How the sun really works

Originally posted by Mogget

I think the fusion theory has been busted many times over

Please provide evidence to back this up.

The main reason that it has been busted is that there are different more powerful types of fusion, that dont rely on a hypothetical nuclear furnace burning at the core (where we cant detect it). Nuclear fusion has never been sustained on earth. Whereas other fusion methods have.


New finds in plasma physics seem to be a more likely option that hypothetical nuclear fusion.


www.sandia.gov...
www.sandia.gov...

Some physicists believe that the pulses of power formed in a technique called a Z-pinch may one day be a more efficient source of fusion power than magnetic confinement used by Tokamak reactors, the current leading contender for controlled nuclear fusion.

This is an earlier version of Sandia's Z-machine.

The x-ray sources on Z can produce plasmas similar to that in the very outermost layers of a star. These devices were apparently tested during the Gulf War, although detailed information on them is sparse..

There are many other reasons. Mainly that the Nuclear model has made few sucessful predictions. Off the top of my head here are few;

- The outer corona of the sun is millions of degrees hotter than its surface. According to the standard model the heat should radiate uniformely away from the core, and obey the inverse square law for radiation. It does not.

- The suns output sometimes stops COMPLETELY, sometimes for days. That is very hard to explain by a continuosly fusioning sun. (science.nasa.gov...)

- Heavy elements (metals). According to the standard model the sun is made of its fuel (hydrogen) and its byproduct (helium). The current fusion model does not account for where the large amount of heavy elements emanating from the sun comes from.

- Solar neutrino deficiency. Measurements of neutrino's have never accurately fitted models.



Another list i found is from O. Manuel in 'The journal of Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69' from the University of Missouri, "THE SUN: A MAGNETIC PLASMA DIFFUSER THAT CONTROLS EARTH'S CLIMATE - these papers are highly reccomended. www.omatumr.com... - Real observations about the sun, not just hypothetical maths.

The fusion of hydrogen atoms – the same mechanism that is at the heart of a Hydrogen Bomb – is generally accepted as the energy source of our Sun. Yet, if this theory were the actual source of the Sun’s energy,

a) Why is the Sun’s emission of neutrinos only about 1/3 the amount expected from fusion reactions?

b) Why is the ratio of Oxygen atoms to Carbon atoms only 2 at the Sun’s surface, when laboratory and theoretical calculations predict a much higher value?

c) If fusion powers the Sun, why does it discard 50 trillion tons of Hydrogen each year as “solar wind” trash, with traces of other elements carefully sorted by atomic weight?

d) How do deep solar magnetic fields sort elements by weight, control Earth's climate, and produce the solar wind, solar flares and gigantic solar eruptions?

e) How are we to understand the universe when, as Nobel Laureate William A. Fowler noted in 1988, “ we do not even understand how our own star really works.”?

Also from those papers; "The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars:
Fusion, Gravitational Collapse, and Dissociation", from; arxiv.org... - reccommended paper, especially the observations of iron structures on the sun.

The finding of an unexpectedly large source of energy from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the 2,850 known nuclides has challenged the assumption that H-fusion is the main source of energy that powers the Sun and other stars.

[edit on 21-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

Thanks for the info, ZeuZZ. It looks like I have a bit of reading to do

This is my other fave sun, Mira, a binary system. Its a real shooting star and only recently discovered via ultra violet to have a 13 light year long tail, like a comet. Mira is going somewhere and fast! Here is a 5 mins youtube vid about the recent accidental discovery of Mira's comet like attributes.

Originally posted by Dae
This is my other fave sun, Mira, a binary system. Its a real shooting star and only recently discovered via ultra violet to have a 13 light year long tail, like a comet. Mira is going somewhere and fast! Here is a 5 mins youtube vid about the recent accidental discovery of Mira's comet like attributes.

I saw that before, its really interesting. I saw it on a BBC website. news.bbc.co.uk...


This is also bad news for Astronomers who think that the tails of comets are made of ice that is evaporating off its surface, as you certainly cant claim that that is ice coming off a star!

