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

GeeMack · Dec 29, 2010

Ziggurat said:
In other words, your ideas about the sun are radically different from Alfven's. So why are you waving him around like a talisman, hoping to bludgeon us with his authority, when you have already discarded that authority when it comes to your own ideas? Do you not see the irony? Do you not recognize the double standard?

Indeed...

GeeMack said:
The crackpots' claims that they are simply presenting Alfvén's or Birkeland's or Bruce's "model" is demonstrably untrue. And every time it gets used as an argument to avoid taking responsibility for supporting the electric Sun proponents' own conjecture, it will continue to be untrue.

Michael Mozina · Dec 29, 2010

Ziggurat said:
Because if you can't do any math,

Fortunately that isn't the case.

then we cannot have a meaningful conversation with any depth about physics.

Some "understanding" isn't simply "mathematical" in nature, sometimes it is "conceptual" as well. A "discharge" and a "circuit" orientation in plasma physics requires a "conceptual" understanding first, and *then* a mathematical one. If someone can't grok the basic concept ("electrical discharge in a plasma"), the math is meaningless to them.

In other words, your ideas about the sun are radically different from Alfven's.

So what? And? From about 4800Km below the surface of the photosphere to the distance of the heliosphere, they are pretty similar.

So why are you waving him around like a talisman, hoping to bludgeon us with his authority,

That was funny!.

Well, for one thing "electric sun" theory isn't defined by the personal beliefs of yours truly. Secondly, Alfven's solar theories can't be dismissed simply because I personally prefer a different solar model!

when you have already discarded that authority when it comes to your own ideas?

No. Unlike you folks I don't "discard" theories I don't agree with, I simply rank them lower on my personal ranking system. I don't dismiss his solar theories at all.

Do you not see the irony? Do you not recognize the double standard?

No, not at all. I don't see thing simply in black and white like you do. I can "live and let live" and entertain *MULTIPLE* ideas without having to "act certain" that already know everything there is to know about solar physics. I have "preferences", but I would be willing to teach *multiple* ideas, not just one "mainstream" idea.

No, apparently you do not.

Nope. I'd be "happy" if PC theory (Alfven's solar theory included) were taught along side of "mainstream" cosmology theory, but you think only in absolute terms, much like a religious organization.

Michael Mozina · Dec 29, 2010

tusenfem said:
I have no problem, per se, with the paper by Carlqvist, unfortunately he does not discuss the interaction of the exiting beams with the ambient plasma, limiting the life time of the DL.

However, I discussed this to show that the DL does not explode, as it is basically impossible (IMHO) to actually interrupt the current in a solar loop.

I'm going to have to save the rest of this discussion until after work today since it warrants my full attention. I feel in some ways that we are not that far apart in terms of the expected lifespan of a double layer (not necessarily a plasma "filament/circuit" however), and I want to reread your paper again before I fully respond.

Keep in mind however that *IF* two 'circuits' physically "touch/reconnect', a short lived double layer would form at that point of intersection. It may become physically unstable in short order and cause the filaments/circuits to "reconnect" and or change the physical topology of the "circuits". Whether or not the currents are ever completely "interrupted" becomes irrelevant since that double layer will be *very* noisy and ultimately unstable.

I'll get to the rest of your post after work.

Michael Mozina · Dec 29, 2010

FYI T, I would still like to hear your answer to this specific question:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6704442&postcount=1152

GeeMack · Dec 29, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
If someone can't grok the basic concept ("electrical discharge in a plasma"), the math is meaningless to them.

What a ludicrous, ignorant, and dishonest argument. If someone can't grok the basic concept that electrical discharges, by definition, don't occur within a conducting medium, legitimate science is apparently meaningless to them.

Ziggurat · Dec 30, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Fortunately that isn't the case.

You keep saying that, but nobody believes you. Perhaps more importantly, though, it doesn't really matter if you CAN do math, because you won't do math.

Some "understanding" isn't simply "mathematical" in nature

But a lot is. And you refuse to take part in discussing the part that is mathematical.

So what?

So if you disagree fundamentally with something that Alfven believes in, then it makes absolutely no logical sense to claim that anyone else is wrong because Alfven disagrees with them. Not only are you committing the logical fallacy of argument from authority, you're doing so is a self-contradictory manner.

And? From about 4800Km below the surface of the photosphere to the distance of the heliosphere, they are pretty similar.

No, Michael, they are not.

Well, for one thing "electric sun" theory isn't defined by the personal beliefs of yours truly.

Indeed: it doesn't really seem to be defined at all.

Secondly, Alfven's solar theories can't be dismissed simply because I personally prefer a different solar model!

I'm not trying to dismiss Alfven's beliefs about the sun (his cosmology nonsense is a topic for a different thread). I am dismissing your crackpot notions, along with Haig's and all the other EU folks who think the sun is powered by something other than core fusion.

No. Unlike you folks I don't "discard" theories I don't agree with, I simply rank them lower on my personal ranking system. I don't dismiss his solar theories at all.

That sounds like a fancy way of saying that you believe in mutually contradictory things. I shouldn't be surprised, though.

Haig · Dec 30, 2010

Excuse the particularly slow response to questions posed at me. All due to family and social commitments, in this festive period. I’ll be back at work next week and my “usual” lack of time for posts will resume.

Perpetual Student said:
More of the same: All you people have are baseless criticisms of mainstream theory and lots of links and silly analogies. You never include any description, analysis or quantitative details of your theories. How about a refutation (with some justifying mathematics) of Ziggurat's demonstration of the impossibility of an electric sun?

Maybe Ziggurat would do the math for all these? :-

Of course, what is surprising or illogical from one vantage point may be "reasoning from the obvious" in another.

A: Jupiter interacts electrically with its moons.

B: Jupiter interacts electrically with the Sun, as does the Earth.

C: The planets in the Solar System are charged bodies.

D: The Sun has an electric field.

Suddenly the elephant so long "hidden" in the living room of astrophysics is exposed. Since the Sun gives off proton storms, and the protons in the solar wind are being accelerated away from the Sun, it should have been obvious all along that the Sun is the center of an electric field…

E. Electrical transactions between the Sun, the planets, and the planets' moons are only to be expected in the Electric Universe.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/061123abcd.htm

tusenfem said:
Did I write that? NO! Learn to read!
I wrote that at the moment the fusion model is the only model that can explain all observations.

Did I write that? NO! Learn to read! I wrote “So your saying it can't be falsified? That's a worry.”
FYI a “?” at the end of a sentence means it’s a question.

Ziggurat said:
So give me an alternative method to calculate total power output. Or hell, just total available energy will do.

Just use a method for low-pressure gas discharge physics.

That is not an explanation, that is an excuse. An excuse for failure.

I don’t think pointing out your using the wrong model is an excuse.

A total energy budget doesn't require a lot of mathematical complexity. And the reason is simple: making the system complex won't add energy. If you can't get the energy right with a simple model, you won't get it right with a complex one either.

As I understand it: EU/PC theory has the Sun as a focus or Z pinch of a galactic Birkeland current. It’s also scalable from the lab experiments of plasma Z pinches. So, can’t you do something with that for your total energy budget math?

Although, as Scott says “ Isn’t it premature in the extreme to leap into mathematical complexity when one is still just developing a model”

Again: the problem is that NO numbers will work. This is, yet again, simply an exercise in making excuses on Scott's part, and yours.

