ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Alfven waves , Birkeland currents , hannes alfven , Kristian Birkeland

Closed Thread
Old 11th December 2010, 05:35 PM   #921
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I won't bother rounding up citations, but *ALL* of them accept the tenets of gravity theory as far as I know. Bruce, Dungey, Peratt and Alfven all used a "plasma" solar model. Only Birkeland's model was a 'cathode' solar model that could be either plasma or a solid. AFAIK, Bruce, Dungey both began with a 'standard solar model' in terms of the total energy output. Only Peratt and Alfven's views *REQUIRED* an external power source. There's not much information as to how much energy would necessarily need to come from an external source in the case of Alfven (or Peratt) AFAIK. To my knowledge *ALL* of them presume at least *SOME* local energy production. None of them, not even Birkeland ruled out fusion as an energy source.
Your colleague, Mr. Mann, claims that gravity does not exist or is insignificant (depending on which post you choose). He also claims that either there is no solar fusion or it is unimportant as a solar energy source. Do you disavow these opinions? Just curious.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 05:47 PM   #922
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
Your colleague, Mr. Mann, claims that gravity does not exist or is insignificant (depending on which post you choose). He also claims that either there is no solar fusion or it is unimportant as a solar energy source. Do you disavow these opinions? Just curious.
I do not necessarily agree with those opinions if that is what you are asking me.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 05:59 PM   #923
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I do not necessarily agree with those opinions if that is what you are asking me.
That's good! I noticed that he also trashed plate tectonics recently because he thinks earthquakes are caused by electrical forces.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th December 2010, 06:03 PM   #924
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
That's good! I noticed that he also trashed plate tectonics recently because he thinks earthquakes are caused by electrical forces.
I'll be honest and admit that I do have "faith" that when a "grand unified field theory" is finally found, it will reconcile plasma physics with gravity theory and it will certainly involved the EM fields.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th December 2010, 07:42 AM   #925
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,850
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I'll be honest and admit that I do have "faith" that when a "grand unified field theory" is finally found, it will reconcile plasma physics with gravity theory and it will certainly involved the EM fields.
I don't need faith to be certain a workable GUT will not reconcile plasma physics with gravity (whatever you believe that may mean).
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2010, 01:02 PM   #926
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ASTRA...3...29S

I think T posted this paper earlier in a different thread, but I'm reposting it here for my own reference.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2010, 01:04 PM   #927
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...670..841S
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2010, 01:06 PM   #928
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002PhyS...65..185F
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2010, 01:14 PM   #929
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...532..616W

FYI (FMI), this particular paper is related to events seen in 1600A and 1700A as "current carrying" loops come and and through the photosphere.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2010, 01:18 PM   #930
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00174.000.html

WOW! Quantification from 1930! Holy smokes. I had no idea this paper even existed until today. Cool!
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2010, 01:22 PM   #931
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
 
D'rok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,399
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00174.000.html

WOW! Quantification from 1930! Holy smokes. I had no idea this paper even existed until today. Cool!
You might want to read the paper's conclusions before you get too excited.
__________________
"War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor

"Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC
D'rok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2010, 01:28 PM   #932
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by D'rok View Post
You might want to read the paper's conclusions before you get too excited.
I already saw that. I'm a little disappointed he didn't use Birkeland's cathode model and chose Chapman's sort of model instead. I did however find it to be an interesting approach. I was shocked anything like that had even been done as far back as the 30's to be honest.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2010, 02:18 PM   #933
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Wheatland:

Quote:
The observation that current patterns in active regions are typically unneutralized has important consequences for flare physics and more generally for our understanding of magnetic fields on the Sun, as outlined by Melrose (1991, 1995) and Leka et al. (1996). First, it indicates that twisting and shearing of the footpoints of coronal magnetic fields are not responsible for the large-scale currents that are observed and, hence, that the in situ storage model for flares is invalid. Magnetic flux emerges at the photosphere with large-scale electric currents already flowing in it and with free energy already present. In the in situ storage picture, observed currents close at or just below the photosphere. Where do they close in the new picture? The latitudinal dependence of the sense of current helicity cannot be explained by standard dynamo theory operating in the bulk of the convection zone, but may be explained by an alternative dynamo model operating at the base of the convection zone (Seehafer 1990). This points to the observed currents being generated (and closing) deep within the Sun, at or near the base of the convection zone. As argued by Melrose (1991), the long inductive time associated with such an extended current system precludes change on the short timescale of a flare, and so current will be conserved during a flare, an important consideration that is missing from most flare models. Melrose (1997) has presented a model for flaring due to reconnection between current carrying loops subject to conservation of both magnetic flux and total
current.

