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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
Do you think that all "discharge" processes magically stop the moment *SOME* material is ionized by an arc discharge?
Click to expand...

Solar plasma isn't ionized by an arc discharge. It's already ionized, and so no discharge is possible. Current flowing through it is just that: current, not a discharge.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Let's try again then:



Which part in yellow do you *NOW* not understand?
Click to expand...


I see a heading, "1 .5 Electrical Discharges in Cosmic Plasma," and an opening line, "An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy," which when read together or apart do not say anything about electrical discharges being or causing CMEs and solar flares. It would be a lie, ignorant, or downright stupid for anyone with elementary English speaking skills to argue that it does.

Most of us are intelligent adults here. I think we've had enough of this argument by trolling, this argument by incessant and uncivil badgering, this argument by dishonestly demanding other people support one's crackpot claim, and this argument by spamming irrelevant quotes from Peratt's material.

So we have advanced (and I use the word very loosely) to this point in the conversation: The electric Sun nutters apparently only have a couple of paragraphs by Peratt to quote, and only something like three irrelevant sentences to highlight, and none of it actually seems to objectively support the idiotic claim that electrical discharges are, or are the cause of, CMEs and solar flares. Obviously posting the same crap again and again, then taunting and badgering people to interpret it some stupid subjective way is not working. I take the position that no sane, rational human being would keep at it.

This is post #405. We may refer back to it if this inane argument by spamming Peratt continues.​

Now... The claim is that electrical discharges are or cause solar flares and CMEs. The claim hasn't been supported yet in a scientific, objective way, regardless of the many, many arguments from ignorance, unqualified opinions, unsupported assertions, lies, and otherwise failed attempts to do so. Apparently everything the electric Sun proponents have to offer has been provided. If there's anything else, anything new that hasn't been brought up, that would be grand. If not, I think we can all agree the claim is unsupportable.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Are you ready to rescind this false claim yet?
Click to expand...


Argument by badgering and dishonestly* attempting to deflect the burden of proof is noted. The claim, the subject of this thread, is that electrical discharges are or cause CMEs and solar flares. Until and unless that claim is objectively and scientifically supported, the reasonable default position to take is that it is not true. Since the crackpot claim has not been objectively, quantitatively, and scientifically supported, not even remotely, most of us here obviously take the default position. It is not a claim. It is simply where we start. And it is where we are bound to stay if the electric Sun cranks can't support their claim.

Again, the responsibility** for supporting a claim falls to the claimant. The default position, in lieu of the claim being objectively supported, is that it is not true.

We may refer back here to post #406 if this childish argument by irresponsibility continues.​

Now where were we? Oh, yes. Apparently everything the electric Sun proponents have to offer has been provided. If there's nothing else, I think we can all agree the claim that solar flares and CMEs are electrical discharges is unsupported and likely unsupportable.

* Recurring theme in crackpots' arguments.

** A sort of scientific concept which is all too often neglected by crackpots.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Second question:

Do you think that all "discharge" processes magically stop the moment *SOME* material is ionized by an arc discharge?

Third question:

Have you ever used an arc welder before?

Forth question:

What *DO* you do for a living that somehow makes you an "expert" on the proper application of MHD theory *WITHOUT* having to have even bothered to read Alfven's work, or Peratt's work?

Fifth question:

What did Alfven mean by the term "circuit" in reference to events in space?
Click to expand...


See post #406: Childish argument by irresponsibility. Dishonestly* attempting to shift the burden of proof.

It seems everything the electric Sun proponents have to offer has been provided. Anything new?

* Recurring theme in crackpots' arguments.
 
Ziggurat said:
Dungey is using a rather odd definition of discharge. See p 136: all he means is a large current density.
Click to expand...

That's all Peratt meant too. :)

I love how this crew sort of handwaves at the basic evidence. It's so cute. It's just the kind of thing you see while talking to creationists. They handwave at everything and consistently refuse to provide *ANYTHING* to scientifically validate their own position.

