Question about the current powering the sun

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Question about the current powering the sun

Unread postby davesmith_au » Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:17 am

M5k wrote:
David Talbott wrote: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.


Not only that, but I think if Bridgman imagines a "wire" as broad as the sun only, that would create a markedly different magnetic field than the drift mentioned I think by Don Scott and others, that is a spherical current drift inwards rather than columnar.

Cheers, Dave Smith.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Don Scott's reply...

Unread postby davesmith_au » Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:31 pm

I knew once I opened my trap something better would come along... :lol:

Got a real-world problem to solve? Give me an Engineer any day. Engineers deal with physical realities more than abstract theories. Somehow I knew Bridgman's "calculations" seemed way too simplistic. So, who's good at math?

Don Scott in a private email response wrote:
Solar Electron Flux

The solar constant, defined as the total radiant energy at all wavelengths reaching an area of one square centimeter at the Earth's distance from the Sun, is about 0.137 watts per square centimeter . It works out, then, that the Sun must be emitting about 6.5x10^7 watts per square meter of solar “surface,” and the total power output of the Sun is approximately 4x10^26 watts.

The hypothetical electric discharge must then have a power input of 4x10^26 watts. Suppose that the Sun's cathode drop is of the order of 10^10 volts. Then the total power input divided by the cathode drop is 4x10^16 amperes. The velocity of the stellar winds is estimated at 200 – 1000 km/s . This is in the range 2x10^5 and 10^6 m/s. Therefore, let us suppose that the effective velocity of a typical interstellar electron is at least 10^5 m/s. From current estimates of the state of ionization of the interstellar gas, we might conclude that there should be at least 100,000 free electrons per cubic m. The random electric current of these electrons then would be Ir = Nev where N is the electron density per cubic meter, e is the electron charge in coulombs, and v is the average velocity of the electrons (in m/s). Using these values, we find that the random electric current density should be about 1.6x10^-9 Amp per square meter through a surface oriented at any angle.

The total electron current that can be drawn by the solar discharge is the product of the random current density and the surface area of the sphere occupied by the cathode drop. There is little to indicate how large this sphere might be, but in view of the enormity of the cathode drop it seems likely that the radius of the sphere would be large in terms of solar system dimensions. The mean distance of Pluto's orbit is 39.5 AU, or about 6x10^12 meters. We know that the cathode drop reaches to at least that distance from the Sun. It seems reasonable to estimate the distance of the heliopause is at least twice that radius so that its spherical boundary would have a collecting surface area of something greater than 4x10^26 square meters.

Such a surface could then collect a current of interstellar electrons amounting to approximately 1.6x10^-9 Amp per square meter x 4x10^26 square meters = 4x10^17 A. (Exactly 10 times the number needed) – and of course a larger heliosphere could collect an even greater current.) Of course this calculation involves many estimated quantities, but the point is that it is not reasonable to conclude that there are not enough electrons to power the Sun. From the rough estimates of these important quantities that are presently the best available, we have determined that there most certainly are more than enough electrons available to power the Sun if, indeed, that is what is occurring.

Establishment astronomers appear certain about how the Sun generates its power and what is occurring deep down within it. They claim that the core of the Sun is a continuous nuclear fusion reactor. This core occupies 20% of the Sun’s radius. Surrounding the core is a radiative zone wherein heat energy is transported away from the core by photons. This zone occupies some 50% of the Sun’s radius. Sitting on top of this structure (and occupying the remaining 30% of the radius) is another zone in which heat is carried to the surface by convection columns – very much like hot air rising from the top of a hot stove. The entire journey from the core to the surface takes between 100,000 and 200,000 years. The granulations we see on the surface of the photosphere are supposedly the tops of 150,000-mile-long “convection columns” – stable tubes of rising matter that transport heat energy up from the Sun’s core toward the surface. Presumably that matter sinks back down toward the bottom of the convection zone along the edges of the tubes.

But if this complete process actually takes many years, then why do the “granules” change shape and even disappear in a period of hours?

This ‘accepted’ description sneaks in a subtle assumption – that the “surface” of the Sun is the top of the convection zone and is the final stage of the mechanism that makes the Sun shine. But this is not true. The top of this assumed convection zone is only the ‘photosphere’, the surface that we see in visible light.