The size of the observed currents also raises interesting questions concerning the appearance of large voltages if the current changes or if the current path changes. Assuming the change occurs on a timescale q, there is an associated electromotive force (EMF) V DL I/q, where L is the inductance of the circuit. The inductance may be estimated by L Dk0 lB100 H for a circuit of length lB108 m. If the current flowing through the corona (IB1012 A) or the inductance changes substantially on the timescale for flux emergence (qB105 s), enormous voltages (V B109 V) are implied.
Emphasis mine.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2010, 02:21 PM   #934
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Note that Wheatland's data is consistent with Alfven's circuit theories, it's consistent with the observations seen in SDO in 1600 and 1700A where the photosphere "lights up' like a Christmas tree around the base of the loops, and it's consistent with that white light image of the photosphere that we looked at earlier in another thread:



Notice how the surface of the photosphere is lit up around the bases of the coronal loops. That is entirely consistent with Wheatland's findings.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2010, 02:23 PM   #935
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Wheatland:

[...]

Emphasis mine.

We're still waiting for the quantitative objective evidence that supports the claim that electrical discharges are or cause solar flares and CMEs. Of course it is possible, since there has been no such evidence presented in nearly 1000 posts, that the claim has been abandoned.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2010, 02:30 PM   #936
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Note that Wheatland's data is consistent with Alfven's circuit theories, it's consistent with the observations seen in SDO in 1600 and 1700A where the photosphere "lights up' like a Christmas tree around the base of the loops, and it's consistent with that white light image of the photosphere that we looked at earlier in another thread:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/im...02001%20WL.gif

Notice how the surface of the photosphere is lit up around the bases of the coronal loops. That is entirely consistent with Wheatland's findings.

"Like a Christmas tree" isn't a number. In fact, believing one is seeing some particular thing when looking at any picture isn't quantitative, and it's certainly not objective. It is in fact, by definition, subjective. Since Wheatland's paper was expressed in quantitative terms, and guessing that things look like sparks and discharges and Christmas trees isn't quantitative at all, there's nothing even remotely consistent with Wheatland's findings. It would be a lie, or at least a gross misrepresentation of the truth, to claim it is.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2010, 02:51 PM   #937
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ASTRA...3...29S

I think T posted this paper earlier in a different thread, but I'm reposting it here for my own reference.
MHD simulation of electric currents in the solar atmosphere caused by photospheric plasma motion
Standard solar physics.
I do hope that you are not so ignorant of plasmas that you think that they do not conduct, i.e. contain electric currents.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2010, 02:53 PM   #938
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
A Technique for Measuring Electrical Currents in the Solar Corona
More standard solar physics.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2010, 02:59 PM   #939
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Electric Currents as the Main Cause of Coronal and Flare Activity in the Sun and in Many Late-Type Stars
I have no access to the full paper
The abstract has this as a suggestion from the author backed up by "evidence from observations occurring in solar and stellar upper atmosphere plasmas that resemble in their appearance phenomena that are the consequence of electric currents flowing in highly ionized plasmas."

MM: You obviously have full access to the paper since you must have read it. Could you post it here?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 14th December 2010, 03:10 PM   #940
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...532..616W

FYI (FMI), this particular paper is related to events seen in 1600A and 1700A as "current carrying" loops come and and through the photosphere.
Are Electric Currents in Solar Active Regions Neutralized?
The answer according to Wheatland is yes.

FYI: You are wrong. The paper does not mention any events seen in 1600A and 1700A images. It contains magnetograms derived from the Fe
5324A line.
It is not related to your "I see bnunnies in the clouds" logic of seeing "current carrying" loops in any solar images. Actual science shows that these are magnetic loops emerging through the photosphere (coronal loops).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2010, 12:20 AM   #941
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Are Electric Currents in Solar Active Regions Neutralized?
The answer according to Wheatland is yes.
Evidently you aren't even reading the papers.

Quote:
The observation that current patterns in active regions are typically unneutralized has important consequences for flare physics and more generally for our understanding of magnetic fields on the Sun, as outlined by Melrose (1991, 1995) and Leka et al. (1996).
FYI, there was another filament eruption flare today at about the 2:30 position.

