The Electric Sun - Criticism Destroyed

Originally posted by hawkiye
I understand the dipole moment just fine as I mentioned there is electrical current on a subatomic level already. So maybe you could explain how an electron is charged first? Nice try though...

You got it wrong for the third time already, so indeed there is no point in trying to get across.

Take an isolated electron (no atoms) and it will still exhibit the magnetic behavior. Look ma, no currents.

Originally posted by squiz

Oh really? I pointed out the completely idiotic nature of proposition that tau and mu neutrinos are produced on the surface, and your assertion that there is plenty of energy produced on the surface as well. So there.

You showed nothing of the sort. As we both know this is murky stuff, as was my main point to begin with.

There absolutely, 100% nothing murky about the thesis of tau neutrinos formed on the surface of the sun being a grandiose display of pompous ignorance.

a) What is the reaction that would produce such particle, in the conditions present ANYWHERE in the Sun?
b) How come the flux of these is large enough even when comparison to electron neutrinos, which are extremely copious due to fusion?

I don't expect answers, actually, because you don't know physics. But try anyhow.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Why not ask the experts?

To sum up, the electrical model of the Sun requires that neutrinos of all "flavours" are produced by heavy element nucleosynthesis in the photosphere of the Sun. It is far simpler than the nuclear fusion model whose major assumptions cannot be confirmed, either by visual inspection or certain "rogue" data. All of the obvious electrical discharge phenomena seen on and above the photosphere have analogs that can be seen on Earth and/or reproduced in electrical engineering laboratories.

www.holoscience.com...

What mechanism? really? go and do some research into theory, it's very obvious.

Also

Muon and Tau Neutrino Spectra from Solar Flare

Bam! Are we going to move the goal posts now?

Sorry BS, The neutrino problem is still a problem and only for the nuclear model. It's but one of the very crucial problems undermining the standard theory.

Still persisting with the childish insults I see. A physics guru who believes magnetism can exist without electric current. Ha that's rich.

Here is a video of someone making a plasma ball in their microwave oven with a grape. You can also do this with a carbon cloud from a just-extinguished match or candle.

You will notice that you can't see the microwaves or any other visible energy input. This should prove, in a very simple experiment, that the sun could be powered by external energy without giant visible ribbons connected to it.

The question of magnetic fields around planets is a strange one. All of the planets have a magnetic field except for Venus. The moon does not have an iron core and has no magnetic field. The current theory is that the moon was formed by something impacting Earth and blasting a chunk off, which became the moon. This piece would have come from the outer surface of the Earth and would not have had much iron, since most of it is in the center of the planet. I have not looked into the other planets' moons, though I know at least some do.

Mars does, in fact, have one measured at about 1/800th Earth's magnetic field.:
"September 18, 1997 - Scientists have confirmed the existence of a planet-wide magnetic field at Mars using an instrument on-board NASA's Mars Global Surveyor orbiter"

Why Venus does not have a magnetic field is still a mystery. There are a few theories out there that could explain it.

There are mysteries concerning the Mars or Venus, however, the EU theory is the best fit so far. I've read this whole thread and the holes and made up fixes, that are ludicrous are not following the basic mandate of science, to find the simplest solutions that work. Tesla and his car with that wire said it all. The corona being 300 times hotter than the surface of the sun. The universe is electro magnetic.

One of the things I noted in the arguments here where, the OP and others simply went forward and answered all the questions, quite clearly. The other side, used slight of hand, never addressing the flaws in the main theory, but trying to misdirect over to something else, always talking around the issues except for one, and I didn't agree with him.

Originally posted by squiz
Also

Muon and Tau Neutrino Spectra from Solar Flare

Bam! Are we going to move the goal posts now?

No, we aren't going to move the goal now, but instead we are going to conclude that you aren't capable of reading sources that you link to.

This paper is a theoretical "order of magnitude" estimate of what may happen if there are hard events (and rare at that) in the solar atmosphere producing mu neutrinos which then are theorized to undergo oscillation to result in some cases in appearance of tau neutrinos. So this doesn't prove anything for you on two levels:

a ) in the context of this paper the theoretical rare tau events are due to oscillations and not to direct production. If you read the paper (which you didn't) you would have realized that you shoot yourself in the foot as it has nothing to do with the EU argument and instead has everything to do with oscillations.

b) there is no continuous production of taus even according to this paper (which production is alleged by EU nuts). At the same time, SNO detects a steady flow of taus without relying on highly exotic and rare ultra-energetic solar flares.

It just doesn't work for you, pal, and it's telling that you weren't able to even understand that.

Originally posted by Snap
You will notice that you can't see the microwaves or any other visible energy input. This should prove, in a very simple experiment, that the sun could be powered by external energy without giant visible ribbons connected to it.

The Earth could be hollow inside and populated by flying spaghetti monsters. If it sounds ridiculous, so does your argument.

Instead of absent visible ribbons your postulate a humongous invisible microwave source, which in addition manages to cook the Sun without boiling your own brain (but hey, you never know).

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by hawkiye
I understand the dipole moment just fine as I mentioned there is electrical current on a subatomic level already. So maybe you could explain how an electron is charged first? Nice try though...

You got it wrong for the third time already, so indeed there is no point in trying to get across.

Take an isolated electron (no atoms) and it will still exhibit the magnetic behavior. Look ma, no currents.

You still haven't explained what an electron is charged with. There is a reason it is called an elect-ron. Perhaps you should take a course in basic electricity, pay particular attention to Coulomb's Law the actions of an electron fit the electric model perfectly and not the gravitational model. hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

the forces of electric attraction and repulsion of electric charges are so dominant over the other three fundamental forces that they can be considered to be negligible as determiners of atomic and molecular structure.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

In fact in light of the atomic world and it dependence on electromagnetic force that hold it together and comparing it to bodies macrocosm in space and thier similarities the electric model of the universe becomes even more clear.

Originally posted by john_bmth

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by john_bmth
Can you link me to some papers that have been peer-reviewed and published, then?

Nope sorry if you were truly interested you would have already found them. I am not posting anymore links in this thread as there is already a ton.You'll have to do your own research.

A google search turned up nothing other than the usual gump sites advocating such ideas. If the hypothesis has been developed into a theory then there would be a credible paper trail for all to see. Surely it would be easy to link me up to published papers that have been peer-reviewed, as it would make it a fairly open and shut case, no?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Sorry dude the neutrino problem is only a problem for the nuclear model, Go and read the holoscience link.

I do understand the oscillation principle. I'm only concerned with the observations and not the assumptions.
The simple point is all of the reactions even in the high energy events are happenning at the surface.

THERE REMAINS NO PROOF OF NUCLEAR REACTIONS AT THE CORE.

It's completely hypothetical that's why NASA completely reinvented it. Because the standard theory can not account for the observations.

Looks like we've come full circle with this. But if you think you've found a weak link based neutrino emmission, why not present it at thunderbolts. It would be a first, no one has ever used that angle basically because it is not even valid for the electric model.

More from the experts

So not only does the Sun need a hypothetical hot, high-density core to have any hope of generating thermonuclear energy, it now needs a hypothetical “critical-electron-density region” as well, to fudge the neutrino results. No doubt this will give rise to a flurry of theoretical activity using neutrinos to probe the imagined interior of the Sun....

But neutrino metamorphosis is not an “inescapable conclusion.” It is confirmatory bias with bells on! Conflicting evidence about the source region of the neutrinos is being ignored...

The electric star model suggests a simpler explanation of solar neutrino observations. The Sun produces all of the neutrino flavors on the surface in more complex nuclear reactions than mere heat and pressure allows. The nuclear reactions are ignited by the plasma pinch effect in the gigantic electrical discharges that cover the star and produce starlight. Ironically, it is the same phenomenon as that employed in some laboratories attempting to mimic the Sun's energy production! In this model, the connection between neutrino count, sunspot number and solar wind is expected, because the driver for them all is the same - galactic electrical power.

The second serious challenge to the standard solar model comes from solar oscillations. In the 1970’s, the Sun was unexpectedly found to ring like a bell. In 1976 Severny, Kotov & Tsap discovered a dominant 160-minute ringing mode of the Sun. They wrote, "The simplest interpretation is that we observed purely radial pulsations. The most striking fact is that the observed period is almost precisely... the value if the Sun were to be an homogeneous sphere. ... We have investigated two possible solutions to this dilemma. The first alternative is that nuclear... reactions are not responsible for energy generation in the Sun. Such a conclusion, although rather extravagant, is quite consistent with the observed absence of appreciable neutrino flux from the Sun, and with the observed abundance of Li and Be in the solar atmosphere."

What was that? A non nuclear core quite consistant with the observed absence of appreciable neutrino flux.

Originally posted by hawkiye
You still haven't explained what an electron is charged with. There is a reason it is called an elect-ron.

The reason is the Greek word which means "amber", substance that tends to display static electricity properties. Your point?

Perhaps you should take a course in basic electricity, pay particular attention to Coulomb's Law the actions of an electron fit the electric model perfectly and not the gravitational model. hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Thanks, but I took rather advanced courses in E&M and I didn't ask you about gravitational model but how you fit a current into a point-like particle (which is electron), -- that is, if you are still saying that all magnetic momenta are due to current. I still have no answer from you on the forth try, so maybe I should just give up.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Sorry dude the neutrino problem is only a problem for the nuclear model, Go and read the holoscience link.

I did a while ago and pointed out multiple times that the statement about taus produced in the outer layers (as they relate to SNO and other experiments) is false on many levels. It's a non starter, and "holoscience" doesn't even explain what mysterious reactions would produce a constant flow of tau neutrinos in their "model".

THERE REMAINS NO PROOF OF NUCLEAR REACTIONS AT THE CORE.

There is no proof that a proton contain three valence quarks because you can't just peek inside and see them with your eyes. However, the measurements we make are fully consistent with such theory. There is no proof that general relativity works at all, but if it didn't, your GPS would go bananas in a very short time without relevant corrections.

And there is no proof that a current is flowing into the Sun, expect such suggestion firmly contradicts many observables.

reply to post by buddhasystem

I still have no answer from you on the forth try, so maybe I should just give up.

Ah yes you did, but since you don't understand it and don't know what you are talking about you just continue to play your little game. Have fun I am done with you.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I still have no answer from you on the forth try, so maybe I should just give up.

Ah yes you did, but since you don't understand it and don't know what you are talking about you just continue to play your little game. Have fun I am done with you.

Right, you don't know what the magnetic moment of the electron is, I get this much.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Perhaps you should read it again, he explains the EU perspective on neutrinos and the flavours, it is not the same as standard particle physics.

There's a reason why tau neutrinos are thought not to be created in the sun. It's because they have to oscillate to account for the discprency. Otherwise it would be instant death for the nuclear model.

The sunspot and solar wind strength correlation proves that it is happening at the surface, this is also why you'll find efforts to deny the correlation. But alas it IS there.

There's no definitive quantifiable evidence only contradictions, it's the "inescapable conclusion". Well it's not inescapable, the other option that fits the nuetrino deficeit and the appearance of a homogeneous sphere in all observations is that there is no nuclear core. Not to mention the corona the structured photosphere, plasma torus, solar wind, and many more all of which fit the EU model and only cause problems for the standard model.

You attack one argument while ignoring every other bit of evidence that falsifies the theory, nothing, not a peep on any of the major problems.

You have the worst case of confirmatory bias syndrome I have ever seen. The ability to see only inside your belief structure and ignore every bit of evidence that proves otherwise.

Falsification is or was supposed to be a major part of the scientific method, not so much these days or the standard model would have died decades ago.

No one can deny with any honesty that solar theory has some serious shortcomings, as I mentioned it hasn't an answer for even the most basic of solar phenomena.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Perhaps you should read it again, he explains the EU perspective on neutrinos and the flavours, it is not the same as standard particle physics.

Oh that's just getting better! Instead of attacking just the standard solar model, we now need to discard all particle physics just to satisfy someone's fixation on electricity as the only ruling force in the Universe! Sheesh.

And there is no new particle theory suggested in lieu of what's being rejected. Just saying that modern particle physics is wrong in order to explain away experimental data which doesn't fit someone's bogus "theory" -- imho is a pretty pathetic move. Actually, I could equally say that there is a colony of flying spaghetti monsters inside the Sun who work at a tau neutrino factory.

There's a reason why tau neutrinos are thought not to be created in the sun. It's because they have to oscillate to account for the discprency. Otherwise it would be instant death for the nuclear model.

There is multiple evidence of neutrino oscillations outside of the physics of the Sun. They don't "have to oscillate". They simply do.

And a thousand times over... There is no external source of energy for the Sun. For one, you can't point one out.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Oh yes we know everything there is about neutrino's, mass or no mass? sterile nuetrinos? no, not mysteroius at all we worked it all out.

Oh and standard particle physics is absulotely 100% correct.

"confirmatory bias with bells on".

yeah I'm done with you too.

BTW all he is saying is that the flavours are mearly different quantum states of mass. Yeah that's really rewriting all of particle physics.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Oh yes we know everything there is about neutrino's, mass or no mass? sterile nuetrinos? no, not mysteroius at all

we worked it all out.

Reductio ad absurdum is a very old trick in demagoguery. You know full well that we are still learning about neutrinos and many other aspect of particle theory. Why clown around?

On the other hand, declaring that there MUST be a new branch in particle physics (without ANY specifics) that somehow conforms with EU is truly absurd.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I think most people are able to contrast and compare models.

1. the electric model is simple and explains everything.

2. the standard model has 2.5 million hypotheticals involved and explains nothing.

Therefore, most sane rational people would give the electric model the benefit of the doubt.

Of course, State funded astrophysicists are not "most people"; therefore, any expectation of rationality is ridiculous.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

I think most people are able to contrast and compare models.
1. the electric model is simple and explains everything.

Simplicity? Having an invisible and humongous energy source and declaring there must be some other type of particle physics is simple?

2. the standard model has 2.5 million hypotheticals involved and explains nothing.

Sorry but that's quite a daft thing to say.

If you don’t like it – go somewhere else! To another universe, where the rules are simpler – philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy. I can’t help it! OK! If I’m going to tell you honestly what the world looks like to human beings who have struggled as hard as they can to understand it, I can only tell you what it looks like.

And I cannot make it any simpler, I’m not going to do this, I’m not going to simplify it, and I’m not going to fake it. I’m not going to tell you it’s something like a ball bearing on a spring, it isn’t.

So I’m going to tell you what it really is like, and if you don’t like it, that’s too bad.