Something new under the sun

[Zeuzzz]

This is a point that I have made repeatedly about Zeuzzz's referencing of this paper - he does so quite dishonestly. I originally posted about this way back in post #18.

He presents this as some kind of "evidence" for his plasma/electric/crack-pipe universe claims, but he intentionally leaves out a critical observation by the authors.

On the global electrostatic charge of stars

I have done no such thing, i fact, i have continually stated the exact context in which i cite that paper, and its not to use their (very theoretical) value of the charge on the sun. As i said (about three seperate times) it is an interesting paper as it demonstrates that the sun can exhibit a net charge, a proposition that was widely thought not possible by most astronomers, who view the universe and entireley neutral.

Thats why i said:

"I disagree with their method for working out the charge, but it is a good paper as it indicates that the sun can ehibit a net charge and an electric field, a fact widely denied by conventional astronomy"

"Now what they actually do to determine what the charge on the sun is they work out the minute charge separation that should occur between electrons and protons in the suns field, based on an array of assumptions. So I am still of the opinion that their method for working out the charge is very theoretical, the actual value could be far in excess of their prediction, or caused by something completely different. It is a good paper however, as it demonstrates that the sun can exhibit a substantial net charge."

And if you actually read the paper, you will find a whole host of assumptions that could throw off their value of 77C by a very considerable amount. For example their model can only be applied to a an ideally quiet, perfectly spherical, non-rotating star in the first place, and so obviously falls short of being accurate in this respect. When you factor in things like the different forces acting on protons and electrons due to centripetal force (due to mass differences) when the star is spinning, the actual value of separation between charges could be far in excess of this.

Can you find me another paper that works out what the charge on the sun is? possibly not one so theoretical, more based on observations? That one seems to be the only one, which i find odd, and would very much like to see a separate derivation of the charge...

As i said previously, To find the charge on the sun you would have to take varying measurements of the strength of the E-field at separate radii and extrapolate what the strength is at the sun. But so far, i don’t think any such measurements have been made.

While the paper does argue for the existence of a net charge on the Sun, in the middle of the second page of that paper, the authors state:

"We can also demonstrate that the electrostatic interaction between two idealized stars charged with the electrostatic charges, derived here, is extremely weak compared to gravity. The magnitude of electrostatic force represents only about 10⁻³⁶ of the magnitude of gravity. However, if we study the dynamics of an electrically charged elementary particle or ion, with mass mx and charge qx, then the electrostatic force acting between this particle and charge Qr is −qx(mp−me)=(2qmx) multiple of gravitational force. Thus, the magnitude of the force represents about 50% of the magnitude of gravity, if the star acts on proton, and it is about 918 times more intensive than gravity, if the star acts on electron."

I changed the part you underlined to emphasise the important piece of information in that text. No one claimed the attraction between like stars was significant, infact, no-one said anything about attraction between stars, we were talking about the effects that the suns E-field would have on different charged particles, modelling the satelite as a particularly large one.

See that?! The effect is only large if acting on individual charges (protons, electrons, and ions). The authors of the very paper Zeuzzz keeps citing for "evidence" of the electric universe say that over large distance scales (interstellar) the electrical effects they are discussing are weaker than gravity by 36 orders of magnitude!

Yes. And? Please state where i was claiming that the charge on stars has any effect over interstellar ranges? I am well aware of the distances involved, and how astronomically impossible it is for that amount of charge ( 77 C ) to have any effect over that distance. You seem to be inferring things i have not said.

If you read my previous post, i said exactly this, that the EM forces effect small particles mainly.

So, Zeuzzz is claiming that this paper supports his EU claims by inferring that if such an effect exists on the Pioneer probe then just imagine the effects elsewhere, which supposedly explain large-scale structures in the universe over million and billions of light-years. Yet the paper clearly doesn't support these claims, so why does he keep referencing it?

Originally posted by Zeuzzz
it is a good paper as it indicates that the sun can ehibit a net charge and an electric field, a fact widely denied by conventional astronomy

 

[Ziggurat]

I have done no such thing, i fact, i have continually stated the exact context in which i cite that paper, and its not to use their (very theoretical) value of the charge on the sun. As i said (about three seperate times) it is an interesting paper as it demonstrates that the sun can exhibit a net charge, a proposition that was widely thought not possible by most astronomers, who view the universe and entireley neutral.

