Electric Sun model and correlative investigation

[Nereid]

Solar provided the spark for me to start this thread. In the Prominent attributes known to young Birkeland: Electric Sun explanations thread, on the topic of published EU theory material on some prominent attributes of the Sun he wrote:

I would refer you to correlative investigation and/or research of such things using information already available in the literature. Such as:

[...]

Upon researching the topic in a correlative manner as briefly exemplified above do I want, or need, to? Well no; not really. Do works exist in the established literature that substantiates, backs up, or supports positing the dynamics of plasma and electricity as significant contributors to cosmic dynamics? Yes.

Again, maybe it's just me but when I have such questions I simply go research information already contained in the literature myself if, where, or when it is available. Have you tried that approach or am I missing something?

Of course, as Solar says, there is an "established literature that substantiates, backs up, or supports positing the dynamics of plasma and electricity as significant contributors to cosmic dynamics"; specifically, with regard to the Sun, the solar wind and interplanetary medium, (and interactions with the Earth's magnetosphere, ionosphere, aurorae, etc) that literature is vast - the published papers number in the tens of thousands.

But published EU theory is very, very clear that a great deal of this established literature is wrong, flawed, etc.

For example, here's what electric theorist David Talbott wrote:

No quantitative "standard" model explains the Sun as we now know it.
[...]
I've never seen a qualitative argument for the standard model, based on things now known and measured. At this point I don't believe there ever will be one worth shouting about, simply because the most prominent failures of the standard model are the elementary predictions of the electric model. Until that point is driven home, discussion of the missing "quantification" has no relevance to the realities of solar theory today.

And:

... illustrates the extent to which mathematics divorced from knowledge of the way nature works, can only create a disaster zone in the theoretical sciences. Indeed, this is exactly what we observe in the domain of theoretical solar physics today, ...

And electrical theorist Scott wrote:

It should be well understood (certainly by anyone who has had a basic physics course) that the magnetic field "lines"2 that are drawn to describe a magnetic field, have no beginning nor end. They are closed paths. In fact one of Maxwell's famous equations is: "div B = 0". Which says precisely that (in the language of vector differential calculus). So when magnetic fields collapse due to the interruption of the currents that produce them, they do not "break" or "merge" and "recombine" as some uninformed astronomers have claimed (e.g., see the quote regarding the mainstream concerns above - in 4. Acceleration of the Solar "Wind" Ions).
[...]
Some astronomers have proposed that heat is routinely transported out to the lower corona by magnetic fields and released there by "reconnection of magnetic field lines, whereby oppositely directed lines cancel each other out, converting magnetic energy into heat. The process requires that the field lines be able to diffuse through the plasma." This idea is inventive but, unfortunately, has no scientific basis whatever.

Note that although astronomers ought to be aware that magnetic fields require electrical currents or time varying E-fields to produce them, currents and E-fields are never mentioned in standard models. Possibly because they do not seem to be included in astrophysics curricula.

When it comes to a specific topic, there is the possibility of conflict between something in the established literature (that substantiates positing the dynamics of plasma and electricity as significant contributors to some solar phenomenon or other) and published electric Sun model material.

Take solar flares, for example. Published electric Sun model material is pretty clear what the explanation of these is:

But there are several dynamic phenomena such as flares, prominences, and coronal mass ejections (CME's) that we observe. How are they produced? Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven, although not aware of the Juergens Electric Sun model, advanced his own theory (3) of how prominences and solar flares are formed electrically. It is completely consistent with the Juergens model. It too is electrical.

Now there are plenty of papers on solar flares; their nature, formation, causes, etc. However, it would seem that the only such papers which are consistent with the electric Sun model are those derived from (or otherwise independently consistent with) Alfvén's published papers on that topic.

At one step further removed, consider this paper (cited by Solar, in answer to my question): Comparison of the sidereal angular velocity of subphotospheric layers and small bright coronal structures during the declining phase of solar cycle 23. It looks like a perfectly ordinary paper, albeit one with lots of mathematics. And it seems to be little more than a report of some observations; how could this be in conflict with published EU theory?

I can't say for sure, but here's one way: section 2 (Data Reduction) begins:

Subphotospheric angular velocity is measured using ring-diagram analysis which is a local helioseismology technique based on frequency-shift measurements of high-degree acoustic-modes to infer horizontal velocity flows at different subphotospheric depths (Hill, 1988).

