Discussion of Scott - On the Sun's Electric Field

[daku]

Well, hello everybody, I'm new here.
I want to reply on the 'physicist's claim in the beginning of this page to Mr. Scott's article
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/SunsEfield92210.pdf .

I've the feeling, that, by reading the comment and the answers that follow, one could still be confused or unsure if Mr.Scott's calculations in the end are correct or not.
(If somebody needs some sort of credibility or just to underline my qualifications, I'm a physicist too. .

First, to be clear, Mr.Scott's calculations are correct. There are no mathematical errors as far as I can see.

Just to summarize the calculations of the electric field due to various spherically symmetric charge distributions:

In the centre we have got a positively charged sphere (the sun).
We look at the E-field inside the heliosphere (= plasmasphere of the sun) for different cases of charge density in this very region (those are the boundary conditions of course).

Case 1: positive charged sphere (sun) in the middle, no charge density inside heliosphere (case 2 on page 4 of the paper)
-> the E field decreases with the second power of the distance to the sun. (this is the case Physicist is mainly talking about as a ' fairly basic problem')

But now we assume non-zero charge density inside the heliosphere ... and the assumption is based on various observations of steady presence of charged particles inside the heliosphere due to solar wind and CME's for instance ... no references needed here I think.

Case 2: positive charged sphere in the middle, constant positive charge density inside heliosphere (case 5 on page 4 of the paper)
-> the E field increases linearly with the distance.

Case 3: positive charged sphere in the middle, constant negative charge density inside heliosphere (also case 5 on page 4 of the paper)
-> the E field decreases linearly with the distance.

Case 4: positive charged sphere in the middle, positive charge density decreases linearly with distance inside heliosphere (case 4 on page 4 of the paper)
-> the E-field inside the heliosphere is constant

Other cases of not constant charge density inside heliosphere will lead to E-field variations between the above mentioned cases (See Scott's paper for details).

[tayga]

Many thanks, daku, and welcome.

I am one of those who was confused by the discussion and I appreciate your clarification. However, I'm still unsure how Physicist and Don Scott/yourself come to differ on the variation of the E field. Did Physicist overlook the constant charge distribution inside the heliosheath?

[Physicist]

Do you think that inclusion of the term in r^2 would significantly affect Scott's model?

I very much doubt it. The advantage of doing pseudoscience is that your "models" don't have to conform to basic laws of physics in the first place.

First, to be clear, Mr.Scott's calculations are correct. There are no mathematical errors as far as I can see.

It's sometimes said that solving differential equations is the domain of mathematics and applying the correct boundary conditions is the domain of physics. In which case Mr Scott's errors are errors of physics rather than mathematics. Specifically, (10) is certainly a solution of (9). It's just the wrong solution.

[David Talbott]

Physicist, you are simply making things up as you go along.

The next use of the word "pseudoscience" in a veiled reference to the EU will get you banned.

For clarification of the way forward, see:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 207#p47134

[daku]

@ tayga

Yes, I think that the differences in the interpretation of the results of the calculation are due to that Physicist undervalues the effect of non zero charge density inside the heliosphere.

The pure 1/r^2 behaviour results if there is a charged sphere in the middle and zero charge density inside the heliosphere.

In his second and third post Physicist argues that there would still be a 1/r^2 term in addition to Mr Scott's linear term for the case that we have a constant charge density inside the heliosphere. He points at the solution of problem 2 on page 13 of Peter Signell's pdf on
http://physnet2.pa.msu.edu/home/modules ... s/m132.pdf .

The solution in question is on page 15, as Physicist points out.
Its the term at the point 2b we are looking at :

• E(II) =kQî (r^3-R1^3)/[r^2(R2^3-R1^3)]
  =kQî {(r^3)/[r^2(R2^3-R1^3)] - (R1^3)/[r^2(R2^3-R1^3)]}
  =kQî r/(R2^3-R1^3) - kQî (R1^3)/[r^2(R2^3-R1^3)]

(with î instead of unit-vector r - that is just the vector with length 1 pointing in the direction of r - I just can't manage to type the r with the hat on top...). k is a constant, Q the total charge.
In our case R1 is the radius of the sun, R2 the radius of the whole heliosphere (= the radius of a spherical heliopause).

Yes, Physicist's conclusion is right that there is still a 1/r^2 term in addition to Mr Scott's linear term {kQî r/(R2^3-R1^3)}. Its is the last term

1. {kQî (R1^3)/[r^2(R2^3-R1^3)]}.

This term is zero of course if R1 is zero. Ok, now the radius of our sun is not zero, but the contribution of this term can nearly be neglected if we look at a point inside the heliosphere far away from the sun, where r is much greater than R1.

In fact the 1/r^2 contribution leads to a small deflection of the line between R1 and R2 (see the first graph at point 2d on page 15 in the paper mentioned above - I attach it at the bottom). But what we can clearly see is that the much more important behaviour of the E-field is described by the linear contribution (that is the nearly straight rise of the line between R1 and R2)!

here is the graph of point 2d on page 15 from the paper mentioned above

So, to make a summary:
Mr Scott describes in a correct way the various E-field behaviours inside the heliosphere due to various charge densities inside the heliosphere with the approximation that the charge of the sun is located at the center of the sun (neglecting that the charge is distributed on a sphere with the radius R1 of the sun).

Physicist makes the right claim that there is a 1/r^2 term in addition to Mr Scott's linear term that commes from the not vanishing radius R1 of the sun.

In my opinion Physicists critique is exaggerated, because the 1/r^2 term doesn't do much and can practically be neglected in regions where r >> R1.

[mharratsc]

Thanks, Daku. I'm math-challenged, and you summarized that incredibly well! I really appreciate it.

[Physicist]

daku - a few quick corrections:

In our case R1 is the radius of the sun

No, R1 isn't the radius of the sun. It's the inner radius of whatever charge layer is under consideration. To quote Mr Scott:

Above the anode dark space there are several different charge shells (layers). All of these are assumed to contain either positive, negative, or zero (quasi-neutral) valued charge densities and expression 10 is valid.

(in fact expression 10 isn't valid)

Yes, Physicist's conclusion is right that there is still a 1/r^2 term in addition to Mr Scott's linear term {kQî r/(R2^3-R1^3)}. Its is the last term

1. {kQî (R1^3)/[r^2(R2^3-R1^3)]}.

I think that's the first time someone on this forum has agreed with me!

<Physicist does little dance of joy>

This term is zero of course if R1 is zero. Ok, now the radius of our sun is not zero, but the contribution of this term can nearly be neglected if we look at a point inside the heliosphere far away from the sun, where r is much greater than R1.

Again the same mistake - R1 isn't the radius of the sun. The limit you're talking about is where we send R1 to zero and recover the solution for the solid sphere of charge.

So, to make a summary:
Mr Scott describes in a correct way the various E-field behaviours inside the heliosphere due to various charge densities inside the heliosphere with the approximation that the charge of the sun is located at the center of the sun (neglecting that the charge is distributed on a sphere with the radius R1 of the sun).

Remember Gauss's Law - as far as the external E-field is concerned, it doesn't matter whether the sun's charge is located at at the center or on the surface. The external solution for any spherically symmetric charge distribution is the same.

In my opinion Physicists critique is exaggerated, because the 1/r^2 term doesn't do much and can practically be neglected in regions where r >> R1.

It's easy to plug in some numbers to show that this claim is false. Let's take a charge layer with inner radius 9a and outer radius 11a - and here you can make the radius of the sun anything you want as long as it fits inside 9a. I find that Mr Scott's formula for the E-field at r=10a is out by a factor of about 3.7. Feel free to check the math.

And now after this brief Gauss's Law lesson, a quiz for all those present!

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the middle graph from Mr Scott's site is correct:



What, using Gauss's Law, can you deduce about the sun's net charge - that is, the charge residing inside r=a?

[daku]

hello Physicist,

lets do the check as you say (I feel free):

It's easy to plug in some numbers to show that this claim is false. Let's take a charge layer with inner radius 9a and outer radius 11a - and here you can make the radius of the sun anything you want as long as it fits inside 9a. I find that Mr Scott's formula for the E-field at r=10a is out by a factor of about 3.7. Feel free to check the math

I'll take the formula above from
http://physnet2.pa.msu.edu/home/modules ... s/m132.pdf
on page 15 point 2b as your formula as correction to Mr Scott's calculations (is this ok? if not - please demonstrate me in detail your own calculations so that we can compare):

• E(II) =kQî (r^3-R1^3)/[r^2(R2^3-R1^3)]
  =kQî {(r^3)/[r^2(R2^3-R1^3)] - (R1^3)/[r^2(R2^3-R1^3)]}
  =kQî r/(R2^3-R1^3) - kQî (R1^3)/[r^2(R2^3-R1^3)]

(for explanations of the variables see my previous post).
Here we have the linear term and the 1/r^2 term (which is so important to you and from which you claim, that it would lead to a correction of the linear term by a factor of 3.7)

Mr Sott's formula (10) on http://www.electric-cosmos.org/SunsEfield92210.pdf

• E(r) = rho(ADS) r / 3e

(with: rho(ADS) is the charge density in anode dark space and e is the permittivity of the medium)
is directly comparable to the formula above, without the last term
[with rho(ADS)/3e = kQî/(R2^3-R1^3) ... these are all constants]:

• E(II) = kQî r/(R2^3-R1^3)

lets plug in some numbers:

• R1 = 1
  R2 = 100
  r = 50

let (kQî) be 1.

inserted we get:

for the calculation with linear and 1/r^2 term

• E(II) =kQî r/(R2^3-R1^3) - kQî (R1^3)/[r^2(R2^3-R1^3)]
  = 50/(100^3-1^3) - 1/[100^2(100^3-1^3)]
  = 50/999999 - 1/9999990000 = 4,999994e-5

and for the calculation only with linear term (without 1/r^2 term)

• E(II) = kQî r/(R2^3-R1^3)
  = 50/(100^3-1^3)
  = 50/999999 = 5,000005e-5

'Result Physicist': E(II) = 4,999994e-5
'Result Scott': E(II) = 5,000005e-5

Well, you have got to admit, that the difference is not by factor of about 3.7 as you are claiming!
(It is by a factor of 1.000002 ... so quasi the same)

In the end I would like you to calm down and keep cool because you make the impression to me, that you seem to have got something to defend. Your way to do so is arrogant. You are not my/our teacher. In addition you should demonstrate and explain your own calculations in detail to me/us.

[Physicist]

daku - apologies for the professorial tone - many years ago when I was part of the evil consensus science establishment I used to teach exactly this stuff for a living...

lets plug in some numbers:

R1 = 1
R2 = 100
r = 50

I think what you have done here is confirmed that Mr Scott has the solid charged sphere formula rather than the shell formula. If you take R1/R2 to zero (as you are very nearly doing here), you recover the solid sphere formula. As you increase R1/R2, Mr Scott's formula becomes progressively more inaccurate.

What was your opinion for the charge on the sun?

[tayga]

What, using Gauss's Law, can you deduce about the sun's net charge - that is, the charge residing inside r=a?

That it's non-zero?

[seb]

Regarding the question of what R1 relates to...

It looks to me like Don Scott's wording may be open to two interpretations:

Expression 6 tells us that as long as there is no additional net charge located outside of the Sun’s anode surface, the strength of the electric field emanating from it, decreases inversely as the square of the radial distance at which it is measured. This is the classical electrostatic result proclaimed by those who ignore electric charge densities within the Sun’s surrounding plasma. This represents an over-simplification and, as such, yields an erroneous result. It ignores the fact that a great amount of electric charge exists in the solar plasma and that some of that is probably in the form of layers – DLs. For example, suppose there is a layer (shell) of charge density beginning out at some distance, r1.

It looks like Physicist is interpreting that as being a system in which there is the charged Sun of radius R0 (say), an uncharged gap out to R1, and then a charged shell out to R2. In comparison it looks like Daku is interpreting it as being a system in which there is the charged Sun of radius R0, a charged region extending out indefinitely from R0 within which we consider the shell between R1 and R2.

Is that correct?

If so, then which version did Don Scott intend?

[daku]

Now perhaps everybody can see what the misunderstanding was:

In my last two posts I was talking about the case of a charged sphere in the middle with radius R1 (radius of the sun) and a region of constant charge extending to R2 (in extreme: the heliopause), far away from the sun, (for R2 = 100 R1 we are about half the distance of the earth to the sun - that is by far not the distance of the sun to the heliopause. R2 = 100 R1 was just a simple case of plugging in some numbers... ).

Of course as you increase R1/R2 (that is making the region with constant charge smaler compared to the radius R1), the linear behaviour becomes progressively more inaccurate (if you assume that the total charge is distributed over a sphere with radius R1) - that's true I think.

I thought we were looking at a region inside the heliosphere far away from the sun and that we were talking about a region with constant charge with radius R2 much greater compared to the radius R1 ...

Physicist seems to talk about a charged region that extends not very far away from the sphere with radius R1 (sun's surface) compared to its radius.

This, of course can be a reason for misunderstanding - so to say, we have got different boundary conditions from the beginning on... .

-
As I understand the paper from Mr Scott, it is a demonstration of principles of E-field behaviour at spherical symmetry and different cases of charge density distributions inside the whole heliosphere.

[tayga]

Now perhaps everybody can see what the misunderstanding was:

...

Physicist seems to talk about a charged region that extends not very far away from the sphere with radius R1 (sun's surface) compared to its radius.

...

As I understand the paper from Mr Scott, it is a demonstration of principles of E-field behaviour at spherical symmetry and different cases of charge density distributions inside the whole heliosphere.

For what my opinion is worth, I think you understand Don Scott's paper as it was intended. Thanks to this discussion, that's how I also understand it.

[daku]

Thank's tayga for your supportive statements.

By rereading the statements from Physicist I realize now that he seems to think that Scott is describing the E-field behaviour inside the sun. In contrast I think that Scott is describing the E-field inside the heliosphere (which means: outside the surface of the sun).

---
It's now two years ago that I read the book 'The Electric Sky' from Don Scott (with wide opened eyes and mouth). A few weeks later I tried to discuss the content of the book with a highly respected astrophysicist (Kenneth Phillips from London) after a class that he gave at my place and that I was following due to my studies. He agreed with some parts and with some others not. For example, he shared Scott's critique towards magnetic reconnection. But on the other hand he couldn't believe in an electrically powered sun. In his eyes this was pure fantasy. We had a nice discussion. Nevertheless (despite his great authority) I continued to think about it. To me it made (and still makes) so much sense. And there is so much observational evidence for it!

But whom am I telling this? In this discussion forum I have the impression that nearly everybody is convinced and many are so called insiders to the EU-theory already.

It's a big thing. And in the end, I'm persuaded, the most accurate model will win the day.

Have a nice, sunny day.

[Nereid]

What, using Gauss's Law, can you deduce about the sun's net charge - that is, the charge residing inside r=a?

That it's non-zero?

I don't think you will get an answer from Physicist; he's been banned.