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

[Michael Mozina]

What direction is “forward”?

It would technically be direction of travel at the moment of circuit interruption/breakdown.

Are all the particles moving in the same direction all the time or just the same average direction over some period of time?

No. Electrons and ions will have to be accounted for separately, but all the ions (where most of the mass is located) are flowing in a general direction, with about the same kinetic energy.

What is the magnitude of this “relative charge”?

It will depend on the ion at the moment it's released from the circuit and it's energy state as it departs.

What is it “relative” to?

It will be 'relative to' the ions and electrons it runs into as it exits the circuit.

How is it maintained in conductive plasma?

The ionization state is maintained *ONLY* while the circuit is whole. The moment the circuit is broken, it will no longer have the protection and direction of the EM field that "pinches" things together, and it will "fly off" in a tangent, literally.

What influence does the collapsing magnetic field have on the current flow?

While the magnetic field is there, it pinches the thread and insulates the thread from the surrounding plasma by evacuating the areas around the thread. Once that field "breaks down", nothing pinches the thread, and nothing prevents it from interacting with other ions in the surrounding plasma.

I'll try to get to the rest as I get time today.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well it's a good thing that ridiculous claim has finally been abandoned, that crazy one about solar flares and CMEs being electrical discharges like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6779664&postcount=2193

 

[The Man]

I hear you. FYI, when I say "electric sun", it does NOT mean that the sun has to be 'externally' powered by electric currents. I explained to Zig awhile back that in terms of the power supply, the internal functionality of the sun, and it's composition, Alfven and Bruce and Dungey all used a "standard" solar theory. What I personally mean by the term 'electric sun' would be any solar model that has a surface that ELECTROmagnetically interacts with the interstellar winds via the heliosphere. IMO the 'standard' solar model is in fact a 'dumbed down" (to magnetism) "electric sun" model. I can't very well exclude the standard model since Alfven used that model when creating his plasma cosmology theories.

Again welcome to the world of the standard solar model. Nothing is "'dumbed down (to magnetism)", your own assertions above and below asset to the prevailing significance of magnetic forces even just in your own descriptions.

Until the "pinch" essentially breaks the circuit, it's all one current carrying pinched filament, much like we find in an ordinary plasma ball. It's all one continuous filament until the pinch disrupts the circuit and the whole thing erupts. You're essentially asking me to what depth that filament goes, but I cannot technically answer that question. AFAIK, if the 'standard' solar model is correct, that filament could conceivably originate with the magnetic field that created it, down in the core. I can't say how 'deep' the filament goes, I can only say it's "hot/carrying lots of current" as it exits and reenters the photosphere as Wheatland's work attests.

No I'm not asking you "to what depth that filament goes" though evidently that is what you want to be asked. I'm specifically asking you what forces drive your current and "pinch" and where the originate.

The pinch effect becomes so strong, that the circuit is literally "pinched" apart by the magnetic field. It's more likely to occur *OUTSIDE* of the photosphere than inside the photosphere due to temperature and density changes outside the photosphere.

So the pinch effect confines the current and as the magnetic field collapses when the current is interrupted it continues to tend to drive that same current but can no longer confine it as before. Is it starting to be come clearer to you now?

No, evidently I'm trying to discuss too many topics at once and I'm confusing the hell out of you. My apologies.

As I said take whatever time you need, but think and understand.

A circuit oriented approach has several advantages IMO. A *SINGLE* circuit can reach temperatures and a single circuit can "erupt" without 'reconnecting' to anything else. Since these circuits are made of mobile plasma, it is possible for them to "short circuit" into other 'circuits' and all hell breaks loose. I think I"m trying to discuss too many different issues and I'm just confusing things in the process. For now, how about you and I stick to SINGLE circuit eruptions, and we'll tackle the short circuit scenario later?

Without components, values and the related physics your "circuit oriented approach" has no real advantage over simple and baseless speculation.

 

[tusenfem]

FYI, thanks, that's also very helpful. I'll take some time after work today to thoroughly review the paper so I can explain where the flaw is located, or why it's not applicable to a circuit interruption oriented theory, one or the other. FYI, we all have day jobs, so be patient.

Yeah right, some of the world's best plasma physicists developed those models and you are going to show the flaws or inappropriateness??????