A more complete description would include the Sun’s physical form beyond the photosphere. Next comes the chromosphere, a relatively thin layer approximately 2000-3000 km in height. In comparison to the much brighter photosphere, it glows faintly in red. The standard model does not predict its existence.

Above the chromosphere lies an extended glowing plasma structure that we can see during solar eclipses – the corona. Beyond the corona, an invisible plasmasphere extends many times the distance of the planet Pluto. The corona and the plasmasphere carry streams of ions and electrons that have been named the “solar wind.” The standard model provides no reason for the existence of the chromosphere, the corona, the plasmasphere, or the solar wind.
If the standard model were correct, heat and light would simply radiate away from the photosphere as from a hot stove. But many processes, other than simple radiation of heat, are occurring above the photosphere.

A temperature minimum occurs just above the photosphere. The lower regions of the Sun’s corona, quite high above the visible surface, are millions of degrees hotter than the surface of the Sun itself. How can this be? The standard model has no satisfactory explanation for it.
The flux of ions that the Sun emits in the solar wind varies in intensity. The ion stream sometimes stops completely. How? Why? And the ions in the solar wind accelerate – their velocity increases the farther away from the Sun they get. How? Why? Again the standard model has only ad hoc explanations for these observations.

The Sun rotates more rapidly at its equator than near its poles. The magnetic fields near sunspots reverse polarity from one eleven-year sunspot cycle to the next. These and many other observed phenomena associated with the Sun give strong indication that a high level of electrical activity is at work on and above the surface of our local star.

It should be clear that the standard model is at least incomplete if not totally wrong in its description of the Sun’s structure. Astronomers defend this standard model by saying that all the processes they describe have been performed in the laboratory and are well known. But nothing could be further from the truth. Mankind has been doggedly struggling for over half a century to create a sustained nuclear fusion reaction in the laboratory. We have not even come close to doing it. It may not even be possible. The only experiment that has been performed that fuses hydrogen into helium and liberates tremendous amounts of energy is the hydrogen bomb. That reaction is almost instantaneous. Recently discovered inherent instabilities in the plasma that is generated by the process may make it impossible to control it and make it occur continuously. Just to assume that such a sustained process is alive and well in the Sun’s core is a stretch.

Whether or not Juergens was completely correct in his assertion that the Sun is totally powered by external electrical excitation is really not the most important point of the ES hypothesis. What is important is that all of the phenomena we observe on and above the surface of the Sun are clearly well-known effects in electric plasma. This is true no matter how the Sun gets its power.

The ES model predicts and explains all these phenomena in quite logical ways. In contrast, the standard model does not predict their existence and offers no natural explanations for why they occur. Mainstream astronomers dismiss these phenomena as being of secondary importance – temporary glitches for which ad hoc explanations will eventually be developed sometime in the future. In reality they are loose threads, which, when pulled, unravel the entire flimsy fabric of the standard model.

1. R.C. Wilson, Journal of Geophysical Research, 83,4003-4007 1978.
2. Peratt, A. Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer-Verlag, 1992.
3. Astronomers now estimate that the region of “termination shock” (the heliopause) surrounds the solar system in a giant sphere at distances ranging between 85 and 120 times Earth's 93 million-mile distance from the sun. This is in the order of 8 billion miles = 1.48 x 10^13 meters. Thus our estimate of 6 x 10^12 meters is on the conservative side.



We are indeed privelaged to receive a direct answer from one of the mainstays like this, though I would not like to expect it too often.

Cheers, Dave Smith.
Last edited by davesmith_au on Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Corrected 105m/s to 10^5m/s in Don Scott's response - Thanks to mgmirkin for noticing the typo.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Question about the current powering the sun

Unread postby upriver » Sat Apr 05, 2008 4:33 pm

davesmith_au wrote:I knew once I opened my trap something better would come along... :lol:

Got a real-world problem to solve? Give me an Engineer any day. Engineers deal with physical realities more than abstract theories. Somehow I knew Bridgman's "calculations" seemed way too simplistic. So, who's good at math?

Don Scott in a private email response wrote:
Solar Electron Flux


Whether or not Juergens was completely correct in his assertion that the Sun is totally powered by external electrical excitation is really not the most important point of the ES hypothesis. What is important is that all of the phenomena we observe on and above the surface of the Sun are clearly well-known effects in electric plasma. This is true no matter how the Sun gets its power.