Note that Alfven *REJECTED* all types of "magnetic reconnection" theories when *CURRENT FLOWS* were involved. In the presence of large and small current densities, no sort of "magnetic reconnection" is necessary, nor does it warrant consideration. Those are Alfven's statements.

All you're basically doing here is attempting to deny the presence of both large and small current flows *THROUGH* the plasma. Just as a lightening discharge sustained by a large current density, any sort of "pinch/Birkeland current/DL/Rope/Coronal Loop" is also sustained by a large current density running through the filament.

Any time that Alfven observed such conditions, he automatically used a "circuit" approach.
 
Last edited:
GeeMack said:
See post #406: Childish argument by irresponsibility. Dishonestly* attempting to shift the burden of proof.
Click to expand...

Nobody is 'shifting' anything. This is your (false) statement:

There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.
Click to expand...

Do you rescind it, yes or no?

It seems everything the electric Sun proponents have to offer has been provided. Anything new?
Click to expand...

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1958IAUS....6..135D/0000138.000.html

Why do you require anything new? You haven't even handwaved yet at all the papers I've already provided you with. What's wrong with Dungey's explanation of a "discharge"? A running theme with creationists (and anyone in denial) is the handwave theme. You see it consistently. They handwave away anything and everything that disagrees with their position, and they villianize anyone and everyone they disagree with. Yawn.

Another consistent thing one observes from a person stuck in denial is a consistent refusal to support their own beliefs, and a complete unwillingness to accept evidence that undermines their position.
 
Last edited:
FYI, Dungey's explanation is 100% consistent with the visual evidence observable in white light images of the solar atmosphere:

15%20April%202001%20WL.gif
 
Ziggurat said:
Solar plasma isn't ionized by an arc discharge. It's already ionized,
Click to expand...

Iron isn't ionized to a FEXX state at 5700K at surface of the photosphere pressures Zig. Something is ionizing elements like neon, carbon, iron and Nickel atoms to very high ionization states. The easiest way to explain that is with a sustained arc discharge through plasma.

and so no discharge is possible.
Click to expand...

Dungey's definition of a discharge" is not only "possible" it's "confirmed" by satellite and ground based telescopes at virtually *EVERY* wavelength, including gamma rays and x-rays galore!

Current flowing through it is just that: current, not a discharge.
Click to expand...

That "current" that is flowing down the filament is ionizing the elements inside the filament to *MUCH* higher ionization states than the plasmas *OUTSIDE* of the filament. The 'pinch' caused by magnetic field around the "current flow' creates gamma rays. All of this is documented and demonstrated in the lab. There is *ABSOLUTELY* no scientific need for "magnetic reconnection" to explain high energy solar events, when large currents flows easily do the trick.
 
GeeMack said:
Now... The claim is that electrical discharges are or cause solar flares and CMEs.
Click to expand...

Nope. Your claim was the following:

There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.
Click to expand...

Your claim hasn't been supported yet in a scientific, objective way, regardless of the many, many arguments from ignorance, unqualified opinions, unsupported assertions, lies, and otherwise failed attempts to do so.
 
Obviously the crackpot argument by persistent badgering, argument by complaining, argument by abandoning responsibility, and repeated unqualified and dishonest misinterpretations of the various sources presented isn't working. So to try to steer this back to the topic, can we expect any legitimately scientific, objective support for the inane claim that electrical discharges are, or cause, CMEs and solar flares?
 
W.D.Clinger said:
Agreed.
Click to expand...

Actually, your position doesn't even undermine my position in this case because by Peratt's definition, what you're calling 'magnetic reconnection' is in fact a "discharge". I like Dungey's paper because it basically explains the same process in terms of a standard discharge.

The biggest problem you face IMO is explaining how these models do not fail Alfven's "smell test". Basically anything and everything that involves "current flow" puts a nail in the reconnection coffin, and according to Alfven all the interplanetary medium is a "current carrying" medium! You're pretty much toast in terms of Alfven's views.

