The calculation is supposed to disprove Juergens

[Haig]

I have been a lurker for quite a while now on Thunderbolts and I apologise if this, my first post, has been covered before.

I've been challenged by a good mathematician but,unfortunately, I am not

I would like a good, scientific debunking of my calculation by you.

The calculation is supposed to disprove Juergens’ model of the Sun.

Can anyone point out the flaws to me?

Total Energy produced by the Sun in 1 second:

From the general mainstream model the fusion in the core of the sun produces 4.3 million tonnes (4.3 109 kg) equivalent of energy per second so with the well known equation E = MC2 (Thanks Albert !, E is energy, M is the totall mass and C is the velocity of light 3 108 m/s) we can find the total power P:

P = 4.3 109 x (3 108)2 / 1 second = 3.9 1026 Joules/s

With an arbitrary voltage of a billion volts from the Sun and exterior space, according to Juergens in a “double layer” above the suns surface and P = UI (where U is the total potential drop in Volts and I is the total current in Amperes), we can calculate a current

I = P / U = 3.9 1026 / 109 = 3.9 1017 A.

So, now we come to the circuit around the sun, inflowing current in the equatorial plane and outflowing current along the poles of the sun, this all in accordance with Alfvén’s circuit model (see Cosmic Plasma, page 55, Figure III.7).

Learning from the Earth where the current sheet thickness is on the order of the Earth’s radius, therefore we will assume that the current flowing to the sun has a thickness on the order of the suns radius.

Now we look at what may be observed near Earth if indeed this current flows in the circuit, driving the energy output of the sun as in Juergens’ model.

For a plane current sheet we can estimate the magnetic field by using Maxwell's equations. One equation, Ampere's Law, says that the variation of the magnetic field produced by a current is given by:

curl B = mu0 (J + epsilon0 dE/dt),

here curl is an operator that basically takes the derivative of the magnetic field in all three cartesian coordinates. In the case when we have a sheet of current, we can simplify this equation. We assume time stationarity (the sun shines at basically the same rate without major variations so that is no real problem) which means that any time derivative, like dE/dt will be 0. Assuming an infinite sheet in the x and y direction there is only variation in z and the equation simplifies to:

dB/dz = mu0 J,

and here we can make an estimate of the variation of the magnetic field from one side of the current sheet to the other by changing this differential into a difference dB/dz -> delta B / delta z. The delta B we do not know but the delta z is the thickness of the current sheet, so we find:

Delta B / L = mu0 J,

where we know L, the radius of the sun (7 108 m), and we can calculate J from the total current I (above) and saying that it flows through a “ribbon” of L wide and a circumference of 2 pi REarth-sun (1 AU = 1.5 1011 m),

J = 3.9 1017 / (2 pi 1.5 1011 7 108 = 6 10-4 Amp/m2

and thus with mu0 = 4 pi 10-7 we find for the magnetic field near the Earth produced by that current system:

delta B = mu0 J L = 0.5 Tesla

Now, what magnetic field strengt his measured near the Earth? We measure field in the nano-Tesla range (see e.g. data from the Cluster spacecraft in the solar wind (the middle part in the linked plot), so that means that this model is roughly 1 billion (American) 109 times too strong, give or take a factor of 3!

And then other observations, e.g. by the Ulysses spacecraft over the poles of the sun (here is a plot of the magnetic field strength measured by the mission from start to date), have not shown any signature AFAIK of strong toroidal magnetic fields associated with the outflowing currents.

I guess that basically puts the lid on Juergens’ model.

Hoping someone can spare the time to show me the flaws I think are there.

Thanks

Haig

[davesmith_au]

Regardless of the model Juergens proposed, EU has moved forward since Juergens, with Wal Thornhill developing the model significantly since that time.

However in response to the question asked, the calculations proposed amount to zilch (or should that be zero, 0, nil, nothing) as the first paragraph introduces a major, and for the model incorrect, assumption.