The ES model predicts and explains all these phenomena in quite logical ways. In contrast, the standard model does not predict their existence and offers no natural explanations for why they occur. Mainstream astronomers dismiss these phenomena as being of secondary importance – temporary glitches for which ad hoc explanations will eventually be developed sometime in the future. In reality they are loose threads, which, when pulled, unravel the entire flimsy fabric of the standard model.


We are indeed privelaged to receive a direct answer from one of the mainstays like this, though I would not like to expect it too often.

Cheers, Dave Smith.


That(bold) is the part that I agree with most wholeheartedly. And I also agree with the fact that ES explains the sun better than the standard solar model. However that doesnt mean that I agree that EU/ES is perfect.

And that is my goal, to achieve perfection. :lol: 8-)
In the examination of an idea, there may be times where it is painful to face slight inconsistencies. But that is what makes an idea better.
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: W.T. Bridgman's Critique of The Electric Sky

Unread postby Tee » Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:16 pm

this question is responded to at viewtopic.php?f=3&t=271&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
Tee
Guest
 

Re: W.T. Bridgman's Critique of The Electric Sky

Unread postby bboyer » Sun Apr 06, 2008 3:48 pm

Tee wrote:this question is responded to at viewtopic.php?f=3&t=271&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a


Thank you for pointing this out, Tee. The two separate topics have been merged into one, under the "Question about the current powering the sun" topic to which your link now points (i.e. here).
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: W.T. Bridgman's Critique of The Electric Sky

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Apr 06, 2008 4:32 pm

M5k wrote:He basically calculates how strong a current would be required to power the sun in accordance with the Electric Sun model.


He does a few "back of the envelope" calculations, yes. Does he take into account that plasma / electrical processes can be non-linear processes? Don't know if this has been asked yet. If not, it may also require addressing, as the actual situation may be more complicated than Bridgman's paper alleges.

I seem to recall it being mentioned previously either on the forums or elsewhere, that while a high initial current may be required to transition from dark mode to glow mode, or otherwise, once the transition is made, a much lower input may be required in order to sustain the higher level of activity. Was he calculating the initial current required, or the sustaining current (potentially a smaller number)?

Of course, I'm not an expert, so if I've mis-remembered please feel free to correct me.

Also, it might be helpful to revisit some of Juergens' work, as some of his published materials may have had additional calculations of various aspects of his conception of the Electric Sun. Though, he was certainly before my time, so I'm not sure how prolific his writing was. Might take some effort to track it all down.

~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Question about the current powering the sun

Unread postby junglelord » Sun Apr 06, 2008 4:34 pm

It actually makes me laugh that someone thinks their capable of this feat of wizardy.
:D
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: Don Scott's reply...

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Apr 06, 2008 4:45 pm

davesmith_au wrote:
Don Scott in a private email response wrote:Therefore, let us suppose that the effective velocity of a typical interstellar electron is at least 105 m/s.


Just as an aside, was this supposed to be 105 m/s or 10^5 m/s? (Probably the latter?)

The only reason I ask this is that I recall Don had corrected Tim Thompson's error in a prior reference to a Juergens article, that had left out the "power of" indicator, thus gave a junk result, which Thompson had then used to try to "refute" the electric sun theory by claiming that Juergens' # had been far too small.

The major omission from Thompson’s discussion is any mention of the plasma characteristics of a spherically shaped active plasma. And he states as fact things we do not know. For example: “Juergen's [sic] assumed an extremely unrealistic velocity of about 105 meters per second (about 0.1 km/sec), when the real velocity is more like 20 km/sec” [for electrons approaching the Sun’s heliopause from interstellar space]. Thompson's page has a typo here. Juergens' actual statement (in his paper Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy as recorded in Kronos Vol VIII No.2 Winter 1983) was, "Let us suppose that the effective velocity of a typical interstellar electron would be about 10^5 meters per second [not 105], corresponding to a kinetic temperature of a few hundred degrees Kelvin." Note that Thompson apparently believed the erroneous number (105), because he announces this velocity as being about 0.1 km/sec which he then claims is too low. The correct value of Juergens' actual estimate is 100 km/sec which is five times Thompson's and effectively negates his argument. At any rate, no one has made any measurements beyond the heliopause, so one man’s estimate of this velocity is as valid as another’s at this time. In fact, data from the Voyager spacecraft are not meeting conventional expectations in that region.


