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

Excellent post... and a star..!! I would change the header which is I guess inflammatory for a reason. This does not kill Electric Universe theory or RIP.. There is obviously a combination of matter transforming to energy which gives off massive heat, causes fusion, and works together with electro magnetic pulses.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

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):

i wounder if you understand why the presure density relationship is important in my meta models
before you slander me or my thought experiments maby you could ask if something does not make sense to you
as part of the model the meta feild curves around on itself creating a pressure differential between the surface and corona

could you please point out where i have

he's taken a true statement and incorrectly applied it to a situation where it doesn't apply (Xploder does that a lot

as without other points to make you have just incorrectly unserstood (which happens) but your claim has me outraged!!!!!!!!!!

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.

i think if you read my thread you would see that the meta feild is the container it seams you have only skimmed the thread and not understood the theory and decided to slander without really understanding how it works
there is containment between the surface and corona in the meta model SO i have used the correct laws in the correct ways.and i understand the nature of the pressure density transition issiue you have pointed out but it is CLEARLY explained why the inverse is used in my thread.

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.

interesting information

thoughout you op you ask for ANY alternate model that could power the sun
when my model is offered up as a model with an alternate explination for what powers the sun you try to tear me personally to peices
and ignore the idea of what powers the sun in my model which is acually what you have asked for

i am happy to answer any and all questions you may have as i have done on other threads for you
i have nothing to hide from this conversation
and could explain a power source to supply the sun and why and how the corona is hotter under my model

PLEASE
ask questions of me before you are attacking me personally
as i am reasonable and will explain things to you as i have in the past

in conclusion
IMHO
these are not going to be able to explain the coronal temp fully
i think there is another process in action that acually produces the spire effect
any one who doubts the electric universe needs to watch the new NASA vids about it



please watch the full 1-7 for nasa on plasma cosmology
i think you might be surprized

THE UNIVERSE IS ELECTRIC lol

XPLodER

reply to post by Arbitrageur


I am just trying to understand this stuff, everyone has their own pieces of the puzzle. So what is heat? How I understand it on the atomic level, it is the distance or orbit that the electron sits in relation to the nucleolus. At 0 Kelvin the electron is a close to the nucleolus as it can get. From there the electron starts to make is way into higher and further orbits as it starts to heat up. On the molecule level this is represented by different energy states: solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Working with temperatures over 1M Kelvin is still new and may represent a different energy state that is still loosely defined as plasma, but has properties we are yet to fully quantify.

So what is going on with the corona? There is huge pressure within the sun, some reports say it can take a million years just for a photon to work its way out to the surface, I am not certain but possible. Once an atom makes its way out after all this pressure I can fully understand if it just wants to relax and let its electrons hang lose for a bit, giving it a high Kelvin reading. From the work I done with Exploder the impression was this was where the energy from the galactic core was starting to phase back in with the energy we are more perceptive with.

Something it causing this high Kelvin reading other than its party time. So what is it? From your argument I am understanding that it is attributable to the low pressure of outer space. From Exploders argument it is attributable to the reconsolidation of energy from the galactic core. The answer will be in the numbers and possibly a bit of both.

One question I have, does any know if the atoms released by the sun have their electrons in place? This could also be a reason for the high Kelvin reading as electrons are attracted and gradually work their way through the electron orbits to help stabilise the atoms. Just a thought.

So heating by plasma fillaments negates the electric model? a little desparate I think. And no where is it said to be confirmed ?

Juergons first proposed that solar spicules are actually the way that the Sun re-supplies its electrical potential and maintains its photospheric double layer. His suggestion stands, along with current observations. In fact it sounds exactly what the article describes.

The question of heat inside of electrical fields is misleading. Also it's a lot more than just coronal heating that is a problem for the standard model. The power source for the electric model is said to be the currents spiralling in through the galactic arms of the galaxy to the central plasmoid. It is indeed the most speculative part of the thoery as Don Scott admits.

My article on magnetic reconnection now appears as the second link in a Google search of "magnetic reconnection" - right behind the Wiki entry for it. My article ranks ahead of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory hahaha.

Just the other day I got three hits from the University of Wisconsin Madison on it, as well as several hits from the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Einstein is going DOWN!

It is impossible to stop the truth from getting out when the internet allows scientists to by-pass the "gatekeepers" of science.

reply to post by XPLodER


The full video of Donald Scott's NASA presentation can be found on my YouTube channel here:
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by mnemeth1


well done on your article
and thank you for the full video
NASA is now teaching its scientists about plasma space physics
and the topic is no longer a nono at NASA
thanks and you have done some VERY good research

xploder

reply to post by kwakakev


here is a diagram of how the energy is focused onto the sun from exterior sources



here is the diagram of the source




the op asked for one idea how the sun could be powered other than nuclear fission




this is a theory that mass is "ripped appart" by gravatational forces at the galactic center
and confined into "meta feilds" at the poles that "loop in elipticals" to the flat plane of the universe and are focused through the heliospherical lense to a point at the centre of the sun where the opposite "meta feilds"
are "shorted" together and the paticles are slamed together to create atoms
this is a breif explination but does show an alternate power source for the sun as asked for by the op

please note this is a basic model and only theory atm
in the theory it clearly explains the corona and surface interactions

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER
You asked a question, I answered it.

You don't have to like the answer, but there's no reason to get outraged.

If you were supporting a scientific theory, you would say I was wrong about the container assumption and you would cite the paper or source that supports your point of view. I don't always agree with mnemeth1, but this is what he does, and even if I don't always agree with his sources, I do read what they have to say.

If you don't have any sources, then perhaps ou should consider taking the same approach I do. If I come up with some of my own speculation, with no scientific sources to back me up, I am not outraged if people don't take me seriously, I understand perfectly why they wouldn't do that. Maybe you should try to understand that too. You can I can certainly post our own speculation here, but it's just that and not really science if there's no scientific proof or papers to back it up.

Originally posted by XPLodER

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I think probably what has Xploder confused, is the statement 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):

i wounder if you understand why the presure density relationship is important in my meta models
before you slander me or my thought experiments maby you could ask if something does not make sense to you
as part of the model the meta feild curves around on itself creating a pressure differential between the surface and corona

could you please point out where i have

he's taken a true statement and incorrectly applied it to a situation where it doesn't apply (Xploder does that a lot

as without other points to make you have just incorrectly unserstood (which happens) but your claim has me outraged!!!!!!!!!!

Instead of going on a rant, why not just cite the scientific proof that I'm wrong?
Where is the evidence that "as temperature increases so proportionally does pressure" outside of a container. I was taught that's what happens inside a container. If you have scientific evidence that's what happens outside a container, like gas laws, or research papers, then please post it.

Originally posted by kwakakev
One question I have, does any know if the atoms released by the sun have their electrons in place? This could also be a reason for the high Kelvin reading as electrons are attracted and gradually work their way through the electron orbits to help stabilise the atoms.

There's a lot of confusion about "electric universe". I claim the universe is electric. However I also claim that most if not all of the claims made by people promoting something called "electric universe" theory, are false. The most obvious of these false claims is that the sun is not powered by nuclear fusion, but instead powered by an unseen, unmeasured current that somehow manages to produce the 383,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts of energy the sun emits. But I don't deny that there's plasma and electric and magnetic fields in abundance. It's not a question of "Is the universe electric or isn't it?" You have to get into the details of each claim and look at the standard model evidence alongside the Electric Universe model evidence.

Regarding your question about whether the electrons are in place or not, the definition of "plasma" is that the electrons are NOT in place. Matter ejected from the sun as the Solar wind is mostly electrons and protons, components of hydrogen atoms, that have been separated from each other.

Solar wind

The solar wind is a stream of charged particles ejected from the upper atmosphere of the Sun. It mostly consists of electrons and protons with energies usually between 10 and 100 keV. The stream of particles varies in temperature and speed over time. These particles can escape the Sun's gravity because of their high kinetic energy and the high temperature of the corona.

I'm still reviewing the research on the nanoflares and spicules so I'm not sure if the composition of those is known or not, but I'd expect it to be similar, plasma consisting largely of protons and electrons, though I'm not sure about this because we've only recently discovered them.

It is not scientific to announce this as "the method" of coronal heating when even the authors admit it only accounts for a small percentage. It is also not scientific to have said claim stand as falsifiable evidence for any other theory for that matter..

It's also quite ironic to invoke birkeland currents as an attempt to debunk the theory. That is what the spicules are, birkeland currents the method by which the unviverse transmits electrical energy.

What mechanisms are causing the plasma to be accelerated? What mechanism forms the twisting magnetic fields? Only electric currents create magnetic fields. The spicules are what they appear to be, part of the circuitry needed to maintain the double layer. Accelating particles in the electric fields of the birkeand currents aka spicules to said temperatures, velocity.

There are electrons flowing into the sun, much to the suprise of convential theorists. I don't claim that the power is accounted for, but we must remember that we are dealing with not just the corona but the entire heliosphere where the process begins, and lets just say that it's pretty big. Scale is the problem in conceiving the power source I think. The sun is but a speck inside it's bubble of influence.
The Ibex data has shown us that that a band of neutral emmision particles lie perpendicular to the galactic magnetic field and the the galactic field may play a much bigger role if you catch my drift. As expected the sun is the focus point of the larger intergalactic currents. If there is a magnetic field then there i an underlying electric current creating it.

But as said, it is the most speculative and an easy target, however what is clear to me a least is that the solar wind is being accelerated inside the suns electric field, and all the interactions at the corona and the corona itself is expected under the conditions of electrified plasma and double layers.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


you are correct with the fact about pressure density relationship and the need for containment to achive the effect i had described
thing is the meta feild is a containment that effects the pressure density relationship and it acts like containing membrane (it gets complicated) but the meta feild is the form of containment
this theory is mine and not supported by mainstream reasurch

i will apologise for my rant
if you had understood the meta feild containment i wouldnt have to defend my position and theory
in any case

it is my opinion that the spires are only responcable for a small percentage of coronal heating

but im sure the scientists will confirm/negate their findings as the resurch continues
thanks for bringing this to our attension op

star for an interesting convo

xploder

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Actually before you go trying making fun of people for posting an info link, try using your own thinking faculties and don't presume whether or not I have an opinion on the content.

I briefly scanned the site on the link around 4am and put it on bookmarks to look at at a later date when not tired and have the free time.

I remembered it when again, having a quick read on ATS when couldn't sleep, seen a thread on plasma, though again with little time to spend reading all of the OP, I well meaningly recalled saving a link about plasma theory and posted it. Astrophysics, and more recently plasma, in particular, is of interest to me.

And before you start debating the contents again, I didn't read either of them yet in full, merely glanced!

In reply to a comment made by squiz,( only electric current makes magnetic fields ), i think that it is magnetic current makes electric current.
There is no electric current without magnetic current. Just my opinion.


Icanseeatoms.

Originally posted by Icanseeatoms
In reply to a comment made by squiz,( only electric current makes magnetic fields ), i think that it is magnetic current makes electric current.
There is no electric current without magnetic current. Just my opinion.

Magnetic current has been proposed by Ehrenhaft, mentioned in this 1944 Time article:

Magnetic Current?

Dr. Jacob E. Goldman, 23-year-old Westinghouse magnetism researcher, rose to remark that he had repeated Ehrenhaft's experiments, found only bubbles, no magnetic current.

Ehrenhaft claimed to have found magnetic current, but nobody replicated his results, did they?

The next year Ed Leedskalnin wrote his book called Magnetic current but I have to agree with Brian Dunning:

I've read his pamphlets on magnetism (they've available online) and to me they're quite childish

Sometimes people refer to "magnetic eddy currents" which are in fact not a magnetic current but a type of electrical current.

So I've never seen any evidence of magnetic currents but if you have any other than Leedskalnin's book, or unreplicated experiments, please post the evidence.

On the other hand, if what you meant to say was "There is no electric current without magnetic [s]current[/s]fields" I would agree with that.

The topic of this thread, the spicules, look like they are probably influenced strongly by magnetic fields based on the loopy shape which somewhat resembles the way iron filings line up in loopy shapes around a magnet.

Originally posted by squiz
It's also quite ironic to invoke birkeland currents as an attempt to debunk the theory. That is what the spicules are, birkeland currents the method by which the unviverse transmits electrical energy.

I thought Birkeland currents referred to the currents on Earth that Birkeland proposed. But if you want to call the spicules evidence of birkeland currents that's fine, they certainly appear similar in that they loop, but different in that the sun has many more complex magnetic fields than the Earth.

What mechanisms are causing the plasma to be accelerated? What mechanism forms the twisting magnetic fields? Only electric currents create magnetic fields. The spicules are what they appear to be, part of the circuitry needed to maintain the double layer.

This is critical.

Don Scott says it's the double layer that's doing the acceleration:
Why the Lower Corona of the Sun Is Hotter Than the Photosphere
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9d7f91e05f61.jpg[/atsimg]
This is describing a unidirectional acceleration away from the sun, and he says they are strictly electrical forces (which cannot be said about birkeland currents which are related to magnetic fields):

Strictly electric forces that occur within the double charge layer above the Sun’s surface cause the observed phenomenon.

The spicules, or what you call birkeland currents, are not unidirectionlly leaving the sun, they exit at one point and loop back around and return to the sun.

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

So it's not what Don Scott is describing, in fact he doesn't mention what you call "Birkeland currents" anywhere on that page explaining why he thinks the Sun's corona is so hot.

(I think it's written by Don Scott, it's got his name and bio at the end of the article)

reply to post by Arbitrageur


The looping mechanism is called a solar prominence circuit.

This described by Alfven and is an expected feature of an electrical model.

www.electric-cosmos.org...

scroll down to Prominences, Flares, and CME's

They all have the same cause and are all expected to be there.

Not only does the electric solar model expect them to be there, but they have a clear explanation why they exist, unlike the standard model.

Further, the electric solar model does not rely on ANY hypothetical forces in its explanations, such as the "solar dynamo" or "magnetic reconnection", which blatantly violate the known laws of physics.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I thought Birkeland currents referred to the currents on Earth that Birkeland proposed. But if you want to call the spicules evidence of birkeland currents that's fine, they certainly appear similar in that they loop, but different in that the sun has many more complex magnetic fields than the Earth.

Originally the term was used for auroral currents, but since it has been the term used to describe any electric current in a space plasma. More specifically field aligned currents. Anthony Peratt specifically mentions spicules as one of the examples of cosmic birkeland currents in one of his papers from the early nineties. So yes in plasma cosmology spicules are in fact birkeland currents

Don Scott says it's the double layer that's doing the acceleration:

This is describing a unidirectional acceleration away from the sun, and he says they are strictly electrical forces (which cannot be said about birkeland currents which are related to magnetic fields):

You have things a little confused, yes it is the double layer that's doing the acceleration, the most efficient method of accelerating charged particles is inside an electric field. The birkeland currents are the transfer mechanism that maintains the double layer. At least this is what was suggested by Juergons.

This may help. Spicules Complete the Circuit

The spicules, or what you call birkeland currents, are not unidirectionlly leaving the sun, they exit at one point and loop back around and return to the sun.

just like a circuit? birkeland currents are field aligned currents as mentioned that's pretty normal.

So it's not what Don Scott is describing, in fact he doesn't mention what you call "Birkeland currents" anywhere on that page explaining why he thinks the Sun's corona is so hot.

No he doesn't, he is merely explaining the properties of the double layer and electric field, the double layer accelerates the particles along birkeland currents. The key point is that it is the electrical field that is accelerating the particles, not sound waves, not any thermal or kinetic actions. No other mechanism can explain what we see so neatly. The solar wind is a dead give away, how do sound waves continue to accelerate the solar wind beyond the orbit of Earth? must be the same way the temperature gradient is all about face.

I dismissed the Electric Universe theory as soon as I came across the statement that the Sun is really a glow discharge.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Einstein is going DOWN! It is impossible to stop the truth from getting out when the internet allows scientists to by-pass the "gatekeepers" of science.

mnemeth1, the concepts are bit beyond my reach at the moment and so I remain undecided but I'll star and flag anyone that thinks outside of the box. I appreciate all of your contributions on ATS regarding the EU.

“It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.”
- Joseph Joubert