Worse IMO is that all the lab tests done to date make it extremely clear that you're running two "current carrying filaments" together and calling it "magnetic reconnection". Either way you look at it, even *IF* we accept the B orientation of events, it still doesn't negate the E orientation of those exact same events.
 
GeeMack said:
Obviously the crackpot argument by persistent badgering, argument by complaining, argument by abandoning responsibility, and repeated unqualified and dishonest misinterpretations of the various sources presented isn't working. So to try to steer this back to the topic, can we expect any legitimately scientific, objective support for the inane claim that electrical discharges are, or cause, CMEs and solar flares?
Click to expand...

We're you even going to handwave at Dungey's work or was it too scary for you to even look at?

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1958IAUS....6..135D/0000138.000.html
 
Michael Mozina said:
Actually, your position doesn't even undermine my position in this case because by Peratt's definition, what you're calling 'magnetic reconnection' is in fact a "discharge". I like Dungey's paper because it basically explains the same process in terms of a standard discharge.

The biggest problem you face IMO is explaining how these models [...]
Click to expand...


I ran post #406 through a grammar analysis, and it turns out it should be understandable by pretty much any English speaker with a 9th grade education. Since obviously some people don't have the reading skills of a typical 9th grader, maybe some specific questions about the burden of proof and how crackpots dishonestly try to bail out on their responsibility to support their claims are in order.

Meanwhile, to keep this on topic and moving forward, can we expect any legitimately scientific, objective support for the inane claim that electrical discharges are, or cause, CMEs and solar flares?
 
Michael Mozina explains what (he thinks) we mean by magnetic reconnection:

Michael Mozina said:
Actually, your position doesn't even undermine my position in this case because by Peratt's definition, what you're calling 'magnetic reconnection' is in fact a "discharge".
Click to expand...
Uh, no.

Michael Mozina said:
Basically anything and everything that involves "current flow" puts a nail in the reconnection coffin,
Click to expand...
Uh, no.

Michael Mozina said:
Worse IMO is that all the lab tests done to date make it extremely clear that you're running two "current carrying filaments" together and calling it "magnetic reconnection".
Click to expand...
Uh, no.

What's extremely clear is that you don't have any idea of what the papers I have cited mean by "magnetic reconnection".
 
W.D.Clinger said:
What's extremely clear is that you don't have any idea of what the papers I have cited mean by "magnetic reconnection".
Click to expand...

Every physical experiment done in a lab to date on the topic of 'magnetic reconnection' involves current flows, and in fact arc or glow discharges through plasmas. In all such events, Alfven simply looked at it in terms of 'circuits', "circuit energy" and "exploding double layers". He simply preferred the E orientation. You can try to spin reality all you like, but I lost count how many time Alfven called "magnetic reconnection" a "pseudoscience" particularly inside of a "current carrying" plasma or double layer.

None of the papers related to lab experiments cited to date work without a "cathode" and an "anode" and a lot of "current flow" through the plasma. Alfven called that a "nail" in the magnetic reconnection coffin.

No matter how you slice it or dice it Mr. Spock, the best you can *EVER* hope for is a "draw'. The E orientation is always going to be equally valid to any B orientation, and ultimately you need "current flows" to make any of this work.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1958IAUS....6..135D/0000138.000.html

Dungey says otherwise. :)

I've yet to see anyone address this work by the way. Did I miss it?
Click to expand...
You did and you are wrong:
Where is your scientific evidence for electrical discharges on the Sun?
Reality Check said:
One to a 1958 symposium presentation - The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism. I believe that the author's electric discharge is not an electrical discharge. He seems to be talking about a high density electric current, i.e. one that neutralizes charges when magnetic fields change configuration. This is confirmed by a literature search, e.g. Neutral Point Discharge Experiment.
Click to expand...
Note the second sentence in the presentation mentions an accelerating layer. These do not exist in electrical discharges. He is talking about the acceleration of charges by the magnetic fields around a neutral point. He calls this an electrical discharge. That is a bit sloppy even for a conference presentation.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
RC, please explain the first sentence of the introduction of Dungey's paper.
Click to expand...


