Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New discoveries are confirming electric sun theories.

page: 9
114
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The Powerpoint slides you referred me too aint bad. A little dry, but a nice refresher. Now, what these have to do with the solar corona, isn't clear at all.


They would relate to the corona if there was a different PD between the surface of the sun and the corona. The surface of the sun is thought to be positive by most EU proponents, and so that implies that the outer corona is at a lesser potential, which is what causes the acceleration of the solar wind. Maybe you missed this section;


Negative coronas occur only If the electric field is nonuniform
Positive Coronas are manifested in a uniform corona
Generation of secondary electron avalanches
In a positive corona they are generated by the gas surrounding the plasma region
In a negative corona they are generated by the curved electrode itself, the new secondary electrons traveling outward


This is using the assumption that the surface could retain a net charge, maybe that’s why you failed to see its relevance.


Originally posted by buddhasystem
No it wouldn't. Every member has a right to note a lack of logic in another member's post, and same applies to this delightful example:


The corona is an electric arc glow, yes it even looks like one


I can not see how you can say that noticing a visible similarily between two phenomenon is a lack of logic, i would call that a positively logical thing to do. Nearly all of what we know about space is built on what we can see, and how what we see interacts with other visible objects.



I am sorry, but the following does not remotely look like discharge in a spherically shaped capacitor... Note the loops...



So what exactly creates these huge magnetic fields? the same thing that creates all magnetic fields; electric currents. And due to the nature of the magnetic fields having a high velocity, and sometimes persisting for long periods of time, that indicates that the motion of the particles under the surface is far more energetic than current models allow.

The standard model says that the convection occurs so slowly that it takes hundreds of years for particles to travel from the centre to the surface. Particles travelling at that speed should not create magnetic fields that large, the size of the loops suggests that the motion of the currents is in fact much faster than this, and that the currents in the sun have a constant source to make them persist for long periods.

Here’s some good papers on electrical currents and their relation to solar flares;

This is one of the most popularly cited electrical current theory of solar flares, by Alfven And Carlqvist, adsabs.harvard.edu...
(cited over 181 times!) and followed up by this one; adsabs.harvard.edu...

more recent; Towards the circuit theory of solar flares, Zaitsev, V. V.; Stepanov, A. adsabs.harvard.edu...

And this paper looks at the effects of field- aligned currents (or Birkeland currents) on solar flares;
www.springerlink.com...

Solar flares are electrical in nature, caused by the separation of charge in some shape of form. Even conventional astronomers have accepted this, although they dont extrapolate what effects this electricity could have on other areas of the sun, in their opinion the rest of the sun is slowly convecting gas, not effected by the immense electrical currents that run throughout it. However most plasma astrophysicists will tell them that this is not the case, and that if we are to understand the sun correctly more work needs to be done on understanding the electrics of the sun so we can build a complete process orientated model of the current circuit inside the sun.

This summarizes Alfvens established work on circuit interruptions and flares;



Already in the 1950s, it was realized that the phenomenon of solar flares might have an electromagnetic origin and that the flare energy is likely to be stored as magnetic energy in the solar atmosphere. [.]

[.] In experiments it had been found that, if the electric current in a mercury rectifier was increased above a certain critical limit, the current through the rectifier became interrupted within a small fraction of a second. As a result of the interruption, the electric energy of the whole circuit was concentrated to and released in the rectifier with disastrous consequences. The current interruption was caused by an electrostaticdouble layer of high impedance that through some instability locally replaced the normally well-conducting mercury plasma in the rectifier. In our paper we suggested that a similar kind of double layer might arise in current systems penetrating the solar atmosphere and there lead to explosive release of magnetic energy in the form of flares. The flare mechanism described in our paper is in reality nothing but a straightforward combination of a phenomenon that is well known from laboratory experiments in plasmas and rectifier studies onthe one hand and solar physics on the other. The reason our flare theory was not proposed much earlier is that groups working on double layers and groups working in astrophysics did not have good contact with each other.


Yet again another example that can, and has been, tested on Earth and verified beyond doubt. Much unlike 'magnetic reconnection' theory that nearly every solar astronomer uses to explain energetic phenomenon on the sun today. Any time magnetic fields get treated as physical entities, you have bad science. How exactly does one tie a knot in, or reconnect, an imaginary field line with no physical "existence"?

Also observations from the SOHO have found very fast moving electrically charged currents moving below the sun; soi.stanford.edu...


Scientists using the joint European Space Agency (ESA)/NASA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft have discovered "jet streams" or "rivers" of hot, electrically charged gas called plasma flowing beneath the Sun's fiery surface.



the observations of the electricity are all there, all that they need to do now is accept that the sun has a substantial net charge, and thus exhibits an electrical field.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]




posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I also stumbled across this paper by Carlqvist and Gahm from the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science.

Manifestations of electric currents in interstellar molecular clouds

Seems interesting to find that there is still plenty of electricty in interstellar clouds that are meant to be highly diffuse and largely neutral.