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/..._1024_0304.mpg

Last edited by Michael Mozina; 15th December 2010 at 12:21 AM.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2010, 01:30 AM   #942
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
Evidently you aren't even reading the papers.
You are right: It is the total current that is neutralized.
The currents in the positive and negative regions of the magnetic fields in the paper are unneutralized.

Not that this paper has anything to do with your idea about impossible electric discharges on the Sun.
You did notice the word current?

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
FYI, there was another filament eruption flare today at about the 2:30 position.

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/..._1024_0304.mpg
FYI: Wrong thread.
FYI: Filament eruption flares happen. So what?

Last edited by Reality Check; 15th December 2010 at 01:39 AM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2010, 01:40 AM   #943
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Electric Currents as the Main Cause of Coronal and Flare Activity in the Sun and in Many Late-Type Stars
...
MM: You obviously have full access to the paper since you must have read it. Could you post it here?
Any sign of posting the paper that you have so obviously read?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2010, 10:54 AM   #944
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You are right: It is the total current that is neutralized.
So like I said, the coronal loops come up and through the surface of the photosphere and they are "current carrying" filaments before they get there.

Quote:
The currents in the positive and negative regions of the magnetic fields in the paper are unneutralized.
And since they are unneutralized, we know that there is "current flows" (strong ones) in those "plasma pinches" you're calling "coronal loops". Note that they do not originate in the corona, but *pass through* the photosphere in a *highly* energized state.

Quote:
Not that this paper has anything to do with your idea about impossible electric discharges on the Sun.
Oy Vey.

Quote:
You did notice the word current?
Did you notice how Alfven *REJECTED* all forms of "reconnection" theory in the presence of "current"?

Quote:
FYI: Wrong thread.
True.

Quote:
FYI: Filament eruption flares happen. So what?
So filament eruptions "cause" the mass movement we see in some types of flares and CME's seen in LASCO images.
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2010, 10:56 AM   #945
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...532..616W

Mr. Spock,

What do you make of this paper?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 15th December 2010, 11:57 AM   #946
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 20,483
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
So like I said, the coronal loops come up and through the surface of the photosphere and they are "current carrying" filaments before they get there.
So you are still wrong: The paper is not about coronal loops. It is about currents in active regions.

The magnetic flux tubes that make up coronal loops are full of plasma. This plasma is thus shaped into a "filament" loop (loops are thin and round). Plasma conducts. Thus it is trivially correct that any current in the plasma is also within the loop-shaped "filament". So someone who was ignorant of solar physics would call coronal loops ""current carrying" filaments". The proper term though is: coronal loops .

However before the coronal loops emerge from the photosphere they are not full of plsama. They do not carry current.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2010, 06:48 PM   #947
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb An Electric Sun Q&A

An Electric Sun Q&A

One of the annoying habits we see from some posters is an obvious assumption that any mention of the word "electric", or any variation thereof, is a strike against the mainstream theories, and a move towards some vague electric star hypothesis. But of course this is not true. The mainstream does not ignore electric field and electric currents. Rather, the mainstream simply tries to put electric fields and electric currents into their proper place in the overall physics of a star.

Since the arguments are spread over numerous threads and thousands of posted messages, I thought I would summarize my understanding of the situation all in one place, in a simple Q&A format.

Question: Do stars carry a net electric charge in standard theory?
Answer: Yes.
This has been pointed out before, but a lot is forgotten when arguments are spread over many long threads. In fact, we can go back to the dawn of modern stellar theory, and the book Internal Constitution of the Stars by Sir Arthur Eddington, published in 1926 and reprinted in 1930 (still in print via Dover Publications). Specifically, see page 272, section 191, "Electric Charge in the Interior". By combining the Boltzmann distribution for the energies of electrons & protons in a stellar interior with gravity, Eddington determined a charge deficiency of roughly 1 electron per million tons of matter. Applied to the Sun he determined that this would generate an electric field of about 6.3x10-8 Volts/cm and a total potential at the surface of about 4370 Volts. As Eddington points out, "Our provisional assumption that there is no appreciable separation of charges is thus verified." And a little later, "The electric force, which varies in proportion to gravity in the interior, is absurdly weak, but it stops any diffusion of electrons outwards."