There is a distinction to be made between saying that the sun can have zero charge and saying that the charge of the sun is negligible. I know of no astronomers who would ever conclude the former. The latter, however, is not disproved by the existence of a small 77 C charge. For some purposes it is not be negligible. For many purposes, it most definitely is.

And if you actually read the paper, you will find a whole host of assumptions that could throw off their value of 77C by a very considerable amount. For example their model can only be applied to a an ideally quiet, perfectly spherical, non-rotating star in the first place, and so obviously falls short of being accurate in this respect.

Well, let's consider some of these points. What happens if the charge is not spherically symmetric? The field will increase in some locations and decrease in others. If the equilibrium field results from balancing the flow of positive and negative currents, then to first order in deviations from spherical symmetry, this should have no net effect: it will drive up positive currents in some locations, drive down negative currents in others, but basically end up a wash. Would higher-order corrections be warranted? No. Why? Because the sun is a plasma: its own conductivity precludes large variations in charge density distribution.

As for being quiet, well, just like with the non-spherical charge distribution, to first order that will not create any net effect, merely create some fluctuations in the total charge about the average. Big deal.

None of these objections indicate we should expect a significant error, let alone one of many orders of magnitude.

When you factor in things like the different forces acting on protons and electrons due to centripetal force (due to mass differences) when the star is spinning, the actual value of separation between charges could be far in excess of this.

As for the rotation, what difference might that make? Well, it would change the force needed for containment by the combined gravitational and electric fields, due to centripedal acceleration. But that's also going to change the shape of the sun. So we can judge how important that contribution is by examining the deviation of the sun's geometry from perfectly spherical. Does it deviate significantly? Nope, not even close. Therefore, centripedal acceleration is negligible compared to gravity alone for our sun, and rotation can be ignored.

As i said previously, To find the charge on the sun you would have to take varying measurements of the strength of the E-field at separate radii

False. Gauss's law says measurements at one radius will suffice. Assuming symmetry, one position is good enough. I've already pointed this out.

 

[Zeuzzz]

It's completely false, that's what's wrong with it.

Stop digging yourself a hole sol. Gravity is pretty much negligable at this level, that why whenever you use an electrostatics equation for particles, there isn't any variable for gravity, because at the scale of atoms it has very little effect. Gravity effects every piece of matter in the universe, but it is amazingly weak, on small scales

It is true that gravity is a much weaker force than EM when it's acting only on two charged particles. But the fundamental fact about physics that you guys seem not to be able to comprehend is that it's a much, much stronger force than EM when it's acting on lots of particles.

Well, duh. I know how gravity works, i also know that it is incredibly weak (even negligable) in comparison to EM forces at the atom / molecule level. Of course for large size structures gravity is the dominant force in the universe, but not at smaller levels.

Had Millikan tried to do an experiment with an oil drop the size of the galaxy, the answer would have been rather different.

Really? you being patronising deliberately?

Or to make a better analogy, if you had a trillion Millikan oil drop experiments distributed in some region, their mutual gravitational attraction would cause them to form a black hole and get crunched at the singularity, thus rather strongly affecting the results of each.

Well yes. But when you are speaking about the atom level there is not this much mass, and so at that level any effects that arrised from this mass due to gravity will be incredibly small. So that is a bit of a stupid analogy.

The claim was that we can ignore gravitational forces. That is false and violates the theorem if the cloud of plasma is large enough, regardless of what precisely it's composed of.

Hmmm, i can't see that claim, and i certainly dont agree with it.

 

[sol invictus]

Hmmm, i can't see that claim, and i certainly dont agree with it.

Then you either didn't study GR or didn't understand what you studied. You acted as though you knew what I was talking about when I referred to singularity theorems, but evidently you don't.

Read Zig's two posts above if you want to learn something; he explained it quite nicely.

 

[Zeuzzz]

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti...articles/aa/full/2001/24/aah2649/aah2649.html

Can anyone find me another paper that works out what the charge on the sun is? possibly not one so theoretical, more based on observations? That one seems to be the only one, which i find odd.

If this is the only publication that looks at the suns total charge, why is that so? are they to be trusted? why have no other astronomers worked on this?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Well, duh. I know how gravity works,

Obviously not, because you keep screwing it up.

i also know that it is incredibly weak (even negligable) in comparison to EM forces at the atom / molecule level. Of course for large size structures gravity is the dominant force in the universe, but not at smaller levels.