I have yet to find any decent data on the possible amount of particles that actually make the leap from one solar system to the next one, but i'm sure its about somewhere. That would be very interesting data.

As close as i've got is so far is some sources suggesting that interstellar medium includes ionized interstellar gas (ie. plasma) at temperatures up to 5 x 105K (ref1), whose magnetic fields are generated by electric currents (ref2), and that it may form its own current sheet (ref3), and that even the molecular clouds may show electric currents themselves (ref4).

This would be an ideal way to confirm that a constant stream of particles is leaving/entering our solar system. I will have a further rummage around for some papers on the interstellar medium, maybe some astronomers have already given strong evidnece for the electric sun model without realising it.

ref1; The Interstellar Medium By James Lequeux (academic book)

ref2; The Interstellar Medium By James Lequeux (academic book)

ref3; Current Sheet Formation in the Interstellar Medium Zweibel, Ellen G. Brandenburg, Astrophysical Journal v.478, p.563

ref4; Manifestations of electric currents in interstellar molecular clouds Carlqvist, Per; Gahm, Gosta F. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I was looking at the wikipedia page on interstellar medium en.wikipedia.org... and I noticed that there are over seven mechanisms proposed to explain the heating of the ISM, and none of them has a reference to any science paper. It seems this may be another area where astronomers are willing to accept dozens of completely different theories to explain this heating, as long as they do not indicate electrical currents in their heating mechanisms. It is not their fault, they have not been taught to think of charge separation in space and the resulting electrical currents, but i wish that they would open thier minds to the possibility.

the part which i find interesting is that the parts of the galaxy that our solar system is travelling through right now are fairly well known. The Sun is currently traveling through the "Local Interstellar Cloud", which is a region of the Local Bubble which is known to be a much denser region in comparison to the rest of the ISM.

The local bubble is a large area of the milky way, about 300 light years across; en.wikipedia.org...


The Local Bubble is a cavity in the interstellar medium (ISM) of the Orion Arm of the Milky Way. It is at least 300 light years across and has a neutral hydrogen density approximately one tenth of the 0.5 atoms per cubic centimetre average for the ISM in the Milky Way. The hot diffuse gas in the Local Bubble emits X-rays.

The Solar System has been travelling through the Local Bubble for the last 3 million years. Its current location lies in the Local Interstellar Cloud or Local Fluff, a minor region of denser material within the Bubble. The cloud formed where the Local Bubble and the Loop I Bubble met. The gas within the LIC has a density of approximately 0.1 atoms per cubic centimeter.


And then wiki has some more good info on the 'local fluff' region we are now in within the Local Bubble; en.wikipedia.org...


The Local Interstellar Cloud, also called the Local Fluff, is the interstellar cloud (roughly 30 light years across) that our solar system is currently moving through. The Solar System entered the Local Fluff at some time between the last 44,000 and 150,000 years and is expected to remain within it for between 10,000 and 20,000 years more. The cloud has a temperature (at STP) of 6000° C, about the same temperature as the surface of the Sun. It is very thin, with 0.26 atoms per cubic centimeter; approximately one-fifth that of the galactic interstellar medium and twice that of the gas in the Local Bubble. In comparison, Earth's atmosphere at STP has 2.7 × 1019 molecules per cubic centimeter.


It has a little diagram aswell;



So it seems that there is quite a lot of energy in the local environment of the galaxy. And since you have to have the motion of particles (or ions) to produce temparature, that also indicates electrical currents and magnetic fields are playing some kind of role. Infact we seem to be in an area of the galaxy with a particularly high density at the moment. Maybe the sun is approaching a maximum intake at the moment from the galaxy.?.


Another interesting article from NASA has this to say about the input of particles in surrounding clouds; science.nasa.gov...


During the past few million years, wispy filaments of interstellar gas have drifted into the Local Bubble. Our solar system is immersed in one of those filaments--the "local fluff," a relatively cool (7000 K) cloud containing 0.1 atoms per cubic centimeter.

There are, however, denser clouds out there. The Sco-Cen complex, for instance, is sending a stream of interstellar "cloudlets" in our direction. "Some of those cloudlets might be hundreds of times denser than the local fluff," says Priscilla Frisch, an astrophysicist at the University of Chicago who studies the local interstellar medium. "If we ran into one, it would compress the Sun's magnetic field and allow more cosmic rays to penetrate the inner solar system, with unknown effects on climate and life."


and also some intersting opinions from this article; science.nasa.gov...
Everytime you hear the word 'wind' or 'breeze' you have to replace it with electric current. Astronomers still are using completely incorrect terminology when it comes to the movement of ions in space.


An interstellar wind hits our planet.

It's a helium-rich breeze from the stars, flowing into the solar system from the direction of Ophiuchus. The sun's gravity focuses the material into a cone and Earth passes through it during the first weeks of December. We're inside the cone now.

"There's no danger to anyone on Earth," says space physicist George Gloeckler of the University of Maryland. "The helium breeze is a thousand billion billion times (1021 times) less dense than Earth's atmosphere. It cannot penetrate to the surface of our planet."

Nevertheless, astronomers are keen to study it.

The breeze is a telltale sign of what lies outside the solar system. Interstellar space, the "void" between the stars, is not empty. It's filled with gigantic clouds of gas and dust (Edit; NOT gas and dust; Highly conducting plasma would be more correct terminology). These clouds are the birthplace of stars and planets; they're also the debris left behind when stars explode. The solar system is running into one. Astronomers call it the Local Interstellar Cloud. The sun's magnetic field holds much of the cloud at bay, but some of the cloud's gas does penetrate--hence the breeze.


So they are saying that substancial amount of gas particles do infact come into the solar syatem remotely. A very good indication for the ES hypothesis.

Maybe changes in the desity of the interstellar clouds is what causes changes in the suns output? as there would be more, or less, particles to fuel it depending on its position in the local cloud.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
found one more page about changes in the galaxy and how they could effect the climate of the Earth and the output of the sun; www.solstation.com...


Some wisps of the Local Fluff's denser gas may already have blown into the Solar System earlier (possibly 33,000 and 60,000 years ago) (Priscilla Chapman Frisch, 1997). Astronomers hypothsize that such gas clouds can suppress the Solar Wind so that interstellar gas and dust enters the Solar System in quantities great enough to affect the Sun and life on Earth. At the moment, a powerful stellar wind from the young OB stellar associations of the Local Bubble's expanding neighbor, the Loop I Bubble, is pushing the Local Fluff aside (at the rate of 12 miles, or 20 km, per second). That expanding bubble, however, is also pushing other clouds of gas towards the Solar System


and they cite this paper which seems very interesting; The journey of the sun


An analysis of the distribution and kinematics of interstellar material within 500 pc of the Sun leads to the conclusion that the galactic environment of the Sun changes with time. Consideration of evidence for interstellar gas interacting with the solar wind implies that these variations may alter the interplanetary environment of the Earth. The events causing the 10Be spikes 33,000 years and 60,000 years ago in the Antarctic ice record must be associated with the Local Fluff cloud complex, possibly due to solar encounters with structures with subparsec scale sizes. An encounter with "dense" interstellar cloud material could attenuate the solar L-alpha flux by as much as 70%, modify mesospheric chemistry, modify the magnetosphere-solar wind coupling, and alter the global electrical circuit. Prior to the entry of the Sun into the Local Fluff cloud complex, within the past 200,000 years, the galactic environment of the Sun differed radically from the environment prevailing today and expected for the near future.


Maybe the link between the local amount of particles in the galactic cloud is more closely related to the output of the sun than they realised.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Zeuss, has there been any evidence that the solar wind has any charge asymmetry?

thanks.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Zeuss, has there been any evidence that the solar wind has any charge asymmetry?

thanks.


Yes. The acceleration of the solar wind indicates that the particles are being accelorated by an e-field caused by the voltage difference between the photosphere and the corona. That also explains why the corona is so hot as the particles there are still gaining substancial energy from the acceleration in this region. In this model you have to imagine that the sun is a very high voltage body, that would obviously eminate an electrical field, and if you put a charged particle in an electric field it will accelerate. TYhat charge separation is what is causing the acceloration of the solar wind, and the heating of the corona.

I would just like to ask you Buddha, how would you check the suns surface for charge asymmetry anyway? as far as i know there is no actual direct method to do this. You can only look at what is going on there and try to deduce if that is the case from the motion of particles and other indirect methods.

I would also say that the large number of electrical flares that are generated near the surface are a good indication that there is a PD there for the charge to jump across and equalize on occasions.

One good summary of how the charge separation may work can be found in this book; www.the-electric-universe.info...

www.brox1.demon.co.uk...

The heat of fusion in the solar core causes its atomic particles to attain high velocities, so that there is a continuous current flow along the temperature gradient from core to surface. Electrons are predominant in this
flow as they have well over 1000 times less mass than a proton. This gives the surface of the Sun a layer of negative charge and the core an increasing positive charge. A continuous solar wind is ejected from the surface and periodically the positive charge on the core exceeds the breakdown value, causing planet-sized pieces to break away and be expelled towards the surface. The forces involved are gravitation, electro-magnetic, eddy currents and gyroscopic.

The evidence for large-scale electrical discharges was described by C.E.R.Bruce (1902 - 1979)2 but his published papers and mine were unable to offer a satisfactory explanation of the massive charge separation and accumulation required. Most astronomers ignored the evidence for electrical discharges, even in books claiming to include all aspects of astronomy, but now that L.K. has described a charging process of sufficient magnitude, this attitude can no longer be justified.


Another good page of observations by Eric W. Crew.

