The Electric Sun

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Recovered: The Electric Sun

Unread postby bboyer » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:44 am

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: Problem Reply with quote
OP "lk"

Sun Temperature - Re the sun's surface temperature, Don Scott says at http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm
it's 5880 degrees Kelvin, not 4000 degrees.
.These 2 websites agree on that approximate temperature [5800]:
http://www.eo.ucar.edu/skymath/tmp2.html
zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Light/suntemp.html
.The iron sun model assumes that the temperature below the photosphere is cool enough to make a solid surface of iron at or below 4000 degrees Kelvin. It claims that a layer of neon, which is said to be a good insulator, is able to insulate the iron surface from the hot photosphere, but that would mean there's no turbulence in the layer of neon, which seems to contradict other aspects of the iron sun theory which seem to suggest that turbulence is what brings iron to the sun's surface where it is seen in spectra of sunlight.
.The iron sun website that I referred to in a previous post said there's evidence of a thin veneer of stratification of layers below the photosphere. A thin veneer doesn't seem like a good insulator either. Since the article it referenced spoke of the solar radius varying significantly, that also suggests that the thin stratified veneer would be undergoing turbulence with each change in radius. I don't imagine even the best insulator would be able to shield the interior of the sun from conduction, convection and radiation of photospheric heat for thousands or millions of years.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: The Electric Sun

Unread postby bboyer » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:45 am

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 3:14 pm Post subject: Outside Circuit Reply with quote
OP "lk"

What I think they've missed, however, is the external circuit and associated power supply/source.


.I hope the following will clarify that. In Thoth 3:6 http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThoIII06.txt
Thornhill & Juergens compare the sun to a neon tube:
."The glow from the neon tube is produced in the "positive column" of the discharge. The positive column is a typical plasma having equal concentrations of positive ions and of electrons, with the electron temperature very high - sufficient to maintain the degree of ionization required to carry the electric current. The glowing positive column is formed only in thin tubes because in an extended plasma a much lower degree of ionization is sufficient to carry the current. ... Bear in mind that the Sun operates in a very extended spherical plasma, most
of it of much lower density than that used in neon tubes. In that case the positive column will not appear [will not glow].
."Why don't we see a stream of energetic charged particles heading
toward the Sun if it is truly electrically powered? The bulk of a glow discharge is comprised of a "cool" plasma, that is an equal number of positive ions and electrons moving randomly, or thermally. Superimposed on that random motion is a drift of electrons toward the anode and positive ions toward the cathode [The positive ions are mostly protons and the cathode is the spiral arm of our galaxy, which is the direction the solar wind is moving away from the sun]. It is the cool plasma that behaves very much like a metal conductor (except that it has two charge carriers instead of just electrons [the positive ions are the other charge carriers]). In a copper wire the entire current is carried by electrons drifting very slowly from one end to the other. The total current carried in the cool plasma by the two opposite drifts constitutes the discharge current. The electric field gradient in that cool plasma is very low. In such an environment we would be hard-pressed to detect that we were inside a glow discharge. The field strength is high only in the cathode and anode "sheaths" where the imbalance in positive and negative charges is marked. Juergens has identified most of the space from the solar corona out to the heliopause as devoted to the negative glow region of a glow discharge. The chromosphere forms the limit of that region on the anode side. The photosphere is identified as the first anode phenomenon.
."So, what might we expect to find in space near the Earth if we occupy the negative glow region? James Cobine writes in his textbook "Gaseous Conductors" in section 8.5 Cathode Phenomena and Negative Glow: " an appreciable fraction if not nearly all of the electrons entering the negative glow from the Crookes dark space have a range [of energies] corresponding to the entire cathode drop." In other words, if we accept the estimate from Juergens, electrons will be accelerated toward the Sun with a range of energies up to almost the full potential difference between the Sun and the surrounding plasma, 10 billion volts. ..."
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: The Electric Sun

Unread postby bboyer » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:47 am

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "saul"

Enan Gamre wrote:Saul,
your definition indeed inspired my interest. Too bad it's not from a Web source.

A fundamental problem with magnetic reconnection, however, is that the theoretical details don't add up. . . .The emerging theory of magnetic reconnection seems to offer an explanation for the fast release of magnetic energy, but leaves many mysteries unsolved. Why do the magnetic fields remain apparently quiescent for long periods of time and then suddenly explode for no apparent reason? This behavior is seen in the solar corona, the magnetosphere and laboratory plasmas.
-- James F. Drake in "Nature", 2001, free PDF


The topic is in an entangled state, where new models and old are both
contradicting each other and supporting or depending on each other.
-- from a student's paper on "The Current State of Research on Magnetic Reconnection", 2000, PDF


Oppositely directed magnetic intensity H-fields simply cancel each other - no energy is stored or released in that event.
-- from Dr. Scott's Electric Sun


Your definition seems to mean that when a field rearranges itself in plasma (plasma then sits and waits?), then there can be identified two areas where there is plasma and the field strength is similar(?). This releases energy! Field lines are indeed unnecessary :twisted: .


Thanks for your comments. I'm by no means an expert on reconnection, but perhaps I can clarify a few things. First thing: magnetic fields by themselves are not going to do this. The driver is the plasma. Plasma, being made of charged particles, has a way of sometimes holding a field in place, due to particles gyration about the field lines. This property is sometimes called the "frozen in" condition. Thus, you can see that a plasma might hold a field in a certain topology while it is being pushed externally (by other charged particles, of course we should again point out that magnetic fields are due to charged particles in motion). You might imagine that finally the plasma gives way to the external forces and is suddenly accelerated in massive electric fields formed by sudden dB/dt.

Thanks a huge simplification but should be easier to visualize. The difficulty lies in the details.. an ideal plasma with infinite conductivity will never give way and will hold the field obeying strictly the frozen in condition. Thus, reconnection models require an "anomalous resistivity", some resistance to current flow that kicks in and allows electric fields to build up.

Electric fields in a plasma? Nonsense. :) Cheers -
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: The Electric Sun

Unread postby bboyer » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:48 am

Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 2:47 pm Post subject: Multiscalar feature of electromagnetic interaction. Reply with quote
OP "Klar DC"

Fractals, mathematical shapes that retain a complex but similar patterns at different magnifications, are frequently found in nature from snowflakes to trees and coastlines. Now Plasma Astrophysicists in the University of Warwick’s Centre for Fusion, Space and Astrophysics have devised a new method to detect the same patterns in the solar wind.



Fractal patterns in Sun's activity and magnetic field throughout solar system.
Interesting.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 092931.htm


Hugs.

M Klar.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: The Electric Sun

Unread postby bboyer » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:49 am

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:35 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "lk"

I had said:
The iron sun model assumes that the temperature below the photosphere is cool enough to make a solid surface of iron at or below 4000 degrees Kelvin.


Today's TPOD http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch ... nadoes.htm
says sunspots are 20% cooler than the surrounding photosphere. So I did a net search for specifics. I got:
http://climate.gsfc.nasa.gov/research/s ... iation.php
which says the photophsere is about 5780°K and sunspots are 1500°K cooler, which comes out to 4280°K in sunspots. So this is close to the temperature at which iron would be solid. If the sun is young, the interior could still be somewhat cooler than the surface. EU theory may be compatible with the possibility of an iron core in the sun, similar to such potential cores in the gas giant planets. But TPOD EU theory does not accept the basic premises of the conventional iron sun theory, such as the sun being formed of debris from a supernova and having nuclear fusion in the interior producing the sun's energy.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: The Electric Sun

Unread postby bboyer » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:50 am

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:49 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Pfhoenix"

That's a lot of "what ifs" that don't address two things :

1) There is no evidence supporting an iron core or solid iron "skin" layer in the sun.

2) Much (if not all) solar oscillatory behavior (and rotational, to boot) is indicative of an isodense body.

The reason the Iron Sun theory started was to explain the iron spectral emission lines. It seems to me that no extra theory is required to explain the fusion of iron in the corona accounting for the spectral emission lines.
_________________
"Wisdom is Knowledge tempered through Experience." - Me
"Abstract math seems to be the lubricant for hammering square pegs into round holes." - Unknown
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: The Electric Sun

Unread postby bboyer » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:52 am

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP"Karckonis"

Pfhoenix wrote:That's a lot of "what ifs" that don't address two things :

1) There is no evidence supporting an iron core or solid iron "skin" layer in the sun.

2) Much (if not all) solar oscillatory behavior (and rotational, to boot) is indicative of an isodense body.

The reason the Iron Sun theory started was to explain the iron spectral emission lines. It seems to me that no extra theory is required to explain the fusion of iron in the corona accounting for the spectral emission lines.



Well maybe, but those Iron Sun movies certainly impress upon one a non moving surface below the normal photosphere. It also conforms with the Electric Comet theory nicely too. (Things that glow in space are rocks)

I just doubt that a non solid body would become a focus in an homopolar motor situation.
_________________
Neil Thompson

Krackonis

"We are the universe, trying to understand itself."
- Delenn
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: The Electric Sun

Unread postby bboyer » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:53 am

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:53 pm Post subject: Re: re: reconnection Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin'

saul wrote:Thanks for your reply. I think Don Scott is entirely correct that magnetic field lines are not physical entities but merely tools for visualizing the field. Also, that the term reconnection is often abused and the phenomenon poorly understood. However I disagree that it is nonsensical. Here's a good definition: "Magnetic reconnection is a phenomenon where energy is efficiently converted from the magnetic field to charged particles as a result of global magnetic topology changes during which earlier separated plasma regions become magnetically connected." There's no need to invoke the imaginary field lines except to try to draw pictures of it.

Cheers -


Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Technical glitch disabled my login for a few weeks. They finally had to just delete my acc't and let me re-register. However, now it won't let me go back and edit old entries from before the glitch. Hmm. That kind of stinks. Means I can't efficiently update some of the resource threads' first entries anymore. C'est la vie.

Now where was I? Ahh yes. The description above sounds more appropriate. And surprise, surprise (not really), it sounds like the well-known (in some circles) description of a discharging double-layer in plasma, wherein the stored energy in the double layer is "very efficiently" converted into energy and/or more energetically moving charged particles...

It would be nice if they'd just learn the plasma physics stuff that EE's have been dealing with for years and stop using misnomers and re-inventing the wheel (incorrectly, I might add; or at least ignoring much of what we've learned in the ensuing decades since Alfven first started investigating plasma).

*sigh*

Anywho. Smile

Cheers,
~Michael
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: The Electric Sun

Unread postby bboyer » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:55 am

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin'

@rc-us wrote:Perhaps the sun, itself, is comparable to a spherical plasma discharge tube with the center or surface being the anode and the corona the hot cathode and the rest of the system part of the load. That might explain the dark area beneath sunspots (i.e. one of the "dark spaces" common to discharge tubes?). Or maybe it's even a discharge tube (sun) within a larger discharge tube (solar system)? Anyway, those are just my own idle, less-than-amateurish speculations and are neither here nor there.

[snip]

Best Regards,
Arc-us



I don't have time right this second to dig up the reference / article. But I recall that the sun/heliosphere has been referred to as a "virtual anode" (or was it a cathode? I forget off hand), with the sun at the center, and the heliosphere or heliosheath on the outside.

I don't recall the exact description, but yeah, it was something to that effect.

As to where the current comes into the sun, and how quickly. If I recall right (off-the-cuff), Don Scott mentioned in the rejoinder that the "speed" of the influx of charged particles was measure on the order of Cm/hr. That's centimeters per hour. It's an extremely SLOW influx, quite possibly from everywhere (but don't quote me on that, as I don't have the articles / diagrams I'm thinking of in front of me at the moment).

Keep in mind, again, that the "electric sun" is one of the more tentative aspects of EU theory, 'cause there's still a lot that even physicists don't know about the sun (actual composition, what actually goes on inside of it, etc.). We've got a lot of educated guesses, but not a lot of firm answers.

Cheers,
~Michael
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: The Electric Sun

Unread postby bboyer » Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:56 am

Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin"

saul wrote:Thanks for your comments. I'm by no means an expert on reconnection, but perhaps I can clarify a few things. First thing: magnetic fields by themselves are not going to do this. The driver is the plasma. Plasma, being made of charged particles, has a way of sometimes holding a field in place, due to particles gyration about the field lines. This property is sometimes called the "frozen in" condition. Thus, you can see that a plasma might hold a field in a certain topology while it is being pushed externally (by other charged particles, of course we should again point out that magnetic fields are due to charged particles in motion). You might imagine that finally the plasma gives way to the external forces and is suddenly accelerated in massive electric fields formed by sudden dB/dt.

Thanks a huge simplification but should be easier to visualize. The difficulty lies in the details.. an ideal plasma with infinite conductivity will never give way and will hold the field obeying strictly the frozen in condition. Thus, reconnection models require an "anomalous resistivity", some resistance to current flow that kicks in and allows electric fields to build up.

Electric fields in a plasma? Nonsense. :) Cheers -



My understanding is that "frozen in" field lines were a misnomer and were both disproven and repudiated by Alfven during his later research and lifetime (despite having been the one who suggested them in the first place, he realized the fundamental error and cautioned others against perpetuating it lest physics be set back a few decades; but they kept it up with "frozen in field lines" anyway). IE, the plasma doesn't "carry the magnetic field" with it. The field is generated via electrical currents within the plasma and is generated rather more dynamically.

Cheers,
~Michael
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: The Electric Sun

Unread postby bboyer » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:01 am

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:39 pm Post subject: Re: Solid? Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

lk wrote:.Interesting images. Thornhill said the surface of Jupiter and the giant planets seems to be solid to account for the great red spot etc. He seemed to say that the sun's surface is harder to tell and that its volume and density below the photosphere is not yet known. I don't know if these SOHO etc images and data change that, but it seems possible.
.You gave the website as http://news.softpedia.com/news/Could...ce-52143.shtml, but that seems to be an incomplete address. I netsearched and found http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com, which seems to have the same article.
.An image caption says: "'structures' on the ferrite surface rotate evenly and uniformly." Do you know what rotation is referred to?



Hi everyone!

I'll try to catch up on this thread specifically over the next few weeks. Bear with me a bit if I'm a bit slow in responding. It's been busy at work, and I have a lot of catching up to do here.

It means that unlike the light plasma layers we see, this layer rotates evenly from pole to equator and shows no overt signs of differential rotation.

Does it mean the structure in the image is rotating about its center?



If you mean "spin axis", yes. If you're talking about some other rotation axis, no.

That would seem to imply a fluid surface. The circular shapes of the structures seem to conform to magnetic field lines, suggesting a fluid movement of a powdery substance, like iron filings.



I believe that the coronal loops are in fact moving around iron filings. I do however think some of the 'structures' in those RD images are related to reflection patterns from the surface.

.The article says, "Dr. Charles Bruce and a number of other scientists have already demonstrated the electrical nature of the sun's activities and have put forth solid surface theories of the sun based on predictions that are supported by direct observation." It then links to this article: http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm. But that article doesn't mention the sun's surface being solid.



I don't believe that Bruce believed the sun had a solid surface, just solids in the solar atmosphere.

It just says solids should be able to form on the sun because its temperature is below 4000K in places, which is sufficient to form solids, but it gave sands as an example, not a whole solid surface. Iron filings are like sand or powder.



During sunspot activity, it's typical to see lower temperature plasmas underneath the photosphere. All the outer layers are hotter than the inner layers because the electrons flow into the sun from the universe, and heat the lighter plasmas on the outside first.

The article says, "Studies of quasars in the early universe demonstrate the presence of large quantities of iron, casting serious doubt on the gas model in recent years." This shows that the authors think conventional science's determination of quasar distances based on redshift is correct and that visible quasars are seen as they were billions of years ago. But they're almost certainly wrong about accepting such conclusions about quasar distances, as proven by Halton Arp et al.



I'm convinced that redshift calculations are more complex that mainstream thinking and I tend to agree with Arp's position. I was simply pointing out that even based on conventional wisdom, the abundance of iron in the early universe is surprising.

The article finally says, "In addition, there is now growing evidence from the field of heliosiesmology that the sun possesses a significant stratification layer at a very shallow depth from the top of the photosphere. This new data suggest that the stratified iron surface is covered by a relatively thin veneer of plasma layers." A link is then given to this webpage: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111. The article linked to on that page discusses the stratification layers, but I don't think it says anything about the surface of the sun being solid.



Kosovichev does not believe that layer is solid, but then he cannot explain the structures seen in his doppler images either, and we've exchanged many emails on that topic.

It talks about the radius of the sun varying, but I don't see how a solid surface could allow variation.



The sun's surface undergoes a *significant* amount of surface erosion from all the electrons that flow from it. Mountain ranges are literally eroded away over time. If you've ever used an arc welder, you know it changes the rod and the surface that the rod touches. Imagine a billion arcs going across the surface and that's what I think is happening.

I also checked out their solar model at http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/model.htm? It shows a core unlabeled, then successive layers of iron, calcium, silicon, neon, helium and hydrogen. The iron layer is called solid, but the layers above the iron are called plasma layers. So I don't see why the surface is called solid, if it's plasma.



Plasma layers are arranged by atomic weight, and the lighter, least dense layers form the outermost layers. By the time we get to the calcium plasma layer, it's is much cooler and much more dense than the photosphere and therefore contains more solids. The base of that layer is cool and dense enough to allow for solids to form underneath of it.

They seem to suggest that the core is a fusion reactor, like the standard solar model, which is almost certainly wrong.



No, I think it's more likely that the sun has a spinning dense core, or a fission core.

The other aspects of the model seem plausible, but the electric current comes from outside, not inside the sun. There may be currents inside the sun, like those that seem to enter the earth and cause earthquakes and vulcanism on earth, according to Thornhill, but they would not originat from in the sun.



There most certainly would be some form of energy release inside the core, be it fission or induction energy from the spinning core. I favor the spinning heavy core for a variety of reasons, so my best guess is the sun produces some induction energy from the spinning core and iron shell, and it's part of a much larger circuit that flows through the whole galaxy and universe. You might think of it as a small battery that is part of a much larger circuit. Most of it energy comes form the outside, but some of the energy is generated locally, including fusion reactions in the atmosphere. Most of the energy comes from the outside, and the sun is a giant resistor in that releases most of it's energy in the form of heat.

They still haven't answered Thornhill's comments that supernovae are extremely rare and should not be invoked to explain a common event like a sun-like star. And he points out also that novae and supernovae are electrical explosions, not mechanical.



I'm sure they are electrical in nature, I just don't know for sure what they leave in their wake.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: The Electric Sun

Unread postby bboyer » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:04 am

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:43 pm Post subject: Re: Solid? Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

mgmirkin wrote:
lk wrote:Interesting images.



Quite! I'm rather find of this one:

(For those with broadband; nice running difference movie)
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/image ... 000828.avi

Which Mozina purports to SHOW the solid surface of the sun via running difference images, in fairly high res. If you put it on loop and full screen view, it does look relatively convincing... Appears to show roving arcs, erosion, solar flare or CME coming up off a protruding surface (much as pointy surfaces tend to channel St. Elmo's fire in a thunderstorm.)... Seriously, loop it and watch various features move and reform. Now, I don't know the actual technical process by which "running difference" images are created and if that leads to "artifacts" in the images that can be MISTAKEN for something being solid/stationary that ISN'T in fact... But, if the running diff images DO show a solid surface, as Mozina implies, wow. I want more running difference movies! As many as they can put out! Bigger, longer and uncut... If these are over hours, I'd love to see similar movies over DAYS. If these are days, I'd love to see it over the course of a month and see what "comes up" out of the data...

Cheers,
~Michael



You can go to the SOHO archives and watch about 5 years worth of RD SOHO images. You'll start to dream in gray if you watch gigabytes worth of video as I have done. It starts to make your mind go numb after a while. :)

What's most interesting is after you start seeing a "surface structure" in the images, it's hard not to see it in RD images. I recently put a few STEREO RD images on my blog page, and I'm working with the IDL software library to be able to automate the RD imaging process from STEREO images.

Last edited by Michael Mozina on Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: The Electric Sun

Unread postby bboyer » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:07 am

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 10:54 pm Post subject: Re: The Electric Sun Reply with quote
OP ""Michael Mozina

saul wrote:Thanks all for the interesting reading and links!

I don't see this iron some of you are talking about. By looking at the sun we can get a pretty good idea of the composition, density,



Well, yes and no. We get a pretty good idea of it's average density if EM fields play no role in solar system movements, and we are not being accelerated in the Z axis.

and temperature.



Keep in mind that the temperature under the photosphere is lower than the layers above it.

The iron makes up about .003% of the composition if you look at the absorption lines.



That percentage assumes that the sun does not mass separate it's elements. If we do not 'assume" that the elements stay mixed, then that percentage is invalid.

The density of the sun is about 1.4 gm/cm^3.



On my website you'll find some NASA video images from space of air bubbles that form and persist inside a water shell. The outside shell may be more dense than the materials inside the shell.

The temperature is way too hot for solid iron.



First of all, we are not suggesting that the sun's surface is made strictly of iron. It is a crust, much like the crust of earth, that is much higher in iron content than here on earth. Again, the temps under the photosphere are lower than the temps above it. The temp near the surface is closer to 1500K.

The various non-nuclear solar models also have a lot of problems. Is the sun positively or negatively charged with respect to the local interstellar medium?



The atmosphere is positively charged relative to "space".

Where are these currents and why do we see both electrons and protons flying away from the sun superAlfvenically in the solar wind?



If you checkout the work of Kristian Birkeland, his model will explain that behavior.

I'll play the devil's advocate and post the naysayer link:

http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html



I didn't think much of that link, but I do like Tim from conversations we've had in cyberspace.

Certainly it's important that we consider the important effects of electric fields when trying to understand the sun. However we shouldn't fall into the same trap that gravity-only astronomers have fallen into and focus only on one force. Nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces work together in nature.

Cheers - saul



I agree with you, but then we can't ignore the role of electrical currents, particularly their role in heating the solar atmosphere.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: The Electric Sun

Unread postby bboyer » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:12 am

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2007 11:23 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Michael Mozina"

tom_s wrote:[....]

Macroscopic mass defect

One of the predictions of the EMRP theory is the macroscopic mass defect, which results as a direct consequence of the complete shadowing of the incoming ultra cosmic radiation. When the depth and density of matter in the direction of the wave propagation reaches a point in which the number of wavelets is outnumbered by the number of matter (standing wave) targets, all incoming wavelets will have been reflected back radially outwards from the massive body. This leaves the central core of matter totally shadowed from the external electromagnetic field, and thus totally isolated from any inertial or gravitational effects. In other words, the massive spherical centre will look like a dark flat disk to the exterior, and most matter within the sphere, no longer communicates with its force fields.

sunxsection2.gif


This has great implications in the way we think planets, stars and our own sun are composed. We would of course expect to find evidence of this macroscopic mass defect in the biggest bodies of our solar system, in which the sun gets its first place. This theory in fact supports the main issue that Professor Oliver K.Manuel, now long time member of Blaze Labs Yahoo team, has been pushing forward for the past years about the origin of the solar system with Iron-rich Sun. The main problem with Oliver's issue was that although he has all the physical evidence that a lot of iron is present in our sun, the gravitational force of the sun shows that its total mass is that of a ball of the same radius as the sun but with a density slightly greater than water! Would you believe that? The present accepted density for our sun is just 1.41g/cm3, yet we know it contains a vast quantity of metals which one cannot account for in its mass. How can we explain this? Simply by taking into account the totally shadowed spherical core within the sun's volume of matter. As shown in the diagram above, the macroscopic mass defect of our sun is far from negligible. From the planet data density curve, we find out that Earth is just in the limit of the curve in which the total body mass is proportional the product of its density and volume, that is it's core is just starting to look like a disk to external force fields. This means that the earth's radius is the limiting depth beyond which Earth's density increasingly shadows external ultra cosmic radiation from penetrating any deeper. For the same reason, planets of bigger diameter show mass anomalies which cannot be explained by current theories, since they will look more disk-like at their cores. The only way out for present theorists is to assume these are planets of light density material or mostly composed of gases. However, from the way planets are presumably formed, one would expect to find similar kind of matter, and hence densities within all components of our solar system, including the sun. Thus, it becomes evident, that all planets having bigger radius than Earth, have an internal mass defect core, leaving only a cored spherical shell and a saturated disk as their effective mass. The matter within the mass defect core (hidden behind the disk), will not show up in external force field interactions! If one assumes that this apparent mass of a flat saturated disk, belongs to a spherical body, then it is obvious that when the density is calculated as density=mass of disk/volume of sphere, this will result into a ridiculously low apparent density. Armed with this concept, we can even calculate the size of such dark core for all planets, and know their respective missing mass and also their 'inert' mass.

EMRP Gravity Theory finds Dark matter

If one applies Newton's law of gravity, or even the latest refined theory of Einstein's laws of gravity, to the way galaxies spin, one will quickly stumble into a big problem: the galaxies should be falling apart. Galactic matter orbits around a central point because according to the known laws of gravity, its mutual gravitational attraction creates centripetal forces which exactly balance the centifugal forces. But here is a hunch : there is not enough mass in the galaxies to produce the observed spin, and we're not off by a small percentage, there should be about nine times the existing matter.

It was in the late 1970's when, Vera Rubin, an astronomer working at the Carnegie Institution's department of terrestrial magnetism in Washington DC, spotted this anomaly for the first time. This missing mass was termed dark matter. The best response from physicists was to suggest there is more stuff out there than we can see. The trouble was, nobody could explain what this "dark matter" was. Although researchers have made many suggestions about what kind of particles might make up dark matter, there is no consensus. It's an embarrassing hole in our understanding which can only be solved by accepting the EMRP gravity theory, even at the expense of invalidating some of the currently most established theories. Astronomical observations suggest that dark matter must make up about 90% of the mass in the universe. The missing 90% of dark matter is obviously in the totally shadowed cores of the massive bodies such as stars. This is another prediction that comes straight forward from the application of the explained macroscopic mass defect.

Xavier Borg, Blaze Labs

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-shadow.asp



I'm definitely interesting in this theory for obvious reasons. It would also go along way to explaining the "missing mass" that astronomers attribute to "dark matter".
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Recovered: The Electric Sun

Unread postby bboyer » Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:12 am

Posted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: Gravity model Reply with quote
OP "upriver"

Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepage ... ergrav.htm

And experimental evidence that I believe supports the Aetherometry Gravity model.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... Oscillator

I have looked at a lot of models of gravity and this one is the one that is the most complete.
_________________
Ron Paul Forum.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php

SOS Save Our Science.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests