New Sun Model / Capacitor

[Aristarchus]

No, I'm saying that the Sun IS charged, and the HCS is the proof. (Can't have an electric current without an electric potential, which proves that the Sun has a net charge.) I've been saying for years that the Sun has a net negative charge, the heliosphere has a net positive charge, the outside of the heliopause is net negative, and the interstellar medium is quasi-neutral. But the field that drives the solar current is just within 10 AU. In the heliopause, the field flips polarity. So that's a different domain.

Yeah, that is an attempt on your part to show that you know what you're talking about. However, your dissertation has been disapproved by the committee, once again. You see, Charles, your lack of a thesis statement is not the only disqualifier, or the fact that you are unable to produce an abstract for your unmentioned thesis statement. The biggest component as to why you're not going to receive a PhD is that your model did not predict what was discovered by Voyager 1. Oh wait, you said the word "scant" and "obscure" - surely you must know what you're talking about.

Electric potential? What are you? Plato. Is this electric potential static or dynamic? Hint: an abstract from you might help. You do realize you have to distinguish between the two - static or dynamic? So which is it? Then explain why your convoluted model did not distinguish between the two. I'm guessing, of course, I won't receive a definitive answer from you. I can only throw darts at the board, but my guess is that you represent a static model. You see where I'm going? Your internal ignited sun - that "dies out" at 10 AU, failed. Oh BTW, explain your liberal use of die out. What caused it to "die out?" I want a step by step process that shows it "dies out." Dies out? Is it exhausted like a cross country runner? Why can't it finish the race? I've never read of a "dying out" in scientific language. Our university holds our students to the utmost prestige, so we're reluctant to establish a scientific term, such as dying out, with no explanation.

OK, i get it. You do not have the wherewithal to answer my previous post directly. More big sounding words from you, but no cohesion. You're a disguised debunker that is being outed. Wanna play some more?

[CharlesChandler]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/ ... ision1.htm

With electricity, there are two kinds of stars: anodic and cathodic. The anodic is the most common. It forms in a z-pinch in galactic Birkeland currents. The star acts as an anode within a discharge that is driven by an electron-dominated galactic current. The Sun is the closest example, and space probes enable us to take measurements that can test and articulate the model. Most stars are driven, like the Sun, by current densities in dark mode discharge. It’s called “dark” only because it doesn’t radiate in the visible portion of the spectrum. In radio and x-ray wavelengths, it “shines.”

1. How does a z-pinch in a galactic Birkeland current create a spherical star? Is this just leveraging bad intuition concerning the nature of the "pinch", which might imply that it is just in one place (i.e., at the star itself)? Actually, a z-pinch compresses the current along its entire length. So no, a galactic current isn't going to get pinched into a stars at discrete locations.

2. If a current DID get pinched like that, why would the pinch favor the +ions, "pinching" them into anodic stars, over electrons, that would be "pinched" into cathodic stars? Electrons travel at least an order of magnitude faster than +ions in any electric field, due to their smaller mass. Traveling faster means generating more powerful magnetic fields, and thus a more robust z-pinch. And when compressed, electrons do not generate the same hydrostatic pressure as +ions, again because of their smaller mass. So this sounds like the author simply prefers anodic stars (perhaps because this was Juergens' concept of the Sun), but neglected to supply the supporting reasoning.

3. How does an anodic star get "pinched" within an "electron-dominated galactic current"?

4. "Space probes enable us to take measurements that can test and articulate the model." This is true. Now, will the model change at all, seeing as the data are all in favor of a cathodic Sun?



@Aristarchus: I started a new thread in the NIAMI forum for our debate:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 10&t=15338

[kiwi]

lol Charles


I wish I cold un-butt-hurt you mate but unfortunately it was self-inflicted...

Im beginning to feel like your version of the Heliosphere ,.. insignificant and unworthy of consideration in the bigger picture

Anyway... Im gonna to get my dad to beat the crap out of your dad behind the bike-sheds tomorrow ... see you there

[Sparky]

kiwi, play nice....

[jacmac]

Ladies and Gentleman, I would like to get back to the sun. Here is a quote from Dr. Scott:

" Although we have seen that the Electric Sun model explains many of the puzzles that standard solar models cannot, there are many questions still to be investigated. What is the exact circuit diagram ? Precisely what paths do the galactic currents take in the vicinity of the sun?......"

There has been a lively discussion on the anode verses cathode sun. I assume that both these types of sun need to be part of a circuit diagram, that is here in question, for an externally powered sun. Charles Chandlers model would be internally powered. ( I seem to remember Charles, that your estimate was for about 1/3 external power. Is that correct?)

We humans need a CIRCUIT to do anything with electricity. But does the universe?

