The Electric Sun

[bboyer]

Posted: Sat May 19, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject: The Electric Sun Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin"

I guess I'll post some selected current and historical readings on the Electric Sun hypothesis and other related electric star materials. But if anyone has more or more in depth resources, feel free to post those too.

(On Possible Electric Phenomena in Solar Systems and Nebulae. Kristian Birkeland.)
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/index.htm

(Electricity in Space. Hannes Alfvén.)
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/elec ... /index.htm

(A biography and numerous articles by C.E.R. Bruce.)
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/biblio.htm
adsabs.harvard.edu articles
Cosmic Thunderstorms

(Lightning in astronomy. E.W. Crew)
http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/lightning/index.html
http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/solar/Solarphysics.htm
http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/sun2.htm

(Juergens' articles on the Electric Sun)
http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/index.htm

(Electric Sun info from Don Scott)
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm (See also this thread in the forums...)

(The Electric Sun. Dr. László Körtvélyessy.
See also the Electric Enceladus topic, for more from Körtvélyessy.)
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/t ... c_sun.html

(A site and papers from Oliver Manuel)
http://www.omatumr.com/index.html
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Th ... Origin.pdf
http://www.omatumr.com/papers.html
http://www.omatumr.com/PapersArxiv.html
http://www.omatumr.com/data.html
http://www.omatumr.com/RelatedArticles.html

(A somewhat different view of the sun from Michael Mozina)
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

(I know he was a polarizing figure, and there is still controversy attached to the name. But, for fairness and historical purposes, and whether right or wrong, I'll include this one from Immanuel Velikovsky: COSMOS WITHOUT GRAVITATION: ATTRACTION, REPULSION AND ELECTROMAGNETIC CIRCUMDUCTION IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM)
http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm

Guess that's all for now. May update as I find more related works. Feel free to read, discuss, compare/contrast, etc.

~Michael

Last edited by mgmirkin on Mon May 21, 2007 6:57 am; edited 4 times in total

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 4:59 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Rduke"

Excellent work of late mgmirkin, you are providing me with some excellent links that I have either never read, went to read and got sidetracked, or did indeed read and then lost the link to the ether ...

I really appreciate that you are bringing them all back together for me in a tidy package..

[bboyer]

Posted: Sun May 20, 2007 8:42 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Krackonis"

Excellent work of late mgmirkin, you are providing me with some excellent links that I have either never read, went to read and got sidetracked, or did indeed read and then lost the link to the ether ...

I really appreciate that you are bringing them all back together for me in a tidy package..

If you do have an opportunity to laugh a bit. Do a you tube search on Velikovsky and Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan makes some much needed words on listening to all the evidence, but in the end dismisses Velikovsky. I think it's just nice to see how far we have come to turning the gavity based tides.
_________________
Neil Thompson

Krackonis

"We are the universe, trying to understand itself."
- Delenn

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 12:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin"

Excellent work of late mgmirkin, you are providing me with some excellent links that I have either never read, went to read and got sidetracked, or did indeed read and then lost the link to the ether ...

I really appreciate that you are bringing them all back together for me in a tidy package..

Glad to be of help. Come to think of it, I probably could have posted this over on the "Resources" forum. But I guess I also wanted to engender whatever questions/discussions the materials might elicit as well. In part, I also wanted this thread to be up on the forums 'cause Google crawls the forums (apparently; try google-ing "Koes Namibia Geology" to see what I mean). And I figure it would be good if folks interested in the Electric Sun hypothesis were to come here and read some of the original sources rather than reviews or second hand, possible inaccurate, resources... Not trying to game Google, per se, just make sure that there's a forum on here relating the the eSun topic (how's that for a catchy moniker? *wink*) with the relevant original docs. Again, if you know of any other good original docs relating to the eSun or electric stars, feel free to throw in a link, perhaps I'll update the main post up-top on a running basis...? Just so folks have easy access.

Most of these I hadn't read before, strangely enough. Now I've at least skimmed some of it, though it's a lot for a single sitting. So, I might have to run through some of it again.

Cheers,
~Michael G.