The point made by Eddington, that there should be some separation of charges in the sun, is usually ignored in studies of the sun simply because the effect is, as Eddington said, "absurdly weak". So in the vast majority of applications studying the sun, or any other star, it is simply not worth bothering with. And it is easily overlooked in discussions such as this. We were reminded of this stellar behavior in more recent times, with an update on the physics, in the paper On the global electrostatic charge of stars (Astronomy and Astrophysics 372: 913-915, June 2001). I first pointed out this paper to electric sun advocates shortly after it was published. Curiously, since then, I have never yet seen an electric sun or electric star advocate be the one to introduce this paper into the conversation. It has always been introduced by critics such as myself, usually questioning why, if they are so interested and well informed about electricity and stars, they did not already know about this paper? His results lead to a net global charge for the Sun of about 77 Coulombs. At a distance of 1 AU (the average Sun-Earth distance) that should result in an electric field of about 3x10-11 Volts/meter (treating the Sun as a point charge, which is not exactly correct, but certainly a good enough approximation for this task). This too is absurdly small.

The net global charge on the Sun comes about because electrons, being rather less massive than protons, are more able to escape the sun as part of the solar wind. The net charge achieved is a result of the balance between the forces that eject the solar wind, which push electrons more efficiently then protons, and the attractive force on the electrons of the net positive charge that results. Equilibrium of these forces establishes the allowed net charge.

Question: Does standard theory recognize electric current flow in the Sun?
Answer: Yes.
Despite claims to the contrary, mainstream solar & stellar physics certainly does not ignore the presence of electrical current systems in the sun & stars. In the book Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal (Wiley-VCH, 2004; 2nd, revised edition) there are several descriptions of electric currents and electrostatic fields in the sun. Electric currents are described in the general photosphere & corona, and in connection with active regions (i.e., sunspots), as well as the solar/stellar interior. And of course there are numerous research papers in the journals that reflect the present state of the science (e.g., Grigoryev & Ermakova, 2002 and Abramenko, 2008 for the general photosphere; Spangler, 2007 in the corona; Feldman, 2002 for coronal & flare activity; Ji, et al., 2003 and Deng, et al., 2009 for flares and active regions). The study of electric currents flowing in the sun, by itself, is not a point that distinguishes between the standard theory of stars and the alternative electric Sun/star hypothesis.

Question: Where do stellar magnetic fields come from?
Answer: They are generated by the bulk motion of charged particles.
You note in my answer that I did not say "electric currents". We have a colloquial meaning in mind when we use the words "electric currents", and that meaning is embodied by the electric currents that flow in our household wiring and electronic technology. Those electrical currents are flows of charged particles where all of the particles in the flow have the same sign of electric charge (in this case, all are negatively charged electrons). That is what I meant by "electric currents" in my previous answer, and that is what the proponents of the electric Sun/star hypothesis mean when they use the same words. We must all now understand a critical point: While it is true that all electric currents, as defined here, will generate magnetic fields, it is not true that all magnetic fields must be generated by electric currents, as they are defined here.

I think that the failure to recognize this undeniable fact of physics is one of the critical weaknesses of the electric Sun/star hypothesis, at least as that hypothesis is presented to us here. The reason that the proponents of this alternative hypothesis so heavily overestimate the role of electric currents in the physics of the sun is that they wrongly think that the observed solar/stellar magnetic fields can only be generated by such pure electric currents as we understand the words in common usage. But in reality, such currents are not required. It is enough to have bulk motion of a plasma (a liquid or gas of charged rather than neutral particles) to generate magnetic fields. This is the root of dynamo theory, a well developed field of physics, which has its roots in the early 20th century. I discuss the history and physics of dynamo theory in my online article, On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field. For our purposes we can consult the book Stellar Magnetism by Leon Mestel (Oxford University Press, 1999 & 2003). It is sufficient for now to realize that classical, household style electric currents are not required for the generation of solar/stellar magnetic fields.

Question: Is the "frozen flux" approximation valid?
Answer: Yes
Simply put, the frozen flux approximation tells us that if the energy density of a plasma is higher than the energy density of a magnetic field imposed on the plasma, then the magnetic field will tend to behave as if it is locked (or "frozen") to the plasma; as the plasma moves, it will tend to carry the magnetic field along with it. The greater the difference in energy densities, the greater the tendency of the magnetic field to act "frozen". It is important to plasma astrophysics to note that the converse is also true; if the energy density of the magnetic field is greater, then there will be a tendency for the plasma to behave as if it is locked to the magnetic field, and move with the field moves. In practical terms, there is a diffusion time scale that describes the relative motion between a plasma and the magnetic field. If that time scale is long compared to the time scale of your study, then for that study you can assume that the magnetic field is frozen to the plasma. It is important to recognize that this is an approximation and nobody thinks it is exactly true in all cases.