The electrical nature of comets is another aspect of cosmology that is explained better by plasma cosmology. The tail is basically an electrical discharge as the comet moves through the suns electric field. As the electricity arc's between the surrounding space plasma and the rock it forms the filamentary plasma structures we see as a tail.

So mira could be causing space plasma to form due to it rapidly moving through the electric field in our galaxy, which causes electric discharges as the charge equalises.

The recent comet Holmes is a perfect example of this. It's 'tail' has recently grown to be bigger than the sun, and it is surrounded by a huge plasma sphere, lit up by electric discharges.

from; www.space.com...

A comet that has delighted backyard astronomers in recent weeks after an unexpected eruption has now grown larger than the sun.

The sun remains by far the most massive object in the solar system, with an extended influence of particles that reaches all the planets. But the comparatively tiny Comet Holmes has released so much gas and dust that its extended atmosphere, or coma, is larger than the diameter of the sun. The comparison is clear in a new image.

Rense did a recent artilce on comet Holmes, which gives further evidence for electricity in the space surrounding the sun. www.rense.com...

the odds are pretty good that you have never even HEARD of the electric comet hypothesis (although had you lived in the 19th century, when astrophysical journals frequently discussed the electric properties of comets, you might have). This is because the space sciences throughout most of the 20th century have been constructed on the theoretical assumption that bodies in space are electrically neutral. An electric comet would strike at the foundations of the theoretical sciences today.

The Electric Universe views comets as negatively charged bodies moving through the radial electric field of the Sun, the most positively charged object in the solar system. The most energetic cometary displays occur with comets that spend the most time in the outer regions of the solar system, where they acquire a strongly negative charge. As they race toward the Sun, moving into a more positively charged environment, the nucleus will be subjected to increasing electrical stresses, eventually beginning to discharge.

Thats probably a similar process that is causing Mira's tail, plasma discharges.

How it came to be moving that fast through the galaxy in the first place is still a mystery though.


[edit on 22-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

I found a peer reviwed paper about a completley different aspect of plasma cosmology than the science. It is looking from a history perspective, and it even includes a possible reason for stonehenge based on fundamental properties of electric currents.



public.lanl.gov...

Abstract—The discovery that objects from the Neolithic or Early
Bronze Age carry patterns associated with high-current Z-pinches
provides a possible insight into the origin and meaning of these ancient
symbols produced by man. This paper directly compares the
graphical and radiation data from high-current Z-pinches to these
patterns. The paper focuses primarily, but not exclusively, on petroglyphs.
It is found that a great many archaic petroglyphs can be
classified according to plasma stability and instability data. As the
same morphological types are found worldwide, the comparisons
suggest the occurrence of an intense aurora, as might be produced
if the solar wind had increased between one and two orders of magnitude,
millennia ago.

some of the pictures of ancient rock art do look very similar to what a large plasma toroid looks like. If he's correct that could mean that the sun (or venus) was lit up in the sky by an increase of electrical energy to the solar system, which creates a plasma toriod around it (and possible other planets), and thats what the ancient rock artists were drawing. That is again very hard to explain unless the sun works electrically.




I also found this; www.kurzweilai.net.../mindx/show_thread.php?rootID%3D85628%26o%3Ddate

Stonehenge is one of a great many designs that have 56 and 28 fold symmetry. Around the world, designs of this type come in the form of megaliths (of which Stonehenge is the most famous example), geoglyphs (stone rings), petroglyphs (patterns carved into rock) and pictographs (patterns painted onto rock).

Why did so many ancient cultures, who could not communicated with each other, put such effort into designing remarkably similar 56 and 28 fold symmetry patterns and objects?

Well, according to a paper from plasma cosmology expert Anthony Peratt, 'A solid beam of charged particles tends to form hollow cylinders that may then filament into individual currents. When observed from below, the pattern consists of circles, circular rings of bright spots, and intense electrical discharge streamers connecting the inner structure to the outer structure...In the subgigiampere range, the maximum number of self-pinched filaments allowed before the cylindrical magnetic field will no longer split into two "islands" has found to be 56...Because the electric current-carrying filaments are parallel, they attract via the Biot-Savart force law, in pairs but sometimes three. This reduces the 56 filaments over time to 28 filaments, hence the 56 and 28-fold symmetry patterns'.

'The scaling is constant for a given hollow beam thickness, from microampere beams to multimegaampere beams and beam diameters of millimeters to thousands of kilometers, that is, the same filamentation and vortices apply to auroral plasmas...Many petroglyphs, aparrently recorded several millenia ago, have a plasma discharge or instability counterpart, some on a one-to-one or overlay basis...Such a current would be produced if the solar flux from the Sun were to increase one or two magnitudes or if another source of plasma were to enter the solar system'.

Peratt also shows that abstract, ancient artwork all have their counterparts in the evolution of Z-pinched plasma.

Furthermore, the EU theory offers an explanation for why the planet Venus plays an important role in ancient mythology. Babylonians called it 'the bearded star', Peruvians called it

(cont)...

[edit on 30-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

...(cont)

Peruvians called it 'the long-haired star, Mexicans called it 'the smoking star' and there is widespread imagery around the globe of venus as a flamming serpant or dragon in the sky.

These descriptions do not sound much like a planet or a star, they sound like a comet. EU expert Wal Thornhill writes, 'it is significant that one of the earliest space-age discoveries about Venus was its "cometary magnetotail," in the form of invisible "stringy things," or plasma current filaments, stretching as far as the Earth's orbit. A power surge in those filaments today would cause them to glow, and Venus would form a 'stupendous' cometary apparition in the sky.'

So, Plasma cosmology and EU provide simple explanations for why mythologies around the world are comparative, and are consistant with every observation we have made of our solar system and the Universe.

In contrast, the worship of the planets as 'Gods' by ancient civilizations makes no sense from the mainstream perspective, because they are just a few pinpricks of light amongst billions of others, and there are recorded features of planets and comets that are impossible to explain from an 'impact' perspective. As for theories positing an expanding universe where gravity reigns supreme, all been directly falsified by observation many times over, for instance via the fact that high-redshifted quazars are physically connected to low redshift active galaxies, that all matter in the universe is arranged in a fractal pattern and that the observed strength of 'dark energy' disagrees with quantum physics by 120 orders of magnitude.

The evidence supporting plasma/EU is overwhelming. Let us abandon Big Bang/ nuclear fustion stars.

Forget the big bang and nuclear fusion stars, the universe is electric. Tesla knew it, so did Nobel prize winner Hannes Alfven, and now we are beggining to prove they were right all along.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

reply to post by ZeuZZ


Wow if the sun looked like that then it would explain those strange carvings from all over the world!

Now the stonehenge bit, not too sure I understand it. Its possible that stonehenge and other stone circles could have had been designed to capture electrical power? Could you explain that one?

Great update!

Originally posted by Dae
Now the stonehenge bit, not too sure I understand it. Its possible that stonehenge and other stone circles could have had been designed to capture electrical power? Could you explain that one?

Personally i suspect that it may very well do with some sort of electrical energy at these specific points on the earth. A lot of other strutures are built on specific geological places on earth, maybe it was becasue there is subtle electrical energy that could be used for something. People have done work on this theory, 'mapping the world grid' by David Hatcher Childress springs to mind
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


However, that is more speculative, Peratts reasoning on that paper were much more scientific.

public.lanl.gov...
(page 17, XVII, part B)

The number of 56 and 28 fold symmetry objects from antiquity is manifest. These range from concentrical petroglyphs around the world to geoglyphs (stone-rings), megaliths, and other constructs. The most renowned of the 56 fold symmetric megaliths is Stonehenge.

[part c]

In Fig. 46 are overlays of these three petroglyphs on a reconstruction image of Stonehenge [65]. Each petroglyph shows slightly different detail. The top left petroglyph has apparently captured a later time image of the aurora as some of the outer dots are starting to undergo a diocotron instability rotational pairing as was also recorded on the witness plate in Fig. 45.

Both of the top overlays have recorded the inter-filament electrical streamers between the inner dot circles (electrical currents in forward synchrotron radiation light emission). The bottom-left petroglyph has recorded the streamers between the two outer dots. (The 4 O’Clock Rapids petroglyph is about 60 cm in diameter while Stonehenge is approximately 100 m in
diameter).

