Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

[Sparky]

someone that has come to your defense---------Evidently, this person is not aware of how a web page has multiple ways it can become higher on the list of results, including search query intent.

It was I, sparky!

You are correct. I don't know the ins and outs of search engines. But I can recognize fallacious arguments of distraction, and self-aggrandizing puffery.

And it was not to defend but to take objection to simplistic offensiveness.

At least CC has the ability to think, and not copy and paste others work, without thinking. Huff!

[CharlesChandler]

That is not the current line on black holes through the consensus science.

Noted.

Take note of my emphasis "while" before you attempt to defend yourself as to why it is acceptable to promote your own work here.

Good science encourages dissent, and the administrators of this forum therefore think that it's OK to promote alternative theories. For book-keeping purposes, it's better if alternative theories are not mixed with EU for/against debates, which is why I brought this debate over to the NIAMI forum.

You've been accused by other posters on this forum of avoiding and ignoring what they've posted in response to you, while at the same time taking on an air of arrogance that all we need do is ask you questions and all shall be revealed.

If I missed something, please re-post it. If it's just rhetoric, I'll ignore it again.

[CharlesChandler]

From the "New Sun Model / Capacitor" thread:

It seems to me that Charles' model is electrical, caused by gravity.

Then that's enough to throw the whole kit and kaboodle into the bin .... you got the horse on the Jockey there mate

The E force dominates by at least 39 orders of Magnitude ....

More specifically, I'm contending that there is a force feedback loop involving gravity and the electric force.

The initial compression of the plasma into a star occurs just because of the inward momentum. All other factors being the same, the plasma would just bounce off of itself. But if the matter is sufficiently compressed, electron degeneracy pressure (EDP) kicks in, and starts expelling electrons. And though gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces, it has an important property in this context: it is purely attractive. As a consequence, the pressure in the core is greater than anywhere else. The force is small compared to the hydrostatic pressure developed by the momentum of the imploding dusty plasma. But without gravity, the pressure would be evenly distributed. With gravity, the greater pressure in the core causes EDP to start there, expelling electrons. So the core becomes positively charged, and the expelled electrons form a negative double-layer around the core. Then, a positive double-layer can form around the outside, just on the basis of a charge induced by the negative layer. This produces a stable arrangement, so the minimum number of layers for a stable star is 3. (The Sun has 5, but that isn't relevant to the general star-building model here.)

Once these layers are set up, the electric force will be enormous, and this will further compact the matter. Interestingly, this will increase the density of the gravity field, which will increase the pressure in the core. As a consequence, the charge separation due to electron degeneracy pressure is enhanced. And thus it is a force feedback loop, and this answers the question of how an imploding dusty plasma doesn't just bounce off of itself -- rather, the plasma latches onto itself and forms a star. That takes some sort of force feedback loop, and that's what I just described.

So I realize that it's odd the hear somebody say that gravity is even worth mentioning in an electrical model, but in stars, because gravity is purely attractive, I believe that it plays an important role, even if it is extremely weak when compared to the electric force.

[Lloyd]

Solar Cycle. CC, thanks for clarifying the active and quiet phases of the solar cycle. Let's see if I can remember what you said. One phase lasts about 9 years and the other 2 years. It's the active phase that's 2 years and the quiet phase 9? I'll try to check again, if I get time.

I guess the magnetic field reversals is what confused me. Doesn't the Sun's magnetic field reverse polarity at the end of each 11 year cycle? So that would make a 22 year cycle in which the field is north on "top" for 11 years and then north on "bottom" for the next 11 years. Is this right? If so, how does it fit in with what you explained about the active and quiet phases caused by the Sun's differential rotation? (I hope the questions aren't approaching a capicitance limit, like they did with WT and DS.)

Solar System Charge Separations. You said you agree with Scott "that there are charge separations, inside the Sun, between the Sun and the heliosphere, and within the heliosphere itself." Did you mean in the second case "between the Sun and the heliopause" or "... heliosphere"? And how do you and Scott differ on these separations? And how is Scott wrong?

E-field. You said Scott said Q or E cannot be measured, but you think it can be, using the Stark and Zeeman effects on solar spectra. Can Brant help with that? Is your source seemingly close to getting an answer for determining the Sun's E-field? Do you know what value it should have to support your model and what value to support Scott's and Thornhill's? If so, you should tell us, so it would be a successful prediction for one or the other (or none?).

Galactic Current Requirements. What data would prove the Sun is powered at least in part by galactic currents? You've stated before that, if galactic currents powered the Sun, there should be very visible powerful electric arcs like those seen in plasma globes and maybe Tesla coils, but between the Sun and the heliopause. Can you put specific numbers on that? Like how wide would the arcs be and how long and maybe how bright etc?

I think Michael Mozina also stated before that such galactic currents should have very strong magnetic fields easily measured from somewhere, I guess here on Earth or on satellites somewhere. Do you agree? And if so, what would the minimum strength of such a magnetic field have to be and where would it be measured? Michael also said, if stars are merely loads on galactic circuits, like electric lights are loads on home electric circuits, the generators of the currents have to be somewhere. Does EU theory suggest any candidates, since they rule out stars as galactic current generators?

[Aristarchus]

Scott wrote:
1. The Sun is not an isolated point charge within a vacuum. It is a body that exists surrounded by a sea of plasma. So the application of classical (free-space) electrostatic analyses to the solar environment is inappropriate.

Yes, if the environment is charged, and/or if it has a non-vacuum permittivity, it changes the electrostatic calculations. I'm not sure that it all of a sudden becomes non-classical, but whatever.

Scott did not mention a change in electrostatic calculations. He specifically states that electrostatic analyses is inappropriate. Your model specifically states a focus on the electrostatic regarding the Sun and its charge. You're statement contradicts the positing made by Scott; therefore, you need to explain to the reader the changes in the electrostatic calculations.

In his model, he is right that DLs form, but these are temporary, with a lifespan that is a function of the resistance. A sustained DL requires either perfect resistance, or a sustained charge separation mechanism.

Let's except for the moment that these DLs are temporary, you're still left with a cyclical environment; therefore, you need to measure the metrics of that cycle. You and I might look at a rainbow and an identify particular colors, but each of those colors have an infinite set of shades - for each. If you state that the DLs are temporary, you cannot paint this in black & white terms, because you have to measure the degrees in between and its effect on its inter connectivity with galactic currents. You mention feed looping, but then I see your argument go back to what I perceive as reductionism. For me, each system in the equation has to be feeding upon the other, i.e., the process must provide a concatenation. There cannot be a dying out, because each component has to be dependent upon the other, but it becomes difficult to distinguish because we're so use to dealing with forms, just as the Greek Dorians' were in love with the physical form and did not progress into the 'function' of mathematics, even though they commenced with an understanding of it.

Oh well, I'm delving into the philosophy, but I think a great juncture at this point would be all those involved to give their definition of electricity. We'll pick up on this discussion later.

[CharlesChandler]

Doesn't the Sun's magnetic field reverse polarity at the end of each 11 year cycle? So that would make a 22 year cycle in which the field is north on "top" for 11 years and then north on "bottom" for the next 11 years. Is this right?

Yes.

If so, how does it fit in with what you explained about the active and quiet phases caused by the Sun's differential rotation?

The Sun is a dynamo, which generates a magnetic field as it rotates. This requires a charge separation, which my model incorporates, as charged double-layers. If all of the matter in the Sun was neutral, the rotation wouldn't generate a net magnetic field, since the fields from positive and negative charges would cancel each other out. But if there are charged double-layers, and if they rotate at different rates, the faster one generates the dominant field. So how could the polarity flip? The faster layer has to slow down, and the slower layer speeds up. So the charged double-layers take 11 year turns in generating the dominant field. This is called "torsional oscillation", which scientists have known about for some time, including the fact that it's tied to the solar cycle. But they can't connect the dots with the solar dynamo, because they have the Sun as totally quasi-neutral, meaning that they have no idea how the Sun generates a magnetic field in the first place, much less one that alternates.

My model goes on to explain how differential rotation helps toggle the polarity. The following diagram shows how the magnetic field changes through the cycle. In the "early active phase", a surge in the differential rotation generates a powerful field in the equatorial region that closes on itself locally, without involving the higher latitudes. This field still has the same polarity, but it splits the field in the mid-latitudes. That's where a field with an opposite polarity forms, to bridge the split. Then, as the width of the equatorial band shrinks in the "late active phase", its field gets smaller, and the bridging field takes up the slack. Once the bridging field has expanded to the point that there is more of that polarity than the other, it over-rides the other fields, and becomes the dominant field for the next 11 years.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/C ... ly_wbg.png

You said you agree with Scott "that there are charge separations, inside the Sun, between the Sun and the heliosphere, and within the heliosphere itself." Did you mean in the second case "between the Sun and the heliopause" or "... heliosphere"?

No, I meant "heliosphere". More specifically, the heliosphere within 10 AU. In my model, the heliopause is a different domain.

And how do you and Scott differ on these separations?

In my model, the Sun has 5 charged layers, of alternating sign. The core is positively charged; the radiative zone is negatively charged, and there is a PNP configuration in the convective zone. The Sun as a whole is net neutral, but for the discrepancies caused by CMEs, which affect a net loss of positive charge, driving an equal-but-opposite electron drift. Out in the heliosphere, in the first 10 AU, there is a net positive charge, which would only get fully neutralized if the Sun stopped producing CMEs. From 10 to 100 AU, the heliosphere is neutral, and without any electric currents. Lastly, the inside of the heliopause is positively charged, and the outside is negatively charged. This is because particles in the interstellar winds impinging on the heliosphere get their electrons stripped in collisions. But like I said, that's a different domain, because there is neither a field or a current associated with that charge separation in the vast space between 10 and 100 AU.

In Scott's model, the Sun simply has a net positive charge, and the heliopause has a net negative charge. Then, there is a steady flow of +ions out of the Sun toward the heliopause.

And how is Scott wrong?

1. In any electric field, electrons respond far more quickly than +ions, due to their smaller inertial forces. So if the field was like Scott says it is, the +ions wouldn't be flowing out of the Sun -- the electrons would be zipping in from the heliopause. But what we actually see is a steady stream of +ions and electrons away from the Sun, with the electrons moving faster than the +ions within the first 10 AU, and only quasi-neutral particles expanding past 10 AU.

2. Even in weak electric fields, if the resistance is slight, electrons can quickly get accelerated to relativistic velocities. When they do, they generate powerful magnetic fields that pinch the electron streams down into discrete discharge channels. Within these channels, collisions with any remaining +ions knock the ions out of the channels, leaving nothing at all to impede the flow of the electrons. Thus the discharge channels become near perfect conductors. As such, the electron streams will stay consolidated until they get to the anode. If this was how the Sun worked, we would expect for there to be a finite number of discrete discharge channels intersecting with the Sun's surface, like a plasma lamp. These would be impossible to miss, as they would be carrying all of the current. Yet we look in the vicinity of the Sun, and we see none of this.

3. In the excellent conductivity of the plasma, a sustained current requires an amp regulator, or all of the potential will get discharged in an instant. Yet Scott's DL model is unrealistic. He has the photosphere positively charged, and then, in the chromosphere, there is a double-layer, with the positive charge facing inward, and the negative charge facing outward. Repulsion between the inner aspect of that DL and the photosphere is what throttles the current -- only +ions capable of making it past that repulsion get to flow out into the heliosphere. But that begs unanswerable questions:

a) If the DL is exerting electrostatic force on the photosphere to regulate the current, then the photosphere is likewise exerting the exact same force on the DL. So what counters the force being exerted on the DL, to keep it in place? And don't answer that it's gravity, because gravity is no match for the electric force, if the two are pitted against each other.

b) DLs in plasma are temporary, and their life expectancy is a straight function of the resistance, which in the chromosphere will be slight. So what keeps the DLs from recombining?

c) If something did keep the DL organized, +ions escaping from the Sun, getting past the positive layer and then sliding down the potential gradient through the negative layer, would surely recombine with negative charges there. If so, recombination in the outer DL would be the source of the photons that we get from the Sun. In other words, the upper chromosphere would be the photosphere, not the photosphere. And that would be just wrong.

d) Positive ions recombining with electrons in the upper chromosphere would eliminate the charge in that layer, thus eliminating the DL amp regulator.

All in all, it isn't that there is something wrong with Scott's model. I can't find anything that's right about it. All of the structural members are either physically impossible, or the opposite from what is actually observed.

You said Scott said Q or E cannot be measured, but you think it can be, using the Stark and Zeeman effects on solar spectra. Can Brant help with that?

Last I heard, Brant was still working on his cometary flare-up model. With Siding Spring due for a Martian fly-by on the 19th of this month, I suppose he has his hands full with that. CosmicLettuce said that he would work up the webpages to support data analysis, and then Brant and/or myself will set up the hosting. This looks promising, but it will take some industrial strength physics, to make sure that we get it right. Both Brant and CosmicLettuce have more hands-on experience with that kind of thing, so I'll defer to them. But I can certainly use the results, because the strength of the E-field bears directly on my estimates of the power (watts = volts * amps). I'm currently using Alfven's estimate of 1.6 GV, but that was from 1941, and I never found a more recent estimate. Anything within an order of magnitude of that wouldn't blow up my numbers, considering the roughness of the other numbers, such as the mass of CMEs, the degree of ionization in CMEs, etc. Two orders of magnitude would be cause for concern.

I don't know where to even begin plugging numbers into Scott's model, since he has never stipulated anything like that.

What data would prove the Sun is powered at least in part by galactic currents? You've stated before that, if galactic currents powered the Sun, there should be very visible powerful electric arcs like those seen in plasma globes and maybe Tesla coils, but between the Sun and the heliopause. Can you put specific numbers on that? Like how wide would the arcs be and how long and maybe how bright etc?

If the Sun was powered by galactic currents, the discharge wouldn't be just from the Sun to the heliopause -- it would be from the Sun out into the interstellar medium, and beyond. To drive such a current, we'd have to be in an electric field, so I'd really expect just one incoming and one outgoing discharge channel. The Sun wouldn't be a sphere -- it would be a tube. Anyway, I don't know where to begin with something so unrealistic.

I think Michael Mozina also stated before that such galactic currents should have very strong magnetic fields easily measured from somewhere, I guess here on Earth or on satellites somewhere. Do you agree?

Yes -- aside from that big, bright tube across the daytime sky, there would be a magnetic field, which could be measured (e.g., by the synchrotron radiation). But nope, it isn't there.

Michael also said, if stars are merely loads on galactic circuits, like electric lights are loads on home electric circuits, the generators of the currents have to be somewhere.

The more fundamental question is what forces the current through the stars? A perfect vacuum is a perfect conductor, and galactic currents should go around stars, not through them, because the interstellar medium is a better vacuum than the heliosphere. But yes, for there to be a current with a load on it, there has to be a generator, and no, to my knowledge, the EU doesn't suggest any mechanisms for that. I think I heard that Thornhill's position on that is that it is unknowable. I'd accept that, except for the fact that none of the near-field observations are consistent with any sort of galactic through-put.

[CharlesChandler]

Yes, if the environment is charged, and/or if it has a non-vacuum permittivity, it changes the electrostatic calculations. I'm not sure that it all of a sudden becomes non-classical, but whatever.

Scott did not mention a change in electrostatic calculations. He specifically states that electrostatic analyses is inappropriate. Your model specifically states a focus on the electrostatic regarding the Sun and its charge. You're statement contradicts the positing made by Scott; therefore, you need to explain to the reader the changes in the electrostatic calculations.

Actually, I think that it's the other way around. The Sun as a charged sphere, surrounded by a charged atmosphere, is well within classical electrostatics. Forces can be calculated using a large number of point charges, or with formulas for space charges (i.e., distributed charges). And Scott's model itself does not go outside of classical electrostatics. He says that the Sun is positively charged, and that there is a DL in the chromosphere that regulates the current. With a breadboard, you can plug up a configuration like that in less than a minute. So Scott neither supports the statement that his configuration is non-classical, nor does it use it to support any later statement.

Let's except for the moment that these DLs are temporary, you're still left with a cyclical environment; therefore, you need to measure the metrics of that cycle. You and I might look at a rainbow and an identify particular colors, but each of those colors have an infinite set of shades - for each. If you state that the DLs are temporary, you cannot paint this in black & white terms, because you have to measure the degrees in between and its effect on its inter connectivity with galactic currents. You mention feed looping, but then I see your argument go back to what I perceive as reductionism. For me, each system in the equation has to be feeding upon the other, i.e., the process must provide a concatenation. There cannot be a dying out, because each component has to be dependent upon the other, but it becomes difficult to distinguish because we're so use to dealing with forms, just as the Greek Dorians' were in love with the physical form and did not progress into the 'function' of mathematics, even though they commenced with an understanding of it.

I can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Can you rephrase?

I'm saying that the lifespan of a DL is a function of the resistance. Sustained DLs require either infinite resistance, or a sustained charge separation mechanism that creates potential as fast as it gets discharged. If Scott's model incorporates a DL, he has to supply this.

Now, what were you saying?

Oh well, I'm delving into the philosophy, but I think a great juncture at this point would be all those involved to give their definition of electricity.

I go with the classical definitions. There are positive and negative charges. Like charges repel, while opposites attract. Either way, the force in question is known as the electric force. The rate at which charges move in response to the electric force is a function of the strength of the force, the inertia of the particles, the mean free path between collisions with other particles, and the time lost in each collision. The last two factors are known collectively as the resistance. Etc.

[jacmac]

Charles said:

My model goes on to explain how differential rotation helps toggle the polarity. The following diagram shows how the magnetic field changes through the cycle. In the "early active phase", a surge in the differential rotation generates a powerful field in the equatorial region that closes on itself locally, without involving the higher latitudes. This field still has the same polarity, but it splits the field in the mid-latitudes. That's where a field with an opposite polarity forms, to bridge the split. Then, as the width of the equatorial band shrinks in the "late active phase", its field gets smaller, and the bridging field takes up the slack. Once the bridging field has expanded to the point that there is more of that polarity than the other, it over-rides the other fields, and becomes the dominant field for the next 11 years.

That the differential rotation of the solar equatorial region is a variable event is new to me. Is there a link to more info about this please.

Thanks,
Jack

[CharlesChandler]

That the differential rotation of the solar equatorial region is a variable event is new to me. Is there a link to more info about this please.

Here ya go...

Torsional oscillations and other temporal variations in the solar rotation

For more links, you could look at the references on my site:

The Sun / Cycles

[Lloyd]

Charles, your explanations are helping my understanding of your model quite a bit.

EU Model History. CC (and others), do you know much of the history of the EU solar model? I first read Ralph Juergens' ideas on it in Talbott's Pensee' magazine around 1975 and (Warner Sizemore's?) Kronos magazine of the late 70s. Jueergens and Velikovsky both died a few months apart in about 1979. Juergens had a 2-part article in Pensee' called "Of the Moon and Mars", which is still available online at saturniancosmology.org, I think. I think he did an excellent job of arguing in there that the rilles on the Moon and elsewhere were carved out by electric discharges. He presented a persuasive diagram showing how well several theories explained numerous features of the rilles. Electric discharge clearly seemed to be the best explanation.

I don't remember the title of his article in Kronos, but it had to do with explaining the features of the Sun by electric discharge as well. He said why does the Sun have a distinct surface? Why doesn't it gradually diminish, like planetary atmospheres do? I think he introduced double layers (DLs) of positive and negative charge as the explanation. He also talked about anode tufts in discharge tubes as resembling the granules of the Sun's photosphere. Charles, you seem to be familiar with that or a similar paper by Juergens, aren't you? Another statement he made may have been in the Pensee' article regarding a vacuum being the best insulator.

Do you know the history of the EU model well enough to see where the EU model went off-track? Was it mainly in assuming that the vacuum of space is an insulator? Did Juergens think DLs are more self-sustaining than they actually are? Your model involves Debye cells in the early stage of star formation. Those are DLs, aren't they? And aren't Debye cells self-sustaining or persistent? So how was Juergens wrong, if he said almost the same as you regarding DLs? When Juergens compared the Sun's photosphere to anode tufts, is that where the EU camp went off-track? You and the other independents say the Sun is a cathode. Is it a cathode all the time, or just under certain circumstances? Like during the active or quiet phase? Is it ever an anode? If so, when? Or is it sometimes neutral? Or would there be no solar wind if it were neutral?

Solar Wind. Do you know what happens to the solar wind after 10 AU? Do the two charges slow down? Do they recombine? Do they become hydrogen atoms? Do spectra show anything out there? Or is there too much static to see? And how are the outer planets affected differently than the inner ones, if the former aren't in the heliospheric current sheet? Does the EU model require that the current sheet go the remaining 90 AU to reach the heliopause?

Models Comparison. Do you have a list of the Sun's features and which features your model explains and which ones the EU model explain? Do both models explain the acceleration of the seismic waves on the photosphere?

[CharlesChandler]

Juergens and Velikovsky both died a few months apart in about 1979.

They died two weeks apart, Juergens on 1979-11-02 (age: 55), and Velikovsky on 1979-11-17 (age: 84).

[Juergens asked] why does the Sun have a distinct surface? Why doesn't it gradually diminish, like planetary atmospheres do?

Excellent questions! I follow Juergens letter-for-letter on this point -- the Sun's density gradient is clear proof of forces other than gravity and hydrostatic pressure, which can only be EM. And it can't just be one charge, because then the Coulomb force would cause the density to thin out even more. So it has to be at least two charged layers, being pulled forcefully together, to get a distinct limb.

Do you know the history of the EU model well enough to see where the EU model went off-track? Was it mainly in assuming that the vacuum of space is an insulator?

I haven't done a step-by-step chronological analysis, but yes, I consider this to be a major error from early on, with vast implications for EU theory. It wasn't Juergens' fault, because half of the EE community seems to think that vacuums are perfect insulators. In my study of EM in tornadoes, I had to work all of the way through this issue, because tornadoes have major pressure deficits, and I needed to know what that did to the conductivity. I eventually tracked it all of the way down to the sub-atomic formulas, as provided by GSU. Vacuums are, in fact, perfect conductors. The drift speed is a straight function of the strength of the electric field, the charged particle's inertia, the mean free path, and the time lost to particle collisions. In a perfect vacuum, there are no particle collisions, so the drift speed is just a function of the E-field and the inertia, hence perfect conductivity.

The implication for EU theory is that if a vacuum is a perfect insulator, (hypothesized) galactic currents need extension cords to follow, and these cords will lead through aggregates of matter, such as stars. But if a vacuum is a perfect conductor, such currents would avoid such aggregates, preferring the more vacuous interstellar medium, and leaving galactic currents unqualified as the source of stellar power. After reading The Electric Universe and The Electric Sky, I bought into the whole EM paradigm, but on closer scrutiny, I just couldn't go along with the galactic current thing, and started searching for other ways in which EM could do the job.

Did Juergens think DLs are more self-sustaining than they actually are?

If Juergens was using DLs as described by Alfven and Langmuir, he should have expected very weak charge separations, and/or for very short periods of time. This is why I started looking for a more powerful charge separation mechanism. The Pannekoek-Rossland field also seemed insufficient. Further research turned up electron degeneracy pressure, which is very poorly understood, but which has all of the right characteristics to be the charge separation mechanism inside the Sun (and the Earth too, for that matter).

And yes, Debye cells are double-layers, but they are typically very weakly charged. These are the kinds of things that caused Langmuir to use the term "plasma" to refer to assemblies organized by the electric force, but which do not react electrically with their environment, like the plasma cells in our bloodstreams, which wrap themselves around antigens, neutralizing their effect on the rest of the body. With this as the fundamental precept, mainstream astronomy was predisposed to think that the electric force isn't a factor in the collapse of dusty plasmas into stars, so they stuck with their Newtonian model. It appears that I was the first one to realize that a cloud collision will strip the Debye sheaths off of the dust particles, radically changing the electrical configuration, and resulting in a huge body force, easily capable of causing the collapse of the dusty plasma into a star.

But Langmuir-style DLs are insufficient to explain the density gradient in the Sun -- the charge separation has to be far more robust.

You and the other independents say the Sun is a cathode. Is it a cathode all the time, or just under certain circumstances? Like during the active or quiet phase? Is it ever an anode? If so, when? Or is it sometimes neutral? Or would there be no solar wind if it were neutral?

If the Sun was ever neutral, it would go dark! So yes, it's always a cathode (IMO).

Do you know what happens to the solar wind after 10 AU?

The solar wind continues to expand past 10 AU, but the +ions and electrons are both traveling at the same speed, so there isn't any current. So yes, we could say that all of the charges have recombined, but not in such great numbers that it produces visible radiation.

And how are the outer planets affected differently than the inner ones, if the former aren't in the heliospheric current sheet?

The planets within 10 AU, and which have strong magnetic fields, have more powerful auroras.

Does the EU model require that the current sheet go the remaining 90 AU to reach the heliopause?

I don't recall EU proponents talking about the heliospheric current sheet. So they require a current, but have no use for the one that we know about. (?) I "think" that this is because little was known about the HCS when the EU building blocks were being laid. But IMO, people talking about solar currents have to assimilate the HCS data into their models, or stop talking about solar currents.

Do you have a list of the Sun's features and which features your model explains and which ones the EU model explain?

I used to maintain a table with one row per solar observation, and one column per model that explained it. But the table got overloaded as I added more and more observations and models. So now I maintain a hierarchical list that by its nature can handle an unlimited amount of material, not limited to what can be represented in a rectangular array. One of the sections looks like this:

• QDL / Topics / Science / Astronomy / Stellar/Solar Models / Stellar Energy Sources
  • Discussions
  • Observations
  • Hypotheses
    • Standard: Fusion in the core by gravitational pressure, releasing heat.
    • Birkeland: Internal electromagnet, releasing heat, electrons and protons.
    • Thornhill: galactic electric currents thru stars lights them up.
    • Scott: excess positive charges exit the Sun, causing ohmic heating.
    • Callahan: Aether from galactic center forming and releasing electrons in hollow solid iron globe.
    • Mozina: Neutron decay releasing heat, electrons and protons from neutronium core.
    • Chandler: two models (conventional vs. exotic stars)
  • Predictions
  • Conclusions

Do both models explain the acceleration of the seismic waves on the photosphere?

Mine does. I don't recall the EU mentioning it.

[Sparky]

Charles, isn't there a site where your hypothesis could be explored by a larger number of knowledgeable people. It appears that very few here understand and appreciate your position. Most are biased against it, as it is too hybridized for them. Of those who address it, it seems that they really do not have the education to help you.
Those who formulated most of EU have refused to interact with you, as far as I know.

What do you expect to accomplish here? What need does it fulfill ?

I continue to learn from you, but mostly I burn time.

[Lloyd]

Contents of Post: List of Solar Features; EU Errors; Double Layers
CC, thanks for abundant helpful answers.

List of Major Solar Features. Is this list complete enough? Or did I overlook any major features? And how well do CC and EU explain each feature?
heliospheric current sheet
-solar wind
-helmet streamers
corona
chromosphere
photosphere
-supergranules
--granules
--spicules
--faculae
--plages
-sunspots
--penumbra
--umbra
-coronal loops
--coronal rain
--solar moss
-arcades
-solar flares
-coronal mass ejections
-filaments/prominences
differential rotation
solar cycle
-active phase
-quiet phase
magnetic field cycles
-photospheric waves

Main EU Errors? Do the main EU errors then seem to be: 1. considering a vacuum to be an insulator instead of a conductor; and 2. overestimating the strength of electric double layers, DLs, in space or near vacuum conditions?

Have you written up or referenced a proof that a vacuum is a conductor? Do Brant and Michael agree with you about vacuum conductivity?

Double Layers. An electric double layer means a layer of positive charge next to one of negative charge. Right? Where are double layers found? Are they in living organisms? Are electric discharges (like lightning) double layers, with negative charge inside and positive charge outside? Do spacecraft within the solar wind develop double layers? Debye cells you say are double layers. What about filaments in space? Can Debye cells develop into filaments? Are there double layers or Debye cells within the solar wind? The solar wind makes up the heliospheric current sheet (HCS), which is a thin band of both charges along the inner solar system ecliptic, or equatorial plane. There's a lot of space in the solar system above and below the HCS. Is that space neutral hydrogen, or charged? And does it contain Debye cells? If so, what are the approximate dimensions of the Debye cells? By the way, does your paper still have the filaments section showing filaments as more stable than Debye cells?

Strong Double Layers. I think you say shock waves in space can strip positive layers off of Debye cells in certain regions. What does a shock wave in space consist of? Your diagram shows Debye cells with negative centers and positive shells, I think, and after a shock wave passes, it shows the positive shells removed and formed into positive clumps next to the negative grains. I'd like to see a simulation of the shock wave moving through a region of Debye cells. I assume the shock wave is electrons. And I imagine filaments may form as the electrons move through. I'd like to see if the end result would be as your diagram shows. You said this result causes a very strong force to develop between the separated charges. Can you show how strong the force would be mathematically?

When a gas cloud hit by a shock wave collapses under this electric force, you say double layers of charge form toward the center of the cloud, producing one or more stars and planets. For a star the outer layer is mostly supercritical fluid hydrogen. For planets it's obviously solid or liquid matter. Have you been able to calculate how strongly the layers are held together in either stars or planets? And does there seem to be a limit to the potential thickness of each layer?

Are the double layers that are important in your model of a different class than those of the EU model? Are the EU model DLs mere gaseous plasma DLs? And, if so, are those extremely weakly bonded?

EU re Double Layers

Double Layer Detonation
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... double.htm

Double Layer Acceleration
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... ration.htm

Super Exploding Double Layer
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/1 ... e-layer-2/


double layer explodes - “coronal mass ejection”
https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005 ... ricity.htm

Essential Guide to the EU – Chapter 5
https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/1 ... chapter-5/

[CharlesChandler]

Charles, isn't there a site where your hypothesis could be explored by a larger number of knowledgeable people.

Any suggestions? To my knowledge, this forum has the highest caliber of people on the Internet. They'll consider just about anything, but they'll insist that assertions be supported, and many of them have read a LOT of material. Lloyd, for example, is a walking encyclopedia. So this has proved to be far-and-away the most productive environment for the development of new theories.

What do you expect to accomplish here? What need does it fulfill ?

It helps me find flaws in my reasoning, to listen to myself talk as I try to explain stuff. And I get useful suggestions. Most of all, my objective is to establish that the EU doesn't have a monopoly on EM theories. I spent 10 years developing the most thorough, best documented theory of tornadoes on the Internet. But I couldn't get any traction with it, because the EU had already evangelized their electric tornado theory (i.e., meteorological EDM), which is easily refuted. So now, if I start chatting up my theory, I get dismissed as just another EU evangelist. But then, I can't even get traction within the EU, because they already have an electric tornado theory, and won't consider the possibility that it is not correct. So I'm shut out. The problem is that tornadoes kill people, and an improvement in tornado theory could save lives, by leading to more accurate tornado warnings, or even tornado prevention. Every time I hear that another person was killed in a tornado, I feel that same pain, and the only way I sleep at nights is by knowing that I'm doing all that I can do. I don't expect you to understand that, but some of the people in this world accept challenges, for whatever reason. Some people climb Mt. Everest. Some people want to be the best pool player in the world. I want to help save a few lives by improving tornado theory. If I can't get the EU to accept the work that I've done, I have to demonstrate that the EU doesn't have a monopoly on EM, by showing that there are other, better ways of applying EM theory to the natural sciences. And some people are listening, so there is hope.

Is this list complete enough?

That's a good overview of the solar theories. Then there are sections for exotic stars (black holes, neutron stars, quasars, etc.), and for the planetary sciences (earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.). I'm constantly adding new material. The format makes it possible to sort out an unlimited amount of topics, by logically organizing them in categories and sub-categories. So I guess I'll be at it just about forever.

And how well do CC and EU explain each feature?

You could argue that I'm biased, and therefore am not qualified to objectively evaluate how well my work performs compared to the EU's. But you asked... IMO, I have a physically possible model that makes specific contentions concerning the full gamut of observations of solar phenomena, and concerning the major observations of other topics (e.g., exotic stars and planetary sciences). By comparison, the EU framework is considerably more vague, and in some significant respects, is provably false. The premise is correct -- that the electric force dominates the macroscopic realm. The work that the EU has done, in making an inventory of the anomalies in the mainstream model, is solid work. The identification of the problems, and the formulation of a new paradigm, are the hardest parts in any new endeavor, and the EU has done these well. As concerns the best solutions to the problems, I diverge from the EU. They have focused on electrodynamics, IMO unsuccessfully, while IMO my emphasis on electrostatics is much more promising, and leads to much more accurate treatments of the topics.

Do the main EU errors then seem to be: 1. considering a vacuum to be an insulator instead of a conductor; and 2. overestimating the strength of electric double layers, DLs, in space or near vacuum conditions?

I would add the fixation on the Anode Sun model as a major error.

Have you written up or referenced a proof that a vacuum is a conductor?

GSU has. My paper, that shows the macroscopic significance of their sub-atomic formulas, is the most popular single page on my website.

Do Brant and Michael agree with you about vacuum conductivity?

I can't remember how that discussion went, so I'll let them weigh in for themselves.

An electric double layer means a layer of positive charge next to one of negative charge. Right?

Yes.

Where are double layers found?

Everywhere. You have a Debye sheath around you right now. Most DLs are extremely weak, and the CFDL model of the Sun (and of the Earth) has charges that are way, way more powerful, due to electron degeneracy pressure.

Are electric discharges (like lightning) double layers, with negative charge inside and positive charge outside?

Discharges cut through DLs.

Debye cells you say are double layers. What about filaments in space? Can Debye cells develop into filaments?

Electrostatics loves filaments. I'm convinced that filaments are so common in nature because of electrostatic properties of matter. There certainly is no other reason. Gravity prefers spheres, and hydrostatic pressure prefers even distributions of matter. So I think that once Debye sheaths get stripped off of dust particles, they establish a chain of electrostatic forces running through the particles and the surrounding plasma, in a PNPNPNPN... configuration. This accounts for the way dusty plasmas first resolve into filaments, and then the filaments implode into stars, since the electric force in the filaments is so much more powerful. I'm in the process of figuring out how to simulate that.

The solar wind makes up the heliospheric current sheet (HCS), which is a thin band of both charges along the inner solar system ecliptic, or equatorial plane.

It would be more accurate to say that the solar wind expands radially, but is generally quasi-neutral. Then there is this thin sheet of current within the solar wind, which is the HCS.

And does it contain Debye cells? If so, what are the approximate dimensions of the Debye cells?

Yes. In the interplanetary medium, the Debye cells are roughly 20 m apart, center-to-center.

By the way, does your paper still have the filaments section showing filaments as more stable than Debye cells?

Yes.

I think you say shock waves in space can strip positive layers off of Debye cells in certain regions. What does a shock wave in space consist of?

The mainstream calls them shock waves. But a wave simply gets everything to move back and forth, without rearranging the position of particles relative to their neighbors. That isn't going to do anything. I'm saying that when two gas clouds collide, or when there has been a supernova nearby, the gas cloud(s) have high-energy particles streaming through them, and this strips the Debye sheaths off of the dust particles. As such, it constitutes a charge separation mechanism, since the sheaths are positively charged, and the dust grains are negatively charged. A shock wave wouldn't do that, but high energy particles getting embedded in a gas cloud would. And such are precisely the conditions in stellar nurseries.

I'd like to see a simulation of the shock wave moving through a region of Debye cells.

I'm trying to figure out how to simulate the effect of high energy particles streaming through a clump of Debye cells. The effect will be to draw the spherical Debye sheaths into comas, and those comas will then connect on the leeward end to other dust grains. So you go from dust grains with spherical sheaths to a lattice of dust grains interconnected with plasma. The attraction of the negative dust grains to the positive plasma filaments is the source of the body force that causes the implosion. But doing an accurate simulation, without a supercomputer, will take some creativity.

I assume the shock wave is electrons.

The heavier +ions get embedded deeper when there is a gas cloud collision.

Can you show how strong the force would be mathematically?

I'm getting ready to run some more numbers on some different configurations, so I'll let you know when that's done.

Have you been able to calculate how strongly the layers are held together in either stars or planets?

Those will be tough calcs. It's a fourth order tensor, when you have to include gravity, mass, temperature, and electron degeneracy pressure (assuming you know the ionization potential, which assumes that you know the elementary composition). Having to speculate on the internal temperature means that you don't know for sure which equations of state to use, so you have to run out the numbers for all of them.

And does there seem to be a limit to the potential thickness of each layer?

Probably, but I don't know what it is. In rough terms, I believe that all celestial bodies that are spherical (like the Moon) are big enough for such effects. Irregular-shaped aggregates (like comets) are not.

Are the double layers that are important in your model of a different class than those of the EU model?

With a far more powerful charging mechanism (i.e., electron degeneracy pressure), there is a huge difference in degree, if not a difference in kind, between the DLs in my model, and the sort of DLs that Langmuir and Alfven talked about, which are the foundation for EU references to DLs.

[Lloyd]

The Debate. Hopefully, Aristarchus will return soon to resume raising his issues.

D. Archer said: I thought the point that should be addressed is the point that was mainly raised by me. CC does not acknowledge galactic currents having anything to do with our sun, this is in direct opposition to EU.

That's why I brought up that topic recently here. Is there any evidence you know of that galactic currents enter the heliosphere and power the Sun? Where is that current locally in the vicinity of the Sun? How is it detected?

Kiwi suggested that CC and Aristarchus do all the talking here, but Aristarchus seems to have taken a break, so I thought it's better to keep the discussion going, rather than have too much silence.

Sparky likes your ideas so far. That makes 3 of us.

4 Main EU Errors? CC, do you agree then that the main EU errors seem to be:
1. considering a vacuum to be an insulator instead of a conductor;
2. overestimating the strength of electric double layers, DLs, in space;
3. fixation on the Anode Sun model;
4. focus on electrodynamics, instead of electrostatics?

Do you have a link to a good explanation of the difference between electrodynamics and electrostatics? Or do you have a simple explanation yourself?

Re #2, do you agree that EU overestimates the strength of double layers in space? Do they say that galactic currents are double layers? I think they say that galactic currents are electric discharges. Don't they? You say discharges cut through double layers. Is a discharge a stream of either charge? Do you consider galactic filaments to be electric currents? If not, would you like to elaborate and/or give a link to where you elaborate? Have you read up on Marklund convection? That sounds like it could be electric discharge with double layers.

P.S. I'm a poor man's encyclopedia. And for anyone interested, I favored the EU model up until 2 years ago, when I learned CC's model fairly thoroughly. Actually he was still learning his model himself at that time. I guess he's still learning it. Anyway, intelligent people can be very sure about models that are wrong. Just look at all the intelligent people in physics etc who believe quantum mechanics is thoroughly proven science. So EU theorists are just as fallible as are other intelligent authorities.