The proponents of the electric Sun/star hypothesis deny the validity of this fundamental process in plasma physics. But in doing so they offer no justification based on physics, only a fallacious claim that the discoverer of the "frozen flux" approximation, Hannes Alfven, later denied it. Bur he did not, arguing only that the approximation was being misused. Modern plasma physics has addressed Alfven's valid concerns, invalidating the argument presented by the proponents of the electric Sun/star.

Question: Is magnetic reconnection a valid physical process?
Answer: Yes.
We know that the impulsive release of energy in a flare event on the sun, or any other star, happens much too fast for magnetic induction to be responsible. On the other hand, magnetic reconnection will release large amounts of energy on impulsive time scales, as observed. I have already discussed magnetic reconnection in great detail over many posts, with sources. I will say here only that, once again, no justification in physics is offered by the proponents of the electric Sun/star hypothesis, only the claim that Alfven denied the validity of magnetic reconnection. In this case the claim is true, but now irrelevant. We now know that Alfven was wrong and that magnetic reconnection is a valid physical process both in theory and in laboratory practice. See my extensive posting on this issue, e.g., Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection V, Electric Sun & Magnetic Reconnection I, Comments on Magnetic Reconnection III, Comments on Magnetic Reconnection, Magnetic Reconnection Redux XIII, Magnetic Reconnection Redux XII, Magnetic Reconnection Redux XI and links found therein.

Question: What is the source of the energy that powers the Sun and stars?
Answer: Nuclear fusion in the stellar interior
Stellar nuclear physics is well developed and extensive field of study. See, for instance, the book Nuclear Physics of Stars by Christian Iliades (Wiley-VCH, 2007) or my webpage Solar Fusion and Neutrinos. Extreme versions of the electric Sun/star hypothesis suppose that the stars are powered by electric currents flowing into the Sun from outside. But that part of the hypothesis is trivially falsified by the observation that the alleged electric currents do not in fact exist. The energy generated by fusion reactions deep inside the Sun flows out through the Sun, the solar atmosphere, and eventually into deep space in the form of electromagnetic radiation and the solar wind.

Afterword
There is literally a huge body of cross disciplinary science involved in the standard physics of the sun & stars; e.g., electromagnetism & plasma physics, thermodynamics & statistical mechanics, nuclear, atomic & quantum physics. These extensive disciplines work just fine to explain every single observed aspect of the sun & stars. By this I do not mean that we know everything there is to know. I do mean that there is no observed behavior of any star which we can say with confidence cannot be explained by any mainstream physics. So there is no valid justification for seeking an alternative model in the first place.
__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th December 2010, 07:01 PM   #948
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
 
D'rok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,399
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
An Electric Sun Q&A

One of the annoying habits we see from some posters is an obvious assumption that any mention of the word "electric", or any variation thereof, is a strike against the mainstream theories, and a move towards some vague electric star hypothesis. But of course this is not true. The mainstream does not ignore electric field and electric currents. Rather, the mainstream simply tries to put electric fields and electric currents into their proper place in the overall physics of a star.

Since the arguments are spread over numerous threads and thousands of posted messages, I thought I would summarize my understanding of the situation all in one place, in a simple Q&A format.


<snip>
Thank you.
__________________
"War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor

"Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC
D'rok is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th December 2010, 07:03 AM   #949
Marcus
Master Poster
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,685
Great summary, Tim, easy to follow for us non-scientist lurkers.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th December 2010, 11:11 PM   #950
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
An Electric Sun Q&A I do mean that there is no observed behavior of any star which we can say with confidence cannot be explained by any mainstream physics. So there is no valid justification for seeking an alternative model in the first place.
That is very interesting statement of the mainstream view of the Sun. Could you also give the up-to-date position on these questions: -

Solar wind is traveling at about 1 million miles an hour by the time it gets close to Earth and goes on past the orbit of Pluto for as far as we have been able to measure. This Solar wind varies with time and has even been observed to stop completely for a period of a day or two. What causes this fluctuation?

Why was there a complete shutdown of the solar wind for two days in May 1999?

Sun’s visible light output varies by only tenths of a percent but its energy in UV and X-rays varies by a factor of 20 (much higher according to some). Why?

