Death Star Galaxy

[BeAChooser]

If there is some current that powers the sun, then why isn't the interaction between the sun and the interstellar medium, call it what you will, the helio pause, the therminal shock: Why isn't it cartoid shaped? There is this huge current that provides all this energy to the sun. Yet the heliopause does not come even close to the surface of the sun.

David, you once again demonstrate that despite all I've posted and so many leads to follow, you haven't even attempted to understand the Electric Sun/Star model. Not a bit. One can lead a horse to water but ...

Now for those who are willing to learn, consider the Voyager Spacecraft data and what it says. In December 2004, as the Voyager 1 reached a distance of about 94 AU from the Sun, it experienced a dramatic decrease in velocity. Mainstream astrophysicists interpreted this to mean the spacecraft was entering a turbulent region, called the termination shock (depicted in the link below),

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/images/p12396b.gif

where supersonic solar "wind" meets a subsonic interstellar "wind" and the environment becomes denser and hotter. The increased density leads to higher magnetic fields (approximately twice as high according to Voyager 1 instruments).

Voyager 1 is now more than 103 AU from the sun and NASA says it has entered the heliopause, a region of unknown size beyond the termination shock that is still dominated by the Sun's magnetic field and solar wind particles. The primary reason for believing this is that the magnetic field has remained about twice a high as before termination shock. Voyager 2 is predicted to reach the termination shock boundary in late 2007 or early 2008 and is showing the same pre-boundary symptoms that Voyager 1 showed.

NASA's terminology in describing this phenomena is more suitable to supersonic plane in an electrically neutral atmosphere than a spacecraft in an ionized and magnetized solar environment. And some observations just don't seem to fit the expectations and models of NASA.

From http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8y4g4zng&pf=YES

Magnetic Potholes: Every now and then, Voyager 1 sails through a "magnetic pothole" where the magnetic field of the heliosheath almost vanishes ... snip ... also "magnetic speed bumps" where the field strength jumps to twice normal ... snip ... These speed bumps and potholes are an unexpected form of turbulence. "This is under investigation," says Stone (BAC - Voyager project scientist and the former director of JPL).

... snip ...

Sluggish solar wind: The solar wind in the heliosheath is slower than anyone expected. "The solar wind is supposed to slow down out there, just as the water in your sink slowed down to make the 'sluggish ring,'" says Stone, "but not this slow." Before Voyager 1 arrived, computer models predicted a wind speed of 200,000 to 300,000 mph. Voyager 1 measured only about 34,000 mph. "This means our computer models need to be refined."

Anomalous Cosmic Rays: ... snip ... "A shock wave at the inner boundary of the heliosheath imparts energy to subatomic particles which zip, cosmic-ray-like, into the inner solar system. "We call them 'anomalous cosmic rays.' ... snip ... Anomalous cosmic rays are supposed to come from the Termination Shock--but Voyager 1 found otherwise. ... snip ... "This is really puzzling," says Stone. "Where are these anomalous cosmic rays coming from?"

But as the above source points out, these observations are no surprise for electric sun proponents. (Any bets whether David will take the time to read and understand it?)

Here's more:

From http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=0yfteeje

The solar plasma and that of interstellar space are two different plasmas, which must therefore have a "double layer" or Langmuir plasma sheath between them. So to treat the heliospheric boundary simply as a magnetohydrodynamic shock problem is naïve. A second hypothesis to be considered when looking at the data from Voyager 1 is that the spacecraft is entering the Sun's plasma sheath, which is protecting it and the planets from the interstellar environment. ... snip ... If the Sun is the local focus of a galactic discharge then the heliospheric double layer forms the "virtual cathode" to the Sun's corona discharge current. Almost the entire voltage drop between the Sun and the interstellar plasma will occur across this distant plasma sheath.

Already we have strong evidence that the solar plasma conforms to the expectations of this model. It is the only model that can explain the strange constant deceleration of Pioneer 10 as it moved away from the Sun. See Mystery Solved (http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html ). It is the only model that can explain the continued acceleration of the solar wind out among the planets. It is the only model that naturally requires a hot corona above a cool surface of the Sun.

... snip ...

It is easy to see that we have within the solar plasma sheath a weak but constant electric field that accelerates solar protons away from the Sun in the form of the solar wind and causes electrons to drift toward the Sun (and causes negatively charged spacecraft, like Pioneer 10, to accelerate anomalously backwards toward the Sun). The overall result of the charge drifts in opposite directions is the current that lights the Sun. Throughout almost the entire volume of the heliosphere the solar plasma is quasi-neutral. That is, sampling will reveal equal numbers of positive ions and electrons in the solar "wind." The solar plasma forms the conducting medium between the cathode region at the heliospheric boundary and the anode region near the Sun. When we get to the solar double layer, or plasma sheath, we see that the electric field reverses and solar wind protons are decelerated and bunch up. This will give the impression that we have reached the hypothetical termination shock. At the same time, ACR particles are accelerated from further out. This seems to fit with the Voyager 1 observations. It does not require a mechanical shock. The powerful electrical force dwarfs mechanical forces.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hence the fact that we measure a magnetic field around the sun might suggest the sun is charged. Right?

Wrong. It suggests local variations. It provides no indication of any net charge, nor would a net charge contribute to the current configuration required to produce a dipole magnetic field, which is what the sun has.

When they speak of a voltage, they are talking about a change in "electrical potential" between the two points. And the concept of electrical potential uses the idea of net excess charge. So voltage measures the difference in charge between two points. Satisfied?

Not really. Potential differences can exist in charge-free regions, in case you weren't aware of it. So while there's certainly a direction connection between charge and voltage, substituting one for the other is simply wrong. An example of this is the simple capacitor: while the voltage difference is proportional to the charge, it is also proportional to the separation distance, so two identically-charged capacitors can have different voltages.

How do you know? You or anyone else ever been to the sun?

It's a plasma. The whole bloody point of a plasma is that there are charges which are not bound, but free to move. Or are you now claiming that the sun isn't plasma?

You assume they enter and exit the sun at the same location.

Considering that the field lines attracting electrons would be the same ones repelling protons, I think that's a damned safe assumption.

How do you know? When did you actually look inside the sun? Have we actually looked to make sure there is nothing coming in from outside to maintain a charge? Do we actually know what the charge of the sun is? No.

If we know what the voltage of the sun is, then yes, we would have a very good idea of what the charge would be too. And considering that positive charges coming in to the sun would require a current and produce a significant magnetic field which is not dipole, yes, we would notice. We can SEE what the magnetic field of the sun is. You can see the basic shape with your naked eye if you ever watch an eclipse - just look at my avatar.

ROTFLOL! You got the wrong answer. The CORRECT answer is 8x10^^9 coulombs. At least *I* can do simple math.

No, evidently you cannot. Let's step through it:

7x10⁸ x 10¹⁰ / 9x10⁹ = 7x10¹⁸ / 9x10⁹ = (7/9)x10⁹ = 8x10⁸
My guess is you treated the voltage like it was 10x10¹⁰ instead of 10¹⁰, but I don't actually really care where you screwed up.

So maybe that explains why protons are "boiling" (to use the mainstream's terminology) off the sun?

The numbers from the model you are advocating don't indicate "boiling". They indicate that the entire excess charge on the sun should explode off of it.

Maybe you are wrong about your underlying assumptions concerning the distribution of that charge? For example, even Eddington proposed back in 1925 that the solar surface will be basically negative, the solar core positive.

That makes the problem worse, not better, because that would require an even greater charge confined to an even smaller space, producing far more outward force on that charge. And since plasmas conduct, what would keep that charge confined to the core? Gravity? That gets weaker the farther in you go.

Maybe the solar core is really the anode?

And maybe it's powered by gnomes.

And if the solar core is positive, I know you are already asking ... why doesn't it explode?
...
Through plasma, the electric forces seemingly cannot act.

Nope. You can't shield a net electric charge in a body by ANY means. It is not possible. And it simply makes no sense to claim that the electric forces can't act in a plasma. They most certainly can, if they're there. That's the whole bloody point of the theory, isn't it?

