Strengths and weaknesses of various EU solar models.

[Michael Mozina]

It seems to me that there are "at least" three competing EU oriented solar theories, all of which are linked to, or have been proposed by EU/PC enthusiasts over the years. Alfven and Birkeland proposed solar models that were "internally" powered (fusion/transmutation of elements), whereas Juergen's proposed an external power source.

Whereas I personally am more familiar with Alfven's solar ideas and the Birkeland solar model I proposed on my website, I'm far less familiar with an externally powered approach to solar modelling.

It seems to me that the "strength" of Alfven's solar model is that it most closely resembles "standard" solar theory, and it's therefore the easiest "sell' in terms of defending the concept publicly. It ties right back into their neutrino "solutions", and it's relatively straight forward in terms of providing energy output calculations, etc. It's greatest "weakness" IMO is related to solar satellite imagery IMO, but I also recognize that is a subjective choice on my part.

Whereas I would have said that perhaps the early neutrino measurements cast some doubt on fusion as the power source, recent oscillation experiments seem to support standard solar theory.

What are the strengths and perceived weaknesses of an externally powered solar model?

[Sparky]

From what I have read in the TPODS, the sun is fed by electrons "drifting" in. But the solar wind is +ions and electrons, moving away at high speed. So, how do electrons drift against that current?

[Reality Check]

Hi Michael Mozina,
Any "externally powered approach to solar modelling" is fatally flawed from the start.
As you know, the neutrino flux from the Sun matches the amount of fusion needed to internally power the Sun. The lack of gamma radiation from the fusion means that this fusion is happening within the Sun. The known laws of physics tell us where - the temperature and density at the center of a ball of gas like the Sun means that fusion will be happening (and thus the gas becomes plasma).
Thus no "externally powered approach to solar modelling" will actually power the Sun!

Alfven had no model of the Sun as far as I know - citation please (and not to his model of solar flares). His "model" would have been the the model that astronomers have used for decades.
Birkeland did speculate that the Sun was powered by "transmutation of elements" but he was thinking about elements such as radium decaying naturally. He was wrong (there is not enough radioactive material in the Sun to power it).
It was Eddington in 1926 who suggested the first viable "transmutation of elements" theory and that involved converting hydrogen into helium.

[Jarvamundo]

Hi MM,

Whereas I personally am more familiar with Alfven's solar ideas and the Birkeland solar model

To my knowledge Birkeland's experiments were always 'powered' externally ( in photos see his attached capacitor bank, transformers and large wires connected to his discharge apparatus, and eventually into a socket in the wall). It also seemed that Alfven was also atleast in part suggestive of external circuits providing energy to atleast some stellar phenomena, see Peratt & Healy properties of magnetospheres (ref http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995Ap%26SS.227..229H).

What are the strengths and perceived weaknesses of an externally powered solar model

* Neutrino "osillation" "solutions" do not need to be invoked. See philosophical arguments: http://electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.pdf
* Solar corona heating problem resolved.
* Complete spectral changes / stellar evolutions resolved.
and more at: ref: http://electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

The above should be considered deathblows to the gravity blob fusion, ya know.. if one likes to stick to engineerable philosophy.

[Michael Mozina]

Hi MM,

Whereas I personally am more familiar with Alfven's solar ideas and the Birkeland solar model

To my knowledge Birkeland's experiments were always 'powered' externally ( in photos see his attached capacitor bank, transformers and large wires connected to his discharge apparatus, and eventually into a socket in the wall). It also seemed that Alfven was also atleast in part suggestive of external circuits providing energy to atleast some stellar phenomena, see Peratt & Healy properties of magnetospheres (ref http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995Ap%26SS.227..229H).

Well, of course you are right about his "experiments" being powered externally, but when describing the power source of the sun, he specifically mentions fissionable elements (by name) and talks about a "transmutation of elements" in some of his interviews. I'm sure if he had seen fusion, he would have considered that as well. He suggested that the sun was a "cathode" with respect to space, and he predicted that BOTH types of charged particles would flow from the sun.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... 5B838DF1D3

If you click on the PDF link, you can read the whole article. It's worth a read.

What are the strengths and perceived weaknesses of an externally powered solar model

* Neutrino "osillation" "solutions" do not need to be invoked. See philosophical arguments: http://electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.pdf
* Solar corona heating problem resolved.
* Complete spectral changes / stellar evolutions resolved.
and more at: ref: http://electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

The above should be considered deathblows to the gravity blob fusion, ya know.. if one likes to stick to engineerable philosophy.

I'll have to agree on the coronal heating problem issue. I"m not sure the there is so much a "need" to evoke an oscillation process as much as there seems to be real evidence that they do oscillate. I'm not sure if I agree with that argument.

I'll have to look at your link about spectral changes. Thanks for the links.

[Michael Mozina]

Hi Michael Mozina,
Alfven had no model of the Sun as far as I know - citation please (and not to his model of solar flares). His "model" would have been the the model that astronomers have used for decades.

No, their model doesn't electrically interact with the heliosphere and the rest of the universe. It's not exactly the same model, although it's the same from the surface of the photosphere to the core, I'll grant you that much.

Birkeland did speculate that the Sun was powered by "transmutation of elements" but he was thinking about elements such as radium decaying naturally. He was wrong (there is not enough radioactive material in the Sun to power it).

Well, that's your belief anyway.

I'll grant you that Birkeland did talk mostly about fissionable element, but had he understood fusion, I'm sure he would have considered fusion as an energy source as well.

It was Eddington in 1926 who suggested the first viable "transmutation of elements" theory and that involved converting hydrogen into helium.

I suppose that would have been almost a decade after his death.

[Lloyd]

* Sparky, the solar wind may leave room for electrons to drift in toward the Sun's higher latitudes and the poles, especially since it varies quite a bit. Sometimes it turns off completely. And it's uneven even when it's being emitted normally. Even if there is no inward electron drift, Brant's aether theory and Miles Mathis' photon theory can account for how the Sun is electrically powered from the center of the galaxy.
* RC, the authoritarian dominant model of the Sun is based on the impossible Nebular Hypothesis. The nuclear furnace model predicts 3 times the number of neutrinos detected. It cannot account for any of the known features of the Sun, including the solar granules, the photosphere, the chromosphere, the corona, the solar wind, solar flares, the sunspot cycle, the densities of the layers, spicules, prominences, CMEs, surface waves etc.
* Michael, I haven't heard any of the TB team or forum members support Alfven's or Birkeland's models. Juergens' model seems to be about the best known one here, due to Thornhill's influence. I think Scott's conforms with it too.
Best Models
* I favor Brant's, Mathis', Juergens' and Charles Chandler's models, even though they're all different. Do you favor Oliver Manuel's model? Or do you have your own? I know Oliver has the idea that the Sun's core is a neutron star, formed from a supernova. Brant also accepts the supernova, but not the neutron star aspect. I doubt both of those, though Brant may have a different definition for supernova than Oliver's, in which case I may agree, but it's unlikely, because supernovae are very rare.
* I hope to hear you comment on Charles' model on the thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5613&start=225. I see RC just stated there that the limb darkening image of the Sun that you use to estimate the depth of the photosphere is a image processing artifact, i.e. an illusion. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Brant has previously estimated the Sun's solid surface to be about 2,000 km below the top of the photosphere.
* Charles thinks the Nebular Hypothesis may work if it includes EM forces. Thornhill seems to think that there is no accretion, and that stars form from plasma streams that get magnetically pinched. The Saturn disk doesn't seem to be accreting. It's just getting more debris added by emission from its moons. But Charles reasons against Thornhill, saying ion streams don't flow significantly in the galaxy.

[Jarvamundo]

Well, of course you are right about his "experiments" being powered externally, but when describing the power source of the sun, he specifically mentions fissionable elements (by name) and talks about a "transmutation of elements" in some of his interviews.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... 5B838DF1D3

If you click on the PDF link, you can read the whole article. It's worth a read.

yup... Birkeland himself describes the transmutation of elements as result of the electric discharge. The ES (electric sun / star) hypothesis does not preclude transmutation of elements, rather it expects similar transmutation processes at result of the charge separation of the double layers (virtual anode).

Thanks for the article a gem. Gee Birkeland was way ahead of his time... Alfven extended his ideas, a very important element of the extension is the role of the double layer.

again from the same link as before: http://electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

n the Electric Sun model it is clear that the photosphere is the site of a strong plasma arc discharge. This produces the Sun's continuous visible light spectrum. Immediately above this in the Sun’s atmosphere there is the Double Layer (DL) in which an intense, outwardly directed electric field resides. It is within this strong E-field that many heavy elements are created by z-pinch fusion. Recall that the strong E-field dethermalizes the ions in that region and thus it is the (relatively) coolest layer of the Sun's atmosphere. Light that originates in the photosphere passes through the relatively cool, newly formed heavier elements in the DL. These heavier elements selectively absorb energy from the light's spectrum and thus the absorption lines are created. In fact they are created in exactly the place where the Sun's E-field is strongest. Thus we have the ideal situation for selective broadening of those lines due to the Stark effect.

[seasmith]

Charles thinks the Nebular Hypothesis may work if it includes EM forces. Thornhill seems to think that there is no accretion, and that stars form from plasma streams that get magnetically pinched.

While Charles' thoughts may be a bit institutionally constrained, Thornhill's model has some recent support by Joseph and Child 2010; where they surmise that :

" giant planets (e.g. Super Jupiters", "Super Earths") are formed in nebular clouds following supernova, coalescing around molten iron [ natural magnetic locii ? ] ejected from the exploding "parent star".

[ Makes more sense than a dusty/rocky accretion model, imo]

Planets are also ejected from dying solar systems prior to supernova "
[color=#8000FF]

Magnetic relaxation?

They also suppose our sun to be increasing in strength, over the Long term of a solar evolution; which makes a whole lot more sense, (and more solar mass / irradiance ), in a galactic 'pinch' model.

s

[Michael Mozina]

From what I have read in the TPODS, the sun is fed by electrons "drifting" in. But the solar wind is +ions and electrons, moving away at high speed. So, how do electrons drift against that current?

Keep in mind that I'm probably not the best person to answer that question, but I would presume if that was the case that the charge separation between the sun and the heliosphere would setup a two way current system with electrons by using (flowing through) ions like a conductor on their inbound path. Would the current then be concentrated in the Parker Spiral, or somewhere near the poles? I'm kinda fuzzy (new) an externally powered model, other than the one Brant proposed which is more or less a "wireless" energy transfer to the interior of the sphere. I liked that concept for a number of reasons, but it certainly doesn't preclude other types of energy releases on the interior and the atmosphere of the sun.

I've always envisioned the process as Birkeland did, with the sun acting as the cathode and constantly discharging toward the heliosophere. The protons were a kind of "sputtering" in today's language. They were essentially PULLED into space by the flow of electrons toward the heliosphere.

[Lloyd]

Seasmith said: Thornhill's model has some recent support by Joseph and Child 2010; where they surmise that:
" giant planets (e.g. Super Jupiters", "Super Earths") are formed in nebular clouds following supernova, coalescing around molten iron [ natural magnetic locii ? ] ejected from the exploding "parent star".

* If supernovae only occur every 30 years on average, only 33,000 stars would form every million years.
LBL study of supernovas has surprising results

January 17, 1992
... In an experiment involving an automated telescope and a sensitive electronic detection system, members of LBL's Automated Supernova Search team have found 20 supernovas, most of them in the last three years. Analysis of the data suggests that supernovas occur at least once every 30 years in galaxies like our own, and maybe even more often. In the past, supernovas were thought to occur in Milky Way-type galaxies no more than once in 100 to 300 years.

* Anyway, Thornhill says supernovae are exploding double layers of plasma. I think he also says new stars are seen after supernova events, which he thinks means that supernova stars fission, making two stars out of what was one. The old star doesn't die; it just shrinks a bit to expel a smaller companion.
Strengths and Weaknesses
* Michael, are we going to discuss strengths and weaknesses of the theories? Weaknesses of Oliver's are that neutronium is not known to be real and supernovae are likely not symmetrical enough to produce neutronium, i.e. neutron stars. A weakness of most of the electrical theories is that they're very vague, whereas a strength of Charles' theory is that he's nailing down the details, while including electrical forces along with gravity. A strength of Mathis' theory is that it eliminates the magical action at a distance forces of attraction, making them rational as oppositely vectored repulsions instead. Likewise, relying on forces of attraction is a weakness of the other theories. Of course, that requires going deeper than the macroscopic level to explain forces, but electrical theories should do that anyway. Thornhill does discuss that himself, but he still accepts forces of attraction, as far as I know.

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, are we going to discuss strengths and weaknesses of the theories?

That was the plan, and I seem to have more free time on my hands these days.

Weaknesses of Oliver's are that neutronium is not known to be real and supernovae are likely not symmetrical enough to produce neutronium, i.e. neutron stars.

There does seem to be a sense of loathing about neutron stars *AND* black holes within the EU community. While I can relate to the disdain for the concept of an infinitely dense object, I don't relate to the aversion to neutron stars. At some point gravity must play a role in compressing matter, and matter as we understand it is likely to "give way" to other exotic forms of materials. Neutron stars seem plausible to me, while black holes as the mainstream perceives them, do not.

Having said that, I'd like to clarify some points about my personal beliefs. I personally favor a CATHODE solar model for a variety of reasons, specifically a CATHODE with a "rigid (not necessarily solid) surface located 4800KM under the surface of the photosphere. This is completely related to solar satellite image analysis of the atmosphere of the sun. I'm more sure of what I see on the OUTSIDE of the sun, than what might be INSIDE of it. I have STRONG feelings about the atmospheric activity I observe in satellite images and I'm not emotionally or scientifically attached to a specific CORE.

I actually personally "prefer" a simple fission model, but I can't scientifically justify that position based upon neutrino measurements which IMO favor FUSION, not fission as the power source, and do tend to favor an INTERNAL rather than EXTERNAL power source IMO.

I like Manuel's idea for two primary reasons. First it provides a MECHANISM to explain the sun's solar cycle by introducing a rotating interior mass that can rotate on it's Z axis over time. It would create induced currents in the interior that I believe would generate fusion reactions in material around the core.

I think MGmirkin was the one that created an overlay image of a 171A image with a PLASMA FILAMENT inside that image that might also explain a 22 year solar cycle if that filament rotates over time in response to some exterior influences, like current Sin/Cos waves flowing through the galaxy as a whole. Whatever core one chooses it has to explain neutrino measurements and solar cycles. That is one of the attractive things to me about Manuel's core model. It does help to explain an induced current that could generate fusion process in the interior as well as the exterior. Based on a recent conversation with third party recently, Manuel himself evidently has some slightly different ideas about how that mass decay's over time. I haven't really spoken to Manuel about that perceived difference however since it wasn't clear whether Manuel actually thought that way, or whether the individual in question was "translating" it that way.

FYI, I think it's incorrect to assume that neutron materials have to be "created" in supernova events. IMO neutron materials would be PRIMORDIAL structures that would predate any "bang", and would be "eternal" features in an infinite universe. They simple form when gravity takes over IMO. It don't think it's even relevant that we think in terms of Big Bang theory, or the NEED to "create" heavy elements. I think that whole idea is nonsense. The Big Bang theory is IMO a HORRIBLE influence on everything in astronomy today. It falsely colors every idea, every concept, every issue IMO.

I personally (at this point in time) like a FUSION core that generates energy via FUSION. I think that FUSION occurs in PLASMA PINCHES inside and outside of the surface of the sun. Most of it occurs INSIDE IMO.

I also really LIKE Brant's ideas about an wireless communication of energy into the shell of the sphere directly. I think that would also generate plasma pinches and might induce fusion processes in the core.

I "would like" to favor a fission core as Birkeland first proposed it, but I don't see any evidence that explains why there are not anti-neutrinos coming from the sun. Unless they ALL oscillate out of that state over time, fusion seems like a more viable energy source based on our current understanding of neutrinos.

A weakness of most of the electrical theories is that they're very vague, whereas a strength of Charles' theory is that he's nailing down the details, while including electrical forces along with gravity.

I think GR and MHD theory will eventually combine to form a full mathematical model. Unfortunately I don't see a lot of evidence from satellite imagery that the sun is as "simple" as a simple mathematical model would have to "presume" from the start. Charles definitely has the right idea in terms of producing real mathematical alternatives to current solar theory, but those ideas also have to jive with the visual satellite imagery. IMO a Birkeland CATHODE solar model with an internal fusion process is the "most likely" to meet all those requirements IMO. I doubt however that it will easily lend itself to a simple quantification process.

A strength of Mathis' theory is that it eliminates the magical action at a distance forces of attraction, making them rational as oppositely vectored repulsions instead. Likewise, relying on forces of attraction is a weakness of the other theories. Of course, that requires going deeper than the macroscopic level to explain forces, but electrical theories should do that anyway. Thornhill does discuss that himself, but he still accepts forces of attraction, as far as I know.

I haven't studied much about Mathis' ideas. I'll have to check them out.

I think the most "damning" criticism I've heard about an external power source is the supposed LACK of a corresponding powerful magnetic field, and the fact that neutrino COUNTS from the sun seem to suggest it's an INTERNALLY created process. I'm not sure how those objections might be dealt with since I've never tried to support that concept personally, but I would like to be able to defend the idea if it's possible to do so.

[Reality Check]

Hi Michael Mozina,
Alfven had no model of the Sun as far as I know - citation please (and not to his model of solar flares). His "model" would have been the the model that astronomers have used for decades.

No, their model doesn't electrically interact with the heliosphere and the rest of the universe. It's not exactly the same model, although it's the same from the surface of the photosphere to the core, I'll grant you that much.

That is obviously correct - A solar model is not a model of the universe (those are cosmological models).
The standard model does "interact with the heliosphere and the rest of the universe". It creates the heliosphere through the solar wind. It emits light which iis an interaction with the rest of the universe.

[I'll grant you that Birkeland did talk mostly about fissionable element, but had he understood fusion, I'm sure he would have considered fusion as an energy source as well.

Agreed.

[

It was Eddington in 1926 who suggested the first viable "transmutation of elements" theory and that involved converting hydrogen into helium.

I suppose that would have been almost a decade after his death.

Yes that would be about a decade afater Birkeland's death.

[Reality Check]

* RC, the authoritarian dominant model of the Sun is based on the impossible Nebular Hypothesis. The nuclear furnace model predicts 3 times the number of neutrinos detected. It cannot account for any of the known features of the Sun, including the solar granules, the photosphere, the chromosphere, the corona, the solar wind, solar flares, the sunspot cycle, the densities of the layers, spicules, prominences, CMEs, surface waves etc.

Wrong:
* RC, the dominant model of star formation is based on scientific theory and observational evidence, e.g. we see protostars (see NGC 7538) and young stars in interstellar clouds.
The nuclear furnace model predicts the number of neutrinos that have been detected (your knowledge is a decade out of date). It can account for many features of the Sun including solar granules, the photosphere, the chromosphere, the corona, the solar wind, solar flares, the sunspot cycle, the densities of the layers, spicules, prominences, CMEs, surface waves etc. The major outstanding issue is the corona heating problem which has serveral explanations (Alfven wave heating, magnetic reconnection).

[Reality Check]

I actually personally "prefer" a simple fission model,

A "simple fission model" is ruled out by the fact that it produces antineutrinos as opposed to fusion which produces neutrinos. Neutrino detectors can tell the difference.

I like Manuel's idea for two primary reasons.

There are so many flaws in Oliver Manuels's theory that you calling it an idea is a bit charitable. I will mention one: the lower limit for the formation of a neutron star is 1.38 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit). Any lighter and generally you have a white dwarf. So his theory predicts the mass of the Sun to be of the order of 2 solar masses (if you add plasma with the measured composition of the Sun to bulk the neutron star out to the size of the Sun) or many solar masses (add what he wants the composition of the Sun to be).