From the general mainstream model the fusion in the core of the sun produces 4.3 million tonnes (4.3 109 kg) equivalent of energy per second so with the well known equation E = MC2 (Thanks Albert !, E is energy, M is the totall mass and C is the velocity of light 3 108 m/s) we can find the total power P:

The EU model and indeed Juergens' model do not recognize the "fusion in the core" model of the sun. As the rest of this particular calculation rests on derivatives of the first equation based on a false premise, it can safely be ignored in this context.

Cheers, Dave.

[Physicist]

Dave - the power output of the sun is something that's easily measured. We just measure the energy flux here on the earth and multiply it up by the area of the appropriate sphere. And 4 x 10^26 W is about right.

One reason the argument in the quote fails is that the magnetic field depends on an arbitrary parameter:

With an arbitrary voltage of a billion volts from the Sun and exterior space

By tweaking this billion volt number, you can generate whatever magnetic field strength you want.

Those interested in a thoughtful discussion of the electric sun model should go here:

http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html

[solrey]

Those interested in a thoughtful discussion of the electric sun model should go here:

Thoughtful discussion?
Surely you jest!

Don Scott's rebuttal to Tim Thompson: Tim Thompson – A Rebuttal by Donald E. Scott – Ph.D. (Electrical Engineering)

In 2001 Tim Thompson wrote a 9300 word critique of certain points I first mentioned on my website and later detailed in my book, The Electric Sky . This critique is filled with misinterpretations, errors of understanding and distortions. It also overflows with gratuitous ad hominem remarks. In some circles his piece has been touted as an ̳authoritative refutation‘ of my work. On the contrary, close examination reveals it to be merely an attempt to evade facts and ideas that challenge his personal belief system.1 Dr Marcello Truzzi, co-founder of CSICOP, coined the term pseudoskepticism to denote what is becoming an increasingly common form of scientific fundamentalism and vigilantism.

Thompson adopts the stance of the pseudoskeptic, one of "those who shout their objections but don‘t take proper note of what is going on." Since there is not room on this single page to present all the evidence supporting Plasma Cosmology or the Electric Sun hypothesis, I will restrict myself here to dissecting Thompson‘s arguments point by point. For a full supportive exposition of the concepts and hypotheses I believe to be important, see Alfvén‘s Cosmic Plasma, Thornhill & Talbott‘s The Electric Universe, and my book, The Electric Sky. I also suggest http://www.thunderbolts.info/ as a prime and always topical source of information. Now let me address Thompson‘s points in the order in which he makes them:

Don Scott's latest paper on the Sun's electric field.
On the Sun’s Electric-Field; D. E. Scott, Ph.D. (EE)

cheers

[PersianPaladin]

On the Bad Astronomy forums there exists a supposed refutation of the electric sun model posted by Tusenfem, a moderator of those boards. His post can be found here.

Don Scott has posted a rejoinder to these arguments that I feel deserves its own web page. Before I get into Scott's rejoinder to BAUT, I'll include a few responses by Scott to others who have made arguments against the Electric Star theory:

Don Scott's rejoinder to Tim Thompson
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.pdf

Don Scott's reply to Tom Bridgman
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/RebutTB.pdf

Don Scott's rejoinder to BAUT (formulas not displayed correctly on this page):
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =1474#wrap

A casual reading of this mathematical attempt to falsify the Electric Sun hypothesis reveals several misstatements, and unsupported assumptions.
1. Juergens hypothesized a solar voltage = 10^10 V, not 10^9. The exact value is of course conjectural. But if you are going to claim you are refuting Juergens, you ought to at least quote him correctly.

2. Therefore, the writer’s stated required current value is wrong (too high) by a factor of ten (if he is claiming to refute Juergens). Juergens’ total current value is 4 x 10^16 A. But these exponential magnitudes are just guesses at present.

3. His (the writer’s) assumption that the required current has to be in the form of an equatorial sheet having a thickness equal to the Sun's diameter is pure conjecture and not related to anything Juergens ever suggested. Juergens never claimed the solar electric current was confined to an equatorial sheet.

4. Imposing structural details of Alfvén’s model onto Juergen’s model is unwarranted. But even Alfvén suggested his proposed current sheet was only partially equatorial. Alfvén, of course, never suggested the Sun is fully externally powered. So mixing the two models is completely inappropriate.

