Electric Universe Theory, RIP: New Discovery of Why Sun's Corona is Hot

The electric Universe (EU) model proposed by Don Scott and others, claims the sun is powered by something other than fusion, though nobody can explain what the power source is, or how it works, or why we can't observe it, so the theory was pretty much a dud even before this discovery. However, one valid claim that EU proponents made was that the "standard model" didn't have a good explanation about why the Sun's Corona was so hot. While that claim was true, it was hardly adequate justification to prefer the EU theory. Pretty much every claim about the electric universe model, except the claim about the Sun's corona temperature, is thoroughly debunked at this link:

On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis

Scott goes on to tell us that "The standard fusion model is completely incapable of explaining (let alone predicting) this behavior." [of the sun's hot corona], but fails to explain why. The specific mechanism for heating the corona indeed remains unknown. So, does that fact alone prove or imply that it will remain unknown forever?

The specific mechanism for heating the corona was unknown, but may now be known according to the latest research, which is why I started this thread, so I think we can now suggest that the specific mechanism for heating the corona will not remain unknown forever, we recently discovered it!

Previously Unseen Super-Hot Plasma Jets Heat the Sun’s Corona

The mystery of the Sun’s corona may finally be solved. For years researchers have known - and wondered why - the Sun’s outer atmosphere, or corona, is considerably hotter than its surface. But now, using the combined visual powers of NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory and Japan’s Hinode satellite, scientists have made direct observations of jets of plasma shooting off the Sun’s surface, heating the corona to millions of degrees. The existence of these small, narrow jets of plasma, called spicules has long been known, but they had never been directly studied before and were thought to be too cool to have any appreciable heating effect. But a good look with new “eyes” reveals a new kind of spicule that moves energy from the Sun’s interior to create its hot outer atmosphere.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/44473e33237e.jpg[/atsimg]

Multiwavelength extreme ultraviolet image of the Sun taken by the Solar Dynamics Observatory's Atmospheric Imaging Assembly. Colours represent different gas temperatures: ~800,000 Kelvin (blue), ~1.3 million K (green), and ~2 million K (red). New observations reveal jets of hot plasma propelled upwards from the region immediately above the Sun's surface. Image: Bart De Pontieu)

This is a good example of how ever better measuring instruments help answer mysteries in science!

We knew about spicules before, but we had no proof they could get this hot. But a new instrument launched in February 2010 helped provide the missing evidence:

Enter SDO and its Atmospheric Imaging Assembly instrument which launched in February 2010, along with NASA’s Focal Plane Package for the Solar Optical Telescope (SOT) on the Japanese Hinode satellite.

“The high spatial and temporal resolution of the newer instruments was crucial in revealing this previously hidden coronal mass supply,” said Scott McIntosh, a solar physicist at NCAR’s High Altitude Observatory. “Our observations reveal, for the first time, the one-to-one connection between plasma that is heated to millions of degrees kelvin and the spicules that insert this plasma into the corona.”

This is a noteworthy discovery, and now that it's been made, EU proponents can no longer claim that we have no explanation for why the Sun's Corona is so hot. Here is what the spicules look like:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/196ce8927705.jpg[/atsimg]
"Solar spicules as imaged by NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory. Credit: NASA"

I found this thread on the topic from 2009 before the new instrument was launched in 2010:

Why sun’s atmosphere is ‘so darned hot’

Small, sudden bursts of heat and energy, called nanoflares, are responsible for the million-degree temperature of the sun's tenuous atmosphere, a new study reveals.

That thread refers to a "model" and I'm not 100% sure if what that model called nanoflares are the same thing as what the actual observations refer to as "spicules", does anyone know if they refer to the same thing? It sort of looks like that might be the case and if so, we first modeled this phenomenon, then sent up a more sensitive instrument, and actually observed it! That's what science is all about!

Please note, I performed a search to see if anything about this January 6, 2011 article regarding the Sun's Corona had previously been posted. Most of the threads that came up in my search were about all the so-called "UFOs" seen in the Sun's corona by people that didn't bother to read the website explaining what those things really are, they're not UFOs. The number of these "UFOs around sun" type threads overwhelmed my search but I did manage to find several related threads mentioned below to prove I ran a search and they are relevant to this topic. So if I missed this being previously posted among all the UFO in corona" threads, I hope you understand why and we can close this thread if it's already been posted.

However I'm still not convinced we have all the answers because contrary to some of the claims in the EU threads which I quoted below, the sun is NOT simple when we examine the complex fields, the causes for solar flares and coronal mass ejections, and a number of other complex phenomena:

How the sun really works

Want to know how the sun really works? its probably not powered from its core if thats what you think, but attracts its energy remotely fromits local galactic environment, due to its capacitance and its resulting high voltage.

Nice try but the claim is the sun isn't powered by a fusion reaction, and no plausible alternative power source is ever provided.

New discoveries are confirming electric sun theories.

In the case of the solar system the Sun is the anode and the heliosphere acts as the cathode.

But what is the power source, if not fusion? Nobody can explain it.

Why the Lower Corona of the Sun Is Hotter Than the Photosphere,

Don Scott writes: "The chaos of Brownian motion produces the high temperature we see in the solar corona."

The physics of an electric solar model are so elegantly simple in concept and so utterly accurate in their descriptions that they make the standard model look like a sick joke by comparison.

The Sun is simple to understand.

No, the sun isn't simple, and Don Scott's theory has been debunked in the first link I posted. Look at the complex patterns formed by the newly imaged spicules, the patterns formed by sunspots, the complex magnetic fields in the sun:

The Resurgent Sun

During solar maximum, magnetic fields above the Sun's surface become impressively tangled, particularly near sunspots. Twisted magnetic fields -- stretched like taut rubber bands -- can snap back and explode, powering solar flares and coronal mass ejections.

Sunspots are the most visible sign of those complex magnetic fields -- but not the only one. Another sign is solar radio emissions, which come from hot gas trapped in magnetic loops. "The radio Sun is even brighter now than it was in 2000," says Hathaway. By the radio standard, this second peak is larger than the first.

Hathaway notes a widespread misconception that solar activity varies every 11 years "like a pure sinusoid." In fact, he says, solar activity is chaotic; there is more than one period.

Earth-directed solar explosions, for instance, tend to happen every 27 days -- the time it takes for sunspots to rotate once around the Sun. There is also an occasional 155-day cycle of solar flares. No one knows what causes it. And the double peaks of recent solar maxima are separated by approximately 18 months.

The source of all this variability is the turbulent Sun itself. The outermost third of our star -- the "convective zone" -- is boiling like hot water on a stove.

Observation tell is it's not simple, but complex, and while this discovery is an advancement in our knowledge, we still have a lot more to learn before we understand all the complexities about the sun. So if someone tells you the sun is simple, do some research on how complex the sun really is regarding the causes of sunspots, solar flares, etc, and you'll find it's not so simple.

Electric Universe theory, RIP.

Take that!

If you want to try to support the electric universe theory here, that's OK, however I ask that before you do so, you refer to the first link I posted debunking it, and pull some quotes from that link regarding the aspect of EU you want to discuss, and then explain to me why the quotes are wrong. The biggest thing I still don't understand about the electric universe theory, is what is supposed to be generating all the power the sun radiates, if not nuclear fusion. I've read Don Scott's "explanation", but he never really explains what's generating all the power, like nuclear fusion explains it: It's converting mass into energy according to the formula E=mc^2.

So when is Al Gore going to tell us we need a new tax to pay for plasma flares making the sun too hot, in turn creating global warming? I think we should throw cash at the sun to make it stop being so difficult.

Very nice information presentation here.

i'm not sure what your trying to say here, deny all you want, that link contains referances to currents, magnetics, and voltages a multitude of times.

the sun works from a combination of electrical pressure differences and conversion of charged particles nuclear or otherwise. since no one has firmly defined 'electricity' other than with maxwells equations proving an undying bond to magnetism, which most know from memory that the sun exhibits.

in laymans terms, pull the other one I'm not buying this semantic wordplay bs.

Originally posted by madscientistintraining
i'm not sure what your trying to say here, deny all you want, that link contains referances to currents, magnetics, and voltages a multitude of times.

Nobody is denying the multitude of electrical processes taking place, they are many and quite complex, and yes there is plasma which EU proponents like to mention.

Nuclear fusion in the standard model doesn't preclude the formation of the complex electromagnetic phenomena we observe, but it does provide a power source which electric universe theory lacks.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
So when is Al Gore going to tell us we need a new tax to pay for plasma flares making the sun too hot, in turn creating global warming? I think we should throw cash at the sun to make it stop being so difficult.

Very nice information presentation here.

Thanks for the feedback, I put some effort into the presentation so I'm glad someone noticed.

Over the next billion years or so, we think the sun is going to start getting so hot we won't be able to survive on the Earth, so at some point we need to start thinking about how we're going to get off this rock and colonize some other planets. If our descendants just stay here on Earth, eventually they'll be cooked by an ever hotter, and larger, sun. Not a very pleasant prospect, but it's something I think about every time someone says we can't afford to send a man to Mars. We have to start somewhere.

Here is one thread www.abovetopsecret.com... that involves an EU type theory which is based on meta fields, this is information about energy fields. The reading is a bit heavy at the start but gets a bit more user friendly further into it. As for the energy source, it is the galactic core. This is still a basic theory and there us heaps I do not understand and can not prove about it. If you have any evidence / ideas to prove / disprove or expand / questions I will try, but Xploder may be a better one to talk to about it.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
... but it does provide a power source which electric universe theory lacks.

What EU theories are you reading? From my understanding EU models say that stars are powered externally, by charged particles from outside it's solar system.
Is the observed phenomenon in your OP mutually exclusive to electric sun models, or is it really just an attempt at detracting from EU theory with somebody else's pet theory.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
So when is Al Gore going to tell us we need a new tax to pay for plasma flares making the sun too hot, in turn creating global warming? I think we should throw cash at the sun to make it stop being so difficult.

Very nice information presentation here.

Thanks for the feedback, I put some effort into the presentation so I'm glad someone noticed.

Over the next billion years or so, we think the sun is going to start getting so hot we won't be able to survive on the Earth, so at some point we need to start thinking about how we're going to get off this rock and colonize some other planets. If our descendants just stay here on Earth, eventually they'll be cooked by an ever hotter, and larger, sun. Not a very pleasant prospect, but it's something I think about every time someone says we can't afford to send a man to Mars. We have to start somewhere.

Have you looked into any data that states the planets are moving out away from the sun in a spiral pattern? It's difficult to measure but we are moving out further from the sun every year. Eventually Jupiter will grow and ignite, and it's moons will become it's planets, and so on and so forth. In a billion years we should be significantly farther from the sun than the current 93 million miles.

Very good. Nicely laid out and interesting presentation. Thanks for taking the time.

Originally posted by kwakakev
Here is one thread www.abovetopsecret.com... that involves an EU type theory which is based on meta fields, this is information about energy fields. If you have any evidence / ideas to prove / disprove or expand / questions I will try, but Xploder may be a better one to talk to about it.

I have an answer rather than a question. Xploder says:

when we look at the “surface” of the sun we “measure” 6000 degrees temperature and at the corona we see temperatures “estimated” from 1,000,000 degree to 2,000,000 degrees. there is a well understood relationship between pressure and density called the pressure density relationship. as temperature increases so proportionally does pressure, so would it be correct to assume that the density of the solar medium is increased as the temperature increases with distance from the surface of the sun to the suns carona?

The answer is, no, it would not be correct to assume that the density of the solar medium is increased as the temperature increases with distance from the surface of the sun to the suns corona. I think probably what has Xploder confused, is the statement "as temperature increases so proportionally does pressure" which would be correct if applied to a fixed amount of gas in a confined space, but this doesn't apply to the sun's corona. So he's taken a true statement and incorrectly applied it to a situation where it doesn't apply (Xploder does that a lot):

Gay-Lussac's Law

The pressure (or Gay-Lussac's) law was found by Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac in 1809. It states that the pressure exerted on a container's sides by an ideal gas is proportional to the absolute temperature of the gas. This follows from the kinetic theory—by increasing the temperature of the gas, the molecules' speeds increase meaning an increased amount of collisions with the container walls.

So you can see the law is true, but there's no container around the sun so it's not true around the sun. In fact the opposite of what Xploder says, is actually what happens. In general the inverse square law results in lower density as distance from the sun increases if you're going to try to apply gas laws as Xploder is trying to do. But the topic of this thread, the spicules, can apparently dominate over gas laws at distances close enough to the sun to be within the corona. And Xploder apparently didn't know about those, they are a new discovery.

Some of the highest temperatures in the millions of degrees are measured in some of the lowest density regions of space in the void between stars which can contain very high temperature, low density gas. what's odder still (to some people, but not to me) is that you would freeze to death if you were exposed to this temperature of millions of degrees. To warm you up, you not only have to have a high enough temperature of the molecules hitting you, but there have to be enough of them (adequate density) to have an effect. Interstallar Temperatures and densities
That table gives some examples of temperatures and densities in the Milky Way.

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
What EU theories are you reading? From my understanding EU models say that stars are powered externally, by charged particles from outside it's solar system.

You need to read that first link I posted and pull some quotes from that and tell me why you think they are wrong or why you disagree with them, it's all been explained but I'll try to clarify it if you don't understand it.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
In a billion years we should be significantly farther from the sun than the current 93 million miles.

You're right! The earth is moving away from the sun.

That creates the interesting paradox: even though the Earth is moving away from the sun, eventually the sun will actually get closer to the Earth. The reason is that the diameter of the sun will grow tremendously. I can't tell you exactly when the last drop of ocean water will finally boil away, but eventually it will happen. According to these researchers the sun will actually swallow up the Earth, but I'm not sure everyone agrees:

Will Earth Survive When the Sun Becomes a Red Giant?

But the habitable zone will be gone much sooner. Astronomers estimate that will expand past the Earth’s orbit in just a billion years. The heating Sun will evaporate the Earth’s oceans away, and then solar radiation will blast away the hydrogen from the water. The Earth will never have oceans again. It will eventually become molten again.

One interesting side benefit for the Solar System. Even though the Earth, at a mere 1.5 astronomical units, will no longer be within the Sun’s habitable zone, much of the Solar System will be. The new habitable zone will stretch from 49.4 AU to 71.4 AU, well into the Kuiper Belt. The formerly icy worlds will melt, and liquid water will be present beyond the orbit of Pluto. Perhaps Eris will be the new homeworld.

Back to the question… will the Earth survive?

According to Schroder and Smith, the answer is no. Even though the Earth could expand to an orbit 50% larger than today’s orbit, it won’t get the chance. The expanding Sun will engulf the Earth just before it reaches the tip of the red giant phase. And the Sun would still have another 0.25 AU and 500,000 years to grow.

Once inside the Sun’s atmosphere, the Earth will collide with particles of gas. Its orbit will decay, and it will spiral inward.

So we won't be able to live on Earth in a billion years, but we might be able to survive on some of the outer planets or their moons for a while. Eventually we'd have to find a new solar system though, or die out as a species.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The first link was last updated in 2001, and was set up as a counter to a specific EU theorist. How is it relevant to this recent observation? And again, does this observation in your OP prove the electric sun theory incorrect, or is it just a detraction based upon a theory?

Originally posted by PplVSNWO
The first link was last updated in 2001, and was set up as a counter to a specific EU theorist. How is it relevant to this recent observation? And again, does this observation in your OP prove the electric sun theory incorrect, or is it just a detraction based upon a theory?

It's relevant because the temperature of the Sun's corona was the one claim by EU proponents that the standard model couldn't explain, and that link admits there was no known explanation for the hot corona, until now that is.

That was literally the last straw for the EU claims because it was the ONLY EU claim I'm aware of the standard model couldn't explain. That link refutes all the other claims but the one about the sun's corona.

I'll bite.

www.spacedaily.com...

Of course, De Pontieu cautions that this does not yet solve the coronal heating mystery. The main result, he says, is that they're challenging theorists to incorporate the possibility that some coronal heating occurs at lower heights in the solar atmosphere

www.scientificamerican.com...

On a fundamental level, it remains unclear just how the spicule plasma is heated to its extreme temperatures, and the mechanism that produces the spicules in the first place is not easily described by existing models. "We don't really know how this works," De Pontieu acknowledges. "If we can figure out how these things form, then we'll have learned a lot about how the solar atmosphere works."

This finding:

1. Does nothing to explain the magnitude of the temperature discrepancy, which is a 1000 to 1 ratio temperature difference.

2. Does not explain why these spicules exist in the first place.

3. Can not account for the total observed discrepancy, only a portion of it.

Anode tufts are well explained in an electric solar model.

In fact there is no way for the standard model to disprove the electric sun theory, because the electric solar model can account for all visible observations of solar phenomena.

At best, the standard solar model could find ways to account for all observed solar phenomena in a way that does not violate the known laws of thermodynamics. However, this would still NOT disprove the electric solar model. All it would do is offer a more complex theory as an alternative.

In the end Occam's Razor still makes the EU theory of the sun superior to the standard model because it makes far fewer assumptions and can still account for all observations.

For links to various papers on the EU model of the sun, look here:
sites.google.com...

Originally posted by mnemeth1
This finding:

1. Does nothing to explain the magnitude of the temperature discrepancy, which is a 1000 to 1 ratio temperature difference.

2. Does not explain why these spicules exist in the first place.

3. Can not account for the total observed discrepancy, only a portion of it.

I'm not sure why De Pontieu didn't mention Klimchuk's model which does account for the temperature:

www.msnbc.msn.com...

To test their model, the team observed gas emissions in the solar corona using the NASA-funded X-Ray Telescope and Extreme Ultraviolet Imaging Spectrometer on Japan's Hinode spacecraft.

"The 10 million degree temperatures we detected in the corona can only be produced by the impulsive energy bursts," Klimchuk said.

The ultra-hot plasma cools very quickly, however, which explains why it is so faint and has been so difficult to detect until now.

So it has been modeled by Klimchuk. However I did admit that we still have things to learn about the sun so I am by no means claiming we have all the answers yet.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
In fact there is no way for the standard model to disprove the electric sun theory, because the electric solar model can account for all visible observations of solar phenomena.

The electric sun theory has failed to prove its own claims. It says there are current inflows into the sun to provide the 383,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts of energy the sun emits.

You cite a claim here that the current would be difficult to measure: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by mnemeth1
To quote Scott "Juergens’ model implies that the outer surface of the heliosphere is the collector of the necessary current stream from the nearby region of our galaxy. Inside the heliopause (within the "solar wind" plasma) the movement of electrons would consist of a "drift current" moving inward toward the Sun superimposed on a vastly stronger "Brownian (random) motion" and therefore be difficult to measure.

I'm sorry my friend but that just doesn't cut it. You can't say the foundation for the theory is a current inflow and then claim that the reason we can't measure it is because it's not measurable, especially when we are talking about a current that will yield 383,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts.

It's going to have to be measured before the scientific community will believe it. You can't seriously expect any rational scientist to believe that 383,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts of power is coming from a current that can't be measured.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Scott has responded to your bogus claims in the article I linked.

Of course, you didn't bother to read it.... why would you?

You are not interested in learning real science. If you were, you would actually take the time to look at the EU theory in detail before regurgitating old myths and straw men.

thanks for the post on plasma.

Something I was reading the other day about the Plasma universe, might be of interest
www.electric-cosmos.org...

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
thanks for the post on plasma.

Something I was reading the other day about the Plasma universe, might be of interest
www.electric-cosmos.org...

Thanks, that really brought a smile to my face.

I wasn't aware it's "highly likely" that meteor crater wasn't formed by a meteor but instead by electric arc machining:

Also, no evidence of the "meteor" that formed Arizona's "Meteor Crater" has ever been found. Were both these scars also formed by electric arc machining? It is highly likely.

Plasma is pretty cool stuff, I'm mesmerized by a good lightning show in a thunderstorm! And we've seen it knock down or split trees with its power. But why someone would think that an electric arc machining process just happened to create one meteor-impact like crater in the desert and nowhere else, doesn't make much sense to me. A meteor impact makes perfect sense because meteor impacts that large are quite rare.

Not only that but they also claim the grand canyon was formed by plasma, and the shape of meteor crater and the grand canyon are completely different. It basically makes no sense at all.

And lastly the author of that thread displays extreme ignorance about the evidence found at Meteor crater, also known as Barringer's crater:

Shocked quartz

Eugene Shoemaker showed that shocked quartz is also found inside craters created by meteor impact, such as the Barringer Crater.[1] The presence of shocked quartz proves that these craters were formed by an impact

So I think you can say the author's credibility is pretty suspect when making ignorant claims that fail to recognize the presence of shocked quartz at Meteor crater.

Here's the wiki on plasma, you might get more accurate information from here:

en.wikipedia.org...

I can't guarantee it's 100% accurate, but I can guarantee it's more accurate than a site claiming meteor crater was formed by "electric arc machining" with no meteor involved, like the link you posted.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Feeling a little threatened are we?

I'm tracking the people who view my refutation of Einstein on my blog and Knol article.

It's amazing to see how many hits I'm getting from Cambridge MA. I also see repeated hits coming from Oxford on Oxford University's network. And from other various universities and college networks around the world.

Repeated hits - they view those same articles over and over and over again.

Einstein is going down my man.

It's only a matter of time until the truth beats down the lies.