Originally posted by tilly21
reply to question 1--well there are many theories as to why the corona is hotter than the surface... one is the powerful magnetic fields wrapping
around the sun like a corkscrew flowing thru the corona. just like the solor wind energeticly interacts with the Earths magnetic field (the escaping
particles are "re-excited" as they pass thru these fields) it is still debateable, but the electromagnetic theory cant explain much either
now.
Another team of Hinode researchers led by Bart De Pontieu of Lockheed-Martin have found evidence for more Alfven waves coming from a layer of the
sun's atmosphere called the chromosphere. (The chromosphere is to the sun as the troposphere is to Earth; both are near-surface layers of
atmosphere.) These Alfven waves are not launched by jets but rather by turbulent motions within the chromosphere itself. "If we add all the Alfven
waves together, the ones from the chromosphere plus the ones from X-ray jets, it may be enough to solve the mystery of coronal heating," says
Cirtain.
source
This is based on the standard model, as you can see, if we take a little from here and a little from there we MAY have an explanation.
The corona is an electric arc glow, yes it even looks like one. If the energy is an external source this is where the heat should be present, in the
suns double layer.
because if this energy is flowing into the sun, then why is the corona cooler than the core? and thus the surface cooler than both? (hot to
cold to hotter)
In the electric model the core is not hotter, that is an assumption not a fact. The standard model is the model at odds with thermodynamics, like you
mentioned hot, cold, hot.
and how does this theory explain sun birth and death? wouldn't an unlimitless energy source allow stars to never die? yet we have proof of
stellar death.
Well even the astrophysicists working with the standard theory acknowledge that the gravitational collapse origin of stars is plagued with problems,
Birkeland currents are ultimately responsible for the birth of stars.
In the electric universe supernovae are also exploding stars, this sort of brings up the whole stellar evolution and the various types of stars, size
and current density are the key factors differentiating the types of stars not age. A few links below may help answer those questions.
These cosmic electric currents are the most efficient scavengers of dust and gas in space. Matter is squeezed or “pinched” toward the current
axis by a strong force that varies inversely with radial distance from the axis. Contrast that with the weak force of gravity, which falls off rapidly
with the square of distance. Stars are formed like beads strung along a cosmic power line with their rotation axes aligned along the current
filaments. Evidence for that model comes from the alignment of the spin axes of stars with the magnetic field in giant molecular clouds. The effect is
rather like the old toy spinning tops, with the helical thread plunger passed through them to impart spin. The strong electromagnetic coupling between
the proto-star and its environment is also capable of removing angular momentum during collapse - a severe problem for the gravitational collapse
model of stars.
www.electric-cosmos.org...
www.holoscience.com...
www.thunderbolts.info...
reply to question 2--currently particles leaving the sun take a very long and irratic path to the surface of the sun... it takes particles
anywhere 100,000 to a million years to make the journey from the core to the surface... there could have been a diminishing of thermonuclear activity
or period with little detectible particles (anywhy this had to have happened a long time ago) but the internal pressure (the heat and trillions upon
tillions of bouncing nuclei) can still fight gravity... besides the fact the sun is not massive enough to collapse in on itself because it does NOT
have the mass of the Chandrasekhar limit.
Not only must the particles escape gravity, but an explanation as to why they continue to accelerate with increased distance from the sun is also
required, from a gravitational view it should be the opposite. Hmmm.... so how do we accelerate particles here on earth?
I understand your skepticism Tilly, it can sound strange when you've been taught something contrary all your life. If your interested in discussing
it further I suggest going back to the beginning of the thread, and checking the links provided throughout, so you can see that there is quite a bit
of evidence to support this theory, as well as a substantial amount of major problems with the standard theory
... i still stand by these theories. they just make more sense to me, just like the elctro-sun theory make
more sense to you. i would like to read some more on this and get back with you if i have questions.