In other words, Zaatri et al. used a technique in helioseismology in their data reduction, one described by Hill, in a 1988 paper. When you go check that paper, you find this innocuous phrase, explaining a feature in a figure (based on observational data): "They are parabolae because of the dispersion relation for acoustic waves in a gravitationally stratified atmosphere, ". But, according to Thornhill (writing on the electric Sun model), that is false; the interior of the Sun is not gravitationally stratified.

Correlative investigation, at least with respect to the Sun, thus seems to be potential minefield.

Or do you, dear reader, see things differently?

[Sparky]

nereid, "Or do you, dear reader, see things differently?"

Yes, i do..!

I would elaborate, but this exceeds my posting limit, so if i keep it under 599 words, maybe it will fly under their radar...

[Nereid]

nereid, "Or do you, dear reader, see things differently?"

Yes, i do..!

I would elaborate, [...]

I look forward to your elaboration, Sparky.

[Solar]

Of course, as Solar says, there is an "established literature that substantiates, backs up, or supports positing the dynamics of plasma and electricity as significant contributors to cosmic dynamics"; specifically, with regard to the Sun, the solar wind and interplanetary medium, (and interactions with the Earth's magnetosphere, ionosphere, aurorae, etc) that literature is vast - the published papers number in the tens of thousands.

But published EU theory is very, very clear that a great deal of this established literature is wrong, flawed, etc.

You present quite the mixed bag sometimes Nereid.

When considering your last sentence here contextualized by the incorporation of my statement in quotes said last sentence is inaccurate. It has been primarily towards the “gravity only” aspects of cosmology that “wrong, flawed etc.” – have been applied.

It is fair to say that sometimes one can find plasma related terminology such as “knots”, “kinks”, “kink instability”,”diocotron instability”, “plasma frequency”, “halo current”, “pinch”, “radiative collapse” etc – only occasionally finds its way into cosmological circles and literature.

Instead one primarily finds terms such as “magnetic ropes” (I think even Alfven used that term on more than one occasion), “magnetic reconnection”, “open magnetic field lines” (yes, I know it actually means that one simply doesn’t know where they terminate), forces induced (or caused by) “dark matter”, “dark energy”, a multitude of viewing geometry dependant nomenclature for what is basically a plasmoid undergoing evolutionary process towards more ‘mature’ stages.

The difference, to me, is that the EU/PC, by way of its insistence with regard to these things, is simply desirous to imbue cosmic dynamics with the ‘puissance’ that can only come from the scope of plasma related electrodynamic activities. Things, or conditions, beyond the scope of reason don’t have to be ‘invented’ to account for something that is readily apparent as relates the field of what has grown to become Plasma Physics.

It would actually and hastily be generalized as “a great deal of this established [gravitational] literature is wrong” as relates some aspects of cosmic dynamics – or so.

On Correlative Investagation:

There are examples that there have been recent cases wherein the fundamental underpinnings of some theories have had to be re-examined. Such as:

A- Los Alamos’ Milagro cosmic-ray observatory has observed statistical peaks in cosmic rays that indicate “hot spots” toward the constellation of Orion. However, theory has it that cosmic rays should be ‘smeared’ due to deflection by galactic magnetic fields.

B- The ENA “ribbon” at the heliosphere was neither “predicted” nor expected by way of the current model. As explained by NASA in fact:

“We thought we might detect small changes occurring gradually throughout the Sun’s 11-year-long activity cycle, but not over just 6 months,” notes David McComas (Southwest Research Institute), principal investigator for the IBEX mission and the paper’s lead author. “These observations show that the interaction of the Sun with the interstellar medium is far more dynamic and variable than anyone envisioned.”
(...)
IBEX mission scientists had expected that any highs and lows in intensity arising within the heliosheath would be hopelessly smeared out in the spacecraft’s all-sky maps. So they’re elated by the variations and changes seen so far by IBEX. These early results hint that the solar wind and the interstellar flow might be interacting in a thinner layer than many researchers had imagined possible.IBEX Finds Surprising Changes at Solar Boundary

C- As of now it also appears that the assumption that radioactive decay rates remain constant appears to be just that; an assumption. Instead a “mystery particle” has been put forth to possibly explain why they appear to vary with the seasons.

The point is that, by way of correlative investigation, one can also – if desired - go at a tit-for-tat exchange citing the merits, or lack thereof - of one theory over another until the proverbial cows come sauntering home. Perhaps the approaches are simply from two opposite ends of the spectrum. I have a tendency to investigate towards what may be beneficial or complementary whereas you might investigate otherwise. Obviously no theory has reached the stage wherein its status is ‘complete.’

