Question about the current powering the sun

[pln2bz]

To be sure, Don Scott, David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill, among others, very likely do not have the time to fully rebut this publication which attempts to debunk The Electric Sky ...

http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/index.html

And yet, just skimming through the piece, it's not hard at all to spot some glaring issues. My hope is that we can honestly rate all of these criticisms in terms of legitimacy. Some points appear to be worthy of a discussion, while others appear to lack much basis, or exist on the basis of consensus or assumption. If people are so inclined, it might make sense to see if we can informally rebut specific parts of this rebuttal for the Thunderbolts group. Where condescension occurs, there's no problem in pointing it out -- but let's please take the moral high ground in the conversation.

I'm leaving for vacation in a few hours, so I won't be able to immediately participate in any discussion that might follow ...

[davesmith_au]

That's not a rebuttal, or certainly not one worth wasting any time on. It starts off with the irrelevant mention of where the author came across The Electric Sky, and ties it into a creationist argument which it definitely is not. This so-called debunker spends most of his free time fighting against creationists, so why he has picked up on this topic is beyond me.

He then goes on the use the term "crank" in describing Don Scott, this is an insulting ad hominem attack and there is absolutely nothing scientific in this methodology.

Then he bangs on about his mainstream interpretations of things like it's all established, not-negotiable fact, and even describes the "outer layers" of a neutron star for goodness sake. I don't know of any other scientist who has even seen the layers of this questionable entity, let alone can describe it's outer layers like they're established, unadulterated facts.

And there's the whole condescending tone overall, from someone who does not understand plasma at all, like he's some kind of expert on the whole of astrophysics and everyone should just believe him. Oh, and there's a homework section at the end.

Puh-lease!! This is not worthy of anyone offering a rebuttal, as there's very little science in it in the first place. Had the author stuck to the facts and issues instead of ranting on about personalities maybe it would require some action. But I don't think anyone should spend valuable time arguing with someone who already 'knows better' and has his mind firmly made up. If there were anything funny in it, I'd think it was a joke - certainly not a scientific discussion of the facts.

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[M5k]

That's not a rebuttal, or certainly not one worth wasting any time on.

I disagree, he raises a number of interesting points, especially in the "General Complaints" section.
Also, the calculations he makes under "Powering the Sun from Outside" absolutely NEED addressing.

And there's the whole condescending tone overall, from someone who does not understand plasma at all, like he's some kind of expert on the whole of astrophysics and everyone should just believe.

Oh yes, that's a valid concern, because we EU advocates NEVER use a condescending tone in our posts and articles, and we are obviously all experts on the whole of astrophysics. </sarcasm>

[davesmith_au]

That's not a rebuttal, or certainly not one worth wasting any time on.

I disagree, he raises a number of interesting points, especially in the "General Complaints" section.
Also, the calculations he makes under "Powering the Sun from Outside" absolutely NEED addressing.

And there's the whole condescending tone overall, from someone who does not understand plasma at all, like he's some kind of expert on the whole of astrophysics and everyone should just believe.

Oh yes, that's a valid concern, because we EU advocates NEVER use a condescending tone in our posts and articles, and we are obviously all experts on the whole of astrophysics. </sarcasm>

Well, I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree. From the introduction it is clear this author is attacking the man, not the model. Calling a Professor of Electrical Engineering who has spent the best part of his life studying and teaching electrical theory a crank is hardly what I'd call worthy of response.

This is psuedo-skepticism at its peak, and has nothing to do with science. I am sure there are many others in the regular astrophysics community who don't share this commentator's views nor attitude. In fact, I would think there would be some who would rather disassociate themselves with anyone employing the "methodology" of this author. Only the least critical of onlookers should be lured into the false arguments he raises.

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[davesmith_au]

And to prove one of my points in the last paragraph above, I'll draw readers' attention to today's Thunderblog entry, 'The Overrated "Masters" of the Universe '.

The author is a Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies, who works as a Senior Lecturer in Theoretical Physics and is also a member of the Royal Astronomical Society, among his other credentials.

Check it out - you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[M5k]

To be perfectly honest, that entry doesn't really tell us anything new.

I'd still like to see some commentary on Bridgman's calculations under "Powering the Sun from Outside" that start on page 17 of the pdf.
He basically calculates how strong a current would be required to power the sun in accordance with the Electric Sun model. He then points out that such a current would create magnetic fields with a strength of 100 or more Tesla, which is 500 to 10,000 times stronger than the observed magnetic fields.

Either there is something wrong with his calculations, or the EU model needs to be adjusted to fit the observations better.

[upriver]

I'd still like to see some commentary on Bridgman's calculations under "Powering the Sun from Outside" that start on page 17 of the pdf.
He basically calculates how strong a current would be required to power the sun in accordance with the Electric Sun model. He then points out that such a current would create magnetic fields with a strength of 100 or more Tesla, which is 500 to 10,000 times stronger than the observed magnetic fields.

Either there is something wrong with his calculations, or the EU model needs to be adjusted to fit the observations better.

I also would be interested in hearing the answer to that question.

[JohnW]

Me 3. It's a pretty devastating critique on that issue alone.

[M5k]

This came up in this thread in the Net Talk forum, but seems to have been largely ignored. http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=182&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Bridgman, in his rebuttal to the EU, calculates how strong a current would be required to power the sun in accordance with the Electric Sun model. He then points out that such a current would create magnetic fields with a strength of 100 or more Tesla, which is 500 to 10,000 times stronger than the observed magnetic fields.
(The relevant calculations start on page 17 of his pdf, under "powering the sun from outside")

This is of course a rather huge problem, so I'd like to know where he went wrong in his calculations, if he did.

[Heftruck]

I'd focus on his assumptions about the Electric Sun and the properties of that current first, rather than on his calculations.

I never liked deducing "facts" from theory ..

[M5k]

Well, this isn't particularly theoretical. He takes the observed power output of the sun (nothing theoretical about that), assumes that it is provided by an outside electric current (this part is theoretical, pure EU in fact), and uses physics to determine the speed and quantity of electrons that have to arrive at the sun in order to provide the observed power. Calculating the strength of the electromagnetic fields that such a current would produce uses well-tested formulas. Nothing theoretical there, either. The calculated electromagnetic field strength is two to four orders of magnitude higher than the observed electromagnetic fields.

The only possible problem that I can identify (but I'm no expert) is his model of how the electrons move, which is basically along a "wire" (shape, not actually present) with the diameter of the sun. I have no idea how different shapes (corkscrewing Birkeland currents?) would affect the generated electromagnetic field, if at all.

[nick c]

(but I'm no expert)

Neither am I!

He takes the observed power output of the sun (nothing theoretical about that), assumes that it is provided by an outside electric current (this part is theoretical, pure EU in fact), and uses physics to determine the speed and quantity of electrons that have to arrive at the sun in order to provide the observed power.

So here's another question:
Is Bridgman taking into account the amount of the power output that can be attributed to nuclear fusion taking place on or above the surface of the Sun? My readings of Scott, Thornhill, Juergens et.al, lead me to think that though they postulate an external power source, they agree that fusion is taking place on the Sun, just that it is not powered by an internal nuclear furnace.
My suspicion is that Bridgman is not considering this a possibility when he calculates the how much current is necessary to achieve the observed power levels.
Nick

[David Talbott]

One point in prior discussion of Bridgman's critique I'll agree with wholeheartedly. When a criticism appears to reflect serious thinking, not just ignorance of a model in question, an answer is called for, even if it takes a little time to get the attention of the leading electrical theorists, who are a little reluctant to get drawn into discussion that would not be necessary if the critics themselves did a little homework on the subject.

He [Bridgman] takes the observed power output of the sun (nothing theoretical about that), assumes that it is provided by an outside electric current (this part is theoretical, pure EU in fact), and uses physics to determine the speed and quantity of electrons that have to arrive at the sun in order to provide the observed power.

Though this is far from my field of expertise, I suspect the language exposes a misconception. Does Bridgman realize that the subject is a glow discharge and that the electrons are drifting in ever-so-slowly (in aggregate, centimeters per hour?) along "transmission lines" following the direction of the magnetic field? Don't know, but let's find out. Sounds to me as if he's committing the classic error of critics, applying electrostatic principles, not plasma science. Is he imagining electrons racing toward the Sun at relativistic velocities? Perhaps the mistake is as simple as that? I'll see if I can prod Wal or Don on this one.

David Talbott

[starbiter]

The "Electrons Streaming Towards the Sun" thread might help if someone can resurrect it. This has Electrons entering through the Corona, and not just the poles, which i thought was the case. This may help find those pesky little buggers.

[M5k]

Though this is far from my field of expertise, I suspect the language exposes a misconception. Does Bridgman realize that the subject is a glow discharge and that the electrons are drifting in ever-so-slowly (in aggregate, centimeters per hour?) along "transmission lines" following the direction of the magnetic field? Don't know, but let's find out. Sounds to me as if he's committing the classic error of critics, applying electrostatic principles, not plasma science. Is he imagining electrons racing toward the Sun at relativistic velocities? Perhaps the mistake is as simple as that? I'll see if I can prod Wal or Don on this one.

David Talbott

Ah, I think you hit the nail on the head. His table of current requirements for the electric sun has the electrons moving at near lightspeed for the ranges of values that he has identified as able to power the sun.