No one here has ever argued that gravity dominates between individual charged particles on the small scale.

So which is it Zeuzzz? Is it gravity or is it your EM-plasma gnomes that are dominating the large scale structure of the universe? You seem to be contradicting pretty much all of your earlier arguments here, especially when you stated that gravity was "not a fact, just a theory" and that the "big bang is a joke."

No to mention that many of your clueless EU-PU brethren have been arguing about plasma-this and plasma-that for various large-scale structures in the universe... blah, blah, blah.

So, which is it? Our modern theories of gravitation and big bang cosmology go hand in hand -- so are you now accepting BBC? Is gravity now "real", or are you going to try squirming into another line of loony argumentation?

Again, you show another contradiction in your arguments. I've lost count by now...

 

[MattusMaximus]

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti...articles/aa/full/2001/24/aah2649/aah2649.html

Can anyone find me another paper that works out what the charge on the sun is? possibly not one so theoretical, more based on observations? That one seems to be the only one, which i find odd.

If this is the only publication that looks at the suns total charge, why is that so? are they to be trusted? why have no other astronomers worked on this?

Why would we trust your reading of any papers you reference since you've shown that a) you don't know what you're talking about, and b) you don't seem to care?

Answer my question: Is gravity now "a fact" in your eyes?

 

[MattusMaximus]

False. Gauss's law says measurements at one radius will suffice. Assuming symmetry, one position is good enough. I've already pointed this out.

I also pointed out similar errors to Zeuzzz concerning Gauss' Law on the first page of this thread, and he and the other EU-PU woos keep on keepin' on...

It's almost funny - like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

 

[sol invictus]

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti...articles/aa/full/2001/24/aah2649/aah2649.html

Can anyone find me another paper that works out what the charge on the sun is? possibly not one so theoretical, more based on observations? That one seems to be the only one, which i find odd.

If this is the only publication that looks at the suns total charge, why is that so? are they to be trusted? why have no other astronomers worked on this?

There's a textbook: according to your article, Glendenning, N. K. 1997, Compact Stars (Springer-Verlag, New York), page 71, derives a bound on the maximum possible charge in a star.

 

[MattusMaximus]

There's a textbook: according to your article, Glendenning, N. K. 1997, Compact Stars (Springer-Verlag, New York), page 71, derives a bound on the maximum possible charge in a star.

Sol, you are a better man (I assume a man - gender is tough to determine online) than I... I lost patience with Zeuzzz and the other EU-PU woos long ago. Could you tell?

I should take a page from you on attempting to be a wee bit calmer in my arguments, though I find it very difficult when contronted with such maddeningly self-imposed delusion.

 

[sol invictus]

Sol, you are a better man (I assume a man - gender is tough to determine online) than I... I lost patience with Zeuzzz and the other EU-PU woos long ago. Could you tell?

Neither Sol nor Sol Invictus has a very well-defined gender .

I did notice your posts sounded a little peeved a few times....

I should take a page from you on attempting to be a wee bit calmer in my arguments, though I find it very difficult when contronted with such maddeningly self-imposed delusion.

I certainly understand. BAC, for example, is a classic internet troll - (s)he isn't interested in the subject, only the arguments and reactions. There's no point in carrying on a conversation with someone like that unless it entertains you.

The two here seem marginally more reasonable, at least at the moment (although I remain unconvinced that neither of them is a BAC-puppet).

 

[Yllanes]

There's a textbook: according to your article, Glendenning, N. K. 1997, Compact Stars (Springer-Verlag, New York), page 71, derives a bound on the maximum possible charge in a star.

I happen to have that book on my shelf and the argument is short and simple enough to summarise it here.

Suppose the star has a net charge (Z_nete). Then the condition than an additional charge of the same sign will not be expelled by Coulomb forces is

[latex]\footnotesize
\[
\frac{(Z_\text{net}e)e}{R^2} \leq \frac{G Mm}{R^2} \leq \frac{G(Am)m}{R^2}
\]
[/latex]

In this equation A is the total number of baryons in the star and m the mass of the proton. The second equality means that, because of the gravitational binding, the mass of the star M is less than Am. So we arrive at a very simple bound for Z_net:

[latex]\footnotesize
\[
Z_\text{net} /A < (m/e)^2
\]
[/latex]

For a proton, (m/e)² ~ 10^-36, so the maximum charge is

[latex]\footnotesize
\[
Z_\text{net} < 10^{-36} A
\]
[/latex]

So the average charge per nucleon in the star is ridiculous (this does not mean that there can't be charged zones in the star, it's only a result about the average or total charge).

