I know you still think that. But you're
still wrong. You haven't responded to any of the points I've actually made, all you've done is quote more from people who don't have a clue.
That's right I still do hold those views. Sorry I didn't respond to those points at the time, but posts with quotes from those people
was my reply, generally. The quick and easy "copy paste" is ALL I have time for ....most often.
You're confusing two issues. The first is the claim that electromagnetic forces are always stronger,
I don't think so and No, I didn't claim that.
The electromagnetic forces, in my understanding, are NOT either cancelled out OR full blown 10
39 like some off/on switch but can
vary proportionally between those extremes, according to conditions.
the second is that they are longer-ranged. I pointed out that the claim that they are longer is wrong, and your response was to find a quote that has nothing to do with the range of electromagnetism versus gravity. But it gets worse, because your quote has nothing to do with the number 1039 either. The author has shown that under a set of specified conditions, the electromagnetic force on an ionized hydrogen nucleus is larger than the gravitational force. Note that the author calculated a specific number, using input numbers, and the answer he got wasn't 1039 either. Not even close. Furthermore, it only applies to a single hydrogen nucleus. It does not apply to a large plasma cloud, for example.
Here's a better quote then, from Peratt:
The Electromagnetic Force
“Gravity can hold sway, for example in our planetary system, only when forces much stronger than gravity are cancelled out; electromagnetism, for instance, which is the binding force for virtually all ordinary biological and chemical phenomena or Earth, is intrinsically 10^39 times stronger than gravity. If the dominant form of matter were subject to the electromagnetic force as well as to the force of gravity, gravity would be swamped by the more compelling pulls and tugs of electromagnetism.
An indication of the dominance of the magnetic force is given by a ball bearing on a table. All of the Earth's mountains, seas, core, sand, rivers, and lifeforms exert a gravitational pull on the bearing preventing it from flying off into space. Yet the smallest horseshoe magnet easily snatches it away.
But perhaps the most important characteristic of electromagnetism is that it obeys the longest-range force law in the universe. When two or more non-plasma bodies interact gravitationally, their force law varies inversely as the square of the distance between them; 1/4 the pull if they are 2 arbitrary measurement units apart, 1/9 the pull for a distance of 3 units apart, 1/16 the pull for 4 units apart, and so on. When plasmas, say streams of charged particles, interact electromagnetically, their force law varies inversely as the distance between them, 1/2 the pull if they are 2 arbitrary measurement units apart, 1/3 the pull for a distance of 3 units apart, 1/4 the pull for 4 units apart, and so on. So at 4 arbitrary distance units apart, the electromagnetic force is 4 times greater than that of gravitation, relatively speaking, and at 100 units, apart, the electromagnetic force is 100 times that of gravitation. Moreover, the electromagnetic force can be repulsive if the streams in interaction are flowing in opposite directions. Thus immense plasma streams measured in megaparsecs, carrying galaxies and stars, can appear to be falling towards nothing when they are actually repelling.”
http://plasmauniverse.info/EM_forces.html
So let's review: your quote has nothing to do with the part of my post you quoted about the range of electromagnetism versus. It's related to the strength of electromagnetism versus gravity. And the answer it provides is nowhere near your claimed 1039. It supports what I've been saying, and refutes your position.
I don't think so:
"The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space.
Under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation" (my bold)
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Electromagnetic_force
You have proven, once again, that you have no clue what you're talking about.
I demand an apology
I have seen no claims by Alfven that your 1039 number has any relevance at large scales. Nor have I seen him make any claims that electromagnetism is longer range than gravity. So I've got no reason to conclude that Alfven is an ignorant idiot.
Well these suggest he did:
Hannes Alfvén
But Alfvén himself noted that astrophysical textbooks poorly represented known plasma phenomena:
"A study of how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts such as double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects, and circuits is made. It is found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century (e.g, double layers, Langmuir, 1929; pinch effect, Bennet, 1934)"[8]
Cosmology in the plasma universe: an introductory exposition Alfven
ABSTRACT
Acceptance of the plasma universe model is now leading to drastically new views of the structure of the universe. The basic aspects of cosmological importance are: (a) the same basic laws of plasma physics hold everywhere; (b) mapping of electric fields and currents is necessary to understand cosmic plasma; (c) space is filled with a network of currents leading to the cellular and filamentary structure of matter; and (d) double layers, critical velocity, and pinch effects are of decisive importance in how cosmic evolves. A review is presented of a number of the outstanding questions of cosmology in the plasma universe
Ziggurat said:
But seeing as how you can't even recognize what's being said, well...