Solar cycles are cyclic changes in behavior of the Sun. The 11 Sunspot and 22 year Hale cycles are clear examples in the observations of Solar variations. Why do they AND the others occur?

Why does the equator of the Sun rotate the fastest when it should be slowed by mass loss to the solar wind?

Generally, why is our Sun such a variable star if it’s energy comes from a steady Nuclear fusion reaction?
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th December 2010, 12:09 AM   #951
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Generally, why is our Sun such a variable star if it’s energy comes from a steady Nuclear fusion reaction?
How much does the total power output vary?

THAT is the quantity that a core fusion model says should be quite constant. And it is. These other things are secondary, and minor, effects compared to the total power output. If you want to base your electric model on the fact that these quantities vary significantly, then the obvious question for your model is how the hell the total power output is so constant? If these fluctuating quantities are fundamental signs of the electric nature of the sun, then doesn't that indicate that this electric power is fluctuating? So why such a constant total power output?

Again, you're starting with the wrong thing. Start with the most important features first. And the most important feature is the total power output. Not only can an electric model not explain its constancy, it can't even explain its magnitude. As in, not only has nobody figured out the details, no explanation is possible.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th December 2010, 02:09 AM   #952
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Start with the most important features first. And the most important feature is the total power output.
Can you tell me what math model you are using here for this calculation? I mean is it the electrostatic model or the low-pressure gas discharge physics one or something else?

Seems like the electrostatic one to me and from what I understand of EU/PC theory, that isn’t appropriate.

Originally Posted by Thunderbolts
The Electric Universe hypothesis is based on electrodynamic principles and not on kinetic behaviour, or even electrostatic models. The basic premise of this alternative view is that celestial bodies are immersed in plasma and are connected by circuits. Since the Sun is also "plugged-in" to the galaxy and to its family of planets, it behaves like a charged object seeking equilibrium with its environment.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...1216Helios.htm


Originally Posted by Scott
Wal Thornhill has referred Tim Thompson to low-pressure gas discharge physics as being the appropriate model to use, not simple electrostatics.

Of course the Electric Sun model is speculative. But these speculations are reasonable extrapolations of the solid, experimentally verified properties of plasma. We are not positive that everything included in the ES hypothesis is 100% correct. We do not claim omnipotence or perfection for our early models. But, the “standard” astrophysical models are far more speculative. They are built up of speculation cantilevered onto speculation that is ever farther removed from any empirical basis. And a tremendous amount of doubt is piling up about them.

They do not explain (without ad hoc and a posteriori adjustments) many of the observations that are being made – as the Electric Sun model does.
Donald E. Scott

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.pdf
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th December 2010, 04:23 AM   #953
tusenfem
Master Poster
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,014
Does anyone have a pdf of the original Dungey paper (not the reply to Cowling)?
__________________
20 minutes into the future
This message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages

(Max Headroom)
follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th December 2010, 05:31 AM   #954
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Can you tell me what math model you are using here for this calculation? I mean is it the electrostatic model or the low-pressure gas discharge physics one or something else?

Seems like the electrostatic one to me and from what I understand of EU/PC theory, that isn’t appropriate.
It is really quite straightforward. If the mainstream is doing the ES calculations wrong then provide the right calculations
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th December 2010, 06:11 AM   #955
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
It is really quite straightforward. If the mainstream is doing the ES calculations wrong then provide the right calculations
If your really looking to understand the Electric Sun Theory and not just to misrepresent it, in order to put it down, a correct analysis (my hilite) goes something like this IMHO:

The most important plasma circuit element—the 'Double Layer.'

Alfvén writes, "Since the time of Langmuir, we know that a double layer is a plasma formation by which a plasma—in the physical meaning of this word—protects itself from the environment. It is analogous to a cell wall by which a plasma—in the biological meaning of this word—protects itself from the environment." This concept of a star "protecting itself" from the environment throws an entirely different light upon the real nature of stars. They are powered from without, electrically, not from within! This is impossible in the language of MHD, the lingua franca of astrophysicists. Neither double layers nor circuits can be derived from MHD models. Yet Alfvén was moved to suggest, "...double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object." He proposed, "...X-ray and gamma-ray bursts may be due to exploding double layers."

