Electric star model now explains every problem facing solar space physics

Originally posted by Ionized
You have to understand the real process of scientific advancement throughout the centuries

I think you are mixing physics and antropology. When I'm curious about the scale of energy output in a particular model of the Sun, I couldn't care less about "centuries". Give me an estimate already.

There is a double-standard in cosmology where the status quo can have an incomplete theory, yet any alternate that comes along has to be complete BEFORE it gets any attention from the mainstream institutions.

Well nobody's asking for it to be complete but sure it has to cover basics as far as matching the observables goes, and it ain't happening!

My point is that there is plenty of quantitative study concerning plasma cosmology, electricity and magnetism as applied to astrophysics.

I'm sure there is plenty of studies of plasma in astrophysics, however you don't quote any results of those as they would relate to the "electric" theories.

Just because ZeuZZ doesn't feel like getting into a deeply quantitative fist fight, doesn't mean it is not possible to apply mathematical ideas along with qualitative philosophical backing.

Well he obviously can't do the quantitative analysis... And at the same time even qualitative one is quite iffy. Where is the supposed electron wind that blows towards the sun? How is the charge balance kept?

Your thinking that a theory is only as good as it's quantitative predictions makes me wonder if you are one of those mathematicians that thinks they are a physicist?

I am an experimentalist by background. And I hate emtpy talk. Look at grand statements like "EU explains every freaking problem"... One of the items is the neutrino rate. Well, if EU doesn't produce ANY number for that at all, how come you can say that it explains ANYTHING?

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I think you are mixing physics and antropology. When I'm curious about the scale of energy output in a particular model of the Sun, I couldn't care less about "centuries". Give me an estimate already.

You are entirely correct, I do mix anthropology with physics. My father was a great anthropologist and it rubbed off I guess. Gives a more holistic view of the process, and allows one to understand why the desire for an estimate of energy output even exists. I do see your point though, I didn't mean to say that there is no need for calculation, just that a good mix is necessary.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well nobody's asking for it to be complete but sure it has to cover basics as far as matching the observables goes, and it ain't happening!

Actually, after reading Alfven, you would better appreciate that the entire paradigm is founded upon the idea of empirical observables and experimentation being the basis of theory. He was successful as a Nobel prize winner because he formed theory around the experiment while his contemporaries effectively did the opposite. The only reason PC has made it this far is because of its solid foundation in observation. We wouldn't be talking about an 'electric sun' if the observational basis did not exist. Don't worry I have my reservations with some of the terminology as well, the 'electric sun' doesn't quite do justice to the full picture of complex phenomena that interacts in order to produce the process of a star.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I am an experimentalist by background. And I hate emtpy talk. Look at grand statements like "EU explains every freaking problem"... One of the items is the neutrino rate. Well, if EU doesn't produce ANY number for that at all, how come you can say that it explains ANYTHING?

Again, I too am an experimentalist at heart, and I also have problems with such a sweeping general statement as was made in the thread title. But seeing what I have seen in my years of study in this topic, just because there is not yet a certain quantitative prediction, this does not rule out the other qualitative and quantitative evidence that has led to this point. The same reasoning is applied all the time in the standard paradigm.

Just wanted to say something here. I have much respect for both sides of the argument. Both sides obviously have a great deal of knowledge in this field. Though my brain couldn't recognize either side as being right or wrong in the slightest honestly.

But is there a chance in the future that these theories can somehow compliment each other? Could there be some discovery that unites them and proves them both to be correct in some form or another? Or are they too contradictory to ever play on the same field?

It just seems, from my meager point of view, there is evidence that supports both sides of the fence. Like I said, I know nothing about this subject so I was just wondering.

Oh, one last thing. The only question I have about the ES theory is if it were true as the only explanation, don't you think more scientists would be more interested in exploring the truth (if that were the case) rather than sticking with the status quo? Would it not give whoever "found" this theory some type of higher status within the community? Why would scientists not want to pursue something like that? I know there are many subjects that can be questioned that do not get the attention it deserves, and maybe this is one of them, but it seems this one is one of those that can be validated or 'debunked' by the scientific community.

And thank you to the people who devote time into this type of research to try and answer those questions that all of us would like to know the answer to!

I have a degree in electrical engineering with a minor in physics and have taken a cursory look at the EU theory. All that I can say is that it is so full of holes that I wouldn't know where to dig in first (and so I won't). However, it is a general tactic to take a few "truths" like plasma and electrodynamics and twist them into an "across the board" explanation that attempts to fill in current gaps in the sciences. I am not sure what the motivation is in doing so (and could only venture a guess).

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Thanks for your suggestion. I would like to note, that the electric field cannot be directly observed either (you are not saying you see it, I hope), so please name it "unicorn" as well. It DOES NOT EXIST, according to you.

Funny that you said that.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Title:
Backstreaming Electrons Associated With Solar Electron Bursts
Authors:
Skoug, R. M.; Steinberg, J. T.; de Koning, C. A.; Gosling, J. T.; McComas, D. J.
Publication:
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2007, abstract #SH44C-02
Publication Date:
12/2007


Abstract
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. We examine the occurrence of backstreaming electrons and their relationship to other burst characteristics such as pitch angle width, duration, and energy range. We also investigate the time delay between burst onset and the appearance of backscattered electrons, including energy and pitch-angle dispersion. We examine the pitch angle distribution and energy dependence of backstreaming electrons, and consider possible origins of these electron distributions and their relationship to solar wind structure beyond the spacecraft.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
I am an experimentalist by background. And I hate emtpy talk. Look at grand statements like "EU explains every freaking problem"... One of the items is the neutrino rate. Well, if EU doesn't produce ANY number for that at all, how come you can say that it explains ANYTHING?

This has already been answered, many years ago.

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).

Check out the threads on the electric universe in the bad astronomy forums. They ripped the theory a new one...

Originally posted by rizla
Check out the threads on the electric universe in the bad astronomy forums. They ripped the theory a new one...

I have. They don't even address the EU theory, only the lack of published materials in mainstream journals.

Everyone reading this thread should watch these videos:

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

Originally posted by citizen smith
I've always believed in the concept of 'as above, so below' in terms of holistic views of science.

By this I mean that what we observe at the atomic scale with particle interactions and how they are bound together, such as how an electron is bound to its shell orbit around the nucleus and the flow of charge between the two that constitute an atom of an element [....]

Scale that up again and you have the earth with our single orbiting moon, bound in place by interactive charge-flows that keep it rotating in its orbit, just like an atom of Hydrogen and it's single electron orbiting the nucleus, which scaled up gives us the solar system with the sun as nucleus of the structure and its multiple charge-bound planetary orbits.

Now magnify that to a galactic-macro scale and you have our sun and other stars bound into an orbit around a similarly galaxy-scaled nucleus with the same kind of interactive charge-flow dynamic (much as you describe in your OP) as the atomic structure and you have an answer to how the system of the electric-stars may work.

A very insightful post, if you came up with that concept yourself, well done. I would Ignore buddhas responce, although his points are scientifically valid, he seems intent on picking out the very slight mistakes in your terminology without actually paying attention to what you are saying.

I got inspired by this thread altough I´m not much of a scientist myself. I find it intriguing, to say atleast, when someone is presenting such alternative theory to explain how our universe actually works. I´m not taking any sides in here because I feel dont have even 2 cents to add this debate in scientifical level but I find this excellent brain fodder to chew on. Maybe we have in future some kind of concontion of ES and present knowledge like often happens when new paradigm appears.

The actual inspiration for my reply was what "citizen smith" wrote about micro and macro level similarities. I have once reached that thought myself when I was pondering about universe in my deep thought during long night hours. Got this insane idea "what if we we are actually living inside matter, maybe theres even bigger universum around us and were only atoms to them". Ok I admit that was already pretty high flying thought but it has analogy to mr.smiths thought.

Now comes this brilliant ATS member ZeuZZ and backs up this theory by presenting that these ideas arent maybe totally out of this world. Then there was mention that anyway there are some serious problems to match micro and macro level together. One big problem was related to gravity which again someone with enough scientific understanding commented has not been solidly proved.

So as any decent ATS member I have to throw in this point some ufology in to the soup. Namely I happened to bump to this Bose-Einstein theory related to "antigravity" some time ago.
www.scansite.org...

This made me wondering even more crazy ideas about gravity or its non-existence. If "gravity" can be made artificially by arranging atoms in right position then maybe its analog also to macro level. In our solar system or lets say in even smaller scale earth and moon are arranged unified manned thus causing gravity. The needed electricity is there as it was said 650 000 amps runs through earth poles.

And to go even more crazy with this (if it possible) you could think that in some galaxies the things could be reversed creating thrust -force insted of "gravity". This idea comes from Ning Li´s statement that this antigravity device could create either pulling or pushing forces. Ning Li seems to call this "AC gravity".

So these were my thoughts what got lighted up from this great thread at 4 am here in distant corner of North Europe, Finland. I hope you had good laughs at reading this.

The Electric Universe

I thought this was a great book.

Great thread. I find this theory quiet facinating!!

So, if the Sun is net charged positive, then

1) by how much? What is the field distribution?
2) where did the missing electrons go?
3) What maintains the potential difference? What precludes equilibration?
4) what is the size of the effect and how much it should matter?
5) how does this invalidate, or not, all the rest of the known plasma physics we get from satellites and ground observations?

Let's start with planetary physics before we get to cosmology, mkay?

The solar neutrino 'problem' has been pretty decently confirmed by ground observations.

And neutrino oscillation has been experimentally demonstrated using neutrinos generated in a particle accelerator and detected at the Japanese neutrino detector 250 km away.


K2K is an international collaboration of physicists, organized to study the properties of the subatomic particles called neutrinos. A neutrino beam is generated at KEK, the Japanese National High Energy Accelerator Laboratory in Tsukuba, Japan, and directed through the Earth to the Super-Kamiokande underground neutrino detector, located about 250km away. Using data collected through February, 2004, K2K has observed 108 beam-induced neutrino interactions in Super-Kamiokande. In the absence of the phenomenon called neutrino oscillations, which implies that neutrinos have mass, the expected number of such events would be 150.9 (+11.6, -10.0) showing appearant deficit of the observed data. However, the K2K data are consistent with the oscillation effects previously reported by Super-Kamiokande, using data from naturally-produced (atmospheric) neutrinos. K2K also reported the first significant evidence for the energy dependence of the oscillation effect, which is an expected consequence of the oscillation phenomenon. Taking into account measurements of the beam obtained from "near" detectors on the KEK site, the probability that the observed data are consistent with the hypothesis of no oscillations (hence, massless neutrinos) is negligible (10-4).

So at present neutrino oscillations appear to be a pretty bold theoretical prediction, made decades ago, which turned out to be right.

The solar neutrino problem has been mostly solved after a long term experimental and theoretical effort.

Scale that up again and you have the earth with our single orbiting moon, bound in place by interactive charge-flows that keep it rotating in its orbit, just like an atom of Hydrogen and it's single electron orbiting the nucleus, which scaled up gives us the solar system with the sun as nucleus of the structure and its multiple charge-bound planetary orbits.

Except that's wrong.

The electron in a neutral hydrogen atom is in a ground state wavefunction (I guess closest thing an "orbit") which is entirely spherically symmetrical, completely unlike the actual orbits of planets, where there is clearly an axis and orbital angular momentum. And then orbitals of atoms (the word is misleading now) which DO have angular momentum also look nothing like orbits of large planetary masses.

The idea that atoms look like little planetary systems was romantic, oh back in 1850 when we didn't know squat about atoms, but it's completely wrong.

Charge probability densities in atomic quantum-mechanical regimes look nothing like planetary systems, nor should they since the effective equations of motion and regimes are unlike.

Here is some chemistry 101:

boomeria.org...

BTW, we now have things that measure these to some level, they're called scanning tunneling microscopes.

mbkennel,

Do electrons in an electron shell not remind you of planets around the sun?

en.wikipedia.org...

You can't tell us that it does not remind you of planets around a Sun. Because it reminds everyone about planets around a sun.



[edit on 1-2-2008 by ALLis0NE]

The problem here, is no one knows their science.

How easy is it to prove the Sun is electric?

Lets see, electricity in todays world is "electrons". Well what are electrons? They are subatomic particles with an "electric charge". When a subatomic particle has an electric charge it also has an electromagnetic field around it. Well, electromagnetic's would not exist without photons because photons are capable of holding every type of electromagnetic radiation known to man. The Sun is the primary source of all photons.Photons are the primary source of electromagnetics, and electromagnetics is what creates electrons, and electrons is what create electricity. so, it is already scientificly proven the the Sun is primary consisted of electromagnetic force.

Electric star.

Originally posted by whatsup
I have a degree in electrical engineering with a minor in physics and have taken a cursory look at the EU theory. All that I can say is that it is so full of holes that I wouldn't know where to dig in first (and so I won't). However, it is a general tactic to take a few "truths" like plasma and electrodynamics and twist them into an "across the board" explanation that attempts to fill in current gaps in the sciences. I am not sure what the motivation is in doing so (and could only venture a guess).

General qualitative stuff like this is sometimes disparagingly referred to as 'word salad'. And like the lowest of lo-cal salads, it contains no meat, and nothing substantive, scientifically speaking. If you have any actual basis for these "holes" then please post them.

Quite frankly i am getting tired of people saying there are holes in this model but consitently failing to come up with any substancial hole in the theory. Have you read Cosmic Plasma by Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven? Have you read the latest plasma cosmology material from the IEEE transactions on plasma science? If your not a member of the IEEE, this may be a good place to start familiarizing yourself with plasma astrophysics and how they apply to the cosmos. It is not crackpottery, it is highly established plasma physics, and since it has been shown that 99.999% of the universe is plasma, I suggest that you make more room for these plasma models and start treating them, and the scientists that study that field, with a bit more respect. Maybe you know more than them all, I would very much like to hear it.

It's seldom brought to anyone's attention, but plasma cosmology hasn't found a driver for their bus (so to speak).


I've put considerable thought into the nature by which electromagnetism flows. I can support EU with my approach. There is an overlay of vortices creating a web of electromagnetism on scales small to large:

www.abovetopsecret.com...






Have at!

[edit on 1-2-2008 by Americanist]

Originally posted by mbkennel
So, if the Sun is net charged positive, then

1) by how much? What is the field distribution?

The same as any other electrical field around a charged body, but with depressions at the poles, giveing a general toroidal shape. There is more than simple electrostatics going on here though.

Sun is the focus of a "coronal glow discharge" fed by galactic currents. To avoid misunderstanding of this concept, it is essential that we distinguish the complex, electrodynamic glow discharge model of the Sun from a simple electrostatic model that can be easily dismissed. Throughout most of the volume of a glow discharge the plasma is nearly neutral, with almost equal numbers of protons and electrons. In this view, the charge differential at the Earth’s distance from the Sun is smaller than our present ability to measure, perhaps only a few coulumbs per cubic centermetre. But the charge density is far higher closer to the Sun, and at the solar corona and surface the electric field is of sufficient strength to generate all of the energetic phenomena we observe.

Our closer looks at the Sun have revealed the pervasive influence of magnetic fields, which are the effect of electric currents. Sunspots, prominences, coronal mass ejections, and a host of other features require ever more complicated guesswork on behalf of the fusion model. This is the exact way an anode in a coronal glow discharge behaves.

In the electrical model, the Sun is the “anode” or positively charged body in the electrical exchange, while the "cathode" or negatively charged contributor is not a discrete object, but the invisible “virtual cathode” at the limit of the Sun’s coronal discharge. (Coronal discharges can sometimes be seen as a glow surrounding high-voltage transmission wires, where the wire discharges into the surrounding air). This virtual cathode lies far beyond the planets. In the lexicon of astronomy, this is the “heliopause.” In electrical terms, it is the cellular sheath or “double layer” separating the plasma cell that surrounds the Sun ("heliosphere”) from the enveloping galactic plasma.

According to the glow discharge model of the Sun, almost the entire voltage difference between the Sun and its galactic environment occurs across the thin boundary sheath of the heliopause. Inside the heliopause there is a weak but constant radial electrical field centered on the Sun. A weak electric field, immeasurable locally with today's instruments but cumulative across the vast volume of space within the heliosphere, is sufficient to power the solar discharge.

This paper looks at the possible charge that a star could contain On the global electrostatic charge of stars The Electric Universe model is based on electrodynamics. And not simply on Freshman Physics electrodynamics from a textbook but on the electrical behavior of plasma as observed in laboratories and by spacecraft. Understanding actual plasma behavior requires rejecting familiar presuppositions: Bodies immersed in plasma aren’t isolated; they are connected by circuits. They often aren’t at equilibrium; most astronomical bodies are radiating energy because they are in unstable conditions and are moving toward equilibrium.

Currents in plasma contract into linear filaments; and the force between filaments decreases linearly with distance, which makes it the most powerful long-range force in the universe. Plasma divides into cells that are separated by capacitor-like double layers ; and this ensures that plasma phenomena are characterized by conditions of non-isotropy, discontinuity and inhomogeneity.

Assumptions and deductions imported from the “already known” of gravitational theory will lead to confusion and absurdity. As astronomer Halton Arp said in another context;

Sometimes it’s better not to know one wrong thing than to know a hundred things that are right.”

The first step in understanding electricity in space is to set aside theories and to gain empirical familiarity with real plasma behavior. It is a step advocated by the father of plasma physics, Hannes Alfvén, in his 1970 Nobel Prize acceptance speech.

2) where did the missing electrons go?

No where. I'm sure you are aware that you can not just make particles vanish, they are transported into and out of the sun in the solar circuit.

3) What maintains the potential difference? What precludes equilibration?

This has been answered best by a handful of Russian astronomers, who seem much more open to this possibility than most western scientists are (ignoring plasma cosmologists)

www.ltn.lv...

The electric self-charging of this star is inevitable!

The electroneutral single star will blow off (evaporate) electronic constituent from its surface and accumulate a positive charge, endeavouring to more stable, positively charged condition. Approaching the necessary size of an electric field of a star (there will be the leveling of intensities of evaporations of electronic and proton constituents of a surface layer), the star will stop to accumulate a charge. The process of self-charging of the star condenser formed by positively charged central star and negatively charged environment will be finished.

The determining reasons of the star self-charging are the increased capacity of electrons to tunneling and the big quantity of the mass ratio of proton and electron at rest. The stabilization of a charge of a star is possible after it has created the locking (displacing) electric field, leveling intensities of the loss of electrons and protons.

The declared mechanism injects into the standard pattern of interactions in star systems in addition to gravitation also an electric constituet.

In other words, gravity itself is thought by most to retain the charge on the bodies.

5) how does this invalidate, or not, all the rest of the known plasma physics we get from satellites and ground observations?

It doesn't, it's highly consistant with it, and a lot of plasma physicists have recently started to pay attention to this idea of stars creating their own electric field.

ieeexplore.ieee.org...


[edit on 1-2-2008 by ZeuZZ]

Originally posted by Americanist
It's seldom brought to anyone's attention, but plasma cosmology hasn't found a driver for their bus (so to speak).

Or, as they say, nobody flies the plane.

I've put considerable thought into the nature by which electromagnetism flows.

Electromagnetism is a theory. It can't flow.

Originally posted by ZeuZZ

Originally posted by whatsup
I have a degree in electrical engineering with a minor in physics and have taken a cursory look at the EU theory. All that I can say is that it is so full of holes that I wouldn't know where to dig in first (and so I won't). However, it is a general tactic to take a few "truths" like plasma and electrodynamics and twist them into an "across the board" explanation that attempts to fill in current gaps in the sciences. I am not sure what the motivation is in doing so (and could only venture a guess).

General qualitative stuff like this is sometimes disparagingly referred to as 'word salad'. And like the lowest of lo-cal salads, it contains no meat, and nothing substantive, scientifically speaking. If you have any actual basis for these "holes" then please post them.

Quite frankly i am getting tired of people saying there are holes in this model but consitently failing to come up with any substancial hole in the theory. Have you read Cosmic Plasma by Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven? Have you read the latest plasma cosmology material from the IEEE transactions on plasma science? If your not a member of the IEEE, this may be a good place to start familiarizing yourself with plasma astrophysics and how they apply to the cosmos. It is not crackpottery, it is highly established plasma physics, and since it has been shown that 99.999% of the universe is plasma, I suggest that you make more room for these plasma models and start treating them, and the scientists that study that field, with a bit more respect. Maybe you know more than them all, I would very much like to hear it.

I have a Masters in Physics and it's this very topic that has reinvigorated my interest in it. I've actually gone back to my old textbooks and starting brushing up on E&M for fun. I left physics to go into the software development world because, well .. there is more money there Anyway, one strange idea I had when I was a student was the idea that gravity is just some sort of electro-magnetic force, that we just haven't figured out yet. Maybe it's strange to think that, but since my day job doesn't depend on it, I don't care

I've really enjoyed reading ZeuZZ's information on this topic. I've seen many threads like this where proponents will come in and bash the hell out of it. I can't help to think that these are people that have been studying the standard cosmology theory all their lives and are just afraid to find out that what they have been learning all this time is possibly wrong.

Anyway, keep posting ZeuZZ! And try not to spend too much time convincing people - it's a bit easier to just inform