The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Oh man, that's old! Lol!

What was I going to say...

Oh yeah, what I was trying to point out inside a curve the inverse square law is not inverse. Lots more radiation pressure rising from the Poynting vector. That is of course if you accept fusion takes place in the flares, which the SM should because it is kind of accepted, even if EU be damned. What I claim is the surface is really hot, but it seems cool.

Or shall we call this M Theory after my name? Most misunderstood phenomena in the SM wind up in the Mystery pile.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Then I went further and provided links to laboratory experiments that support the EU models.

Yes we can see the current inflows on the laboratory balls. So where are the current inflows observed on the sun?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Obviously the Sun is not manifesting visible inflows at the moment

We're still waiting for proof in the form of evidence or observations for those inflows accounting for 383 yottawatts of energy. And we know you don't have it so that's why you nitpick the few details of the standard model we are still figuring out.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
There's nothing that has been observered that disproves EU theory

Nobody has disproven the hypothetical "Santa Claus" theory either, that the sun is heated by Santa Claus. That doesn't give us reason to believe it.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Obviously the Sun is not manifesting visible inflows at the moment

We're still waiting for proof in the form of evidence or observations for those inflows accounting for 383 yottawatts of energy. And we know you don't have it so that's why you nitpick the few details of the standard model we are still figuring out.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
There's nothing that has been observered that disproves EU theory

Nobody has disproven the hypothetical "Santa Claus" theory either, that the sun is heated by Santa Claus. That doesn't give us reason to believe it.

"Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence."

After a little confusion when I reached the explanations of EU with complicated equations, I can accept it only has an answer to the questions we don't have answers to using SM. Now, does that mean I'm a sudden proponent of EU? Of course not, I just accept that this may offer answers to questions we(at least, I) have.

Does the sun get all of this energy externally from some sort of stellar aurora occurrence? Probably not. I still firmly believe there's fusion at the core of our star to account for...well, just about everything about it. Of course, I'm not going to go around shouting down every astrophysicist I see because I have an idea to account for a few holes here and there in their theory.

Thank you mnemeth1 for offerring this theory, but work on your delivery. No one wants to take you seriously if you just wave them off as non-believers and disrespect them.

Originally posted by Matyas
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Oh man, that's old! Lol!

That is of course if you accept fusion takes place in the flares, which the SM should because it is kind of accepted, even if EU be damned. What I claim is the surface is really hot, but it seems cool.

Maybe it's old but feel free to post something newer if you got it, the papers are newer but I was trying to keep it simple.

Yes some fusion can occur in flares since they are hot enough, but the density is quite low compared to the sun's core:

www.bautforum.com...

Solar flares can produce extreme particle temperatures, usually on the order of 10-20 million Kelvins, with hot components on the order of 30-40 million Kelvins, and extreme regions on the order of 200 million Kelvins (i.e., Doschek, 2000, Shibata & Yokoyama, 2001, Akiyama & Hara, 2002, Sylwester & Sylwester, 2002, Shibata & Yokoyama, 2002). The core temperature of the sun is about 15 million Kelvins, so flare temperatures are seen to significantly exceed the core temperature in some places. But, of course, the particle density is exceptionally higher in the core, which will favor lower cross section reactions simply due to enhanced probability of an energetically favorable collision. Clearly, the solar PPI fusion cycle will not happen in a flare environment, except perhaps on a very rare basis, because the particle density is too low.

I don't really have a reason to doubt the temperature measurements, so I'm not convinced the surface is hotter than we think it is. But once you don't rely on thermodynamics for heat transfer, the hot atmosphere is not a problem, in fact it could be heated by Alfven waves, speaking of Alfven.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Then I went further and provided links to laboratory experiments that support the EU models.

Yes we can see the current inflows on the laboratory balls. So where are the current inflows observed on the sun?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Obviously the Sun is not manifesting visible inflows at the moment

We're still waiting for proof in the form of evidence or observations for those inflows accounting for 383 yottawatts of energy. And we know you don't have it so that's why you nitpick the few details of the standard model we are still figuring out.