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 12:22 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin"

If you do have an opportunity to laugh a bit. Do a you tube search on Velikovsky and Carl Sagan. Carl Sagan makes some much needed words on listening to all the evidence, but in the end dismisses Velikovsky. I think it's just nice to see how far we have come to turning the gavity based tides.

If I recall correctly, there's also a book available from Mikamar:

(Carl Sagan and Immanuel Velikovsky. By Charles Ginenthal)
http://www.mikamar.biz/book-info/cs-iv-a.htm

In case anyone's interested in more on the subject. I've never really gotten into the whole "Velikovsky Affair" debate, and don't really want to dredge up the past. But, for those interested in the history of it, I guess that's aimed to be a pretty definitive reference? Don't know as I haven't read it. Still, probably interesting if nothing else. Though I don't think directly related to the Electric Sun hypothesis. So, I'll leave it at that.

Shall we get back to it? (The Electric Sun, that is...)

~Michael

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 2:13 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "tom_s"

This site is home to Oliver Manuel's output. It hold a wealth of valuable information relating to the Sun: http://www.omatumr.com/

Example:

THE SUN: AN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PLASMA DIFFUSER THAT CONTROLS EARTH'S CLIMATE
(With web links to atomic weight measurements that unmasked the Iron Sun)
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Th ... Origin.pdf

More at the first link above.

I posted a comment on the CERN LHC by Manuel to this forum only a few days ago, which is here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... .php?t=139

The gas model of the Sun appears to be crumbling before our eyes.

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 5:49 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin"

This site is home to Oliver Manuel's output. It hold a wealth of valuable information relating to the Sun: http://www.omatumr.com/

Example:

THE SUN: AN ELECTRO-MAGNETIC PLASMA DIFFUSER THAT CONTROLS EARTH'S CLIMATE
(With web links to atomic weight measurements that unmasked the Iron Sun)
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Th ... Origin.pdf

More at the first link above.

I posted a comment on the CERN LHC by Manuel to this forum only a few days ago, which is here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... .php?t=139

The gas model of the Sun appears to be crumbling before our eyes.

Thanks, might have forgotten that one. Any others?

~Michael

Addendum: Added a few extra E.W. Crew resources... Interesting stuff. Seems also that CER Bruce was a prolific writer. Wonder how many of his papers are available in full online? I wish that scientific papers were FREELY available. I don't think that "proprietary science" is a good thing. Science shouldn't be copyright-able/patent-able (seeing as how it describes basic laws of nature), and shouldn't be "stowed away." Science should belong to be people, ultimately...

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: Gas Sun Reply with quote
OP "lk"

.Thornhill seems to favor the gas model of the sun http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThotIV05.txt and considers the iron sun idea as founded on faulty premisses http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoVI-01.txt.
.THOTH - VOL VI, No 1 - Jan 15, 2002 - ... The fixation on rare supernovae as the source of all the heavy elements [the iron sun theory assumes that the iron comes from such a supernova], which they dissipate into deep space, strikes me as one of the silliest ideas in cosmology (and it has plenty of competition). This latest proposal, like so much else in cosmology, is driven by a theory that is built upon many others, each with so many knobs to twiddle that the outcome could as well have been an ornithorhynchus as a planetary system. It is all concocted after the event and is not predictive. It is time to start from scratch.
.The fact that "strange xenon is enriched in isotopes that are made when a supernova explodes," and we find it in meteorites and on the Moon and Jupiter, does suggest a local origin. But a model that does not require an extraordinary event is to be preferred. One of the simplest means of producing short-lived and strange isotopes is to use a particle accelerator. Plasma discharges are natural particle accelerators. So the simplest solution is to suggest that plasma discharges accompanied the formation of meteorites, the Moon, Jupiter and most likely all other bodies in the solar system. But because the experiences of each body is unique under these circumstances, we should expect a fruit salad of planets and moons. And with such different faces it proposes the question of who was parent to whom, and when?
.~Wal Thornhill
.I've also compacted nearly all of Thornhill's and Don Scott's Thoth articles here: http://www.freewebs.com/soyps/thoth.htm.

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 10:12 pm Post subject: Re: Gas Sun Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin"

.Thornhill seems to favor the gas model of the sun http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThotIV05.txt and considers the iron sun idea as founded on faulty premisses http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoVI-01.txt.
.THOTH - VOL VI, No 1 - Jan 15, 2002 - ... The fixation on rare supernovae as the source of all the heavy elements [the iron sun theory assumes that the iron comes from such a supernova], which they dissipate into deep space, strikes me as one of the silliest ideas in cosmology (and it has plenty of competition). This latest proposal, like so much else in cosmology, is driven by a theory that is built upon many others, each with so many knobs to twiddle that the outcome could as well have been an ornithorhynchus as a planetary system. It is all concocted after the event and is not predictive. It is time to start from scratch.
.The fact that "strange xenon is enriched in isotopes that are made when a supernova explodes," and we find it in meteorites and on the Moon and Jupiter, does suggest a local origin. But a model that does not require an extraordinary event is to be preferred. One of the simplest means of producing short-lived and strange isotopes is to use a particle accelerator. Plasma discharges are natural particle accelerators. So the simplest solution is to suggest that plasma discharges accompanied the formation of meteorites, the Moon, Jupiter and most likely all other bodies in the solar system. But because the experiences of each body is unique under these circumstances, we should expect a fruit salad of planets and moons. And with such different faces it proposes the question of who was parent to whom, and when?
.~Wal Thornhill
.I've also compacted nearly all of Thornhill's and Don Scott's Thoth articles here: http://www.freewebs.com/soyps/thoth.htm.

Yes, point taken, there are definitely a few different interpretations to be had from various data. I guess in some regards it's up to the reader to surmised which is the most elegant and the most convincing data. I don't have the expertise, per se to make said judgment. All seem to make some interesting and valid observations/points. The question is how to best navigate the data and come to an elegant AND explanatory solution.

I agree that the simplest explanation that deals with the largest swath of the raw data is to be preferred...

~Michael

[bboyer]

Posted: Mon May 21, 2007 11:32 pm Post subject: Could the Sun Have a Solid Surface? Reply with quote
OP "tom_s"

NASA's SOHO satellite and the Trace satellite program have both imaged this transition layer of the sun that sits beneath the photosphere. These 21st century satellites and technologies now enable us to peer behind the outer plasma layers of the chromosphere and photosphere and allow us to study the rocky, calcium ferrite transitional layer with incredible precision.

The gas model sun was founded by Galileo, observed the sun through a relatively primitive telescope and noticed that sunspots did not rotate uniformly across the surface of the photosphere. He also observed that this visible “surface” rotated at different speeds near the equator than it did near the poles.

From his study of sunspots and their uneven movement, Galileo surmised that he must be looking at some type of gas. He was correct in that assessment, although today we know that the photosphere is a form of hot ionized plasma.

Unfortunately, Galileo also "assumed" that no other solid layers existed, or could exist beneath the visible layer of the photosphere. That was a critical mistake. It was a bit like looking at a world covered in water, and having no ability to see beneath the water and simply assuming that the whole world is made of water.

The running difference imaging technique used by both NASA and Lockheed Martin have revealed to us for the first time that the sun is not simply a ball of hydrogen gas in space; it has a hard and rigid ferrite surface below the visible photosphere that can be seen in all of the images.

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.

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 sun in fact has a stratified iron surface, covered by a relatively thin veneer of plasma layers.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Could...ce-52143.shtml

These Running Difference Images, from SOHO, are made from lines of Fe (IX) and Fe (X). They show quite clearly an evenly rotating solid-like surface beneath the photosphere.

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 2:49 am Post subject: Solid? Reply with quote
OP "lk"

.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? Does it mean the structure in the image is rotating about its center? 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.
.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. 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.
.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.
.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. It talks about the radius of the sun varying, but I don't see how a solid surface could allow variation.
.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.
.They seem to suggest that the core is a fusion reactor, like the standard solar model, which is almost certainly wrong. 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.
.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.

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 7:10 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "tom_s"

Here's a working link to the above article :
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Could-th ... 2143.shtml

The temperature of the Sun is somewhat mysterious. We have no idea what the temperature at the core is, but we do observe that temperature INCREASES with distance from the interior of the Sun (a phenomenon known as temperature inversion). Working backwards from the outer corona, we have a temp of 2 million K dropping to about 6,000 K at the upper surface of the H-He plasma layer (the photosphere). Sunspots are funnel-like depressions in the plasma, enabling a view deeper into the Sun. The dark umbra at the centre of sunspots is between 1,500 and 2,000 K cooler than the surrounding plasma. Briefly, then, thermodynamic conditions beneath the H-He plasma layer do allow for solid or semi solid ferrite structure.

Regards
Hilton Ratcliffe
Astronomical Society of South Africa
ratcliff(AT)iafrica.com


To add to Hilton Ratcliffe's comment:

The SERTS program lists ion abundances and records at least 10 different types of materials from 10 different source elements making up the Sun. Excluding hydrogen, ions from helium, neon, silicon, chromium, aluminum, manganese and magnesium, and ferrite are recorded. During more active phases nickel and sulfur also show up. The presence of neon and silicon raises the intriguing possibility that they form two plasma layers located between the photosphere and the ferrite surface beneath. Silicon being the heavier in all probability makes up the lower layer, while the lighter neon makes up the upper layer region associated with light from the penumbral filaments. Calcium-ferrite and other metals make up the rigid lower “surface”. On top of the rigid ferrite surface sits the silicon layer, followed by the neon layer, followed by the helium layer, followed finally by the hydrogen layer. This model arrangement is intriguing because neon helps to explain the Sun in two very important ways: Firstly, it provides a source of visible light, since neon lights up orange/white in an electrically charged vacuum. Secondly, neon just happens to be one of the most efficient refrigerants in the Universe. Liquid neon has over forty times the refrigerating capacity per volume unit than liquid helium, and more than three times that of liquid hydrogen. In other words, neon not only conducts heat away from the surface in a highly efficient manner, it also provides a logical and plausible mechanism which explains visible light. It would make a lot of sense if the penumbral filaments are composed of neon, since this layer is the layer of the photosphere typically associated with the light we see. This layer behaves like a neon light bulb and refrigeration system at one and the same time.

To recap: There are 3 major benefits to be gained from adding a neon plasma layer to our solid surface solar model.

1. We know from SERTS data that neon is present in the output spectrum and we need to specifically account for it, if the new model is to be taken seriously.

2. Neon adds a major cooling element to the model, something we need if we are to explain a solid ferrite surface.

3. Neon provides a mechanism which explains visible light -- energized by electricity from the surface, neon plasma beams light around the solar system 655.2 hours a day.

Last edited by tom_s on Tue May 22, 2007 7:49 pm; edited 1 time in total

[bboyer]

Posted: Tue May 22, 2007 7:46 pm Post subject: Re: Solid? Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin"

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

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 3:11 am Post subject: reply? Reply with quote
OP "lk"

.Do you guys have any answers to the comments I made yesterday?
.Isn't the iron sun theory based on the nuclear furnace model of the sun, with nuclear fusion going on in the core?
.Isn't it also based on the mechanically exploding supernova theory for the solar system, where the nuclear furnace explodes for lack of fuel?
.How likely is it that an extremely rare event, a supernova, accounts for a common event, a star like our sun?
.Why do you accept the redshift = distance theory, which claims that quasars are extremely large powerful energy sources from billions of years ago, instead of Halton Arp's findings that show they are small galaxies that are shot out of nearby galaxies and evolve into full-sized galaxies themselves?
.Why do you accept the Big Bang theory [since you accept redshift = distance and rapid expansion], which also implies an expanding universe, black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy etc?
.You're not leaving yourselves much on which you agree with EU theory. Do you realize that?

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:21 am Post subject: The Electric Sun Reply with quote
OP "saul"

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, and temperature. The iron makes up about .003% of the composition if you look at the absorption lines. The density of the sun is about 1.4 gm/cm^3. The temperature is way too hot for solid iron.

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? Where are these currents and why do we see both electrons and protons flying away from the sun superAlfvenically in the solar wind? I'll play the devil's advocate and post the naysayer link:
http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html

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