I'm doing the best I can, although I
do have my senior moments
Same thing as for Alfven. Your quotes do not indicate that Peratt thought that the 1039 number was relevant or that electromagnetism was longer range. Nor have you provided any argument for why either is true. I have shown that neither is true.
Well I think he did, as my quotes from Peratt's
SITE have shown.
The Electromagnetic Force
“Gravity can hold sway, for example in our planetary system, only when forces much stronger than gravity are cancelled out; electromagnetism, for instance, which is the binding force for virtually all ordinary biological and chemical phenomena or Earth, is intrinsically 10^39 times stronger than gravity."
I think you don't know what Alfven or Peratt said, because none of your quotes actually support your claim.
Quotes from their papers and from Peratt's
http://plasmauniverse.info/ site show otherwise.
My view is that they are minor perturbations. As minor perturbations, neither can support the contention that electromagnetism is far stronger than gravity, which was your claim.
Its a phenomena that's puzzled mainstream for decades and spawned nearly a 1000 papers.
It supports the Electric Sun theory because the small acceleration towards the Sun can be explained by a charged spacecraft travelling in the weak electric field of the Sun.
Electromagnetism
is far stronger than gravity (up to 10
39 times) BUT in proportion to conditions.
No they don't. They have hand-waving. Noticeably absent is any serious calculations of the effect. But the effects are only noticeable in the first place because gravitational calculations are performed with such high precision. Do you not see the irony in all this? No, of course you don't. You can't even figure out the meaning of your own quotes.
Harsh words Ziggurat. The calculation has been done and confirmed as real. Sure it's ironic but you shouldn't blame the EU/PC crowd for pointing out a confirmation.
His claim that "the Sun fails to emit neutrinos in detectable numbers"
is outdated and wrong, and his point about the fluctuations of the sun just mean that the feedback mechanisms are complex (which should be no surprise, since they involve fluid dynamics which is highly non-linear), it provides no evidence that fusion isn't happening in the core of the sun.
Sure, mainstream would like to think it's outdated and wrong and the missing neutrinos problem has been solved as the story is told
HERE but there are mainstream physicists who do NOT agree:
Why did it take so long for most physicists to be convinced that the particle theory was wrong and not the astrophysics?
Let's first hear in their own words what some of the most prominent physicists have said about the missing neutrinos. In 1967, two years before his epochal paper with Gribov on solar neutrino oscillations was published, Bruno Pontecorvo wrote:
"Unfortunately, the weight of the various thermonuclear reactions in the sun, and the central temperature of the sun are insufficiently well known in order to allow a useful comparison of expected and observed solar neutrinos..."
In other words, the uncertainties in the solar model are so large that they prevent a useful interpretation of solar neutrino measurements. Bruno Pontecorvo's view was echoed more than two decades later when in 1990 Howard Georgi and Michael Luke wrote as the opening sentences in a paper on possible particle physics effects in solar neutrino experiments:
"Most likely, the solar neutrino problem has nothing to do with particle physics. It is a great triumph that astrophysicists are able to predict the number of 8B neutrinos to within a factor of 2 or 3..."
C.N. Yang stated on October 11, 2002, a few days after the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Physics to Ray Davis and Masatoshi Koshiba for the first cosmic detection of neutrinos, that:
"I did not believe in neutrino oscillations even after Davis' painstaking work and Bahcall's careful analysis. The oscillations were, I believed, uncalled for."
Sidney Drell wrote in a personal letter of explanation to me in January 2003 that "… the success of the Standard Model (of particle physics) was too dear to give up."
The standard model of particle physics is a beautiful theory that has been tested and found to make correct predictions for thousands of laboratory experiments. The standard solar model, on the other hand, involves complicated physics in unfamiliar conditions and had not previously been tested to high precision. Moreover, the predictions of the standard solar model depend sensitively on details of the model, such as the central temperature. No wonder it took scientists a long time to blame the standard model of particle physics rather than the standard model of the Sun.