I am suggesting that that might not be the case. With massive Galactic currents outside the solar system as the supplier of energy, the sun, which is large enough to be a focus for planet orbits, attracts all the plasma in its environment. The plasma includes charged particles and neutral particles alike. As the plasma moves toward the sun, density increases until it reaches the corona where the neutral particles become ionized, adding to the charge separated mix and enters the glow mode. Moving closer in the density becomes high enough to support an arc discharge event we call the photosphere. The internal solar body, acting as a capacitor holding a large "charge", is part of what enables the photosphere to exist. The internal sun is constantly recharged by currents flowing in through the photosphere layer(s).

Thus we have a gathering together and focus of electric energy at the sun without a "circuit" per se.

ADDITIONAL RANDOM IDEAS:

Dr. Scott points to the coronal torus as the mechanism causing faster solar rotation at its equator than higher latitudes. Bob Johnson in his presentation on a Plasmoid Sun says the torus is not there during solar maximum.
Perhaps a solid interior sun is oblate, wider at the equator than pole to pole. Thus a rotating inner sun, closer to the spherical photosphere at the equator, might cause the faster equatorial solar rotation ?

The photosphere is usually described as an electrical DISCHARGE. I think of a discharge as happening between two distinct places; the clouds and earth with lightening for ex. or the two electrodes of an arc welder. But the granules of the sun seem to rise up, roll over, then go back down. They do seem "trapped" between the two positive layers in Dr. Scot'ts model. Is part of the granule flow being recycled? Less the light and heat losses. Could this be something similar but different than a "discharge"?

Looking forward to any comments,
critical or otherwise.

Jack

[CharlesChandler]

Charles Chandler's model would be internally powered. (I seem to remember Charles, that your estimate was for about 1/3 external power. Is that correct?)

In my model, the Sun's power is entirely internal. 2/3 of the power is directly from arc discharges, and 1/3 is from nuclear fusion caused by the arc discharges. The electrostatic potential getting released in these discharges is, of course, the result of a charge separation mechanism, which in my model is electron degeneracy pressure under gravitational loading. This forces electrons out of the core and into a negative double-layer around the outside of the core. On top of that is an induced positive double-layer, for a minimum of 3 layers to make a stable star, in a P-N-P configuration. The Sun actually has 5 layers, in a P-N-P-N-P configuration. So the Sun IS a capacitor, but not because of any sort of electrical resistance that prevents charge recombination. Rather, electron degeneracy pressure keeps charges separate.

(I'm cross-posting this into the NIAMI: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler thread. Further discussion of my model should be done there, not here, to keep this thread for EU for/against discussions.)

We humans need a CIRCUIT to do anything with electricity. But does the universe?

I don't know about the Universe, or even the Milky Way, but the Sun does not need a circuit, if it has an energy store in the form of electrostatic potential, and some form of capacitance to maintain that potential such that it can be released slowly instead of catastrophically.

But the granules of the sun seem to rise up, roll over, then go back down. They do seem "trapped" between the two positive layers in Dr. Scot'ts model.

Or the granules are positively charged, and they're being held down by a negative double-layer deeper inside the Sun.

[kiwi]

kiwi, play nice....

Is there any other way Sparky!

But thats irrelevent now, Charles has "unplugged" us from the Universe,as a "whole" ...striking at the very heart of the Thunderbolts core Tenet .. its over ... we will all dissappear in a puff of Dark logic sometime yesterday (after lunch I hope)

Aristarchus comment regarding Polymaths was lost in the "noise"? ...... Any single discipline in any of the science's is incapable of determing any fundamental "Law" by and of itself... end of. Recent case in point being Dr Robataille? .... and his consigning of Kirchoff's Law and Plancks constant to the dustbin of Science history? I think so. Look at the Solar System,.... is there an absolute void-empty-vacuum outside the Heliosphere? .... no there isnt, so we ARE connected, and although the exact deatails elude researchers at present, there MUST be a mechanisim in the "circuit" transferring energy to the central node.

In lieu of a wall covered in Phd's I rely on common-sense, which doesnt appear to be all that common when we consider the Tsunami of Pop Science releases filthing up the subject

Peace out mate

[CharlesChandler]

Charles has "unplugged" us from the Universe,as a "whole" ...striking at the very heart of the Thunderbolts core Tenet ..

All of my work is based on the fact that the electric force dominates the Universe, and all other forces are subordinate to it. That isn't challenging the EU -- it's supporting it. If we disagree on the details, that shouldn't eclipse the fact that we agree on the premise. I realize that the EU hasn't changed much since the late 90s, and that a lot of people settled in on it. But if there are problems, they have to be fixed. Remember that I got into this because I was in a tornado, and I realized that an advance in tornado theory might save lives. And when I finally worked all of the way through it, there was no mistaking that EM plays a central role. But when I started chatting up my work, I found that the EU had already over-evangelized an electric tornado theory, which unfortunately wasn't correct, and everybody thought that I was just another EU evangelist. So I couldn't get any traction in the mainstream. But then I also couldn't get any traction in the EU community, because they already had an electric tornado theory, and they weren't interested in reconsidering. So after 10 years of work, I couldn't get any traction at all. If this was just a bunch of idle intellectual trivia, then sure, there is a certain sort of aesthetic to "this is my story and I'm sticking with it". But tornadoes kill people, and some of them could be saved by an advance in tornado theory. Are you willing to let people die because you find it unpleasant to reconsider the details of how EM works? That's a strange aesthetic.

Aristarchus comment regarding Polymaths was lost in the "noise"?

He didn't say which people he considered to be polymaths. So as put, he was just trying to tell me that other people are smarter than me, and that I should humble myself. I call such things argumentum ad verecundiam (i.e., the fallacy of authority), though he didn't even name the authority!

Any single discipline in any of the science's is incapable of determing any fundamental "Law" by and of itself...

Scientific advances are not all just further refinements of the consensus. Rather, we can look directly at the phenomena, and then challenge our constructs to fully account for all aspects. Anything left is an anomaly. Refining the consensus works OK, unless the paradigm is actually flawed, and needs to be re-built from the ground up. That's when we have to go all of the way back to the observations, and come up with a new conception of reality.

Peace, my friend.

[kiwi]

kiwi wrote:
Aristarchus comment regarding Polymaths was lost in the "noise"?

He didn't say which people he considered to be polymaths. So as put, he was just trying to tell me that other people are smarter than me, and that I should humble myself. I call such things argumentum ad verecundiam (i.e., the fallacy of authority), though he didn't even name the authority!

I didnt interpret it that way Charles .... moreso along the lines that a (imo) better grasp can be had if we are familiar with associated and what would seem at face value at times , unassociated fields ... kinda thing

Anyhoo ... I just had a look at your Arvix entry ... where stated --------->

Existing theories acknowledge only inertia and gravity

Technically speaking Wal Thornhill's IEEE peer review paper on his Electric Star Model would qualify? ... Im not sure if Alfven, Juergans, Bruce etc actually published to the level where their work would qualify also? ..... just an observation Charles, ... I assume you are referring to MS theory with that statement, if so I think you should cite that to be clear .... with a possible mention of the work already done by others in opposition to the MS?

and yeah .... Peace

[CharlesChandler]

Existing theories acknowledge only inertia and gravity...

Yes, that should say, "Mainstream theories..." -- thanks!

[jacmac]

Kiwi said:

Charles has "unplugged" us from the Universe,as a "whole" ...striking at the very heart of the Thunderbolts core Tenet .. its over

It seems to me that Charles' model is electrical, caused by gravity. He does not see external currents into the sun. If the origin of the sun is from the electromagnet force it would not be "unplugged."

Kiwi said:

Look at the Solar System,.... is there an absolute void-empty-vacuum outside the Heliosphere? .... no there isnt, so we ARE connected, and although the exact deatails elude researchers at present, there MUST be a mechanisim in the "circuit" transferring energy to the central node.

My idea is that the sun, as the center of the solar "bubble", draws in all the electric charges within its local area and ignites. The sun would feed off the Galactic currents in this way. This would not be the normal use of the "circuit" idea, with a current into the sun, the photosphere happens, and the current continues on its merry way.

I suspect there is an inner sun component (under the photosphere) to enable the sun to do what it does. The E/U model at this time says nothing about the inner sun, putting itself in complete opposition to the standard model. There could be some hybrid solution out there waiting to be found; If we focus on the ideas.

[Sparky]

jacmac:

I suspect there is an inner sun component (under the photosphere) to enable the sun to do what it does. The E/U model at this time says nothing about the inner sun, putting itself in complete opposition to the standard model. There could be some hybrid solution out there waiting to be found; If we focus on the ideas.

Yes, there is and yes, we have some evidence of such a mechanism....

[kiwi]

Jacmac said

The sun would feed off the Galactic currents in this way

So the only question is does it use a knife and fork, chopsticks, or fingers? ..... The Sun cannot be "Isolated" and "connected" at the same time

The E/U model at this time says nothing about the inner sun,

Inner Sun? ...... c'mon girls this is getting embarrasing

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

Then thats 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 ....

[jacmac]

Kiwi,

The whole solar system would be connected to the Galactic currents environment at its outer limits.

If "the inner sun" isn't to your liking, perhaps you can tell us what is under the photosphere !

I know what 39 orders of magnitude means, but gravity exists and I happen to think that the "sun" is lit up like it is in no small part because it is the biggest body around.

Sparky,

I read a lot on this forum, but not everything ???

[CharlesChandler]

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 ....

I responded to this on the Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler thread.