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

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Whoops...



While this research provides more clarity on coronal dynamics, McIntosh is keen to point out that Type II spicules probably don’t tell the whole coronal heating story.

NASA’s coronal physics heavyweight James Klimchuk agrees. “It is very nice work, but it is absolutely not the final story on the origin of hot coronal plasma,” he said.

“Based on some simple calculations I have done, spicules account for only a small fraction of the hot plasma.”
................

But it is most likely that it’s not one coronal heating mechanism, but a combination of the above and, perhaps, a mechanism we haven’t uncovered yet.



Can Spicules Explain the Mystery of Coronal Heating?

Perhaps this thread should go to the Hoax forum?
Just kidding, but you gotta admit it's doesn't live up to the title by a long shot.

And when we finally do add up enough mechanisms to account for the heat then we can move on to solving a few other little problems of standard solar physics.....

The solar magnetic field
Hydrodynamics of coronal loops
MHD oscillations and waves
Self-organized criticality (from nanoflares to giant flares)
Photosphere granulation
Magnetic reconnection processes
Particle acceleration processes
Coronal mass ejections and coronal dimming
Sunspot cycle
Star formation

To name a few.

I'd still argue that the neutrino problem is still also unresolved, but when large budgets ensue....

The fact of the matter is solar theory is built up of assumptions and the forcing observations into a assumed framework.

The thermo nuclear theory did not anticipate that the sun would dominated by magnetic fields (created by electric currents) large plasma flows (electric currents) and current sheets.
To say otherwise is a complete lie.

Perhaps if people read the above phrase without the inclusions in parenthesis they would agree, it's only when you mention electricity is when you get the psuedo skeptics screaming, for some reason they can't perceive it ouside of wires or lightning it seems.









edit on 3-3-2011 by squiz because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2011 by squiz because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-3-2011 by squiz because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
I'm not an expert on these things, but isn't the Sun's magnetic field created by the spinning core?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
I'm not an expert on these things, but isn't the Sun's magnetic field created by the spinning core?



How does the solar dynamo work?

Since there are no magnets or rotating wheels inside the Sun you probably wonder how the solar dynamo works. In order to understand how the Sun generates magnetic fields you have basically only need to remember two facts. Firstly, the convection zone consists of a plasma, i.e. a gas that contains electrically charged particles. Secondly, the plasma in the convection zone is continuously moving around. Since the plasma is moving, the charged particles are moving and we obtain electrical currents. However,electrical currents generate magnetic fields (Ampere's law), as we mentioned above. These magnetic fields in turn generate electric currents (Faraday's law) and therefore we obtain the following loop: electric current - magnetic field - electric current - magnetic field - electric current - magnetic field etc, etc. As long as this loop is not interrupted the Sun will always produce magnetic fields.


This is from the mainstream and NOT from EU or PC theorists. It's intended for the layman like myself.

Standard model solar dynamo problems....


Many aspects concerning the solar dynamo are not well understood even today. Here are just a few problems that scientists are working on at the moment:

1. It is still not totally clear where the solar dynamo is located. is it sitting in the convection zone or in the overshoot zone?
2. Does the alpha-effect work or does it not work. This is a very hotly debated question.
3. What causes the differential rotation of the Sun?


www.cora.nwra.com...

All mechanisms for what we see are hidden and undetectable according to the standard model.

The evidence for an externally powered sun is no flimsier than the evidence for a thermo nuclear explosion held in place by gravity.

They have no answer for the reverse temperature gradient, not only do they not have an answer for the heat of the corona they have no answer for why the corona should even be there in the first place!



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
We should not jump to conclusions too quicky about the observations of spicules on the sun. This does not disprove the electrical sun hypothesis. Consider this: A sphere is heated by an outside energy source. Energy from the source is flowing into the sphere. However, over time, the sphere heats up by a predictable application of thermodynamics, knowing the heat capacity of the sphere, the energy flux into the sphere, etc. Eventually, the outer surface of the sphere heats to a point so that its outer surface vaporizes and ejects hot materials outward, away from the sphere. Hmmm, does that mean the energy for this ejection originally came from within the sphere?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by examinedlife
We should not jump to conclusions too quicky about the observations of spicules on the sun. This does not disprove the electrical sun hypothesis.
A lot of other things disprove the electric sun hypothesis, we don't need spicules to disprove it.

Coronal heating was one thing EU theorists said mainstream physics couldn't explain, and now it can, at least partly. And the spicules are inconsistent with EU theory claims that say the coronal heating is a double layer acceleration which is unidirectional. The spicules are not unidirectional, they are loops, therefore not the same thing as EU proponents claimed.



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Something to think about. "The traditional view is that all heating happens higher up in the corona," says solar physicist Dean Pesnell, SDO's project scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "The suggestion in this paper is that cool gas is ejected from the sun's surface in spicules and gets heated on its way to the corona. This doesn't mean the old view has been completely overturned, but this is a strong suggestion that part of the spicule material gets heated to very high temperatures and provides some coronal heating." From www.nasa.gov...

Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids heat to flow from a colder region to a hotter region. This would violate entropy. Pesnell is correct when he suggest the cool gas "gets heated on its way to the corona." But that heat has to come from an energy reservoir higher in temperature than the temperature of the cooler gas that is ejected from the sun's surface. What has the higher temperature? It's not the sun's surface, but the surrounding corona. The spicules don't heat the corona, the corona heats the spicules.

What causes the ejection of the plasma spicules, radially outward from the sun's surface? Could it be an E-field?



posted on Apr, 14 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   

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.




Imagine where we would be now if we had spent even half the money we spent on the military in the last 50 years on space exploration and colonization instead..... Of course the Koreans, Vietnamese and the USSR would be in control....



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by examinedlife
Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids heat to flow from a colder region to a hotter region. This would violate entropy.
No, it's not a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you do a lab experiment with a cold region and a hot region, the heat will usually flow from the hotter region to the colder (not always as you suggest, but nearly always). But such a lab experiment is an oversimplification of the conditions around the sun. Missing are the electromagnetic fields.


What causes the ejection of the plasma spicules, radially outward from the sun's surface? Could it be an E-field?
Obviously research is ongoing and confirmed detailed explanations are lacking. But some things are apparent to me:

The sun's surface shows signs of convection.
We know the sun is plasma consisting of charged particles.
We know that moving charged particles (as in convection) create magnetic fields, and we see evidence of various sized magnetic fields around the sun from smaller shorter lived spicules and nanoflares to larger, longer-lived flares.
We also see that these magnetic structures are unstable owing to the nature of convection. And a changing magnetic field induces an electric field which I suspect has a lot to do with the charged plasma particles being accelerated to higher velocities and temperatures without violating the laws of thermodynamics, or any other laws. But more research is needed.


Originally posted by csgt428
Imagine where we would be now if we had spent even half the money we spent on the military in the last 50 years on space exploration and colonization instead..... Of course the Koreans, Vietnamese and the USSR would be in control....
Well at least space would be colonized by somebody, (perhaps the Soviets?) and Humans won't be made extinct by next giant asteroid. As it stands now, nobody is colonizing outside the Earth so we're vulnerable to extinction from a giant rock just like the dinosaurs.

It is sad to see how tiny the space exploration budget is compared to the military budget. Kind of off topic, but I'm just as guilty so I'm not being critical.


edit on 15-4-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Take two systems, system A and system B. System A is at temperature T1 and system B is at temperature T2. T1 < T2. Could there be a spontaneous transfer of heat energy Q from system A to system B?

delta S or change in entropy = Q/T2 - Q/T1. Since T1 < T2, delta S would be less than zero, which is forbidden by entropy. There would have to be a "mechanism" to "force" this heat transfer. When this mechanism-- a third system-- is included, the total entropy would be greater than or equal to zero. For example, an air conditioner that transfers heat from a colder environment to a hotter environment.

What direct evidence is there that stars are powered by nuclear fusion? It is an assumption, just as the electrical hypothesis is an assumption. Which of the two carry the most weight? I believe the one that has the most confirming, empirical evidence. The corona is a real conundrum for the nuclear fusion hypothesis, but is easly explained by electric cosmology.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by examinedlife
delta S or change in entropy = Q/T2 - Q/T1. Since T1 < T2, delta S would be less than zero, which is forbidden by entropy. There would have to be a "mechanism" to "force" this heat transfer.
There you go, you answered your own question about why it doesn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.

I just explained a likely mechanism that can cause charged particles to accelerate, an electric field resulting from a changing magnetic field.

And you fail to grasp that the electric sun model explains the coronal heating with a double layer explanation which causes a purely radial acceleration. These spicules are loops not consistent with radial acceleration.


Originally posted by examinedlife
What direct evidence is there that stars are powered by nuclear fusion?


I made a request in the OP, perhaps you didn't see it, so I'll repost it:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
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.


On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis
Scroll up and see the first part of that link about neutrinos. If you think some of that is wrong, quote the part you think is wrong and we can discuss it.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Neutrino-oscillations-- an interesting post-hoc patch-up job to salvage an existing model. With an unbounded imagination and lots and lots of esoteric mathematics, you can put a round peg in a square hole if you assume a round peg has "superposition of states" and can transform into a square object. Is this science? Or theoretical epicyclitis? Checkout the test results of the MiniBooNE project. No confirmation of neutrino oscillation here. (We should learn from history. Too much reliance on philosophic reasoning (the Aristolean way) and mathematics, disconnected from reality, can lead to very absurd results. Science should be based on 90 per cent empirical data, and 10 per cent on reasoning.)

Nuclear fusion on the surface of the sun. Impossible one might say, not enough kinetic energy and pressure to overcome the Coloumb force of repulsion of protons. Yes, but...the current state of cold fusion research has detected the by-products of fusion, for example the U.S. Navy in 2009 detected high-energy neutrons in cold fusion experiments. Cold fusion conferences held throughout the world are currently reporting hard-data that supports fusion is occuring at room temperature. These reports are coming from academics, educated scientists. What is one of the interesting common ingredient in this process? An ELECTRICAL CURRENT.

The solar wind is probably a complex process. We are dealing with plasmas, the 4th state of matter. Can Maxwell's kinetic gas theory and velocity distribution apply here? I don't think so because Maxwell's theories assumed an ideal gas with ideal gas particles which have no interaction with each other.

Someone needs to do a computer simulation of the following:

Take a fixed volume of space and fill it with a homogenous mixture of protons and electrons, same number of each. Apply an E-field going from the left side to the right side. The left side is positively charged, the right side is negatively charged. What would be the average "drift" velocity of this mixture of protons and electrons? Assume the temperature or kinetic energy of this mixture is high enough that the separate charges cannot recombine. Would the protons migrate to the right and the electrons to the left? Or will the fact that protons have a mass 2000 times that of an electron and a diameter 1000 times of an electron bias the overall direction that this plasma mass will take? Remember, even though the velocity of a proton may be a fraction of an electron's velocity, the proton's total momentum may still have order of magnitudes greater momentum than that of an electron. Would this greater inertia of the proton have an effect on the overall direction of both charges?

Haven't studied enough on spicules to comment on the paths they would take, predicted by electrical sun theorists or standard theorists.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by examinedlife
Neutrino-oscillations-- an interesting post-hoc patch-up job to salvage an existing model. With an unbounded imagination and lots and lots of esoteric mathematics, you can put a round peg in a square hole if you assume a round peg has "superposition of states" and can transform into a square object. Is this science? Or theoretical epicyclitis? Checkout the test results of the MiniBooNE project. No confirmation of neutrino oscillation here. (We should learn from history. Too much reliance on philosophic reasoning (the Aristolean way) and mathematics, disconnected from reality, can lead to very absurd results. Science should be based on 90 per cent empirical data, and 10 per cent on reasoning.)

Nuclear fusion on the surface of the sun. Impossible one might say, not enough kinetic energy and pressure to overcome the Coloumb force of repulsion of protons. Yes, but...the current state of cold fusion research has detected the by-products of fusion, for example the U.S. Navy in 2009 detected high-energy neutrons in cold fusion experiments. Cold fusion conferences held throughout the world are currently reporting hard-data that supports fusion is occuring at room temperature. These reports are coming from academics, educated scientists. What is one of the interesting common ingredient in this process? An ELECTRICAL CURRENT.

The solar wind is probably a complex process. We are dealing with plasmas, the 4th state of matter. Can Maxwell's kinetic gas theory and velocity distribution apply here? I don't think so because Maxwell's theories assumed an ideal gas with ideal gas particles which have no interaction with each other.

Someone needs to do a computer simulation of the following:

Take a fixed volume of space and fill it with a homogenous mixture of protons and electrons, same number of each. Apply an E-field going from the left side to the right side. The left side is positively charged, the right side is negatively charged. What would be the average "drift" velocity of this mixture of protons and electrons? Assume the temperature or kinetic energy of this mixture is high enough that the separate charges cannot recombine. Would the protons migrate to the right and the electrons to the left? Or will the fact that protons have a mass 2000 times that of an electron and a diameter 1000 times of an electron bias the overall direction that this plasma mass will take? Remember, even though the velocity of a proton may be a fraction of an electron's velocity, the proton's total momentum may still have order of magnitudes greater momentum than that of an electron. Would this greater inertia of the proton have an effect on the overall direction of both charges?

Haven't studied enough on spicules to comment on the paths they would take, predicted by electrical sun theorists or standard theorists.




I think there is relevance to this theory and that of electrical universe theories in general, electricity being a major force in the fabric and expansion of the universe.

I have posted this before and it may be on this thread already though this site covers the basics:
Electric Universe Theory



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by examinedlife
Checkout the test results of the MiniBooNE project. No confirmation of neutrino oscillation here.
There are plenty of results of oscillations from Miniboone, though the data is still being collected and still isn't fully understood:

New Physics Discovered by MiniBooNE?


MiniBooNE was conceived to test the results of that earlier Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector (LSND) experiment.

Back in 2004, MiniBooNe scientists presented results that seemed to contradict the LSND findings, but this time around, there are some striking similarities. Specifically, the experiment detected more oscillations than would be possible if, indeed, there were only three neutrino flavors. "These results imply that there are either new particles or forces we had not previously imagined," Byron Roe, one of the paper's co-authors, told PhysOrg.com. "The simplest explanation involves adding new neutrino-like particles, or sterile neutrinos."

What made the difference between these two runs? Well, the initial MiniBooNe experimental run used a muon neutrino beam, whereas the original LSND experiment used a muon antineutrino beam; this latest MiniBooNe experiment also used an antineutrino beam.

Frankly, it's weird that this should make a difference in the results, but it hints at the possibility of radically new physics, although scientists are reluctant to speculate as to what the link might be. That's probably because they really don't know yet and are waiting for a bit more data, but the prospect is certainly "IN-ter-esting," as Richard Feynman might say.



Originally posted by examinedlife
Nuclear fusion on the surface of the sun. Impossible one might say, not enough kinetic energy and pressure to overcome the Coloumb force of repulsion of protons. Yes, but...the current state of cold fusion research has detected the by-products of fusion, for example the U.S. Navy in 2009 detected high-energy neutrons in cold fusion experiments. Cold fusion conferences held throughout the world are currently reporting hard-data that supports fusion is occuring at room temperature.
Yes I'm familiar with the US Navy report of high energy neutrons, but this report is justifiably viewed with a great deal of skepticism in the scientific community. That doesn't mean it's false, but it means that further confirmations are needed and despite your claim it's been confirmed, I haven't seen that so you'll need to cite sources to support that argument. And if you're aware of the problem of the Coloumb force of repulsion of protons, what is it that makes you believe that the interior of the sun wouldn't contain the necessary temperatures and pressures, and that fusion isn't occurring in the sun's core? You seem to be admitting there are neutrinos which come from fusion and you admit the difficulties of fusion on the sun's surface. There is overwhelming evidence of hot fusion and almost no evidence of cold fusion and the one paper you mentioned about cold fusion is certainly questioned:

Cold Fusion

skeptics indicated that, to have their claims accepted by the scientific community, the authors have to make a quantitative analysis and they have to exclude other possible sources for those neutrons.


Take a hint from Juergen's mentor, Velikovsky.

www.velikovsky.info...
When Juergens wrote the electric sun theory he cited inspiration from Velikovsky:

The Electric Sun is often attributed to a 1972 article by Ralph Juergens,[1] who acknowledges priority to a 1958 Melvin Cook monograph, and inspiration from Immanuel Velikovsky's 1946 monograph, Cosmos Without Gravitation (though Velikovsky himself did not endorse it, see below)


www.velikovsky.info...

Alfred de Grazia reports that Velikovsky never accepted Juergens' theory, because the thermonuclear theory seemed sound to him.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   
I see no mentions anywhere of Don Scott's rebuttal of the OP's much touted critique of EU.

For those interested in the full picture, it can be found here:
www.electric-cosmos.org...



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Does nuclear fusion occur at the center of the sun? It's a legitimate question, posed during the last century. Man wants to always know the reasons, the causes of things. Its human nature. The sun gives off heat and light, and therefore, there must be an energy source. That energy source must be within the sun.

Right? First of all, I maintain before astrophysicists can intelligently explain solar dynamics or any cosmic event, they must first have a thorough understanding of plasma physics, based primarily on empirical data, not over-simplified mathematical models. And as far as I have seen, in the present time, 2011, the state of knowledge of plasma physics is still in its infancy. In its infancy. And yet, last century it was declared with dogmatic certainty that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion at its core. A little bit of premature conjecturing maybe?

Main stream science is in many cases ignorant of plasma's basic properties, and even those who specialize in plasma physics admit they don't understand everything about it. When I took physics in college, I never heard plasma discussed once in my classes. I wonder how much plasma physics is taught to graduate students in astronomy? They are certainly taught the general theory of relativity. (This is fine as long as they are not taught the abuses of this theory, which they are). There have been many empirical confirmations of its predictions. The results of Gravity Probe B strongly suggest that Lense-Thirring frame dragging occurs, for example. But what about the plasma dynamics of stars, galaxies, the solar system? How much is taught in these subjects? They need to know plasma physics because it is the stuff that stars and galaxies are made of and it is the cause of inescapable interactions between celestial bodies. Gravity alone is not sufficent to explain all astronomical phenomenon.

Its not surprising many scientists shy away from plasma physics because frankly, it's a difficult subject. Plasma dynamics does not easily, if not at all, yield itself to simple, mathematical equations. It can't. There are too many non-linear dynamics occuring, which means you cannot express what goes on in plasmas using exact, analytical differential equations. You have to use numerical approximations, which is within the domain of computer simulations. And the human mind does not like this. We like things reduced- reductionism-to simple, elegant mathematical symbols. It give us closure on our knowledge, or maybe closure on our ignorance. Even Paul Dirac was known to believe that one test of the validity of an equation was its simple elegance. We should learn from the wisdom of Hannes Alfven who said in his Noble lecture, concerning the elaborated theories of plasma:

" The reason for this is that several of the basic concepts on which the theories
are founded, are not applicable to the condition prevailing in cosmos. They
are generally accepted by most theoreticians, they are developed with the
most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself
which does not understand, how beautiful the theories are and absolutely
refuses to obey them."

Now this brings me back to the original question. Does nuclear fusion occur at the center of the sun? Any scientist who believes this must be prepared to give all of the effects of such an enormous continous energy release on the internal plasma structure of the sun. How could they do this, if science does not completely understand everything about plasmas? If the sun were made of solid material near the core, we could pretty much predict what the effect would be. This would be a simple undergraduate exercise. Lets see, the sun's core is made of a solid material. This means it would be subject to thermal expansion from the heat released. Being that the material would not be homogenous, but perhaps layers of different materials, the coefficient of expansion would be different, which means there would be a lot shear stresses put on the layer interfaces. Then you would have shock waves bouncing around due to the increase in kinetic energy of the fusion particles. This would result in hammering of the inner core, and longintudinal and transverse waves propagating throughout the sun. And horror of horrors, if this hammering settled at a resonant frequency with constructive interference of the waves. Knowing the bulk elastic properties, we could predict more strains and stresses from this. Eventually, we would have fatigue occuring in the materal, leading to cracks, and then catastrophic explosions. Blowouts from the surface. Mathematical 2008 Wall-Street quants, eating their power lunches with their buddies in open cafes, looking up at the sun and asking, what the heck was that?

Of course, the sun is not made of this classically, simple solid material. It's made of this 4th state of matter, plasma. Could we apply classical fluid dynamics in the analysis? I doubt it. I think the dynamics are going to be more complex.

So, if we are open minded investigators of truth, we should not dismiss alternative explanations for energy sources, if there is a lot of supporting empirical data. Take the temperature data of the sun. We know the temperature is hotter in the corona then at its surface. Draw concentric gaussian spherical surfaces, connecting approximately equal-temperature surfaces. Take these equal temperature surfaces out to the corona. Now take this set of scalar field surfaces and perform the del gradient operation on them. We end up with a gradient heat flux field, a vector field. Heat flux is a vector, equal to watts per square meter. The vectors point inward, toward the center of the sun. Heat energy is flowing toward the sun. What does the first law of thermodynamics tell us about this? The sun is not a closed system. It is an open system. Energy from the outside environment of the sun is flowing across an imaginary thermodynamic boundary that surrounds the sun, INTO the sun. This heat flux gradient never goes away, it never reaches an equilibrium temperature across all boundaries. This means the energy influx must be a continous, dynamic thing. To deny this is equivalent to taking the first law of thermodynamics and throwing it out the window. Better not do this if you want to keep getting funding for your project from the department of energy, tenure at your university, and respect among your academic peers.

And guess what. The sun emits x-rays. From where? The corona, not the surface, it ain't hot enough, but hot enough in the corona. X-rays are involved in the z-pinch effect in nuclear fusion, something they are trying to tame at MIT's tokamak. Is it possible that a z-pinch electrical-plasma fusion process is occuring somewhere on the outside of the sun, not its interior?



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
The Thunderbolts Project -

Symbols of an Alien Sky - Episode I

Symbols of an Alien Sky - Episode II

Electric Universe Theory

www.veetle.com...


Peace ..
edit on 31-5-2011 by Dalke07 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Could any person out there please tell me how you can have magnetic fields on or around the sun?. Heat destroys magnetism and electricity is better at low temperatures, you can create heat and magnetic fields with electricity , you can create electricity from magnetic fields, possibly heat from magnetic fields:puz
they were electromagnets) or is there a way to reverse the process and get electricity and magnetism from heat.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontlaughthink
Could any person out there please tell me how you can have magnetic fields on or around the sun?. Heat destroys magnetism and electricity is better at low temperatures, you can create heat and magnetic fields with electricity , you can create electricity from magnetic fields, possibly heat from magnetic fields:puz
they were electromagnets) or is there a way to reverse the process and get electricity and magnetism from heat.


The reason for magnetic fields on and around the sun is because plasma contains charged particles when it's moving it generates an electric current which creates the magnetic fields.

Heat is a measure of brownian particle movement, particles in an electric field have a more linear motion but could be interpreted as heat? Hmmm not sure about that. Likewise the convection on the surface defies the well known reynolds number by millions for there to be any structured granules from simple heat convection. This is another known but ignored problem with the nuclear core idea that has no answer. Electric fields provide the answer.

Only electric currents create magnetic fields, magnetic fields can induce electric current but only electric currents create magnetic fields. This is true even in a bar magnetic except on the subatomic level.

Magnetic fields cannot exist by themselves full stop. This is crucial and the underlying mistake of mainstream cosmologists.

Now I only understand the very, very basics of electricity and magnetism, but I fell into the very same trap that everyone here and all the critics still fall for, in particular with the electric sun model.

It's the electro magnetic field that delivers the energy and not the electrons working like little ping pong balls as the critics imagine it.

Here's a good place that helped me fix the misconceptions.

amasci.com...

BTW, Did I mention that spicules are Birkeland currents? Yes? Just thought it was worth mentioning again.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I studied electricity and magnetism extensively at the university so I have a decent understanding of them. I agree with most of what you said, with a few exceptions, as noted here:

Originally posted by squiz
Magnetic fields cannot exist by themselves full stop. This is crucial and the underlying mistake of mainstream cosmologists.
That's true about magnetic fields, but why do you say that's a mistake of mainstream cosmologists? Can you quote something from a mainstream cosmologist that highlights this mistake? I think they know this too, so I don't know what mistake you're referring to?



It's the electro magnetic field that delivers the energy and not the electrons working like little ping pong balls as the critics imagine it.
It probably helps to talk about a specific system when you say "delivers" since that could have an ambiguous meaning, but certainly at the location of Earth, the energy delivered from the sun is primarily electromagnetic radiation. There are some electrons in the solar wind, but I think the EM radiation is far greater, unless there's a CME from the sun which as the name implies, can involve "mass" coming from the sun.

But I have no idea what critics you are talking about. critics of what? And nobody I know of who understands science thinks of electrons as ping pong balls, so once again you'd have to provide some kind of reference or source for me to have the slightest idea what you're talking about here. Electrons occupy energy levels called "orbitals" and transitioning between orbitals allows electrons to absorb or radiate electromagnetic energy of an amount equal to the difference in the energy levels of the orbitals, is this what you're talking about? There's nothing like "ping pong balls" in that model, but there are wave functions.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
That's true about magnetic fields, but why do you say that's a mistake of mainstream cosmologists? Can you quote something from a mainstream cosmologist that highlights this mistake? I think they know this too, so I don't know what mistake you're referring to?


As I mentioned the concept of frozen in magnetic fields as well as the misconception of magnetic reconnection.
The frozen in idea was actually a theory from the father of plasma cosmology Hannes Alfven, he spent a good part of his career trying to overturn it, but alas dogma had taken hold. He tried to warn against it in his nobel prize speach, unfortunately it fell on deaf ears.

It was only a few short years ago that the mainstream said electric potential cannot exist arcross galactic distances, not so anymore. I'm sure you may deny this, but as a long time observer on this issue I can say with certainty that this is exactly the case.



But I have no idea what critics you are talking about. critics of what?


You'll have to forgive me, I got my psuedo skeptical threads mixed up. You can ignore the rant. In any case I'm refering to the vocal critics of the electric sun model who are highly educated but consistantly apply the wrong model for thier criticism. I've been following the debate for years and I can assure you that the misconceptions regarding electricity are partialy to blame, even at the upper educational level.



new topics

top topics



 
30
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join