The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

[michael.suede]

I thought you all might enjoy this article I wrote in support of the electric sun model.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread527319/pg1

[jjohnson]

I bet you have probably received an underwhelming number of excited responses. Such is life in the EU/PC lane. Thanks for posting this, anyway - every avenue is a potential chink in the armor, and who knows whom you might reach with far-flung effects?

I agree that a dust cloud isn't likely to gravitationally ball up, heat itself up into a round star and a bunch of planets arranged out in a neat ecliptic disk. However, particles in a "dust cloud" (an ill-defined thingy at best) are not in a zero gravity condition. They are likely in a low gravity condition "nano-gravity") if far enough away from large masses (like light years, say) but gravity pervades all of space, just like E/M influences, and it's just lower here and there, never gone, because mass exists throughout the universe. If you take the average distance between particles even in the emptiest part of interstellar space, it seems clear enough that, even if gravity "turned on" all at once, there has been plenty of time for gravity's presence to have permeated every cc of the observable universe from many more than one source, assuming for the sake of argument that gravity could proceed at c.

This weakness of gravity over distance is what allows the stronger forces to initiate electrodynamic force behaviors to triumph, if the particulate clump finds itself swept up in a weakly ionized current. This is why we think that stars form in the first place, at which point we DO have large massive bodies' beginning to influence their neighborhood, but never to the exclusion of the electrodynamic forces still present. This is why galaxies rotate much more like nearly rigid disks than the Conventional Model suggests. This is why scientists like to invent dark, unobservable stuff to tweak their gravitationally driven theory. Why the dark matter clumps up just around the core instead of interacting evenly with stars and other matter all over the galactic disc is, well, not easily explained. It's kind of like unequal-opportunity gravity with a pronounced preference for the center, opposite in polarity to most politicians.

[redeye]

No, son....I just have read a LOT of science books, scientific magazine articles, have watched a lot of well put together documentaries based on REAL science, and have also been a long time reader of good, "hard" science fiction, produced by people who have backgrounds in real science, and use that knowledge to postulate very many amazing concepts....in the realm of SF that is the point, to think beyond what we know. BUT, there are laws....irrefutable, immutable laws.

I read a lot of "hard science fiction" and I find it has completely the opposite effect. Greg Egan is a very good writer who takes preposterous scientific theories and runs with them. See Quarantine for example:

Greg Egan, an Australian, is a master of intellectual dazzle who can still amaze hard-SF readers who know all the tricks and demand to be shown a new one. Quarantine (1992) was his first novel, though his short stories in Britain's SF magazine Interzone had already caused a stir. The quarantine of the title is a gigantic space-time bubble placed around Earth's orbit by unknown hands in 2034, making the stars and outer planets invisible and unreachable. Why? Investigating a pointless kidnapping, a resourceful cyber sleuth with a head full of computer add-ons stumbles on--and is forcibly recruited into--a technological conspiracy whose researches hint at the reason for the Bubble. It's there to protect the universe, or rather an infinite multiplicity of universes, from the destructive effects of human minds. In a ferociously intellectual argument Egan tackles the central weirdness of Quantum Mechanics, which is both the most successful and worryingly inexplicable theory of modern physics. Suppose it were possible for a thinking being to be consciously "smeared out" over the countless simultaneous probability states that according to QM are "collapsed" into a single reality when observed or measured? This happens to our hero, and the results are very strange indeed. Dizzying concepts and hardware overshadow the slightly flat characters, but it's a terrifically impressive book.

Also, Montgomery Scott often stated "You Cannae change the laws of physics", if only this were true we wouldn't have to deal with metaphysical entities such as Dark matter and energy.

Cheers!

[KickLaBuka]

Actually metaphysical is just a physical explanation while making sense. Dark energy is different. Its an introduction of a new force to explain something, like aether or a strong nuclear force. Which doesn't require it to make sense. So metaphysical is pretty powerful and doesn't really belong on the same line as those extra forces.

[keeha]

Read the first few pages, noticed buddhaguy keeps harping on the same thing. Perhaps it is time to use some eastern moves on him, admit what powers all the electrical phenomia observed in the suns action is not yet fact. Or it need not be externally powered, capacitor oscillation or other aetheric energies as example. You have many examples to offer of what it could be.

Remember, nor have we 'seen' gravity power the sun.

It is so familiar that mindset emotionally and with false arrogance dismissing new ideas of more or at least equal merit. I've never been that sort of person so I find it somewhat baffling, like an adult interacting with some sort of child that seems grown-up. But it is all too common these days. I'd wish I would have come across some good psychiatric articles on the phenomena by now on how to have rational conversation for mutual mental growth with such mental states.

[ArniK]

I noticed a distinct lack of posts on ATS for this topic after March of this year. I think it is important to keep the subject alive. The more people who see it, and read it, the better off we are. There were some converts, or at least a few who said they now had to look into the subject after reading the thread, so in that sense, it was successful. Keep an eye on it, because if we get a response, I will do what I can, but I'm not the total expert.

[islandguy]

From James Fox I read:

The mean magnetic field in our galaxy is measured by Faraday rotation
and is about 2 microgauss. Let's try to estimate the magnetic force
on the Sun caused by this field. To do this, we need to know the
Sun's magnetic moment. That's going to be of order B R^3, where B is
a typical stellar magnetic field and R is the solar radius. Sunspots
(which are regions of anomalously large magnetic field) have field
strengths in kilogauss, so let's take B=1 kG. Then the Sun's magnetic
moment is of order 10^{35} G cm^3. (Sorry for the cgs units, but
that's what astronomers usually use.)

To estimate the force, we have to multiply by a typical field
gradient. This is of order 2 microgauss divided by a galactic
distance scale of, say, 1 kiloparsec. So grad B is of order 10^{-27}
gauss/cm. Multiply that by the Sun's magnetic moment, and you get a
force of 10^8 dynes.

So the magnetic force on the Sun is about 1000 Newtons, or a couple of
hundred pounds. This is a very rough estimate, and if pressed I'll
gladly grant you two or three orders of magnitude uncertainty in it.
I will not, however, grant you 17 orders of magnitude uncertainty,
which is what you'd need to claim that magnetic forces are strong
enough to hold the Sun in the galaxy. (The Sun's centripetal
acceleration in its orbit is some 1.5x10^{-8} cm/s^2, so the force on
it is about 3x10^{25} dynes.)

One obvious flaw in this is, that it leaves gravity out of the equation. As if EU/PC Theory claims there was no gravity. Still, if the calculation given resembles remotely the facts, including his 2-3 orders of magnitude margin of error, then EU-PC is dead.

Can someone shine some light on this matter please?

[CTJG 1986]

I'm not a person who has a good enough grasp on the math to answer that question, though in addition to the flaw of not including gravity as you mentioned there's also the flaw of the entire issue being based on mathematical equations alone and of course the fact it cherry picks a single issue out of a great many involved in EU theory.

Although I'm not saying he's wrong in the equations as I honestly don't know if he is or not until I see or hear a response to this claim from someone who can adequately answer it from the EU perspective I'll be viewing it with caution, but not discrediting it.

When you already have the answer to the equation you can formulate the equation anyway you want to manipulate the perception of that answer.

As an empiricist I believe in the evidence and not theoretical mathematics, and so far all the evidence I've seen supports the EU model over the conventional model. The conventional model isn't even conventional anymore with the addition of the now obvious plasma activity, and those that support models that the creator of admitted were mightily flawed to a causal observer almost a century ago aren't in any position to be "proving" a theory based in reality rather than abstract mathematics as being wrong using only abstract mathematics.

Mathematicians well versed in the theoretical sciences are valuable to science but should not be LEADING the way in areas such as astrophysics when we now are capable of making actual empirical observations of many of the phenomena they are too busy theorizing about to see right in front of their face. I think that post shows the typical attitude of theoretical astrophysicists today that anything that challenges the domination of math based science must be proven wrong by (their) math - and they will explain those equations in such a way that nobody lacking a PHD will ever fully understand and thus be unlikely to challenge them over.

I wonder when formulating his equations to prove EU wrong if he took into account the full electrical nature of our solar system, our galaxy and the universe as a whole and the connections between our system and the rest of the universe?

I'm not trying to be ignorant to the mainstream scientific community or that individual poster, but the day they come to realize that even to be able to prove EU theory wrong they need to understand it is the day I'll start taking their criticisms or so called mathematical "proofs" seriously. The EU involves electrical connections and interactions throughout the universe and to be able to disprove such connections you need to understand them first.

On that note I am interested to see if anyone here can respond to that statement and prove or disprove the math behind it.

[starbiter]

I asked a friend about the quote below. My friend gave an opinion.

[...]
The mean magnetic field in our galaxy is measured by Faraday rotation
and is about 2 microgauss. Let's try to estimate the magnetic force
on the Sun caused by this field. To do this, we need to know the
Sun's magnetic moment. That's going to be of order B R^3, where B is
a typical stellar magnetic field and R is the solar radius. Sunspots
(which are regions of anomalously large magnetic field) have field
strengths in kilogauss, so let's take B=1 kG. Then the Sun's magnetic
moment is of order 10^{35} G cm^3. (Sorry for the cgs units, but
that's what astronomers usually use.)

To estimate the force, we have to multiply by a typical field
gradient. This is of order 2 microgauss divided by a galactic
distance scale of, say, 1 kiloparsec. So grad B is of order 10^{-27}
gauss/cm. Multiply that by the Sun's magnetic moment, and you get a
force of 10^8 dynes.

So the magnetic force on the Sun is about 1000 Newtons, or a couple of
hundred pounds. This is a very rough estimate, and if pressed I'll
gladly grant you two or three orders of magnitude uncertainty in it.
I will not, however, grant you 17 orders of magnitude uncertainty,
which is what you'd need to claim that magnetic forces are strong
enough to hold the Sun in the galaxy. (The Sun's centripetal
acceleration in its orbit is some 1.5x10^{-8} cm/s^2, so the force on
it is about 3x10^{25} dynes.)

This is the opinion of my friend.

[...]

EU does not posit that the Sun is held in orbit by magnetism.
>
>Next will be the definitive disproof of EU by proving beyond a doubt that a #2 rubber band can't hold the Sun in orbit either. These people can't/won't read. Don't argue with illiterates!

Me again.

Just an opinion.

I'm going to Wikipedia to look up #2 rubber bands, and their effect on plasma cosmology.

michael

[CTJG 1986]

Haha, great post Starbiter. I feel really stupid now for not actually reading the full post, but I could have sworn he was talking about electric forces...but then that really wouldn't have made sense in that context either.

I'm going to blame it on my thinking of the wrong equations as I have been combing through a couple of archives for every physics and cosmology paper I could find that mentions electrical forces, my mind has been wandering a lot the past few days.

But that's totally just an excuse, I stopped reading that post as soon as I realized it was a complex equation that my mind couldn't process right then but I should have fully read it or I should not have posted at all.

But my post still stands minus the sections directed at that particular post...

[starbiter]

Hello CTJG: Please don't feel stupid. I had know idea what the hell he was talking about. It sounded really smart to me.

It's good to have smart friends in different fields. It makes up for having fun while the smart ones were studying. It really doesn't seem fair. But i guess there is no fair.

michael

Now back to my rubber band study.

[starbiter]

This episode reminds me of receiving Pensee in the 70s. I'd be on the road taking photographs and come home to see Ma. There would be a couple of Pensee's waiting for me. Up until Pensee, Dr. V had no chance to respond to the people who mis-quoted, or mis-represented what he said.

I'd read the article critical of the good Dr. first. The critic would seem to have V by the short hairs. How could i have trusted this Russian Jew.

Then V had a chance. After the mis-quotes and misrepresentations were pointed out, and the details presented, i felt horrible for prejudging Dr. Velikovsky. This happened over and over. I'm just a little slow.

It's easy for critics to confuse things. Especially when the target is dead! That's what smart friends are for.

michael

[neilwilkes]

What made me smile in the 16-page thread on ATS is the last but one post, presumably not meant ironically either, when a "rebuttal" of Electric Sun post states:

There are electrical currents involved. Electricity is a type of radiation. Ever heard of electromagnetic radiation? Radiation and electrical discharge go hand in hand. Electromagnetism is what it is called. That's how radiation turns itself into a self-propogating wave. Its a fact of physics.

Funny really that after 16 pages, he gets the OP's point & states in the very first sentence that "there are electrical currents involved".
I could not help myself, and had to reply to that.

Very good thread. I've now bookmarked it.