Obviously communication is critical to any exchange of information about science, or any other topic for that matter. There's a communication issue here that, if it were resolved, might make this discussion more productive. I ran post #406 through a grammar analysis, and it appears it should be understandable by pretty much any English speaker with a 9th grade education. Bottom line for those with less than 9th grade reading skills, it's dishonest to ask other people, people who didn't make the claim, to support it. Oh, and I'm sure we can all agree it's lazy, too.

So here's where we are: No legitimately scientific, objective support has been provided yet for the inane claim that electrical discharges are, or cause, CMEs and solar flares.
 
Oy Vey

Michael Mozina said:
RC, please explain the first sentence of the introduction of Dungey's paper.
Click to expand...
It is him (wrongly) labeling the acceleration of charges near the neutral point an electrical discharge.
This is obviously wrong - plasma is conductive. By definition any net movement of charges in a conductor is called a current.

But this is understandable since this is just a conference presentation.

ETA
MM, please explain the second sentence of the abstract of Dungey's presentation
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Every physical experiment done in a lab to date on the topic of 'magnetic reconnection' involves current flows, and in fact arc or glow discharges through plasmas.
...usual ignorance about Alfven snipped...
Click to expand...
Every experiment on plasma involves current flows. Labatories tend to be connected to the power grid :jaw-dropp!
Many experiments on plasma involve "arc or glow discharges" - that is how they create the plasma :jaw-dropp!
Any plasma can have "current flows" in them (they conduct) and currents are expected in magnetic reconnection.

Michael Mozina said:
None of the papers related to lab experiments cited to date work without a "cathode" and an "anode" and a lot of "current flow" through the plasma. Alfven called that a "nail" in the magnetic reconnection coffin.
Click to expand...
You continue to be wrong:
Magnetic reconnection and plasma dynamics in two-beam laser-solid interactions.
We present measurements of a magnetic reconnection in a plasma created by two laser beams (1 ns pulse duration, 1 x 10(15) W cm(-2)) focused in close proximity on a planar solid target. Simultaneous optical probing and proton grid deflectometry reveal two high velocity, collimated outflowing jets and 0.7-1.3 MG magnetic fields at the focal spot edges. Thomson scattering measurements from the reconnection layer are consistent with high electron temperatures in this region.
Click to expand...

You continue to have an inability to understand that you ideas about magnetic reconnection have been shown to be false. See Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection II
Tim Thompson said:
Evidently you have a flawed & highly selective memory. See Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection I and links therein. Specifically, I showed you the laboratory experiments more than once. For instance Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III from last March (that's 9 months ago now). I posted Comments on Magnetic Reconnection on 13 February 2009, nearly 2 years ago, specifically demonstrating confirmed laboratory observations of magnetic reconnection.

Your response has been consistent. Not once have you ever actually looked at or considered any of these laboratory experiments. You reject them without examination out of pure and unadulterated prejudice. So nobody cares about your dishonest wailing about the lack of laboratory experiments; we recognize it for what it really is, a pure sham. You don't care, and never will care about actual laboratory experiments, and you will not ever look at the data or any paper describing laboratory experiments. I have myself pointed out books that describe the state of laboratory experience, and you always have (and always will) ignore them all.

So everything you are so "disappointed" about not seeing has in fact been shown to you for nearly 2 years, and probably longer considering your numerous discussion boards. You are not now, and have never have been interested in anything that any normal person would consider an "honest" discussion, so answering you directly is a waste of effort. The only reason I bother to post at all is that other people actually do care, and maybe somebody will learn something, even if it's never going to be you.
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
Iron isn't ionized to a FEXX state at 5700K at surface of the photosphere pressures Zig. Something is ionizing elements like neon, carbon, iron and Nickel atoms to very high ionization states. The easiest way to explain that is with a sustained arc discharge through plasma.
Click to expand...
Wrong: Electrical discharges do not happen through conductors. It is the hardest way to explain the ionization.
It is the easiest way to create plasmas in a lab though - all you do is create an electrical discharge in a gas (not a plasma), atoms get ionized and then you have a plasma.