Waiting to get such quantities as voltage, altitude, temperature, and current density at the Sun’s surface isn’t an excuse, it’s sensible. Look at how many surprises mainstream has had with the Sun, since the start of the space age, or are you claiming they were all predicted?

That's a pretty good description of the EU folks. They don't understand the standard solar model, they don't understand electromagnetism, they don't understand plasmas, and yet they assume that electric phenomena dominate the sun. Why? Because Birkeland took some pretty pictures of a brass ball surrounded by partially ionized gas?

A gross bit of generalisation there and anyway, how have the mainstream faired?

from Wal Thornhill …“Countless billions of dollars have been wasted based on the thermonuclear model of stars. For example, trying to generate electricity from thermonuclear fusion, “just like the Sun.” The thought that solar scientists have it completely backwards has not troubled anyone’s imagination. The little fusion power that has been generated on Earth has required phenomenal electric power input, “just like the Sun!”

You don't have a model for your "Electric Sun Theory" but you know that.

Sure there is:Cosmic Electric Lights

The electrical model of the Sun discards the problematic birth of stars by gravitational accretion. Stars are formed following Marklund convection of charged particles in dusty plasma toward the axis of galactic Birkeland current filaments.

General form of the magnetic field line pattern in a force-free axisymmetric filamentary structure. The filament is transparent so the temperature decreases toward the axis due to a preferential cooling of the densest regions. So the ionized components of the plasma are convected inwards with a velocity V across a temperature gradient, delta T. Diagram adapted from Marklund, G. T., "Plasma convection in force-free magnetic fields as a mechanism for chemical separation in cosmical plasma", Nature, vol. 277, Feb. 1, 1979, p. 370, 371.
It is a very efficient mechanism, which results in scavenging matter with a long-range 1/r force. Marklund explains, “In my paper in Nature the plasma convects radially inwards, with the normal E x B/B2 velocity, towards the center of a cylindrical flux tube. During this convection inwards, the different chemical constituents of the plasma, each having its specific ionization potential, enter into a progressively cooler region. The plasma constituents will recombine and become neutral, and thus no longer under the influence of the electromagnetic forcing. The ionization potentials will thus determine where the different species will be deposited, or stopped in their motion." Stars formed in this way have an outer envelope of helium and hydrogen. Working inwards, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen will form the atmospheric middle layers, and iron, silicon and magnesium will make up the core, which is cool. There is no thermonuclear engine in stars!

Dr. Carl A. Rouse is called “a quiet maverick of an astrophysicist whose ‘nonstandard’ models of the interior of the Sun have been provoking the solar physics community for nearly 40 years.” He found from his study of pulsating variable stars that there is something wrong with the standard model of the interior of stars. Using the usual assumptions he could not match the observed mass, luminosity and radius of the Sun! He found that his model worked only by assuming the Sun has a core of heavy elements. What is more, he can reproduce the observed helioseismic oscillations. Rouse’s work deserves more attention because it fits the plasma cosmology story of star formation in a Z-pinch, with the heavy elements concentrated at the core. It also matches the Electric Universe model of electric stars, where the solar neutrino deficit is no longer “one of the greatest unsolved problems of solar physics” because sunshine is a spherical electric discharge phenomenon powered by the galaxy. It explains simply why the solar irradiance exhibits modulation identical to that of neutrinos. Nuclear reactions occur on the Sun like they do in atom smashers on Earth, by concentrating electrical energy onto a target.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac

Sure. For example, if the solar power output was too high for fusion to account for, that would falsify it. That's not the case, though.

Yes, but there ARE other problems.

But it IS the case that the power output is too high for any electric model to work. Which is why those models are already falsified.

You’re using the wrong model. The mathematician would see a star as a simple thing. Mathematicians require simple models to allow a mathematical solution. But as spacecraft have expanded our view of the Sun it is clear that that bright ball of plasma is not 'a simple thing.'

You have done nothing to actually argue to the contrary. You have produced no mechanism by which electromagnetism can supply sufficient power, and neither have any of your sources.

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Image:Heliospheric-current-circuit.png

Hell, you and your sources haven't even tried. Doesn't that make you wonder, even a little bit, whether or not maybe they might not be right?

Sure they have, but you want it backwards - math first then the physics. The EU/PC proponents are trying to get the physics of the theory right first then the math will follow.

Haig · Dec 30, 2010

Tim Thompson said:
It is exactly that. Of course, in principle it is still falsifiable. However, in practice, in order to falsify the theory that nuclear fusion powers the Sun (and stars), one would have to falsify the physics of the standard theory used to derive the high core temperatures, falsify the interpretation of helioseismological observations that verify the high core temperature,

Bearing in mind that the energy, claimed to flow from magnetic reconnection theory, stops when the electricity stops or that fusion reaction requires massively more energy IN than comes OUT. So, for the record, how do you explain this:

Sunspots are dark instead of bright, which is prima facie evidence that heat is not trying to escape from within.

the Sun’s corona is millions of degrees hotter than the photosphere. These simple observations point to the energy source of the Sun being external.

Add to this the dominant influence of magnetic fields on the Sun’s external behavior and we arrive at the necessity for an electrical energy supply.

- “we see that the sun’s bloated atmosphere and the “wrong-way” temperature gradient in that atmosphere point strongly to an external source of solar energy.” — Ralph E. Juergens

and falsify interpretation of neutrino observations that support the high core temperature. This will be harder done than said, because all of the theory & observations I have mentioned here are rooted in very fundamental physics.

Well, from what I have read the missing neutrino problem has NOT been solved:-

Missing Neutrinos
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.

Thornhill points out that the Electric Sun model predicts that fluctuations in the neutrino flux will be correlated with the level of electrical input to the Sun – that is, with such measurable phenomena as sunspot numbers and solar wind activity. This correlation has already been observed qualitatively. The standard solar model cannot explain it. Neutrinos carry no electrical charge; therefore, the usual 'hidden strange magnetic fields lurking beneath the Sun’s surface' cannot be invoked to explain away a correlation between neutrino flux and sunspot number if, indeed, that correlation is real. Any quantitative determination of a relationship between neutrino flux and sunspot number and/or solar wind intensity would absolutely falsify the fusion model once and for all. And it would be further validation of the Electric Sun model. But it was not undertaken.

Clearly, although the fusion model is beloved by its advocates, an objective analysis of the Sudbury and MiniBooNE experiments reveal that the missing neutrino problem still remains very far from being solved. And unless it is, the fusion model stands completely falsified. Don Scott
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm

So falsifying any of it will require a significant modification of the entire discipline of physics. So you see there is very little chance that this falsification can be carried out.

Yes, I agree it will require nothing less than a paradigm shift not just in solar theory (or fact, if you prefer) but also in physics. The time is ripe as it was in previous times - "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement." Lord Kelvin

Keep in mind my "bottom line"

Here is another:The Bottom Line

Our Sun, like all stars, is a variable star. We must learn to live with the uncertainty of a star that is a product of its environment. We can expect our Sun to change when it enters regions of interstellar space where there is more or less dust, which alters the plasma characteristics. In the meantime, we can only look for reassurance by closely examining the behavior of nearby stars. A few massive CME's are the least of our concerns.

* I am indebted to Professor Don Scott for this insight. He points out that the complete shutdown of the solar wind for two days in May 1999 is understandable with his transistor model. It is inexplicable on the thermonuclear model since there was no change in the Sun''s visible energy output that accompanied the phenomenon.
Data from Ulysses show that the solar wind originates in holes in the sun's corona, and the speed of the solar wind varies inversely with coronal temperature. "This was completely unexpected," said Lanzerotti. "Theorists had predicted the opposite. Now all models of the sun and the solar wind will have to explain this observation."
I missed an opportunity. This finding could have been predicted from the electrical model of the Sun.

The standard model of the solar wind has it "boiling off" the Sun so that you would expect a direct correlation between coronal temperature and solar wind speed. That is precisely the opposite of what the Ulysses spacecraft saw.
In the electric model of the Sun, where the solar electric field is strong in the coronal holes, protons of the solar wind are being strongly accelerated away from the Sun. Their random motion becomes less significant in a process called de-thermalization. Outside the coronal holes, where the coronal electric field is weaker, the protons move more aimlessly. As a result they suffer more collisions and move more randomly. The degree of random movement of particles directly equates to temperature. So the solar wind is fastest where the corona appears coolest and the solar wind is slowest where the corona appears hottest — as Ulysses found. Wal Thornhill
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=by2r22xg

No, the situation is in no way similar. We have explored the space around the Sun, in all directions, with spacecraft. We have actually flown right through where those currents are supposed to be, with instruments designed specifically to detect & measure electric currents. Guess what? The currents are not there? That's why the situation is completely different. Direct, in situ observations, clearly show that the currents are not there. If we know that the currents are not there, then why should we rely on them as a power source for the Sun, when we have a perfectly good nuclear alternative? Why is your way better than the standard way?

Sure, the drift currents from the double layer of the heliosphere haven’t been detected yet but the “plumes” leading to the Sun have.

Tsurutani also studied polar plumes, long trails from the base of the Sun. The plumes form in the Sun's polar regions, the upper and lower 30-degree latitude regions, and where these plumes occur, the magnetic field isn't kinked, but instead forms long, thin, straight tubes. This means that the Alfven waves don't operate in these regions, though scientists don't yet know why.

"Ulysses was able to find that the Sun's polar plumes stretch out past the orbit of Mars and maybe farther," said Tsurutani. "What's fascinating is how these plumes can be so thin and so long at the same time." A plume could be 100 times wider than it is long (sic). The European Space Agency's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) noted these polar plumes in 1996.

Comment:
What is fascinating is that astrophysicists cannot "see" what they are looking at because of the dogma that electric currents cannot flow in space and the Sun cannot be electrically charged. The thin, straight tubes are diagnostic of Birkeland currents. Birkeland currents also have an outer twisted filament or rope-like form taken by electric current flowing in plasma. The Alfven waves are therefore more likely to be the structure of the magnetic field associated with Birkeland currents. Otherwise there is some unspecified activity required beneath the Sun's surface to excite the Alfven waves, or "pluck the guitar string" as it is colorfully described. Unfortunately this "explanation" follows a well-established tradition of ascribing every weird feature of the Sun to poorly defined activity hidden from view inside the Sun. It is what is known as "pathological science" - a term coined by a pioneer of plasma physics and Nobel Laureate, Irving Langmuir.
http://www.holoscience.com/news/kinks.htm

Now, if that were not enough, how about this? We know, thanks to those spacecraft, that the space around the Sun is filled with a "solar wind" (or "stellar wind"), made up of a roughly equal number of relatively evenly mixed protons & electrons, carrying the solar magnetic field along with them. So how would one get an electric current to flow towards the sun, while it is ramming headlong into the solar wind flowing away from the Sun, carrying along with it a magnetic field, also moving away from the Sun? The answer is that one would not. The physics of electromagnetism, which the "electric Sun" people are supposed to know so well, make it physically impossible for the electric currents they claim are powering the Sun to exist at all.

What you’ve said, up to now, isn’t enough. The solar wind (or current sheet) is a positive ions stream outward from the Sun's surface and accelerate away, through the corona, for as far as we have been able to measure. It is thought that these particles eventually make up a portion of the cosmic ray flux that permeates the cosmos. The 'wind' varies with time and has even been observed to stop completely for a period of a day or two. What causes this fluctuation? The ES model proposes a simple explanation and suggests a mechanism that creates fluctuations in this flow. The standard model provides no such explanation or mechanism.

So, what do we have here? We have direct observations which directly show that the currents are not there . Furthermore, we have very basic physics which shows that the currents cannot be there in any case. Mutual agreement between observation & theory, which mutual agreement directly falsifies the electric Sun hypothesis.

What we have here is a phenomena that astrophysicists cannot "see" what they are looking at because of the dogma that electric currents cannot flow in space and the Sun cannot be electrically charged.

How do your heroes of the electric Sun respond to this?

First of all these proponents of the EU/PC theory aren’t my “heroes” but they do have my respect for putting forward these ideas in the face of such abuse and hostility from the mainstream. Secondly, they respond very well to your points. So much so that numpty laymen, like me, can copy and paste their rebuttals with ease.

THE SUN — Our Variable Star
Important Consequences of the Electric Star Model for the Sun.

1. A star is formed electromagnetically, not gravitationally, and is powered thereafter electrically (by Eddington's "subtle radiation").

2. Near the Sun, galactic transmission lines are in the form of 0.3 parsecs wide rotating Birkeland filaments (based on those detected at the center of the Milky Way). Their motion relative to the Sun will produce a slowly varying magnetic field and current density –' in other words a solar activity cycle. To that extent, all stars are variable. And just like real estate, location is vital.

3. An electric star has an internal radial electric field. But because plasma is an outstanding conductor it cannot sustain a high electric field. So plasma self-organizes to form a protective sheath or 'double layer' across which most of the electric field is concentrated and in which most of the electrical energy is stored. It is the release of that internal stored energy that causes CME's, nova outbursts, polar jets, and the birth of stellar companions.

4. In a ball of plasma like the Sun the radial electric field will tend to be concentrated in shells or double layers above and beneath the photosphere. A double layer exists above the solar photosphere, in the chromosphere.

5. The photosphere and chromosphere together act like a pnp transistor, modulating the current flow in the solar wind.* It has an effective negative feedback influence to steady the energy radiated by the photosphere so that astrophysicists can talk of a 'solar constant,' while the Sun''s other external electrical activity (UV light and x-rays) is much more variable. Because the photosphere is an electrical plasma discharge phenomenon it also expands or contracts to adjust to its electrical environment. That explains why the Sun 'rings' like an electric bell.

6. Double layers may break down with an explosive release of electrical energy. A nova outburst is a result of the breakdown of an internal stellar DL. Hannes Alfvén suggested that billions of volts could exist across a typical solar flare double layer.

7. A star is a resonant electrical load in a galactic circuit and naturally shows periodic behavior. Superimposed is the non-linear behavior of plasma discharges. Two stars close together can induce cataclysmic variability or pulsar behavior through such plasma discharges.

8. The correct model to apply to a star is that of a homopolar electric motor. It explains the puzzle of why the equator of the Sun rotates the fastest when it should be slowed by mass loss to the solar wind. (The same model applies to spiral galaxies and explains why outer stars orbit more rapidly than expected. The spiral arms of the galaxy and the spiral structure of the solar 'wind' then have an obvious connection).