Exploding double layers are very important in stellar outbursts. It is the only stellar explosion mechanism that naturally produces bipolar remnants and equatorial ejection disks (as distinct from hypothetical 'accretion' disks) and lends itself to empirical testing in the lab. Alfvén gives a practical example: "In Sweden the waterpower is located in the north, and the industry in the south. The transfer of power between these regions over a distance of about 1000 km was first done with a.c. When it was realized that d.c. transmission would be cheaper, mercury rectifiers were developed. It turned out that such a system normally worked well, but it happened now and then that the rectifiers produced enormous over-voltages so that fat electrical sparks filled the rectifying station and did considerable harm. In order to get rid of this, a collaboration started between the rectifier constructors and some plasma physicists at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

Wal Thornhill

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7hjpuqz9
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th December 2010, 06:14 AM   #956
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
If your really looking to understand the Electric Sun Theory and not just to misrepresent it, in order to put it down, a correct analysis (my hilite) goes something like this IMHO:

The most important plasma circuit element—the 'Double Layer.'

Alfvén writes, "Since the time of Langmuir, we know that a double layer is a plasma formation by which a plasma—in the physical meaning of this word—protects itself from the environment. It is analogous to a cell wall by which a plasma—in the biological meaning of this word—protects itself from the environment." This concept of a star "protecting itself" from the environment throws an entirely different light upon the real nature of stars. They are powered from without, electrically, not from within! This is impossible in the language of MHD, the lingua franca of astrophysicists. Neither double layers nor circuits can be derived from MHD models. Yet Alfvén was moved to suggest, "...double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object." He proposed, "...X-ray and gamma-ray bursts may be due to exploding double layers."

Exploding double layers are very important in stellar outbursts. It is the only stellar explosion mechanism that naturally produces bipolar remnants and equatorial ejection disks (as distinct from hypothetical 'accretion' disks) and lends itself to empirical testing in the lab. Alfvén gives a practical example: "In Sweden the waterpower is located in the north, and the industry in the south. The transfer of power between these regions over a distance of about 1000 km was first done with a.c. When it was realized that d.c. transmission would be cheaper, mercury rectifiers were developed. It turned out that such a system normally worked well, but it happened now and then that the rectifiers produced enormous over-voltages so that fat electrical sparks filled the rectifying station and did considerable harm. In order to get rid of this, a collaboration started between the rectifier constructors and some plasma physicists at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm.

Wal Thornhill

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=7hjpuqz9
I see no calculations.
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th December 2010, 06:42 AM   #957
Haig
Graduate Poster
 
Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by Tubbythin View Post
I see no calculations.
Well, if you read the whole piece maybe you'll understand why. How about you answering my questions HERE and giving some calculations too, if you like.

The Astrophysical Crisis at Red Square
Quote:
Experimental and simulation derived geometries for extreme plasma currents in a plasma column. The Birkeland current filaments will only be visible where the plasma density is high. The diagram above shows the essential features of a plasma Z-pinch (left), the detailed filamentary current structure (center), and the 'witness plate' result of the Birkeland current filaments interacting with the equatorial expulsion disk of supernova 1987A. The number of filaments forming a cylinder follows a regular pattern. Plasma physicist Anthony Peratt writes, "Because the electrical current-carrying filaments are parallel, they attract via the Biot-Savart force law, in pairs but sometimes three. This reduces the 56 filaments over time to 28 filaments; hence the 56 and 28 fold symmetry patterns. In actuality, during the pairing, any number of filaments less than 56 may be recorded as pairing is not synchronized to occur uniformly. However, there are 'temporarily stable' (longer state durations) at 42, 35, 28, 14, 7, and 4 filaments. Each pair formation is a vortex that becomes increasingly complex."
Haig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th December 2010, 06:57 AM   #958
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
[...]
Originally Posted by Scott
They do not explain (without ad hoc and a posteriori adjustments) many of the observations that are being made – as the Electric Sun model does.
[...]
(my hilite added)

Let's spell this out in a single, complete statement:

Scott: the Electric Sun model explains (without ad hoc and a posteriori adjustments) many of the observations that are being made.

Note that word "explain".

Note too that word "model".

Now this being the STTM section of JREF, and the topic at hand being one of astronomy, and/or physics, we can ask "Is Scott using "explain" and "model" with their usual meanings, in astronomy and/or physics?"

And the answer is ...?

A clear, resounding, loud "No, he is not."

But isn't Scott an electrical engineer?

Why yes, he is ... or at least he claims to be.

In electrical engineering, do the words "explain" and "model" have very different meanings than they do in astronomy and physics? Specifically, is it standard, in electrical engineering, for "explain" and "model" to validly refer to something that is purely, totally, and completely qualitative?

I don't know (perhaps an electrical engineer can chime in); however, I think it would be odd; after all, there is nothing in electrical engineering that isn't founded on well-established physics, such as Maxwell's equations and condensed matter physics.

OK, so what's Scott up to then?

It sure looks like wilful obfuscation, deliberate misdirection, etc. Of course, it could also be delusion.

In any case, whatever it is it lacks an essential component, a key feature, of physics.

Is Haig aware of this foundational aspect?

Yes, he is.

So why is he continuing to write posts that are essentially just quotes, containing the same non-science?

I don't know. It could be because he is being paid by the Thunderblots team, out of their marketing budget; it could be that he still has not grasped just how much like spam trolling his posting behaviour is; it could be that he still, genuinely, does not understand (even vaguely) why we are not having a discussion here (absent anything quantitative); it could be ...
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th December 2010, 07:15 AM   #959
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
Well, if you read the whole piece maybe you'll understand why. [...]

The Astrophysical Crisis at Red Square
Nice try Haig.

It seems, though, that you missed a key aspect.

Well, two ... I think you're posting in the wrong thread - care to explain how this relates to "Electric Sun Theory"?

Anyway, the images are, of course, entirely quantitative data: at the raw level they are detector readouts, likely the number of electrons in a particular CCD pixel's well; after data processing, they are estimates of the flux (or luminosity, or some such) of electromagnetic radiation within a well-defined waveband, per sky element (some small fraction of square arcsecs, possibly).

The key thing any explanation of this rich set of data needs to address is the energy, within the waveband(s).

Now it can do this at a back-of-the-envelope level, or it can do it at some detailed level, as an output of a model.

And the article you quoted from does, indeed, describe a model, in some detail; for example: "Experimental and simulation derived geometries for extreme plasma currents in a plasma column. The Birkeland current filaments will only be visible where the plasma density is high. The diagram above shows the essential features of a plasma Z-pinch (left), the detailed filamentary current structure (center), and the 'witness plate' result of the Birkeland current filaments interacting with the equatorial expulsion disk of supernova 1987A. The number of filaments forming a cylinder follows a regular pattern."

Did Thornhill (or Peratt) present even back-of-the-envelope estimates of the energy likely to be radiated in the waveband that the observations were taken in, derived from the detailed model?

No, he did not.

Why not? Is it, perhaps, because the intensity of electromagnetic radiation expected from a "plasma Z-pinch" is unknown, even within an order-of-magnitude, given things like "plasma density" and "plasma currents"?

I don't know; however, given what Peratt's day job seems to involve, it would be most remarkable if such estimates were to be impossible to make.

So, once again, we are left wondering what is Thornhill (this time) up to?

Why is he publishing (on his website) material that he knows is missing a key aspect? An aspect he also knows should be relatively straight-forward to address?
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th December 2010, 08:07 AM   #960
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,582
Since this thread is entitled "Electric Sun Theory", the following questions would seem to be very relevant:
Originally Posted by Haig View Post
[...]

Could you also give the up-to-date position on these questions: -

Solar wind is traveling at about 1 million miles an hour by the time it gets close to Earth and goes on past the orbit of Pluto for as far as we have been able to measure. This Solar wind varies with time and has even been observed to stop completely for a period of a day or two. What causes this fluctuation?

Why was there a complete shutdown of the solar wind for two days in May 1999?

Sun’s visible light output varies by only tenths of a percent but its energy in UV and X-rays varies by a factor of 20 (much higher according to some). Why?

Solar cycles are cyclic changes in behavior of the Sun. The 11 Sunspot and 22 year Hale cycles are clear examples in the observations of Solar variations. Why do they AND the others occur?

Why does the equator of the Sun rotate the fastest when it should be slowed by mass loss to the solar wind?

Generally, why is our Sun such a variable star if it’s energy comes from a [giant galactic Birkeland current]?
By "answers", of course, I mean answers to the questions derived from the "Electric Sun Theory".

And of course the answers must be objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable (i.e. sources cited, and conclusions/results/outputs/etc derivable from stated inputs/assumptions/etc without a need to go ask the authors questions).

So, please, Haig, no more mindless copy-pasting; please check what you've got to see that it fits the bill, before you post.
DeiRenDopa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:28 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.