Alfvén’s contention was that there is substantial electrical activity near to the Sun that explains several otherwise enigmatic (for gravity-only fusion hypotheses) observed properties. He also postulated that the equatorial current sheet balloons out as it approaches the Sun – becoming unlike a sheet formation and becoming field-aligned:

It seems to be a general rule of cosmic physics that field-aligned currents frequently manifest themselves as luminous filaments. If the current in [the ballooned out flow] is spread over an extended region, we should expect filaments. Equatorial streamers in the solar corona may be explained in this way.1

As a starting point we all agree that the Sun does in fact have a magnetic field. The writer of the (mathematical) proof correctly points out that Maxwell’s equations are dominant in such situations. He cites:

∇ x H = j + ∂D/∂t

where B = µH, j = current density, and D = ε E which demonstrates the requirement of considering electric currents whenever we have magnetic fields. In his book Cosmic Plasma2 Alfvén points out that in order to produce the well-known spiral shaped solar magnetic field, a spiral current is required. Given the value of the observed field strength (~ 2 x 10^-9 T) at a radial distance from the Sun of one astronomical unit (Earth’s orbital radius), he calculates the magnitude of the causative total current as being I0 = 3 x 10^9 Amp.

The writer of the "proof" states that:

The Ulysses spacecraft over the poles of the sun have not shown any signature AFAIK of strong toroidal magnetic fields associated with the out flowing currents.

He should be aware that the maximum solar latitude attained by the Ulysses probe was 80.2 degrees. So to imply Ulysses sought out the electric current (or magnetic field strength) directly over the Sun’s poles is inaccurate. Also such currents may be field-aligned and not produce toroidal magnetic structures. Alfvén stated that the exact location of current paths and structure was yet to be determined.

The model predicts that there should be currents near the [Sun’s] axis strong enough to match the current in the equatorial plane. … They may be distributed over a large region and may in part flow at medium altitudes.3

He (Alfvén) goes on to state that the presence of the electric current (in the polar regions) would produce a force on the solar atmosphere via the Lorentz relation:

Df = I ds x B

that would tend to decelerate the rotation of the Sun in those high latitudes and thus be an explanation of the observed fact that this is indeed the case.

Conclusions:

1. Observed magnetic fields around (and due to) the Sun require the presence of electric currents.

2. The exact locations and paths taken by those currents are not yet clear – but they must exist if the magnetic fields exist (unless we want to deny the validity of Maxwell’s equations).

3. We know now that the aurora displays (plasma glow discharges) that we see both here on Earth and on various other planets are due to electric currents coming from the Sun moving down into the "cusps" (indentations) of the magnetospheres (plasmaspheres) of those bodies. It would not be surprising if the Sun also received electric current from the galaxy via a similar morphology to produce its plasma arc discharges.

4. It has taken establishment astrophysics over a century (after Birkeland first described this mechanism) to recognize its existence. It is premature to deny the possibility of a similar mechanism on the Sun.

5. Juergens’ model implies that the outer surface of the heliosphere is the collector of the necessary current stream from the nearby region of our galaxy. Inside the heliopause (within the "solar wind" plasma) the movement of electrons would consist of a "drift current" moving inward toward the Sun superimposed on a vastly stronger "Brownian (random) motion" and therefore be difficult to measure. For a summary of Juergens’ computation see Appendix C of The Electric Sky.

6. The Electric Sun model is still in its infancy. Whether or not it is correct in each one of its details is not as important as realizing that the phenomena observable at and above the photosphere are indeed highly electrical in nature.

7. Those who demand that ES proponents state exactly how, where, and by what paths electrons get to the Sun seem not to be even more outraged by the claim that invisible "missing matter" exists and is responsible for dozens of otherwise inexplicable observations. Am I the only one to see the irony in that?

1 Alfvén, H. Cosmic Plasma, D. Reidel, 1981, p. 56.

2 Op cit.pp. 53-55.

3 Op cit. p. 56.

http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyq ... -sun-model

[Nereid]

Don Scott's latest paper on the Sun's electric field.
On the Sun’s Electric-Field; D. E. Scott, Ph.D. (EE)

Do you have a source for this paper, solrey?

