It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Electric star model now explains every problem facing solar space physics

page: 1
42
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+14 more 
posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I recently read a list of all the outstanding problems in solar physics by Markus J. Aschwanden of the TRACE solar satelite observatory, and I was amazed because nearly every single one of them can easily be answered by the Electric sun model. A rough overview of the model can be seen here; www.electric-cosmos.org... which basically states that the sun is at a high voltage, just like Tesla predicted over a hundreds years ago.

The time has truly come to abandon traditional nuclear core models of the sun.

Here are the problems as outlined in a recent overview of TRACE's work;

solar.physics.montana.edu...

Markus J. Aschwanden Submitted: 2007-03-20 15:39

we look back over the last 6 decades in solar physics and contemplate about 10 outstanding problems (or research focii) in solar physics:
(1) The solar neutrino problem,
(2) Structure of the solar interior (helioseismoloy),
(3) The solar magnetic field (dynamo, solar cycle, corona),
(4) Hydrodynamics of coronal loops, -
(5) MHD oscillations and waves (coronal seismology),
(6) The coronal heating problem,
(7) Self-organized criticality (from nanoflares to giant flares,
(8) Magnetic reconnection processes,
(9) Particle acceleration processes,
(10) Coronal mass ejections and coronal dimming.

The first two problems have been largely solved, recently, while the other 8 selected problems are still pending a final solution, and thus remain persistent Challenges for the next Solar Cycle 24, the theme of this jubilee conference.



I agree with him that the first two problems have been mainly solved, so i will address the last eight.

I'll quickly outline the main concepts of Electric stars so I can show how they apply to these issues;

* Most of the space within our galaxy is occupied by plasma containing electrons (negative charges) and ionized atoms (positive charges). Every charged particle in the plasma has an electric potential energy (voltage) just as every pebble on a mountain has a mechanical potential energy. The Sun is surrounded by a plasma cell that stretches far out - many times the radius of Pluto. These are facts not hypotheses.

* The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it.

* Due to this the sun will emanate an electrical field, just like every other electrically charged object.

* Generally positive ions leave the Sun and electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun. Because of the Sun's positive charge (voltage), it acts as the anode in a plasma discharge. As such, it exhibits many of the phenomena observed in earthbound plasma experiments, such as anode tufting.

* The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies.

So, to address the problems with the current models;


[Size=4](3) The solar magnetic field (dynamo, solar cycle, corona)


> The solar magnetic field and dynamo would not be so mysterious to astronomy if they accepted that the suns magnetic field is produced by the same thing that produces all magnetic fields; The motion of charge, ie, Electric currents. The fact that the magnetic field is relatively constant implies that the electric currents that produce it are continuous also, and persist for long periods of time.


[Size=4](4) Hydrodynamics of coronal loops


> I'm not so sure what the problem is with this, but there have been many observations of electricity causing coronal loops published in astronomy journals, which is highly consistent with the electric sun idea. Here’s a few;

This is one of the most popularly cited electrical current theory of solar flares, by the founder of plasma cosmology, Hannes Alfven; adsabs.harvard.edu...
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 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 cosmologists 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, and outside, the sun.


(5) MHD oscillations and waves (coronal seismology)


>This stems from astronomers using many completely different models to explain the coronal heating and acceleration problems. Last time I checked there were over twenty different mechanisms for coronal seismology. Many of these could be resolved by applying the effects the suns electrical fields would have on particles in the corona. (ref; Heating of the Solar Corona - Swedish Institute of Space Physics)


During the past 50 years there have been many attempts to solve this outstanding problem in astrophysics, and there are more than 20 different models and mechanisms for coronal heating proposed in the literature; see reviews [6–8]



(6) The coronal heating problem (and the more general problem of why there is a corona at all)


> This is one of the main problems with current models that is very hard to explain. The temperature of the corona far exceeds the temperature of the surface of the sun by millions of degrees. This is an explicit violation of the inverse square law for radiation. However, if the sun is attracting its energy remotely in the first place, you don’t have this problem, as the first place you would expect to see this energy expressed is above the surface. Infact the standard model fails to answer the more basic question of why is the corona there at all? The standard model neither predicts nor explains it; it is obviously an electrical effect.