As you’ve pointed out the EU has referenced some principles and tenants that have a sound basis according to what is already contained in the literature. That is important. Is it possible that I could point to some aspect that they may have over overlooked, gotten incorrect, completely missed, didn’t cover, and/or that I may disagree with? Yes.

However, as exemplified, this can even be done with other more prominent consensus supported theories as well.

On the referenced referenced paper:

Apparently, as relates you, myself, and the approaches either of us use – we also read differently. Or you simply scanned through the paper as it does not contain a “lot of mathematics.” For me, the ship is still at sea as relates helioseismology however I keep an occasional eye (or two) on it.

Results. We find that the SBCS rotate faster than the considered upper subphotospheric layer (3Mm) by about 0.5 deg/day at the equator. This result joins the results of several other magnetic features (sunspots, plages, faculae, etc.) with a higher rotation than the solar plasma.

Clearly, the SBCS behave more like magnetic photospheric features which endorses the hypothesis of the formation of EUV bright points as being caused by the heating derived from the dissipation of electric currents that are formed in the solar atmosphere from the displacement of footpoints of magnetic flux tubes by the photospheric plasma motion (see Santos et al. 2008 and references therein).

As the EU/PC does not dispense with gravitational influences I thought the paper interesting with regard to the electromagnetic statements above but also in relation to the gravitational component that you cite (Hill by way of Zaatri et al) simply because of the ‘combination’ of influence exerted by those Forces. Might there be ‘transitions’ from one to the other owing to ‘altitude’ (flows/rotations having ‘dependency with depth’)? I wondered *if* there may have been some inference of decreasing current density or perhaps a change in a voltage gradient or such owing to said ‘depth’, to such extent that there might exist some sort of ‘transition-phase’ along this change of ‘depth’ that might serve as a demarcation perhaps exhibiting the ‘dominance’ of photospheric electromagnetic forces on the one hand and the rise gravitational “subphotospheric” influences on the other. Yes it’s a tenuous subtlety, but I don’t think I can explain it any better than that.

So yes; its possible to see things a bit “differently” in the potential “minefield” that comes with correlative investigations especially as relates gravity and electrodynamics, but this is not uncommon for people is it? Since no one theory and/or hypothesis seems to have it all under wraps as complete I see no problem with an interdisciplinary approach to Forces still as yet understood.

[Sparky]

nereid, "Or do you, dear reader, see things differently?"

Yes, i do..!

I would elaborate, [...]

I look forward to your elaboration, Sparky.

nereid, i worked all morning on an elaborate response. After i had it all typed up on notebook, i came to the forum to post it. Then i saw that solar had beaten me to it. His post is almost word for word what i had written.

[JaJa]

C- As of now it also appears that the assumption that radioactive decay rates remain constant appears to be just that; an assumption. Instead a “mystery particle” has been put forth to possibly explain why they appear to vary with the seasons.

Moving through the Four Quadrants..?

[Solar]

C- As of now it also appears that the assumption that radioactive decay rates remain constant appears to be just that; an assumption. Instead a “mystery particle” has been put forth to possibly explain why they appear to vary with the seasons.

Moving through the Four Quadrants..?

Now that ... is interesting. 'Caused me to ponder it did. You know, it would be interesting indeed if other radioactive elements were found to naturally have variations along the other two seasons. I'll have to keep that one in the top drawer there JaJa.

[Nereid]

But published EU theory is very, very clear that a great deal of this established literature is wrong, flawed, etc.

You present quite the mixed bag sometimes Nereid.

When considering your last sentence here contextualized by the incorporation of my statement in quotes said last sentence is inaccurate. It has been primarily towards the “gravity only” aspects of cosmology that “wrong, flawed etc.” – have been applied.

Thanks very much Solar!

I need to stress, again, that my scope (for now) is only published material on the electric Sun model, and only that by electrical (EU) theorists.

In a later post I'll go into more detail - i.e. extensive quotes, with full citations - that apparently directly contradict your assertion (i.e. electric theorists assert, sometimes quite forcefully, that much of the established literature is wrong etc, even where it is clearly not "gravity only", and sometimes is not about "gravity" at all).

The difference, to me, is that the EU/PC, by way of its insistence with regard to these things, is simply desirous to imbue cosmic dynamics with the ‘puissance’ that can only come from the scope of plasma related electrodynamic activities. Things, or conditions, beyond the scope of reason don’t have to be ‘invented’ to account for something that is readily apparent as relates the field of what has grown to become Plasma Physics.