I'm just wondering if this is a reference to the same # or a different one? If not, then never mind... Looks like the same issue, so I'm pretty sure that Don's statement should say 10^5 when copied to the forum, rather than the de-superscripted 10[5]

I think that the issue originally came out of copying / pasting a number with a superscript character that was converted to regular script in the "copying" process. And without adding a ^ (power of character) the number incorrectly becomes 105 rather than 10^5...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Question about the current powering the sun

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Apr 06, 2008 4:53 pm

starbiter wrote: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.


Working on it... Managed to archive them to my HD (among a ton of others), but the resurrection of a static archive is going painfully slow. One process at a time. But it's getting there. Once things are sufficiently "working" (won't be perfect), I'll forward to D.Smith & D.Talbott & they can do with it all as they please. So, know that a good deal of recovery is still in process. Part of the reason I've been a bit incommunicado lately (that and a heavy workload at work)...

As you were,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Question about the current powering the sun

Unread postby davesmith_au » Sun Apr 06, 2008 5:24 pm

mgmirkin wrote:I think that the issue originally came out of copying / pasting a number with a superscript character that was converted to regular script in the "copying" process. And without adding a ^ (power of character) the number incorrectly becomes 105 rather than 10^5...


Thanks Michael, for picking up this error. I must have gone over it three or four times to make sure I'd converted all the superscript correctly - does the fact it was after 4:00am when I was doing it make restitution for such an error?...

Sorry to all for that little boo-boo, though I'm sure most would have realised the typo, it's now been corrected.

Cheers, Dave Smith.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz

Re: Question about the current powering the sun

Unread postby MGmirkin » Sun Apr 06, 2008 7:39 pm

davesmith_au wrote:
mgmirkin wrote:I think that the issue originally came out of copying / pasting a number with a superscript character that was converted to regular script in the "copying" process. And without adding a ^ (power of character) the number incorrectly becomes 105 rather than 10^5...


Thanks Michael, for picking up this error. I must have gone over it three or four times to make sure I'd converted all the superscript correctly - does the fact it was after 4:00am when I was doing it make restitution for such an error?...

Sorry to all for that little boo-boo, though I'm sure most would have realized the typo, it's now been corrected.

Cheers, Dave Smith.


Happy to help. :)

~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: Question about the current powering the sun

Unread postby nick c » Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:37 pm

mgmirkin wrote:
Also, it might be helpful to revisit some of Juergens' work, as some of his published materials may have had additional calculations of various aspects of his conception of the Electric Sun.

http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/index.htm
http://pipl.com/directory/people/Ralph/Juergens
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoth08.txt


also, pertaining to this thread, from tpod:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... 427sun.htm
A common mistake made by critics of the electric model is to assume that the radial electric field of the Sun should be not only measurable but also strong enough to accelerate electrons toward the Sun at “relativistic” speeds (up to 300,000 kilometers per second). By this argument, we should find electrons not only zipping past our instruments but also creating dramatic displays in Earth’s night sky.

But as noted above, in the plasma glow-discharge model the interplanetary electric field will be extremely weak. No instrument placed in space could measure the radial voltage differential across a few tens of meters, any more than it could measure the solar wind acceleration over a few tens of meters. But we can observe the solar wind acceleration over tens of millions of kilometers, confirming that the electric field of the Sun, though imperceptible in terms of volts per meter, is sufficient to sustain a powerful drift current across interplanetary space. Given the massive volume of this space, the implied current is quite sufficient to power the Sun.




and from:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/new_cosmology.htm

To avoid misunderstanding of this concept, it is essential that we distinguish the complex, electrodynamic glow discharge model of the Sun from a simple electrostatic model that can be easily dismissed. Throughout most of the volume of a glow discharge the plasma is "quasi" neutral, with almost equal numbers of protons and electrons. A similar situation exists inside a fluorescent light tube. The current is carried primarily by a drift of electrons in a weak electric field toward the positive electrode (the Sun). It is only beneath the corona, close to the Sun, that the electric field becomes strong enough to generate all of the brilliant and energetic phenomena we observe on the Sun.



Nick
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2446
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Question about the current powering the sun

Unread postby dpres » Thu Apr 10, 2008 3:22 am

I have a few problems with the answers to the question: What powers the sun? Of course the sun is powered electrically but I think electric current from outside is only a part of it. Most of the energy comes from the quantum underworld.

I am not an expert and I am not a scientist and sorry this is not my language. It is therefore a bit difficult for me to explain my point of view, but I will try. Maybe this shouldn't be placed here. It probably belongs to Mad Ideas.

To make it a bit easier for me, please have a look to the following links to Harold Aspdens web pages.

Stars and Planets

Hydrogen as a Star

The Sun's Energy Source

The density of our sun is 1.4 g/cm³ and this is one of the keys to understand the sun, I think. In my opinion the sun is most probably a proton star enclosed in an electron sphere separated by a huge -DL- (double layer). The boundary of the proton core is the photosphere, the electron sphere is the corona, the -DL- the space between. This is not a new type of star, this is actually what stars are. There are no such bodies like a neutron stars, they are physically just impossible. Heavier stars contain possibly heavier ionized elements instead of hydrogen.

One important point in this context is that matter can be ionized and separated by gravity. It is not only important for the understanding of the sun but also for other celestial bodies like Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus or even Earth and all other bodies having a magnetic field created by electrical current which is possibly a spinning ionized core separated by a -DL- from the outer parts of that body.

Now we have all ingredients to explain nearly everything like: what powers the sun, what creates the earth magnetic field, the earthquakes, maybe even the creation of matter within the earth or within other celestial bodies or an answer to the question about magnetic reversals. Are Jupiter and other gas giants just minor suns with clouds? At least Jupiter has a mean density of 1.3 g/cm³, not far from the density of the sun.

All these celestial bodies are huge asymmetrical capacitors loaded with very high voltages which are rotating and collecting energy from the quantum underworld. But maybe it is just the other way around, the quantum underworld is spinning the sun and this in turn creates the energy. There has never been a good explanation about the spin of the sun and why it is spinning at all. I do not agree to the explanation that the sun is a homopolar motor. It is not quite consistent.

What is the quantum underworld, the vacuum, the ether or aether or whatever you may call it? Is it the home of the space energy or the so called Zero Point Energy - ZPE? Is this ZPE powering the sun? Yes I think so. Just have a look to the next link.

Sandia’s Z machine exceeds two billion degrees Kelvin

Where did this energy came from? Is it Zero Point Energy?

If you like to read a bit more about the quantum underworld, the aether, just have a look to Harald Aspdens web pages:

http://www.aspden.org/
http://www.aspden.org/books/Booklist.html
http://www.aspden.org.uk/index.html
http://www.aspden.org/books/2edpoc/2edpoccontents.htm

His book CREATION: The Physical Truth is still available at Amazon UK

Dieter
dpres
Guest
 

Unread postby ZeuZ » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:31 am

pln2bz wrote: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.


Thanks for pointing this out, will make for some interesting debunking when I have more time. From a preliminary read of this paper I would say that it uses a very similar strategy to the Tim Thompson attempt at debunking. Although much of the material that he includes is scientifically correct, it does'nt actually falsify the point it is meant to. Most of the material in it is irrelivant to the actual core concepts involved in the ES theory. Scott himself awknowledges that the full details of the Electric Sun model is not fully know yet, and he openly states that it is most speculative idea in his book. But its certainly one of the most interesting ideas, and an approach that I can see the merits of.

Seems that other scientists are also considering electrical energy as source of energy from stars. Especially stars that have a unipolar inductor morphology, like the star in the Crab Nebula, and some white dwarfs.

A new form of stellar energy?

Electric Stars

But it seems that applying these ideas to the sun is still taboo. Very few papers even consider what the charge on the sun could be, and what the effects of the subsequent E-fields and currents could be. The closest I have got to addressing the potential charge of the sun from a mainstream journal is this (very theoretical) paper; On the global electrostatic charge of stars - Astronomy & Astrophysics, 2001. And they seem to be amazed that no-one has included the electric field component in solar models so far,

The purpose of this paper is remind of the existence of the global electrostatic field of the Sun and other stars, since it has been ignored by the authors of textbooks and review papers during the last several decades. Consequently, it has probably not been taken into account in the concerning works. [.....]

Since we have not found any paper mentioning a reason why the field should not exist, it seems that it was simply forgotten. This is also Van de Hulst's (1996) opinion. The fact that the field was found within a model of the solar corona, probably caused it to be regarded as an attribute of the highest part of the solar atmosphere and its actual nature remained unnoticed. Consequently, the eld was put aside together with the obsolete corona models. [....]

Thus, the magnitude of the force represents about 50% of the magnitude of gravity, if the star acts on proton, and it is about 918 times more intensive than gravity, if the star acts on electron.


I would not like to take their word for the charge of the sun at ~100 C, I would very much like some kind of experimental evidence, or independant validation of this value, because this one publication is very theoretical. But it is an important papaer as it shows that the potential charge that stars could contian is largely ignored by the scientific community, even though there is no real reason to dismiss the idea.

And about the question of how the currents could produce the magnetic field of the sun, I think that Alexeff's model of the origin of the magnetic fields of bodies in space is far more likely than the current one (currents from slow convection in cores of planets). This model, utilizing the speed of rotation as one of the factors of the magnetic field, may be far more consistant with the ES model, and could provide a further explanation for the electric current activity on the suns surface. It seems to fit observations very well too, there is no rotating body in space that is devoid of a magnetic field.

The Van Allen Hypothesis—The Origin of the Magnetic Fields of the Planets and Stars - IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 35, NO. 4, AUGUST 2007

Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Volume 35, Issue 4, Aug. 2007 Page(s):748 - 750
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPS.2007.897910

Summary: Van Allen experimentally observed that the magnetic moments of the planets and stars are proportional to their angular momentum over some 12 orders of magnitude. "This graph is purely empirical and is regarded with disdain by theorists of planetary magnetism." - Van Allen. In this paper, I develop a model that both predicts the proportionality between magnetic moment and angular momentum and also fits the experimental results with no adjustable parameters. The model is based on the fact that each rotating planet and star is immersed in a nonrotating conducting plasma cloud, which constitutes a Faraday electrical generator. This Faraday generator is assumed to be the primary source of the magnetic field, in contrast to present models that assume that the flow of magma in the planets' cores is responsible.



There is no real reason as to why the magnetic fields of planets should be so uniform if they are resulting from purely currents due to convection at the core. And there are other problems. Cowling’s theorem demonstrates there is no cylindrically symmetric flow pattern that can generate a magnetic field. In contrast, the plasma model has electrical currents controlled by a tensor electrical conductivity oriented with respect to the magnetic field. In this respect, the model is very similar to the disk generator created by Michael Faraday.

Also the velocity flow of the magma is relatively slow, on the order of kilometers per year, as suggested by the migration of the Earth’s magnetic poles. In contrast, the velocity used in the plasma model is that at the Earth’s equator, 40 000 km/day. In fact, the voltage induced by the Earth’s rotation in its own magnetic field induces a dc voltage of 52 kV between the equator and the poles. The flow of magma (to my knowledge) makes no predictions as to the relationship between the magnetic moment of a celestial rotating body and the angular momentum of the rotating body. In contrast, the plasma model yields the observed Van Allen model with no adjustable parameters.



I would think that the Electric sun model of currents at the surface could be a direct cause of the suns magnetic field, which is much more consistant with the ES model than the standard model, again indicating a far more electrically active surface than conventionally accepted.
ZeuZ
Guest
 

Re: Question about the current powering the sun

Unread postby ZeuZ » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:01 am

I’ll make a start on replying to this, I just starting reading it and I couldn't resist, most of the points are so wrong I dont know where to start;

Pages 1-3, much moaning, generizations, attempts to link plasma cosmology with creationism ploy, etc.

page 2
after finding a reference to the work by young-Earth creationist, Barry Setterfield, on his web site2. The reference was an attempt by Setterfield to deflect my criticisms that pulsar timing observations were evidence against his claims of a rapidly decaying speed of light3 by invoking a radically different model of pulsars proposed by Dr. Scott


I'm sure that Scott wants no connection of his work to creationists, and i'm sure that Scott does not believe in creationist Barry Setterfield's personal theories on light.

And its not just Mr Scott with this idea for pulsars, other astronomers are of this opinion aswell. Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment, in this paper Healy and Peratt too suggest a similar model, where the star is recieving energy in a solar circuit (Alfven, 1982), and the pulses are being generated by a periodic plasma discharge between the magnetosphere of the star, or between two bodies. Maybe if Bridgman was aware of this publication, published in a highly established astronomy journal, he would not be so quick to rubbish Scotts similar interpretation.