This reasoning has been carried out assuming the star had a positive net charge. The bound on a negative charge would be even lower, because the mass of the electron is almost 2000 times smaller than that of the photon.

We can use this bound to estimate the maximum charge on the Sun. If the mass of the Sun is around 2·10³³ g, then it has A ~ 10⁵⁷. If we plug this value into the bound given by Glendenning, we get a maximum charge of the order of 100 C.

 

[BeAChooser]

Using your line of thinking, I suppose that you will maintain that ultra-violet & infra-red radiation as well as the wind are all not "observable" because they aren't visible.

No, because they are DIRECTLY visible to sensors. Nothing has to be inferred.

Quote:
Actually, general relativity did not "predict" dark energy. Lambda was actually added to the equation by Einstein in order to make the universe static. And for no other reason.

I concede this point concerning Einstein - that term was inserted by Einstein as a "correction."

A correction whose sole purpose at the time was to make the universe static.

However, it should be noted that another physicist, Alexander Friedman, did use GR to predict such a cosmological constant (what we now call "dark energy") in 1922...

That's not accurate (Wikipedia is often not the best source to rely on). Friedmann's overall solution may have allowed for a cosmological constant but in fact the specific solution he sought and used as the basis for an expanding universe assumed a ZERO cosmological constant.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Om...g=GCb_kvZIFQMv90fMyw3lH5K8oq0&hl=en#PPA105,M1 "101 Things You Didn't Know About Einstein: Sex, Science, And the Secrets of the Universe, Cynthia Phillips and Shana Priwer, 2005 ... snip ... By 1922, a Russian mathematician named Alexander Friedmann was working on creating a model of the universe that didn't]/b] require the cosmological constant, and he met with success. ... snip ... The Friedmann equation works within the larger framework of general relativity, but excludes the cosmological constant in an effort to represent the universe as dynamic."

http://books.google.com/books?id=v_...g=dTByPko0t4aMc5gwkoJlegN6bpY&hl=en#PPA367,M1 "The physical universe: an introduction to astronomy By Frank H. Shu ... snip ... "In 1922, Friedmann discovered two classes of nonempty cosmological models which did not require the cosmological constant; and they were also discovered independently by Lamaitre."

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw051230-2.htm From PhysicsToday ... "Only then was much attention given to the expanding-universe models introduced in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann (1888-1925), in which no cosmological constant is needed."

There is more to general relativity than just Einstein, pal...

And more sources than just wikipedia?

Quote:
And far as it "predicting" black holes is concerned, Einstein actually said that a theory that incorporates the existance of singularities should be avoided.

And Einstein was wrong.

Really? Oh how the mighty have fallen. One moment he's almost a God to you folks. The next ... dirt.

But in any case, I haven't seen any true proof that black holes exist. Just a claim inferred from observations that might very well be explained by much more ordinary and well tested physics.

The concept of infinite gravitational collapse (what we now call "black holes") into a singularity was first proposed in 1915 by Karl Schwartzchild, you moron.

To be more precise, Schwartzchild's paper described a structure that he called a point mass ... later dubbed a singularity. Using GR, he found that matter could *theoretically* be drawn into a point with virtually no volume and an infinite density. It was the specific application of the singularity to the fate of stars (a real world entity) that drew Einstein's response. In 1928 Chandrasekhar hypothesized that a dying star might form a point with enough gravitational pull to trap light. Then in 1939, Opppenheimer theorized that the gravitational pull of a star with infinite density would cause light rays to devitate from their path and bend towards the star. Along with a graduate student named Snyder, Oppenheimer developed equations demonstrating the possibility of a star collapsing in upon itself and forming a black hole. It was the claim they might be real entities that Einstein finally challenged.

See?! Einstein's equations did predict the existence of black holes, though they weren't called "black holes" until later. Duh...

But lot's of equations produce singularities that aren't real entities.

