Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

The sun lights up like a neon bulb. How long will that last? Until the current alternates and it goes dim? How long is that? In other words, what is the real estimated age of our sun and how old can it get to be?

That's the scary question.

- We don't know.

The Sun can go out, it can brighten massively.

In Story, I have aliens pass through the Solar System, and not notice anything special about us, so they aren't here 150 years from now when the Sun goes out. If they had been here they could have restored the current? that powers the Sun, instead the Solar System evaporates. Yikes!

In Story, I have many Copy Earths scattered across the Milky Way. There have been some, like our society, where the Sun dimmed massively for a year, freezing the Earth, killing everybody off.

And of course, the opposite where the Sun brightens massively and fries the Earth.

I can't find the articles where they mentioned the historical records showing stars observed from Earth over the past thousand years that have brightened or dimmed massively.

Remember, those accounts were made long before telescopes, so if the stars varied enough for eyeball astronomy, how massive were those changes.

If you could look at a time lapse record of the Milky Way from above, you would see stars "twinkling" as they vary in intensity, color, etc..., all because the current? is constantly changing.

For Story, that is useful, showing Star Empires rise and fall because the Stars are not constant. In reality, that is a disaster.

That would make a great title: Oh, Inconstant Stars

Poppa Tom wrote:The sun lights up like a neon bulb. How long will that last? Until the current alternates and it goes dim? How long is that? In other words, what is the real estimated age of our sun and how old can it get to be?

As Allynh wrote, we don't know.

An externally powered electric sun (star) shines because of galactic Birkeland currents.

The Hertsprung-Russell diagram is not a chart of stellar evolution, age, history, or internal composition; but rather a chart of the size of stars and their ambient electrical conditions.

Don Scott wrote:Perhaps the most crucial insight provided by the Electric Star hypothesis is that, in the case of any star, conditions can change very quickly. This is disquieting because it indicates our own Sun's future is not as blissfully certain as traditional astronomy predicts. We cannot know whether or when the Birkeland current powering the Sun will experience a surge or a blackout. So, "The Sun will come up tomorrow" - probably - keep your fingers crossed.

The Electric Sky. p 184

As the Sun travels inside a birkeland current plasma filament which powers the Sun, it could move towards or away from the center of birkeland current plasma filament causing the Sun to brighten as it move towards the center of filament where current is higher or dim as it travels away from the center of filament where current is lower. If this is the case, the brightening and dimming cycle could vary by a lot, making it difficult to predict when the Sun will brighten or dim next time. Alternatively, the birkeland current plasma filament itself could move around instead of Sun.

And if the Sun were to go the edge of filament, it can turn into brown dwarf or gas giant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82POR5eygNk

That's ridiculous. There's no power cable from some unknown generator to the Sun. It's battery-powered by electrical CFDLs, i.e. current-free double electric layers. If there were filaments carrying charge to the Sun, there would be huge detectable magnetic fields around the filaments and there would be huge footprints on the Sun (like a plasma lamp). And where would the generator be? How would the generator be powered? Charles Chandler figured this all out 8 or 9 years ago, but no one wants to consider an "outsider" (although he's actually a member of the forum, but not active lately). See http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031 and regarding imploding filaments that form stars & maybe planets see http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15482 .

Lloyd:

That's ridiculous. There's no power cable from some unknown generator to the Sun.

I agree with this.
That's why I have suggested that the sun is not an anode or a cathode.
Both (either of) those terms would require the unseen power cable.
This is why there are limits to the Safire project and the sun comparisons.
This is why the sun as a DISCHARGE event is not correct IMO.
A Discharging sun does not explain the 3 part solar structure
photosphere, chromosphere (DL), corona

The interior of the sun is a "solid body" (as described by Wal Thornhill)
It acts as a psuedo node being charged by the surrounding plasma. (the battery ? or a capacitor)
The self organizing plasma makes itself a SUN that is ubiquitous in the universe.
I would call the sun the nucleus of an electric plasma based CELL with the heliosphere the outer boundary.

It is electric...yes.
It is externally powered....yes.
But there is no equivalent to a "Circuit" to be found by the EU community.
That would require the missing power cable.

I will look again at Charles Chandlers work, but I get bogged down by his physics.

Lloyd,
Your argument is a strawman. Magnetic fields are ubiquitous in and surrounding the galaxy, and they are generated by electric currents.
In the Electric Sun model, the filaments are not directly attached to the VISIBLE Sun. The Sun actually extends beyond the orbit of Pluto to the heliopause. That is where the galactic filaments contact the Sun. From there, there is a net flow of electrons moving toward the Sun.

Have you even read Scott's Electric Sky? or The Interconnected Cosmos?

Electrostatics do not apply to plasmas.
Of Pith Balls and Plasmas

Note: this thread is in the Electric Universe board.
Personal or favorite theories should not be posted here.

nick c:

The Sun actually extends beyond the orbit of Pluto to the heliopause. That is where the galactic filaments contact the Sun.

Your statement is the first time I have seen "the sun" to mean basically the solar system out to the heliopause.
I agree with what you said, but it leads me to the following.

I have often posted personal opinions about the EU solar model and discussions that take issue
with particular terms (such as anode and cathode ) as well as my own ideas; with the goal of building on the
existing EU model. I think there is room for improvement in the EU dialogue as it pertains to
the specificity of terms, and of the lack of details in some instances.

One example is the often seen "the sun is a discharge to the heliopause".
That statement is not the same as your statement above.
Another example might be this quote from Dr. Scott's The Electric Sky, page114.
".....there are many questions still to be investigated.
* What is the exact circuit diagram? Precisely what paths do the galactic currents take in the vicinity of the sun?"

Are we looking for the electric circuit inside the heliopause AND outside it, or just outside the heliopause.
Is the "SUN" what we see when we look at it from the earth ?
Or does it go out to the heliosphere ? If so, how does the sun discharge to itself ?
I see problems with the stated existing EU model. Problems of detail or incompleteness.
I have tried to raise questions where needed. So far with little response.
Your comments are welcome nick c, I would like more of them.
Thank you,
Jack

I thought this is on NIAMI. Looks like it's on NIAMI.

My mistake!

o

Thank all of you for your perspectives. Soooo 20 years then

Just kidding.

Can we discuss Straw Man?

nick c has posted a summary of Ralph Juergen's Electric Sun Model by Wal Thornhill.
I will respond to it here because that post is locked and this thread is where the conversation is now.
Regarding the Strawman:
Lloyd:

There's no power cable from some unknown generator to the Sun.

nick c:

Your argument is a strawman. Magnetic fields are ubiquitous in and surrounding the galaxy,
and they are generated by electric currents.

We have seen this before. I think Tom Bridgeman was the first i saw quoted as saying something like
'if the sun was powered electrically we would see the incoming electric current because the plasma carrying it would light up'.
Now Lloyd says the same thing.
It has been my belief on this forum that we were still looking for the complete circuit that feeds the sun,
and at least part of that circuit was inside the heliosphere. Apparently not.

Regarding the Ralph Juergen's summary:
Wal:

The Electric Sun model provides a cathodeless discharge centred
on the Sun (as the anode)

Wal:

Juergens has identified most of the
space from the solar corona out to the heliopause as devoted to
the negative glow region of a glow discharge. The chromosphere
forms the limit of that region on the anode side. The photosphere
is identified as the first anode phenomenon.

Wal:

the light from the Sun .....comes from the bright granules that form the photosphere.
They are an anode phenomenon ......

Wal:

Because anode tufting occurs above the true anode surface we do
not know the actual size of the Sun.

SO, the photosphere is an anode phenomenon and the TRUE anode is out of sight below.
So, the TRUE ANODE is completely surrounded by the anode phenomenon photosphere BUT,
the TRUE ANODE gets it's electric power from the DRIFT CURRENTS , that come from where exactly....?
And Wal:

The bulk of a glow discharge is comprised of a "cool" plasma,
that is an equal number of positive ions and electrons moving
randomly, or thermally. Superimposed on that random motion is a
drift of electrons toward the anode and positive ions toward the
cathode................The total current carried in the cool plasma by the two
opposite drifts constitutes the discharge current.

That is news to me. After 12 years, on this web site I see two drifts.
Ok I missed stuff so what...
What am I trying to say here ???
Where is this going ?
Is Juergen's wrong ?
Is Wal wrong ?
Is the EU wrong ????

No !

BUT, THERE IS NO ANODE. The use of the word anode is not correct.
AS Lloyd says: there is no power cable to the sun.
(apparently he thought we were needing one also !! )
IT IS A STRAWMAN THAT THE EU ITSELF HAS PUT IN PLACE.
It has done so by being stuck and insistent on using A CIRCUIT model for the sun;
a model that needs to use a circuit set of words to describe all the parts and goings on.

An anode is a real THING.
An Anode is a thing in a circuit; a special place where everything comes together to connect to an outside source of the voltage....
The plasma that forms the sun says: "WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING ANODE."
We need more detail, clarity, and to drop terms that don't work.
We need model 2.0.
Jack

Jack, have you ever read our Electric Sun Discussions thread at https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... =10&t=6124 ?
I was able to get Charles Chandler, Brant Callahan and Michael Mozina together online for quite a few discussions from May to October 2012 and I edited them and posted them on that thread. It turned out that all 3 of them considered the Sun to be a cathode. I think Michael got his idea for that from Birkeland whose experiment involved a cathode terella. I don't know why the EU team settled on the anode model, unless it was because Juergens thought the solar granules looked like anode tufts. Charles said cathodes produce tufts too. I think the Safire project only checked for anode properties. Charles tried to persuade the organizers of Safire to check for cathode properties too, but his words apparently fell on deaf ears. I also tried to get EU team members involved in our discussions, but no one was interested.

PS, although most of the posts in that thread seem very informative, these two discuss some esp. relevant issues.
- https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 124#p66559
- https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/php ... 124#p66761