In any case, per the Israelevich et al. paper Lloyd posted elsewhere in this forum, the current flowing into (or out of?) the photosphere is ~4 Amps/m2. If so, then a whole slew of quantitative calculations now become possible; certainly many of PersianPaladin's points should quickly become either moot or amenable to falsificaiton.

It seems to be a general rule of cosmic physics that field-aligned currents frequently manifest themselves as luminous filaments.

Do you have any sources for this, PP? At least, for filaments/field-aligned currents well beyond the heliosphere?

[PersianPaladin]

Don Scott's latest paper on the Sun's electric field.
On the Sun’s Electric-Field; D. E. Scott, Ph.D. (EE)

Do you have a source for this paper, solrey?

In any case, per the Israelevich et al. paper Lloyd posted elsewhere in this forum, the current flowing into (or out of?) the photosphere is ~4 Amps/m2. If so, then a whole slew of quantitative calculations now become possible; certainly many of PersianPaladin's points should quickly become either moot or amenable to falsificaiton.

It seems to be a general rule of cosmic physics that field-aligned currents frequently manifest themselves as luminous filaments.

Do you have any sources for this, PP? At least, for filaments/field-aligned currents well beyond the heliosphere?

The filamentary structure of space is becoming more and more clear - and mainstream cosmology seems to pin "dark matter" as the main driver behind it.

[Nereid]

Don Scott's latest paper on the Sun's electric field.
On the Sun’s Electric-Field; D. E. Scott, Ph.D. (EE)

[...]

It seems to be a general rule of cosmic physics that field-aligned currents frequently manifest themselves as luminous filaments.

Do you have any sources for this, PP? At least, for filaments/field-aligned currents well beyond the heliosphere?

The filamentary structure of space is becoming more and more clear - and mainstream cosmology seems to pin "dark matter" as the main driver behind it.

That PDF document does not seem to contain anything relevant to the 'filamentary structure of space', and nothing on filaments/field-aligned currents well beyond the heliosphere (it is about the solar plasmasphere, whose outer boundary Scott defines (?) as the heliopause).

May I ask what are the key things you have read (or, if not read, what other sources) which led you to conclude that "it seems to be a general rule of cosmic physics that field-aligned currents frequently manifest themselves as luminous filaments", at least, for filaments/field-aligned currents well beyond the solar plasmasphere?

[Lloyd]

Nereid said: May I ask what are the key things you have read (or, if not read, what other sources) which led you to conclude that "it seems to be a general rule of cosmic physics that field-aligned currents frequently manifest themselves as luminous filaments", at least, for filaments/field-aligned currents well beyond the solar plasmasphere?

* According to http://www.plasma-universe.com/Heliosph ... mic_plasma,
that quote comes from one of these, probably the first one:
# ^ a b Hannes Alfvén, "The Heliospheric Current System (sec III:4)" in Cosmic Plasma, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 82 (1981) Springer Verlag. ISBN 90-277-1151-8 ACADEMIC BOOK
# ^ Hannes Alfvén and Per Carlqvist, "Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars" (1978) in Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 55, no. 2, May 1978, p. 487-509. FULL TEXT PEER REVIEWED
* By the way, to me "Peer Reviewed" means "Given Meaningless Blessing".

[solrey]

Do you have a source for this paper, solrey?

The link to the pdf is at the end of Don Scott's "The Electric Sky page". Of course all ya had to do was look at the url for the link I posted to see the home page is http://www.electric-cosmos.org

Not peer-reviewed, but neither are Thompson's or Bridgeman's critiques of the Electric Sun which skeptics so frequently cite.

cheers

[Lloyd]

Solrey said: Not peer-reviewed, but neither are Thompson's or Bridgeman's critiques of the Electric Sun which skeptics so frequently cite.

* You mean pseudoskeptics.

[Haig]

On the Bad Astronomy forums there exists a supposed refutation of the electric sun model posted by Tusenfem, a moderator of those boards. His post can be found here.

Yes, it is the same tusenfem. He mentioned he had first posted his calculation on the BAUT forum some years ago.

Don Scott has posted a rejoinder to these arguments that I feel deserves its own web page. Before I get into Scott's rejoinder to BAUT

Below is his response to Scott's rebuttal of his calculation. He starts off thinking

And it is not by Don Scott but by Steve Smith.

and I did correct him but as he says at the bottom

this late-evening after a glass of wine or two reply

tusenfem

My god, that is the lamest "refutation" that I have ever seen. And it is not by Don Scott but by Steve Smith.

So I was a factor 10 off with the voltage, but then it gets said "well these values are just conjecture, so guesses.

Okay, then my current is 10x too high, but through the whole calculation that means that the magnetic field is 10x smaller, still very much too high.

I uses the thickness of the current sheet of 1 solar radius, which is a good approximation for the heliospheric current sheet, and will only be a factor few different. This assumption comes f

rom the Earth's current sheet, as I wrote. From the Wind website we find We can make only an average estimate of current sheet thickness by assuming that the solar wind flows radially from the sun at 420 km/s. The average thickness was found to be 6.4 x 104 km. With the solar radius 7 x 105 I am actually overestimating the thickness of the sheet!!

I cannot help that Juergens never published his rubbish, and incomplete at that, so I have to improvise here. Bringing Alfven in play is fine, having the current sheet blow up near the Sun does not matter for the current flowing in the heliospheric current sheet near the Earth.

Ulysses did not measure these currents. Oh the currents can be field aligned???? Sure, no problem, but then they will still give a toroidal magnetic field, how can you have a current without its associated toroidal magnetic field? Is Mr. Smith by chance Michael Mozina in disguise?

And then some stuff that has no relevance.

Indeed to get the spiral magnetic field you need spiral current, however going into a co-rotating system with the Sun takes away this problem, but that is beside the point. It is then said the field is nanoTesla near the Earth and Alfven estimates 3 x 109 Amp. Obviously the total current that I got was much much larger, but Smith does not talk about that anymore, he just stops at what Alfven estimates, and not what one would get from Juergens' model (I wonder why????)

then his conclusions:
1. okay I can go with that
2. the paths are very clear, therefore we have found the heliospheric current sheet
3. apparently Mr. Smith does not know how aurora are generated, there is no direct connection from the sun through the cusp, the aurora producing particles come from inside the Earth's magnetosphere, mainly from the tail
4. stupid discharge blah blah
5. this does not make any sense, brownian motion does not bring a magnetic signature, drift current of electrons does
6. heck, still infancy, when Alfven is supposed to have created the basics in his solar current system in the 60s? (if I am not mistaken)
7. oh dear, a false dichotomy, they don't believe in my thing, but they do believe in something I don't believe in, how can that be! Gimme a break!

You can copy this late-evening after a glass of wine or two reply to Smith's coments on the thunderdolts forum if you like.

This rebuttal is pathetic.

This came from the JREF forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost6792813

Thanks for ALL the replies here, very interesting as usual.

Haig

[PersianPaladin]

The JREF forum is a complete joke. It's full of "skeptics" who have nothing better to do but lazily "debunk" anything that challenges their warped interpretation of the mainstream "understanding".

[davesmith_au]

Funny how some demand published, peer-reviewed journal articles but then point to personal debunking blogs for their debunking. Level playing field? NOT...

[Physicist]

the current flowing into (or out of?) the photosphere is ~4 Amps/m2. If so, then a whole slew of quantitative calculations now become possible; certainly many of PersianPaladin's points should quickly become either moot or amenable to falsificaiton.

Nereid - do we also have an alleged total current? That might be even more quantitatively interesting.

Funny how some demand published, peer-reviewed journal articles but then point to personal debunking blogs for their debunking. Level playing field? NOT...

Dave - no, that's entirely unsurprising. If EU articles themselves don't make it into real journals, one would hardly expect to see debunkings of EU articles in real journals. But it's encouraging to see that many competent scientists have taken the time to explain why the various EU ideas don't make a lot of sense - and that in itself should be seen as a compliment to EU - or at least to its efforts in self-promotion.