9. The current that powers the Sun can be viewed as flowing in along the wavy polar magnetic field lines, then from the poles toward the equator. That current flow manifests as huge sub-photospheric flows of gas. In the mid-latitudes the circuit is completed as the current flows outward in a current sheet called incorrectly the solar 'wind.'

10. The transfer of charge to the solar wind takes place through the photosphere. It occurs in the form of a tightly packed global tornadic electrical discharge. The importance of the tornadic form for us is that it is slower than lightning, being under the tight control of powerful electromagnetic forces, and less bright than lightning. The intense, equally spaced solenoidal magnetic fields of the photospheric tornadoes gives rise to the surprisingly evenly spaced magnetic field lines of the Sun.

11. Encircling the Sun''s equator is a ring current forming a doughnut-shaped plasmoid. It is visible in UV light and is a source of stored electromagnetic energy. Occasionally the plasmoid discharges directly to lower levels of the Sun, punching a hole, that we call a sunspot, through the photosphere. A sunspot group can be compared to regional lightning on Earth. Scientists were surprised when they discovered 'awesome plasma hurricanes' just beneath a sunspot. Electric discharges in a plasma naturally drive such rotation. Sunspots of the same magnetic polarity are drawn toward each other, which is inexplicable if they are simply magnetic phenomena. However, two parallel electric current filaments following the magnetic field lines are naturally drawn together.

12. Sometimes the slow discharge that forms a sunspot may trigger a stellar lightning flash, resulting in a more sudden and powerful release of stored electrical energy. An x-ray flash is the signature of such lightning. That arc may result in a CME. The corona often dims as power is withdrawn from the solar plasmoid.

13. The conventional thermonuclear story of stellar evolution is incorrect so we do not know the age of the Sun, or its character in the past or future. The inexplicable and drastic global climate changes on Earth in the past may have found an answer at last in the variable nature of stars.

Don Scott
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm.

Haig · Dec 30, 2010

Solar Electricity

In the electric Sun hypothesis, the Sun is an anode, or or positively charged "electrode." As previously mentioned, the cathode is an invisible "virtual cathode," called the heliosphere, at the farthest limit of the Sun's coronal discharge, billions of kilometers from its surface. This is the double layer that isolates the Sun's plasma cell from the galactic plasma that surrounds it.

In the Electric Universe model, most of the voltage difference between the Sun and the galaxy occurs across the heliospheric boundary sheath. Inside the heliopause the weak electric field centered on the Sun is enough to power the solar discharge. The visible component of the glow discharge occurs above the solar surface in layers.

According to the electric Sun theory, an electric field focused on the Sun accelerates charged particles: the faster they accelerate, the stronger the field. But as noted, the interplanetary electric field is extremely weak. No instrument would be able to measure the voltage differential across 100 meters, but the solar wind acceleration over tens of millions of kilometers does confirm the Sun's e-field, enough to sustain a drift current across the Solar System. Within the spatial volume, the implied current is sufficient to power the Sun.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090624solar.htm

GeeMack · Dec 30, 2010

Haig said:
Although, as Scott says “ Isn’t it premature in the extreme to leap into mathematical complexity when one is still just developing a model”

So the electric Sun conjecture simply can't be quantitatively described. No wonder math illiterates seem so fond of it. No numbers required, or even desired. It's not science. It's a wildass guess supported by, well, uniformed guessing, appeals to ignorance, lies, and in the fashion of 911 Truthers, a lot of posting links and JAQing.

GeeMack · Dec 30, 2010

Haig said:
Bearing in mind [...]

Argument by plagiarism noted.

Haig · Dec 30, 2010

GeeMack said:
So the electric Sun conjecture simply can't be quantitatively described. No wonder math illiterates seem so fond of it. No numbers required, or even desired. It's not science. It's a wildass guess supported by, well, uniformed guessing, appeals to ignorance, lies, and in the fashion of 911 Truthers, a lot of posting links and JAQing.

Don't you ever get tired of the ad homs?

GeeMack said:
Argument by plagiarism noted.

Wrong.

Plagiarism is the copying or paraphrasing of other people’s work or ideas into your own work without full acknowledgement

I give full acknowledgement.

The Sun/Earth Connection

Although the general premise is probably thousands of years old—that Earth is somehow an electrical entity—it has only been in the last 100 years that scientists have given serious credence to the possibility that we could be living in a dynamic Solar System where electricity plays an important role. The Sun's electric field extends for billions of kilometers, influencing the planets in their motions, as well as how they interact with each other.

In September of 2002, a major premise of Electric Universe theory was confirmed: weather systems on Earth are electrically connected to the field of charged particles called the ionosphere. Dual bands of plasma shining in ultraviolet light were detected by the IMAGE satellite. The plasma streams are circling the Earth in opposite directions along the equator, carrying positive and negative electric charges.

Since plasma is a charged substance, if it is in motion it will generate an electric current. An electric current flowing through plasma creates a tube-like magnetic sheath that "squeezes" the current to form one or more filaments . If enough current passes through the circuit, the plasma current filaments will glow, sometimes creating one or more "double layers" of charge separation along the current axis.

Double layers form when a current flows in plasma and positive and negative charges build up in adjacent regions along the current flow. A powerful electric field appears between the two regions, which accelerates charged particles. Hannes Alfvén considered double layers an important cosmic circuit element.

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100203interconnected.htm

Haig · Dec 30, 2010

Will it take another several hundred years (as it took Galileo) to gain official recognition of the validity of these challenges from those who presently occupy Fortress Science? Will it ever happen? I don't know. But does it have practical importance? You bet your pocketbook it does. The eventual outcome depends on the public's attitude - do you want the expensive magic show to continue - or do you want honest answers from science? Don Scott.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/summary.htm

Heliospheric Current
The Sun acts as a unipolar inductor (A) producing a current, which during odd solar cycles goes outward along the axes (B2) in both directions and inward in the equatorial plane B_. The current closes at large distances (B3), but we do not know where. The equatorial current layer is often very inhomogeneous. Further, it moves up and down like the skirt of a ballerina. In even solar cycles the direction of the current is reversed.

It is known, from laboratory experiments that double layers will form in plasmas, usually in the presence of an electric current.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013880_1987013880.pdf

GeeMack · Dec 30, 2010

Haig said:
Will it take another several hundred years (as it took Galileo) to gain official recognition of the validity of these challenges from those who presently occupy Fortress Science? Will it ever happen? I don't know. But does it have practical importance? You bet your pocketbook it does. The eventual outcome depends on the public's attitude - do you want the expensive magic show to continue - or do you want honest answers from science? Don Scott.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/summary.htm

Heliospheric Current
The Sun acts as a unipolar inductor (A) producing a current, which during odd solar cycles goes outward along the axes (B2) in both directions and inward in the equatorial plane B_. The current closes at large distances (B3), but we do not know where. The equatorial current layer is often very inhomogeneous. Further, it moves up and down like the skirt of a ballerina. In even solar cycles the direction of the current is reversed.

It is known, from laboratory experiments that double layers will form in plasmas, usually in the presence of an electric current.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870013880_1987013880.pdf

Again not a single original word. Argument by copy and paste noted.