And Einstein was wrong. His theory was right, but he just didn't want to accept its conclusions concerning an expanding spacetime.

So now you think yourself brighter than Einstein?

Quote:
So it's probably inaccurate to claim GR predicted black holes or BBC.

You're an idiot. Learn some history in addition to physics.

Quote:
No, you need only adopt either Narlikar's QSSC or SCC cosmology. Both still adhere to GR but both do not require a BB or ubiquitous BHs.

More Big Gnomes?

Hardly. I suggest you use Wikipedia like you always do.

 

[BeAChooser]

BeAChooser: Try to guess what a plasmoid with a mass of 2.6 million solar masses and a radius of no more than 1 AU is?

Actually, mainstream theory says a black hole with that mass would have a radius much, much smaller than an AU.

But more to the point, who says the mass has to be 2.6 million suns? The researchers own report gave a lower bound estimate (meaning that some solutions of their data and understanding of theory might allow that result) of only 40,000 suns. A plasmoid that size is quite conceivable. And would a mass of 40,000 suns in a region 1 AU in diameter be a black hole?

 

[BeAChooser]

Sorry Ian, but how does that allow the plasmoid to overcome gravity and where does the energy come from to maintain against gravity.

David why do you insist on demonstrating that you haven't even tried to understand what plasmoids are made of or what forces form them?

 

[BeAChooser]

BAC, for example, is a classic internet troll - (s)he isn't interested in the subject, only the arguments and reactions. There's no point in carrying on a conversation with someone like that unless it entertains you.

The two here seem marginally more reasonable, at least at the moment (although I remain unconvinced that neither of them is a BAC-puppet).

Still hiding, sol?

For the record, I post only under the BeAChooser screenname. Period.

But given how often Sol shows up to say "me too" to something Ziggurat wrote, maybe a case could be made he's a ZIG-puppet.

 

[Ziggurat]

For the record, I post only under the BeAChooser screenname. Period.

I believe you about that. Not that it makes much difference, you're still dishonest and clueless.

But given how often Sol shows up to say "me too" to something Ziggurat wrote, maybe a case could be made he's a ZIG-puppet.

That's ridiculous. Sol pointed out an error I made once. I'm far too arrogant to be willing to do that to myself. Really, don't you know anything about me yet?

 

[MattusMaximus]

No, because they are DIRECTLY visible to sensors. Nothing has to be inferred.

More hand-waving and goal-post moving... are atoms directly visible? What about electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc? Do these fit with your definition of directly observable?

It seems that you're making up your own definitions of "observable" as it suits you. There doesn't seem to be any consistency to your arguments.

A correction whose sole purpose at the time was to make the universe static.

Duh...

That's not accurate (Wikipedia is often not the best source to rely on). Friedmann's overall solution may have allowed for a cosmological constant but in fact the specific solution he sought and used as the basis for an expanding universe assumed a ZERO cosmological constant.

I'm not so sure about that... in his 1924 paper, Friedman came up with solutions to Einstein's equations for an expanding universe that clearly showed situations of positive, negative, and zero curvature. It seems to me that this would include a cosmological constant term in the calculations (which is now interpreted as dark energy). Perhaps I'm wrong on this; maybe Sol or Zig can correct me if I've erred in this assertion?

http://books.google.com/books?id=Om...g=GCb_kvZIFQMv90fMyw3lH5K8oq0&hl=en#PPA105,M1 "101 Things You Didn't Know About Einstein: Sex, Science, And the Secrets of the Universe, Cynthia Phillips and Shana Priwer, 2005 ... snip ... By 1922, a Russian mathematician named Alexander Friedmann was working on creating a model of the universe that didn't]/b] require the cosmological constant, and he met with success. ... snip ... The Friedmann equation works within the larger framework of general relativity, but excludes the cosmological constant in an effort to represent the universe as dynamic."

http://books.google.com/books?id=v_...g=dTByPko0t4aMc5gwkoJlegN6bpY&hl=en#PPA367,M1 "The physical universe: an introduction to astronomy By Frank H. Shu ... snip ... "In 1922, Friedmann discovered two classes of nonempty cosmological models which did not require the cosmological constant; and they were also discovered independently by Lamaitre."

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw051230-2.htm From PhysicsToday ... "Only then was much attention given to the expanding-universe models introduced in 1922 by Alexander Friedmann (1888-1925), in which no cosmological constant is needed."