[edit on 30-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]




posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
The above quoted website offers a potential electrically based explanation for the corona based on well established plasma physics and current density calculations;

www.electric-cosmos.org...


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.



This current density model is the only satisfactory explanation as to why the corona exists i have seen to date.


(7) Self-organized criticality (from nanoflares to giant flares)


This is likely explained with electrical currents and the organised filamentary structure that they create when travelling through space. Plasma cosmologist Hannes Alfven also believed the filamentary structure of the corona and flares to be due to electrical activity (ref; On the Filamentary Structure of the Solar Corona - The Solar Corona; Proceedings of IAU Symposium no. 16)

Further information on these structures can be seen here; www.plasma-universe.com...


(8) Magnetic reconnection processes


The main problem with this is that Magnetic reconnection can not occur. It flies in the face of everything we know about magnetism, and is another fanciful invention by astronomy to explain away the energy associated with effects that are electrical in nature.



They are quite literally trying to claim that magnetic field lines make and break connection and thereby release energy. Magnetic fields do not do that.

A metaphysical construct such as a magnetic filed line can not reconnect or get tied into a 'knot'. There is clear difference between 1) conceptual constructs that are convenient tools for thinking about and visualizing a process, and 2) the physical process itself. The former (the concept) exists only in one’s mind. It does not exist in three-dimensional space. The latter (the process) concerns the movement or interaction of things that really do exist in our world.

The notion that magnetic field lines can be open ended is impossible to reconcile with Maxwell’s simple and universal equation and the vast body of experiments that led to it. At any instant of time, the net sum of all magnetic flux entering any closed surface A is zero, ie,



The closed surface can be of any size or shape. Therefore, there can be no beginning or end to a magnetic field anywhere.

The implications of this mistake for astronomers are very far reaching, it means that, the sun is connected electromagnetically to the rest of the galaxy, and is not a closed system and also that the sun, like other similar planets in space, likely has electric currents at its poles that connect it to the rest of the galaxy and other stellar bodies.

These issues could likely be solved by replacing 'magnetic reconnection' with various other energy releasing magnetic confinement processes, such as the Z-pinch effect, which uses high amperage current to create direct fusion energy; en.wikipedia.org...

Magnetic field lines can not 'reconnect' be 'open ended' or 'merge' any more than lines of latitude and longitude can.

All these points about magnetic reconnection being false are verified in a recent peer reviewed paper, approved by the IEEE, and published in the Journal of plasma sciences.

you can see it here;
members.cox.net...







[edit on 30-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
9) Particle acceleration processes


The positively charged ions have been shown to accelerate outwards through the corona and beyond, and the electrons seem to mill around with no preferred direction. Nothing in the fusion model predicts or explains this observed phenomenon, streams of neutral gas do not behave in this manner, and winds do not usually accelerate all by themselves. Dr. Peter T. Gallagher of the Big Bear Solar Observatory had this to say about this issue: “Understanding the physics of coronal heating and solar wind acceleration remains one of the unsolved problems of solar physics.” (ref; SPACE SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SScAC) MEETING. NASA Headquarters)

This is the problem that the Electric sun model excels at explaining. Due to the electric field surrounding the sun (due to its voltage) this is the mechanism by which the charged particles are accelerated. Acceleration of particles by an electric field is the most basic way that particles are accelerated, its the way that all particle accelerators work, and a similar process is likely happening outside the sun. This field would be accelorating negative particles towards the sun, and repelling positive ions (protons) away from the surface.

And recent observations have proved exactly this.

There have been an abundance of observations of these backstreaming electrons in the solar wind, travelling against predominant direction of other ions, published very recently in various journals due to recent improvements in interplanetary measurements.

adsabs.harvard.edu...



Backstreaming Electrons Associated With Solar Electron Bursts - American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2007. Publication Date: 12/2007.
Quote:

Solar electron bursts are frequently observed in the ACE/SWEPAM suprathermal electron measurements at energies below 1.4 keV. A significant fraction of such events show backscattered electrons, beginning after the burst onset and traveling back towards the Sun along the magnetic field direction. Such backscattered particles imply a scattering mechanism beyond the spacecraft location. Some bursts also show backstreaming conic distributions, implying mirroring at magnetic field enhancements beyond the spacecraft. Here we present a study of these backstreaming particles during solar electron events.