The photons of these electric forces cannot pervade the solar plasma.

The photons don't need to. The static field will. And that will drive currents, positive charge will be repulsed to the surface, and the excess charge will explode.

Therefore, solar electric charges move only mechanically e.g. rotated in a sunspot (GE Hale 1913 and NASA 2001) but not conducted in lack of the electric field.

Nope. Plasmas cannot shield a static field from a net charge. If there's no electric field, then there can be no net charge. There are no exceptions to Gauss's law. Are you familiar with Gauss's law? Because your source sounds like he's never heard of it.

And here's another take on your assertion that a charged sun would blow apart. Ironically, the same argument was used against the notion that the earth has an electric charge. You don't think it does? Then just repeat the experiment of Professor Erman back in 1803. Or Peltier in 1836. Or argue with A. D. Moore, writing in Scientific American in March 1972 that "The atmosphere of the earth is somehow supplied with a positive charge that sets up a downward electric field amounting to between 100 and 500 volts per meter on a clear day."

Unlike plasma, air is not a conductor, it's an insulator. And the field here represents a difference in charge between the ground and the air, not a net charge no the earth, which means that it's large at ground level (where air is an insulator), NOT at high altitude. And what happens when the field reaches levels high enough to overcome the insulation of the air? Lighting. If the atmosphere was a plasma (like the sun), then you'd get instant global discharge (like lightning in every spot on earth). And the only reason you wouldn't get an ensuing explosion after the discharge is because there's not much global net charge, and so the field would essentially disappear once the ground and the air had equalized charge distribution.

And regarding a charged sun, are you aware of this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v201/n4925/abs/2011202b0.html "21 March 1964 ... snip ... The Sun's Electrical Charge, V. A. BAILEY, University of Sydney. IN a recent communication to Nature, I have shown that the interplanetary magnetic fields measured by means of the space probes Pioneer 5, Explorer 10, Mariner 2 and Explorer 12 all verify the predictions about these fields which were published in 1960 as tests of the hypothesis that the Sun carries a large net negative electric charge."

Oh, that's just too funny. You're trying to support the idea of a positively charged sun by refering to a paper claiming the sun has a negative net charge. Do you get the problem with that line of reasoning? I can't access the text right now, but I suspect you'll be disappointed by the estimated magnitude of the charge.

The issue of whether the sun is charged is by no means settled.

I wouldn't be surpised at all if the sun had a net charge. But you're not merely claiming it's got some net charge. You're claiming it's got such a big net charge that protons on the surface of the sun will feel orders of magnitude greater repulsive force than gravitational attraction. I frankly see no reason to think such a scenario is even remotely plausible.

And you seem to think the mainstream has the sun all figured out.

All figured out? Nope, never claimed that either. Don't know anyone who has. But not having it all figured out is rather different than having the fundamentals completely wrong, which is what you're claiming is the case.

Well if that's true, then tell us what causes the solar wind to continue to accelerate out to the edge of the solar system? That should be a pretty simple question to answer. And electric star advocates have an answer. Do you?

I have a hypothesis. It's probably the same reason that the sun has only a small fraction of the angular momentum of the solar system. Magnetic field lines sweep solar wind along with them as they rotate, and the farther out you go, the faster those field lines are rotating. That dumps angular momentum from the sun into the solar wind.

 

[Dancing David]

David, you once again demonstrate that despite all I've posted and so many leads to follow, you haven't even attempted to understand the Electric Sun/Star model. Not a bit. One can lead a horse to water but ...

Now for those who are willing to learn, consider the Voyager Spacecraft data and what it says. In December 2004, as the Voyager 1 reached a distance of about 94 AU from the Sun, it experienced a dramatic decrease in velocity. Mainstream astrophysicists interpreted this to mean the spacecraft was entering a turbulent region, called the termination shock (depicted in the link below),

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/images/p12396b.gif

where supersonic solar "wind" meets a subsonic interstellar "wind" and the environment becomes denser and hotter. The increased density leads to higher magnetic fields (approximately twice as high according to Voyager 1 instruments).

Voyager 1 is now more than 103 AU from the sun and NASA says it has entered the heliopause, a region of unknown size beyond the termination shock that is still dominated by the Sun's magnetic field and solar wind particles. The primary reason for believing this is that the magnetic field has remained about twice a high as before termination shock. Voyager 2 is predicted to reach the termination shock boundary in late 2007 or early 2008 and is showing the same pre-boundary symptoms that Voyager 1 showed.

NASA's terminology in describing this phenomena is more suitable to supersonic plane in an electrically neutral atmosphere than a spacecraft in an ionized and magnetized solar environment. And some observations just don't seem to fit the expectations and models of NASA.

From http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8y4g4zng&pf=YES



But as the above source points out, these observations are no surprise for electric sun proponents. (Any bets whether David will take the time to read and understand it?)

Here's more:

From http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=0yfteeje

I think you didn't answer the question!

If there is this large current that powers the sun then it makes contact with the sun at some area, correct?

A large current of that nature would create a very large dent in the solar wind and the surrounding fields of the sun.

I ask you again, to see if you can answer a direct question, and then I will look at the links,



Would not the large Birkeland current be visible in a number of ways?

Would it not move the heliopause and terminal shock very close to the sun? At least withing the orbit of mercury?


Should it not create a very large effect on the corona of the sun, where the material would be effected?


Should there not be a large area on the surface of the sun that is brighter because that is where the current enters the sun?


Any one want to bet on BAC trying to explain to me his answers. You can dumb it down for me and type real slow BAC.

Do you know what a cartoid shape would be? Can you explain to me why the electric sun would not have a huge dent that comes very close to the sun in the heliopause, helio sheath, terminal shock and the corona.

Remember the electric sun would say that there is this very large current that brings in the energy that the sun later emits. So the current has to be at least as large as the amount of energy radiated by the sun and the corona.

I am asking you BAC:

Would not this large current coming into the sun create very visible effects? Would it not create an area where the solar wind was stopped. The heliopause, heliosheath, the terminal shock and corona would be very effected by this, where is that demionstrated? Would not this large enetring current create other visible effects such as: a large magnetic field, bending the tails of comets, changing the path of coronal ejections and the like?

Yes BAC, you have linked to something that says it accounts for data, that is good.

I am asking you where are the effects that should be visible from this very large current entering the solar system and contacting the sun?

I see that in your last link it states that there

It is easy to see that we have within the solar plasma sheath a weak but constant electric field that accelerates solar protons away from the Sun in the form of the solar wind and causes electrons to drift toward the Sun (and causes negatively charged spacecraft, like Pioneer 10, to accelerate anomalously backwards toward the Sun). The overall result of the charge drifts in opposite directions is the current that lights the Sun.

Hmm, not a large Birkeland current , but a weak electric field.

Now would the that be the net charge that is equal to the amount of energy that the sun radiates?

So what carries the lectric charge, electrons, I would assume?

What evidence is there for this steady flow of a duffuse set of electrons that are flowing towards the sun?

You would have the solar wind, correct? The positive particles being accelerated by the electric field?

Well what is there that generates that field?

Please explain it to me me BAC, you said that it is Birkeland currents and I think that would have visible effects?

Where then is the demonstration of the electron drift toward the sun?

Would that not also create an effct on the tails of comets? (Which I am sure you will explain to me, because you do mention comets alot)

Would not that overall negative drift be noticible as a reverse solar wind of a negative variety?

 

[sol invictus]

All figured out? Nope, never claimed that either. Don't know anyone who has. But not having it all figured out is rather different than having the fundamentals completely wrong, which is what you're claiming is the case.

Actually, according to an expert on solar physics I once asked (for another reason, of course) just about everything about the sun is understood to around 1% accuracy.

Of course such accuracy is completely unnecessary to debunk this ridiculous idea.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Hence the fact that we measure a magnetic field around the sun might suggest the sun is charged. Right?

Wrong. It suggests local variations.

No, you are ASSUMING that. The observed magnetic fields and other phenomena could also be consistent with the model of the sun proposed by Alfven, the electric sun model or some combination of the two.

nor would a net charge contribute to the current configuration required to produce a dipole magnetic field, which is what the sun has.

Actually, http://www.onr.navy.mil/Focus/spacesciences/research/sun.htm "The Earth has a simple magnetic field, called a dipole, with one north (positive) and one south (negative) magnetic pole, like a bar magnet. Magnetic field lines run from a dipole's north pole to its south pole. The Sun, on the other hand, has a very complex magnetic field. During times of little sunspot activity, the Sun's magnetic field resembles the Earth's simple dipole. However, sunspot activity increases and decreases on an 11-year cycle. During times of great sunspot activity, the Sun's magnetic field lines get twisted and pulled in ways that cause regions of north and south polarity to appear far from the geographical poles of the star."

And this magnetic field ... how is it produced? By some unseen dynamo? That is what the mainstream says. Right? So I assume you believe that too. Perhaps that's true. But perhaps that's just another gnome. Because the dynamo theory so far does not explain a lot of phenomena and mainstream astrophysicists have had to invent bogus physics like "magnetic reconnection" and "tangled field lines" to explain observations like the sudden increase in temperature in the Corona.

And tell us ... if the dynamo theory is such a done deal, why have so many different dynamo models been offered over time? And despite the many proposed models, why are there still so many, many problems with matching observations?

http://soi.stanford.edu/results/agu96.html "Pinning Down the Position of the Solar Dynamo ... snip ... a team of Stanford scientists has narrowed the search for this region to a layer 38,000 miles thick and centered at a depth of about 135,000 miles below the solar surface. ... snip ... "With these new data we can look forward to a rapid increase in our understanding of this key feature," said Philip H. Scherrer, the principal investigator of Stanford's Solar Oscillations Investigation team. ... snip ... Dec. 17, 1996."

But more than a decade later, it clearly hasn't been pinned down, has it.

"The Current Status of Kinematic Solar Dynamo Models, Arnab Rai Choudhuri, J. Astrophys. Astr. (2000) 21, 373-377 ... snip ... We are, however, still far from developing a model which can explain all the different aspects of observation in detail."

"Current status and future directions of large-scale solar dynamo models, M. Dikpati, ... snip ... But there is no unified solar dynamo model yet to explain hierarchical magnetic field patterns."


"Solar dynamo; Understanding the solar dynamo, Paul Bushby and Joanne Mason, 2004, ... snip ... the solar dynamo model that we have now bears little resemblance to the model studied just 30 years ago and, furthermore, it is likely to be modified in the near future. Solar dynamo theorists have learnt much over recent years, however we are still far from a complete understanding of how the Sun generates its magnetic field."

http://www.cora.nwra.com/~werne/eos/text/dynamo.html "28-Nov-2000 ... snip ... Many aspects concerning the solar dynamo are not well understood even today. Here are just a few problems that scientists are working on at the moment: 1 It is still not totally clear where the solar dynamo is located. Is it sitting in the convection zone or in the overshoot zone? 2 Does the alpha-effect work or does it not work. This is a very hotly debated question. 3 What causes the differential rotation of the Sun?"

And here is more uncertainty expressed by the mainstream:

http://www.phy6.org/stargaze/Sun3mag.htm "We now know that sunspots are darker than their surroundings because they are moderately cooler, since their intense magnetic fields somehow slow down the local flow of heat from the Sun's interior. The process which causes this is still unclear."

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14346 "June 4, 2004 ... snip ... Scientists still do not understand how active regions are formed, why they vary with a roughly 11-year period, or how and when flares and mass ejections occur. ... snip ... Scientists are uncertain of the origin of the small-scale magnetic structures on the Sun."

Maybe the reason they are having such trouble and have so many unanswered questions is that MHD (which they are trying to use to model the dynamo) does not model many very important phenomena related to plasmas. Alfven wrote "As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory." Likewise, they ignore Birkeland currents, another fundamental phenomena in plasmas.

Furthermore, MHD models of the sun depend on convection. But apparently there are problems in that modeling that are simply being ignored:

http://malvernmessages.free-forums.org/malvernmessages-about752.html "It is true that classical studies of convection in fluids can reproduce the structure of rising cells separated by descending flows said to be responsible for solar granularity. But assuming the validity of terrestrial laboratory physics under the conditions at the solar surface seems questionable, especially when no account is taken of the plasma's electrical nature. If such an assumption is granted, applying it then fails by its own criteria. A quantity known as the Reynolds Number, combining several physical parameters, exhibits a critical value beyond which ordered motion gives way to highly complex turbulence that precludes orderly flows. Analysis of data from the photosphere points to a Reynolds Number greater than critical by a factor of 100 billion. This discrepancy is not trivial. Similarly, the critical value of a quantity designated the Rayleigh Number, specifically devised as a criterion for the formation of convection cells, is exceeded by a factor of 100,000. ... snip ... It seems that the granulations can be explained by convection only by disregarding everything that is known about convection."

This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www2.ips.gov.au/Educational/2/5/1 as retrieved on Dec 18, 2007 20:23:24 GMT. "The Australian Space Weather Agency ... snip ... The bottom line is that at this stage in solar physics we do not really know what produces a flare nor what produces a CME. There are competing theories, but all tend to have deficiencies with respect to matching the observational evidence. We certainly believe that they all depend on the reconfiguration of magnetic fields as their primary energy source, but in the final analysis, we really only believe this because we can conceive of no other solar energy source of sufficient magnitude."

The only reason the mainstream can't conceive of another source is because it ignores what the Electric Universe community has been trying to point out to them for the last 30 years.

Let me give you an example:

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20021030solar.html "A second CME, also seen with LASCO, erupted October 25 and vaguely resembles a corkscrew, with twisted lines bursting from the Sun. According to SOHO scientists, its unusual appearance is due to twisted solar magnetic fields, which steer the flow of the CME plasma. Part of the Sun’s interior magnetic field becomes twisted from activity deep inside the Sun. It is eventually ejected from the Sun following an explosive energy release process. Details regarding how the fields become twisted and the exact mechanisms that propel CMEs into space are the focus of intense research activity."

What they are witnessing are exploding double layers and birkeland currents (that twisted corkscrew shape is a dead giveaway) but since their motto is *anything but electricity*, they never even consider that possibility. Instead they theorize some gnome in the interior of the sun that twists the magnetic field.

Here is more nonsense from the mainstream:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3226844.stm "The sun is like a snake that sheds its skin," says Nat Gopalswamy of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre, author of a report in the Astrophysical Journal. "In this case, it's a magnetic skin. The process is long, drawn-out and it's pretty violent. More than a thousand coronal mass ejections, each carrying billions of tons of gas from the polar regions, are needed to clear the old magnetism away."

"Clear away the old magnetism"? ROTFLOL! Do these folks understand at all what produces magnetic fields.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm "Solar physicist David Hathaway of the National Space Science & Technology Center (NSSTC) explains: "First, remember what sunspots are--tangled knots of magnetism generated by the sun's inner dynamo. A typical sunspot exists for just a few weeks. Then it decays, leaving behind a 'corpse' of weak magnetic fields." Enter the conveyor belt. "The top of the conveyor belt skims the surface of the sun, sweeping up the magnetic fields of old, dead sunspots. The 'corpses' are dragged down at the poles to a depth of 200,000 km where the sun's magnetic dynamo can amplify them. Once the corpses (magnetic knots) are reincarnated (amplified), they become buoyant and float back to the surface." Presto—new sunspots!"

Is that really the theory you believe in, Ziggurat? ROTFLOL!

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2000/sunmagfield.html "We now know that the Sun's magnetic field has a memory and returns to approximately the same configuration in each 11- year solar cycle," said Dr. Marcia Neugebauer, a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. "Current theories imply that the field is generated by random, churning motions within the Sun and should have no long- term memory. Despite this expectation, the underlying magnetic structure remains fixed at the same solar longitude." ... snip ... Fluids conducting electricity under the Sun's surface generate the magnetic field, Neugebauer explained, and the field's apparent memory is most likely caused by a structure and process occurring deeper inside the Sun than previously believed. "There may be something asymmetric about the Sun's interior, perhaps a deep-seated lump of old magnetic field," she said.