 

[DSo]

Nope. Iron plasma that's so hot that it's already been ionized to a +20 state and emits photons from a +20 state that show up in SDO images is certainly not "charge neutral" as that circuit erupts and turns into "particles with individual packets of kinetic energy and charge".

When Fe reaches its +20 state, where do the electrons go?

 

[Haig]

Astronomers do not know why some stars shed their atmospheres at a furious rate.[

Compression, it is said, draws clouds of gas and dust a thousand times less dense than a puff of smoke into a region of increased density that coaxes even more material to collect there. Eventually, the atoms within the cloud can no longer resist the inward attraction and they fall into the well of nuclear fusion, initiating a self-sustaining reaction.

According to consensus opinions about stars, those that are extremely massive live fast and die young. They rapidly "fuse" their hydrogen and helium into heavier elements that, in turn, fuse into ones that are heavier still. In their senescence, the radiative emissions from such stars are thought to be so intense that they "blow away" enormous quantities of stellar material. In some cases, they lose mass up to a million times faster than our own Sun. However, that process is highly speculative.

The Electric Star hypothesis resolves many of the distorted opinions that arise when astronomers misunderstand the role of plasma and electric fields in space. Rather than gravity and kinetic activity (heated gas), radiant emanations result from electric currents. More powerful electric flux results in more powerful energetic output.

Electric discharges in plasma clouds create double layers, or sheaths, along their current axes. Positive charge builds up on one side and negative charge on the other. An electric field develops between the sides, and if enough current is applied, the sheath glows; otherwise it is invisible.

When electric currents flow along the sheaths, the currents spiral into filaments. The filaments attract each other, but rather than merging, they form zones of enormous compressive force known as z-pinches. Arc mode discharges might occur. Gravity, although it plays a small role in stellar evolution, is far too weak a force when compared to electric fields in plasma.
Since astronomers do not map the current flow through space, or consider its influence on stellar evolution, they overstate the case for gravitational models. The electrical input and output of the stars is not considered when theories are debated. By failing to give it credence, an entire line of investigation remains fallow.

Massive stars might not be so massive after all. The intense radiation that is interpreted as an "atmosphere blowing away" is most likely due to high input currents triggering frequent bursts of stellar lightning. What appears to be a giant star might be a relatively small star with a large coma structure that is emitting a torrent of charged particles. Whether such stars live short or long lives has nothing to do with their gravitational mass.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110125snap.htm

Nice explanation of how our Electric Sun came to be? (my bold)

 

[GeeMack]

FYI, thanks, that's also very helpful. I'll take some time after work today to thoroughly review the paper so I can explain where the flaw is located, or why it's not applicable to a circuit interruption oriented theory, one or the other. FYI, we all have day jobs, so be patient.

Yeah right, some of the world's best plasma physicists developed those models and you are going to show the flaws or inappropriateness??????

Indeed. This adds to the already enormous body of evidence that the electric Sun adherents are constructing their arguments without objectivity, and in a directed (and failing) effort to support a preconceived notion. The declaration that "I can explain where the flaw is located, or why it's not applicable to a circuit interruption oriented theory, one or the other" demonstrates a wholly unscientific approach. It is the antithesis of legitimate science.

 

[Reality Check]

Haig: Where are the gamma rays

He's not alone in suggesting that (my bold):

Then all these authors are wrong as you will see if you read and understood

• Scott predicts that the Sun is about the size of the Earth
• Scott's ignorance of the basics of nuclear physics
• Scott requires that we are wrong about gases, gravity and fusion

Sounds so similar to the fact that there are not enough neutrinos detected to account for the amount of fusion, theorised to take place, in the core.

Sounds so similar to the ignorance that the solar neutrino problem has been fixed: neutrino oscillations

However, the amount of neutrinos actually detected IS the right amount if fusion is occurring in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere.

Haig: Where are the gamma rays?

I've corrected that for you RC.

You are wrong:

Scott predicts that the Sun is about the size of the Earth
​

is what Scott's electric sun idea predicts. It is really simple - take away internal heating and stars collapse to the size of planets.

On a different point and for a good “Discussion of Scott - On the Sun's Electric Field” see HERE

And you are still linking to a web site that lies 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.

​

That is a terrible discussion - no actual numbers and just parroting Scott's fantasy. Six posts!

You'll find it's called a Paradigm Shift

You'll find it's called a delusion built on a profound ignorance of physics.