What ionizes atoms in solar plasma is photons.

Another bit of your speculation about electrical discharges on the Sun is that you have no source for the required difference in electrical potential that electrical discharges need. Flares and CME are have scales of many kilometers. Solar plasma has Debye lengths of less than 10 meters. According to Alfven, plasma cannot develop an imbalance of charge over more than a few 10's of Debye lengths.
Thus Alfven implies that your electrical discharges are physically impossible just from the scales involved.
 
GeeMack said:
So here's where we are: No legitimately scientific, objective support has been provided yet for the inane claim that electrical discharges are, or cause, CMEs and solar flares.
Click to expand...

NO, here was *YOUR* claim.

There is no electrical discharge processes involved in solar filament eruptions and CMEs.
Click to expand...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958IAUS....6..135D
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974ApJ...190..467L/0000467.000.html

No, you are simply *IN DENIAL* of the information presented. You aren't even going to handwave at it GM? How long did you intend to avoid the circuit question?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
NO, here was *YOUR* claim.



http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1958IAUS....6..135D
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1974ApJ...190..467L/0000467.000.html

No, you are simply *IN DENIAL* of the information presented. You aren't even going to handwave at it GM? How long did you intend to avoid the circuit question?
Click to expand...


I refer to post #406 for an explanation of the concept of burden of proof.

Also, the uncivil badgering personal attack is, as always, noted.

To bring it back on topic from the attempted argument by intentional, dishonest, and disrespectful derail: No legitimately scientific, objective support has been provided yet for the inane claim that electrical discharges are, or cause, CMEs and solar flares. We are still awaiting the support or the admission that the claim is unsupportable.
 
Dungey's paper concluded that neither Lenz's law nor the pressure gradient would suffice to refute a discharge-based explanation, and that other features of flares were not necessarily incompatible with a discharge-based explanation.

If that is sufficient to prove that flares are, in fact, discharged-based, then by the same line of reasoning, we may safely conclude that the animal I occasionally see in my back yard is, in fact, a walrus because its skin covering (fur) and number of eyes (2) are not necessarily incompatible with the known characteristics of walruses.
 
Last edited:
Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection III

Michael Mozina said:
Note that Alfven *REJECTED* all types of "magnetic reconnection" theories when *CURRENT FLOWS* were involved. In the presence of large and small current densities, no sort of "magnetic reconnection" is necessary, nor does it warrant consideration. Those are Alfven's statements.
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, Dungey's explanation is 100% consistent with the visual evidence observable in white light images of the solar atmosphere ...
Click to expand...
See The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism, J.W. Dungey, 1958 (this is the paper that Mozina's "Dungey" comment above refers to).

"Certain other features of flares may be accounted for by the bulk motion resulting from a discharge at a neutral point. The effect of the discharge is to 'reconnect' the lines of force at the neutral point, and this happens quickly. The 'reconnection' upsets the mechanical equilibrium in the neighborhood in a way that can be visualized, if the lines of force are seen as strings. Then the mechanical disturbance will spread from the neutral point and may have energy comparable to the energy of the spot field in the solar atmosphere."
Dungey, 1958, page 139
​
So Mozina tells us that Dungey's explanation is 100% consistent but also tells us that magnetic reconnection is 100% pseudoscience. But Mozina overlooks that Dungey's 100% consistent explanation includes the 100% pseudoscience of magnetic reconnection. I will leave it as an exercise for the attentive reader to decide what impact this will have on the general credibility of Mozina's arguments.
 