Through image analysis, we have recovered an outer ring of dots precisely where the Lorings found them. Three of the underside outer holes were protected and still deep. Thus, like Stonehenge, it would appear as if the outer holes were constructed much earlier than the inner holes, time enough for the
outer holes to be very nearly worn away (another possibility is
that the central features were re-worked over time).

[discussion and conclusion]

Plasma flowing in along converging magnetic fields produces a well-defined Y shape (Fig. 38). Inflowing plasma, as in an intense aurora (Fig. 4), is marked by a head of circular rings and radial rays (Figs. 4 and 43) and one or two spiral discharge channels along the length of the aurora. Beneath the head, the plasma column shows a number of patterns consisting of horizontal and helical filaments, diamond or separatrix patterns, for example, square vortex patterns as-well-as the previously shown instability shapes.

When a shock wave produced by sporadic current pulses impacts the plasma morphologies mentioned above, these morphologies are altered in striking ways by hydrodynamic instabilities (Fig. 11). Arms become wings and cups become altered by the same instability patterns. These instabilities eventually grow into three-fold pattern such as shown in Fig. 43. Experimentally, plasmas scale at least 14 orders of magnitude [9] and hypothesized to scale at least 27 orders of magnitude [34] (that is, the instabilities and the growth rates associated with microampere currents are the same, when scaled, to those found in several multimegaampere currents measured in-situ in the solar system).

(cont)




[edit on 30-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

(cont)

This paper has followed the evolution of a Z-pinch from the initiation of instabilities in a column conducting mild currents (Fig. 16) to the helical and sausage instabilities as the current increases (Figs. 6 and 7) to extremely intense current instabilities (Fig. 36).

Generally, there is a mixture of toroid types throughout the column: tubular, flat, disk, cone, distorted, and cup shapes. Sometimes a single tubular or flat or distorted toroid is left at the center while the bottom-most or cathode consists of a cup that has turned down toward its terminus that may be sheet plasma. The single rod, in all cases, is present at the center of the stack, from top to bottom.

The anode end of the stack is the most interesting, producing various cup shapes and allowing lightning-like discharges to its terminus, although discharges are also observed from the cathode end and sometimes between the toroids or outwards from the toroids for appreciable distances. These are the signatures of high-voltage discharges as are trifurcated bolts found at the ends of any conductor (Fig. 41).

So the arrangement and number of the stones matches the number of bright electrical discharges that a plasma toroid would form in the aurora around the earth.

Sections II–XVI were concerned with the Z-pinch instabilities that occur along the plasma column as seen in the lower center, right side of Fig. 4.We now turn to images that would be seen in an upward view of the intense aurora (left-side, Fig. 4). These are studied using high-energy-density experiments and objects from antiquity.

A. Megaampere Particle Beams: 56- and 28-Fold Symmetry A solid beam of charged particles tends to form hollow cylinders that may then filament into individual currents [9]. When observed from below, the pattern consists of circles, circular rings of bright spots, and intense electrical discharge streamers connecting the inner structure to the outer structure.

Because the electrical current-carrying filaments are parallel, they attract via the Biot-Savart force law, in pairs but sometimes three [8]. This reduces the 56 filaments over time to 28 filaments, hence the 56 and 28 fold symmetry patterns.

[edit on 30-11-2007 by ZeuZZ]

Yeah, this is definitely another compelling area of research from Peratt and the thunderbolts group. Ancient people were witness to extraordinary plasma eruptions in the ionosphere and near space most probably coinciding with great global cataclysmic events of cosmic origin. This was the origin of myths and religion and the obsession with sky worship in the ancient world, and spawned what Velikovsky referred to as homo-schizo a traumatized species who were our ancestors. we have collective amnesia as a result and doomsday fear burnt into our dna memory.

Here's the same symbol, a Chinese longevity symbol.


Source


Another example from one of Peratts papers here.

[edit on 1-12-2007 by squiz]

A few more images from the above link.





My favorite.

A rather cool update on sol!

Roiling magnetic waves explain solar enigma is an article from 'New Scientist' that is very interesting.

Magnetic waves ripple through the Sun's outer atmosphere with enough energy to heat the region to its astonishing temperature of millions of degrees, new views from the Hinode spacecraft suggest. If correct, the waves could solve a decades-long puzzle about the source of this heat.
[snip]
Some scientists have suggested that the required energy is carried up to the corona by magnetic ripples called Alfvén waves.

Cloud-like structures in the background above the Sun churn from the passage of magnetic ripples called Alfvén waves, which may be responsible for the extreme heat of the Sun's corona. Vertical jets called spicules dance closer to the Sun's surface.

I have noticed that electric theories are slipping into mainstream science, however if you try to explain most things with this electric background, its rejected and ridiculed. Occam’s razor tells us that this electrical nature of the universe is the simplest and most accurate description us humans can cope with right now. Even though I believe that EU theory answers a lot of questions, it also adds a whole new host of questions... Long Live Science!

Here's an image from NASA, a perfect example of how stars form, and a perfect example of the twisting Birkeland currents of plasma collapsing to form in a z-pinch.



One of the interesting aspects of plasma is it's fractal qualities, it is scalable from the lab and nature to galactic proportions. Not only in pattern but in time as well a discharge in the lab that may last seconds in the lab would take hundreds to thousands to hundreds of thousands of years or more on a cosmic scale.




[edit on 7-12-2007 by squiz]

Originally posted by Dae
A rather cool update on sol!

Roiling magnetic waves explain solar enigma is an article from 'New Scientist' that is very interesting.

I have noticed that electric theories are slipping into mainstream science, however if you try to explain most things with this electric background, its rejected and ridiculed. Occam’s razor tells us that this electrical nature of the universe is the simplest and most accurate description us humans can cope with right now. Even though I believe that EU theory answers a lot of questions, it also adds a whole new host of questions... Long Live Science!

Its amazing that they can write an entire article on magnetic waves, without mentioning once the very thing which causes all magnetic fields in the universe; electric currents. That is how all magnetism is created, by the flow of charge, ie, an electric current. So they are inadvertantly giving us undenyable evidence of strong electricity on the suns surface. This is exactly what you would expect to see from opposing electric currents flowing into and out of the sun.

Mainstreamers attempt to describe the actions of plasma by means of equations that are applicable only to fluids like water - and magnetic effects. This is what Alfven called 'magneto-hydrodynamics'. They do not realize, as he did, that the prefix 'magneto' implies 'electro'.

That explains why astrophysicists blithely talk about 'stellar winds', 'vortex trails', and 'bow shocks' instead of electrical currents in plasmas, electrical fields, z-pinches, and double layers. It also explains why they make wrong claims about how magnetic fields must 'pile-up', merge and form 'waves'.


The word 'wind' in solar wind shows how wrong they are about space from the offset. The solar wind is made up of flowing charged particles, which is, by its very definition, an electric current. You do not claim that your toaster at home is powered by 'wind' that is flowing through your wires, it is clearly electricity.

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Its amazing that they can write an entire article on magnetic waves, without mentioning once the very thing which causes all magnetic fields in the universe; electric currents.
That is how all magnetism is created, by the flow of charge, ie, an electric current.

Electric currents are made by magnetic fields not the other way around.

So they are inadvertantly giving us undenyable evidence of strong electricity on the suns surface. This is exactly what you would expect to see from opposing electric currents flowing into and out of the sun.

This is true, however the Electric currents are made by the magnetic force sourrounding the sun and filling the universe.

Mainstreamers attempt to describe the actions of plasma by means of equations that are applicable only to fluids like water - and magnetic effects. This is what Alfven called 'magneto-hydrodynamics'. They do not realize, as he did, that the prefix 'magneto' implies 'electro'.

that would be the prefix 'electro' implies 'magneto'

That explains why astrophysicists blithely talk about 'stellar winds', 'vortex trails', and 'bow shocks' instead of electrical currents in plasmas, electrical fields, z-pinches, and double layers. It also explains why they make wrong claims about how magnetic fields must 'pile-up', merge and form 'waves'.

