Electric universe theories here.

[Sol88]

Why don't you do the calculations the way you think they should be done, then we can compare.

Oh, that's right. You can't.

Sure.

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure.

You realize that you are proving me right with every post that avoids doing the calculations.

 

[Sol88]

You realize that you are proving me right with every post that avoids doing the calculations.

Proving you right? Can there be charge separation within a space plasma, setting up an electric field?

So, far yes and yes. End of story really for gravity and the big bangers... has been for quite some time really.

 

[tusenfem]

You realize that you are proving me right with every post that avoids doing the calculations.

Colour me amazed!

 

[Sol88]

No, not a fair call, because you don't read what you link to. There are small areas along the flux tube where potential drops of a few hundred volts is located. These are probably .... (ghasp am I going to say it?) .... double layers in the current system along the Io flux tube.

So, no 5.9 Jovian radii large electric fields.

Confabulation...Does the Io-Jupiter flux tube stretch over 5.9 Jovian radii?

Charges are separated? Electric field accelerating charged particles?

 

[Sol88]

Bloody hell!

Double layers! in the current system along the Io flux tube you say?

Ziggurat, listen up.

A good question for you, ziggurat, is how do these double layers form within a flux tube?

 

[Sol88]

Fair call to say there are DOUBLE LAYERS within a cometary current system too, tusenfem?

 

[Ziggurat]

Proving you right?

Yes. You cannot and will not do any calculations. I made that claim, and you keep proving me right about it.

Can there be charge separation within a space plasma, setting up an electric field?

Of course there can be. But it cannot be large. And as my calculations showed, your example is not. It’s so small as to be basically irrelevant to planetary dynamics.

End of story really for gravity and the big bangers... has been for quite some time really.

Hardly. Your example is trivially weak compared to gravity. Which you would know if you crunched the numbers. But again, you can’t and won’t.

 

[Ziggurat]

As a follow up, I calculate the force of Jupiter's gravitational pull on Io as being about 5x10¹⁴ times larger than the electrical force on Io. So... yeah. Gravity dominates, hard. <insert joke here>

 

[Hellbound]

As a follow up, I calculate the force of Jupiter's gravitational pull on Io as being about 5x10¹⁴ times larger than the electrical force on Io. So... yeah. Gravity dominates, hard. <insert joke here>

Gravity: it’s not just a good idea, it’s the law.


Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.

 

[jonesdave116]

For those that would like a little more in depth look at the "solar wind", I'd suggest Donald E. Scott: Quintessence of Solar Winds | Thunderbolts

And Scott is utterly clueless about plasma physics, and thinks the solar wind is a current of ions! Find a plasma physicist, yes?

 

[Ziggurat]

For those that would like a little more in depth look at the "solar wind", I'd suggest Donald E. Scott: Quintessence of Solar Winds | Thunderbolts

The stupidity was too strong for me, I couldn't take very much of it.

But I will talk a bit about what the breaking point was for me. His "electric sun" model, which has a cooler interior than the exterior. This is a thermodynamic impossibility.

In past threads, I've actually gone over this in quite some detail about why this is impossible. Your likely first objection is going to be that since the corona is hotter than the photosphere, it must be possible for an outer layer to be hotter than a cooler layer. But there's a critical difference. The corona is largely transparent, which means that the photosphere can radiatively couple to the cold of deep space by losing heat through the corona. But the photosphere is opaque (guess how we know that). Nothing inside the photosphere can couple to deep space. Even if power is generated in the photosphere and not the core, whatever is inside must heat up to at least the temperature of the photosphere. This is a hard thermodynamic requirement, independent of your model of what powers the sun. And Scott has no clue about it. His cool interior is a direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. He's advocating the possibility of perpetual motion machines, and he doesn't even understand that he is.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Can tidal forces exchange MASS?

Yes.

can tidal forces REPEL ( you know, opposites attract stuff...)?

Yes.

Can tidal forces carry a current?

Probably not.

Seems these tidal forces are very limited in their ability to do much at all it seems.

Seems you need to read up on tidal forces.

Hans

 

[Ziggurat]

Can tidal forces carry a current?

Forces never carry currents. Including electromagnetic forces.

Perhaps you meant, can they drive a current. Any force can drive a current, under the right circumstances.

 

[jonesdave116]

The stupidity was too strong for me, I couldn't take very much of it.

Yep, pure fantasy and non-science. Directly contradicting both theory (as expounded by Alfven in 1939), as well as six decades of in-situ detections of the solar wind. I don't know if Scott is really this stupid, or whether he actually knows that he is lying to his audience?

 

[Sol88]

The stupidity was too strong for me, I couldn't take very much of it.

But I will talk a bit about what the breaking point was for me. His "electric sun" model, which has a cooler interior than the exterior. This is a thermodynamic impossibility.

In past threads, I've actually gone over this in quite some detail about why this is impossible. Your likely first objection is going to be that since the corona is hotter than the photosphere, it must be possible for an outer layer to be hotter than a cooler layer. But there's a critical difference. The corona is largely transparent, which means that the photosphere can radiatively couple to the cold of deep space by losing heat through the corona. But the photosphere is opaque (guess how we know that). Nothing inside the photosphere can couple to deep space. Even if power is generated in the photosphere and not the core, whatever is inside must heat up to at least the temperature of the photosphere. This is a hard thermodynamic requirement, independent of your model of what powers the sun. And Scott has no clue about it. His cool interior is a direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. He's advocating the possibility of perpetual motion machines, and he doesn't even understand that he is.

What temp is the CORE of the Sun again?

There is some variation in temperature from place to place in the photosphere - for example, sunspots are relatively cool regions with temperatures as low as 3,000 to 4,500° C (5,400 to 8,100° F).

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/sun-space-weather/sun-photosphere

Your model is wrong there champ!


All that money down the drain...shame

 

[Ziggurat]

What temp is the CORE of the Sun again?

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/sun-space-weather/sun-photosphere

Your model is wrong there champ!


All that money down the drain...shame

You aren't making any sense. Seriously what even is the logic here?

 

[jonesdave116]

What temp is the CORE of the Sun again?

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/sun-space-weather/sun-photosphere

Your model is wrong there champ!


All that money down the drain...shame

And what has the photospheric temperature got to do with the core temperature? We know what the core temperature of the Sun must be, based on the neutrino detections. We see that they are overwhelmingly from the first step in the p-p chain. That requires ~ 10m K. Other detections, as well as theory, say it is probably ~ 15m K.
The photosphere is overwhelmingly neutral - ~ 99.99%. However, Scott thinks he sees anode tufting! You need a plasma for that. Which we might have noticed.
I'm sorry, but if all you can call on is a clearly clueless ex-EE, you are in trouble.

 

[Sol88]

The stupidity was too strong for me, I couldn't take very much of it.

But I will talk a bit about what the breaking point was for me. His "electric sun" model, which has a cooler interior than the exterior. This is a thermodynamic impossibility.

In past threads, I've actually gone over this in quite some detail about why this is impossible. Your likely first objection is going to be that since the corona is hotter than the photosphere, it must be possible for an outer layer to be hotter than a cooler layer. But there's a critical difference. The corona is largely transparent, which means that the photosphere can radiatively couple to the cold of deep space by losing heat through the corona. But the photosphere is opaque (guess how we know that). Nothing inside the photosphere can couple to deep space. Even if power is generated in the photosphere and not the core, whatever is inside must heat up to at least the temperature of the photosphere. This is a hard thermodynamic requirement, independent of your model of what powers the sun. And Scott has no clue about it. His cool interior is a direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. He's advocating the possibility of perpetual motion machines, and he doesn't even understand that he is.

The stupidity was too strong for me, I couldn't take very much of it.

But I will talk a bit about what the breaking point was for me. His "electric sun" model, which has a cooler interior than the exterior. This is a thermodynamic impossibility.

In past threads, I've actually gone over this in quite some detail about why this is impossible. Your likely first objection is going to be that since the corona is hotter than the photosphere, it must be possiblefor an outer layer to be hotter than a cooler layer. But there's a critical difference. The corona is largely transparent, which means that the photosphere can radiatively couple to the cold of deep space by losing heat through the corona. But the photosphere is opaque (guess how we know that). Nothing inside the photosphere can couple to deep space. Even if power is generated in the photosphere and not the core, whatever is inside must heat up to at least the temperature of the photosphere. This is a hard thermodynamic requirement, independent of your model of what powers the sun. And Scott has no clue about it. His cool interior is a direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. He's advocating the possibility of perpetual motion machines, and he doesn't even understand that he is.

First objection? IT must be possible for an outer layer to be hotter than a cooler layer Great, name ONE example OTHER than the solar coronal heating problem (for the mainstream)

Direct violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics = The Mystery of Coronal Heating

Although, you've apparently solved it! Radiatively Coupling! Geez, ya good!

 

[Sol88]

Ziggurat, why is a sunspot cooler than the "surface" of the sun?

If you'd like a real challange to your assertion that Scott is a numpty, fill us in on the details if you can.

Formation

Although the details of sunspot formation are still a matter of ongoing research, it is widely understood that they are the visible manifestations of magnetic flux tubes in the Sun's convective zone projecting through the photosphere within active regions.[25] Their characteristic darkening occurs due to this strong magnetic field inhibiting convection in the photosphere. As a result, the energy flux from the Sun's interior decreases, and with it, surface temperature, causing the surface area through which the magnetic field passes to look dark against the bright background of photospheric granules.

Sunspots initially appear in the photosphere as small darkened spots lacking a penumbra. These structures are known as solar pores.[26] Over time, these pores increase in size and move towards one another. When a pore gets large enough, typically around 3,500 km (2,000 mi) in diameter, a penumbra will begin to form.[25]

"strong magnetic field inhibiting convection", are you able to elaborate on the HOW?

It's a FATAL flaw to your model if you are unable.