Sparky wrote:seems to be a problem for me that you are seeing a plasma rope without any circuit nor current that is maintaining a magnetic field(s)
I'm positing that a neutrally-charged parcel of plasma boils up from the radiative zone at a high rate of speed. At extreme velocities, positive and negative charges get split apart by the opposing magnetic fields that are generated by the oppositely-charged particles. So it's the convective motion of the plasma that is the original magnetomotive force, which then splits apart the charges, establishing an electric field.
This electric field is what motivates the electric current in the loops. So it's neutrally-charged plasma that gets its charges separated, creating the potential for an energetic recombination. When the split charges figure out that they can meet head-on if they curve toward each other, therefore eliminating the repulsion of opposite-polarity magnetic fields, the charges can be accelerated to relativistic speeds. So the model definitely has an electric field, and the magnetic fields generated by this fast-moving plasma are responsible for splitting the charges in the first place, and for determining that a loop will be the most energetic way in which the charges can recombine.
Figure 5. Fast-moving electric charges can recombine if they form a loop.
The squishy part in this whole territory is the mechanics of the "erupting" plasma.
IF we can get the plasma moving that fast (somehow), then the magnetic fields will split the charges, and then the charges can recombine if they can curve toward each other. How, exactly, to get the plasma moving that fast in the first place is something that neither I nor anybody else has worked out in detail. We know the velocity is there, so I'm not positing the existence of unsubstantiated speeds. But a full mechanistic description has to identify the energy that got the plasma moving in the first place, such that it will generate magnetic fields capable of separating the charges. Until/if/when that end is nailed down, the whole thing is flopping around in the breeze. But I'll definitely be looking at the lower reaches of the convective zone for this energy source, as there is no evidence of sufficient energy flowing down from the chromosphere (or above), nor would it display the observed characteristics if that was the source of the energy.
Sparky wrote:as for fusion in or at the sun, i have seen EU theorists saying that it's probably happening, but not at the center due to gravity.
So what would be the force that initiates it? If it's in the literature, I've read it, but for whatever reason it didn't stick.
Sparky wrote:do you have any ideas about how such a fusion furnace would begin and continue?...does a spinning gas and dirt disk falling in on itself make any sense?..have i misunderstood your position?
That's outside the scope of what I'm doing right now, but on a solar system scale, my (uneducated) gut feeling is that gases don't coalesce as the conventional (gravity-only) model asserts. Gravity falls off with the square of the distance, and hydrostatic pressure (molecular collisions) opposes it. So if I went out in space and opened up the valve on an oxygen tank, letting the gas escape into the near-perfect vacuum, and came back a billion years later, I wouldn't expect to find a little spherical ball of frozen oxygen, waiting for me to measure its diameter. Rather, I'd expect the gas to have dispersed. But if there's a galactic (or universal) electric field, even at at infinitesimal level, within the first couple of decades I would expect all of the particles to get oriented according to that field. Once oriented by an external field, the molecules with then be showing opposite charges relative to each other. Then there will be an electrostatic attraction between the molecules, and as the electric force is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, the particles will be far more likely to coalesce.
In other words, if we scattered a bunch of small bar magnets on a tabletop, we might expect little net force between them, as they wouldn't all be aligned, and the fields would be random. But if we applied an external magnetic field, and if the magnets didn't have any friction that was preventing them from getting aligned by the external field, they'd wind up pointing all in the same direction. As such, the north pole of each magnet will be facing the south pole of its nearest neighbor, and there will definitely be an attractive force. In short order, we'd expect all of these magnets to clank together.
So if I ever get that far, I'll be thinking along the lines of galactic/universal fields (aether?) that offer a subtle but effective force in organizing matter on a large scale.
Sparky wrote:if redshift = distance, determining age, is falsified, then the fanciful constructs from that fall with it...big bang, black holes, etc...
There we agree. Modern astronomers sound to me like used car salesmen, who would sooner re-spin an existing lie, even to the point of contradicting itself, than 'fess up and pursue the truth. Scientific communities always become the victim of their own successes. They make a discovery, which at first is incredulous, but when it produces value, it gets accepted. Then the scientists become credible. Then, when confronted with anomalies, they stick to their original story, because it's credible, rather than admitting that they don't have the whole picture in focus. They wind up suppressing the evidence that they're wrong, because they can rationalize that it is in the best interest of science to keep it credible, which means suppressing the evidence that they're wrong. When it becomes known that we're paying scientists to suppress science, we stop paying.
This is a pattern that has repeated itself many times in the history of science. And it's about to repeat itself again...
My (still uneducated) gut feeling is that black holes, pulsars, quasars, etc., are all solenoids, where extremely powerful EM fields have emerged, and where gravity isn't even a factor anymore. And I agree that "redshift = distance" is an assumption, not a proof, and that everything based on it cannot be surer than the foundation upon which it rests.
tayga wrote:CharlesChandler wrote:The primary source of energy in the Sun is nuclear fusion.
Charles, you've come to the wrong place to make such a bald statement. If you are using these assumptions as the basis of your model and for dismissing an Electric Sun model you'll need to justify them.
How do we know the mass of the Sun?
What debris do we see to support the claim that there is enough fusion going on in the Sun to account for its energy output?
Until modern times, the masses of the Sun/planets/moons were actually calculated with mass like a dimensionless variable. For Newton, who was studying the relationship between gravity and inertia, there was no concept of absolute mass. The celestial bodies could be very heavy or very light, but either way, the balance of inertial and gravitational forces will be the same. But when we go to compare gravity with other forces (EM and nuclear), we need to know the absolute mass (or at least the force of mass as compared to other forces). So how are we going to do that in astronomy? But this is no longer an open debate. How could scientists have sent Voyager I on its mission, using the slingshot effect to propel it out of our solar system, without knowing absolute masses? There are anomalies in the paths of satellites, but scientists have to be better than 99% correct for ANY mission to succeed. So if you're going to debate the absolute mass of objects in our solar system, be careful to constrain yourself to explanations that don't amount to more than 1% of the total force, or that will be the extent to which you are wrong.
With a known mass of the Sun, we can then estimate the amount of pressure that will be created by gravity, and that definitely gets us up into the range necessary for nuclear fusion. The neutrinos in the solar wind are among the evidence of such nuclear reactions. There is a debate concerning the number and type of neutrinos. The establishment has solved the problem to its satisfaction by asserting that neutrinos can spontaneously change flavor. But the fact that they thought of this
after being confronted with the discrepancy, and only after a good deal of labor in working up the support for the contention, and insofar as much of it is still hypothetical, leaves the solution suspect. But the argument there is not over whether or not fusion is the primary source of energy. The argument is whether or not it's the
only source of energy. If the neutrino count is off by a factor of 30%, then fusion is still the primary source of energy, responsible for at least 70% of the energy. Then if you ask electromagnetism to supply even 30% of the energy, you have to posit the existence of forces that should be measurable, but which have not been measured, and which would generate energy releases in a radically different form than have been observed. In other words, you have to promote EM to a position for which it is not qualified, in order to solve a problem that we didn't have.
Where the standard model actually breaks down is in the attempt to explain the specific characteristics of the energy release. For example, explaining solar flares and the resulting coronal mass ejections with the magnetic reconnection model is pure gibberish. Or, to put it more accurately, it's pure math, where the math is doing things that physics cannot. This is where EM theorists need to step up and start making assertions that are actually physically possible. We know that the surface of the Sun has an intense degree of EM activity, but we don't understand the nature of the forces. I'm saying that arc discharges occur because of charge separations, and that in a hydrogen-rich environment, imploding discharge channels will create thermonuclear explosions. Now
that is actually physically possible. The charge separation process is proposed to be the velocity of plasma erupting from the radiative zone, which generates magnetic fields capable of splitting opposite charges traveling in the same direction. Then the question is (as mentioned above) how do we get the plasma moving that in the first place? There are many possibilities. Simple convection, all by itself, is not one of them. Solar quakes from previous thermonuclear explosions, at or below the photosphere, is one hypothetical possibility. Plasma jets shooting up through the radiative zone is another. But this is how I'm proceeding, as I think that this approach has potential.
If the primary (or sole) source of energy is an electric field between the Sun and its surroundings, we'd expect something that looked more like ball lightning -- a frayed cotton-ball of radial discharge channels, tipped with corona discharges. What we actually see is not enough of that to call it the primary (much less the sole) energy source.
The major issue, as I see it, is that asserting that the magnet fields were there to begin with means that we need to explain where they came from. Anyway, it's many, many more questions than answers. As mentioned earlier, I'm new to the study of the Sun, and though I make brave assertions, that's just because I think it's better to just come out and say what you've got to say, and take the hit if you're wrong, rather than lurking in the shadows with vague, nebulous (i.e., gravity-based?) statements that are tough to falsify, because they didn't actually state anything. 
I'm not totally convinced that I'm wrong, but I am absolutely convinced that I really don't know for sure what I'm talking about... 