Everything is in a state of vibration/movement, witch can lead to waves. Magnetic socalled "pile up" creates the electric current in the vortesies/waves.

The word 'wind' in solar wind shows how wrong they are about space from the offset. The solar wind is made up of flowing charged particles, which is, by its very definition, an electric current.

this is true, and they apear only because of the surounding magnetic field.

You do not claim that your toaster at home is powered by 'wind' that is flowing through your wires, it is clearly electricity.

No... it is powered by electric current made from a generator, that uses magnets in rotation to make the electric current.

Just poked my head in out of interest, and I have two pretty stupid questions while you're on the topic of the sun: How has the sun had enough fuel to burn for billions of years without burning itself out? Also, how does the sun even burn in space? I always understood that no oxygen meant no fire.

Originally posted by Bluess
Electric currents are made by magnetic fields not the other way around.

Electric currents are not made by magnetic fields. Electricity and magnetism are often conflated in modern cosmology, as they are hesitant to admit to electricity in space. This is an easy concept to get muddled as Maxwell effectively merged the two together in his tremendously successful EM theory.

However you have to separate cause and effect in this case. If you have two points on a wire at different potentials, on negative, one postive, the charge will try to equalize. It does this by moving between the two. This motion of charge is what causes magnetism. It is not true that magnetism is created, which then moves the charge, that is looking at it backwards. The observed effects would be analogous, as magnetic component always acts at right angles - at ninety degrees - to the electric component. But you can not have a magnetic field without the motion of charge. and the motion of charge is an electric current.

Magnetic fields are produced only by the motion of electric charges.

Originally posted by Bluess

So they are inadvertantly giving us undenyable evidence of strong electricity on the suns surface.

This is true, however the Electric currents are made by the magnetic force sourrounding the sun and filling the universe.

Its just a different way of looking at it, you could say it is filled with magnetic force, or filled with the electricity that is creating that magnetism. Same difference.

Originally posted by Bluess

Mainstreamers attempt to describe the actions of plasma by means of equations that are applicable only to fluids like water - and magnetic effects. This is what Alfven called 'magneto-hydrodynamics'. They do not realize, as he did, that the prefix 'magneto' implies 'electro'.

that would be the prefix 'electro' implies 'magneto'

I'll level with you, that was not actually my observation, it was from Anthony L. Peratt, PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy and member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, from - www.electric-cosmos.org...

you can argue with him if you choose, but i dont think you will win. He's one of the worlds leading experts on plasma cosmology.

in full;

They attempt to describe the actions of plasma by means of equations that are applicable only to fluids like water - and magnetic effects. This is what Alfven called 'magneto-hydrodynamics'. They do not realize, as he did, that the prefix 'magneto' implies 'electro'. And that, in turn, explains why astrophysicists blithely talk about stellar winds, vortex trails, and bow shocks instead of electrical currents in plasmas, electrical fields, z-pinches, and double layers. It also explains why they make wrong claims about how magnetic fields must pile-up, merge, and recombine - they are simply uneducated in, and therefore understandably mystified by, this now well known area of engineering science.

Originally posted by Bluess
Everything is in a state of vibration/movement, witch can lead to waves. Magnetic socalled "pile up" creates the electric current in the vortesies/waves.

Please could you show me one example of magnetic filed lines 'piling up' in an experiment, or any of the other fanciful metaphysical constructs created by mainstream cosmologists to explain away electricity in space (magnetic cracks, etc). Take a look at the wikipedia entrey on magnetic reconnection - en.wikipedia.org... - They cant even cite one example. That is a fact that most astronomers continually ignore since it undermines a lot of their ideas about how space works.

And your description of an electric genorator is equally misleading.


[edit on 8-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]

Originally posted by Bluess
Electric currents are made by magnetic fields not the other way around.

You absolutely sure that electric currents dont generate magnetic fields?

Magnetic fields

In physics, the magnetic field is a field that permeates space and which exerts a magnetic force on moving electric charges and magnetic dipoles. Magnetic fields surround electric currents, magnetic dipoles, and changing electric fields.