So, the solution that neutrinos change flavour "on route" to Earth IS still in doubt and EU/PC theorists
are entitled to point this out:
Missing Neutrinos
"A thermonuclear reaction of the type assumed to be powering the Sun must emit a flood of electron-neutrinos. Nowhere near the requisite number of these neutrinos have been found after thirty years of searching for them. A series of grandly expensive experiments have failed to find the necessary neutrino flux."
Summary
The high decibel level of rejoicing contained in the SNO pronouncements is unprofessional. It is a clue that should not be ignored. It stands in curious contrast to the existence of errors in fundamental logic contained in the report. The prime requirement in research is scientific objectivity. And (given the paucity of actual data that was collected) there is substantial reason to question to what extent a degree of wishful thinking went into the announced conclusions of this report.
There simply is no way that a measurement taken at only one end of a transmission channel can reveal changes that have occurred farther up the channel. The only way such conclusions can be made is when observations have been made at more than one place along the path! Further measurements (MiniBooNE 2007) have found no evidence to support the SNO 2001 announcement.
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.
(my bold)
Ziggurat said:
And as I've pointed out to you before, this claim:
"What are we to think, then, of man's efforts to simulate merely hypothetical conditions in the core of the Sun and thus achieve controlled fusion?"
is also wrong. We aren't trying to replicate conditions in the core of the sun. That's not the path to fusion power on earth. We're taking a different path, both because the pressures required cannot be contained by any methods we have available, and because it's too slow. Our attempts to create fusion DO NOT operate the same way that the sun's fusion operates. And while there are significant challenges that need to be overcome to make such fusion useful, there's no question that we can make fusion occur, because we've done it. Quite often.
Sure, but the problems persist and the idea is to get more energy
out than you put
in:
From Juergens
HERE
At every attempt, long before the plasma could be brought to thermonuclear temperatures, it always managed to leak out of its magnetic reactor.
This thermonuclear "crisis" was recognized and acknowledged as early as 1960, as was pointed out by Hannes Alfven on the occasion of his acceptance of the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1970:
". . . As you know, plasma physics has started along two parallel lines. The first one was the hundred-years-old investigations in what was called electrical discharges in gases. This approach was to a high degree experimental and phenomenological, and only very slowly reached some degree of theoretical sophistication. Most theoretical physicists looked down on this field, which was complicated and awkward . . . it was a field which was not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories.
Meanwhile, the same theories have been applied by astrophysicists trying to understand the universe, again leading to much frustration. Alfven discussed this, too, in his Nobel Address:
"The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulas which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis [,however,] has not yet come . . . [Nevertheless,] several of the basic concepts on which the theories are founded are not applicable to the condition prevailing in the cosmos. They are 'generally accepted' by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods; and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them. . ."
Alfven's paper, of course, dates from 1970. In the years since then, it appears, a problem has come up that may indeed signal the onset of a thermonuclear crisis in astrophysics to match that in the search for controlled nuclear fusion.
Surprisingly, this problem emerged in connection with the supposed fusion reactions that power our Sun.
The certainty that the Sun generates its prodigious outpourings of energy through thermonuclear reactions deep in its interior has been with us about half a century. But now, suddenly, suspicions are being voiced that this may not be the case after all.
(my bold)
Ziggurat said:
And lastly, the part you bolded:
"If the Sun and the stars indeed succeed in fusing lighter elements to form heavier ones, are the relevant activities carried out more or less in plain sight - in their atmospheres?*"
is quite plainly wrong too. Fusion in the stellar atmosphere would produce LOTS of gamma rays. We don't see the gamma rays. But we DO see the neutrinos from fusion (contrary to what he claimed). So fusion is occurring, but something is shielding the gamma rays from that fusion. Hmm... where could fusion in the sun occur so that the gamma rays would be shielded? I just can't figure it out.