Again, I think you've rather missed my point; I'm focussing exclusively (for now) on the electric Sun model, and the established literature on the present-day structure of the Sun, the physical processes responsible for its appearance and behaviour, etc.

There are examples that there have been recent cases wherein the fundamental underpinnings of some theories have had to be re-examined. Such as:

Of the three examples you post, only one is relevant to what I'm focussing on; namely, B.

And in this case I think it's fair to say that "the fundamental underpinnings of some theories have had to be re-examined" is, um, somewhat of an exaggeration.

There is, however, a much more serious problem with this example! What you cited comes from a NASA PR, yet you seem to be citing it as if it's a primary source.

Skipping over some good comments, because they seem to me to be now irrelevant:

As the EU/PC does not dispense with gravitational influences I thought the paper interesting with regard to the electromagnetic statements above but also in relation to the gravitational component that you cite (Hill by way of Zaatri et al) simply because of the ‘combination’ of influence exerted by those Forces.

Lloyd cited something rather incredible (Thornhill source):

Mass is not directly related to the quantity of matter. And Newton’s ‘universal constant of gravitation,’ G [...] is neither ‘universal’ nor ‘constant’ [...]

Are there any published papers, on the Sun, solar wind, etc which do not incorporate a G which is both universal and constant? Do not the very observations from satellites and space probes have a universal and constant G buried deep in their data processing pipelines?

It gets worse.

As Thornhill did not - and has not (yet) - published sufficient detail of his radical proposal, no one is in a position to estimate, even roughly, what effects this 'neither universal nor constant G' have, starting with the data archives from solar observations. And if one cannot make such an estimate, what possible basis could correlative research have?

nereid, i worked all morning on an elaborate response. After i had it all typed up on notebook, i came to the forum to post it. Then i saw that solar had beaten me to it. His post is almost word for word what i had written.

That's both bad news and good news all wrapped into one then!

I'm not entirely convinced however; for example I thought you were rather averse to voodoo math, yet Solar seems quite OK with it.

[tayga]

Do not the very observations from satellites and space probes have a universal and constant G buried deep in their data processing pipelines?

Nereid, I know it's off topic but would you mind explaining your question? Do you mean that G is buried in the observations or in the processing algorithms? Could you expand what you mean?

[mharratsc]

Ms. Nereid said:

I need to stress, again, that my scope (for now) is only published material on the electric Sun model, and only that by electrical (EU) theorists.

Why not simply begin the debate, ma'am? Or did that get called off for some reason or another? o.O

[Nereid]

Do you mean that G is buried in the observations or in the processing algorithms? Could you expand what you mean?

One of the most powerful means of estimating local conditions when observing remotely is spectroscopy; for example, the absorption lines in the spectrum of the photosphere - their central wavelengths, equivalent widths, line profiles, etc, etc - are analysed to produce estimates of things like ionisation state, temperature, local density, and surface gravity. This is - or can be - a highly technical field, and its application to the study of the Sun is based on well over a century of highly detailed (even pedantic!) work in labs here on Earth (it's very important work too; spectroscopy has very valuable, and widespread, applications in manufacturing, medicine, crime forensics, etc).

The analyses these days - of data from an instrument on SOHO, or SDO, say - is at least semi-automated; it's a 'data pipeline'. The routines, algorithms, etc in such pipelines include a lot of well-established physics (to repeat, thoroughly tested, and verified, in labs). Including the constancy of G (and its universality).

And that's just one example.

Why not simply begin the debate, ma'am?

The ball is in David Talbott's court.

[Sparky]

nereid, "One of the most powerful means of estimating local conditions when observing remotely is spectroscopy; for example, the absorption lines in the spectrum of the photosphere - their central wavelengths, equivalent widths, line profiles, etc, etc - are analysed to produce estimatesof things like ionisation state, temperature, local density, and surface gravity. This is - or can be - a highly technical field, and its application to the study of the Sun is based on well over a century of highly detailed (even pedantic!) work in labs here on Earth (it's very important work too; spectroscopy has very valuable, and widespread, applications in manufacturing, medicine, crime forensics, etc).

crime labs are a different animal than distant stars, galaxies, or even the sun...the lab is a hugely more controlled environment. the readings taken from radiation outside of our atmosphere is coming through millions, if not multiple light years of currents w/associated magnetic and electrical fields. If this electrical activity is not considered, what discrepancies could there be introduced into the readings.?

I'm not entirely convinced however; for example I thought you were rather averse to voodoo math, yet Solar seems quite OK with it.

...nereid used a smilie!!

i am glad for such a response to my childlike humor...

i am only averse to voodoo math when taken to the extremes of neutron stars, BH's, and BB theory!.. a little voodoo can be a spicy, good thing...

[Aristarchus]

The ball is in David Talbott's court.

Hey! Good work. You already have a title for starting a new topic. My own amusement and interest is counting how many topics you'll introduce regarding the debate, before, and if, a debate ever actually takes place.

Other topic titles to consider:

1. The Sun: electric what?

2. Debating the debating: a discussion, Part I (followed by Parts II thru XII - followed by new topics under Appendix headings).

3. The Sun: Lightbulb goes off-on-in and which direction?

4. The Sun: PicturesGalore!

5. A Search for Objectivity: everyone agree the debate should take place on the BAUT forum - right?

6. Where do we stand now?

7. Wondering about the debate: a debate.

8. Wondering about the debate: a discussion.

9. Debates, are they really useful for science?

10. Speaking of debating

11. What's the difference between discussing and debating?

12. Have debate will travel

13. Traveling on hold

14. More thoughts on debating

15. Who's debating now?

16. Dear Diary, Debate Issues

17. Last chance.

18. Why it never got off the ground.

Well, I for one, will have my popcorn and soda ready.

[David Talbott]

Of course, as Solar says, there is an "established literature that substantiates, backs up, or supports positing the dynamics of plasma and electricity as significant contributors to cosmic dynamics"; specifically, with regard to the Sun, the solar wind and interplanetary medium, (and interactions with the Earth's magnetosphere, ionosphere, aurorae, etc) that literature is vast - the published papers number in the tens of thousands.

But published EU theory is very, very clear that a great deal of this established literature is wrong, flawed, etc.

Not so fast there, Nereid. Your comment here can only confuse the situation. Solar is not only correct, his statement would be backed by all of those now investigating the electric sun hypothesis. The literature is filled with data supporting the EU interpretation of the Sun. But disengaging the data from unsupported assumptions is a Herculean task. How often do you see, in the standard literature, any acknowledgment of the heart of the issue hanging over our proposed debate? Is all of the documented electrical and magnetic activity of the Sun induced within an isolated island of moving plasma? Or, are external electric fields and electric currents essential to the broader understanding of the phenomena? By what analogy in laboratory experiments or known natural phenomena, could anyone justify the idea of a self contained island of moving plasma firing off a wind of charged particles in all directions, or producing increased temperature with distance from the energetic source? It just doesn't happen apart from an external electric field acting on the plasma.

As I look over the recent threads, it appears to me that some very useful contributions are being diluted by too much wandering across marginal data, rhetorical questions, and facts that don't add up to a meaningful perspective on anything. To prevent discussion from growing hopelessly fragmented, I think we need to find an approach closer to the heart of the issues raised by the electric sun hypothesis.

Incidentally, I hope you'll re-think your dismissal of Thornhill's statement that G is not constant. Your words here have the ring of a cavalier assumption--i.e., that standard ideology just can't be wrong. I don't believe you've followed the various threads of evidence touching on this issue, including experiments in which G does change under changes in electrical conditions, and including evidence that the gravity of Earth has changed, and findings that the "mass" of comets is occasionally off the grid. The present constancy of the Sun's apparent "mass" proves virtually nothing, but the meaning of the term "mass" is an issue for hundreds of feet-on-the ground scientists. That's one of the reasons for my attraction to the NPA. It's a mixed crowd, but the best of them all seem to realize that mass must be a nuance of the electric force. In which case, G can only present the illusion of a constant.

Seeing this trend toward obfuscation only reminds me that you yourself, Nereid, may be missing a golden opportunity by refusing to defend the standard model of the Sun. I can't see any rationale for a Fifth Amendment defense. If the standard model is correct the electric model is false. Doesn't that incontrovertible fact give you a faster path to a full and complete falsification of the electric model?

Also, I notice that you cite my claim that "No quantitative 'standard' model explains the Sun as we know it." Do you disagree with this statement? If so, could you point me to the appropriate source? The statement certainly does not contradict anything suggested by Solar, whose active presence back on the Forum is one of the highlights of the past week or so.

[David Talbott]

NOTE TO SAUL. Could I get you to re-post your latest? Somehow, when I responded, I did so within your post. Bad mistake, which deleted your worthy contribution. Answering you in your name would have been quite embarrassing. My apologies