(10) Coronal mass ejections and coronal dimming.


This is also explained very well by the ES model. When the charge in regions of the sun builds up (due to current input of ions) the charge 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. A similar process to how lightning works, equalizing charge between two areas with a large amount of energy release.

A further indication of the electric model is that sunspots (the place where we can see deepest into the sun) are dark. If the core of the sun really is a huge energetic furnace this is also highly unexpected, and indicates that the surface of the sun could be more energetic than the inside, which is consistent with the electric sun hypothesis.

And finally, the solar fusion model has not been fully verified by experiments. All the individual steps in the reaction have been achieved, but continuous hydrogen / helium fusion has never been reproduced in the lab;

1. 1H + 1H → 2H + e+ + νe
2. e+ + e− → 2γ + 1.02 MeV
3. 2H + 1H → 3He + γ + 5.49 MeV
4. From here there are three possible paths to generate helium isotope 4He.

All stages 1, 2, 3, 4 have individually been tested, but they have never been able to create the continual reaction hypothesized in the sun. On the other hand, Z-pinch fusion techniques and other fusion techniques that utilize electric currents and magnetic confinement have.


So, given that the ES hypothesis explains these phenomenon, whereas the standard model is at a complete lack to explain them, the time has indeed come for us to abandon the standerd model of the sun and replace it with the electric model which can explain these observations to a much higher degree of accuracy



We stand at a time in scientific history that will be embarrassing to look back on from the vantage point of the next century. An entire subgroup of science consisting of a majority of astrophysicists and cosmologists is now – and has been – smugly ignoring the fruits of 150 or so years of electrical science. This subgroup feels perfectly confident in postulating the existence of processes and entities that cannot be verified experimentally in earthbound labs. “But that doesn’t mean those processes can’t happen in space,” they say. When there are perfectly valid electrical explanations for certain phenomena, it is irresponsible to ignore those explanations and invent ‘new science’ to avoid using them. People will ask, years from now, “How could they have ignored electricity in space when it was staring them in the face?”



Thanks for reading



[edit on 30-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Zeuzz, it's about the third thread on the "electric cosmology", "plasma universe" and other such topics that you publish in recent memory. I wonder what your motivations are in proliferating same material.

The "electric star" model does not contain any math to speak of. As such, it's free of internal contraints test or any other real test, because such, you see, always happen in quantitative realm, that is in real science.

Until you can calculate neutrino yields within the "electric star" model, you have no moral right to claim that it is somehow superior to the "standard model". Same applies to most of your bullet points.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
^^^What ever his motives are, the thead is pretty good.


I dont think we can completely move away from the nuclear models of the Sun as of yet because the model applies not only to the Stars and out system but the universe in general. A lot more effects have to be explained to make it applicable universally.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Zeuzz, it's about the third thread on the "electric cosmology", "plasma universe" and other such topics that you publish in recent memory. I wonder what your motivations are in proliferating same material.

The "electric star" model does not contain any math to speak of. As such, it's free of internal contraints test or any other real test, because such, you see, always happen in quantitative realm, that is in real science.

Until you can calculate neutrino yields within the "electric star" model, you have no moral right to claim that it is somehow superior to the "standard model". Same applies to most of your bullet points.


Buddha, i am getting tired of your relentless pseudoskeptisism of this concept. Just face it, science is not always right, history has proven that and modern science is no exception to this rule. If you actually have any valid reasons to dismiss it (so far i have heard none from you) please post them, otherwise you words are nothing more than hot air.

For science to accept that large areas of their discipline are likely incorrect they would have to radically change many things. Millions of textbooks would have to be re-written, thousands of uni courses would have to be abandoned, billions of dollars would have to stop being given to areas that have been largely falsified (magnetic reconnection springs to mind) and it would lead to a lot of top scientists looking very foolish. That is the reason why mainstream science is not accepting of this, there is not a massive conspiracy as you would have people believe I am claiming, I have not once said that. Scientists that dismiss it genuinely believe that it is wrong due to the religous type faith they put into science, but they continually fail to come up with any scientifically valid reasons to dismiss it. Time will show how wrong they all are. As usual, its capitalism and business that is stopping progress.

I have outlined a set of undisputable problems with current solar models, and put forward solutions to every single one of them. If one theory explains a set of observations and one theory is at a complete lack to explain them, WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE THEORIES?

The physicists who taught people like Einstein and Maxwell at school were essentially teaching them a load of rubbish, which was proved to be incorrect later by their very own students. People often forget that. And that is what is happening now for some areas of science.




[edit on 30-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   
It's always somewhat interesting to run across one of these obsessional theories that somebody cooks up. The proponent(s) continue to ring the bell, hoping I suppose for some kind of recognition of their genius, but generally only annoying the hell out of people.

And like the old saying, "If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail," now we are to understand that this theory (rather than 42) is the ultimate answer to life, the universe, and everything. Well, whoop-dee-doo.

You be sure to let us know when you win the Nobel Prize.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
Buddha, i am getting tired of your relentless pseudoskeptisism of this concept.


Well hello, my skeptisim is not "pseudo" at all. I pointed out that you have no grounds to claim that difficult quantitative work somebody else has done is suddenly invalidated by virtue of your genius theory. How do you compose yourself to say that your theory deals with the "neutrino problem" better than the standard model of the Sun, whereas you didn't do any calculation in that area? Huh? Same with particle acceleration -- you DON'T have a quantitative model of the charge distribution. And if you don't, might as well not pollute the board. It's like saying that "if you add just right amount of acetone to gasoline, your gas mileage will become 3 times as good". Fact is, acetone may help increase fuel economy, but not by a factor of 3. You, however, would insist that modern science is simply not capable of this feat but you are sure that that's possible. Laughable.


If you actually have any valid reasons to dismiss it (so far i have heard none from you) please post them, otherwise you words are nothing more than hot air.


OMG look who's talking about hot air. I told you -- calculate the neutrino yields before you make these claims of yours. Otherwise it's all talk, talk, and more annoying talk about just how cool and powerful that "theory" of yours is.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
It's always somewhat interesting to run across one of these obsessional theories that somebody cooks up. The proponent(s) continue to ring the bell, hoping I suppose for some kind of recognition of their genius, but generally only annoying the hell out of people.


That someboy cooks up? These are not my theories, they are the theories of highly competant and established scientists. You would do well to look at the work of Hannes Alfven, Kristian Birkeland, Anthony Peratt, and many, many more scientists that have become aware of this plasma based approach to the cosmos. Here's a collection of just some of thier science papers and material, all published in mainstream cosmology journals, and all peer reviewed and accepted. Maybe you should contact the journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics and the IEEE journal of plasma physics and inform them of their mistake in accepting all their material.


Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 89-103

The $Z$-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars IEEE transactions on plasma science, 2007.

On the global electrostatic charge of stars - Astronomy and astrophysics.

Birkelands electric sun tests - Highly similar to many observations on the sun.

Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 3-11

Advances in numerical modeling of astrophysical and space plasmas - Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 242, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1996

How Can Spirals Persist? - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 175-186

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas 2 - Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 256, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1997

Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 97-107

Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 167-173

Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 229-253

Confirmation of radio absorption by the intergalactic medium - Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 207, no. 1, p. 17-26

A Possible Relationship between Quasars and Clusters of Galaxies - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 549, Issue 2, pp. 802-819.

GALACTIC NEUTRAL HYDROGEN EMISSION PROFILE STRUCTURE - THE ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL, 118:1252È1267, 1999 September

Filamentation of volcanic plumes on the Jovian satellite I0 - Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 144, no. 1-2,

On the evolution of interacting, magnetized, galactic plasmas - Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 91, no. 1, March 1983

Magnetospher e-ionosphere interactions —near-Earth manifestations of the plasma Universe - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 144, Issue 1-2, pp. 105-133




You be sure to let us know when you win the Nobel Prize.


