gravity, both Newtonian and Einsteinian. I think we ought to pick up the conversation there.

I'd like to focus on Dungey's paper if you don't mind, and talk a bit about the PURPOSE behind the criteria Alfven discussed in terms of where 'MR' theory should or should not apply. Does that sound reasonable?

No. It took you a long time even to admit the relevance of magnetic reconnection to Dungey's paper. To be honest, I think you'd slow us up if you tried to discuss MR further. Let's discuss the more elementary issues first, such as the role of gravity in electric universe and electric sun theory.

Could we create a separate gravity thread for that discussion?

According to Thornhill, you can't really discuss electric sun theory without discussing gravity, so I don't see the point of a separate thread:

The confusion about any role for electricity in celestial dynamics has come about because of our ignorance of the electrical nature of matter and of gravity.

That's from the paper/essay/blog to which your colleague Arthur Mann drew our attention:

I'll do even better than that, I'll give you a link to a document that may help you learn this information:

here

Thank you, Arthur Mann. Here's a full citation for those that haven't yet bothered to follow Arthur Mann's link:

Wallace Thornhill. Electric gravity in an electric universe. Alleged to be "shortened and modified from a presentation given in Cambridge, England, in September 2007." 22 August 2008. Online at Thornhill's web site:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

Some more excerpts:

The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass strongly suggests that the force of gravity is a manifestation of the electric force....

....It means that Einstein's special theory of relativity, that prohibits signalling faster than light, must be repealed. A recent experiment verifies this....

....Celestial bodies are born electrically polarized from a plasma z-pinch or by core expulsion from a larger body. The 2,000-fold difference in mass of the proton and neutron in the nucleus versus the electron means that gravity will maintain charge polarization by offsetting the nucleus within each atom....

It's quite short. A more complete discussion of gravity will have to take place in another thread, let's try to stay on topic here.

How could we possibly discuss electric sun theory without addressing its dismissal of gravity? Suppose, for example, that Arthur Mann is right about gravity being fictional, and Michael Mozina is right about the sun being strongly charged? In that case, what force could possibly hold the sun together in the face of Coulomb's law?

Those are serious questions, and any serious theory of an electric sun must attempt to answer them.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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.

This is one post in which I asked you questions about the electric sun/star idea you have been posting about, in this thread, Arthur Mann.

I did not see any response from you (if you did, would you please give the post#?); would you please respond?

 

[Michael Mozina]

According to Wal Thornhill, a prominent proponent of the electric universe and electric sun, those "theories" require us to reject conventional theories of gravity, both Newtonian and Einsteinian. I think we ought to pick up the conversation there.

Well, I don't reject any theories of gravity, either Newtonian theory or Einstein's theories so that's pretty much a non starter.

No. It took you a long time even to admit the relevance of magnetic reconnection to Dungey's paper.

Um, excuse me? *I* am the one that found that paper! I specifically selected it *BECAUSE* it relates back to the word 'reconnection" which he uses, but it's not simply 'magnetic lines" doing that 'reconnecting".

To be honest, I think you'd slow us up if you tried to discuss MR further. Let's discuss the more elementary issues first, such as the role of gravity in electric universe and electric sun theory.

We don't have much to debate in those areas as far as I know unless you reject GR theory of course.

According to Thornhill, you can't really discuss electric sun theory without discussing gravity, so I don't see the point of a separate thread:

Well, what's the point of you and I discussing GR theory if we both agree it (correctly) applies to the sun?

I need to grab a cup of coffee. BRB.

 

[GeeMack]

Well, what's the point of you and I discussing GR theory if we both agree it (correctly) applies to the sun?

There is an alleged electric Sun "model" in which gravity is critical to the supposed explanation, and another alleged electric Sun "model" in which the consideration of gravity's relevance is has been called "an obscene mockery of science." Which of these wholly contradictory "models" matches each of the "models" allegedly proposed by Peratt, Birkeland, Alfvén, Dungey, and Bruce? Provide citations to the particular comments these folks made regarding how gravity played into their "models". Cite or show the calculations that each of them applied to their consideration of gravity and explain its relevance to their alleged opinions about an electric Sun.

 

[Michael Mozina]

There is an alleged electric Sun "model" in which gravity is critical to the supposed explanation, and another alleged electric Sun "model" in which the consideration of gravity's relevance is has been called "an obscene mockery of science." Which of these wholly contradictory "models" matches each of the "models" allegedly proposed by Peratt, Birkeland, Alfvén, Dungey, and Bruce? Provide citations to the particular comments these folks made regarding how gravity played into their "models". Cite or show the calculations that each of them applied to their consideration of gravity and explain its relevance to their alleged opinions about an electric Sun.

I won't bother rounding up citations, but *ALL* of them accept the tenets of gravity theory as far as I know. Bruce, Dungey, Peratt and Alfven all used a "plasma" solar model. Only Birkeland's model was a 'cathode' solar model that could be either plasma or a solid. AFAIK, Bruce, Dungey both began with a 'standard solar model' in terms of the total energy output. Only Peratt and Alfven's views *REQUIRED* an external power source. There's not much information as to how much energy would necessarily need to come from an external source in the case of Alfven (or Peratt) AFAIK. To my knowledge *ALL* of them presume at least *SOME* local energy production. None of them, not even Birkeland ruled out fusion as an energy source.