And just in case you are still ignorant of the other flaws in the standard model idea, Reality Check: Click HERE HERE HERE and HERE

And just in case you are still ignorant of the fatal flaws in Scott's Electric Sun idea:

• Scott predicts that the Sun is about the size of the Earth
• Scott's ignorance of the basics of nuclear physics
• Scott requires that we are wrong about gases, gravity and fusion

I am aware of seveal problems with the standard solar model (e.g. the corona heating problem). But you should try reading your links - no problems with the standard solar model are presented.
Why are you mentioning this in any case. This smacks of the usual crank ignorance of the logical fallacy of false dichotomy

Here let me help you a bit RC:

Electric Sun Verified

Here let me help you a bit Haig: Linking to crank web sites is not helping yuour case.
This is the Science section - link to the science.

Since you asked - why do you bother trying to debunk EU/PC Theory when there is so much insanity in mainstream? See Here

The question was about theses posts:

• Scott predicts that the Sun is about the size of the Earth
• Scott's ignorance of the basics of nuclear physics
• Scott requires that we are wrong about gases, gravity and fusion

As for your question you need to read more actual science rather than relying on crankweb sites.

What scientists want to be is SURPRISED! STARTLED! PERPLEXED! PUZZLED! That means that they are discovering new physics. For example Ernest Rutherford was very SURPRISED! STARTLED! PERPLEXED! PUZZLED! when alpha particles bounded back from gold foils. That discovery lead to modern atomic theory.

Some Papers to ponder:

Peer Reviewed Papers In Cosmology

The authors of that list show a lot of ignorance:

• Letters to the Editor are not peer reviewed.
• Conference proceedings are not peer reviewed.
• Editorials are not peer reviewed.

 

[Ziggurat]

However, EU/PC exponents DO say 10³⁹ IS relevant and you CAN compare the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force in MUCH larger objects because double layers (DLs) separate cells of plasma in space.

They can say it all they want to, but it's simply not true. 10³⁹ is only applicable if there is complete charge separation between electrons and protons, and that's never true on any large scale, even in the presence of double layers. Why would it be? The very fact that electromagnetism is so strong is precisely what makes complete charge separation basically impossible on any large scale.

If you want to argue that electromagnetism is stronger than gravity in a particular case where charge separation is not complete (ie, anything large), you need to actually estimate the forces of each. And people like Scott simply aren't doing that. They're doing their best to avoid ever doing calculations. Isn't that curious? Doesn't that raise any red flags for you?

Scott's conclusions in his refutation of tusenfem's calculation also show this different view.

Scott again appeals to Jeurgens' ridiculous model. And statements like this:
"6. The Electric Sun model is still in its infancy. Whether or not it is correct in each one of its details is not as important as realizing that the phenomena observable at and above the photosphere are indeed highly electrical in nature."
are pretty much meaningless, since the standard model of the sun includes electromagnetic effects. And it's not a matter of not being correct in each detail, it's a matter of not being anywhere in the ballpark on the most important "detail" of all, the power output of the sun.

I took that to mean he thought there was NO electrodynamic model per se

I take it to mean that none of the ideas of Jeurgens, Scott, or anyone else are sufficiently specified to deserve the label "model". And I have to say I agree. I can't see how any of them can ever estimate the power output of the sun.

yes, that was sloppy of me but you knew what I meant

Yes, I did. But it was low hanging fruit, you can hardly blame me for picking it.

Yes, I understand that but to rule out EU/PC theory in the face of clear evidence that supports it is wrong IMO.

I don't care how many pieces of evidence support it if one piece of evidence actually disproves it. And it looks to me like the total power output of the sun (the most important piece of evidence of all) disproves it. I certainly can't get any of the models to get anywhere close when it comes to total power output.

Consider this:

Venus radiates in the infrared with twice the energy it receives from the sun, so there must be a source for that heat.

No it doesn't. What ever made them think that?

Do they mean that it radiates twice as much IR as the IR it receives? That could very easily be true, but that's exactly the sort of thing one should expect given that the temperature difference between the sun and Venus shifts the power spectrum to lower energies (ie, the power Venus radiates is mostly IR, but the power it receives is mostly visible + UV), along with the fact that Venus receives IR from the sun over a small solid angle but radiates over all angles.

The kinetic model of weather does not take into account the fact that planets much farther out in the Solar System have sustained winds that make those on our planet seem like gentle breezes.

Why should that be in the least bit surprising?

What slows winds down is friction. Viscous friction (ie, between different parts of the atmosphere) isn't simply the result of velocity differences, but velocity gradients. Spread out the velocity difference over a larger area, and you get a smaller gradient. What's one of the big differences between the outer planets and the inner planets? They're much bigger. Which means they can spread those velocity differences over a larger distance, leading to smaller gradients. Which will allow for higher wind speeds. And of course, that's not the only friction of interest, for the inner planets there's also the friction between the atmosphere and the ground. Not so with the outer planets: their upper atmospheres are so far removed from any solid or even liquid surface that such friction is irrelevant.

Perhaps lightning also powers the wind.

Um... no. Just... no.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sounds so similar to the fact that there are not enough neutrinos detected to account for the amount of fusion, theorised to take place, in the core.

That's not true. We detected fewer neutrinos than were originally expected. There were 2 obvious possible causes for this discrepancy: the rate of fusion in the sun was lower than expected, or our understanding of neutrinos was flawed.

Subsequent experiments have proven the latter is true. With a refined understanding of neutrinos, the detected number matches what we expect for a fusion rate sufficient to power the sun.

But your gamma rays are still missing.

However, the amount of neutrinos actually detected IS the right amount if fusion is occurring in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere.

Uh, no. This is completely wrong. The location of fusion in the sun would make almost no difference to the neutrino flux on earth, because the sun doesn't shield neutrinos.

But it does shield gamma rays, if those gamma rays are produced in the core.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Reality Check, GeeMack, Ziggurat, tusenfem, The Man, W.D.Clinger, Tim Thompson, others:

Your tenacity, patience and dedication to debunking the crackpots on this thread are both admirable and appreciated. I believe these ignorant pretenders to solar physics present an assault on the very integrity of science. Although I have given up on this thread due to a personal loss of patience, I have not totally abandoned it. I look in from time to time to see if any glimmer of hope exists that these phonies will cease their pretending and try to learn something. It does seem hopeless at this point, but then, who knows...?

 

[dasmiller]

When electric currents flow along the sheaths, the currents spiral into filaments. The filaments attract each other, but rather than merging, they form zones of enormous compressive force known as z-pinches. Arc mode discharges might occur. Gravity, although it plays a small role in stellar evolution, is far too weak a force when compared to electric fields in plasma.

Nice explanation of how our Electric Sun came to be? (my bold)

And that's why the sun has its characteristic filament shape rather than the sphere that one would expect if it was shaped by gravity?

 

[Tubbythin]

Venus radiates in the infrared with twice the energy it receives from the sun, so there must be a source for that heat

That doesn't even make a word of sense. What do they mean?
The power output in the IR is twice the power input in the IR? Hardly surprising given Wien's law.
Venus radiates, per unit time, twice the energy its ever received from the Sun? Clearly false.
What?

 

[Tubbythin]

I take it to mean that none of the ideas of Jeurgens, Scott, or anyone else are sufficiently specified to deserve the label "model".

Yep.

 

[Michael Mozina]

When Fe reaches its +20 state, where do the electrons go?

Undoubtedly they go with the flow (of the current). Once the current stops, the heat source is gone and it won't remain in that +20 state for long.

 

[Tubbythin]

I've corrected that for you RC.
Just to be clear why it should read "Reality Check predicts that the Sun is about the size of the Earth" it's because you deliberately misrepresent Scott. So good luck with that

So what keeps the Sun from collapsing under it's own weight in the ES model?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yeah right, some of the world's best plasma physicists developed those models and you are going to show the flaws or inappropriateness??????

Do you happen to have a link to a PDF file of that paper?

 

[Tubbythin]

Undoubtedly they go with the flow (of the current). Once the current stops, the heat source is gone and it won't remain in that +20 state for long.

The current in the plasma?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I believe these ignorant pretenders to solar physics present an assault on the very integrity of science.

That's interesting. Most of us who actually HAVE read Alfven's book and other works for ourselves find you "pretenders" of solar physics to be an assault on the very integrity of science, particularly since those opinions seem to be born of PURE IGNORANCE of the subject material. Of the haters of UE theory, I think t is the only one to have actually READ any of the appropriate material in fact.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The current in the plasma?

Yes. Alfven compares the magnetic ropes to Bennett pinches in fact. They are 'current carrying" filaments.