“Dr. Scott states that astronomers assume that the physical laws in the distant cosmos are different from those known on the Earth (page 7). Wrong. The default assumption is that the laws of are identical on the Earth and in distant space. This concept dates back to Galileo in 1592.”


If he fully understood what plasma cosmology is, or EU, he would understand that they do indeed hold the physical laws on Earth to a much higher regard. Lets take a look at the solutions offered so far for the acceleration of the solar wind. We’ve had over twenty completely different solutions proposed for that in the literature (ref) utilizing such things as ‘Alfvenons’ ‘shock dissipation’ ‘pulsational waves’ ‘reconnection’ ‘field dissipation’ ‘shock waves’ ‘dipole fields’, various new particles, listing them all would be tedious, there are hundreds of different solutions. Seems that solar astronomy is in quite a muddle, hundreds of different models which seem to work, but no reason to choose one of them over the other. That’s why the simple acceleration from a global E-field seems such a sensible suggestion.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005psci.book.....A
This paperback is the second edition of the original textbook published in Aug 2004, with an addition of some 170 problems and solutions, written for graduate students, post-Docs and researchers. It provides a systematic introduction into all phenomena of the solar corona, including the Quiet Sun, flares, and CMEs, covering the latest results from Yohoh, SoHO, TRACE, and RHESSI. The contents are:
Introduction, Thermal Radiation, Hydrostatics, Hydrodynamics, Magnetic Fields, Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD), MHD Oscillations, Propagating MHD Waves, Coronal Heating, Magnetic Reconnection, Particle Acceleration, Particle Kinematics, Hard X-rays, Gamma-Rays, Radio Emission, Flare Plasma Dynamics, Coronal Mass Ejections


Note that he does not mention once in this summary the electric currents on the sun that must maintain the magnetic fields. He didn’t even mention the current disruption model that has been proposed (originally by Alfven et al) for energetic solar events, and he certainly failed to mention that current disruption is a viable alternative to magnetic reconnection explanations. The Bu approach (magnetic reconnection) and the Ej approach (current disruption), although they both arise from the exact same conditions (at a neutral point), are different in the fact that magnetic reconnection does not encompass automatically all current-driven processes, because an electric current based on the Ampere’s law is associated with a non-zero curl B. Alfven was aware of the benfits of pursuing the electric current approach, as opposed to the magnetic reconnection approach, because currents create magnetic fields, not the other way around, so it makes sense to treat the current as the primary quantity. Thus his alternative electrical model of solar flares, utilizing the current disruption method; (ref)

It is possible that the sun may be generating this E-field at its surface due to the interaction of its angular momentum with the surrounding conducting plasma (ref), as well as any net charge it may contain. Thus the filamentary corona is the current that is being accelerated by this global field, just as Scott states in his book. But Bridgman seems to gloss over this potential solution to the long outstanding problem in solar physics, focussing on the minutia without addressing the main issue.

Astronomy has made no contributions to fundamental science
Scott claims that astronomy has made no contributions to fundamental science or is not really testable (pages 4, 5, 7, 9). Consider his statement on page 4:
“The answer is because there are no tangible, usable products from which we can judge the validity of theories emanating from sciences that deal with events that happened long, long ago and far, far away.”

Scott ignores many examples in the history of science [..]


Here he takes what was obviously a perfectly valid point that we can never know for sure about the validity of theories in space (as you can make no direct measurements of the objects in question) and then proceeds to list a series of things that we do now know for sure, and so are largely irrelevant to this point.

And I believe that Scott was referring to the many theories surrounding the Big Bang, that do claim to have a very definitive picture of what the universe was like billions of years previously.

page 4
Theory vs. Laboratory validation
Another mistake Scott makes is an almost dogmatic adherence to the notion that if it hasn't been demonstrated in the laboratory or tested in situ, then it can’t be real (page 9, 19). He ignores the fact that many things we know today, not just in astrophysics, were predicted theoretically, years,


On page nine from the electric sky, Scott outlines the empirical method. Observation, theory and experiment. This is no different explanation than any layman that has learnt the most basic physics course knows, it seems though that Bridgman takes issue with the empirical method for some reason. His examples are no better however, he uses the existence of the neutrino as evidence that you don’t always have to have observed something to know its there, but this is an erroneous position to take. Indeed, many people may have suspected that the neutrino existed before it was detected, but even the neutrino still needed that one piece of direct experimental evidence before it gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community. Since then neutrino’s have been used in all sorts of experiments and equipment, but they served no real purpose until they were discovered. The evidence for many of modern astrophysics abstractions is far more ambiguous than the evidence for the existence of the neutrino. As Scott rightfully said, to abandon the empirical method is to abandon science.

And many other scientists seem to agree, take Professor of Astrophysics at The University of Alabama, Richard Lieu;

http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462
Astronomy can never be a hard core physics discipline, because the Universe offers no control experiment, i.e. with no independent checks it is bound to be highly ambiguous and degenerate. Thus e.g. while superluminal motion can be explained by Special Relativity. data on the former can never on their own be used to establish the latter. This is why traditionally astrophysicists have been content with (and proud of) their ability to use known physical laws and processes established in the laboratory to explain celestial phenomena. Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory, and researchers are quite comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown. How then could, after fifty years of failed attempt in finding dark matter, the fields of dark matter {\it and now} dark energy have become such lofty priorities in astronomy funding, to the detriment of all other branches of astronomy? Given all of the above, I believe astronomy is no longer heading towards a healthy future, unless funding agencies re-think their master plans by backing away from such high a emphasis on groping in the dark.



The Importance of in situ Measurements
Related to the laboratory validation issue is Dr. Scott’s repeated statements that astrophysical claims can’t be tested since in situ measurements are not possible (pages 9, 19) and this means that all kinds of other claims should be admitted on equal footing.


Unfortunately that is a fact; you can not scale down gravity and test in laboratory conditions, it is too weak, and how gravity works is not fully known yet. Plasma’s have scale invariance over many orders of magnitude, and so in situ measurements really are possible. Like this recent simulation of a solar flare in a plasma, published in a well known plasma cosmology journal (Laser Plasma Experiments to Simulate Coronal Mass Ejections - Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on, 2007)

page 6
Trusting Mathematical Models
Dr. Scott complains about trusting mathematical models (page 25). Yet it is these mathematical models which provide numerical predictions for testing hypotheses. They not only provide insights for phenomena far away, but they enable us to ‘see’ things, such as atoms and subatomic particles, which are impossible to see.


Hilarious! He here completely ignores Scotts points on page 24-25 about what is acceptable to conclude from mathematics, dark energy and matter, quadratic curve fitting of data, and many of his other points, and instead jumps to the instantaneous conclusion that Scott is somehow trying to uproot the entire subject of mathematics!

What Scott was saying was in fact a very sensible point to make about applying un-needed physical process’s to abstract mathematical concepts. He notes that electrical engineers use singularities in their models all the time, the difference is that engineers realise that singularities are not physical things, they are useful mathematical points, nothing more. Whereas Astronomers prefer to give this mathematical object a plethora of strange physical attributes. As Scott says; “Actual quantities that exist in nature are quite distinct from the mathematical variables in the equations that attempt to model their behaviour.”

And the rest up to page nine is more of the writers personal opinion, a few Ad Hominems, more misrepresentations, and more misunderstandings.

I can see what the rest is going to be like now. The person who wrote this obviously started reading this book with a closed mind, in fact, he brought it specifically to debunk it as he thought that it was a creationist book, despite there not being one mention of creationism, religion, or anything like that at all in Scott’s book. What a twirp. And I suppose the irony of him accusing Scotts book of being creationist, whilst he staunchly defends the biggest creation event in history, the Big Bang, didn’t occur to him. Plasma cosmology does not need such a creation event, it works like most other areas of science, from empirical observation in the present, which works outwards and backwards. The Big Bang starts from mathematical formulae that start from the beginning of the universe, and try to predict the future. Few have turned out correct, and most are now just completely free variables, so no matter what is observed the theory will just be changed to account for the new values. I see most Big Bangers themselves as scientific creationists, instead of saying that the universe was created 10,000 years ago, they say a billion years ago, or 13 billion years ago; but no matter where you put the start time it never solves the creation problem. That’s why plasma cosmology is the less religious of the two cosmologies, no creation event is needed, and that is the simple reason why Bridgman’s entire premise is absurd.
ZeuZ
Guest
 

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests