The Electric Sun

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 8:09 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "pln2bz"

Saul, it's good that you bring this up because it demonstrates to the EU Theorists how much of a big deal it has been that they've allowed the Tim Thompson thing to go unanswered for so long. But they have since dealt with that webpage and we're all currently waiting for a response ...

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm

Based upon other ongoing threads on this forum, it's not actually clear to me at all that both electrons and protons are flying away from the Sun. Talbott argues in this other thread (http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... .php?t=148) that the solar wind is turbulent and the drift is very slow, and it would be basically impossible to prove the general directionality of the individual charged particles even if there is a gradual movement of a specific type of particles in one particular direction. This is an interesting point: although instruments can intercept charged particles, how would those instruments also know the history of those particles? It's another one of those situations where you wished you had a more detailed picture of the raw data.

I believe that a closer inspection of The Electric Sun Hypothesis would answer some of your remaining questions.

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 1:23 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "tom_s"

[....]

Macroscopic mass defect

One of the predictions of the EMRP theory is the macroscopic mass defect, which results as a direct consequence of the complete shadowing of the incoming ultra cosmic radiation. When the depth and density of matter in the direction of the wave propagation reaches a point in which the number of wavelets is outnumbered by the number of matter (standing wave) targets, all incoming wavelets will have been reflected back radially outwards from the massive body. This leaves the central core of matter totally shadowed from the external electromagnetic field, and thus totally isolated from any inertial or gravitational effects. In other words, the massive spherical centre will look like a dark flat disk to the exterior, and most matter within the sphere, no longer communicates with its force fields.

This has great implications in the way we think planets, stars and our own sun are composed. We would of course expect to find evidence of this macroscopic mass defect in the biggest bodies of our solar system, in which the sun gets its first place. This theory in fact supports the main issue that Professor Oliver K.Manuel, now long time member of Blaze Labs Yahoo team, has been pushing forward for the past years about the origin of the solar system with Iron-rich Sun. The main problem with Oliver's issue was that although he has all the physical evidence that a lot of iron is present in our sun, the gravitational force of the sun shows that its total mass is that of a ball of the same radius as the sun but with a density slightly greater than water! Would you believe that? The present accepted density for our sun is just 1.41g/cm3, yet we know it contains a vast quantity of metals which one cannot account for in its mass. How can we explain this? Simply by taking into account the totally shadowed spherical core within the sun's volume of matter. As shown in the diagram above, the macroscopic mass defect of our sun is far from negligible. From the planet data density curve, we find out that Earth is just in the limit of the curve in which the total body mass is proportional the product of its density and volume, that is it's core is just starting to look like a disk to external force fields. This means that the earth's radius is the limiting depth beyond which Earth's density increasingly shadows external ultra cosmic radiation from penetrating any deeper. For the same reason, planets of bigger diameter show mass anomalies which cannot be explained by current theories, since they will look more disk-like at their cores. The only way out for present theorists is to assume these are planets of light density material or mostly composed of gases. However, from the way planets are presumably formed, one would expect to find similar kind of matter, and hence densities within all components of our solar system, including the sun. Thus, it becomes evident, that all planets having bigger radius than Earth, have an internal mass defect core, leaving only a cored spherical shell and a saturated disk as their effective mass. The matter within the mass defect core (hidden behind the disk), will not show up in external force field interactions! If one assumes that this apparent mass of a flat saturated disk, belongs to a spherical body, then it is obvious that when the density is calculated as density=mass of disk/volume of sphere, this will result into a ridiculously low apparent density. Armed with this concept, we can even calculate the size of such dark core for all planets, and know their respective missing mass and also their 'inert' mass.

EMRP Gravity Theory finds Dark matter

If one applies Newton's law of gravity, or even the latest refined theory of Einstein's laws of gravity, to the way galaxies spin, one will quickly stumble into a big problem: the galaxies should be falling apart. Galactic matter orbits around a central point because according to the known laws of gravity, its mutual gravitational attraction creates centripetal forces which exactly balance the centifugal forces. But here is a hunch : there is not enough mass in the galaxies to produce the observed spin, and we're not off by a small percentage, there should be about nine times the existing matter.

It was in the late 1970's when, Vera Rubin, an astronomer working at the Carnegie Institution's department of terrestrial magnetism in Washington DC, spotted this anomaly for the first time. This missing mass was termed dark matter. The best response from physicists was to suggest there is more stuff out there than we can see. The trouble was, nobody could explain what this "dark matter" was. Although researchers have made many suggestions about what kind of particles might make up dark matter, there is no consensus. It's an embarrassing hole in our understanding which can only be solved by accepting the EMRP gravity theory, even at the expense of invalidating some of the currently most established theories. Astronomical observations suggest that dark matter must make up about 90% of the mass in the universe. The missing 90% of dark matter is obviously in the totally shadowed cores of the massive bodies such as stars. This is another prediction that comes straight forward from the application of the explained macroscopic mass defect.

Xavier Borg, Blaze Labs

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-shadow.asp

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "saul"

Saul, it's good that you bring this up because it demonstrates to the EU Theorists how much of a big deal it has been that they've allowed the Tim Thompson thing to go unanswered for so long. But they have since dealt with that webpage and we're all currently waiting for a response ...

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm

Based upon other ongoing threads on this forum, it's not actually clear to me at all that both electrons and protons are flying away from the Sun. Talbott argues in this other thread (http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... .php?t=148) that the solar wind is turbulent and the drift is very slow, and it would be basically impossible to prove the general directionality of the individual charged particles even if there is a gradual movement of a specific type of particles in one particular direction. This is an interesting point: although instruments can intercept charged particles, how would those instruments also know the history of those particles? It's another one of those situations where you wished you had a more detailed picture of the raw data.

I believe that a closer inspection of The Electric Sun Hypothesis would answer some of your remaining questions.

Thanks for your reply, I'm excited to go through the rejoinder in more detail!

I can try to answer your question about the solar wind measurements. "Top hat" spectrometers in the solar wind, of which there now are many on spacecraft such as SOHO, WIND, ACE, and Ulysses, can measure with good accuracy the direction at which particles enter the instrument. On occasion, they do see electrons streaming sunward, but most of the time the electrons that enter these spectrometers are almost all going away from the sun with the solar wind.

However after reading your post and the other forum you linked, I think I understand maybe what you are saying. Perhaps the suggestion is that although indeed both electrons and protons are streaming from the sun, perhaps the electrons are slightly fewer (or more) in number and thus there can still be a current?

The speeds are well measured and the directionality, but the absolute flux calibration of one of these instruments is very difficult.

Two quick comments about the electric sun rejoinder:

1) Neutrinos -
How does a non-nuclear sun explain this?
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap980605.html

2) Magnetic Reconnection
I'm unsure why the EU community rejects this concept. Magnetic reconnection, and we could argue if it is directly observed or not, involves the creation of strong electric fields, and the rejection of quasi-neutrality. This is the kind of thing that we need to explain electrical features.. reconnection events could be compared to thunderbolts.

Cheers - saul

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: Re: reply? Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin"

.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?

Well, I think that the internal workings of the sun are still up for debate. As Thornhill has also said, the internal dynamics still haven't been directly OBSERVED, so there's no conclusive info one way or the other.

I think that O. Manuel / M. Mozina interpret an iron shell of sorts around something akin to a neutron star? But I shouldn't speak about his stuff since I haven't 100% read all of the arguments. I may have mis-read their explanation...

So, I think there are still some unclear points as to EXACTLY what is going on... In that regard, I've simply linked to articles relating to several interpretations. Though, I don't think I've preferentially treated one over the other. In some regards there are still competing models relating to what exactly is going on.

.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?

Is there someone or some statement in particular you're referring to? Kind of an ambiguous 'you.'

I think I've said in a number of threads that redshift =/= recessional velocity / distance thus estimates of mass and luminosity may be off as well, which would be a big strike against the BB theory. I tend to side with Arp on that one. (Also on the 'EU & gravity' thread, I did point out that Arp's quasar ejection & mass gathering ideas might be compatible with the idea that gravity has infact increased due to increase in mass, thus leading to conditions unfavorable to dinosaur-like or dinosaur-size creatures today; elephants being about as big as land mammals get and whales being about as big as sea creatures get). I think Arp's data is compelling. However, others also have some interesting data (see the running difference movie above) that deserves to be heard. Which exact process is nailed down in the end remains to be seen.

I don't know, necessarily, that entertaining the notion of an "iron sun" or a sun with a solid sub-surface (below the photo-/chromo- sphere and/or corona, where temperatures may be low enough to support solid matter? Based on the generally decreasing temperature curve the lower one descends through the observable solar atmosphere) equates to accepting redshift == distance...?

.You're not leaving yourselves much on which you agree with EU theory. Do you realize that?

I'm open to various interpretations, and haven't 100% made up my mind on which are correct, since there is interesting/useful data on both sides. I'm interested to see where several alternatives agree and where they differ and what evidence can support or contradict the various interpretations.

I don't mean to be noncommittal, but I guess I am a bit. ;o] It's an interesting discussion and sometimes requires an openness to both sides. Or at least a certain level of academic courtesy/consideration for both sides, as it were. Considering/discussion doesn't necessarily equate to acceptance of a particular position...

Just a few thoughts. Smile

~Michael

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: RE: questions... Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin"

Okay, I see what you were talking about now. Sorry for confusion earlier... I'll try to respond. I think I remember enough from skimming some of the articles...

.An image caption says: "'structures' on the ferrite surface rotate evenly and uniformly." Do you know what rotation is referred to?

If I recall the site correctly, Mozina was noting that the same structural feature rotates along with the rotation of the sun. IE, the same feature rotates around the sun's axis of rotation, moving toward the far side, and then coming full circle to reappear on the opposite limb of the sun and transit across the visible surface of the sun.

'Just as Birkeland surmised, it turns out that the sun has a highly defined surface that rotates (uniformly) every 27.3 days. Dr. Birkeland was at least 100 years ahead of his time.'

I believe he's saying (rightly or wrongly) that there is a rigid sub-surface that rotates below the photosphere/chromosphere/corona with the rotation of the sun...?

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.

I'm not sure what it you mean when you're referring to 'center?' Do you mean rotating around the center of the image (a point on the surface of the sun, as in a cyclonic system over the surface of the earth) or do you mean rotating around the center of the sun (which is what I'm pretty sure Mozina was implying on his site's various pages; imagine a beach ball hung on a string, make a dot on its surface and then spin the beach ball and watch the dot move with the surface of the beach ball)...

.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.

You might be right on this point, I looked through the article using Firefox's search feature on keywords 'solid' and 'surface' and the majority of what I saw did mention granular or particles. Mozina, however, appears to interpret this as meaning that at that temperature (assuming consistency around the surface), or lower, solids would be able to form or remain solid regardless and may form a larger mass than just grains (congealed grains, if you will). I guess that's what I was getting from his stuff? IE, if it's cool enough to form iron grains, wouldn't it also be possible to form larger structures (or for larger structures to CONTINUE TO EXIST if they were already there), such as a Mantle/Crust on Earth... Or perhaps more to the point, if it's cool enough to solidify, why would Iron choose grains over more contiguous solids? Is there a specific reason it WOULDN'T form a more continuous surface but rather prefer granularity (assuming elements are mass-separated such that a plentiful supply of Iron would be available for said layer to form)? Just wondering... Playing Devil's Advocate, I guess...? ;o]

.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.

Mozina may simply not be familiar with Arp's work, or fully understand its implications. The statement may be wrong in that context (placing quasars far away and old and large and energetic), but that doesn't necessarily undermine the rest of the argument detailing that iron is found to be abundant in those objects... IE, the positioning/age of the objects isn't critical to the case, so much as their composition. Unless I'm failing to note some other implication that is detrimental to the case? Come to think of it, in either case, the statement seems relevant. If quasars are far away and show a 'younger' version of the universe, it's detrimental, 'cause stars aren't expected to fuse that much that quickly. But even if they're close and faint, they're still 'young' according to Arp's model of quasars... And that still brings up the question of how so much Iron got into stars so young so quickly via fusion. Unless they were ejected WITH Iron already in place in the ejected material?

Seems that both ways describe young objects and contradictions (too much Iron in their spectrum for their age?) raised by said young objects... Or am I wrong on that?

.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.

Haven't had a chance to read that one. Though I guess I'd take away mainly the fact that the sun is layered and mass-separated, thus if the temperature is low enough in that relatively-near-the-surface Iron layer the iron layer may congeal into a solid surface (as opposed to grains)? But, I'm not sure, as I haven't really read the articles and am not sure how conclusions were reached or exact implications under an Iron Sun interpretation... Or whether that's conducive to the EU model? Though, if there was a solid surface AND it were subjected to heavy electrical interaction, it might still work? But again, I don't know if Thornhill's preference for a more traditional "gas/plasma" model of the sun (w/o iron surface?) is better or more accurate.

I would note that Don Scott has mentioned on a few occasions in the past that the Electric Sun hypothesis was one of the more tentative assertions of the EU model.

.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 volcanism on earth, according to Thornhill, but they would not originate 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.

If I recall correctly, Mozina was saying that as you tunnel down through the mass separated layers, the temperature decreases the further you go, until you reach the iron layer(s), which may be at or around 4000 deg K. or less, at which point it may be possible for the Iron to be in a 'solid' state rather than in the plasma state of layers above it?

Again, this is my sparse recollections of having read through the site briefly a little while back... So, I might be off in some of my thoughts. Or I may have misinterpreted/forgotten something while reading...?

And I don't know whether the stuff noted on that site is accurate, or plausible. Just trying to recall the basic arguments. But as Steve Smith says: better to go back to the original documents on Mozina's site and read them through a few times (as opposed to just taking my [second/third hand] word for it)... ;o]

Hopefully I didn't too horribly mangle what Mozina was saying... Which I think was interesting, though I can't really evaluate its accuracy/plausibility or how well it jives with the EU interpretation.

Cheers,
~Michael

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 8:02 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "pln2bz"

1) Neutrinos -
How does a non-nuclear sun explain this?
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap980605.html

Saul, the topic of neutrinos is covered in quite a bit of depth throughout the EU materials: the Tim Thompson Rejoinder, The Electric Sky and the upcoming Electric Universe monograph.

In short, the EU Theorists are not alleging that neutrinos do not exist. They agree that fusion is occurring on the Sun -- but only where the temperatures are sufficient, within the corona. They disagree with the notion that fusion is occurring within the Sun's core, and Wallace Thornhill points out that neutrino production has been observed to be inversely correlated with sunspot activity. This observation would basically violate the standard solar model because the SSM requires that it takes something like 100,000 years for the convective process of the Sun to occur. Therefore, any sort of link between neutrinos and surface activity wouldn't make sense if neutrinos are being generated within the core.

They also argue that the science of neutrinos has been somewhat corrupted lately with the whole neutrino flavor situation. The idea was apparently that the existence of neutrino flavors could account for a surprisingly large neutrino deficit coming from the Sun (according to the SSM and because prior instruments were designed to intercept only one type of neutrino), but inherent in this idea was the speculation that neutrinos might prefer flavor changes in one particular direction. If it is found that this is not in fact true, then the neutrino flavor situation cannot resolve the neutrino deficit problem.

2) Magnetic Reconnection
I'm unsure why the EU community rejects this concept. Magnetic reconnection, and we could argue if it is directly observed or not, involves the creation of strong electric fields, and the rejection of quasi-neutrality. This is the kind of thing that we need to explain electrical features.. reconnection events could be compared to thunderbolts.

My understanding, and Don Scott has been quite vocal about this, is that magnetic reconnection violates fundamental laws of electricity and magnetism. The bigger question is really: why have the plasma physicists not spoken up about it more than they have?

But the real issue with magnetic connection is that (a) it is being co-opted as a mechanism for explaining the high temperature of the corona relative to the surface of the Sun, and (b) it allows mainstream astrophysicists to avoid resorting to the plasma laboratory phenomenon of double layers to explain the Sun's explosive behavior. The reason they want to avoid double layers is because the existence of double layers generally prevents them from modeling plasmas as quasi-neutral plasmas. In other words, if you accept the existence of double layers, then the plasma must be modeled as an electrical phenomenon (as opposed to a fluids phenomenon) -- precisely as we observe plasma to behave within the laboratory. In other words, magnetic reconnection has become the basis for resolving the inverse temperature problem of the Sun, allowing scientists to assert that the Sun has a very hot thermonuclear core; for ignoring electricity over plasmas in space; *and* for pushing aside the knowledge that we've learned about plasmas from the laboratory (which is that they are largely electrical phenomenon). So, it is in these regards quite antithetical to EU Theory.

That's my understanding of it. I'm an electrical engineer though, so I hope I got all of that right!

I would like to recommend though that you read those materials. EU Theory is far more formidable when it is presented as a cohesive theory all at once -- as opposed to piecemeal articles. And although it can certainly be fun to test each others' knowledge of the materials, I think you will find once you catch up is that there is still a lot to talk about even after the fundamental understanding of what is going on in astrophysics today is understood. Like the climate issue, it's one of those subjects that there really is no end to. You can literally spend an entire lifetime understanding all of this material in greater and greater depth. Once you understand the basics of electrical plasmas, then the groundwork has been laid to start considering electrical terraforming of planets, ancient mythologies, prehistorical cave/rock art and even the origins of life itself. But you have to understand plasma first -- or all of this additional talk will seem a bit like nonsense.

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 8:33 pm Post subject: re: APOD Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin"

Thanks for your reply, I'm excited to go through the rejoinder in more detail!

I can try to answer your question about the solar wind measurements. "Top hat" spectrometers in the solar wind, of which there now are many on spacecraft such as SOHO, WIND, ACE, and Ulysses, can measure with good accuracy the direction at which particles enter the instrument. On occasion, they do see electrons streaming sunward, but most of the time the electrons that enter these spectrometers are almost all going away from the sun with the solar wind.

However after reading your post and the other forum you linked, I think I understand maybe what you are saying. Perhaps the suggestion is that although indeed both electrons and protons are streaming from the sun, perhaps the electrons are slightly fewer (or more) in number and thus there can still be a current?

The speeds are well measured and the directionality, but the absolute flux calibration of one of these instruments is very difficult.

Two quick comments about the electric sun rejoinder:

1) Neutrinos -
How does a non-nuclear sun explain this?
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap980605.html

2) Magnetic Reconnection
I'm unsure why the EU community rejects this concept. Magnetic reconnection, and we could argue if it is directly observed or not, involves the creation of strong electric fields, and the rejection of quasi-neutrality. This is the kind of thing that we need to explain electrical features.. reconnection events could be compared to thunderbolts.

Cheers - saul

Well, I might point out

(June 5, 1998! [An almost 10-yr-old APOD])
"In a tantalizing recent announcement, an international collaboration of Super-K researchers has now presented evidence that the ghostly neutrinos undergo quantum mechanical oscillations, changing their particle identities and quantum properties over time. Theorists have considered neutrinos to be massless particles but these oscillations would imply that they have a very small (but nonzero) mass. Astrophysicists are taking note because even a small mass for ubiquitous, nearly undetectable neutrinos would make them accountable for a substantial fraction of the total mass of our Universe, influencing and perhaps determining its ultimate fate! A measurable mass for neutrinos would also make them candidates for the mysterious dark matter known to affect the motions of stars and galaxies, while proof of neutrino oscillations would be a step toward resolving the decades old Solar Neutrino Problem. Even skeptical scientists will be waiting impatiently to see if these results are independently confirmed."

MiniBooNE, when un-blinded, appears to have ruled out the "sterile neutrino" oscillation scenario with "98% confidence" (according to some commentators). This seems to have dispelled controversy about the LSND result that had appeared to confirm "sterile neutrino" oscillations. Though other "oscillation" scenarios have not yet been proven/disproven.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1500
http://www-boone.fnal.gov/publicpages/First_Results.pdf

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=547
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 041107.php

So, that should probably be noted as a "grain of salt." Also, as Scott says, the "oscillation" measurements may be faulty anyway. Since observing neutrinos here tells us very little about what they did en route from the sun or what their original state was IN the sun (assuming that's where the neutrinos observed came from)... IE, without observing the neutrinos as they emerge FROM the sun and then measuring the SAME neutrinos AT the Earth, one really can't say what happened en route. If something changed, changed back, did The Macarena, or whatnot, you wouldn't know unless you actually observed those events and states AS THEY HAPPENED. I don't mean to be glib. It just seems specious to me to say that you can have only a single observation tell you everything about where something came from, what state it was in when it left, what state it was in when it was en route AND what state it's in now that it arrived. You'd have to make measurements at each point along the path to get that degree of confidence in data... My opinion, of course...

Silly example/analogy (sorry if it ends up being glib; just trying to be realistic):

Let's say we take a photos of a jogger finishing a marathon as he crosses the finish line. Can we then take that image on its own and project it backward in time to find out what route he took, what specific obstacles he encountered, whether he changed clothes along the way, whether he joined the race illegitimately somewhere along the way other than the start, whether he cheated and didn't run the entire way (biked or drove), whether it was a relay race in which completely different and discrete people (of all creeds, colors, nationalities, religions) switched off and took turns being "the runner," or where the race started from?

My answer, of course not! To find out where the race started one would have to be there to observe it. Likewise to find out if the particular runner started the race there. To find out whether the runners switched off (changed flavors / colors / whatever), whether someone joined later from elsewhere, cheated, encountered obstacles, you'd have to basically travel along with the runner(s) and make observations the whole way. Only then can you definitively make statements that someone started where you believe they did, did/didn't switch off, or cheat, or arrive late in the race from elsewhere, and the person finishing the race is the same one that started it.

~Michael

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 8:42 pm Post subject: re: reconnection Reply with quote
OP "mgmirkin"

2) Magnetic Reconnection
I'm unsure why the EU community rejects this concept. Magnetic reconnection, and we could argue if it is directly observed or not, involves the creation of strong electric fields, and the rejection of quasi-neutrality. This is the kind of thing that we need to explain electrical features.. reconnection events could be compared to thunderbolts.

Cheers - saul

My understanding is that Don Scott (retired Electrical Engineer / Electrical Engineering professor for 39 years) has, in his rejoinder and elsewhere, stated that "magnetic reconnection" is a fiction based upon mistaking "lines of force" to be actual physical entities or "prime movers and shakers." Rather they simply note field alignment/direction. Much as latitude/longitude aren't physically "real things" but handy mental constructs. Scott likens magnetic reconnection to saying that the latitude/longitude lines "reconnect" at the poles (thus there must be a great reserve of longitudinal energy at those points... Or something like that.), which would be nonsensical, just as magnetic reconnection of imaginary "field lines" is nonsensical.

Don Scott explains it better in his rejoinder...
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm

So, I'll refer you back to that (the section on Magnetic Reconnection)...

~Michael

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 9:10 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Krackonis"

It seems within reason to assume that all bodies are the same. Some with a metal core, mostly Iron, and some mostly Silicates. (Conductives and Semi-Conductors)

The errors in weigh come from charge. Saturn, and the Sun might both be Iron, but their charges are very very high.

This same effect can explain why certain beings lived in our world that could not walk now. (Even why we could build giant monuments, and cannot now) Rolling Eyes

That just seems the simplist solution.
_________________
Neil Thompson

Krackonis

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

[bboyer]

Posted: Wed May 23, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: Re: The Electric Sun Reply with quote
OP "Krackonis"

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.

Cheers - saul

I disagree. I agree that .003 of the light and such that is received had iron ions. If all the effects on the sun occur in the atmosphere, then inside could be as mysterious as our planet.

Density/Mass apparently can be affected by charge (or is likely affected)

And the sun is very hot on the outside, but only 2000c at the surface, which is not impossible for metal under pressure to be solid. Idea
_________________
Neil Thompson

Krackonis

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

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 12:34 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "saul"

1) Neutrinos -
How does a non-nuclear sun explain this?
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap980605.html

Saul, the topic of neutrinos is covered in quite a bit of depth throughout the EU materials: the Tim Thompson Rejoinder, The Electric Sky and the upcoming Electric Universe monograph.

In short, the EU Theorists are not alleging that neutrinos do not exist. They agree that fusion is occurring on the Sun -- but only where the temperatures are sufficient, within the corona. They disagree with the notion that fusion is occurring within the Sun's core, and Wallace Thornhill points out that neutrino production has been observed to be inversely correlated with sunspot activity. This observation would basically violate the standard solar model because the SSM requires that it takes something like 100,000 years for the convective process of the Sun to occur. Therefore, any sort of link between neutrinos and surface activity wouldn't make sense if neutrinos are being generated within the core.

[snip]

Greetings-

Sorry for posting without doing my homework about alternative explanations for neutrinos, but I think I have some basic questions.

Before the "flavor changing" explanations arrived, the solar neutrino deficit (as first measured in the late 60s) was an observed flux of 1/3 the predicted level. If we accept this result does this mean at least 1/3 of solar energy comes from nuclear reactions?

Where do you think currents flow in or out of the sun and at what magnitude? A good paper about the observed current system in the heliosphere:

http://tinyurl.com/2rkpdb

Cheers -

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 12:50 am Post subject: Re: re: reconnection Reply with quote
OP "saul"

2) Magnetic Reconnection
I'm unsure why the EU community rejects this concept. Magnetic reconnection, and we could argue if it is directly observed or not, involves the creation of strong electric fields, and the rejection of quasi-neutrality. This is the kind of thing that we need to explain electrical features.. reconnection events could be compared to thunderbolts.

Cheers - saul

My understanding is that Don Scott (retired Electrical Engineer / Electrical Engineering professor for 39 years) has, in his rejoinder and elsewhere, stated that "magnetic reconnection" is a fiction based upon mistaking "lines of force" to be actual physical entities or "prime movers and shakers." Rather they simply note field alignment/direction. Much as latitude/longitude aren't physically "real things" but handy mental constructs. Scott likens magnetic reconnection to saying that the latitude/longitude lines "reconnect" at the poles (thus there must be a great reserve of longitudinal energy at those points... Or something like that.), which would be nonsensical, just as magnetic reconnection of imaginary "field lines" is nonsensical.

Don Scott explains it better in his rejoinder...
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm

So, I'll refer you back to that (the section on Magnetic Reconnection)...

~Michael

Thanks for your reply. I think Don Scott is entirely correct that magnetic field lines are not physical entities but merely tools for visualizing the field. Also, that the term reconnection is often abused and the phenomenon poorly understood. However I disagree that it is nonsensical. Here's a good definition: "Magnetic reconnection is a phenomenon where energy is efficiently converted from the magnetic field to charged particles as a result of global magnetic topology changes during which earlier separated plasma regions become magnetically connected." There's no need to invoke the imaginary field lines except to try to draw pictures of it.

Cheers -

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 1:51 am Post subject: sources Reply with quote
OP "lk"

.Those who favor the iron sun model etc, have you read Thoth articles on the electric sun model here? [Juergens has a very thorough article there.]
http://www.kronia.com/thoth.html
.I copied most of Thornhill's and Don Scott's Thoth articles here.
http://www.freewebs.com/soyps/thoth.htm
.I haven't read Electric Sky, but I know they have a pretty complete electric univers model constructed. Here's a summary of my understanding of it.
.How the first galaxies formed I'm not sure if they have any hunches yet, but once galaxies form the electrical forces cause them to build up a large mass at the core and within a plasma gun. When a critical charge or mass or something is reached the gun shoots out the large ball a great distance away, many hundreds or thousands of lightyears. I think the ball has a high positive charge which draws a trail of electrons from the mother galaxy to it. The charge gives its light a high redshift and the ball is known as a quasar. The quasar then evolves into a new galaxy. I think 2 of these balls are shot out at the same time in opposite directions, so quasars appear in pairs on opposite sides of central galaxies. Younger galaxies also appear in pairs because they were initially quasars too. When young galaxies get old enough, they also form quasars. There is a string of galaxies on opposite sides of the Milky Way, which all appear to have come from the Andromeda galaxy initially.
.Electrical forces in the spiral arms of galaxies scavenge hydrogen etc and form them into balls via the Z-pinch force. I think these regions can also form plasma guns that shoot out these smaller electrically heated balls, which become stars. If electrical forces in a new star's vicinity are strong enough the star brightens and like charges within it will repel each other and cause the star to fission or split. The brightening can be somewhat explosive as in a nova. Further fissioning can also occur, producing planets, moons, asteroids, comets, meteors etc.
.The gravity of each body will vary according to how much charge is on it. The winds, lighting and surface features of each body is controlled largely by electrical forces. That includes solar flares, ejections, auroras, jet streams, vulcanism, earthquakes, tornadoes, dust devils, hurricanes, craters, rilles, large canyons etc. Even evolution of life forms may be largely an electrical effect.
.Aether theory doesn't seem to be a major concern of EU theory as yet, but Thornhill has been working on such a theory too.
.EU theory generally seems to oppose the Big Bang, expanding universe, redshift = distance, dark matter, dark energy, neutron stars, blackholes, wormholes etc.

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 2:36 am Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "arc-us"

Where do you think currents flow in or out of the sun and at what magnitude? A good paper about the observed current system in the heliosphere:

http://tinyurl.com/2rkpdb

Cheers -

I'm not the one to answer your question, but would like to make a comment on the paper, which overall I think has made some important points.

Conclusion
The three-dimensional heliospheric current system revealed in our simulation may play an important role in the processes on the Sun. The total strength of the radial current is <forumla>. Thus the surface density of the closure current flowing along the solar surface can be estimated as <formula>, and the magnetic field produced by this current is <formula>, i.e. several percent of the intrinsic magnetic field of the Sun. This seems to mean that any consideration of the solar magnetic field generation should take into account the heliospheric current circuit as well as the currents flowing inside the Sun. Such a conlusion corroborates our recent result (Israelevich et al. 2000) that there is a feedback between the solar wind flow and the main solar magnetic field.

What I think they've missed, however, is the external circuit and associated power supply/source. They liken the sun to a "unipolar generator" and the paper is modelling "the heliospheric current circuit as well as the currents flowing inside the Sun" to give a more complete picture of the solar magnetic field generation as stated in the abstract portion. Badly needed, along with incorporating the load portion (being, what, at least the planets?). Of course, I think the EU model is using the analogy of a plasma discharge tube for the solar system and the external circuitry being the local galaxy. EDIT:052407: The more I look at it I'm sure that it will probably be refining the picture as more data comes in from such planned missions as described in the Tiny Mercury has a magnetic field thread, "Toward a Virtual Observatory for Solar System Plasmas: an exceptional scientific opportunity".

Perhaps the sun, itself, is comparable to a spherical plasma discharge tube with the center or surface being the anode and the corona the hot cathode and the rest of the system part of the load. That might explain the dark area beneath sunspots (i.e. one of the "dark spaces" common to discharge tubes?). Or maybe it's even a discharge tube (sun) within a larger discharge tube (solar system)? Anyway, those are just my own idle, less-than-amateurish speculations and are neither here nor there.

However, in this paper I'm assuming that they are assuming the sun is a self-referent power source (nuclear, I imagine?) without any external power such is required by any known and observed generator or motor. So I'm wondering how their model would be affected by a pair of twisted Birkeland currents feeding through, I assume, the suns polar regions? EDIT:052407: In reading through the Thoth text cited below by lk I see it says:

"I would take issue with the use of the word "wind". The solar wind is
structured in a way that suggests it is a spiral of Birkeland
currents feeding a plasmoid shaped like a twisted doughnut that
encircles the Sun very closely. As shown in laboratory
experiments, such a plasmoid can store considerable energy. That
energy is released at intervals by discharging to the surface of
the Sun. Solar flares and Coronal Mass Ejection events result
from particularly violent discharges."

So I don't know where the Birkeland currents are feeding, equatorially or axially (polar) or both. Maybe someday someone will provide a "comprehensive circuit diagram" updated to any recent modelling that starts internally with the sun and broadens outward through the planets to at least the local galaxy and that includes proposed current flows, boundary sheaths, potential differentials, and field visuals etc.

Best Regards,
Arc-us
_________________
The moment of recognizing what cannot be thought is the moment of recognizing who you are. It is a moment of the mind's surrender to silence. The only obstacle to realizing the truth of who you are is thinking who you are. It's that simple. -- Gangaji

Last edited by @rc-us on Fri May 25, 2007 1:12 am; edited 4 times in total

[bboyer]

Posted: Thu May 24, 2007 2:30 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
OP "Enan Gamre"

Saul,
your definition indeed inspired my interest. Too bad it's not from a Web source.

A fundamental problem with magnetic reconnection, however, is that the theoretical details don't add up. . . .The emerging theory of magnetic reconnection seems to offer an explanation for the fast release of magnetic energy, but leaves many mysteries unsolved. Why do the magnetic fields remain apparently quiescent for long periods of time and then suddenly explode for no apparent reason? This behavior is seen in the solar corona, the magnetosphere and laboratory plasmas.
-- James F. Drake in "Nature", 2001, free PDF

The topic is in an entangled state, where new models and old are both
contradicting each other and supporting or depending on each other.
-- from a student's paper on "The Current State of Research on Magnetic Reconnection", 2000, PDF

Oppositely directed magnetic intensity H-fields simply cancel each other - no energy is stored or released in that event.
-- from Dr. Scott's Electric Sun

Your definition seems to mean that when a field rearranges itself in plasma (plasma then sits and waits?), then there can be identified two areas where there is plasma and the field strength is similar(?). This releases energy! Field lines are indeed unnecessary .