No, you can't see the inflows in the lab. They don't visibly manifest until the electrons have accelerated to a high enough velocity and the current density has reached a critical point to enter a glow discharge.









All the major features of the aurora and the Sun can be demonstrated by a simple terrella.

Ring systems such as Saturn's, two body interactions like those visible between Io and Jupiter, sun spots, and plasma torus like the Sun's are also easily simulated.

1966 simulation of the Earth's van allen belts:




As I posted once before, plasma remains in a "dark mode" until its current density and voltage meets certain requirements. Here is a chart depicting the current densities and velocities necessary for a plasma to visibly manifest itself:



As you can see from the chart, voltage can go very high indeed without the plasma manifesting itself visibly or vice versa. Only when current density and voltage increases do we actually get to see it visibly. Free electrons are accelerated down the magnetic field "lines" of the planetary body, they arrive at the poles. Magnetic fields are infinite, they reach out an pull in all free electrons from the surrounding plasma to the poles, just like a bar magnet attracts iron filings to its poles. We know massive amounts of free electrons exist in space due to the pervasive amount of magnetic fields observed.

The THEMIS satellite confirmed the existence of ultra high voltage electrical currents over the poles of Earth:





To summarize, there is no rule that says the inflows to the Sun must manifest themselves visibly. The inflow can be of an extremely high voltage but low current density or an extremely high current density but low voltage. The acceleration and density increase of the inflows occurs along the double layer boundary of the corona as Thornhill described in an earlier post of mine. Also, we have never measured the voltages over the poles of the Sun, for reasons described by Scott in the original rebuttal I posted.

The Sun is nothing more than a gigantic homopolar motor.

This means the electric sun model is entirely plausible, better explains observations than the standard model, and has not been refuted.




[edit on 20-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Thanks for the reference to the BAUT forum, looks like somebody got creamed there... Good reading...

I read through the whole BAUT thread last night. In that thread, the 'creamee' got asked a number of pertinent questions. Two of them, at least, have also been asked on this thread, albeit in slightly different words:

1. If the sun is part of an electric circuit, what and where are the other components?
   
2. What is the Sun's role in this circuit?
   

Neither these, nor any other questions asked of the 'creamee' in the BAUT thread, were ever answered. Just as the OP has made no attempt to answer any questions on the present ATS thread. The debating style--or rather, non-debating style--is identical. Instead of providing straight answers, all we see is someone trying to cast doubt and confusion on the standard solar fusion model.

Clearly, we are in the presence of an obsession--an irrational, unshakeable and above all insensible obsession. Arbitrageur, buddhasystem--you're never going to get answers to your questions. All you're going to get is lots of counter-questions about the fusion model, none of which have any genuine merit but are intended merely to muddy the waters. Typical conspiracist behaviour, deserving of nothing better than to be ignored.

The only sensible thing to do is to abandon the thread and let it wither.

'Bye, all.

reply to post by Astyanax


I'm not sure what you feel has been left unanswered.

I've posted links to Jurgen's model, Alfven's model, Scott's model, all based on the same principles.

I've posted the rebuttals to the claims made by BAUT, I've posted the rebuttals to the claims made by Thompson, and I've posted video explanations for the layman.

It's not me that's leaving questions unanswered, its standard model cheerleaders like yourself that are leaving questions unanswered.

You ask what the Sun's role is in this? Read the models posted. They all operate on the same principles with very minor differences. The Sun's role is to act as a very high voltage positive anode in the galactic circuit. You'd know this if you read the papers.

Scott lays it out for the layman in a very detailed post here.




[edit on 21-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Scott lays it out for the layman in a very detailed post here.

And what does Scott say?

The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. This possibility that the Sun may be exernally powered by its galactic environment is the most speculative idea in the ES hypothesis and is always attacked by critics

So he's basically admitting it's highly speculative and there's no proof. There you have it folks.

And what he should know being I think a PhD in EE, is that if all those electrons are flowing into it like he says and it had a large positive charge, if the sun is just a dead end receptacle for the electrons and there's no circuit, the inflow of electrons would neutralize the positive charge. It can't be a sustained effect.