Electric Sun and Electric Currents I

See The Electric Sun from Don Scott's Electric Cosmos webpages. Near the top of the page, under heading "The Basics", we find this: "The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies."

OK, all you fans of the electric sun, where is that current? This is the foundational feature of the electric sun hypothesis, the claim that the sun is powered entirely by an electric current flowing into the sun from outside. Electric currents are not invisible magic dark currents. Yet decades of spacecraft cruising the solar system in situ have not detected any sign of this electric current. Hence, the direct evidence from current measuring devices situated within what should be the alleged electric current, is that the current is not there. If the current is not there, then there is no basis in science for the electric sun hypothesis.

How do the electric sun champions explain this?
 
Electric Sun, not science, needs to moved somewhere below Bigfoot in the anti-intellectual spectrum.
 
Tim Thompson said:
OK, all you fans of the electric sun, where is that current? This is the foundational feature of the electric sun hypothesis, the claim that the sun is powered entirely by an electric current flowing into the sun from outside. Electric currents are not invisible magic dark currents. Yet decades of spacecraft cruising the solar system in situ have not detected any sign of this electric current.
Click to expand...

If I may run a bit further with that thought, assuming that all stars are powered the same way:

1) Does the consistent stellar mass/luminosity relationship mean that the galactic currents have consistent strength throughout the galaxy, rather than being weaker as one gets farther from the center of the galaxy?

2) Why does the mass/luminosity relationship work so well for binary stars? Wouldn't they be sharing their portion of the galactic current?

3) What powers extragalactic stars?

4) Most stars, including the sun, are in elliptical orbits about the center of the galaxy. Shouldn't the sun have a tail like a huge comet? (in the interest of completeness, I can't rule out the possibility that we're at one of the apses).

5) Do these galactic currents light up any nebulae?

More as I think of them.
 
Tim Thompson said:
So Mozina tells us that Dungey's explanation is 100% consistent but also tells us that magnetic reconnection is 100% pseudoscience. But Mozina overlooks that Dungey's 100% consistent explanation includes the 100% pseudoscience of magnetic reconnection. I will leave it as an exercise for the attentive reader to decide what impact this will have on the general credibility of Mozina's arguments.
Click to expand...


Yep. Plasma discharges, not electrical. Magnetic reconnection. And the plasma discharge is occurring above the chromosphere. None of it is support for, and all of it contradicts the idea of an electrical discharge from/to some physically impossible iron surface below the photosphere. If someone wanted to select a reference source that is particularly damning to the combined crackpot electric Sun, solid iron surface, and electrical discharge CMEs claims, Dungey's explanation couldn't be better.
 
dasmiller said:
If I may run a bit further with that thought, assuming that all stars are powered the same way:

1) Does the consistent stellar mass/luminosity relationship mean that the galactic currents have consistent strength throughout the galaxy, rather than being weaker as one gets farther from the center of the galaxy?
Click to expand...
There is a "peer-reviewed paper" published by a journal under the IEEE's auspices which sets out to show that the H-R (or colour-magnitude) diagram is a consequence of the currents which power each star.

For example, the spectral class (or colour) - which is usually plotted on the x-axis - is proportional to the current density (amps per square metre) at the surface of the star (photosphere).

If you should get your hands on a copy of that "paper", you are in for some surprises.
2) Why does the mass/luminosity relationship work so well for binary stars? Wouldn't they be sharing their portion of the galactic current?
Click to expand...
AFAIK, no EU/ES proponent has ever answered that question! :jaw-dropp

As you can imagine, it's not for want of being asked it ...
3) What powers extragalactic stars?
Click to expand...
Easy question; each galaxy has its own set of giant Birkeland currents, and there are also lots of these (even bigger ones) connecting galaxies.