This is true, however the Electric currents are made by the magnetic force sourrounding the sun and filling the universe.

The Solar Dynamo

Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents. These currents are generated within the Sun by the flow of the Sun's hot, ionized gases.

The sun's magnetic field only goes so far and has an edge, deffo not filling the universe.

this is true, and they apear only because of the surounding magnetic field.

which is caused by an electric current.

Originally posted by ebe51
I think the fusion theory has been busted many times over, yet it's still the most current theory, only for the lack of having a better theory.

Well, there is another theory which was the leading theory before the fusion theory called the "gravitational collapse theory" it seems to explain more then the fusion theory...there only one problem with it. It puts a time limit on how old the sun is, about 22 million years at very latest.

The fact that we can see zillions of stars which are clearly much older than 22 million years old really does invalidate this.

And then there's the fact that the usual sequence of nuclear reactions and nucleogenisis clearly explains many observed distributions of other stars we see, not explained by any other mechanism.

And then there's the fact that we have observed solar neutrinos which are an unmistakable sign of nuclear reactions.

www.space.com...

case closed, alright?

Originally posted by mbkennel
And then there's the fact that the usual sequence of nuclear reactions and nucleogenisis clearly explains many observed distributions of other stars we see, not explained by any other mechanism.

And then there's the fact that we have observed solar neutrinos which are an unmistakable sign of nuclear reactions.

www.space.com...

case closed, alright?

I'm not sure which points in that post are yours, or quotes from other posts. However there are a number of assumptions in that link that i can see.

Princeton researchers, working at the underground Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy, have made the first real-time observations of low-energy solar neutrinos, fundamental particles that are created by the roiling nuclear reactions inside the sun and that stream in vast numbers from the sun's core.

How do they know they are coming from the core? they certainly cant see in there to check. The answer must be that they are assuming the neutrino's are coming from the core.

Astrophysicists have never given close and careful examination to any alternative energy source for the Sun since Eddington’s proclamation that it simply had to be nuclear fusion, everything since then has been working backwards from this (probably incorrect) assumption.

In their minds it proves it, but it really proves nothing about the origin of these particles. In other words they could be coming from the surface of the sun, and the results would be exactly the same.

In stars about the size of the sun, most solar energy is produced by a complex chain of nuclear reactions that convert hydrogen into helium. These reactions can take several different routes, but they all end in the same product: sunshine.

Sustained nuclear fusion using extreme heat and pressure is a Will-O-the-Wisp that has been desperately sought after for over 50 years. It has never been obtained in any laboratory. Its existence in the Sun’s core is nothing more than a proclaimed hypothesis. We cannot see into the Sun. We cannot observe what is occurring below the photosphere.

However Plasma fusion techniques have been achievied via the Z pinch effect, and this type of plasma is exactly what the sun is made of. You can even challenge the basis that the sun is made out primarily of hydrogen and helium by looking at the vast amount of metals eminating from the sun.

The electric solar model is solidly based on plasma laboratory experiments and observed phenomena (such as double layers and plasma modes). It is the accepted fusion model that resorts to postulating the existence of an ‘unseen solar dynamo’ that lurks below the Sun’s surface and conveniently does everything necessary to support their hypothesis. The electric phenomena embodied in the electric Sun model have all been observed and worked with in plasma laboratory experiments for decades. Birkeland terrella experiments are a fine example; www.catastrophism.com...




So since that article is based on Ad Hoc assumptions, after the fact observations and unproveable hypothesis i will choose to beleive the actual tested and observed characteristics of plasma in their three fundamental modes of operation. The major omission from that article is any mention of the actual observed and tested plasma characteristics of a spherically shaped active plasma like the sun. Quite unbeliveable when you consider that is what the entire article is about.

And then there's the fact that we have observed solar neutrinos which are an unmistakable sign of nuclear reactions.

You have that backwards. Solar neutrino obseravtions do not fit nuclear models, that is why it is called the 'solar neutrino deficiency problem' hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...


[edit on 9-12-2007 by ZeuZZ]