Originally Posted by BeAChooser
To answer that, wouldn't we also have to know how strong the electric currents are in the region in which the sun lies?
No, you wouldn`t. Charge produces fields, and fields drive currents. You`ve got the sequence backwards.
Says the guy who claimed the jets from black holes aren't plasma and implied that most of the visible matter in the universe is neutral.
Let me ask you ...
What produces magnetic fields? An electric current.
What produces an electric current? An electric field.
What produces an electric field? Charges.
Hence the fact that we measure a magnetic field around the sun might suggest the sun is charged. Right?
Quote:
Afterall, the theory posits a charge (voltage) difference between the two.
Are you saying that the developers of this theory don`t understand the difference between charge and voltage? Or is it just you?
Fine. I'll be more precise since you insist it of me. But I notice you don't require precision of yourself or of astrophysicists when you substitute the word "gas" for "plasma" time and time again, or worse make claims like black hole jets are neutral gas, not plasma.
When they speak of a voltage, they are talking about a change in "electrical potential" between the two points. And the concept of electrical potential uses the idea of net excess charge. So voltage measures the difference in charge between two points. Satisfied?
But the sun is not an anode. Positive charges are not chemically bound to the sun.
How do you know? You or anyone else ever been to the sun?
If the sun were positively charged, it wouldn`t simply attract electrons, it would be ejecting protons,
It does. It's called the solar wind.
Those protons and electrons would be colliding
You assume they enter and exit the sun at the same location.
And given that there is no pump keeping the sun positively charged,
How do you know? When did you actually look inside the sun? Have we actually looked to make sure there is nothing coming in from outside to maintain a charge? Do we actually know what the charge of the sun is? No.
The fact that you couldn`t figure that out doesn`t speak well of your understanding of electricity.
All it shows is an attempt by you to obscure the big picture. I'm not in a contest to prove my expertise, whatever it is, against yours since neither of us can actually prove expertise in this subject. I'll simply post links to real experts and you can try to debate them.
Given an estimated voltage difference (which your source claims to have), you can quite easily calculate the required charge on the sun: q = rP/k where r is the radius of the sun (7x10^8 m), P is the potential (10^10 V), and k is the electric constant (9x10^9 Vm/C). That gives us a charge of around 8x10^8 coulombs. Not so hard, was it?
ROTFLOL! You got the wrong answer. The CORRECT answer is 8x10^^9 coulombs. At least *I* can do simple math.
So the force on protons from electrostatic repulsion away from the sun will be about 5x10^6 times greater than the attraction of gravity keeping them on the sun.
So maybe that explains why protons are "boiling" (to use the mainstream's terminology) off the sun?
If the sun had that kind of charge, it would explode. Literally.
Maybe you are wrong about your underlying assumptions concerning the distribution of that charge? For example, even Eddington proposed back in 1925 that the solar surface will be basically negative, the solar core positive. Maybe the solar core is really the anode? And he found another interesting result. That the kinetic energy of the particles in the sun at the temperature calculated based on mass and luminosity considerations was too low for fusion to occur. The mainstream had to propose some weird quantum theory physics to create an environment hot enough for fusion.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9r90r78d "But Eddington did not pursue it because he was convinced that a star must collapse under its own gravity unless supported from within by an energy source. That was an incorrect assumption because gravity induces charge separation and electrical repulsion effects within a star – something that Eddington dismissed. The simple fact that a proton weighs almost 2000 times as much as an electron ensures that this will occur. Each hydrogen atom in a star will be distorted by gravity to form a tiny radial electric dipole. The resulting electric field will ensure charge separation inside the star. Free electrons will drift toward the surface and leave behind a positively charged core. ... snip ... The resulting internal electric forces counterbalance compression due to gravity more or less uniformly throughout the star."
And if the solar core is positive, I know you are already asking ... why doesn't it explode?
http://www.electric-sun.info/main.html "The answer is: because plasma is not transparent. ... snip ... The ions in excess emit repulsing photons in all directions. But these photons are dispersed in plasma and they do not arrive at the other ions in excess. However, when positive matter emerges into the photosphere, the photons fly free in the transparent gas and the matter electrostatically explodes. This explosion is the result of the cooling down to recombination-temperature i.e. below 13 000K. These exploding protons ionize matter; low and highly ionized atoms come into existence. This is the footpoint which emits more filaments to different altitudes. ... snip ... The footpoints continually explode into the filaments. Oppositely to the solar wind which never stops, the filament-production stops if the whole amount of positive charge is already emitted. ... snip ... Through plasma, the electric forces seemingly cannot act. The photons of these electric forces cannot pervade the solar plasma. Therefore, the Sun contains big negative and much bigger positive charges in its body conserved for gigayears without equalising currents. The solar free electrons could move in the plasma to the ions but the electric field (which could move these free electrons) cannot be formed in the plasma. ... snip ,,, Therefore, solar electric charges move only mechanically e.g. rotated in a sunspot (GE Hale 1913 and NASA 2001) but not conducted in lack of the electric field. The emerging positive masses do not explode in their course from the core to the photosphere - these ions cannot "see each other" only those in the proximity! Arriving in the transparent photosphere, after an emerging along four years, these positive masses explode in seconds. All ions can suddenly "see each other" also from kilometres and protons in excess have an unimaginable repulsion. However, the protons in excess do not fly in all directions, they form filaments via pinch-effect. The electrostatic explosion is no thermal explosion in which particles fly into a formless cloud. The pinch effect is stronger than the mutual electrostatic repulsion among these protons."
More reading:
http://www.5th-state-of-matter.info/5th-state.html
And here's another take on your assertion that a charged sun would blow apart. Ironically, the same argument was used against the notion that the earth has an electric charge. You don't think it does? Then just repeat the experiment of Professor Erman back in 1803. Or Peltier in 1836. Or argue with A. D. Moore, writing in Scientific American in March 1972 that "The atmosphere of the earth is somehow supplied with a positive charge that sets up a downward electric field amounting to between 100 and 500 volts per meter on a clear day." Or argue with
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/TreshaEdwards.shtml .
And regarding a charged sun, are you aware of this:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v201/n4925/abs/2011202b0.html "21 March 1964 ... snip ... The Sun's Electrical Charge, V. A. BAILEY, University of Sydney. IN a recent communication to Nature, I have shown that the interplanetary magnetic fields measured by means of the space probes Pioneer 5, Explorer 10, Mariner 2 and Explorer 12 all verify the predictions about these fields which were published in 1960 as tests of the hypothesis that the Sun carries a large net negative electric charge."
http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/biogs/A130108b.htm "BAILEY, VICTOR ALBERT (1895-1964), physicist, ... snip ... Bailey immersed himself in studying the conduction of electricity in gases. On completing his doctorate he was appointed associate-professor of physics at the University of Sydney in 1923. ... snip ... Bailey was widely recognized as a leading authority who achieved results in what has come to be known as 'plasma physics'. He was elected a fellow of the Australian Academy of Science in 1955. After retiring from the university in 1960, he enthusiastically advocated the counter-intuitive idea that the Sun carries a net electric charge. This idea led him to make predictions about the interplanetary magnetic field, but the notion has never been widely accepted."
The issue of whether the sun is charged is by no means settled.
And you seem to think the mainstream has the sun all figured out. Well if that's true, then tell us what causes the solar wind to continue to accelerate out to the edge of the solar system? That should be a pretty simple question to answer. And electric star advocates have an answer. Do you?
And by the way, I'm curious ... why you think comets explode ... like the one (Holmes) that recently did?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050520linear.htm