@Astyanax, yes I figured we weren't going to get any answers about the current inflow to the sun, and now after reading mnemeth1's latest reference to find the answer in Scott's article and even Scott says there is no answer, it's just "highly speculative", I'm ready to hang up the discussion. I just feel sorry for those who are researching this and falling for the EU speculation when the fusion process has real evidence.

I just want to leave those on the fence with one though before I hang it up, the universe IS electric even according to the standard model, as in the huge electromagnetically driven field around Jupiter, etc, so EU people don't have a monopoly on claims that electricity plays a role in the universe, it definitely does!

The big problem with the EU theory is that it's just not electricity that powers the sun, it's fusion. But there are electrical processes taking place in the universe. Somebody posted "the universe is electric" earlier in this thread as if that defies the standard model somehow, so don't be fooled by the hype. Do the research and learn that yes electricity really does play a role in the universe. But it is nuclear fusion that powers the sun, and electricity in the sun is a result of that fusion, and not the ultimate source of the sun's energy.

Cheers everyone.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

So he's basically admitting it's highly speculative and there's no proof. There you have it folks.

Wait, wait, wait....

You can't say that when the standard model relies upon Dark Matter and Dark Energy, along with the Higgs Boson particle. Those three things are highly speculative too along with many other things in the standard model.

Just because the EU model goes against the Standard model and the standard model is what is being taught to everybody doesn't make things in the standard model any less speculative.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
There's no dark matter or energy powering the sun that I know of in either model,

That dark energy raises more of a question about the big bang model than an electric sun versus a fusion sun.

What you and Mnemeth have to realize, is that poking holes in mainstream physics, doesn't prove that Santa Claus, and not electricity or fusion, is powering the sun. But it seems that EU proponents would like to claim something just like that by pointing out some mysteries in cosmology, and then conclude because there are mysteries, the electric sun model must be true. That seems like muddled logic to me, but it's been the approach used in much of this thread.

We all admit dark energy is a mystery, but I don't see what it has to do with the electric sun claims versus the fusion sun standard model.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


What it has to do with is that you can't criticize something as being speculative while turning right around and explaining things about the opposite model that is highly speculative.

As both models go the way the sun operates has bearing on the way the whole universe works. It is intellectually dishonest to cut down something because it goes against a certain model while at the same time using highly speculative theories as evidence of why a certain model is correct.

It is in essence the pot calling the kettle black. The truth of the matter is that we don't know how the universe operates. There are things in both models that make sense and at the same time there are things in both models that are highly speculative.

The standard sun model has bearings on the Big Bang theory because it is all derived from the same theories. They are all interconnected. The same thing with "mainstream" physics. Just because it is "mainstream" doesn't make it any better or any worse than other science. Especially considering that the standard model theories are being constantly surprised by what happens in the universe, that right there is enough reason to throw the hypothesis out and start again.

When predictions are proved wrong time and time again trying to adhere to "mainstream physics" then the mainstream physics is wrong. That is science and that is how we learn how stuff really works. Science is not continually readjusting a hypothesis to fit what we "think" we know.



[edit on 21-12-2009 by Hastobemoretolife]

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

The difference is that I'm not making any claims about dark energy. In fact there are some highly speculative ideas about what it might be, but nobody is saying any of them are proven.

The electric sun proponents ARE making claims about an electrically powered sun, and in order to substantiate those claims they must present evidence.

So if I make highly speculative claims about dark energy (ie the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe), you have just as much a right to laugh at those as being ridiculous, as I have the right to laugh at highly speculative claims about the sun being electrically powered, fair enough?

But that still doesn't take away from the fusion powered sun model in any way and the fact that you seem to think it does shows muddled logic.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The fact is the Fusion sun model is based off of the big bang theory which conforms to mainstream physics. It is all based off of previous unproven and highly speculative hypothesis'.

I'm not saying either model is right as I have stated in my previous posts. You can't say the sun works this way while at the same time disregarding the models that gave basis for the model to be created. But in science there comes a point when every hypothesis you come up with is constantly proven wrong while trying to conform the hypothesis of past theories then the past theories are wrong. It is that simple it is science.