Juergens isn't the only one to suggest fusion is the stellar atmosphere:
Fusion in the Double Layer
The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core). The result of this fusion process are the "metals" that give rise to absorption lines in the Sun's spectrum. Traces of sixty eight of the ninety two natural elements are found in the Sun's atmosphere. Most of the radio frequency noise emitted by the Sun emanates from this region. Radio noise is a well known property of DLs. The electrical power available to be delivered to the plasma at any point is the product of the E-field (Volts per meter) times current density (Amps per square meter). This multiplication operation yields Watts per cubic meter. The current density is relatively constant over the height of the photospheric / chromospheric layers. However, the E-field is by far the strongest at the center of the DL. Nuclear fusion takes a great deal of power - and that power is available in the DL.
It is also observed that the neutrino flux from the Sun varies inversely with sunspot number. This is expected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is z-pinch produced fusion which is occurring in the double layer - and sunspots are locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur.
We don't see LOTS of gamma rays but we DO see LOTS of X-rays coming from the solar atmosphere:
The Sun as an X-ray Source
The X-rays we detect from the Sun do not come from the Sun's surface, but from the solar corona, which is the upper layer of the Sun's atmosphere. Only very hot gases can emit X-rays, and the corona, at millions of degrees, is hot enough to emit X-rays, while the much cooler surface of the Sun is not. Thus, the Sun's atmosphere is an excellent source of X-rays.
So, is there much difference between X-rays and gamma rays? Well, not so much as you might think: (my bold)
The distinction between gamma rays and X-rays is somewhat arbitrary, since a 100 keV gamma is the same as a 100 keV X-ray. The distinction is related to the origin. X-rays are generally defined at those photons originating from atomic reactions, i.e. transitions from atomic electrons, with photon energies above ultraviolet. Brehmstrahlung (braking radiation) originates from free electrons accelerating in a nuclear electric field. Synchrotron radiation is probably distinguished from gamma radiation since it is usually originating from an accelerated proton or light nucleus.
Gamma emission occurs in the (p,γ) reactions of the CNO cycle.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/energy/cno.html
In the fusion of light elements, the reactions involve a restructuring the nuclei, and in general the resulting energy is 'carried as kinetic energy'.
Usually a confined plasma implies a magnetic field (as opposed to inertial confinement), and the motion of electrons about the field lines produces 'cyclotron radiation'.
http://casa.colorado.edu/~wcash/APS3730/chapter5.pdf
http://casa.colorado.edu/~wcash/APS3730/textbook.htm
Brehmsstrahlung radiation is also possible and occurs when free electrons are accelerated by nuclear charges (protons and nuclei).
FYI -
http://casa.colorado.edu/~wcash/APS3730/notes.htm
Gamma rays are more likely when fusion involves nuclei heavier than B, e.g., C, N, O. Of course, if free neutrons are present, they can be absorbed in (n, γ) reactions.
So we
can have Fusion in the stellar atmosphere with X-ray (gamma rays) and the
right amount of neutrinos
actually detected (without the need for a "fudge" of neutrino flavours) Fusion in the Sun's core seems unnecessary. It's been known for some time now the gassy materials in a star are compressed and expand they make
the star oscillate, and this oscillation can be detected. Seems like it's just a big ball of compressed plasma and
MOST of the action is in it's atmosphere
Ziggurat said:
I can read why you don't like him:
The Photosphere: Is It the Top or the Bottom of the Phenomenon We Call the Sun? Ralph E. Juergens
In the frame of the electrical-sun hypothesis, the first true plasma we come to above the photosphere is the solar corona. From a base variously estimated to lie 2000 to 5000 kilometers above the "temperature minimum,"(44) the corona extends through interplanetary space to unknown distances from the Sun. Below the corona and above the photosphere is the chromosphere, a region whose reddish glow shines forth during those brief moments when the bright face of the Sun is hidden by the Moon during total solar eclipses. This lesser glow, its character as an envelope containing the photosphere, and even its refusal to reveal its "temperature" - all these suggest that this is a true anode glow, and that we may be on the right track in classifying photospheric granules as anode tufts.
Qualitatively, at least, it would appear that the physical characteristics and the behavior of photospheric granules are responsive to explanation in terms of the anode-tuft hypothesis. The photosphere as a whole seems to add up to yet another strong indication that the Sun draws its energy not from within itself but from its cosmic environment, and that the delivery mechanism is an electric discharge embracing the entire solar system.
(my bold)
!