The founding father of plasma cosmology, Hannes Alfven, has already recieved his Nobel prize for his work in space plasma science, so I find it highly unlikely they would give me one for just restating his ideas.


nobelprize.org...





He too believed that the sun is connected to the reat of the galaxy in a Heliospheric current circuit.







Birkeland was also considered for a Nobel prize for his experiments that replicated many of the suns characteristics using an electrically charged anode, but since his views were so unorthodox back then he was not accepted.



....Take a look at some of his experiments, all done with a highly electrically charged sphere, not a neutral sphere as the sun is currently thought to be by astronomers.

Solar flares;



sunspots, and x-ray jets;



these bear a strong resemblence to the recent X-ray jets discovered by Japan's Hinode spacecraft;



The equatorial plasma torus (and more sunspots)




the rest can be seen here; link




[edit on 30-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

The "electric star" model does not contain any math to speak of. As such, it's free of internal contraints test or any other real test, because such, you see, always happen in quantitative realm, that is in real science.



What maths do you want? all the relevant equations can be found in the well established maths of electrical engineering and magnetics.

The main mathematical concept useful to the ES model is the phenomenon known as the ‘plasma frequency’, which is caused by the ionized (free) electrons’ tendency to lurk and oscillate around the neighbourhood of positive ions. The fact that many electrons hover around the vicinity of these accelerating ions is highly consistant with the ES hypothesis. Only a meagre 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 the closer they move to the sun, which is clearly visible in the filaments of the corona.

To find the plasma frequency for free electrons, you can equate the forces of the electrostatics to obtain;



where me is the mass on the electron, r is the position vector, -e is the charge on the electron, and E is the electric field. Now, the current density is given by;



where ne is the number density of electrons, so the change in current density with respect to time is given by;



Using this relationship it is obvious that due to the electric field increase as the electrons travels towards the sun, the current density also increases with respect to the time taken. This explains how the corona becomes so energetic and visible high above the photosphere, as the current density increases significantly the closer to the sun the particles travel.

What more maths do you want?

…..The charge on the sun can be worked out with: q = rP/k where r is the radius of the sun (7x10^8 m), P is the potential (10^6 V), and k is the electric constant (9x10^9 Vm/C)….

….. The field from this amount of charge would be about 6 V/m at the surface of the sun (E = kq/r^2)….

…..From which you can work out gravitational force on a proton by using the gravity at the surface of the sun (which is about) 274 m/s^2….

And the rest of the maths can be found on any website dealing with eletronics or advanced plasma physics. Is there something wrong with the well established formulae of electrical engineering and plasma physics?

[edit on 30-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Until you can calculate neutrino yields within the "electric star" model, you have no moral right to claim that it is somehow superior to the "standard model". Same applies to most of your bullet points.


Please, ellaborate on how this applies to my other points.

As for neutrino yields, I find that highly ironic considering that the main problem of the standard model over the last fifty years was the neutrino deficiency problem.

This isn't even a problem for the ES model, as the output of neutrino's created by magnetic confinement processes (or Z-pinch fusion) would be roughly the same as the neutrino's created by the current model.

The recent 'solution' offered by astronomers at SOHO to this problem is not even a solution. It is a perfect of example of Ad Hoc unproveable postulates.

I chose not to comment on that in my OP, but this issue has been largely dealt with by a selection of plasma cosmologists.

www.electric-cosmos.org...

The fusion reaction hypothesized by the standard solar model to be occurring inside the Sun’s core must emit a flood of electron neutrinos. Although the total observed neutrino flux (of all types of neutrino) may approximate the required level for electron neutrinos, a sufficient flux of these crucial electron neutrinos can only be inferred if it is shown that they (e-neutrinos) can ‘oscillate’ into different types of neutrinos (types which were not measured). The announcement made by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) that “the SNO detector has the capability to determine whether solar neutrinos are changing their type en route to Earth” is false on its face. There is no way that measurements made at only one end (here on Earth) of a transmission channel (that stretches from the Sun’s center to Earth) can reveal changes that occur farther up the channel (say, within the Sun itself, or near Mercury or Venus).

Consider a freight train that runs from New York to Chicago. We live in Chicago and are only able to observe the train as it arrives in Chicago. It pulls in with 4 freight cars, 2 tank cars, and 1 flat car. How is it possible, no matter how sophisticated our method of observation, for us to make any conclusions whatever about whether freight cars, tank cars, or flat cars have been added to or subtracted from the train at, say, Cleveland? Moreover, how is it possible to say that freight cars have turned into tank cars or flat cars along the route somewhere? The results of another more recent neutrino experiment, Fermilab’s MiniBooNE experiment, can best be summarized by the lab’s own statement, “When the MiniBooNE collaboration opened the box and ‘unblinded’ its data less than three weeks ago, the telltale oscillation signature was absent.” It does not state that any kinds of neutrinos were seen to ‘oscillate’ into any different type. At this writing (April 2007), therefore, the ‘missing neutrino’ question still remains very open


So it seems that the current model still has many problems with these neutrino's anyway, so i find your request for me to explain them with the ES model highly ironic.


I posted a fair amount of information in my OP, if you can find anything wrong with it then please post it and we can discuss it. Just coming up with Ad hominem generalizations adds nothing to the subject at hand, and I have to wonder if you even have any valid objections to this.

It is one of the ploys of pseudoskepticism to assert offhandedly that the proposed explanation violates some law of physics. To assert “all of known physics must be wrong” is a symptom of panic. This is your only answer to my statement of fact that 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. 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 magically changing neutrino's and 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, as i showed above with some of birkelands experiments.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Keep up the fantastic work ZeuZZ

Sometimes I think people are afraid of a paradigm shift in knowledge because it would invalidate everything we think we already know. That can be a scary thought. What I find scarier however is that people would rather close their minds to the possibilities rather than face a potential truth no matter how much they find it distasteful. Wisest is he who knows what he does not know.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 


You went to a great length to post a few formulas that would indicate that when you move from infinity towards a spherical charge sink, the current density is bound to increase. It really doesn't seem like anything revolutionary at all, and hardly explains anything exept for the glow of the corona (which in itself doesn't really need any new explanation). And, by the way, it would be more interesting to calculate the total current that is leaving the sun in the form of protons and incoming electrons. Where do the electrons are coming from? How can you explain one of the consequences of your "theory"which is the Sun must be continuously losing charge, hence running out of power?

And, for the third time:
What I really want to know is how your "theory" would explain the observed solar neutrino fluxes, which you claim to be a critical flaw in the standard model. After all, you had the guts to capitalize the word EVERY like in "every problem". So, I want calculations of the rate of fusion reaction and all sorts of yields (energy, neutrino etc). I would also like a quantitative exposition of item (7), among others, in your list:



(1) The solar neutrino problem,
(2) Structure of the solar interior (helioseismoloy),
(3) The solar magnetic field (dynamo, solar cycle, corona),
(4) Hydrodynamics of coronal loops, -
(5) MHD oscillations and waves (coronal seismology),
(6) The coronal heating problem,
(7) Self-organized criticality (from nanoflares to giant flares,
(8) Magnetic reconnection processes,
(9) Particle acceleration processes,
(10) Coronal mass ejections and coronal dimming



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 


And, by the way, it would be more interesting to calculate the total current that is leaving the sun in the form of protons and incoming electrons.


I can not put any definitve numbers on that, the differencial current observed recently on the suns surface is a start, but much more information needs to be collected to assertain the actual degree of electron drift. The electrons have been observed to be travelling towards the sun, but not much data is know yet as they were only discovered a month ago by the CE/SWEPAM suprathermal electron measurements. Once the numbers involved are in the public domain I'll beable to answer that with some definitive figures.

For a start though, we know that over 650,000 Amps enter the earth through the poles to create the aurora ( REf; science.nasa.gov...), so i would approximate that the Amperage incident on the sun is likely in the order of 10^8 Amps given the huge size difference between the two.



Where do the electrons are coming from?


From the surrounding stars, they emit a heck of a lot of particles, and we are just part of the circuit of particles that make up the galaxy. And there are a substancial amount of particles in the local molecular cloud. we are in now.

And i can just hear you saying "well there is no evidence of electrical currents in these molecular clouds", but thats not true at all.

Manifestations of electric currents in interstellar molecular clouds - IEEE transactions on plasma science.

Infact some astronomers have observed that the Interstellar medium currents produce their own current sheet;

Current Sheet Formation in the Interstellar Medium - Astrophysical Journal v.478, p.563



How can you explain one of the consequences of your "theory"which is the Sun must be continuously losing charge, hence running out of power?


You obviouosly have not understood the concept of what i am saying at all. The sun is not losing charge, its charge stays relatively constant as the amount of positive ions and negative ion travelling into and out of it on average will be the same. The fact that it has a net charge does not mean it is building up or losing charge, it reaches a state of equilibrium when it is at a certain voltage.



I would also like a quantitative exposition of item (7), among others, in your list:


I'll get back to you on that one, i have not looked much into the exact nature of Self-organized criticality of flares, but I highly expect that it can be resolved in terms of electric filaments and other electrical energy calculations.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
The sun is not losing charge, its charge stays relatively constant as the amount of positive ions and negative ion travelling into and out of it on average will be the same. The fact that it has a net charge does not mean it is building up or losing charge, it reaches a state of equilibrium when it is at a certain voltage.


Well, if it's not losing charge, than I don't see how the energy coming out of it can be of electrical nature. Charge a sphere, place it into a rarified plasma, and see what happens.

You can't have an equilibrium in which you have current flowing, without repleneshing the source.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
The sun is not losing charge, its charge stays relatively constant as the amount of positive ions and negative ion travelling into and out of it on average will be the same. The fact that it has a net charge does not mean it is building up or losing charge, it reaches a state of equilibrium when it is at a certain voltage.


Well, if it's not losing charge, than I don't see how the energy coming out of it can be of electrical nature. Charge a sphere, place it into a rarified plasma, and see what happens.

You can't have an equilibrium in which you have current flowing, without repleneshing the source.


I'm no physicist so please forgive me if I'm way off base here. But according to the electrical theory would not the sun be recieving energy from extra-solar sources, i.e the galactic center? So the sun would not necessarily be the engine of the solar system, deriving it's own power from a fuel source, but a single component in a larger, galctic (mabye even beyond?) circuit.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost
I'm no physicist so please forgive me if I'm way off base here. But according to the electrical theory would not the sun be recieving energy from extra-solar sources, i.e the galactic center? So the sun would not necessarily be the engine of the solar system, deriving it's own power from a fuel source, but a single component in a larger, galctic (mabye even beyond?) circuit.



Good thinking! It's good to remember, though, that motion of the current is defined by the configuration of the EM field, and in this particular case, by the potential allegedly existing on the Sun's surface.

It's plain inexplicable in the "electric star" model, that the charges flow from elsewhere INTO the star and then are emitted radially to the spatial points of lower potential (which would be Earth among other things). If the potential of the Sun is so high already, the alleged external charges would be flowing towards it at all.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I haven't read through all the replies posted here, so I don't know if this has been mentioned yet but coronal heating fits into the nuclear model now.

Alfvén waves are suspected to be at the origin of the heating, transporting vast amounts of energy to the sun's atmosphere.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost

I'm no physicist so please forgive me if I'm way off base here. But according to the electrical theory would not the sun be recieving energy from extra-solar sources, i.e the galactic center? So the sun would not necessarily be the engine of the solar system, deriving it's own power from a fuel source, but a single component in a larger, galctic (mabye even beyond?) circuit.


Yes, I would largely agree with that. It would not be recieving energy directly from the galactic centre, but that would no doubt be one of the things contributing to the general inflow of particles into the solar system. Expanding on the idea that magnetic fields lines can not be open, there should be a link between the sun and the centre of the galaxy via their magnetic poles, albeit a very small connection. In terms of energy being recieved directly from the centre, i dont know about that, it would likely be indirect and have travelled through many interplanetary circuits. Peratts work on galaxy formtion seems to back this up. www.plasma-universe.com...


Galaxy formation in the Plasma Universe is modeled as two adjacent interacting Birkeland filaments. The simulation produces a flat rotation curve (ie the galaxy appears to rotate as a solid disk), but no hypothetical invisible dark matter is needed, as required by the convention model of galaxy formation.

The simulations derive from the work of Winston H. Bostick who obtained similar results from interacting plasmoids.[1] [2]

In the early 1980s Anthony L. Peratt, a student of Alfvén's, used supercomputer facilities at Maxwell Laboratories and later at Los Alamos National Laboratory to simulate Alfvén and Fälthammar's concept of galaxies being formed by primordial clouds of plasma spinning in a magnetic filament.


The results speaks for themselves, they look nearly identical to the shape that galaxies take, and he included gravity as a variable in his models to keep other astronomers happy, but the electromagnetic forces were shown to far dominate the morphology they showed;





Most crucially this model does not rely on untested things such as 'dark matter' that are required to stop the gravitational galaxy models from springing apart. Dark matter has never been detected, yet astronomers assure us that most of the universe is made up of this strange stuff, purely because their gravitational equations do not work.

So these galaxy models again give more evidence that not just our sun, but galaxies, and likely the whole cosmos, are dominated by electro-magnetic connections and EM forces. Not gravity.

Heres some of the science papers about this galaxy formation that I find particularly interesting; (all peer reviewed)

On the evolution of interacting, magnetized, galactic plasmas

Quasars and Double Radio Galaxies

Peculiar Galaxies

Barred Spiral Galaxies

Experimental study of plasmoids

Possible Hydromagnetic Simulation of Cosmical Phenomena in the Laboratory


And so if the galaxies are dominated by EM forces in plasmas, it is likely that so too are solar systems, planets, stars, quasars, galactic clusters, nebulae and other things in space. Welcome to the Electric Universe!


Originally posted by koenw
I haven't read through all the replies posted here, so I don't know if this has been mentioned yet but coronal heating fits into the nuclear model now.

Alfvén waves are suspected to be at the origin of the heating, transporting vast amounts of energy to the sun's atmosphere.


Not really, the actual mechanism of how Alfven waves work is not really understood. They are far different now from what Alfven first proposed. People have tried to invent particles (alfvenons), tried to create new connection properties of magnets, and various other techniques, but none have been accepted as a definitive model. One possibility they have overlooked is heating due to the suns electric field and the increase in kinetic energy it would produce. My OP did address that, but you said that you hadnt read it all, so thats fair enough.

Heating of the Solar Corona by Dissipative Alfve´n Solitons - Swedish Institute of Space Physics, SE-751 21 Uppsala, Sweden


The electromagnetic energy driven by convective flows can be transported along the magnetic field as Poynting flux of Alfve´n waves. However, Alfve´n waves are disinclined to dissipate in collisionless plasmas, and the main problem was to explain how this energy flux is deposited locally to heat particles in the solar corona [5]. During the past 50 years there have been many attempts to solve this outstanding problem in astrophysics, and there are more than 20 different models and mechanisms for coronal heating proposed in the literature; see reviews [6–8].


Over twenty different models! they cant all be right.

So alfven waves have not solved it, they are one of the many possibilities, but they lack experimental evidence. Unlike electrical fields. The list of problems that i gave was written by a top solar astronomer in late 2007, so if it was solved he would definately know about it.

It appears that once again the one possibility that astronomy has overlooked is electrical fields in space. Next thing we know they'll have said coronal heating is caused by 'dark matter', and the fact that no-one has ever detected or found any dark matter, is actually proof that it must exist



[edit on 31-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
All this I already know.

If only scientists took "Ed Leedskalnin" more serious about his book "Magnetic Current". He too claims "magnetic force is the cosmic force", and "he learned the secrets of the pyramids".

Basically, electricity is only magnetic force. Alternating current through a oscilloscope looks like a wave. The UP is the North pole, and the DOWN is the South pole of the magnetic current AC wave. This explains why there is electromagnetism outside of electrical wires, because magnetism is flowing through the wires.

Once you find out it is true, you then see how all matter, all atoms, are held together with magnetic force. Once you learn the laws of magnetism, you will see we are all connected, and working together to form ONE giant magnetic force.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join