Now let me state it again, I am not claiming that the EU model is correct but that doesn't mean that the standard model is correct either.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

 

There's no dark matter or energy powering the sun that I know of in either model,

That dark energy raises more of a question about the big bang model than an electric sun versus a fusion sun.

What you and Mnemeth have to realize, is that poking holes in mainstream physics, doesn't prove that Santa Claus, and not electricity or fusion, is powering the sun. But it seems that EU proponents would like to claim something just like that by pointing out some mysteries in cosmology, and then conclude because there are mysteries, the electric sun model must be true. That seems like muddled logic to me, but it's been the approach used in much of this thread.

We all admit dark energy is a mystery, but I don't see what it has to do with the electric sun claims versus the fusion sun standard model.

Fusion model assumptions:

Hydrogen to helium fusion has never been tested from start to finish in a lab. It can't be done in one process.

The supposed magnetic "dynamo" in the Sun is pure hypothesis requiring nearly an act of God to operate as described with dozens of assumptions propping it up.

Magnetic "reconnection" as described in the Sun violates conservation of energy laws. Alfven wrote numerous papers showing why it violates laws of physics, is a misuse of his models, and is not required to explain observations. Plasma is not a perfect conductor. No laboratory observation has achieved agreement with the MHD model simulation used to describe the action on the Sun.

The gravitational models used are not in agreement with the known properties of neutral gases in a vacuum. Gas and dust clouds in space do not gravitationally collapse.

The pressures proposed at the core of the Sun to bring about fusion are total hypothesis based on no solid data and a theoretical gravitational model.

Sun spots are not accounted for in any meaningful way, all problematic observations are blamed on the magic "dynamo" which has never been proven to exist in the first place.

The acceleration of charged particles from the plasma torus of the Sun all the way out to the heliosphere is not explained.

The fusion model violates entropy laws and actually claims the heat we feel from the Sun isn't radiated from the fusion core, it comes from alfven waves magically depositing charge into the corona. - a massive assumption that has never been proven possible in a lab.


The electric sun hypothesis assumptions:

Charge arrives from outside the Sun


That's it.

All other properties are explained using laboratory proven physics.

There is nothing to disprove the fact charge arrives from outside the Sun and a whole lot to support it. Magnetic fields are observed in all directions and at the heliopause. For those magnetic fields to exist for any length of time, charge MUST be put into the system. Plasma is not a perfect conductor and requires a constant input of charge in order to maintain the magnetic fields observed.

Because plasma is not a perfect conductor and charge must be input, the magnetic field system MUST be treated as an electric circuit in order to be in agreement with the laws of physics. Treating the system as frozen violates everything we know about the conductive properties of plasma.

Occam's razor demands the ES theory be accepted as the correct theory since it better explains all observations of the Sun in a far far simpler fashion than the standard model.




[edit on 21-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

God in the beginning said Fiat Lux "Let there be light" (Big Bang)

It's from a pretty old source to

Project Genesis 1
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

If one was to decrypt this a bit more without judgement. Perhaps there is a wonderful world of science that is encrypted here? That's operative!

"For every one billion particles of antimatter there were one billion and one particles of matter. And when the mutual annihilation was complete, one billionth remained - and that's our present universe." ~ Quote by Albert Einstein ~

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

The big problem with the EU theory is that it's just not electricity that powers the sun, it's fusion. But there are electrical processes taking place in the universe. Somebody posted "the universe is electric" earlier in this thread as if that defies the standard model somehow, so don't be fooled by the hype. Do the research and learn that yes electricity really does play a role in the universe. But it is nuclear fusion that powers the sun, and electricity in the sun is a result of that fusion, and not the ultimate source of the sun's energy.

Cheers everyone.

Nuclear fusion is a result of electrified plasma, not the cause.

Indeed, the way fusion is created in a lab here on earth is by confining currents of electrified plasma.

Both Lerner's focus fusion and the ITER tokamak achieve fusion this way. - in fact ALL hot fusion projects proposed or achieved use confined plasma to cause fusion.