"lump of old magnetic field"? Do these *scientists* ever listen to themselves, Ziggurat? After 30 years astrophysicists still haven't learned Alfvén's lesson that it is not possible to "freeze" magnetic fields into a plasma.

And growing desperate with the same gnomes they use to try and make sense of observations attributed to black holes, they invent even wilder gnomes:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/ns-tce030806.php "Dark energy and dark matter, two of the greatest mysteries confronting physicists, may be two sides of the same coin. A new and as yet undiscovered kind of star could explain both phenomena and, in turn, remove black holes from the lexicon of cosmology. The audacious idea comes from George Chapline, a physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, and Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin of Stanford University and their colleagues. Last week at the 22nd Pacific Coast Gravity Meeting in Santa Barbara, California, Chapline suggested that the objects that till now have been thought of as black holes could in fact be dead stars that form as a result of an obscure quantum phenomenon. These stars could explain both dark energy and dark matter. ... snip ... Black hole expert Marek Abramowicz at Gothenburg University in Sweden agrees that the idea of dark energy stars is worth pursuing. "We really don't have proof that black holes exist," he says.* "This is a very interesting alternative."

Dark Energy Stars indeed. And no proof black holes exist. Now that one I can certainly agree with.

Potential differences can exist in charge-free regions

Yes, but then you have to talk about electric fields, which curiously you almost never see astrophysicists or proponents of their theories doing. Also, there can be no electric field in a charge-free region. And we know there are electric fields all over the sun and around it. Everywhere there is a magnetic field. Hence, there can be no charge-free regions in or around the sun. Therefore, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.

Quote:
How do you know? You or anyone else ever been to the sun?

It's a plasma.

But magnetic fields can confine charged particles ... right?

Quote:
You assume they enter and exit the sun at the same location.

Considering that the field lines attracting electrons would be the same ones repelling protons, I think that's a damned safe assumption.

So why aren't these inflows colliding?

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=28996 "SOHO's latest surprise: gas near the Sun heading the wrong way, 20 Nov 2001,
Mysterious clouds of gas falling towards the Sun have been spotted with the ESA-NASA SOHO spacecraft. They go against the fast-moving streams of gas that pour out continuously into space, in the solar wind. ... snip ... About 8000 inflow events have now been logged - most of them since 1998 while the Sun has been at its most active, as judged by the high count of sunspots. The inflows can start at an altitude of up to 2700000 kilometres above the visible surface, a distance equal to twice the Sun's diameter. Here the accelerating solar wind, leaving the Sun, has reached a speed of about 120 kilometres per second. Fighting against it, the gas clouds travel in at 50-100 kilometres per second. Typically they appear to come to rest about 700000 kilometres out. "I was stunned when I saw the first movies showing these inflows," says Bernhard Fleck, ESA's project scientist for the space mission. "Before this discovery by SOHO no one had any idea that gas could travel the wrong way, and be pushed back towards the Sun."

Of course, what Fleck says isn't true at all. Electric Universe theorists had an idea.

Later the above source states "Although the gas feels a very strong pull from the Sun's gravity, this is not the decisive force acting on the inflows. The high rate at which they gather speed initially, and their eventual slowdown, suggest instead that they are firmly under the control of a magnetic force."

Gas?

Another gem from the source: "We are seeing something opposite to what we expected," says Sheeley. "Normally, when this happens, we initially doubt the observation - suspecting, for example, that the movie is running backwards. But when we confirm that the observation is really correct, we are forced to change our way of thinking."

Yeah, that sure is the way it works in astrophysics. (sarcasm)

Here's one of the videos of infalling material: http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=29023

And how do the mainstream scientists explain this?

http://www.onr.navy.mil/Focus/spacesciences/research/sun.htm "Naval Research: The Sun - Inflows ... snip ... If gravity were causing the inflows to fall, they would have sped up and traveled much faster-and they would not have stopped falling. ... snip ... As material is sent out from the Sun, it carries with it a magnetic field. Large loops of magnetic field lines form, towering high above the Sun's surface. Scientists now believe that these lines sometimes cross, then snap to form new connections which collapse toward the Sun, carrying with them clouds of charged particles."

Material "carries" with it a magnetic field? Crossing magnetic field lines? Alfven is probably rolling over in his grave.

More from the above "The inflow regions seem to have staying power, and researchers have been able to follow them over the course of many months. Some of the inflows first appear on the left side of the Sun, then rotate out of view as the Sun turns. The inflows reappear two weeks later on the right side of the Sun, then pass out of view and reappear on the Sun's left side after two more weeks."

Any explanation, Ziggurat? Because this infalling material is now being ignored as with every observation the mainstream has trouble explaining. (Still waiting for your and the mainstream's explanation of comet observations, by the way. )

If we know what the voltage of the sun is

But we don't. At best we can make an estimate. Because for the most part, NASA has ignored eveything but "magnetic fields".

And considering that positive charges coming in to the sun would require a current and produce a significant magnetic field which is not dipole, yes, we would notice.

Then isn't it curious that at solar max the field is not very "dipole" (see earlier citation).

We can SEE what the magnetic field of the sun is. You can see the basic shape with your naked eye if you ever watch an eclipse - just look at my avatar.

Then maybe your avatar should look like this:

http://www.esotericastrologer.org/EA Essays/EAessaysEG1_files/parker.gif

And maybe mine should be this:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/graphics.simulations/cicumBgal2.jpg (that's a galactic magnetic field compared to Peratt's simulation results from interacting Birkeland currents)

My guess is you treated the voltage like it was 10x10^^10 instead of 10^^10, but I don't actually really care where you screwed up.

You are right. My mistake. I got sloppy when I read the original source. But regardless of the magnitude, it doesn't change the rest of what I noted. Surely you don't think the sun's charge is evenly distributed throughout the sun?

The numbers from the model you are advocating don't indicate "boiling". They indicate that the entire excess charge on the sun should explode off of it.

Like CME's do?

Quote:
Maybe you are wrong about your underlying assumptions concerning the distribution of that charge? For example, even Eddington proposed back in 1925 that the solar surface will be basically negative, the solar core positive.

That makes the problem worse, not better, because that would require an even greater charge confined to an even smaller space, producing far more outward force on that charge.

Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.

And since plasmas conduct, what would keep that charge confined to the core?

So now you've decided to simply forget about magnetic fields and homopolar motors?

Through plasma, the electric forces seemingly cannot act.

Nope. You can't shield a net electric charge in a body by ANY means. It is not possible.

Fair enough. How do z-pinches form and override the repulsion of charges?

Oh, that's just too funny. You're trying to support the idea of a positively charged sun by refering to a paper claiming the sun has a negative net charge.

I don't know whether its a positive or a negative net charge and I'm not supporting one or the other at this point. There are different flavors of alternative (electric) sun models that theorize different mechanisms. I'm not trying to defend a specific one just illustrate that there are other ideas floating about that might explain some of the phenomena that right now have the mainstream community flummoxed. Like coronal temperatures and solar wind. Perhaps the sun does have fusion as the source of it's energy. But how can any reasonable model of the sun not include phenomena like double layers and Birkeland currents which we KNOW for a fact are naturally occurring in bodies of plasma? And I'll ask again ... how do you and the mainstream explain recent comet observations. The fact that NASA doesn't even mention the electric comet theory on their website despite the fact that it's theorists made a host of accurate predictions (where NASA's model completely failed) and have explained observations that NASA calls mysterious or surprises should tell you that my mindset is not the problem here.

Quote:
The issue of whether the sun is charged is by no means settled.

I wouldn't be surpised at all if the sun had a net charge. But you're not merely claiming it's got some net charge. You're claiming it's got such a big net charge that protons on the surface of the sun will feel orders of magnitude greater repulsive force than gravitational attraction.

Am I? How large is the repulsion from 8x10^8 coulombs spread over the surface area of the sun? The sun's diameter is 1.4x10^6 km or 1.4x10^9 meters. The surface area is PI d^2 = 6.2x10^18 m^2 . So the density is 1.3x10^-10 coulombs per m^2. Now wikipedia says that "if two point charges of +1 C are held one meter away from each other, the repulsive force they will feel is given by Coulomb's Law as 8.988×109 N. So with a density of 1.3x10^-10 C / m^2 assuming a grid of 8 such charges about one meter distant from a central charge suggests a repulsive force on the central charge of about 8*11.7x10^-1 N or 9.6 N on the central charge. Now how big is 10 N of force? Well, one Newton is the amount of force required to give a 1-kg mass an acceleration of 1 m/s^2. So 10 would give it an acceleration of 10 m/s^2 ... about the same as the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth. And what's the density of a meter of plasma in the top layer of the sun? Wikipedia indicates it has a density of about 1% of Earth's atmosphere at sea level. Dry air at sea level has a mass of about 1.3 kg/m3, so that means the density of a meter of plasma in the photosphere is about .01 kg. Thus, 10 N would accelerate it at 10*100 = 1000 m/s^2 ... 100 gs. But what is the force due to gravity on plasma in the top layer of the sun? Sources on the web say its 273.8 m/s^2 ... about 28 gs. But of course the rate at which the repulsive force will drop off is faster than the attractive gravity force will drop off. Hey ... that might explain why the surface of the sun appears to be boiling.

But not having it all figured out is rather different than having the fundamentals completely wrong, which is what you're claiming is the case.

Well let's talk about comets and see if the *fundamentals* are right.

Quote:
Well if that's true, then tell us what causes the solar wind to continue to accelerate out to the edge of the solar system? That should be a pretty simple question to answer. And electric star advocates have an answer. Do you?

I have a hypothesis. It's probably the same reason that the sun has only a small fraction of the angular momentum of the solar system.

Funny you should mention that. Turns out that plasma cosmologists like Alfven and Arrhenius had that figured out long before the mainstream science community came around to thinking in terms of magnetic fields (see http://www.springerlink.com/content/u2528145p6253145/ ). And now most in the mainstream community don't even acknowledge that Alfven beat them to it.

Magnetic field lines sweep solar wind along with them as they rotate, and the farther out you go, the faster those field lines are rotating. That dumps angular momentum from the sun into the solar wind.

Somehow I suspect that if that logic were all there is to it, someone in the mainstream would have suggested it by now. Instead, I stlll read in mainstream literature that the continued acceleration of the solar wind is not well understood or at least not understood along those lines.

http://www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/jun05/solarw.en.shtml "It has been more than four decades since the existence of the solar wind has been confirmed by the measurements of the Mariner 2 spacecraft. However, the solar wind's acceleration at supersonic speeds of about 700-800 km/s still remains unexplained. Parker's theory, based on thermal conduction, results into a very low speed; this led most of the scientists to look for an additional form of energy in order to explain this acceleration. A team of astronomers working at LESIA at the Paris Observatory has proposed an alternative theory based on the role of electrons that are not in thermodynamic equilibrium; these electrons would be the main driving force of the acceleration. This approach explains, for the first time, the fast solar wind without any assumption of additional energy."

But maybe you are right.

 

[BeAChooser]

A large current of that nature would create a very large dent in the solar wind

A dent in the solar wind? Could you describe the cause of this "dent" and what it would look like?

Would not the large Birkeland current be visible in a number of ways?

Not necessarily. And we have to look ... which we are not ... because NASA doesn't really believe in currents in space.

Would it not move the heliopause and terminal shock very close to the sun? At least withing the orbit of mercury?

You continue to demonstrate that you haven't even attempted to understand the model, David.

Should there not be a large area on the surface of the sun that is brighter because that is where the current enters the sun?

You mean like this, David?

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/solarflare.jpg

Would not this large current coming into the sun create very visible effects?

Like a million degree corona?

Would it not create an area where the solar wind was stopped.

Although you are again showing you haven't even attempted to understand the model put forth by electric theorists at any of the many links I've provided, perhaps you can tell us how the mainstream model explains why the solar wind completely stopped for about two days in May of 1999.

Would not this large enetring current create other visible effects such as: ... snip ... bending the tails of comets

Let's consider this one, David. Because you've ignored all my past attempts to discuss which theory (the mainstream's or electric comet theorist's) does a better job of explaining comet behavior.

Here is a list of predictions regarding a recent comet encounter and how the electric comet theory scored:

http://www.mikamar.biz/predictions.htm

Now the mainstream got a D ... or was it an F.

Yes BAC, you have linked to something that says it accounts for data, that is good.

The problem is that you haven't bothered to actually read the material I've been posting, David. That much is clear now. So I'm really wasting my time discussing this further with you.

 

[BeAChooser]

Actually, according to an expert on solar physics I once asked (for another reason, of course) just about everything about the sun is understood to around 1% accuracy.

That high? ROTFLOL! Thanks for proving my point ... especially when one doesn't find such degree of uncertainty expressed to the public or even in most papers written by astrophysicists. And if we only understand the sun to within 1%, what would you guess our understanding of the distant universe really is given that we can't study it in any real detail or send spacecraft to it?

 

[sol invictus]

Also, there can be no electric field in a charge-free region.

I hope you appreciate the irony of these insane posts of yours, in which you rant on and on about how main-stream physcists don't understand E&M - and then you make statements like this, that even high-school physics students know are wrong. No one with even a passing familiarity with physics would make a mistake like that.

Go home and stop spamming the boards here.

 

[sol invictus]

That high? ROTFLOL!

I see your understanding of English is no better than your understanding of highschool physics. Saying "we understand something to 1%" is common parlance among scientists to mean that the discrepancy between theory and experiment are less than 1%.

Anyway, regardless of language, those are the facts.

Just as an example of how much we know about the sun - and knew about it even in 1970 - why don't you read about the solar neutrino problem? The standard solar model, developed back in the 50's and 60's, predicted more neutrinos than were actually detected on earth. This lead to the proposal and discovery of neutrino mass and oscillations, which have since been independently confirmed using neutrinos from nuclear reactors. Since then, mainly because of the advent of more powerful computers, the solar model has gotten more and more precise.

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

 

[Dancing David]

A dent in the solar wind? Could you describe the cause of this "dent" and what it would look like?



Not necessarily. And we have to look ... which we are not ... because NASA doesn't really believe in currents in space.



You continue to demonstrate that you haven't even attempted to understand the model, David.



You mean like this, David?

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/solarflare.jpg



Like a million degree corona?



Although you are again showing you haven't even attempted to understand the model put forth by electric theorists at any of the many links I've provided, perhaps you can tell us how the mainstream model explains why the solar wind completely stopped for about two days in May of 1999.



Let's consider this one, David. Because you've ignored all my past attempts to discuss which theory (the mainstream's or electric comet theorist's) does a better job of explaining comet behavior.

Here is a list of predictions regarding a recent comet encounter and how the electric comet theory scored:

http://www.mikamar.biz/predictions.htm

Now the mainstream got a D ... or was it an F.



The problem is that you haven't bothered to actually read the material I've been posting, David. That much is clear now. So I'm really wasting my time discussing this further with you.

I asked about the electric sun and I got the usual answers. I again notice that you can gather all the little snippets of pop science you want but that the links to peer reviewed articles seems to vary. And strangely I have tried to read the majority of the links you have posted. I am asking about the electric sun model and I have some questions about it. I suppose that you could try to explain it to me so that I understand. Do you understand the model enough to explain it to me?

My understanding is that the sun is one charge and there is a surrounding area in space with an opposite charge that then reacts to the suns charge. Is that correct?

I am asking some questions about this model. Not for more reasons you feel the current model is inadequate.

The charge is transferred to the sun at some point or area, is it not? Now I was thinking perhaps in correctly, that the charge being transferred to the sun would tend to be localized? Was that something that you would like to explain differently to me? Would it be more diffuse? I don't know that is why I am asking.

As for the terminal shock or heliopause or sheath, I have read what you posted and they do suggest why there would be some of the effects seen.

But that is not what I am asking: so again perhaps you could explain it to me, because my mental model may be not the one you are using.

There is the sun, it has a charge, there is the opposite charge, which is larger than the sun and gives it the energy for the production of a high temperature and radiation.
So we have the sun which creates a charged stream of particles away from the sun.

And then somehow there is the transfer of energy to the sun. Now that could be diffuse or localized, I had thought localized. So while there are things like coronal holes and other phenomena of the sort. I am asking this and it is likely because of the idea of the charge being transferred to the sun in a somewhat restricted area.

There should be an observable area in the corona that is consistent where the opposite charge is transferred to the sun, so SOHO should show a very large area where the corona is bent inwards by the opposite charge. Now I am not saying that I am right, I am saying that this is what my mental model would indicate.

There is the sun, it creates a large flow of things away from it and the energy to drive the corona. Then there is an opposite charge which somehow enters the sun and transfers its energy to the sun.

So my model is likely not the one you have. The charge transferring energy to the sun is very large and opposite to that of the sun. The sun generates the corona and the solar wind with its charge? (Perhaps this is where I am differing from you?) Or it generates these things with the energy from the opposite charge?

So either way there is the sun producing its effects and then there is the opposite charge which would, I think creates these opposite effects. So the heliopause would bend in because it is caused by the interaction of the sun's energy with the other media around it, it has one energy and the charge of the medium has the opposite. So where the opposite charge enters the sun the effect that creates the helio pause, or for that matter the corona would be effected by the opposite charge?

So given that the opposite charge has an order of magnitude that is very large I am thinking it would create a hole in the solar wind, or the corona of the size of say 10% (as just a model not an educated guess), so there should be an area where the effects of the sun's energy would go in the opposite direction?

So there would be a large dent in the corona where 10% of the outward push of the corona is suppressed by the opposite charge? This would be a very noticeable thing.

But then I have a thought model and you have another.

And yes the solar flares do exist. I thought that the energy of the flares was directed away from the sun, so again my conception of the electric sun would be that the opposite charge would be driving into the sun at the point of contact. So there would be more of a ring of brightness around the point of contact.

I am trying to understand the model BAC, do you understand it enough to explain it to me and where my conception differs from your?

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually, http://www.onr.navy.mil/Focus/spacesciences/research/sun.htm "The Earth has a simple magnetic field, called a dipole, with one north (positive) and one south (negative) magnetic pole, like a bar magnet. Magnetic field lines run from a dipole's north pole to its south pole. The Sun, on the other hand, has a very complex magnetic field. During times of little sunspot activity, the Sun's magnetic field resembles the Earth's simple dipole.

Let's stop right there. The sun's magnetic field is often just a dipole, as your own source indicates. How can that be, though, if there's a major current influx from outside? Are you now going to claim that the inflowing current which powers the sun turns on and off?

And this magnetic field ... how is it produced? By some unseen dynamo? That is what the mainstream says. Right? So I assume you believe that too. Perhaps that's true. But perhaps that's just another gnome. Because the dynamo theory so far does not explain a lot of phenomena and mainstream astrophysicists have had to invent bogus physics like "magnetic reconnection" and "tangled field lines" to explain observations like the sudden increase in temperature in the Corona.

Let me tell you a little story. Before the discovery of fusion, the source of power for the sun was quite a mystery. One proposed source was simply gravitational energy: as the gas of the sun compressed, it heated up. But the numbers didn't work out. Now, if you were an advocate of such a theory, you might claim that since detractors couldn't prove what was powering the sun, they couldn't discount the gravitational energy idea. But you would be wrong. Do astrophysicists understand everything about the sun? Nope. Do they know enough to discount the electric sun hypothesis? Yes, they do. The numbers don't work out. And not just by a little bit, either.

Yes, but then you have to talk about electric fields, which curiously you almost never see astrophysicists or proponents of their theories doing. Also, there can be no electric field in a charge-free region.

How clueless are you? That's like saying gravity cannot exist in a vacuum because there's no mass there. You need a charge somewhere to produce it, but you don't need any charge where the field itself is. The space between two capacitor plates is charge-free, but there's quite definitely a field there. Charge and voltage are distinct concepts. And neither you nor your sources seem to be able to sort out the difference.

And we know there are electric fields all over the sun and around it. Everywhere there is a magnetic field. Hence, there can be no charge-free regions in or around the sun. Therefore, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make.

That you're completely clueless about basic electricity and magnetism. Which you are demonstrating here in spades.

But we don't. At best we can make an estimate.

And none of the estimates you make will ever produce anything in the least bit sensible. Either they will produce such large charges and fields that the sun would explode, or they're too small to provide the necessary energy to power the sun. Pick a voltage, any voltage, and you won't be able to get the theory to work. Which is why your source has assiduously avoided doing such basic and easy calculations.

You are right. My mistake. I got sloppy when I read the original source. But regardless of the magnitude, it doesn't change the rest of what I noted. Surely you don't think the sun's charge is evenly distributed throughout the sun?

Doesn't fix the problem. If you distribute it unevenly, then the fields and corresponding forces will be larger in precisely the areas with more charge. That makes trying to balance the forces worse, not better.

Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion.

Have you ever had a college-level physics class? Seriously, how much do you actually know about basic electromagnetism?

So now you've decided to simply forget about magnetic fields and homopolar motors?

Forget about them? No. But the sun isn't a tokamak. Its field, even in the most complex configurations, isn't configured in a way that can confine charges to the surface of the sun.

Fair enough. How do z-pinches form and override the repulsion of charges?

The currents are large enough that IxB is larger than the coulomb repulsion. But the coulomb repulsion is still there. Are you contending that the sun is a Z-pinch?

I don't know whether its a positive or a negative net charge and I'm not supporting one or the other at this point.

That's not a detail. If the theory is that electricity powers the sun, then the distinction is absolutely critical to making any sense of the theory. If you can't even decide on which of the two it is, then your belief in an electric sun is the equivalent of religious belief - all you're relying on is faith.

There are different flavors of alternative (electric) sun models that theorize different mechanisms.

Huh. And earlier you were trying to claim that the fact that there were different dyanmo models was a sign that the basic idea was probably wrong. Guess that standard only gets applied one way.

I'm not trying to defend a specific one

Of course not. Because you can't.

Am I? How large is the repulsion from 8x10^8 coulombs spread over the surface area of the sun? The sun's diameter is 1.4x10^6 km or 1.4x10^9 meters. The surface area is PI d^2 = 6.2x10^18 m^2 . So the density is 1.3x10^-10 coulombs per m^2. Now wikipedia says that "if two point charges of +1 C are held one meter away from each other, the repulsive force they will feel is given by Coulomb's Law as 8.988×109 N. So with a density of 1.3x10^-10 C / m^2 assuming a grid of 8 such charges about one meter distant from a central charge suggests a repulsive force on the central charge of about 8*11.7x10^-1 N or 9.6 N on the central charge.

No, actually, it doesn't. That's like concluding that your gravitational attraction to the center of the earth is due only to the mass between you and the center. It's not. You cannot ignore the rest of the charges. The vast majority of the repulsion is NOT due to charges in your immediate vicinity.

Now how big is 10 N of force? Well, one Newton is the amount of force required to give a 1-kg mass an acceleration of 1 m/s^2. So 10 would give it an acceleration of 10 m/s^2 ... about the same as the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the earth. And what's the density of a meter of plasma in the top layer of the sun? Wikipedia indicates it has a density of about 1% of Earth's atmosphere at sea level. Dry air at sea level has a mass of about 1.3 kg/m3, so that means the density of a meter of plasma in the photosphere is about .01 kg.

.01 kg is a mass, not a density. Your inability to keep track of the proper units is systematic of your general inability to perform the calculations correctly. You cannot arrive at a mass for your test charge until you decide on a volume, but you don't have a volume, you only have an area.

Thus, 10 N would accelerate it at 10*100 = 1000 m/s^2 ... 100 gs. But what is the force due to gravity on plasma in the top layer of the sun? Sources on the web say its 273.8 m/s^2 ... about 28 gs. But of course the rate at which the repulsive force will drop off is faster than the attractive gravity force will drop off.

Nope. Electricity is a 1/r² force, just like gravity. The majority of the electric repulsion will not come from charges in the immediate vicinity, just like the majority of gravitational attraction will not come from mass in the immediate vicinity. For the same reason that you massively underestimate the magnitude of the electric repulsion, you massively overestimate the rate at which it will drop off. Well, actually, you don't estimate it at all, you just wave your hands and pretend the problem will go away. It won't.

 

[The Man]

I don't know whether its a positive or a negative net charge and I'm not supporting one or the other at this point. There are different flavors of alternative (electric) sun models that theorize different mechanisms. I'm not trying to defend a specific one just illustrate that there are other ideas floating about that might explain some of the phenomena that right now have the mainstream community flummoxed. Like coronal temperatures and solar wind. Perhaps the sun does have fusion as the source of it's energy. But how can any reasonable model of the sun not include phenomena like double layers and Birkeland currents which we KNOW for a fact are naturally occurring in bodies of plasma?

A nice attempt at an unbiased approach and I’m glad to see that our discussion on the other thread was not a complete waste of time. You now seem open to the possibility that the sun might have fusion as its source of energy but that would be in direct conflict with the electrical sun theories you support in general (but not any specific one) which claim the sun is powered externally and not internally. I do not think anyone is saying that natural plasma effects do not occur in or around the sun since it is a big ball of plasma, just that those effects can not power the sun in any scientifically consistent way.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Also, there can be no electric field in a charge-free region.

I hope you appreciate the irony of these insane posts of yours, in which you rant on and on about how main-stream physcists don't understand E&M - and then you make statements like this, that even high-school physics students know are wrong.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...-free+electric+field&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us "In an isolated charge-free vacuum, electric field does not exist, but there may exist a time-independent background magnetic field."

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...-free+electric+field&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us "Electric Field Lines ... Do not intersect in a charge-free region, Do not begin or end in a charge-free region"

http://www.tutorvista.com/content/p...tial-capacitance/electrostatics-conductor.php "The vanishing of electric field in the charge free cavity of a conductor is a general result."

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...free+electric+field&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=38&gl=us "Note that in complete absence of charge there is no source to produce an electric field, so that there is a difference between a charge-free and a charge-neutral region."

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/Electricfield.html "A conductor is in electrostatic equilibrium when the charge distribution (the way the charge is distributed over the conductor) is fixed. Basically, when you charge a conductor the charge spreads itself out. At equilibrium, the charge and electric field follow these guidelines:
• the excess charge lies only at the surface of the conductor
• the electric field is zero within the solid part of the conductor"

Is plasma a conductor? Yes. A very good conductor. Is the charge distribution in the regions we have been talking about fixed. I think the answer is yes.

Go home and stop spamming the boards here.

Why? So you can get away with not addressing any of the issues I've raised. Why are you hiding from the comet observations, sol?

 

[The Man]

Is plasma a conductor? Yes. A very good conductor. Is the charge distribution in the regions we have been talking about fixed. I think the answer is yes.

Is the cavity of that conductor (the plasma) charge free? No, because it is a plasma and comprised of charged particles.

I think you are confusing the conductive properties of plasma with the equal potential of a conductive body. When that body is hollow it will shield the internal cavity from external electrostatic fields (also known as a Faraday cage). If the cavity of that conductor is free of charge that cavity will be free of electrostatic fields

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

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/Electricfield.html "A conductor is in electrostatic equilibrium when the charge distribution (the way the charge is distributed over the conductor) is fixed. Basically, when you charge a conductor the charge spreads itself out. At equilibrium, the charge and electric field follow these guidelines:
• the excess charge lies only at the surface of the conductor
• the electric field is zero within the solid part of the conductor"

Surely you don't think the sun's charge is evenly distributed throughout the sun?

If they are not equally distributed then it is not in electrostatic equilibrium and the charge distribution is not fixed. Please decide what you want to assert, your own statements or that of your links or at least let us know which should take priority when they are (as they often are) in direct conflict.

 

[robinson]

The comet stuff is very interesting.

 

[BeAChooser]

I see your understanding of English is no better than your understanding of highschool physics. Saying "we understand something to 1%" is common parlance among scientists to mean that the discrepancy between theory and experiment are less than 1%.

But that's not what you actually said. You said your "expert" said " everything about the sun is understood to around 1% accuracy".

Accuracy is the degree of conformity of a measured or calculated quantity to its actual (true) value. So "1% accuracy" isn't all that good.

To prove my interpretation of that english is right, here is the way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy puts it: "An accuracy of 100% means that the test identifies all sick and well people correctly." Obviously, 1% accuracy wouldn't be all that good.

Here's Scientific American talking about "accuracy". http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=00055DC8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000&print=true "We found that we needed 60 Alu polymorphisms to assign individuals to their continent of origin with 90 percent accuracy. To achieve nearly 100 percent accuracy, however, we needed to use about 100 Alus." Obviously, they think 100 percent accuracy is good ... not 1 percent.

Here's another Scientific American article: http://www.anticipation.info/texte/pentland/0496pentland.html "It classified actions with an accuracy of 86 percent within 0.5 second of the start of an action. Given two seconds, the accuracy rose to 97 percent." Accuracy ROSE from 86 to 97%. If it had changed to 1%, accuracy would have decreased.

Here's another source: http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/forests-grasslands-drylands/data-table-81.txt "These teams found that the accuracy of the GLCF's approach was, depending on the assessment approach, in a range from 60 to nearly 80 percent, meaning that the assessment teams' classification of a given area agreed with the GLCF's classification between 60 and 80 percent of the time." Obviously 60-80 percent accuracy is better than 1% accuracy.

So obviously, either you AND your unnamed "expert" don't understand English (and the way in which accuracy is expressed even in the sciences) or your "expert" did understand and you simply misinterpreted him/her through your preconceived notions about Big Bang and astrophysics. I rather think the latter because 1% accuracy the way I and the above citations interpret it is not at all inconsistent with finding astrophysicists saying observations about the sun are "a surprise", "not well understood", "a mystery", "yet to be explained", etc, etc, etc in case after case after case ... as the many such quotes I've provided from mainstream sources prove.

Just as an example of how much we know about the sun - and knew about it even in 1970 - why don't you read about the solar neutrino problem? The standard solar model, developed back in the 50's and 60's, predicted more neutrinos than were actually detected on earth. This lead to the proposal and discovery of neutrino mass and oscillations, which have since been independently confirmed using neutrinos from nuclear reactors.

Sure, let's talk about neutrinos, sol.

From http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm we learn that are "three flavors of neutrino" and that "some of these flavors were not measurable by the previous experiments that were looking for them." In fact, only 1/3rd the number of neutrinos claimed to be produced in the core of the sun in the mainstream fusion model have actually been detected. Now mainstream physicists explained this away in 2001 by claiming "that the measurable neutrinos turn into previously non-measurable ones enroute from the Sun's core." Another very convenient gnome. Sort of like dark matter. Undetectable. Untestable.

Now the 2001 announcement by the mainstream claimed (http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/first_results/) "The SNO detector has the capability to determine whether solar neutrinos are changing their type en-route to Earth". Tell us sol ... how can one determine whether something happens to neutrinos enroute from the Sun to Earth without making measurements at the Sun (at the start of the journey) or somewhere along the route?" Which the SNO didn't. The SNO observations were made on Earth.

I especially like the analysis the http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm link made of one of SDO's key claims:

In the conclusion of the Sudbury report it states:
"Comparison of the (neutrino) flux deduced from the ES reaction assuming no neutrino oscillations, to that measured by the CC reaction can provide clear evidence of flavor transformation without reference to solar model flux calculations.* If neutrinos from the Sun change into other active flavors, then CC flux < ES flux."

A logical analysis of the last above sentence:
Let:
(a) = Neutrinos from the Sun change into other active flavors.
(b) = Electron-neutrino flux measurement is less than the measurement that includes electron-neutrinos and some of the other two types as well.

The sentence says:* IF (a) is true, THEN (b) is true.* No one can disagree with that.

But they are implying: IF (b) is true, THEN (a) is true. (If the measurement of the flux of electron-type neutrinos is less than the more inclusive measurement that includes some of the other types, then neutrinos from the Sun change flavor on their way to Earth.)

That is a logical non-sequitor. If the Sun is emitting all three types of neutrinos, e+u+t, then any Earthbound experiment that measures only e will always have a lower output than one that measures (for example) e + 0.1u + 0.3t. Moreover, the report states that the CC measured value (e type only) is "significantly smaller than the measurements by [S. Fukuda in an earlier experiment]". So the electron neutrino flux just measured by SNO is even lower than previously reported levels. And it is possible that muon-neutrinos oscillate into electron-neutrinos. And that presents a further complication to the SNO conclusions because of the already extremely low value of measured electron-neutrino flux.

There have been other neutrino experiments that have resulted in unclear answers about whether neutrinos 'oscillate' into different types. The final report of the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector (LSND) experiment in 2001 said their results strengthened previously published, but controversial LSND results that provided evidence of neutrino oscillation and mass. The LSND data, collected from 1993 to 1998, suggested that muon anti-neutrinos oscillate into electron anti-neutrinos. However the MiniBooNE project results of 2007 reported no mu-neutrino to electron-neutrino oscillations of the sort that would explain the LSND result. MiniBooNE was designed specifically to look for this, and has successfully ruled it out at 98% confidence level.* So it is now exceedingly doubtful that the long sought excuse for the solar neutrino flux deficit has been found."

And here's another puzzler for you, sol. If the neutrinos are created in the core of the sun and pass through it at the speed of light (i.e., 100,000 years faster than the rate at which the energy in the sun percolates to the surface of the sun) ... like the mainstream claims, why is it observed that the neutrino flux from the Sun varies inversely with sunspot number? Note that this is expected in the Electric Sun model where the source of those neutrinos is z-pinch produced fusion occurring in the double layer near the surface. Sunspots are locations where there is no DL so the more sunspots, the lets neutrinos.

 

[sol invictus]

<big snip>

Not a single one of those quotes says there can't be a field in a charge-free region. BeACrackpot, this is absolutely basic E&M, first semester, first day. High school physics. I don't see the point in talking to you further - you manifestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Bye!

 

[Ziggurat]

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...-free+electric+field&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us "In an isolated charge-free vacuum, electric field does not exist, but there may exist a time-independent background magnetic field."

Note the qualifier. In real life, vacuums aren't isolated.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...-free+electric+field&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us "Electric Field Lines ... Do not intersect in a charge-free region, Do not begin or end in a charge-free region"

So? That's just a way of saying that the divergence of the field is zero in charge-free regions (learn vector calculus if you don't know what "divergence" means), which isn't the same thing as saying the field is zero in charge-free regions.

http://www.tutorvista.com/content/p...tial-capacitance/electrostatics-conductor.php "The vanishing of electric field in the charge free cavity of a conductor is a general result."

This quote is only applicable inside a conductor at equilibrium, not in conductors in general, and not in a vacuum.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...free+electric+field&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=38&gl=us "Note that in complete absence of charge there is no source to produce an electric field, so that there is a difference between a charge-free and a charge-neutral region."

But we're not talking about cases where there's no charge anywhere, we're talking about cases where there's no charge at the point we want to examine.

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/Electricfield.html "A conductor is in electrostatic equilibrium when the charge distribution (the way the charge is distributed over the conductor) is fixed. Basically, when you charge a conductor the charge spreads itself out. At equilibrium, the charge and electric field follow these guidelines:
• the excess charge lies only at the surface of the conductor
• the electric field is zero within the solid part of the conductor"

Note again the qualifier, and the fact that this only applies to inside conductors at equilibrium, not to vacuums.

Is plasma a conductor? Yes. A very good conductor. Is the charge distribution in the regions we have been talking about fixed. I think the answer is yes.

Well, obviously not, because your theory requires currents. Hell, observations require at least some currents because you've got magnetic fields. How can you not understand such elementary aspects of electromagnetism? You have also speculated that excess charge is unequally distributed in the sun, which is also not what we would find if the sun were a conductor at equilibrium. If we were to treat the sun as a conductor in equilibrium with a net charge, then we'd find that the excess charge would have moved to the surface where it would be uniformly distributed, at which point it would feel the kind of force disparity I calculated before (using your numbers) which would make that excess charge explode from the sun.

I'm sure you're quite satisfied with you mad google skillz, but all the quote mining in the world won't help you if you can't grasp the basics, and you evidently cannot. Spend a few months with an introductory E&M text, learn how to do a few basic calculations, and figure out where you made your mistakes and how I arrived at the numbers I got. Maybe then you'll be able to say something sensible, but right now you're just demonstrating that you really don't know the subject.

 

[BeAChooser]

Let's stop right there. The sun's magnetic field is often just a dipole, as your own source indicates. How can that be, though, if there's a major current influx from outside?

Who says a dipole field is inconsistent with large electric currents?

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti...es/aa/full/2001/34/aah2814/aah2814.right.html "A&A 376, 288-291 (2001) ... snip ... MHD simulation of the three-dimensional structure of the heliospheric current sheet ... snip ... Abstract: The existence of the radial component of the electric current flowing toward the Sun is revealed in numerical simulation. The total strength of the radial current is ~ 3x10^^9 A. The only way to fulfil the electric current continuity is to close the radial electric current by means of field- aligned currents at the polar region of the Sun. Thus, the surface density of the closure current flowing along the solar surface can be estimated as ~4 A/m, and the magnetic field produced by this current is B ~ 5 x 10^^-6 T, i.e. several percent of the intrinsic magnetic field of the Sun. This seems to mean that any treatment of the solar magnetic field generation should take into account the heliospheric current circuit as well as the currents flowing inside the Sun. ... snip ... This implies the presence of a thin sheet of a very high current density. The current circulates around the dipole axis in the same direction as the original current generating the dipole field. ... snip ... Thus, the heliospheric current system produced by the Sun acts like a unipolar generator. Since the publication of Alfven’s conceptual model of the heliospheric current system very little work has been done to follow up on this idea. ... snip ... Conclusion The three-dimensional heliospheric current system revealed in our simulation may play an important role in the processes on the Sun."

And I'm sorry, but observation of the sun's magnetic field shows that it's overall shape is not that of a classic dipole. It has no polar cusps and the field is essentially radial. Also why has the strength of the Sun's magnetic field doubled during the 20th Century? (See "A doubling of the Sun's coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years" by M. Lockwood, R. Stamper and M.N. Wild, is published in the journal Nature, 3 June 1999.) A electric sun model might explain that but what do mainstream proponents say?

The vast majority of the repulsion is NOT due to charges in your immediate vicinity.

The next farthest out charges will be twice as far. Hence they produce only a 1/4 the repulsion. But in any case, there's something called a Debye length (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_length ) which is very small at the density of the plasma at the surface of the sun. I suspect what you'll get are double layers between the charges.

BAC - But of course the rate at which the repulsive force will drop off is faster than the attractive gravity force will drop off.

Nope. Electricity is a 1/r2 force, just like gravity.

But a 1 meter increase in distance will double the distance from the nearest electric charges but hardly increase the distance all from the primary source of the gravity on the charges. So the electrical repulsion will decrease much faster than the gravity attraction.

 

[BeAChooser]

You now seem open to the possibility that the sun might have fusion as its source of energy

Too bad the other side isn't as open in considering the possibility that electromagnetic effects play a fundamental role in the formation and behavior of stars and galaxies.

I do not think anyone is saying that natural plasma effects do not occur in or around the sun since it is a big ball of plasma

If you believe that, then find a mainstream source that mentions Birkeland currents and double layers in regards to solar phenomena and galactic rotation curves.