Michael Mozina · Dec 30, 2010

Haig said:
Don't you ever get tired of the ad homs?

Evidently not.

Haig · Dec 30, 2010

GeeMack said:
Again not a single original word. Argument by copy and paste noted.

Why add anything if the original is clear? Is that you admitting your "Argument by plagiarism noted" ad hom was wrong?

Ziggurat · Dec 30, 2010

Haig said:
Maybe Ziggurat would do the math for all these? :-

What math do you want? The total force of attraction? The power output? I'm willing to work on calculations, but you need to better specify what you're asking about. And I also want to know that the results will actually matter to the discussion.

Since the Sun gives off proton storms, and the protons in the solar wind are being accelerated away from the Sun, it should have been obvious all along that the Sun is the center of an electric field

Must be a special kind of electric field that can accelerate electrons in the same direction.

E. Electrical transactions between the Sun, the planets, and the planets' moons are only to be expected in the Electric Universe.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/061123abcd.htm

That's a misrepresentation of standard astrophysics.

Just use a method for low-pressure gas discharge physics.

Q. How do you build an engine that runs on water?
A. Use a wrench.

Your answer is similarly informative.

I don’t think pointing out your using the wrong model is an excuse.

It is when you can't actually show (quantitatively) why my calculations are wrong, or provide a better alternative model.

As I understand it: EU/PC theory has the Sun as a focus or Z pinch of a galactic Birkeland current.

That tells me nothing about the source of the energy involved.

It’s also scalable from the lab experiments of plasma Z pinches.

No, actually, it isn't. You will notice that laboratory Z pinches don't form spheres.

So, can’t you do something with that for your total energy budget math?

Nope. And neither can you. There's nothing TO do. A Z pinch is not a source of energy.

Although, as Scott says “ Isn’t it premature in the extreme to leap into mathematical complexity when one is still just developing a model”

Again: they don't even have the SIMPLE stuff down. And what do you think a physics model is? Developing the math is central to developing a model. If you aren't developing the math (even a simplified version), then you aren't developing a model. Scott is basically admitting that they aren't developing a model, they're just navel-gazing.

Waiting to get such quantities as voltage, altitude, temperature, and current density at the Sun’s surface isn’t an excuse, it’s sensible.

Why is it sensible to avoid doing order-of-magnitude calculations to test if your idea has a snowball's chance in hell of having any bearing on reality? It's not. Especially when such calculations are easy.

A gross bit of generalisation there and anyway, how have the mainstream faired?

Pretty damned well, as a matter of fact.

from Wal Thornhill …“Countless billions of dollars have been wasted based on the thermonuclear model of stars. For example, trying to generate electricity from thermonuclear fusion, “just like the Sun.”

I'm afraid this only shows that Thornhill is ignorant or dishonest: we don't try to generate fusion energy “just like the Sun.” The sun can burn pure hydrogen. All our efforts have to start with deuterium, because we cannot do it the same way as the sun, for obvious practical reasons. And we wouldn't generate power that way even if we could: the burn rate would be too slow to be of any practical use.

Let's do a little math to demonstrate what I mean. The power output of the sun is roughly 3.85x10²⁶ Watts. The volume of the sun is roughly 1.4x10¹⁸ km³. That gives us about 275 megawatts per cubic kilometer. A cubic kilometer... and all you get is a modest power plant? There are current nuclear plants with over ten times that power output, and they don't take up a cubic kilometer of volume. And that's ignoring the fact that we cannot sustain the necessary pressures here on earth.

In other words, Thornhill is an idiot. We don't WANT to produce fusion power like the sun. We want much fast reaction.

The thought that solar scientists have it completely backwards has not troubled anyone’s imagination.

The fact that Thornhill doesn't know what he's talking about has not troubled your imagination.

Sure there is:Cosmic Electric Lights

No mention in there of how to calculate total power or total available energy. They do reference Juergens, who is IIRC the source for the absurd 10 billion volts claim.

It is a very efficient mechanism, which results in scavenging matter with a long-range 1/r force.

Let me clue you in on something: ANY force with 1/r² dependence from a point source can produce 1/r dependence from a line source. Magnetism is no different than gravity in this regard. But unlike gravity, if you get far enough away from the source, magnetism drops to 1/r³ or worse, whereas gravity never gets weaker than 1/r².

Yes, but there ARE other problems. You’re using the wrong model. The mathematician would see a star as a simple thing.

In some respects, they ARE simple things. For example, they're nearly perfect spheres, not Klein bottles or other strange shapes.

Mathematicians require simple models to allow a mathematical solution.

Not so. Simple models are just the easiest to work with. And they're often quite sufficient, too. For example, when I calculated that the sun would explode if it had Jeurgens' suggested voltage, I assumes a spherically symmetric charge distribution. It's hard to calculate the electric field if the charge is not symmetrically distributed, but we don't need to: if it's not uniform, the field will be stronger in precisely the locations where the charge is concentrated, making the problem worse.

But as spacecraft have expanded our view of the Sun it is clear that that bright ball of plasma is not 'a simple thing.'

I never said it was simple. But you can indeed treat aspects of it quite simply. For example, the total available energy is a single number. For hydrogen fusion, it's rather easy to calculate. The details might get complex, but we don't need the details to know whether or not the total available energy can power the sun for sufficiently long periods of time. And for core fusion of hydrogen, it can.

For electricity? It cannot. And none of your sources ever bother to try to argue quantitatively that it can.

Sure they have, but you want it backwards - math first then the physics. The EU/PC proponents are trying to get the physics of the theory right first then the math will follow.

And the promised land is just around the corner.

How many decades has it been now? How many more decades do you think it will take them in order to figure out a basic energy budget? What's it going to take for you to realize it's never going to happen, that they will never deliver?

Tubbythin · Dec 30, 2010

Haig said:
from Wal Thornhill …“Countless billions of dollars have been wasted based on the thermonuclear model of stars. For example, trying to generate electricity from thermonuclear fusion, “just like the Sun.”

I'm struggling to believe Thornhill is that stupid. This really is a ridiculous and absurd statement.
The generation of energy in thermonuclear fusion devices is NOT based on thermonuclear models of the Sun. They use a deuterium-tritium reaction which does not occur in the Sun. The tritium comes from fission reactors because it does not occur naturally. Absolutely no knowledge of the processes going on inside the centre of the Sun is needed. So either Thornhill doesn't have the slightest idea what he is talking about or he is deliberately trying to mislead his readers. Which option would you prefer Haig?

Tubbythin · Dec 30, 2010

Haig said:
Well, from what I have read the missing neutrino problem has NOT been solved:-

Missing Neutrinos
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.

Fine.

So it is now exceedingly doubtful that the long sought excuse for the solar neutrino flux deficit has been found.

Not fine. This is a completely subjective interpretation from somebody scratching around desperately. There have been many experiments studying neutrinos oscillations and the LSND result is the only significant one that contradicts the current neutrino oscillation theory. So there are basically four possibilities:
1) The result from the MiniBooNE experiment is wrong.
2) The result from LSND is wrong.
3) The result from all the other experiments are wrong.
4) Neutrino oscillations are more complicated than previously thought.
The only one of these possibilities that is consistent with Thornhill's claims is number 3. Don't you find it funny that he should neglect these other possibilities and assume all the other results must be wrong?

Thornhill points out that the Electric Sun model predicts that fluctuations in the neutrino flux will be correlated with the level of electrical input to the Sun – that is, with such measurable phenomena as sunspot numbers and solar wind activity. This correlation has already been observed qualitatively. The standard solar model cannot explain it.

If there is no quantitative evidence of this phenomenon then there is quite simply nothing to explain.

Neutrinos carry no electrical charge; therefore, the usual 'hidden strange magnetic fields lurking beneath the Sun’s surface' cannot be invoked to explain away a correlation between neutrino flux and sunspot number if, indeed, that correlation is real.

But there is nothing to explain.

Any quantitative determination of a relationship between neutrino flux and sunspot number and/or solar wind intensity would absolutely falsify the fusion model once and for all.

This is hilarious hypocrisy. An ES proponent criticising the mainstream for not doing quantitative analysis. Comedy gold.

And it would be further validation of the Electric Sun model. But it was not undertaken.

No it wouldn't. Apart from the Electric Sun model being trivially falsified by basic physics, Thornhill hasn't (as far as I'm aware) provided any quantitative analysis of what the correlations should be. So there is no way of comparing prediction with experiment and no way for making the claim that the results support the model.

Clearly, although the fusion model is beloved by its advocates, an objective analysis of the Sudbury and MiniBooNE experiments reveal that the missing neutrino problem still remains very far from being solved. And unless it is, the fusion model stands completely falsified.

No it doesn't. There are multiple experiments showing the existence of neutrino oscillations and only one significant one that doesn't. The only way that one can conclude that the fusion model is falsified is if one assumes the LSND and MiniBooNE results are correct and the other results are wrong. And yet no objective reason is given for why this should be the case. Pretty funny that.

tusenfem · Dec 30, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Keep in mind however that *IF* two 'circuits' physically "touch/reconnect', a short lived double layer would form at that point of intersection. It may become physically unstable in short order and cause the filaments/circuits to "reconnect" and or change the physical topology of the "circuits". Whether or not the currents are ever completely "interrupted" becomes irrelevant since that double layer will be *very* noisy and ultimately unstable.

(my bold)
I would not know why a DL would form when two circuits touch. Please give a full explanation of this process.

Also, it is a circuit or a 'circuit' or a "circuit" and what is the difference between the three.

tusenfem · Dec 30, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
FYI T, I would still like to hear your answer to this specific question:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6704442&postcount=1152

I think that in the one line definition of discharge by Peratt, one would say it is a discharge.

However, taking also into account the next few sentences, then I do not see MRx as a discharge, because of the "this generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown" part.

Of course this is all semantics, and thus useless.

tusenfem · Dec 30, 2010

Haig said:
Of course, what is surprising or illogical from one vantage point may be "reasoning from the obvious" in another.

A: Jupiter interacts electrically with its moons.

B: Jupiter interacts electrically with the Sun, as does the Earth.

C: The planets in the Solar System are charged bodies.

D: The Sun has an electric field.

Suddenly the elephant so long "hidden" in the living room of astrophysics is exposed. Since the Sun gives off proton storms, and the protons in the solar wind are being accelerated away from the Sun, it should have been obvious all along that the Sun is the center of an electric field…

E. Electrical transactions between the Sun, the planets, and the planets' moons are only to be expected in the Electric Universe.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/061123abcd.htm

Oh, dear, another direct quote from thunderdolts.
It starts off with "NASA investigators now recognize that Jupiter's auroras are electrical phenomena." Apparently this is from 2005, and at that time it was already well known what creates aurora (accelerated particles hitting the atmosphere), but I guess thunderdolts did not know that yet.

And yes, there is a tail to the auroral spot, which was well explained by 2005. And then comes the question:

thunderdolts said:
"…Europa is not thought to be volcanic, so what could produce the electrical current that zips along and eventually gives rise to Europa's auroral footprint?" the writers of the report ask.

Which reports is that supposed to be? Definitely not the paper by Grodent, because I know that he knows about Alfvén wings, something that has been know about since the Voyager era!!! (i.e. ~20 years before that GRL paper by Grodent).

So, the interaction of the Jovian magnetosphere with the Galilean moons is, if anything electromagnetic, calling it electric does not make any sense at all. The magnetic field of Jupiter moves faster than the moon and gets draped over the moon. This sets up Alfvén waves, travelling along the magnetic field to Jupiter and back again, and this sets up a current system. Here is a paper that I wrote about this. So actually, the interaction is magnetic and the changes in the magnetic field create electric fields and sets up currents. The magnetic field is the starting point for this phenomenon.

Jupiter interacts with the solar wind of the sun, which again is mainly a magnetic interaction.

Are the planets charged? Yes, probably they have a small charge, but then what? What do they want to do with the charge? Well, I guess that comes from the following misconception:

thunderdolts said:
An electrical interaction between Jupiter and its moons means that the bodies are charged. (As soon as you grant that one body is charged, the other body is also charged in relationship to it).

The fact that currents flow along the Io, or Europa or Ganymede or Callisto flux tube does not mean at all that the moons are charged. This conclusion means that thunderdolts does not understand the way the moons interact with the magnetic field of Jupiter (not surprising). Look in my paper in the references for full explanations of this process by e.g. Neubauer and by Herbert and by Kivelson.

Then we get to that the sun has an electric field. Probably yes, as it has a net charge (see post by Tim Thompson for link to paper by Neslusan), but the electric field is small, as far as I know, no real electric field has been measured.

Ah, proton storms are the indication that the Sun is in the centre of an electric field? Then what is with the electrons that are also accelerated away from the Sun? Of course a so called proton storm is just the same as a solar flare, and yes there is an abundance of protons then passing by the Earth, but also an equal amount of electrons. It is just that in these kind of events the protons have more energy because of the interaction with the CME (shock acceleration).

So, to end, electromagnetic interactions between the solar wind and the planets or between the magnetosphere and moons are only to be expected in mainstream plasmaastrophysics and space physics.

Haig said:
Did I write that? NO! Learn to read! I wrote “So your saying it can't be falsified? That's a worry.”
FYI a “?” at the end of a sentence means it’s a question.
Just use a method for low-pressure gas discharge physics.
I don’t think pointing out your using the wrong model is an excuse.
As I understand it: EU/PC theory has the Sun as a focus or Z pinch of a galactic Birkeland current. It’s also scalable from the lab experiments of plasma Z pinches. So, can’t you do something with that for your total energy budget math?

I have already shown that an electric Sun does not match the observations, there is no large current flow a la Juergens, because we do not observe that kind of magnetic field, no such currents were measured above the poles of the Sun, there is no dynamo that can drive that kind of current that is needed for an electric Sun and last but not least, there exists no electric Sun model that is even remotely quantitative. I am NOT going to do a calculation for the energy budget here, because I already did do that with the stupid Juergens model.

Why don't you do some real work? But then, you can only parrot thunderdolts, and further nothing.

This is no discussion, this is just you copying the whole thunderdolts website here, and if you have finished that, you will probably start copying posts from godlikeproductions.

tusenfem · Dec 31, 2010

As Dungey has popped up in the discussion here, I would like to present his model regarding magnetospheric convection, also called "the Dungey cycle."

Unfortunately, I seem to have problems uploading the figure to the board. So I will just copy the caption of the figure in Charlie Kellel's book: Convection and Substorms
Paradigms of Magnetospheric Phenomenology (1995).

Kennel said:
Figure 1.4. The Reconnection Model of the Magnetosphere.
This is Dungey's (1961a) original sketch showing the effects of reconnection on a teardrop magnetosphere. Here we view the magnetic field in the noon-midnight meridian plane from the evening side, with the solar wind flowing towards the earth from the left. The bow shock is not shown and is not necessary to the argument. The magnetic field in the solar wind is due south. Eight field lines, marked 1", 2", . . ., if they connect to the sun, and 1', 2', . . ., if they connect to the earth, have been singled out to illustrate the circulation of the flow at key moments in time.
At time 1, the closed field line 1' is converting towards the subsolar magnetopause, while its eventual partner 1" is flowing with the solar wind to the earth. They meet at the subsolar magnetopause where they reconnect (2" to 2'). The tension in the newly reconnected field lines accelerates the plasma over the polar cap (3'-3", 4'-4", 5'-5"). The solar wind (arrows) continues to drag the flux tubes, extending the geomagnetic field into a long tail on the night side (6'—6"). The stretched field lines, now oppositely directed in the northern and southern tail lobes, reconnect a second time in the tail (7'-7"). The reconnection heats the plasma, creating a hot plasma sheet, and sends flow (arrows) towards the earth (8') and tailward (8") back into the solar wind. In the fullness of time, line 8' will convect to where 1' is and the convection cycle will start again.
J.W. Dungey, Phys. Rev. Lett. 6, 47 (1961).

Ah, I managed to get it in my pictures album

As I cut my left index finger preparing dinner yesterday, I will Charlie Kennell talk (i.e. I will copy and paste from his book)

Kennel said:
1.4 Reconnection-Driven Convection

In 1961, Dungey (1961a) set forth his own convection model, in which the dissipative interaction with the solar wind was not due to viscosity, but to resistive reconnection of the interplanetary and geomagnetic fields at the dayside magnetopause. Dungey, stimulated by Giovanelli's (1947) and Hoyle's (1949) observation that solar flares frequently occur near magnetic neutral regions, had earlier proposed an x-type neutral line mechanism for particle acceleration, the development of sheet currents, and energy release in solar flares (Dungey, 1953, 1958). So, once he learned that the solar wind was magnetized, he realized that an x-type neutral point would form on the dayside magnetopause on those occasions when the interplanetary field was southward, the direction opposite to the earth's field at the magnetopause. Reconnection at this neutral point could then set the plasma inside the magnetosphere in motion.

In Dungey's model of convection, solar wind plasma and energy enters the nightside of the magnetosphere flowing antisunward over the geomagnetic poles in what are today called the plasma mantles (Levy et al., 1964). In either the reconnection or the viscous convection model, the convecting plasma should return to the dayside on closed field lines, and there is a basic two-cell pattern of convection in the high-latitude ionosphere. Despite this similarity, the models could be easily distinguished. Dungey's reconnecting magnetosphere had to have a specific structure. Open field lines had to connect the earth's magnetic polar caps directly to the interplanetary magnetic field. There had to be a long, low-density magnetic tail, with a current layer separating its northern and southern lobes. Surrounding the current layer there would be a sheet of heated plasma convecting earthward on closed field lines. There would be a magnetic neutral line that
terminates that plasma sheet, and tailward flow on open field lines downstream of that neutral line. Another telltale sign would be for strong convection to correlate with southward interplanetary magnetic field.

The key question for the credibility of Dungey's model concerned the rate of reconnection, the subject of the next section.

I guess this solves the question whether Dungey let magnetic field lines reconnect or not.

Just to add some of the references to Dungey's work:
Dungey, J. W., Conditions for the occurrence of electrical discharges in astrophysical systems, Phil. Mag., 44, 725,1953.
Dungey, J. W., Electrodynamics of the outer atmosphere, Sci. Rep. 69, lonos. Res. Lab., Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pa., 1954.
Dungey, J. W., Electrodynamics of the outer atmosphere, p. 229 in The Physics of the Ionosphere, 1954 Cambridge Conference, Physical Society, London, England, 1955.
Dungey, J. W., Cosmic Electrodynamics, p. 98, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1958.
Dungey, J. W., Interplanetary magnetic field and the auroral zones, Phys. Rev. Lett., 6, 47,1961a.
Dungey, J. W., The steady state of the Chapman-Ferraro problem in two dimensions, J. Geophys. Res., 66, 1043,1961b.

Michael Mozina · Dec 31, 2010

tusenfem said:
I think that in the one line definition of discharge by Peratt, one would say it is a discharge.

Ok. At least you and I can now communicate.

However, taking also into account the next few sentences, then I do not see MRx as a discharge, because of the "this generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown" part.

Of course this is all semantics, and thus useless.

Ooops? What happened there? Are you trying to 'fit in' with the 'guys', even the ones that haven't bothered to read the materials in question, and therefore haven't a clue what they are even talking about?

How exactly did you expect us to have a "conversation" if we can't agree on "terms"? Surely you aren't so ignorant as to believe that a "discharge" cannot happen in a plasma because it is a "conductor"?

Michael Mozina · Dec 31, 2010

Haig said:
the Sun’s corona is millions of degrees hotter than the photosphere. These simple observations point to the energy source of the Sun being external.

FYI, I would caution you about getting too carried away with the concept of "internal" vs. "external" energy source for the corona.

This is a white light image of coronal loops coming up and through the surface of the photosphere. Those loops are millions of degrees hot, but that doesn't mean that the *ENTIRE* corona is millions of degrees. Most mainstreamers seem to utterly ignore the whole notion of Thompson scattering in plasmas, they ignore the 'current flows' (as such) coming up and through the photosphere, and even that "current flow" can be "internally" generated. Be careful about "assuming' that excess heat *necessarily* requires an "external" energy source. That may not be the case. It "may" be the case, but then it again, if the sun acts as a cathode or even an anode with an internal energy source, is that "current flow" actually an "internal" or an "external" process?

GeeMack · Dec 31, 2010

tusenfem said:
As Dungey has popped up in the discussion here, I would like to present his model regarding magnetospheric convection, also called "the Dungey cycle." [...]

Okay, so now Dungey's research has been reviewed and shown to not support the crackpot notion that electrical discharges cause or are solar flares and CMEs. So Alfvén doesn't support it. Birkeland doesn't. Bruce doesn't. Dungey doesn't. Looking at pictures and declaring it looks like a bunny doesn't. Lying doesn't support it. A variety of logical fallacies have been tried and busted pretty readily, and they don't support it. Seems the electric Sun cranks are floundering here, not a shred of quantitative objective support for their wacky claim.

GeeMack · Dec 31, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
FYI, I would caution you about getting too carried away with the concept of "internal" vs. "external" energy source for the corona.

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15%20April%202001%20WL.gif[/qimg]

This is a white light image of coronal loops coming up and through the surface of the photosphere. Those loops are millions of degrees hot, but that doesn't mean that the *ENTIRE* corona is millions of degrees. Most mainstreamers seem to utterly ignore the whole notion of Thompson scattering in plasmas, they ignore the 'current flows' (as such) coming up and through the photosphere, and even that "current flow" can be "internally" generated. Be careful about "assuming' that excess heat *necessarily* requires an "external" energy source. That may not be the case. It "may" be the case, but then it again, if the sun acts as a cathode or even an anode with an internal energy source, is that "current flow" actually an "internal" or an "external" process?

Looks like a bunny, yep. But not really. And there's nothing quantitative or objective there whatsoever. In order to be legitimately scientific, one must be quantitative and objective. So the comment above is just another in a long line of failures.

Michael Mozina · Dec 31, 2010

GeeMack said:
Okay, so now Dungey's research has been reviewed and shown to not support the crackpot notion that electrical discharges cause or are solar flares and CMEs.

What?!?!?

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a910645978~frm=abslink

Conditions for the occurrence of electrical discharges in astrophysical systems

Discharges are shown to be a possible source of high energy particles, if the current density is very large. The growth of the current density is discussed using the fact that the magnetic lines of force are approximately frozen into the ionized gas. It is shown that discharges are unlikely to occur anywhere except at neutral points of the magnetic field. Neutral points are found to be unstable in such a way that a small perturbation will start a discharge in a time of the order of the characteristic time of the system. Such discharges may account for aurorae, and may also occur in solar flares and the interstellar gas.

What does Dungey mean by that part in yellow there GM?

GeeMack · Dec 31, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
What does Dungey mean by that part in yellow there GM?

Well he certainly isn't saying electrical discharges are or cause CMEs and solar flares. It seems conciseness of communication is as unimportant to electric Sun crackpots as quantitative analysis is. Oh, and it was 1953 after all. Humans hadn't even transcended the bounds of the Earth's atmosphere yet. To some people science stopped when Birkeland died. Real science, however, isn't a guessing game for kids like the electric Sun crackpots want it to be. It moves ahead no matter how desperately the cranks want to cling to the dead science and scientists from the past.

So far in this thread we have come to the reasoned conclusion that neither Dungey, Alfvén, Birkeland, nor Bruce had a solar model in/on which electrical discharges are or cause solar flares and CMEs.

Michael Mozina · Dec 31, 2010

GeeMack said:
Well he certainly isn't saying electrical discharges are or cause CMEs and solar flares.

I'm sorry, maybe I confused you by highlighting too much of Dungey's text the first time. Let me try again for you:

Conditions for the occurrence of electrical discharges in astrophysical systems

Discharges are shown to be a possible source of high energy particles, if the current density is very large. The growth of the current density is discussed using the fact that the magnetic lines of force are approximately frozen into the ionized gas. It is shown that discharges are unlikely to occur anywhere except at neutral points of the magnetic field. Neutral points are found to be unstable in such a way that a small perturbation will start a discharge in a time of the order of the characteristic time of the system. Such discharges may account for aurorae, and may also occur in solar flares and the interstellar gas.

Ok, explain *ONLY* the yellow parts for us now GM and explain in detail what you think he means by the parts in yellow.

Ziggurat · Dec 31, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
Ok, explain *ONLY* the yellow parts for us now GM and explain in detail what you think he means by the parts in yellow.

The yellow parts indicate that he's speculating that solar flares might contain conditions suitable to create what he calls electrical discharge. Nothing about that suggests that he thinks electrical discharges CAUSE solar flares. That much should be obvious, since he says that they may "account for aurorae", but only "occur in solar flares". If he meant that electrical discharges cause solar flares, he would have said that they "account for" solar flares as well. So it appears that you have the relationship backwards: he thinks solar flares might cause discharges, not that discharges cause solar flares.

GeeMack · Dec 31, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
I'm sorry, maybe I confused you by highlighting too much. Let me try again for you:

Ok, explain *ONLY* the yellow parts for us now GM and explain in detail what you think he means by the parts in yellow.

Electrical discharges "are or are the cause of" solar flares and CMEs is, in basic grade school level English anyway, not the same thing as "may also occur in". It would be a stupid and truly dishonest argument to attempt to conflate those two quite different concepts. So I'm sure we can all agree that argument constitutes yet another in a consistent string of miserable failures to support the claim.

Not to mention the fact that any idiot realizes solar science has progressed significantly since 1953. The dishonest effort to cherry pick a few select words and phrases from some outdated material is the antithesis of science, but apparently a pretty common strategy among crackpots.

And the dishonest effort to shift the burden of proof is once again, as always, noted.

We have come to the reasoned conclusion that neither Dungey, Alfvén, Birkeland, nor Bruce had a solar model in/on which electrical discharges are or cause solar flares and CMEs. Nothing legitimately scientific, quantitative, and objective has been offered yet that might change that.

Michael Mozina · Dec 31, 2010

Ziggurat said:
The yellow parts indicate

Are you GM?

Michael Mozina · Dec 31, 2010

GeeMack said:
Electrical discharges "are or are the cause of" solar flares and CMEs is, in basic grade school level English anyway, not the same thing as "may also occur in".

In terms of the plasma particles that are emitted at a significant portion of the speed of light, what's the difference in your mind?

Michael Mozina · Dec 31, 2010

Ziggurat said:
Nothing about that suggests that he thinks electrical discharges CAUSE solar flares.

For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

GeeMack · Dec 31, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
In terms of the plasma particles that are emitted at a significant portion of the speed of light, what's the difference in your mind?

In terms of the English language, very basic English at that, the phrase "are or are the cause of" means something entirely different than the phrase "may also occur in". I can run those phrases through my word processor to determine the readability level if anyone is having difficulty understanding them.

Nothing has changed the reasoned conclusion that neither Dungey, Alfvén, Birkeland, nor Bruce had a solar model in/on which electrical discharges are or cause solar flares and CMEs. Nothing legitimately scientific, quantitative, and objective has been offered yet that might change that.

GeeMack · Dec 31, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

For the record, that ludicrous claim hasn't even remotely been shown to be possible, much less true.

Michael Mozina · Dec 31, 2010

GeeMack said:
In terms of the English language, very basic English at that, the phrase "are or are the cause of" means something entirely different than the phrase "may also occur in". I can run those phrases through my word processor to determine the readability level if anyone is having difficulty understanding them.

But either way you look at it, you're now willing to rescind this ignorant statement of yours?

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

Ziggurat · Dec 31, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
For the record, I said that a solar flare *IS* an electrical discharge.

That's nice. Your quote, however, does not say that.

Michael Mozina · Dec 31, 2010

Ziggurat said:
That's nice. Your quote, however, does not say that.

FYI, here was Peratt's *definition* of an electrical discharge in a plasma that I provided earlier:

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent processes such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microwανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.

The discharge region, or load, encompasses at most a few cubic centimeters of space, and is the site of high-variability, intense, electromagnetic radiation (Figure 1 .2). On earth, lightning is another example of the discharge mechanism at work where electrostatic energy is stored in clouds whose volume may be of the order of 3,000 km3. This energy is released in a few cubic meters of the discharge channel.

Now of course know for a fact from lab experiments that "electrical discharges':

A) heat plasma to millions of degrees like flares do.
B) emit x-rays and gamma rays like flares do.
C) 'pinch' free neutrons from plasma and generate neutron capture signatures in plasma (like we observe in flares)
D) They occur *naturally* around all bodies in space with an atmosphere and a magnetic field and sun is the largest such body in the solar system.

How many puzzle pieces have to fit together before you accept reality anyway?

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

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Banned

Banned

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Banned

Banned

Graduate Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned