• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well that was the case referenced. How do you build up this “circuit energy” particular in an area that is very conductive? “reaching a critical point”? Sounds like a breakdown. What is breaking down? If it is something that does not easily permit the flow of charges through it (an insulator) and can be polarized, then it would meet the definition of a dielectric.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

The insulation aspect is related to the PINCH effect, as in the "release" process actually. The pinch process evacuates the area around the filament, creating an (relatively) insulated region directly around the filament. Since the filament is dense, and the surrounding material is more like a vacuum, the current continues to seek the path of least resistance along the filament, not into the surrounding regions that have been evacuated of plasma.

The pinch also causes the process to 'break down" once the current becomes critical. If the pinch is too strong, it will literally pinch the thread so hard it pinches it apart! Once that happens the whole thing erupts and all the circuit energy is discharged into the surrounding plasma.
 
Here is how how Alfven explains the insulation aspect and the pinch effect:

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."
 
*IN A PLASMA*, anytime we take *STORED* electromagnetic energy and turn it into particle kinetic energy, it is an "electrical discharge". As The Man explained, the term "discharge" infers a gradual or fast release of that stored energy. In a *PLASMA*, that release is typically 'fast', not "gradual". and it has the effect on the surrounding plasma that Peratt describes in his definition.

Anytime we take 'stored' EM energy and we "discharge" that energy into a plasma we will get "particle kinetic energy' and the effects described by Peratt. Is that clear enough? I am really trying.

Acctualy what I also said was,


…in general without any breakdown the discharge takes as long as the charging did.


So if the charging is happening over some extended period of time and the discharging occurs comparatively rapidly, this would be indicative of some kind of breakdown or more specifically a significant change in the system. Oh I don’t know, like say a change in the magnetic field topology leading to a rapid release of energy stored over a period of time in the magnetic field. Who would have guessed, solar flares from magnetic reconnection!?!?!!
 
Acctualy what I also said was,…in general without any breakdown the discharge takes as long as the charging did.

I'm sure that's true in many/most cases, but in this specific case that isn't the case. The single loop/circuit can be stable over a period of days, whereas the pinch in the filament that creates the current disruption is virtually (comparatively) instantaneous.

So if the charging is happening over some extended period of time and the discharging occurs comparatively rapidly, this would be indicative of some kind of breakdown or more specifically a significant change in the system.

Yes. At the point of the filament that has been "pinched" apart, the current has been disrupted.

Oh I don’t know, like say a change in the magnetic field topology

It would also be a change in the "circuit" topology as well and the "current" topology as well.

leading to a rapid release of energy stored over a period of time in the magnetic field. Who would have guessed, solar flares from magnetic reconnection!?!?!!

Well, if you want to call the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy "magnetic reconnection" rather than "induction" as Alfven did, I can't stop you, but either way, it's a "discharge" that releases a lot of high energy photons.
 
Last edited:
The insulation aspect is related to the PINCH effect, as in the "release" process actually. The pinch process evacuates the area around the filament, creating an (relatively) insulated region directly around the filament. Since the filament is dense, and the surrounding material is more like a vacuum, the current continues to seek the path of least resistance along the filament, not into the surrounding regions that have been evacuated of plasma.

How does this “PINCH effect” develop? What force or forces “evacuates the area around the filament” and confines the current to that reduced cross sectional area?


The pinch also causes the process to 'break down" once the current becomes critical. If the pinch is too strong, it will literally pinch the thread so hard it pinches it apart! Once that happens the whole thing erupts and all the circuit energy is discharged into the surrounding plasma.

Where was that energy stored? How is it released when discharged and to where?


Here is how how Alfven explains the insulation aspect and the pinch effect:


What you mean this last line..
This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities.

Hardly an explanation and simply an assertion that it “may” “produce regions of exceptionally low densities”.

Where is your EM energy stored? How is it accumulated? What conditions change to go from an accumulation to a sudden release? How and to where is your EM energy released?
 
My apologies. Since I equate a flare and a discharge as one and the same process, I inadvertently used the term "flare", when I meant to use the term "discharge". I'd say that was a Freudian slip on my part. :) Sorry. :)

No problem I expected as much, but don’t you see that is actually all you have done, just try to equate “a flare and a discharge”? It really has no probative or explanatory value much like equating my car with something that uses gasoline. Very easy and trivial to do because my car does use gasoline, just as a large explosion on the sun (a solar flare) is a discharge of particles and energy from the sun.
 
I'm sure that's true in many/most cases, but in this specific case that isn't the case. The single loop/circuit can be stable over a period of days, whereas the pinch in the filament that creates the current disruption is virtually (comparatively) instantaneous.

Well by all means please, show your work.


Yes. At the point of the filament that has been "pinched" apart, the current has been disrupted.

So where is the sudden release of EM energy and from where was it released.


It would also be a change in the "circuit" topology as well and the "current" topology as well.

Fine, by all means please show such a change in “"circuit" topology” and how it results in the release of energy. Do you really understand what the word topology means? How exactly are you applying it to your “circuit”? Do you have a “circuit” yet?


Well, if you want to call the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy "magnetic reconnection" rather than "induction" as Alfven did, I can't stop you, but either way, it's a "discharge" that releases a lot of high energy photons.

Well, If you just want to keep simply ignoring the specific changes in magnetic field topology that magnetic reconnection specifically refers to, I can’t stop you, but it still doesn’t change how that energy is stored and released as result of that changing topology.
 
Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection X

Well, If you just want to keep simply ignoring the specific changes in magnetic field topology that magnetic reconnection specifically refers to, I can’t stop you, but it still doesn’t change how that energy is stored and released as result of that changing topology.
Of course he will ignore that particular source of stored energy.
It seems to me that whether or not one wishes to call the hot plasma an "electrical discharge" is not really the point. It is certainly a poor choice of words, designed to generate confusion in the absence of a constantly repeated definition. But the real issue is the physics that underlies the words. What physically is really happening is the point. This is where Mozina runs into the brick wall of physics and catastrophically fails the test. He rejects magnetic reconnection in favor of exploding double layers, even though physics rejects the latter in favor of the former. He rejects the frozen flux approximation for magnetic fields in a plasma even though physics requires it. These two points are the most fundamental and critical points in this entire discussion. Everything in the physics of coronal heating, coronal loops, flares & CME's stems from these two critical concepts (with some thermodynamics & radiative transfer thrown in, but they don't yet seem to be points of contention).
As long as Mozina rejects these two critical concepts of physics, magnetic reconnection and the frozen flux approximation, then this discussion and all other similar discussions everywhere are doomed at once to become infinite loops of the same thing over & over & over & over again, ad infinitum, as has become the case for this discussion. Quite simply it's Mozina vs. physics, and I choose physics over Mozina every time.
 
Total, complete, unmitigated garbage. It's based on Jeurgen's deeply unphysical charged sun idea.
Thanks for your opinion but I asked for an analysis of Scotts work.

Note the complete lack of any numbers associated with anything on those figures.
Have you got any actual values to plug into it? (Don’t use values from your electrostatic model of the Sun, you know it’s the wrong one to use)

The figure demonstrates an idea in an hypnosis’s, what's wrong with that?
You are wrong - the model is a plasma physics one.
You are wrong - the model is a electric universe/plasma cosmology one
I do hope that you are not as ignorant as another poster in this thread and can tell the difference between
  • the physical system that Alfven is modeling and that he states is a magnetic flux tube filled with plasma (a coronal loop) and a sunspot (also made of plasma).
  • the theoretical model used to describe the plasma physics.
Alfven believed that the theory behind magnetic reconnection was inadequate to model solar flares. IMO he was right - in 1986 but science has progressed and he is no longer right.
Thus he proposed a different plasma physics mechanism - the double layer. He modelled a coronal loop using an electronic circuit as in the previous figure (not Scott's imaginary image) and added a DL.
I think it’s ignorant to ignore Alfven’s warning:

Alfvén’s Warning
“In February 1981, eleven years after Swedish electrical engineer Hannes Alfvén won the Nobel Prize in Physics, he published yet another book.[4] This one was called Cosmic Plasma.[5] By disregarding Alfvén’s new text, as they had his earlier works, the astrophysics community did not heed his warnings that they were working their way down a dead-end path strewn with errors of understanding. The complicated maze that astrophysics has become in the last few years is a direct result of years of ignoring Alfvén’s work and his advice. Hannes Alfvén is the central figure in the emerging electric plasma cosmology.

All our space probes that have been equipped to detect separated electrical charges –electric plasma – have found it, lots of it. The behavior of these plasma clouds is scalable, that is to say, giant cosmic plasmas behave in much the same way (obey the same physical laws) that small laboratory plasmas do here on Earth. Therefore we are able to create accurate models of cosmic-scale phenomena in the lab and study them.”
There is no electric sun model. There is an idea from Scott that is rather idiotic. The Sun is not a giant lightbulb. Quite comprehgensively debunked in "The Electric Sky, Short-Circuited" by W.T. Bridgman
Wrong:

D. E. Scott Rebuts T. Bridgman
“It should be understood that if there are criticisms made by him that I have apparently neglected to address in detail in my comments here, it should not be assumed I have no response to them. At this point, I‘m tired of wading through his half-truths, misunderstandings, ad hominem cuts, pseudo-intellectual swagger, and ignorance of most things electromagnetic.

Because I see no willingness on Bridgman‘s part to discuss things calmly, with mutual respect, he remains, in my view, simply one more pseudo-skeptic who claims to know-it-all – not an open minded scientist.

Nemo me impune lacessit.”
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/RebutTB.pdf

The Electric Sky
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm


Something About Tom Bridgman by Stephen J. Crothers
“W. T. "Tom" Bridgman claims to be an astronomer, who owns and maintains a website where he, as a Defender of the Realm, with its black holes, big bangs, Einstein gravitational waves, dark matter, dark energy, and dark forces, disparages and ridicules people he sees as enemies of proponents of the current dogmas in astronomy and astrophysics. He has clearly revealed that he is not at all interested in true scientific discourse. For this reason it is doubtful that Bridgman will ever contribute anything original to science. Perhaps that is why he instead regurgitates the usual dogmas and attacks people who think for themselves”
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Bridgman.html

The electric universe
“One common misconception is that Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe are completely separate theories, they are actually complementary to each other. Electricity in space is a consequence of the abundance of plasma that is now known to fill space.

While they share more similarities than differences, it should be noted that EU ideas tend to go a step further than the generally more conservative approach of Plasma Cosmology.”
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread322356/pg1
You first - start by citing all of the scientific papers that Scott has published on the hypothesis that you read during your analysis.
OK

A Solar Junction Transistor Mechanism
Abstract “Observational evidence suggests the presence of a plasma double layer (DL) above the surface of the Sun. Such a DL, together with a single charge layer (SL) directly below it, provides a straight-forward explanation for the existence of the temperature minimum in the lower corona, the X-ray emissions observed above sunspots, and the variations observed in the intensity of the solar wind.”
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=4346305
Here it is in full:
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf

More papers by Scott? Here are 256 pages of papers for you to consider:
http://www.mikamar.biz/book-info/tes-a.htm

I do not thank you for posting an image fronm a crank web site. ThIS is the science section of the forum. Please stick to published scientific material.
That's quite pompous of you. New ideas are part of the scientific process (or supposed to be) but it's become the religious zealots of established science trying to repel the new upstart heretical ideas.

Peer-review
“The point is, the real peer review is from the public that reads his book. This public is much larger than the public that reads a specialized academic journal.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north636.html
 
Thanks for your opinion but I asked for an analysis of Scotts work.

And I gave you one. Follow the link. Scott bases his idea on Jeurgens' ideas, and Jeurgens' ideas are garbage. As my link shows.

Have you got any actual values to plug into it?

Nobody seems to. Because there's no way to put in numbers which will work. By avoiding numbers, Scott avoids being proven wrong.

(Don’t use values from your electrostatic model of the Sun, you know it’s the wrong one to use)

But you can't actually demonstrate why. You can't show how adding dynamics can change any of the conclusions I reached.

The figure demonstrates an idea in an hypnosis’s, what's wrong with that?

After decades of peddling this stuff, an "idea" is all they've got?

And we're supposed to be impressed?

Like I said before, NOBODY on the EU side can come up with any possible mechanism other than core fusion by which to power the sun. Electromagnetism simply cannot sustain the necessary power output. Nothing other than fusion can, and core fusion is the only way to make sustainable fusion on that scale. End of story.
 
Was a dielectric breakdown a *REQUIREMENT* or did it claim a discharges cannot occur in a plasma?



Don't even get me started. *YOU* could and *SHOULD* have cleared this up a long time ago by stepping in with your so called "expertise" and pointing out that discharges can and do occur in a plasma. Since you didn't and never have stated such a thing and explained that to your cohorts, we've been on a denial go round for MONTHS! Talk about stall tactics! You have NOTHING to complain about.