That's talking about his 1922 paper, not his 1924 papers. Why do I sense a quote mine here?

Really? Oh how the mighty have fallen. One moment he's almost a God to you folks. The next ... dirt.

You're an idiot. No one on this thread has ever treated Einstein like a god. He didn't even accept the implications of his own theory of gravity when it applied to the universe - his theory was right about an expanding universe, but he couldn't accept it. He was also wrong about rejecting a fully developed quantum theory. It doesn't make GR wrong, it made him wrong on those specific points. Where'd you learn about science - from the back of a cereal box?

But in any case, I haven't seen any true proof that black holes exist. Just a claim inferred from observations that might very well be explained by much more ordinary and well tested physics.

Somehow I think no amount of proof would satisfy you and the other EU-PU woos. That would require you to question your crack-pipe "theories" and learn some real cosmology.

To be more precise, Schwartzchild's paper described a structure that he called a point mass ... later dubbed a singularity.

At the heart of black holes is a singularity. This is just more word game hand-waving on your part... flap-flap-flap.

But lot's of equations produce singularities that aren't real entities.

Like your equations that predict the behavior of the universe according to your fictional EU-PU cosmology? Oh, that's right, you haven't ever actually provided any such calculations or predictions despite the repeated requests by many on this thread. It's pretty easy to make a bunch of bald assertions when you know they can never be tested because you don't provide quantifiable predictions. Sigh... life as a woo must be so hard.

So now you think yourself brighter than Einstein?

When it comes to modern BBC and quantum mechanics (just to name two things), yes. He didn't have any access to the info we do now about the cosmic background radiation, quasars, etc and he basically rejected the implications of quantum mechanics. I have access to the former and have embraced the latter - so yes that does make me brighter than him. Of course, many people like me are also brighter than him, but we have the advantage of hindsight and better access to newer information.

I might also add that I think (for the same reasons) we're brighter than Newton, Galielo, and Darwin.

Again, where'd you learn about science? Or do you just make it up as you go along?

Hardly. I suggest you use Wikipedia like you always do.

I reference Wikipedia for the benefit of the lurkers, since many of them do not have physics training. I don't really care whether or not you approve, because you are beyond reason. The only thing you care about is proselytizing your EU-PU woo...

If you want to do real science, quit hanging around on these boards. Try hanging with the big dogs and submit your ideas to the journals, propose some damned predictions of your cosmology, and take your lumps like everyone else.

Otherwise, you're just a smack-talkin' woo.

Sigh... can't help fools...

 

[sol invictus]

I believe you about that. Not that it makes much difference, you're still dishonest and clueless.

I just find it hard to comprehend how more than one person can believe this nonsense. Plus there's plenty of circumstantial evidence - for example, Zeuzzz recently admitted in a post here to having sockputted on other fora, and his/her first few posts were awfully similar in style and subject to BACs.

That's ridiculous. Sol pointed out an error I made once. I'm far too arrogant to be willing to do that to myself. Really, don't you know anything about me yet?

We also had an argument about the many worlds interpretation of QM, if I recall. Actually you said something interesting there which I'm still thinking about (although of course you were still wrong ).

 

[iantresman]

Can anyone find me another paper that works out what the charge on the sun is? possibly not one so theoretical, more based on observations? That one seems to be the only one, which i find odd.

.
There are quite a few papers that calculate a charge on the Sun, which vary according to model. Whether they are correct is another matter.

• "On the Electric Equilibrium of the Sun", Svante Arrhenius, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (1854-1905), Volume 73 - 1904, Pages 496-499
• "Net Electric Charges on Stars, Galaxies and "Neutral" Elementary Particles" (1960) V.A. Bailey in Journal and Proceedings, Royal Society of New South Wales, Vol . 94, pp. 77-86, 1960
• New evidence that the Sun carries a large net negative electric charge, Bailey, V. A., Planetary and Space Science, Volume 11, Issue 12, p. 1501-1502.
• On the global electrostatic charge of stars, Neslušan, L., Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.372, p.913-915 (2001)
• The Electrical State of the Sun, Gunn, Ross, Physical Review, vol. 37, Issue 8, pp. 983-989 (04/1931)
• The General Magnetic Field of the Sun, Brunt, D., Astronomische Nachrichten, volume 196, p.169 (01/1914)