Electric Sun: A Quantitative Calculation

[PersianPaladin]

neither energy nor charge can be created (out of nothing) or destroyed*.

so no Big Bang?

[Nereid]

kiwi, PersianPaladin,

The Electric Sun hypothesis (or model) does not include, or rely upon, or predict, any Big Bang, does it?

Siggy_G, webolife, kiwi, seb, davesmith_au (forum member, not Admin),

Do you have any comments on the calculations in the opening post?

Specifically, can you find any significant errors in my numbers, or calculations (or both)?

We might even consider bringing in an agreed-upon arbitrator from outside the Thunderbolts circle, one who could at least make suggestions on applications of the ground rules.

I think this would be crucial; can you say more about who such an arbitrator might be, or how we'd go about finding (and agreeing) on one?

(I've more comments on your suggestion, but they're not ready for posting yet).

[kiwi]

The Electric Sun hypothesis (or model) does not include, or rely upon, or predict, any Big Bang, does it?

I think its attitude toward the concept of a "Begining" in the fashion its dealt with by the BB explanation,is that it see's no outward rush from a central point , (red-shift contriversy) so there isnt a need to explain that situation, as it does not exist .... the formulas that BB proponents use to prove that its a fact are also challenged,... I cant hold that as any proof at a personal level as I do not understand it fully ( in spite of the fact you could find posts of mine citing S Crothers ) ... but with neutrinos detected there must be some type of TN activity happening in the suns processing system,(?) an therefore GR must have a role to play ... Charles Chandler has suggested a kind of cosmic "marriage" between the two camps, with a heavy-weight debate now ensuing.... I cant wait,... and hope you are invited to participate

[tayga]

You see, both energy and charge are conserved (as are momentum, and a lot of other things); neither energy nor charge can be created (out of nothing) or destroyed.

No disagreement there, Nereid. However, if my *feeble grasp on this matter is correct, the notion that charge and energy 'flow' in an electrical circuit are not synonymous is not controversial. It is probably well known to electrical theorists inside and outside of the EU theory but it's new to me and strikes me as a possible stumbling block of any model that ignores it.

For example, if there is any relationship between energy flowing in the system and the number of electrons drifting it is almost certainly not a simple one. If the energy of an electron increased or decreased as it interacted with another charge carrier then it would be possible for a single particle to participate in the transmission of far more energy than it could store (cf. the 511 keV limit you mention).

So I suspect that counting electrons might not be the way to determine the amount of energy that is being transferred.

*Then again, I might be mistaken.

[tayga]

if there is any relationship between energy flowing in the system and the number of electrons drifting it is almost certainly not a simple one.

I really should finish thinking I write. The relationship between energy and charge IS simple:

E = QV

[PersianPaladin]

@Nereid...

What use is the discussion of numbers and math, if you can't even explain why the corona is millions of degrees hotter than the photosphere (without inventing things that make no sense whatsoever)? Or why sun-spots even exist, have their dark colour, have cycles, etc?

Are you saying that because your equations somehow show a disparity that there can't be electric fields flowing into the sun? Why not? Do you think gravity alone creates magnetic fields? Your empirical\experimental\laboratory evidence for that is?

[tayga]

@Nereid...

What use is the discussion of numbers and math, if you can't even explain why the corona is millions of degrees hotter than the photosphere (without inventing things that make no sense whatsoever)? Or why sun-spots even exist, have their dark colour, have cycles, etc?

Are you saying that because your equations somehow show a disparity that there can't be electric fields flowing into the sun? Why not? Do you think gravity alone creates magnetic fields? Your empirical\experimental\laboratory evidence for that is?

To be fair, PP, testing the Electric Sun model and pointing out the weaknesses in an alternative aren't the same thing. While I agree with you that the generally accepted model of the Sun is riddled with holes I think it would be more productive if we addressed Nereid's straightforward calculations and their underlying assumptions. Changing the course of the debate is a tactic best left to those who would rather assert ideas than test them.

[kiwi]

Do you have any comments on the calculations in the opening post?

Specifically, can you find any significant errors in my numbers, or calculations (or both)?

comment,.... I dont understand the rules that govern the equations, but understand your point,... and as the actual figuring you have done has not been directly challenged I assume the quantities involved are correct? , and its those quantities that are your point

but I get the impression that there are processes that may allow for the contradiction of the observation,(attributes of the double layer phenomena that are not as yet fully understood being one).... it must be high on the agenda of the up-coming debate for you

[Nereid]

tayga, kiwi, PersianPaladin, thank you all for your comments.

So I suspect that counting electrons might not be the way to determine the amount of energy that is being transferred.

I can certainly think of ways that energy could be 'transferred', other than by whatever ends up giving electrons their kinetic energy, that they lose when they are stopped by the Sun's photosphere!

However, none of these ways are evident in the Electric Sun hypothesis (or model) from the source I quoted in my first post.

Think of it as a black box; coming out of the black box is energy in the form electromagnetic radiation, at a rate of 3.85 x 10^26 J/sec (and protons, but I'm ignoring them, for now); going into the black box is electrons (and nothing but electrons).

Conservation of energy means that the energy the electrons give (transfer, add, ...) to the black box must be the same as that coming out of it (the Electric Sun hypothesis does not include the Sun being self-powered, or having a store of energy it can draw down); the very steady output of the energy implies that the inputs and outputs balance (to within a few tenths of a percent) over timescales as short as seconds and as long as centuries.

I really should finish thinking I write. The relationship between energy and charge IS simple:

E = QV

It's not that I can't guess - and may well guess correctly - but what do the symbols E, Q, and V stand for?

PersianPaladin, tayga said it better than I could:

testing the Electric Sun model and pointing out the weaknesses in an alternative aren't the same thing. [...] I think it would be more productive if we addressed Nereid's straightforward calculations and their underlying assumptions. Changing the course of the debate is a tactic best left to those who would rather assert ideas than test them.

but I get the impression that there are processes that may allow for the contradiction of the observation,(attributes of the double layer phenomena that are not as yet fully understood being one)

What those processes are, and how they "may allow for the contradiction of the observation", would be important to know (and discuss). I look forward to someone presenting them - in a post in this thread - shortly.

[tayga]

going into the black box is electrons (and nothing but electrons).

You are assuming that the rate at which this occurs dictates the rate at which energy is transferred. I contend that your assumption relies on the confusion between charge, which is carried by electrons, and energy which travels as electrical waves. See this link previously posted by neilwilkes:

http://amasci.com/miscon/eleca.html#electron

ELECTRIC ENERGY IS CARRIED BY INDIVIDUAL ELECTRONS? Wrong.
Some books teach that, in a simple battery/bulb circuit, each electron carries energy to the bulb, deposits its energy in the hot filament, and then returns to the battery where it's re-filled with energy. This is wrong. Some books give an analogy with a circular track full of freight cars waiting to be filled with coal. This picture is wrong too. The energy in electric circuits is not carried by individual electrons. Instead the electrons move very slowly while the electrical energy flows rapidly along the columns of electrons. ... The energy is carried by the circuit as a whole, not by the individual charged particles.

Whether or not it is stated as part of the Electric Sun model is not the point. It is a behaviour of electrical current that is that is understood by electrical theorists in general and is not controversial.

It's not that I can't guess - and may well guess correctly - but what do the symbols E, Q, and V stand for?

Apologies. In the equation E = QV E is energy, Q is charge and V is voltage. The last quantity was not mentioned in your analysis.

[David Talbott]

Tayga is correct, Nereid. That's why I've urged you to look up electrical circuitry. There's no problem in tutoring newcomers to the EU on the conversation of energy. But for folks who've been around the block a few times it can become a bit grating when you imply that EU proponents don't understand the principle. And it's not even rational to suggest that, in an electrical understanding of the Sun, electrons simply arrive at the surface of the Sun and the story is over. A light bulb is not a collector of electrons, but you can calculate the electrical power that will "turn it on."

Whatever the circuitry of an electric Sun looks like when the investigation of an electrical interpretation is fully developed, it will be circuitry. In other words your conclusions cannot be valid.

Of course this fact does not eliminate the two overriding questions.

1) How strong is the evidence that the Sun is being strongly affected, or even powered, by electrical input?

2) What factors are most suggestive of the way a circuit diagram might look?

One of the reasons why I've suggested a debate is that it could clarify the solid ground of the electric Sun hypothesis, while making more clear the issues calling for priority attention. Presently, I simply do not ask any of the Thunderbolts Project principals (apart from the moderators) to become active in the Forum. But I will be selectively drawing on their time if the debate can be agreed upon. That could bring a lot more understanding to the subject.

[Nereid]

tayga, David Talbott,

First, please re-read Siggy_G's and webolife's posts, earlier in this thread.

Second, circuits, etc are classical, macroscopic descriptions. It's now been over a century since the microscopic nature of electromagnetism has been elucidated; all macroscopic behaviour - succinctly captured in Maxwell's equations - is known* to be merely an approximation (over distance scales greater than ~atomic) of the underlying reality* of electrons, ions, etc. The physics theory which describes this underlying reality is Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) (caution - Wikipedia), the most accurate, precisely tested theory in physics, to date.

In short, the only physical processes for 'transfer of energy' other than the 'kinetic energy of electrons' (quote marks indicate I'm using shorthand), in currents (where electrons are the charge carriers) are those involving other aspects of QED (e.g. interactions with the medium). In the case of currents in wires, there are, of course, well-known and well-understood processes. In the case of the Electric Sun hypothesis, there is none (at least none have been stated, that I am aware of).

A closer analogy, than current in a wire, is the glow discharge - a column of low density gas (or plasma) through which a current flows. Energy, in the form of electromagnetic radiation (mostly line emission), leaves the column. Where did that energy come from? Can its immediate source be shown to be anything other than collisions between electrons (in the current) and atoms (or molecules or, sometimes, ions) in the column (i.e. exchange of electrons' kinetic energy, resulting in ionisation/excitation, and subsequent recombination/relaxation)?

(more later)

* more precisely expressed using terms like 'consistent with'; in other words, this is not the place to get into a philosophical discussion of the nature of reality, physics, etc.

[David Talbott]

Nereid, I think it will be obvious to many folks by now that both the language of the electric wire and the glow discharge must apply to the electric sun. If the Sun involves electrical phenomena overlooked by mainstream models, both the electric "wiring" across interplanetary space (Birkeland Currents) and the glow discharge (the visible electrical event), along with numerous secondary electrical and magnetic effects, will have to be included in the description of electrical circuitry.

Are you familiar with Alfven's diagram of the larger electrical circuitry of the Sun? It does not look like the incomplete description of the Sun you deduced from Don Scott's brief summary statement of energy input. No electrical engineer that I know of would say that the two incomplete slices of the electric sun hypothesis are incompatible. (For starters, see the diagrams on pages 33, 41, 42, 48, and 51 of our ebook on the Electric Sun hypothesis. If you've not seen these diagrams, I'll ask one of the moderators to post them.)

Primary currents (galactic) and secondary currents (heliospheric) have to be resolved in terms of the "bleeding" from the one to the other, a perfectly reasonable challenge. The challenge requires: 1) accurate raw data bearing directly on the figures to be used, and 2) a model reliably interpreting the data. This is, in fact, the necessary way forward. It's also (to repeat myself) a primary reason I'm eager to proceed with the proposed debate and to see just how far we might take these things, within a framework that will justify the invested time. This debate could be the best vehicle for developing essential communication across a huge chasm. If we do it right, everyone on all sides will agree it's been useful.

And finally, yes I've looked at the posts from Siggy_G and webolife. I can see that a couple of things do need to be made clear--including why a wire is an appropriate analogy for a Birkeland Current, both in terms of the primary current(s) along the galactic arm and the heliospheric current(s) intercepted by the Sun, as well as the basis for considering the solar wind to be the "smoke" from the electric "fire."

Well, one more thing. I haven't run this by anyone in our circle. I'm not the expert on this subject. Therefore, I reserve the right to correct myself—without embarrassment— if correction is needed.

[MrAmsterdam]

Did any space satellite ever measure all the physical properties of the suns plasma?
If not, isn't it a bit to early to start with calculations? Isnt your calculation going to end up with assumptions and very rough estimates?

To measure the physical properties of plasma one needs a sensor in form of a:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langmuir_probe
A Langmuir probe is a device named after Nobel Prize winning physicist Irving Langmuir, used to determine the electron temperature, electron density, and electric potential of a plasma. It works by inserting one or more electrodes into a plasma, with a constant or time-varying electric potential between the various electrodes or between them and the surrounding vessel. The measured currents and potentials in this system allow the determination of the physical properties of the plasma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative
The term quantitative refers to a type of information based in quantities or else quantifiable data (objective properties) —as opposed to qualitative information which deals with apparent qualities (subjective properties). It may also refer to:

* Quantitative property, a measurable property such as distance, mass, or time
* Quantitative research, scientific investigation of quantitative properties
* Quantitative verse, a metrical system in poetry
* Statistics, also known as quantitative analysis
* Numerical data, also known as quantitative data

So my question is, isn't it to soon to talk about a 'quantitative calculation' if the complete set of quantitative data is missing?

As response to the following statement of Nereid;

Scott correctly points out that in situ measurements of the properties of the heliopause are few indeed; however, from data returned from Voyager, the following seem reasonable (and are consistent with various, indirect, estimates):

* electron density: 0.001 per cubic cm

* distance from the Sun: 80 au (astronomical units)

[Lloyd]

Nereid said: The physics theory which describes this underlying reality is Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) (caution - Wikipedia), the most accurate, precisely tested theory in physics, to date.

* I'm not certain, but I think QED has the same problem as QM, treating particles as points rather than 3D objects. So I believe Santilli's Hadronic Mechanics is far more accurate and better tested than QED. See http://www.i-b-r.org/index.htm. And, furthermore, HM is highly compatible with EU Theory.