**I** cannot help that YOU do not "read" any significant 'messages'

Then again I have already said, the discussion about discharge is totally utterly useless, and I have claimed in huge letters somewhere that:

from now on a discharge is a current in a plasma, discussion closed

I guess you missed that too about 10 pages back.
 
This explanation from Scott settles it for me and see Alfvens Solar Prominence Circuit "Exploding DL produces Solar Flare" ;)
(my bold)

well any page claiming the nonsense that:

Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven, although not aware of the Juergens Electric Sun model, advanced his own theory (3) of how prominences and solar flares are formed electrically. It is completely consistent with the Juergens model. It too is electrical.

can be rejected immediately. Please look up the problem with the Juergens model that I linked to paaaaaaaaaages ago.

First of all, Juergens never published this model, and secondly, the ES nutters have then decided to write it for him.

Care to show that Juergens' model of the ES has any merit, Haig?

I don't think so.
 
Thanks for your opinion but I asked for an analysis of Scotts work.

Have you got any actual values to plug into it? (Don’t use values from your electrostatic model of the Sun, you know it’s the wrong one to use)
He quotes a voltage. How can that voltage be sustained on the Sun?

The figure demonstrates an idea in an hypnosis’s, what's wrong with that?
You are wrong - the model is a electric universe/plasma cosmology one
I think it’s ignorant to ignore Alfven’s warning:

Alfvén’s Warning
“In February 1981, eleven years after Swedish electrical engineer Hannes Alfvén won the Nobel Prize in Physics, he published yet another book.[4] This one was called Cosmic Plasma.[5] By disregarding Alfvén’s new text, as they had his earlier works, the astrophysics community did not heed his warnings that they were working their way down a dead-end path strewn with errors of understanding. The complicated maze that astrophysics has become in the last few years is a direct result of years of ignoring Alfvén’s work and his advice. Hannes Alfvén is the central figure in the emerging electric plasma cosmology.
If you're going to quote somebody then cite who you are quoting. Unless of course Alfven was talking about himself in the third person.

All our space probes that have been equipped to detect separated electrical charges –electric plasma – have found it, lots of it. The behavior of these plasma clouds is scalable, that is to say, giant cosmic plasmas behave in much the same way (obey the same physical laws) that small laboratory plasmas do here on Earth. Therefore we are able to create accurate models of cosmic-scale phenomena in the lab and study them.”
And how do they include the effects of gravity in the laboratory?

Wrong:

D. E. Scott Rebuts T. Bridgman
“It should be understood that if there are criticisms made by him that I have apparently neglected to address in detail in my comments here, it should not be assumed I have no response to them. At this point, I‘m tired of wading through his half-truths, misunderstandings, ad hominem cuts, pseudo-intellectual swagger, and ignorance of most things electromagnetic.

Because I see no willingness on Bridgman‘s part to discuss things calmly, with mutual respect, he remains, in my view, simply one more pseudo-skeptic who claims to know-it-all – not an open minded scientist.
Was that meant to be a rebuttal? Where was the physics?

Wow. Excellent way to makke a pdf completely unreadable.

Is the rest of the discussions linked to on that page as poor as the neutrino analysis? If it is I really wouldn't be using it to back up claims. Its up to you though, of course.

Something About Tom Bridgman by Stephen J. Crothers
“W. T. "Tom" Bridgman claims to be an astronomer, who owns and maintains a website where he, as a Defender of the Realm, with its black holes, big bangs, Einstein gravitational waves, dark matter, dark energy, and dark forces, disparages and ridicules people he sees as enemies of proponents of the current dogmas in astronomy and astrophysics. He has clearly revealed that he is not at all interested in true scientific discourse. For this reason it is doubtful that Bridgman will ever contribute anything original to science. Perhaps that is why he instead regurgitates the usual dogmas and attacks people who think for themselves”
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Bridgman.html
Yeah, lets throw in emotive words like dogma to disguise the fact that there is no science in this passage whatsoever.

The electric universe
“One common misconception is that Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe are completely separate theories, they are actually complementary to each other. Electricity in space is a consequence of the abundance of plasma that is now known to fill space.

While they share more similarities than differences, it should be noted that EU ideas tend to go a step further than the generally more conservative approach of Plasma Cosmology.”
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread322356/pg1
OK
You're posting this because...?

A Solar Junction Transistor Mechanism
Abstract “Observational evidence suggests the presence of a plasma double layer (DL) above the surface of the Sun. Such a DL, together with a single charge layer (SL) directly below it, provides a straight-forward explanation for the existence of the temperature minimum in the lower corona, the X-ray emissions observed above sunspots, and the variations observed in the intensity of the solar wind.”
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=4346305
Here it is in full:
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf
And can this model explain how the power output of the Sun is so high for so long. Because if it can't all the claims of observations in the world won't make it a useful model.

More papers by Scott? Here are 256 pages of papers for you to consider:
http://www.mikamar.biz/book-info/tes-a.htm
Given how shocking his neutrino analysis was, why would I bother reading any more of his work?

That's quite pompous of you. New ideas are part of the scientific process (or supposed to be) but it's become the religious zealots of established science trying to repel the new upstart heretical ideas.

Peer-review
“The point is, the real peer review is from the public that reads his book. This public is much larger than the public that reads a specialized academic journal.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north636.html

Ok. By the public do we think he means the scientific public or the general public?
 
Last edited:
And I gave you one. Follow the link. Scott bases his idea on Jeurgens' ideas, and Jeurgens' ideas are garbage. As my link shows.
That's a circular argument bringing us back to your supposed de-bunk using the wrong model for your math.
Nobody seems to. Because there's no way to put in numbers which will work. By avoiding numbers, Scott avoids being proven wrong.
Again, by using numbers in the wrong model you prove Scott wrong. brilliant logic :rolleyes:
But you can't actually demonstrate why. You can't show how adding dynamics can change any of the conclusions I reached.
Your just "adding epicycles" with each new puzzle the space probes uncover. It took over 1500 years before Ptolemy's view of the Universe was shown to be false. Why so long? maybe, because the mathematicians wouldn't let go.

Just like now?
After decades of peddling this stuff, an "idea" is all they've got?
Yes, but what an idea!

It makes sense of what we have actually found.

No need for the invention of all the invisible, unknowable, dark stuff, just to balance the math ie NO "adding epicycles".

The Electric Universe

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/electric.html

And we're supposed to be impressed?
I'm sure nothing will shake some out of their paradigm lock.

Like I said before, NOBODY on the EU side can come up with any possible mechanism other than core fusion by which to power the sun.
Yes they have (my hilite):

Fusion in the Double Layer
"The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core). The result of this fusion process are the "metals" that give rise to absorption lines in the Sun's spectrum. Traces of sixty eight of the ninety two natural elements are found in the Sun's atmosphere. Most of the radio frequency noise emitted by the Sun emanates from this region. Radio noise is a well known property of DLs. The electrical power available to be delivered to the plasma at any point is the product of the E-field (Volts per meter) times current density (Amps per square meter). This multiplication operation yields Watts per cubic meter. The current density is relatively constant over the height of the photospheric / chromospheric layers. However, the E-field is by far the strongest at the center of the DL. Nuclear fusion takes a great deal of power - and that power is available in the DL."
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

Electromagnetism simply cannot sustain the necessary power output. Nothing other than fusion can, and core fusion is the only way to make sustainable fusion on that scale. End of story.
Galactic Birkeland currents contract in a "Z" pinch to form the Sun and this current powers the fusion taking place at the top of the photosphere.

Here an explanation from Scott in his rebuttal of Bridgman

"POWERING THE SUN FROM THE OUTSIDE Starting on his page 17 Bridgman launches into a long discussion peppered with equations, tables of numbers, and diagrams, all designed to disprove the possibility of powering the Sun electrically from the outside. My reaction to it can be summarized as follows:

Whether or not Juergens was completely correct in his assertion that the Sun is totally or partially powered by external electrical excitation is really not the most important aspect of the Electric Star (ES) hypothesis. This question is one of the most controversial and speculative aspects of plasma cosmology. So it is an easy one to pick on.

What is important is that most of the phenomena we observe on and above the photospheric surface of the Sun (a partially ionized plasma) are explainable in terms of well-known properties of plasma. This is true no matter how the Sun gets its power.

Establishment astronomers appear certain about how the Sun generates its power and what is occurring deep down within it. They claim that the core of the Sun is a continuous nuclear fusion reactor. This core occupies 20% of the Sun’s radius. Surrounding the core is a radiative zone wherein heat energy is transported away from the core by photons. This zone occupies some 50% of the Sun‟s radius. Sitting on top of this structure (and occupying the remaining 30% of the radius) is another zone in which heat is carried to the surface by convection columns – very much like hot air rising from the top of a hot stove. The entire journey from the core to the surface takes between 100,000 and 200,000 years. The granulations we see on the surface of the photosphere are supposedly the tops of 150,000-mile-long “convection columns” – stable tubes of rising matter that transport heat energy up from the Sun’s core toward the surface. Presumably that matter sinks back down toward the bottom of the convection zone along the edges of the tubes.

But if this complete process actually takes many thousands of years, then why do the “granules” change shape and even disappear in a period of hours?

Next, above the photosphere, is the chromosphere, a relatively thin layer approximately 2000-3000 km in height. In comparison to the much brighter photosphere, it glows faintly in red. The standard model does not predict its existence or explain it very well.

A temperature minimum occurs just above the chromosphere. The lower regions of the Sun‟s corona, quite high above the visible surface, are millions of degrees hotter than the surface of the Sun itself. Although astrophysicists like TB scoff at the idea these observations might present serious problems for their model, others are not quite as confident. The region of the temperature minimum is called the transition zone.

Above the transition zone an extended glowing plasma structure that we can see during solar eclipses exists – the corona – it is a fully ionized plasma. Beyond the corona, an 8
invisible plasmasphere (heliosphere) extends out, many times the distance of the planet Pluto. The corona and the plasmasphere carry streams of ions and electrons that have been named the „solar wind.‟ The standard fusion model provides no fundamental reason for the existence of the chromosphere, the corona, the plasmasphere, or the solar wind. The adherents of this model do recognize these entities exist of course and have ad hoc explanations ready for them. But, if the standard (non-electrical) model were correct, heat and light ought to simply radiate away from the photosphere as from a hot stove.

The flux of ions that the Sun emits in the solar wind varies in intensity. The ion stream sometimes stops completely. How? Why? And the ions in the solar wind accelerate – their velocity increases the farther away from the Sun they get. How? Why? Again the standard model has only ad hoc explanations for these observations. The Sun rotates more rapidly at its equator than near its poles. Why? If it does operate as a Faraday (homopolar) motor as the ES model suggests, this phenomenon is completely expected."
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/RebutTB.pdf
 
You are wrong - the model is a electric universe/plasma cosmology one
You are wrong: the model is a plasma physics model.

I think it’s ignorant to ignore Alfven’s warning:

It is ignorant to not do your basic research and find out that
  1. Plasma Cosmology is invalid (e.g. the predicted x-rays are not observed).
  2. There is not such thing as "plasma cosmology" except as various sets of often mutually exclusive, mostly invalid theories picked by people using arbitary criteria.
    See Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not (no it is not woo - it just is not a cosmology).
  3. Just what "Alfven’s warning" was.
Wrong:
...snipped Scotts ad hominem attack on Bridgeman...


Wrong: W. T. Bridgman Rebuts D. E. Scott Rebuttal
A Solar Junction Transistor Mechanism
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=4346305
Here it is in full:
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/SDLIEEE.pdf

More papers by Scott? Here are 256 pages of papers for you to consider:
http://www.mikamar.biz/book-info/tes-a.htm
That is nice.
Now where is your analysis of these 256 pages of papers?
Remember - you are the one supporting the "Electric Sun" theory. It is up to you to provide the evidence for it.

That's quite pompous of you. New ideas are part of the scientific process (or supposed to be) but it's become the religious zealots of established science trying to repel the new upstart heretical ideas.
That is quite ignorant of you.
New ideas are part of the scientific process. The scientific process includes the requirement that new ideas can pass being analysed, e.g. by peer review and then the response of scientists to the published idea.

A web page by some guy who thinks that "There is nothing inherently wrong with peer review, but we should not be misled as to the nature and function of peer review. In today's academic world, its primary function is to justify access to tax money. It is the justification for the academic welfare state." He is touting some political agenda and not presenting any evidence.
The author looks like an ecomomist - Gary North (Christian Reconstructionist)
 
Last edited:
Care to show that Juergens' model of the ES has any merit, Haig?
I don't think so.
See my reply to Ziggrat. I would say the general view of EU/PC theory holds fine ;)
He quotes a voltage. How can that voltage be sustained on the Sun?
Galactic Birkeland currents
If you're going to quote somebody then cite who you are quoting. Unless of course Alfven was talking about himself in the third person.
Are you claiming Alfven didn't say these words?

I could have quote it from many sources:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/electricsky_preface.htm#awarn
And how do they include the effects of gravity in the laboratory?
I thought that would have been obvious. The effect of gravity is insignificant compared to the electromagnetic forces some x39 powers of magnitude stronger.
Was that meant to be a rebuttal? Where was the physics?
Yes and it was much better IMO than Bridgman‘s rant.
Wow. Excellent way to makke a pdf completely unreadable.
I had no trouble, what couldn't you understand?
Is the rest of the discussions linked to on that page as poor as the neutrino analysis? If it is I really wouldn't be using it to back up claims. Its up to you though, of course.
I have no problems with it ;)
Yeah, lets throw in emotive words like dogma to disguise the fact that there is no science in this passage whatsoever.
You don't think there is dogma in mainstream science?
You're posting this because...?
Information "While they share more similarities than differences, it should be noted that EU ideas tend to go a step further than the generally more conservative approach of Plasma Cosmology."
I wondered about the differences of EU and PC theory.
And can this model explain how the power output of the Sun is so high for so long. Because if it can't all the claims of observations in the world won't make it a useful model.
Galactic Birkeland currents
Given how shocking his neutrino analysis was, why would I bother reading any more of his work?
What exactly do you find shocking?
Ok. By the public do we think he means the scientific public or the general public?
The public public obviously :)

Ah! RC saw your post too late.

Sorry go to work now, see ya!

Why the Lower Corona of the Sun Is Hotter Than the Photosphere
"Notice that no mention has been made in this process of magnetic reconnection or, in fact, of any magnetic mechanism whatsoever. Strictly electric forces that occur within the double charge layer above the Sun’s surface cause the observed phenomenon.

Therefore it is clear that the Electric Sun model straightforwardly predicts the existence of the observed temperature profile and demonstrates how it occurs. If there were no temperature discontinuity, this would pose a problem for the Electric Sun hypothesis."
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100519corona.htm
 
Scott predicts that the Sun is about the size of the Earth

Fusion in the Double Layer
"The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core). "
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm
(emphasis added)
Haig: You do realize how ridiculous that sentence is?

Scott is stating that all fusion in the Sun happens at the top of the photosphere. Note the crank-like assertion without any evidence or predictions such as:
  • observations of z-pinches in the photosphere.
  • fusion happens at high temperatures. What does Scott predict the temperature of the photosphere to be to produce the observed energy output of the Sun?
    My guess would be millions of K.
And the main point: He is obviously ignorant of the fact that fusion (especially the p-p chain reaction that dominates in Sun sized stars) produces gamma rays. These are distinctive. For example gamma rays from electron-positron annihilation are only seen from solar flares.

What happens in Scott's world when a ball of hydrogen the mass of a star forms?
Using the known laws of physics, scientists can calculate that
  • The hydrogen at the center of the star will experience a certain pressure.
  • The hydrogen at the center of the star will be at a certain temperature.
  • Given that pressure and temperature, nuclear fusion will happen.
Scott requires that
  1. The physics of gases is wrong and/or
  2. Our understanding of gravity is wrong and/or
  3. Nuclear physics is wrong.
Also a thought for you Haig: What determines the size of a star?

FYI - it is the balance between the internal pressure caused by temperature and gravity. Remove the high temperatures from internal fusion and the star will shrink - see white dwarf.
Thus Scott predicts that the Sun is about the size of the Earth :jaw-dropp
 
Do not cite thunderbolts. It has a proven record of lying to its readers.
The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
Wallace Thornhill is obviously ignorant of the actual results of the mission and in a couple of cases actually lies about the results.
​
They are representing Scott's idea though. However what trust can you have in a idea that predicts that the Sun is about the size of the Earth

Of course the web page is just a lot of conjecture without any actual numbers from the idea that the corona is heated by a DL.
 
Last edited:
See my reply to Ziggrat. I would say the general view of EU/PC theory holds fine ;)

See my reply to you, and read that Juergens' model is trash.
But you would not be able to understand it, because it uses math, you rather read unsubstantiated prose for thunderdolts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom