Electric star model now explains every problem facing solar space physics

NASA getting closer to the truth. Dark matter and dark energy may just be one ubiquitous dark fluid that permeates everything. Similar to the "aether" theories of old.


www.space.com...

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

Originally posted by buddhasystem
That probably relates to the part of the current flowing through a rarified space, and not as much to the situation when it hits the atmosphere of some sort. Then it basically would have no choice but to emit. Does that make sense? You have a sphere, a huge current must get it. We don't see that.

We don’t see magnetic fields either. No-one has ever seen a magnetic field, does that mean that they don’t exist? Obviously not.

Zeuss, what you and others are proposing involves a CURRENT of a huge magnitude that flows into a gaseous object in two highly localized polar regions. That MUST cause radiative processes to take place, and would result in glow (jets) in these areas. There is nothing like that, in practice

Your analogy with magnetic field is misplaced.

Originally posted by buddhasystemI've heard repeated claims that z-pinch phenomena in outer layers of the Sun result in fusion. If you look at the densities involved, it's impossible to have enough output in that model.

I agree that Z-pinch fusion would be near impossible above the surface of the sun due to the densities involved, however Z-pinch fusion is not the only method to create sufficient energy for the sun. Due to the high strength and chaotic nature of the suns magnetic field inside the sun however it is a main contender for creating some of the internal energy, but other fusion methods such as bubble fusion, sonoluminescence energy, cavitation energy, magnetic confinement fusion, (dare i say it) cold fusion, and many others are possible contenders.

Oh well, gee, and how did you have the nerve to say that the "electric star model now explains EVERY problem facing solar pace physics"? You listed a smorgasboard of various (and mostly highly exotic) energy producing reactions without even being able to ascertain their viability in the conditions present in the Sun, or present a quantitative comparison as to which ones are more probable. How does it help to explain ANYTHING?

And you wouldn't even need a type of fusion to release the energy, particular particle interactions could release this energy when they are accelerated by the suns E-field without fusion being involved at all.

Oh well, and this e-field is magically maintained despite the flowing current?

So i second your view that the energy creation question is still not adequately answered.

Then you must withdraw the thesis in the topic, which is that "electric star explains EVERY problem", because you just admitted it DOES NOT.

However, the traditional nuclear model has been falsified many times over

what???

Assumption one: Charge can separate and build up in space. (just the same as it does on the earth to create lightning, sprites, etc, etc)

This assumption is invalid, because on Earth the charges are distributed in clouds, which are moving volumes of gas and suspended droplets of water. In space, there is no such substrate. Next.

I just pointed out ten incontrovertible problems with solar models, and gave potential solutions to all of them using the electric model.

Well you admitted in your post that you didn't, because you don't have a viable model for energy generation. That's pretty plain to see. The are various collateral phenomena that aren't observed, that are inherent in the "electric star".



[edit on 12-2-2008 by buddhasystem]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Zeuss, what you and others are proposing involves a CURRENT of a huge magnitude that flows into a gaseous object in two highly localized polar regions.

Sometimes I seriously doubt if your even reading the same same thread as me. "CURRENT of a huge magnitude", nowhere have I, or anyone, stated that the current is huge. I have continually said that the current while travelling in the solar system is highly diffuse, only a small amount of particles need drift towards the sun to potentially fuel it. They only become visible when the current density is high enough to create visible light, which is very near the sun; in the corona.

That MUST cause radiative processes to take place, and would result in glow (jets) in these areas. There is nothing like that, in practice

Well this just shows your ignorance of this subject, because exactly what you just listed have been observed, many times.

Radio waves, ultra violet radiation and polar jets are all known to emanate from the suns poles. There have been many recent discoveries by SOHO and other spacecraft that were not expected or predicted, but seem to be consistent with the ES model, mainly the polar jets.

www.journals.uchicago.edu...

We analyze polar jets observed by the Large‐Angle Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO) instrument aboard the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory. Although ballistic trajectories have some success in fitting the observed kinematic motions, there is substantial evidence that gravity alone is not regulating the movement of the jets. First of all, the August 5 events appear to exhibit slight accelerations rather than decelerations above 3 R. Second, all the events studied here have very similar velocities, suggesting that by the time the jets reach the LASCO field of view, the jets have been incorporated into the ambient solar wind.

"by the time the jets reach the LASCO field of view, the jets have been incorporated into the ambient solar wind.

So there you go Buddha, the visible aspect of the polar currents seem to recombine with the solar wind at LASCOs field of view (about five solar diameters out)

If you look at pics of the corona, it certainly has a different texture at the polar regions, and numerous thin filaments seem to occur at the poles;



However, these currents should become visible when they're in a system that is far more energetic than ours, just like the star in the centre of the crab nebula



Polar holes are also another good indication of different than normal activity occuring at the poles.

www.journals.uchicago.edu...

In order to address two of the principal scientific objectives of the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), studies of the heating mechanisms of the solar corona and the acceleration processes of the solar wind, we deduce electron temperatures, densities, and ion velocities in plumes and interplume regions of polar coronal holes using ultraviolet observations from SUMER (Solar Ultraviolet Measurements of Emitted Radiation) on SOHO.

So they too have detected the radiation coming out of the poles. They are still stuck on the subject of the heating and acceleration of the solar corona, if only they would see that the sun eminates an electrical field, it would not be so mysterious to them.

And another;

www.spacedaily.com...

This image clearly shows an x-ray jet launching plasma out into the solar system from the Sun's north polar coronal hole. This image was taken 10 January 2007 by Hinode's X-ray telescope.

You listed a smorgasboard of various (and mostly highly exotic) energy producing reactions without even being able to ascertain their viability in the conditions present in the Sun, or present a quantitative comparison as to which ones are more probable. How does it help to explain ANYTHING?

It helps to show that there are many reactions that could produce the energy to power the sun, and none of these require the immense pressure thought to be needed to power nuclear fusion. Astronomers have never considered any alternatives since they saw the A-bomb, but there are many other contendors now.

Oh well, and this e-field is magically maintained despite the flowing current?

Magically maintained? No.

Maintained due to the voltage difference between the sun and the solar wind; Yes.

So i second your view that the energy creation question is still not adequately answered.

Then you must withdraw the thesis in the topic, which is that "electric star explains EVERY problem", because you just admitted it DOES NOT.

OK. Ask a mod to change the title if you’re that bothered about one small unanswered question (which i've pretty much answered previously anyway)

This assumption is invalid, because on Earth the charges are distributed in clouds, which are moving volumes of gas and suspended droplets of water. In space, there is no such substrate. Next.

What??? lets get this straight, you are saying that the only place in the universe that charge can separate is on the Earth due to the clouds? please think about how ridiculous that statement is.


While we're on the topic of the polar events on the sun, this might make a good addition;

www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk...

Hinode EUV Study of Jets in the Sun’s South Polar Corona

A number of coronal bright points and associated plasma jet features were seen in an observation of the South polar coronal hole during 2007 January. The 4000 wide slot was used at the focus of the Hinode EUV Imaging Spectrometer to provide spectral images for two of these events.

Bright spots? on the suns poles? i wonder what that could be caused by? Any ideas Buddha?


Maybe soho has the answers; Jet Stream Runs Swiftly Inside the Sun

(SOHO) spacecraft have discovered "jet streams" or "rivers" of hot, electrically charged gas called plasma flowing beneath the surface of the Sun.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by ZeuZZ]

Well, even I said it would be a more concentrated current, but the context I was using at the time I said it was in contrast to the effectively stray high energy particles found in a cosmic ray burst. I was arguing that such high speed, short period, random direction bursts, effectively travel right through our system with little interaction in the suns current system. That is not to say it is impossible for it to enter directly into the sun, just that it is unlikely the high speed bursts would be trapped by the fields of the circuit. My context was the highest energy cosmic rays, the ones I worked with. Also I was countering another point that was taken out of context, it seems that context was continuously overlooked by the person I was addressing.

Anyhow, diffuse currents are still more concentrated and prolonged than cosmic ray bursts, and the idea of diffuse and concentrated have to be placed in the proper scale context as well. What is a concentrated filament at the intergalactic scale would be a much more diffuse current if we placed ourselves in the middle of it and viewed it on the scale of the solar system. Likewise, stand at the pole of the Sun and it isn't like you would see a single filament like a bolt of lightning. You might not see the current at all, currents themselves are often not 'seen' depending on the scale and type of current. Again Alfven's analogy was to that of house wiring, you don't see the current flowing through wires, you see the lightbulb, where it is designed as a sink in the circuit. Random fun fact about Alfven: his research into double layers within power line transformers drastically reduced the occurrence of explosions which caused continued and expensive failure of power grids.

Anyhow, the evidence is right there in the corona picture. You actually can see the visible effect of diffuse 'sheet' type currents. Yet another excellent post ZeuZZ.

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

Originally posted by buddhasystem
This assumption is invalid, because on Earth the charges are distributed in clouds, which are moving volumes of gas and suspended droplets of water. In space, there is no such substrate. Next.

What??? lets get this straight, you are saying that the only place in the universe that charge can separate is on the Earth due to the clouds? please think about how ridiculous that statement is.

I find that statement interesting as well. The age old debate about whether or not Space was a vacuum was ended once we launched detection instruments in the form of Satellites at the dawn of the space age, to find that there is in fact a lively froth of particles. At its most basic definition, space contains a plasma: a collection of charged particles, dust, and neutrals, immersed within electromagnetic fields.

[edit on 13-2-2008 by Ionized]

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Zeuss, what you and others are proposing involves a CURRENT of a huge magnitude that flows into a gaseous object in two highly localized polar regions.

Sometimes I seriously doubt if your even reading the same same thread as me. "CURRENT of a huge magnitude", nowhere have I, or anyone, stated that the current is huge. I have continually said that the current while travelling in the solar system is highly diffuse, only a small amount of particles need drift towards the sun to potentially fuel it. They only become visible when the current density is high enough to create visible light, which is very near the sun; in the corona.

Ok now, I think you are confused about what current density is. I believe it is defined as the current per unit area.

The polar regions, in any case, present a small fraction of the surface area of the Sun. The ratio of the two current densities, the "polar" and "the rest", is equal to the inverse ratio of the "polar" to the "rest". It follows that the current density in the polar regions is bound to be gigantic compared to what you are saying is emitted from the Sun.

I find that statement interesting as well. The age old debate about whether or not Space was a vacuum was ended once we launched detection instruments in the form of Satellites at the dawn of the space age, to find that there is in fact a lively froth of particles. At its most basic definition, space contains a plasma: a collection of charged particles, dust, and neutrals, immersed within electromagnetic fields.

The point was that my interlocutor made an assumption that charges can be just hovering in space despite there being a potential. Theay can't, obviously. So your paragraph is moot.

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
"by the time the jets reach the LASCO field of view, the jets have been incorporated into the ambient solar wind.

So there you go Buddha, the visible aspect of the polar currents seem to recombine with the solar wind at LASCOs field of view (about five solar diameters out)

I think you drifted away from the original argument, in which you tried to prove that there is charge flowing INTO the Sun somewhere. It's not about jets emitted from the polar regions of the Sun (which they are), it's about the absense of jets FALLING into the Sun according to you. To remind you, I asked at some point what's feeding the charge into the Sun, if it were to keep shedding it into space indefinitely, you said such charge must be coming from somewhere. Since it's obviously not "swimming upstream" against the solar wind, on of very few potential possibilities was that it's injected into the polar regions, but the pic you posted contradicts that.

If you look at pics of the corona, it certainly has a different texture at the polar regions, and numerous thin filaments seem to occur at the poles

Well guess what there is a magnetic field, what else is new.

It helps to show that there are many reactions that could produce the energy to power the sun, and none of these require the immense pressure thought to be needed to power nuclear fusion.

First off, it's a bit preposterous to suggest various exotic "bubble fusion" kind of mechanisms which aren't even applicable to the SUn (and you mentioned cold fusion as well, I believe). Second, you do need enough density to provide adequate energy release rate, and density, my friend, means pressure. You can't generate much in rarified, tenous plasma.

Astronomers have never considered any alternatives since they saw the A-bomb, but there are many other contendors now.

FYI they used to call a fission device "A-bomb", and we are talking abour fusion.

Oh well, and this e-field is magically maintained despite the flowing current?

Magically maintained? No.

Maintained due to the voltage difference between the sun and the solar wind; Yes.

And how come this voltage difference is there????????????????????????

OK. Ask a mod to change the title if you’re that bothered about one small unanswered question (which i've pretty much answered previously anyway)

(a) You did not answer it (b) I'm not going to clean up for you and ask mods to change the ridiculous and misleading title of yours, that's your duty as a responsible forum member

This assumption is invalid, because on Earth the charges are distributed in clouds, which are moving volumes of gas and suspended droplets of water. In space, there is no such substrate. Next.

What??? lets get this straight, you are saying that the only place in the universe that charge can separate is on the Earth due to the clouds? please think about how ridiculous that statement is.

How about this being ridiculous: charges howering in space in presence of a potential. You have NO explanation for this potential to exist in the first place.

The polar regions, in any case, present a small fraction of the surface area of the Sun. The ratio of the two current densities, the "polar" and "the rest", is equal to the inverse ratio of the "polar" to the "rest". It follows that the current density in the polar regions is bound to be gigantic compared to what you are saying is emitted from the Sun.

laregly correct, although I would not call it a gigantic difference, the actual region at the poles that shows anomalies in the solar corona is quite a large area. take a look at this picture of it;



Quite a lot bigger than just the poles, about 1/10 of the suns surface area between them both, so you would not expect a the ratio of current at these areas to be more than one order of magnitude different, which is minimal.

The huge Birkeland currents that connect the Earth to the sun were discovered just six or so months ago, and they are right next to the earth where we should be able to see them much more clearly than we would far away on the sun.

www.dailygalaxy.com...

The satellites have found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun. We believe that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras.

By magnetic ropes, that is different terminology to describe the twisted filaments created by Birkeland currents. The sun also has these Birkeland currents at its poles, and yes the current in them would be much higher than around the main surface area of the sun. this accounts for the magentic polar holes, the high radiation emmission, the bright spots and other energetic interactions found at the poles of the sun.

A magnetic rope is a twisted bundle of magnetic fields organized much like the twisted hemp of a mariner's rope. Spacecraft have detected hints of these ropes before, but a single spacecraft was insufficient to map their 3D structure. THEMIS' five identical micro-satellites were able to perform the feat.

"THEMIS encountered its first magnetic rope on May 20," said Sibeck. "It was very large, about as wide as Earth, and located approximately 40,000 miles (70,000 km) above Earth's surface in a region called the magnetopause." The magnetopause is where the solar wind and Earth's magnetic field meet and push against one another like sumo wrestlers locked in combat. There, the rope formed and unraveled in just a few minutes, providing a brief but significant conduit for solar wind energy.

So if we have only just discovered currents able to transport 650,000 amps into the Earths poles due to inprovements in technology, the chances are that we should discover similar birkeland currents at the suns poles in the near future with the new generation of satelites.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by ZeuZZ]

Thanks for interesting info, Zeuzz.

An order of magnitude in current may not be "huge" but sure enough this must translate into the intensity of the observed emission in gas. And yet we don't see any of that.

Again, I never argued against various interesting configurations of the mag field existing between Sun, Earth etc, but this in itself is not any kind of electric model.

Does the Critic Buddahman believe cold fusion is a myth?
Do you believe there is not multiple people driving cars using tap water instead of gasoline?
Do you believe there are no anti gravity devices?
Do you believe there are no perpetual motion devices?(hint: the earth)
Do you believe HIV causes Aids.

If you answered yes to any of these questions you are clearly just a truth squasher who's job is bullying people and suppressing truth and sounding quite petty about it also. The internet is full of Disinfo Bloggers and we won't be bullied be the likes of you. We see through you like glass.

You quoted something like "this is absolutely inexplicable" on the first page.
Just because you cant explain something with the models you are using, doesn't mean it's inexplicable and anyone who makes such statements, and can't even form a sentence such as " I don't think it can be explained" is clearly just a pompous bully, full of hot air. I will not respond to any replies by you as my posting this is for others benefit to read not yours. I couldn't care less about arguing with a Intelligence squasher.


By the Way thanks For this Thread, I really like the info from everyone, even some of it from truthsqausher cept his motives are transparent.

Originally posted by Still learning
Does the Critic Buddahman believe cold fusion is a myth?

I don't know whether it's a myth or not, because the experimental data is not conclusive. What I know is a myth (and a preposterous one at that) is that "cold fusion" is somehow applicable to a star. If you use the term, stick to its physics meaning and not just throw it around. Oh wait, maybe your flatulence can be explained by cold fusion in your gut.

Do you believe there are no perpetual motion devices?(hint: the earth)

Umm..... Right.....

I will not respond to any replies by you as my posting this is for others benefit to read not yours. I couldn't care less about arguing with a Intelligence squasher.

That's a funny term you just coined, but if I was one, I would have hardly found anything to squash here.

This from Tusenfem, identifying as a Space Physicist/Astrophysicist at Bad Astronomy.

Wading through the posts, it doesn’t appear that any EU proponent can really find fault with it.

Is the sun a ball of hot gas with fusion in the centre or is it a discharge according to Juergens? Well, let’s see what mainstream physics has to say about it.

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 total 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’ www.kronos-press.com... 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 www.cluster.rl.ac.uk... (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 www3.imperial.ac.uk... (here is a plot of the magnetic field strength measured by the mission from start to datehave not shown any signature AFAIK of strong toroidal magnetic fields associated with the outflowing cu

Then there is Scott's rejoinder of Tim Thomson:

Thompson states that, “The ‘reconnection’ of magnetic field lines is a very standard topic in plasma physics…” Actually it is not. It is becoming a popular topic only among those physicists who have never had an engineering course in electricity and magnetism and take delight in inventing ‘new science’ in order to explain how energy is released from a magnetic field.

“Magnetic reconnection is very much a standard (observed) mechanism for transferring energy within a variable magnetic field, or transmitting energy between magnetic fields.” Says Thompson. Actually ‘magnetic reconnection’ has never been observed. What has been observed is the release of large amounts of energy from magnetic fields in which it was previously stored.

Sources: Thompson lists several papers written by people such as those I describe in the first paragraph in this section. The number of papers cited do not indicate correct knowledge – they indicate the degree to which an insular group of astrophysicists have run off down the wrong road after having refused, as undergraduates and graduate students, to take courses that fully explain and apply Maxwell’s equations (such as the ones I taught for thirty-nine years at a major university).

Any electrical engineer (or physics student who has studied field theory) will easily show Thompson (and his colleagues) the error of their ways. All it takes to understand this argument is to recognize the clear difference between 1) conceptual constructs that are convenient tools for thinking about and visualizing a process, and 2) the physical process itself. The former (the concept) exists only in one’s mind. It does not exist in three-dimensional space. The latter (the process) concerns the movement or interaction of things that really do exist in our world. Once this difference is fully grasped, it is easy to see that magnetic field lines do not (cannot) do anything in the real world – because they do not exist in the real world. I remember well the undergrad who once asked me if electric fields were really red (because I always used red colored chalk when I sketched them on the blackboard). I hope I convinced him that E-fields didn’t have any given color. Similarly I wish I could convince Thompson that magnetic field lines do not have any substance. And they do not move. They are instantaneous descriptors of (the magnitude and direction of) a vector field – and nothing more.

I have little hope of persuading Thompson of his error, so the following example is not intended for him. It is for the benefit of anyone who wishes to learn about the proper use of magnetic field lines.

www.electric-cosmos.org...

Originally posted by buddhasystem
That's a funny term you just coined, but if I was one, I would have hardly found anything to squash here.

Still waiting to hear from you how electrons can "backstream" to the sun as if they are photons bouncing off a wall. As any plasma physicist can tell you, electrons flow freely in plasma.

I have spent an extensive amount of time reading this every long and information filled thread and throughout the whole thread I have yet to see any information, evidence, experiments, or at least articles posted by buddhasystem. It seems as though you, buddhasystem, believe that by simply stating that the ES model is flawed, without any evidence or support, that the current model, by default, must be true. If you believe that the ES model is false then the burden of proof falls on you. It is up to you to prove and provide the evidence for such statements. You will obviously not take anything simply states as fact to be true without proof or evidence yet you provide nothing to qualify what you have to say. Once again, even if the ES model is false that does not make the standard model or fusion model true by default, they may both be wrong....it is up to you to prove it true just as you expect from the ES model advocates.

Let us also not forget that science is based upon experimentation. see wikipedia - scientific method

Originally posted by Riposte
Still waiting to hear from you how electrons can "backstream" to the sun as if they are photons bouncing off a wall. As any plasma physicist can tell you, electrons flow freely in plasma.

If you ever cracked open a intro text on plasma physics, you would have realized that motion of positive ions and electrons depends on the magnetic field, and yes, effectively electrons can "bounce" off it -- that is in fact the principle of magnetic confinement of plasma, more or less (and unbeknownst to you).

And now we have avoidance coupled with a personal attach through accusations of ingorance. If it is "unbeknownst" to him, why not give him a reference so he may become more educated rather than once again simply making a statement without proof and simply requiring everyone to take your word as fact. There has been huge amounts of information put forth by the ES advocates......now its your turn.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
If you ever cracked open a intro text on plasma physics, you would have realized that motion of positive ions and electrons depends on the magnetic field, and yes, effectively electrons can "bounce" off it -- that is in fact the principle of magnetic confinement of plasma, more or less (and unbeknownst to you).

Yeah, good luck trying to prove electrons from the sun are bouncing off a magnetic field and going back into the sun.

Oh, and how exactly are magnetic fields created? Electricity.

Originally posted by Riposte
Yeah, good luck trying to prove electrons from the sun are bouncing off a
magnetic field and going back into the sun.

If you have trouble comprehending the fact that magnetic field deflects charged particles, I can't help you. According to you, none of the magnetic traps used in experimental studies of plasma would actually work, which they do.

Also,

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Solar electron bursts are frequently observed in the ACE/SWEPAM suprathermal electron measurements at energies below 1.4 keV. A significant fraction of such events show backscattered electrons, beginning after the burst onset and traveling back towards the Sun along the magnetic field direction. Such backscattered particles imply a scattering mechanism beyond the spacecraft location. Some bursts also show backstreaming conic distributions, implying mirroring at magnetic field enhancements beyond the spacecraft. Here we present a study of these backstreaming particles during solar electron events. We examine the occurrence of backstreaming electrons and their relationship to other burst characteristics such as pitch angle width, duration, and energy range. We also investigate the time delay between burst onset and the appearance of backscattered electrons, including energy and pitch-angle dispersion. We examine the pitch angle distribution and energy dependence of backstreaming electrons, and consider possible origins of these electron distributions and their relationship to solar wind structure beyond the spacecraft

Originally posted by buddhasystem
If you have trouble comprehending the fact that magnetic field deflects charged particles, I can't help you. According to you, none of the magnetic traps used in experimental studies of plasma would actually work, which they do.

Really? Where did I say that?

Still waiting to hear how you are tracking the "bouncing" electrons from the sun and back. Oh I mean, deflecting. Or whatever term you want to use to keep changing the goalposts.

Such backscattered particles imply a scattering mechanism beyond the spacecraft location.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by Riposte]