Given a big enough terrella, one could actually replicate the Sun here on earth. This is not hypothesis, this is fact. A big enough, powerful enough, terrella could induce fusion just as is observed on the Sun.



[edit on 21-12-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I've posted links to Jurgen's model...

Comprehensively debunked in another forum. You didn't provide a rebuttal there, so I think it's a bit rich to post it here as if it were unquestionably valid. I'm sorry, but pictures and comparisons prove nothing. 'As above, so below' is just magic.

Alfven's model

Victorian scientist plays with his balls. 'As above, so below' again. Alfven did some good physics before he went off the rails, I hear.

Scott's model

The invisible circuit? Already debunked in this very thread.

I've posted the rebuttals to the claims made by BAUT, I've posted the rebuttals to the claims made by Thompson, and I've posted video explanations for the layman.

You posted some putative rebuttals, yes. Obfuscations would be a nearer the mark. How about you tell us in your own words?

It's not me that's leaving questions unanswered, its standard model cheerleaders like yourself that are leaving questions unanswered.

As I said to another plasma-cosmology fan in another thread, I have no objection to your believing in electric-universe theory. Just don't try to pull it over me. If you want answers to questions you feel are left open by the fusion model, ask a physicist who specializes in that department. That is what I would do. And by the same token, where do I go when I want answers to questions left unanswered by the EU model? To you--the cheerleader, as you put it, for that particular model. So I'm asking. We're all asking. We ask and we ask and we ask. And you just go 'never mind that, what about the magical dynamo gnome in the sun nyah nyah nyah.' And post some pathetic links full of tangential rubbish that doesn't actually address the problem. Call that an argument?

The Sun's role is to act as a very high voltage positive anode in the galactic circuit.

Set the controls for the heart of the sun, first mate, we're going in!

Priceless. Well, I did ask you for your own words, I suppose. Merry Christmas.

reply to post by Astyanax


I have a question, what are you debunking all of this stuff against? As far as I am aware there is nothing really to debunk anything against. In order to debunk something you have to have proof that something is really what you say it is. Like if I was to say the sky is green you can debunk me because it is fact that the sky is blue.

It is really hard to debunk something when there is no solid foundation to base that debunking on.

reply to post by mnemeth1

You just don't get it, do you? Still trying to poke holes in the standard model. That's another topic, for another thread, and the holes don't stay poked anyway.

What you have to do--according to the thread title--is show us that all criticism of the electric sun 'model' has been answered. This you have not done, because you haven't answered those pesky questions. Where's the circuit? Where are the other components? Where is the evidence of current flow? 'Not exhibiting inflows at this moment', eh? How then does the Sun maintain its charge? Where is the evidence for that charge? If the sun is an anode how come it's emitting both electrons and protons? The answers provided to these questions by your authorities are unconvincing to say the least.

So--back to the grindstone, do what you didn't do in that other place over there, and write us a post explaining just what this wonderful electric sun theory is, and then show us how the criticisms don't apply. That's what a thread with a title like yours demands, so deliver. Come on--I challenge you. Prove me wrong.

Oh, and a very happy New Year to you, too.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
I have a question, what are you debunking all of this stuff against? As far as I am aware there is nothing really to debunk anything against.

There's this little fairytale that says when you push so hard against some atoms of one substance that you actually start squeezing them smaller, those atoms then become atoms of another, heavier substance, giving off a lot of heat and light and stuff in the process. This fairytale is called nuclear fusion and in spite of its mythical character we have managed to make dirty great bombs out of it.

When you have lots and lots of stuff in one place, it all gets pushed and squeezed together like that because of another fairytale called gravity, which makes things heavy so that they push against each other. The Sun is a lot of stuff in one place. So much stuff that it all gets pushed together and becomes other stuff, giving off a lot of heat and light in the process. This is called the 'fusion model' by some people, other people call it bleedin' obvious.

Like if I was to say the sky is green you can debunk me because it is fact that the sky is blue.

Fusion is the blue sky. Undetectable electric circuits in the sky are green.