You see, plasma laws scale ...
4) Most stars, including the sun, are in elliptical orbits about the center of the galaxy. Shouldn't the sun have a tail like a huge comet? (in the interest of completeness, I can't rule out the possibility that we're at one of the apses).
Click to expand...
There are several different answers to this; some EU/ES proponents say that it does indeed have one; others point to some recent astronomical observations showing that at least one star does have what they call a tail.
5) Do these galactic currents light up any nebulae?
Click to expand...
Sure they do!

You'll get, when you ask this question, dozens of links to images in various press releases, together with statements to the effect of "Look! See there! That's a Birkeland current!!"

And why are they so sure what they see is such a thing? Because of its shape! You know, all cats are black Birkeland currents are filamentary, this animal is black this thing is filamentary, therefore this animal is a cat therefore this thing is a Birkeland current.

It should be noted that, again AFAIK, no EU/ES proponent has ever provided any numbers to go with any of this - such as how many amps a particular current is carrying, or what current density corresponds to what spectral class - nor what powers the currents, nor where the circuits close.

It should also be noted that PC proponents - the ones who are not also EU/ES proponents - generally try to avoid being associated with EU/ES proponents.
 
Tim Thompson said:
See The Electric Sun from Don Scott's Electric Cosmos webpages. Near the top of the page, under heading "The Basics", we find this: "The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies."

OK, all you fans of the electric sun, where is that current? This is the foundational feature of the electric sun hypothesis, the claim that the sun is powered entirely by an electric current flowing into the sun from outside. Electric currents are not invisible magic dark currents. Yet decades of spacecraft cruising the solar system in situ have not detected any sign of this electric current. Hence, the direct evidence from current measuring devices situated within what should be the alleged electric current, is that the current is not there. If the current is not there, then there is no basis in science for the electric sun hypothesis.

How do the electric sun champions explain this?
Click to expand...
Easy.

The sorts of electrical discharge which power the Sun (and stars) are "dynamic" and along most of their path they are in "dark mode". The behaviour is too complicated to be modelled or described by any math (sometimes "non-linear equations" are mentioned).

In the regions of interplanetary space that spacecraft equipped with suitable detectors have been, the current is in "drift mode", so the electrons (or charge carriers, proponents try to avoid being pinned down as to whether they are electrons or not) are travelling too slowly to be detected.

Alternatively, the currents could indeed be easily detected, but no space probe has been to high latitudes (more or less over the Sun's poles), where the currents are to be found, so none has yet been found. Of course, the suppressors-of-science in NASA have been actively working to ensure no space probe ever does visit that part of space, because they know the truth, and are in cahoots with the energy multinational companies. And how do ES proponents know this? Because NASA suppressed Birkeland's research for more than half a century, preferring to tout Chapman's math-based hocus-pocus!

(OK, that last para may contain a couple of slight exaggerations)

I think Don Scott is on record as saying that a voltage drop of some billion volts can take place Sun-ward of where any space probe has been to date, which explains why no currents have yet been detected (this was a response to one of Tom Bridgman's blogs - I think Zeuzzzz can supply the reference).
 
DeiRenDopa said:
There is a "peer-reviewed paper" published by a journal under the IEEE's auspices which sets out to show that the H-R (or colour-magnitude) diagram is a consequence of the currents which power each star.

For example, the spectral class (or colour) - which is usually plotted on the x-axis - is proportional to the current density (amps per square metre) at the surface of the star (photosphere).

If you should get your hands on a copy of that "paper", you are in for some surprises.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing not the nice kind of surprises, like when they said it was healthy to have a glass of red wine every day.

I found a page that goes on at some length about the H-R diagram, but it doesn't discuss why the H-R diagram looks the same for stars near the galactic core as it does for stars out here in the boonies. That would mean that the E-field strength would have to drop linearly (constant volts/meter) throughout the galaxy, which would be an . . umm . . odd . . . shape for a 3D field.

I perused Dr. Scott's Electric Cosmos site and was somewhat surprised (notice that I didn't say shocked? I try to avoid bad puns) to learn that the Grand Canyon was actually formed by an electrical discharge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom