New Sun Model / Capacitor

[kiwi]

What has Don Scott said in reply to your objections?

He hasn't.

Thanks Charles

Not to be seen as any kind of submission/admittance of incorrect derivation in my opinion (return "wink" goes here) . On several occaisions over the past 4 years I have been asked to pass on various private (solar) research papers on behalf of individuals to Wal Thornhill ... these people being aware I knew him and had contact with him. Knowing WT to be the polite respectful individual he is, I was actually curious as to why he had not acknowledged their submissions previously made by them direct to him?. As it turned out, none of those people had taken the time to read his material in full .....

The answers to their (respectful) critcism's were there all along. Quite possibly Don has a similar situation regards his research.Be this as it may , it does not answer the concerns being expressed here in any meaningful manner, so I will make my own enquires ( second "wink" goes here) . Perhaps a Grant or two from the Mainstream Funding community would be helpful? ... providin a couple of "staffers" each, at the very least to entertain the deluge of private correspondance they get inundated with .

Anyhoo, I still find it unusual that you dismiss part of the overall dynamic in this situation..... the Heliospheric Boundaries are the "interface" with inter-stellar Space, how could this NOT be a key area of concern in ANY ES Model?

As a last thought, and in view of the open admission(s) and literally "listed unknowns" surrounding the ES Model by both DS and WT ... It pays us all to remind ourselves that there is a wholly "untapped" branch of the Electro/Magnetic phenomena that may well be playing a role in all this that no one is aware of, as that avenue of investigation is neither recognized by, nor researched into, by any official body on the planet... referring here to the work of Nikola Tesla etc. If that eventually turns out to be the case .... it would certainly account for the confusion around the Model imo

Cheers

[davesmith_au]

What has Don Scott said in reply to your objections?

He hasn't.

Charles perhaps Don is treating it with the contempt it deserves! You clearly show that you do NOT know nor understand the EU theory which you so readily criticize. When discussing matters on the Electric Universe board, on the thunderbolts forum, it is customary (in fact a requirement) that you be discussing published EU material, and thus if you wish to rebut it you need to: a) Understand it, and b) do more than wave your hands around shouting "it's wrong it's wrong". Sheesh!

Cheers, Dave.

[kiwi]

Wal Thornhill .... QUOTE

Speculations based on plasma measurements in interplanetary space are not much use because the picture is so complex. It depends on where and when you look, you can find electrons streaming in either direction.

The real power of Juergens' model is explaining the phenomena in and above the photosphere and they are emphatically anode phenomena. A cathode won't form granulations.

It would merely rip stuff out of the Sun, like a comet, and jet it into space. Also, the ENA's show the connection with the larger circuit and that requires an anode Sun too.

As to whether the power of the Sun is all electrical is doubtful. "Stuff" is happening in the photosphere that we are investigating.

[CharlesChandler]

@kiwi, dave:

Just for the record, and as I've said numerous times before on this board and elsewhere, and as I'm sure I'll say numerous more times, I have a great deal of respect for Wal Thornhill. Before he came along, there were many pioneers in the study of EM (e.g., Franklin, Faraday, [...], Birkeland, Langmuir, Bruce, Alfven, Juergens). But all of them accepted the conventional Newtonian model, and saw EM as an addendum. In other words, to them it was a Newtonian Universe with some EM exceptions. Then Thornhill came along and said that there were too many exceptions to keep calling them that. Rather, these are indications that the Universe is actually better understood starting with EM. So he took all of the investigations of the "exceptions", and stitched them together into a new paradigm. This is the pivotal point in any scientific revolution.

As an analogy, Christopher Columbus gets the credit for having "discovered" the Americas. But he (and several successive explorers) thought that they were just islands in the middle of the ocean. Then a fellow named Amerigo Vespucci came along, and announced that there were just too many "islands", that were too large, to still call them islands. Rather, to Vespucci, the reports represented the coastline of a whole new continent. So people starting talking about "Amerigo's Continent" as an hypothesis, or in English, the "American Continent", and the name stuck. Some have said that this was one of history's little ironies, that the continents got named after a later and lesser explorer instead of Columbus. But the reality is that once Europeans realized that it was a whole new continent, they quickly realized the significance, and that's when the exploration and colonization began in earnest. So Vespucci's contribution was turning point in the whole endeavor. Columbus' voyages would have done little more than Leif Erikson's if it were not for Vespucci. Still, there were a great many inaccuracies in Vespucci's maps, and it was up to successive explorers to resolve these as time went on.

Similarly, the credit for the creating the whole new paradigm of the Electric Universe goes to Thornhill. I can think of no higher compliment that could possibly be paid to a scientist. But this doesn't mean that there cannot possibly be inaccuracies in Thornhill's work, and then comes the question of what we are to do with these. If that's actually an Electric Universe out there, subsequent investigations will bear it out. But not with the inaccuracies. Rather, the model will get tweaked as new information keeps streaming in, and as new methods of analysis become available. Thornhill's position is based directly on Juergens', which was formulated before the huge volume of modern satellite data were collected. Well, Juergens might have messed up a few things. IMO, as we attempt to bring to picture into clearer focus with the help of detailed data collected in the last 10 years, we're going to find the errors. And we're going to fix them.

As concerns either Thornhill or Scott holding my work in contempt, that's their problem. I'm fully vested in the EM paradigm, and I'm not trying to defeat it -- I'm trying to support it. And if I find something in Juergens' vision that is unsupportable in light of incontrovertible evidence, I look to see if there are other options. If I find them, I explore them. And what I'm finding is that the Universe is, in fact, electric. There is just no way that so many pieces would fall so neatly into place if it wasn't. So we don't need GR or QM as addenda to Newtonian mechanics to resolve all of these anomalies, and EM isn't just another addendum. The Universe is primarily EM, with gravity as an addendum (and I still haven't found a use for GR, QM, CDM, or MHD ). But to get the pieces to fall into place, I had to go beyond Juergens' work (and Thornhill's, and Scott's). The Anode Sun model is untenable, and so is Scott's Solar Capacitor extension of it. If there is something about this that I do not understand, please explain. But no, the issues that I have raised have not been addressed, by Thornhill, Scott, or anybody else. IMO, this community deserves the respect of getting answers from the Founding Fathers when there are legitimate questions. If they don't see it that way, that's their problem, and they will simply be left behind as science marches on.

[CharlesChandler]

The real power of Juergens' model is explaining the phenomena in and above the photosphere and they are emphatically anode phenomena. A cathode won't form granulations. It would merely rip stuff out of the Sun, like a comet, and jet it into space.

I'd like to know where he finds the emphatic support for this. I did many searches for information on anode tufting, and the only reference that I ever found was in one of Juergens' papers, and it just basically said, "Yep, it's like that." But he didn't quote his source, so there wasn't anywhere to go with that. If Thornhill has lab data on anode tufts, he should let us know where they are.

As concerns the contention that a cathode wouldn't form granules, that's premature. The more basic question concerns the nature of the current regulator. In my model, the source of the electric current is a negative layer inside the Sun that is emitting electrons. This negative layer is clinging to a positive layer deeper down, and there is also another positive layer on top of it, which is the photosphere. And the interplanetary medium is positive. So that's a PNP configuration, where the last P stands for the positive charge in both the photosphere and the interplanetary medium. The electrons streaming out from the Negative layer in the middle, toward the positive charge in the IPM, generate ohmic heating as they pass through the photosphere, which produces the heat and light that we get from the Sun. Electron drag from this current also causes the "Rayleigh-Benard convection" known as granules. (This is very different from the thermal buoyancy in the standard model, but it has the same effect.) Sometimes the electron drag is sufficient to "rip stuff out of the Sun" such as the particle streams in spicules. More typically, the electrons continue on out into space, while the +ions shed away from the central stream in the granules, and descend back into the Sun around the outsides of the granules. That these are +ions is clear by their fluid dynamic properties, as well as their optical properties. And there is only one thing that can accelerate +ions to hypersonic velocities as they descend back into the Sun: an attraction to an underlying negative charge. So the net charge at the surface has to be negative, with a thin positive double-layer that doesn't fully neutralize it. This explains the +ion nature of the photosphere, and the driving force in the granular "convection". And the PNP configuration explains the current regulator. The electrons in the middle are sitting on a current divider, attracted positive charges both below and above them, with only a slight net attraction to the IPM. As the electrons drift outward, they get closer to the IPM, and further from the submerged positive layer. Thus the net field gets less ambiguous, and the current accelerates as it moves away from the Sun. At the Sun, the drift velocity is very slow. This is significant in that a discharge in the excellent conductivity of 6000 K plasma should pinch down into a finite number of discrete discharge channels, like in a plasma lamp. Obviously, this doesn't happen, so this needs explaining. The answer is that the drift velocity is so slow that the magnetic fields aren't strong enough for a z-pinch, and the electrostatic repulsion between like charges is the dominant force, distributing the electrons evenly across the surface, and causing a steady radial outward stream. Only in sunspots do electrodynamic effects kick in, but that's a different topic.

Also, the ENA's show the connection with the larger circuit and that requires an anode Sun too.

In what sense do Energetic Neutral Atoms in the heliopause require an anode Sun?

[Lloyd]

Dave said: if you wish to rebut it [WT/DS theory] you need to: a) Understand it, and b) do more than wave your hands around shouting "it's wrong it's wrong". Sheesh!

I believe Charles may understand it better than anyone else I know, and he's been doing a lot more than waving his hands for over 2 years here. And he's not disrespectful of them by saying their models don't quite fit the data any more than they're disrespectful of the mainstream when they say the same thing about the mainstream model not fitting data. He's been patiently explaining the problems he's been finding with WT's and DS's models and with others, but most readers don't understand well enough how EM phenomena work, so they can't follow his explanations entirely.

CC's model simplifies the problem greatly in one case by starting with the observation of the smoothness of the top of the photosphere. Since the upper photosphere is plasma less dense than Earth's atmosphere at sea level, it's obvious that the smoothness can't be due to gravity, since our atmosphere and others aren't smooth like that, with a sharp boundary, from gravity. The Sun's overall magnetic field is only slightly stronger than Earth's, so the smoothness can't be due to magnetism either. That leaves the electric force.

And the only way the electric force could work is if there are electric double layers within the Sun, where a deeper layer of one charge is holding down the upper layer of the opposite charge. His model goes on to explain why the top layer, i.e. the photosphere, must be one sign (cathode) and a deeper layer must be the opposite.

Brant Callahan, Michael Mozina and Charles are all rather good scientists, and they all concluded independently that the Sun must act as a cathode primarily. Bob Johnson also disagreed with the anode Sun model.

So, if we could get each person's reasoning down in writing here or somewhere, WT's, DS's, and the others', of exactly why the photosphere must be a cathode or anode or something else, maybe the EU team could make some significant headway here. Eh?

[kiwi]

Welcome to the Charles Chandler Electric Universe? ... doesnt say that on the door ... With such an incredible grasp of the situation your own Website must be fair rocking Charles?

Your tone has decidedly changed from your earlier admission of respect etc ....

Whats accepted on these boards is none of my buisness... but I see an Admin stepped in a few post's above to remind everyone of the guideline's

Basically you have slagged off both Scott and Thornhill ... and if thats an accepted act then this place is going to the dogs

[antosarai]

... but I see an Admin stepped in a few post's above to remind everyone of the guideline's

Basically you have slagged off both Scott and Thornhill ... and if thats an accepted act then this place is going to the dogs

Mr. Halton Arp was blocked from telescope time for finding against Standard Model canon.

Is Mr. Charles Chandler going to be blocked from this forum for finding against Electric Universe canon?

[Solar]

Is anyone on these boards working with the basic premise that as a result of SAFIRE any and /or all of the previous deductions and/or conclusions of the EU’s qualitative hypothesis already has and/or may change? I’d like to suggest that this is highly likely and that to hold feet accountable to what may now be older outdated conclusions in process of being updated, tweaked, reworked, and/or totally dispensed with in order to more align with experiment is what may lay behind SAFIRE’s closed doors. Since the masses are not yet privy to scour through SAFIRE’s progress they are left with debating concepts that might be fundamentally different by now.

Quite a lot of the EU’s hypothesis could crumble to the floor. Quite a lot my very own ideas could crumble to the floor. Quite a lot your won ideas likewise. Quite a lot of astrophysical theory could crumble to the floor (though they don’t need much help with this one). Same with the theories of Chandler's ES model. Conversely, some of the ideas and theories afoot in various places might well be bolstered with SAFIRE’s experimental support. You just don’t know.

I’m aligned with Moderator Nick. This is a “coffee shop” with discussions of old familiar ideas and concepts in conjunction with the literature while waiting to try the forthcoming brew called SAFIRE Java. (coined! )

There has only ever been one thing occurring on theses boards: working with the clearly observable fundamental concept that electrical forces are operative in the cosmos while hopefully aligning the premise with scientific literature from lab and/or space born experiments.

Relax.

[Sparky]

Charles perhaps Don is treating it with the contempt it deserves! You clearly show that you do NOT know nor understand the EU theory which you so readily criticize.

"Contempt it deserves"?
Appears to be an insult to Don. Speculation that Don reacts in a non scientific way.

A theory requires falsification. If evidence that does that is presented, then it needs to be addressed. The "holes" in EU need to be addressed. For me, that would be the zpinch matter compression phenomenon.

How well versed in EU theory does one need to be in order to be part of the EU community? And to which faction of EU must one adhere to be accepted, without contempt?

Which model one is working in determines what they see. Charles is working at building a model, which has electric/magnetic forces at it's core. The models that standard cosmology is working with are deficient . But, as deficient as they and EU models are, each will seem to produce results. Advancing or incorporation of each model with new insights will be improving them or eliminating them.

I don't see the scientific method using contempt at any point.

[CharlesChandler]

I don't see the scientific method using contempt at any point.

Bravo.

And please note that I do not consider critical review to be disrespect. Back to the analogy to the "discovery" and mapping of the Americas, one can have a great deal of respect for Amerigo Vespucci for his brilliant realization that the explorers had found not so many small islands, but rather, a couple of really big continents, and still work on more accurate maps based on reports from subsequent voyages, which used ever-advancing navigational technology. That isn't challenging the essential hypothesis in question (i.e., that Columbus had "discovered" two new continents). It's proving it with better data, which is not disrespect at all. Likewise, I'm not challenging that the Universe is Electric. I'm proving it with more accurate data that wasn't available 10 years ago. In no sense is that disrespect.

[celeste]

the credit for the creating the whole new paradigm of the Electric Universe goes to Thornhill. I can think of no higher compliment that could possibly be paid to a scientist. But this doesn't mean that there cannot possibly be inaccuracies in Thornhill's work, and then comes the question of what we are to do with these.them.

I would like to back Charles up with a specific example here. First, let me say, I've become a huge fan of Donald Scott's latest filament model. I'm also a fan of Thornhill and Talbott, and currently sitting here reading one more time their "The Electric Universe".
Why am I going through "The Electric Universe" yet another time? If Donald Scott's filament model is right, then the figure on page 35 is wrong. If a single filament does not have a field wrapped around it like the magnetic field around a wire, then what of two filaments together? Jump to page 68, where Thornhill depicts the current flow through a galaxy. His current flow may be right, but if Scott's filament model is correct, Thornhill's magnetic fields are not correct in that diagram either. Jump ahead again to page 72,and we see a diagram of current and magnetic fields in the sun. Here we get the odd result that if Dr. Scott's filament model is correct, then Scott's OWN explanation of magnetic field reversals in the sun, is in question here.
The point is, while these guys are geniuses, somebody is going to turn out to be wrong somewhere.
In the future, we will either have found out that Scott has made a fundamental flaw somewhere in his filament model, or (as I believe will be the case), we will be looking back on Thornhill's diagrams, and wondering how someone as brilliant as Thornhill could have missed the (now "obvious"), magnetic fields of current filaments.

[jacmac]

With all the criticism going around I would like to be critical, of MYSELF.

Sometimes when I get a new, to me, idea I post it before I know if others have expressed the same or similar.
That has happened here, with the capacitor sun.

When we are corrected by others are we not closer to the "truth"?

Mr. Charles Chandler's posts are the ones I look forward to reading the most.

As an interested, non scientist, I would question using the solar wind, to describe what is happening around the entirety of the sun. Is not the solar wind a rather narrow band of outgoing charged particles residing in the equatorial plane of the sun? What do we know of the rest of the solar atmosphere at the distances from the sun that we measure the solar wind?

If the sun is powered externally, and if there seems to be no very large polar current to get the job done (?) the currents then should come in spherically with increasing density approaching the sun. (as described in Prof. Scott's "the Electric Sky" pg.103)

At this stage the currents should bring in toward the sun any and all neutral particles in the upper solar plasma. The neutral particles should become IONIZED WHEN ENTERING THE CORONA, contributing to the total amount of charged particles in the corona. Is the corona then a source of charge separation ? Is the corona the top part of an ELECTRIC FIRE that consumes everything that enters ? Is the amount of charged particles, outside the corona, needed to power the sun overestimated ?

This probably belongs in the NIMI section but, figuring out how the sun works seems to me to be at the heart of the whole E/U discussion. I offer this in the hope some small part might be useful to someone scientific enough to actually figure something out. The sun is without doubt a VERY complicated phenomenon.

Thanks for listening,
Jack

[Lloyd]

Where can we find the best pithy summaries of WT's and DS's electric Sun models with pithy diagrams? Should they not be posted here?

[D_Archer]

I agree with Dave Smith completely. Jacmac proposes a capacitor Sun and we can take this model and apply an EU perspective. Or at least EU related material should be referenced in support or to fine tune etc.

Charles Chandler comes in with his own misunderstandings and make things a lot LESS clear then they could be with his quite monotone ramblings that do not say much of anything.

I give 1 example, Charles often starts questions and then goes off on a tangent. Example question:

Why look at scant data from the heliopause to determine if the Sun is electrically powered from outside of the heliosphere?

When viewed from an EU perspective, this is a stupid question. A firm knowledge of the EU model should make such questions obsolete. EU model looks at the bigger picture, and this scant data is at least data that can support (and does support) the EU view.

EU really needs langmuir probes everywhere and currently any sun model is still in a data hole* if it does not include a galactic influence.

Regards,
Daniel

*data holes are really fun to just wildly speculate anything but should be limited to NIAMI.