[edit on 15-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 


Excellent contributions ZeuZZ. Indeed the mainstream has for many years now been using the wrong terminology to describe some phenomena. Filaments, current sheets, double layers, etc., should be a part of every astrophysicists vocabulary, and it is becoming more the case as the years progress. Ten years ago these ideas were still largely unknown and ridiculed, but nowadays the mainstream is beginning to play catch up as they assimilate ideas from plasma cosmology. We certainly have the internet to thank for helping disseminate information.

I am reminded of an episode during that Universe series that dealt with the sun, and I was amazed that the mainstream was publicly using ideas and terminology from plasma cosmology. Of course, the full terminology won't have a home within the mainstream cosmology because of the paradigmatic differences which would prevent comprehension of the underlying connections. Anyhow, here is a You-Tube clip of part of the episode I am referring to:


[edit on 15-1-2008 by Ionized]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 


You misunderstood my question. I was asking if the solar wind emitted by the Sun has a net charge. According to the visionary scientist Birkeland as well as all measurements that we are aware of, it does not:


In 1916, Norwegian researcher Kristian Birkeland was probably the first person to successfully predict that in the Solar Wind, "From a physical point of view it is most probable that solar rays are neither exclusively negative nor positive rays, but of both kinds"; in other words, the solar wind consists of both negative electrons and positive ions


And that pretty much kills the electric Sun hypothesis.

PS.
a) you asked how you measure the charge in the solar wind -- there are are measurements done with instruments onboard spacecraft
b) in an electric field, opposite charges move in opposite directions. Think about it.



[edit on 15-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The solar wind is generally regarded as quasi-neutral. It is made of nearly equal numbers of protons and electrons with charge, but they are not necessarily connected, thus the solar wind is regarded as a plasma.

www.aeronomie.be...

The solar wind is a plasma, a stream of charged particles (ions and electrons) which are continuously escaping from the Sun into the interplanetary medium. The particles can escape from the hold of the Sun because the solar corona consists of a very hot plasma of which the temperature exceeds millions of degrees.


You are correct that the e-field would work different directions for different ions. It would repel protons and attract electrons.

This graph represents the basic properties of a of a plasma discharge as recorded in various laboratory tests with spherically shaped plasmas. It is obviously highly non linear, and shows some of the truly erratic and unknown properties of plasma.



Now as you stated (correctly) that the sun would be strongly attracting negative ion’s in its electric field, that is exactly what is happening; there is a flow of charged particles streaming continually into the sun to negate this difference in charge. The actual current would be very diffuse out in the solar system, but the total current can be a high value. Out near the planets the current in in the dark mode region of plasma volt/amp graph above, and so you can not see the subtle electric currents. The current becomes more concentrated as it travel towards the sun, with more particles travelling rapidly in opposing directions the closer you get. As you descend the current density increases until you reach the normal glow region of the plasma, called the corona. This is the part where you can clearly see the filaments caused by electric currents lit up around the sun. Next you get to the photosphere where the current density becomes extremely large and this is called the arc region of the plasma right on the surface of the sun.

Electrons are predominant in this flow as they have well over 1000 times less mass than a proton. This gives the surface of the Sun a layer of negative charge and the core an increasing positive charge. A continuous solar wind is ejected from the surface and periodically the positive charge on the core exceeds the breakdown value, which is what causes huge pieces to break away in solar flares and be expelled towards the surface as the charge equalizes between the two areas.


I should ask you Buddha, why do you think that the corona so much hotter than the sun? Surely this would only be expected if energy was being attracted from outside the sun? Astronomers fully admit they have no idea why it is so hot, and I am amazed they can admit that, and say they are confident about the rest of the suns constitution. In fact, why is the corona there at all? The standard model neither predicts nor explains it; it is obviously an electrical phenomenon.






[edit on 15-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
You are correct that the e-field would work different directions for different ions. It would repel protons and attract electrons.


Thank you! Let's build on this base.


This graph represents the basic properties of a of a plasma discharge as recorded in various laboratory tests with spherically shaped plasmas. It is obviously highly non linear, and shows some of the truly erratic and unknown properties of plasma.


This graph is irrelevant to the issue of in which directions the electrons flow in the corona (hint: in the same direction as positively charged ions, and that is incompatible with the arc theory).


Now as you stated (correctly) that the sun would be strongly attracting negative ion’s in its electric field


Sorry but I didn't say any of that. You attempt to explain how positive ions acquire considerable energies by traversing a huge potential difference between some kind of shells... By the same token, electrons would be traveling inward and never be ejected as part of the corona. Your capacitor model does not work, Zeuzz.


I should ask you Buddha, why do you think that the corona so much hotter than the sun? Surely this would only be expected if energy was being attracted from outside the sun? Astronomers fully admit they have no idea why it is so hot, and I am amazed they can admit that, and say they are confident about the rest of the suns constitution.


You see, the "mainstream" science, as you call it, tends to be populated by honest people. They admit stuff and not make it up (typically).

My own theory is this: indeed, the system in question is very complex. If plasma physics was easy, would would have created a fusion generator decades ago. We are still working on it. In other analogy, we can't quite reliably predict the weather, even though it really should be a much simpler calculation than with plasma. If you scale it up to the Sun, it's an enormously difficult problem to solve, with nuclear, atomic, and magnetic phenomena all mixed in one soup. We know that we have some basic ideas right about the Earth weather systems. Similarly, we know that we have some basic ideas right about the Sun, even though we are missing on admitedly important details.

Your statement about "energy being attracted from outside" as the only explanation, is incorrect IMHO. There can be violent plasma streams and associated magnetic fields of weird configurations that accelerate the corona particles to the energies that we observe. I don't know yet. Just like others. But the electric Sun theory is cherry picking, from a field of facts (again, confer the neutrality of the solar wind).



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Thank you very much Zuezz for those posts, excellent research!! I intend to study the links you provided in more detail, still much to learn. Keep up the good work.


And thanks for that clip Ionized, indeed that was surprising and all without a mention of magnetic reconnection! I absolutely agree that much of the misunderstandings are simply the result of the terminology used.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ionized
Ten years ago these ideas were still largely unknown and ridiculed, but nowadays the mainstream is beginning to play catch up as they assimilate ideas from plasma cosmology.


The fact that solar phenomena contain contain complex plasma and magnetic phenomena is not a result of some "development" inside what you call "plasma cosmology". These were known long before the weird term "plasma cosmology" was ever invented.


I am reminded of an episode during that Universe series that dealt with the sun, and I was amazed that the mainstream was publicly using ideas and terminology from plasma cosmology.


Hehe. Apparently it occured to you that this is the other way around. The "plasma cosmology" took bits and pieces of physics and tries to pass it as some arcane knowledge, without being able to do any calculation at all. I saw the clip and there was a lot of interesting talk about magnetic field lines and how the field can store energy. This can be found in ANY basic physics course. I am perplexed as to why you consider it anything senstational.

Yes, clip is cool. Yes, there are complex configurations of magnetic field on the Sun. Yes, these lead to massive eruptions. Probably, some of it explains the corona characteristics. Physics, baby. Physics.



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Sorry but I didn't say any of that. You attempt to explain how positive ions acquire considerable energies by traversing a huge potential difference. By the same token, electrons would be travelling inward and never be ejected as part of the corona. Your capacitor model does not work, Zeuzz.


Its not mine, its a mixture of juergens and Alfvens. The part to explain where the electrons are emitted vary at this point, Alfen proposed that the electrons are emitted along the stars axis of magnetism, similar to the gamma ray jets emitted from pulsars and other bodies in space. Whereas (i think) it was juergens proposed that sunspots are the area where the electrons escape back out via some process. I didn't want to mention either as i'm not sure which one I believe is most likely myself. I am more inclined to believe Alfvens model, and that solar flares and mass ejections are what cause the electrons to escape back into space by charge equalization across the magnetosphere.

Hannes Alfven has argued that since a conductor rotating in a magnetic field produces an electric current, then the Sun behaves as a unipolar inductor. This page has a brief overview of it; www.plasma-universe.com...



and some papers were published in journals on it;
Double radio sources and the new approach to cosmical plasma physics
Double layers and circuits in astrophysics
Southward shifted heliospheric current sheet - a more recent model

You also seem to have ignored the point of my statement about equalizing charge causing solar flares. Of course, when the charge inside the star builds up to a substancial amount the centre of the star discharges with the heliosphere, and its in these energetic flares that a lot of the electrons and protons are rejected out.



I should ask you Buddha, why do you think that the corona so much hotter than the sun? Surely this would only be expected if energy was being attracted from outside the sun? Astronomers fully admit they have no idea why it is so hot, and I am amazed they can admit that, and say they are confident about the rest of the suns constitution.


You see, the "mainstream" science, as you call it, tends to be populated by honest people. They admit stuff and not make it up (typically).


I agree that most scientists are open and honest. In fact i think that if more scientists had the time to look at this model they would like it. But most of them dont spend any of thier time on the internet, let alone looking through ATS forums, or any site about plasma cosmolgy, most of them haven't even heard of it.

The trouble with some astronomers is that they build up a picture of the universe, a very detailed picture in their mind, one that they are convinced is right. When they hear material like this they dont like it, because it is challenging their entire picture they have built up over the years of how the universe works, so before they can give it a substantial change they dismiss it. It is more a knee-jerk reaction than a serious contemplation of the theories underlying EU ideas.

If they started to believe it, it would take them on a progression that they would find very scary, they would start to doubt the whole institution that they have been brought up in and all their world views about science would have to change. Its not their fault, its our education systems fault, for teaching people what to think, and not how to think. The way people are taught nowadays give the impression to people that there are no surprises around the corner, we nearly know everything, all we have to do now is tidy a few things up, collect a bit more data, add a few more computer simulations, and that’s it, we will know nearly everything about science and physics. That is very, very unlikely. The history of science has shown us that theories are continually falsified and replaced; it is an ever ongoing system of increasing the accuracy of the models. Current theories are likely going to be replaced with plasma physics, then that will be replaced with something even more precise, and that cycle will go on forever.

The current model of science is obviously not going to be completely right in the long term; science is an ever ongoing self perpetuating process. What science needs at the moment is for astronomers to stop treating their astronomy journals like the bible and start looking at alternatives to their much cherished ideas with a fully open mind. A lot of science is faith based, and nowhere is this more evident than in cosmology and astronomy where religion, metaphysics and science all meet together.

This page gives a good overview of what I mean by that; www.physicspost.com...


You may or may not be aware that cosmology is not a basic term. There are many types of cosmology, and each one is looked at in a different way. For instance, you will come across what is known as physical cosmology, religious cosmology, and modern metaphysical cosmology.

As of late, more and more people are beginning to become interested in modern metaphysical cosmology. This type of cosmology can best be described as metaphysics and philosophy combined to study the totality of space and time.
[continued....]


A lot of modern cosmology is far too much faith based for my liking.



There can be violent plasma streams and associated magnetic fields of weird configurations that accelerate the corona particles to the energies that we observe. I don't know yet. Just like others. But the electric Sun theory is cherry picking, from a field of facts (again, confer the neutrality of the solar wind).


"magnetic fields of weird configurations" this sounds dangerously like 'twisted' magnetic fields, magnetic 'cracks', or magnetic 'reconnection'. Please show me ONE experiment where these fictitious magnetic effects have occurred and i will look into it, so far i have seen none.


[edit on 15-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 15 2008 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Its not mine, its a mixture of juergens and Alfvens.


Who did the mixing part? Wasn't it you?


The part to explain where the electrons are emitted vary at this point, Alfen proposed that the electrons are emitted along the stars axis of magnetism, similar to the gamma ray jets emitted from pulsars and other bodies in space.


Well, nobody doubts that polar regions would exhibit some kind of special behavior, just like we have auroras here on Earth, in high latitudes. However, there are two problems with what you are suggesting here:

a) the electrons would still have traverse a tremendous potential difference
b) somehow, electrons emitted in narrow beams from the polar regions become evenly mixed with protons in equatorial regions and reach Earth as one parcel. This is beyond credible...


I am more inclined to believe Alfvens model, and that solar flares and mass ejections are what cause the electrons to escape back into space by charge equalization across the magnetosphere.


Then the charge ratio would be wildly variable, for which there is no evidence.


You also seem to have ignored the point of my statement about equalizing charge causing solar flares. Of course, when the charge inside the star builds up to a substancial amount the centre of the star discharges with the heliosphere, and its in these energetic flares that a lot of the electrons and protons are rejected out.


No, this picture just doesn't hold together. If you are saying that the Sun carries a huge positive charge, why would the electrons be ejected? And if they are during the magnetosphere outbursts, the electric field would promptly plug them back in. Because according to you, the electric field is as gigantic as to explain the high energies of coronal particles... Just way too many contradictions.


The trouble with some astronomers is that they build up a picture of the universe, a very detailed picture in their mind, one that they are convinced is right.


Just look at what you are doing here. You haven't drafted a single equation reconciling your theory with the observables, and yet you are proclaiming somebody else is narrow minded and you possess a silver bullet for the mysteries of the Sun.


The way people are taught nowadays give the impression to people that there are no surprises around the corner


I commiserate on your choice of school! I was educated in a different kind of establishments.


"magnetic fields of weird configurations" this sounds dangerously like 'twisted' magnetic fields, magnetic 'cracks', or magnetic 'reconnection'. Please show me ONE experiment where these fictitious magnetic effects have occurred and i will look into it, so far i have seen none.


You sure must have seen the video clip posted right above. There are plentiful pics of the Sun where you can see a truly magical dance of twisted lines (visualized by plasma), and violent changes in the configurations, where whole volumes of plasma are spattered into space, when the field lines re-align.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Acceleration of solar wind ions


Tim Thompson writes -

The solar wind is not made of "positive ions". It is made of "positive ions" (mostly protons), and negative ions (mostly electrons). The electric sun model not only fails to explain why there are negative electrons in the solar wind, it actually predicts that the positively charged sun should attract electrons, not repel them. Far from being a "prediction" of the electric sun model, the solar wind in fact is a contradiction of the electric sun model and serves to falsify the hypothesis.
It is also worth noting that, according to Maxwell's equations, a time variable magnetic field will generate an electric field, which will accelerate a charged particle. This is a point which the proponents of the electric sun have totally overlooked, never mentioned, and essentially denied, by insisting that only static electric fields will do.


Don Scott responds -

Wal Thornhill has already referred Thompson to low-pressure gas discharge physics as being the appropriate model to use, not simple electrostatics. As a pseudoskeptic, Thompson refuses to address his remarks to this model because it refutes his beliefs and he can’t find any authority to quote that has ever considered the possibility. In the gas discharge model, interplanetary space is an extensive plasma region termed the ‘positive column,’ which is characterized by almost equal numbers of positive charges (ions) and electrons. The plasma is electrically ‘quasi-neutral,’ like a current-carrying copper wire. And like a copper wire, it is a region with a weak electric field that causes a steady drift of electrons toward the more positive ‘sink.’ (The drift speed of electrons in a current-carrying copper wire is typically measured in cm/hr!) The drift current focused down from the vastness of space powers the Sun. The drift field is also responsible for the weak acceleration of positive ions away from the Sun. The result is the quasi-neutral solar ‘wind.’ The electric Sun model is the only one that has a consistent satisfactory explanation for the solar wind.

The phenomenon known as the ‘plasma frequency’ is caused by the ionized (free) electrons’ tendency to lurk and oscillate around the neighborhood of positive ions. The fact that many electrons hover around the vicinity of these accelerating ions is not a contradiction of the ES hypothesis. Only a meager fraction of these electrons are needed to power (to drift toward) the Sun. The accelerating ions are (one of many) currents that are part of a circuit. The electrons are also part of that circuit (driven by circuit potentials, not a ‘central pith ball’ electrostatic potential). These currents will be ‘pinched’ into filaments, sheets and heterogeneous paths. Thompson invokes Maxwell by saying, “...according to Maxwell's equations, a time variable magnetic field will generate an electric field, which will accelerate a charged particle.” True. A time-varying magnetic flux will generate an electric field around a closed path that encircles the flux. But what causes that time variation in the magnetic field? The standard non-electrical response (as I understand it) would be that the magnetic field is frozen into the plasma, and gravity, convection, or some other mechanical force moves the plasma, thereby ‘powering’ the variation in the magnetic field. But, as decades of laboratory and space research have shown, magnetic fields are not frozen into plasmas. Changing electrical currents change magnetic fields. The pseudoskeptics never mention these required – and measured – electrical currents.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

This graph represents the basic properties of a of a plasma discharge as recorded in various laboratory tests with spherically shaped plasmas. It is obviously highly non linear, and shows some of the truly erratic and unknown properties of plasma.


This graph is irrelevant to the issue of in which directions the electrons flow in the corona (hint: in the same direction as positively charged ions, and that is incompatible with the arc theory).


The "plasma cosmology" took bits and pieces of physics and tries to pass it as some arcane knowledge, without being able to do any calculation at all.


They are being pulled towards the star due its net +voltage, so i'm not entirely sure how you deduced that they move "in the same direction as positively charged ions". I should point out that when people say that the electrons are attracted and the protons are repelled that this does not account for every electron and proton. If you took a large area of vacuum of the solar wind the overall charge would be very near zero, as generally a proton is always accompanied by an electron. However as sqiz points out in his previous post the plasma frequency of the solar wind enables electrons to move independantly to protons.

Physics states that the charge density oscillates at the plasma frequency, when electrons are assumed as cold, so;

Or for warm ions;

where, Ve,th is;



where where ne is the density of electrons, e is the electric charge, m is the mass of the electron, and ε0 is the permittivity of free space (8.854x10^-12 Fm^-1)

And i would say that the plasma discharge graph is very relevant. It gives us a clear indication of the current density associated with the change in voltage in a plasma. Using basic properties known about the solar wind you can work out the current density by equating the forces due to the electrostatics force for free electrons. If you want to see the derivation for that formula, and how to work out the current density with respect to time this site derives the formula. I cant be bothered to copy it here.

Is there a way you can type in formulas into posts at ATS? copying pictures takes ages. i use latex on other sites to add formula, but the [tex][/tex] tags dont seem to work here.


And that plasma chart i showed you would be very releavnt, i found a similar article on the electric-cosmos website;


In the page on Electric Plasma the three characteristic static modes in which a plasma can operate are discussed. Here is a more detailed description. The volt-ampere characteristic of a typical plasma discharge has the general shape shown below.



The volt-ampere plot of a plasma discharge.

This plot is easily measured for a laboratory plasma contained in a column - a cylindrical glass tube with the anode at one end and the cathode at the other. These two terminals are connected into an electrical circuit whereby the current through the tube can be controlled. In such an experiment, the plasma has a constant cross-sectional area from one end of the tube to the other. The vertical axis of the volt-ampere plot is the voltage rise from the cathode up to the anode (across the entire plasma) as a function of the current passing through the plasma. The horizontal axis shows the Current Density. Current density is the measurement of how many Amps per square meter are flowing through a cross-section of the tube. In a cylindrical tube the cross-section is the same size at all points along the tube and so, the current density at every cross-section is just proportional to the total current passing through the plasma.

When we consider the Sun, however, a spherical geometry exists - with the sun at the center. The cross-section becomes an imaginary sphere. Assume a constant total electron drift moving from all directions toward the Sun and a constant total radial flow of +ions outward. Imagine a spherical surface of large radius through which this total current passes. As we approach the Sun from deep space, this spherical surface has an ever decreasing area. Therefore, for a fixed total current, the current density (A/m^2) increases as we move inward toward the Sun.


* In deep space the current density there is extremely low even though the total current may be huge; we are in the dark current region; there are no glowing gases, nothing to tell us we are in a plasma discharge - except possibly some radio frequency emissions.
* As we get closer to the Sun, the spherical boundary has a smaller surface area; the current density increases; we enter the normal glow region; this is what we call the Sun's "corona". The intensity of the radiated light is much like a neon sign.
* As we approach still closer to the Sun, the spherical boundary gets to be only slightly larger than the Sun itself; the current density becomes extremely large; we enter the arc region of the discharge. This is the anode tuft. This is the photosphere. The intensity of the radiated light is much like an arc welding machine or continuous lightning. A high intensity ultraviolet light is emitted.


And buddha, please could you tell me why the solar wind accelorates, and why the corona is so much hotter than the surface of the sun. You have managed to wriggle out of that question so far, but i really want to know what you think causes it if you are not accepting the ES model. Look at the solar wind page on wikipedia; en.wikipedia.org...


The solar wind is a stream of charged particles (i.e., a plasma) which are ejected from the upper atmosphere of the sun. It consists mostly of high-energy electrons and protons (about 1 keV) that are able to escape the sun's gravity in part because of the high temperature of the corona and the high kinetic energy particles gain through a process that is not well understood at this time.


What they mean is that the particles accelerate and heat up due to process astronomers are currently unwilling to accept; an electric field.


[edit on 16-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
They are being pulled towards the star due its net +voltage, so i'm not entirely sure how you deduced that they move "in the same direction as positively charged ions".


Because that's what we observe, right? The solar wind emanates from the Sun and is mostly neutral, which totally means that electrons are traveling with protons. In the same direction.


However as sqiz points out in his previous post the plasma frequency of the solar wind enables electrons to move independantly to protons.


The notion of plasma frequency is related to propagation of EM radiation through plasma, not to propagation of electrons.

Now, to the rest of your post. Let's leave the current densities alone for a few seconds and consider a capacitor which contains a quantity of ionized gas. Now explain to me how you can get charges of both signs move in the same direction.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The notion of plasma frequency is related to propagation of EM radiation through plasma, not to propagation of electrons.


Oh really? The plasma frequency


Originally posted by buddhasystem
The fact that solar phenomena contain contain complex plasma and magnetic phenomena is not a result of some "development" inside what you call "plasma cosmology". These were known long before the weird term "plasma cosmology" was ever invented.


You see in plasma cosmology phenomena is not brought into existence due to a mere thought development. You may be used to seeing that happen within standard cosmology.. Rather in PC the model is created around empirical observables.

As to your comments that plasma cosmology stole ideas from the mainstream, you could not be more incorrect. Alfven and friends had been bringing to light the electromagnetic nature of space physics for quite some time. Alfven is also one of the founders of plasma cosmology, and his ideas about our environment played an extensive role in the formulation of his other theories. It is not a weird term by any means, what is weird about it?

It is a standard defense from mainstream proponents to say it is 'just physics' while they assimilate ideas from the other paradigm, ignoring the turbulent history behind those ideas and how they came to be. It is also why it will never be complete, you can't simply keep borrowing ideas from an opposing paradigm and expect them to fit in nicely to create an over-arching, accurate picture of phenomena. Without an understanding of the basic paradigmatic assumptions that allowed those pieces to form a coherent whole in the first place, you are left with fragmented bits that most likely look as if they were not part of a coherent frame, ie
just physics'. It is easy to see why mainstreamers think they are using 'just physics' when they ignore the underlying paradigmatic framework.

Anyhow I just used my lunch break to respond, need to quick eat and get back to work now.



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ionized
Oh really? The plasma frequency


Of course the particles in plasa will oscillate if an external variable field is applied. So yes, I made an omission. Thank you. However, I fail to see what plasma oscillations have to do with the proposed potential difference between the Sun and the alleged shell, and how this potential difference manages to accelrate charges of opposite signs in the same direction!



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Ionized
Oh really? The plasma frequency


Of course the particles in plasa will oscillate if an external variable field is applied. So yes, I made an omission. Thank you. However, I fail to see what plasma oscillations have to do with the proposed potential difference between the Sun and the alleged shell, and how this potential difference manages to accelrate charges of opposite signs in the same direction!


It is significant because as you get closer to the sun the density of electrons increases, this increases the oscillation frequency of the electrons, so they have far more energy to break free and separate from their protons the closer to the sun they get. This is the reason why when they get very near the sun, in the coronal region, the current density increases due to the increased separated charge and speeds, and the visible glowing plasma we can see around the sun is produced.

It does not accelerate charges of opposite signs in the same direction. Generally the -ve is thought to be going into the sun, and the +ve ions repelled away from the sun, they go in opposite directions. However neutral atoms ejected from general solar activity could travel either direction over the e-field with no overall effect.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]






top topics



 
114
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join