Talking Points on the Electric Sun

[tayga]

..challengers and debunkers invariably show up unarmed, so to speak, posessing almost no knowledge or understanding of the basic principles of EU theory or plasma physics.

Interesting observation. It sort of suggests why they might be challengers and debunkers

[Goldminer]

Two, maybe three points I wish to make of these portions of Neireid's post:

" . . . We also now know that it's even more filled with photons; in most regions of space, these photons are dominated by ones that have a SED (spectral energy density, or distribution) that is extraordinarily close to that of a 2.73 K blackbody . . . Perhaps, keeping things qualitative, we can agree that astronomy is the science of studying light from the sky?"

Yes, outside of local expeditions of robotic satellites, we can agree that astronomy is the science of studying light from the [primarily night] sky. In regard to the 2.73 K blackbody, your failure to adequately "debunk" In regard to: COBE: A Radiological Analysis: is a major roadblock around here, to further discussion of CMB.

Secondly:

" . . . If so, then in terms of forces, what follows - logically - is that electromagnetism is king; light is, after all, just electromagnetic radiation . . . If, as Scott states, this is a simple and obvious fact, what can be learned by studying light from the sky?"

The delivery of electrical power by plasma filaments is a different animal than the radiation and absorption of electromagnetic radiation. Please do not conflate the two processes. Electromagnetic radiation does not, in the normal course of things, interact with itself. Moving, charged particles of matter do interact. While electromagnetic radiation may be thought as the "King" of entropy, it is electrical power that does the opposite: it organizes high entropy situations into the low entropy discrete existence that we observe.

Thirdly: Electromagnetic radiation, per se, is not a force; it is a form of energy, capable of transmitting information. Your question, "what can be learned by studying light from the sky?" deserves this answer: Nothing, unless combined with all the knowledge we have accumulated from everything else around us!

.

[CCCstar]

My encouragement to Dave T. as the final preps to this before the conference. I would "vote" to say only the EU ES idea and not waste one word on the "consensus view". I suggest that due to the history of what I see above. If you sate the EU ES position briefly and support it sufficiently then let the challenges come, you gain ground. The e-book for the ES is very good item. Building on that quality of presentation is a good thing.

[Sparky]

My encouragement to Dave T. as the final preps to this before the conference. I would "vote" to say only the EU ES idea and not waste one word on the "consensus view". I suggest that due to the history of what I see above. If you sate the EU ES position briefly and support it sufficiently then let the challenges come, you gain ground. The e-book for the ES is very good item. Building on that quality of presentation is a good thing.

Exactly!...or build a case with evidence, especially anomalies, then strongly state that EU can explain all such evidence and anomalies, and provide an overview of how. If any mention of consensus cosmology is made, i think it should be pointing out it's weakness in prediction and the appearance of pseudoscience with fanciful ad hoc amendments.

[MrAmsterdam]

The Role of Qualitative Evidence

When theorists propose a fundamentally new scientific perspective they are asking that it be considered as a useful starting point. A useful model will spell out proposed relationships between causes and effects. It will typically involve a broad interdisciplinary range of evidence. Causes are hypothesized and the claimed effects are named. A new model can then be generalized to see how well its underlying assumptions correlate with more detailed observations and a broader range of measurements bearing on the question.

With increasing specialization in the sciences, the most costly mistakes will typically involve a failure to generalize a qualitative argument, to weigh its predictive power within a sufficiently broad field of view. Carried out properly, this essential phase will throw a spotlight on weaknesses or outright failures of a theory, if they exist. This is where we look for contradictions, things that don’t fit the underlying assumptions. “Provably wrong if incorrect” is the ideal when stating a theory. In fact, the most useful qualitative arguments will be readily falsifiable, and the question of correlation between theory and observation can be explicitly tested against the full range of critical data.

http://www.experiment-resources.com/ben ... iment.html

The first thing to note is that Benjamin Franklin did not discover electricity – the principle was known long before that and primitive capacitors and batteries were already in use by researchers.

Static electricity had been known about for thousands of years, although never fully understood, with most scientists believing that it was an ‘invisible liquid’.


Franklin’s contribution was that he believed that lightning was a form of static electricity on a huge scale, and designed a number of experiments to try to ascertain the truth.

After designing experiments with conducting lightning rods, which proved dangerous, he settled upon using a kite.

The idea was to fly the kite into the storm clouds and conduct electricity down the kite string. A key was then attached near the bottom, to conduct the electricity and create a charge.

The kite was struck by lightning and, when Franklin moved his hand towards the key, a spark jumped across and he felt a shock, proving that lightning was electrical in nature.

Whilst this seems like a stupid method, the evidence showed that he actually intended for the electricity to jump into a primitive form of capacitor known as a Leyden jar, and that touching the key was purely accidental.

After the experiments with lightning conductors, it would appear that he knew enough about grounding to insulate himself from serious harm.

He was also the first scientist to use the terms positive and negative charge, possibly the basis of the myth that he discovered electricity. His discoveries in this field led to further research into the nature of electricity, influencing the invention of batteries by Volta, and the electric motor by Faraday in the early nineteenth century.

If Benjamin Franklin proofed that lightning is of electrostatic origin by placing his hand on the key and feeling a shock then the electric origin of the sun can be proofed by replacing Mr Franklin's hand by a Langmuir probe near the vicinity of the sun.

Before the famous kite experiment, Benjamin Franklin already had confirmation of French scientists who placed irons rods on a couple of french hills and saw lightning being attracted near the rods. In their correspondence about this empirical qualitative experiment to Mr Franklin, the french scientists never complained about a lack of a quantitative model, if I am not mistaken.

The first Langmuir probe near the sun should be named "Franklin's hand" if it was up to me

That could be an introduction to the electric sun theory.

[hertz]

"Franklin's Hand"...great name

[orrery]

All 3 images promote the same thing, I don't understand.

[Goldminer]

Dark Fireworks on the Sun
A close-up of the June 7, 2011 solar eruption shows dark blobs of plasma falling ballistically toward the surface of the sun.. Detailed movies available at NASA's Solar Multimedia Collection

On June 7, 2011, Earth-orbiting satellites detected a flash of X-rays coming from the western edge of the solar disk. Registering only "M" (for medium) on the Richter scale of solar flares, the blast at first appeared to be a run-of-the-mill eruption--that is, until researchers looked at the movies.

"We'd never seen anything like it," says Alex Young, a solar physicist at the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Half of the sun appeared to be blowing itself to bits."

NASA has just released new high-resolution videos of the event recorded by the Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). The videos are large, typically 50 MB to 100 MB, but worth the wait to download. Click on the arrow to launch the first movie, then scroll down for commentary:

"IN terms of raw power, this really was just a medium-sized eruption," says Young, "but it had a uniquely dramatic appearance caused by all the inky-dark material. We don't usually see that."

Solar physicist Angelos Vourlidas of the Naval Research Lab in Washington DC calls it a case of "dark fireworks."

"The blast was triggered by an unstable magnetic filament near the sun's surface," he explains. "That filament was loaded down with cool1 plasma, which exploded in a spray of dark blobs and streamers."

The plasma blobs were as big as planets, many larger than Earth. They rose and fell ballistically, moving under the influence of the sun's gravity like balls tossed in the air, exploding "like bombs" when they hit the stellar surface.

Some blobs, however, were more like guided missiles. "In the movies we can see material 'grabbed' by magnetic fields and funneled toward sunspot groups hundreds of thousands of kilometers away," notes Young.

SDO also detected a shadowy shock wave issuing from the blast site. The 'solar tsunami' propagated more than halfway across the sun, visibly shaking filaments and loops of magnetism en route. [91 MB Quicktime]

Long-range action has become a key theme of solar physics since SDO was launched in 2010. The observatory frequently sees explosions in one part of the sun affecting other parts. Sometimes one explosion will trigger another ... and another ... with a domino sequence of flares going off all around the star.

"The June 7th blast didn't seem to trigger any big secondary explosions, but it was certainly felt far and wide," says Young.

It's tempting to look at the movies and conclude that most of the exploded material fell back--but that wouldn't be true, according to Vourlidas. "The blast also propelled a significant coronal mass ejection (CME) out of the sun's atmosphere."

He estimates that the cloud massed about 4.5 x1015 grams, placing it in the top 5% of all CMEs recorded in the Space Age. For comparison, the most massive CME ever recorded was 1016 grams, only a factor of ~2 greater than the June 7th cloud.2 The amount of material that fell back to the sun on June 7th was approximately equal to the amount that flew away, Vourlidas says.

As remarkable as the June 7th eruption seems to be, Young says it might not be so rare. "In fact," he says, "it might be downright common."

Before SDO, space-based observatories observed the sun with relatively slow cadences and/or limited fields of view. They could have easily missed the majesty of such an explosion, catching only a single off-center snapshot at the beginning or end of the blast to hint at what actually happened.

If Young is right, more dark fireworks could be in the offing. Stay tuned.

Those magnets on the Sun are certainly busy little fellas, ain't they?

[Oracle_911]

All 3 images promote the same thing, I don't understand.

I hope you read my posts, cuz i wont write them again.

[Lloyd]

The Sun, Ball Lightning, and Bennett Pinches, or Z-Pinches
* Wal Thornhill said the following with regard to this question: Is Ball lightning [like the Sun] a manifestation of a self-contained Bennett pinch, or are its properties a mystery too?

- I wish to make it clear that ball lightning and the Sun are not Bennet pinches. Ball lightning may be formed in a transient Bennet pinch but it's energy storage property then requires explanation. See The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology and Extreme Ball Lightning [at http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=d7fec25w].
- The Sun also was formed in a Bennet pinch where experiment has shown that the result is a number (usually 9) of spherical plasmoids, which "scatter like buckshot" as the experimental pinch collapses. Gravity ensures the stellar plasmoids remain spherical. I think it was Alfvén who said that gravitational systems are the ashes of former electrical systems.
- However, the interstellar Bennet pinch continues to power the stars so that they are, as Ralph Juergens pointed out, essentially a plasma discharge phenomenon. The sun's circuit is driven (induced) within the Bennet pinch. [See e.g. Wal's "Alfven Triumphs" article at http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=4eefp0kj.] This is not an oxymoronic thought experiment because most of the expected features of this arrangement have been discovered. There is certainly nothing pseudoscientific about this model because it follows the principle of inductive reasoning from observations.
[Electric Sun vs. Iron Sun]
- On the other hand, OM's [Oliver Manuel's] thesis of a neutron star (whatever this mythical beast is) at the heart of the Sun providing the Sun's energy relies on a great deal of standard cosmological deductive theory. So, for a start, it faces all of the objections to the standard thermonuclear model. However, many of OM's arguments based on observations of the photosphere are supportive of the electric model. I don't think the iron Sun model at any stage took "a leaf from EU theory."
- Wal

[mjv1121]

so that they are, as Ralph Juergens pointed out, essentially a plasma discharge

Except that a plasma discharge is NOT a circuit, and the Sun is not "powered" by a circuit.

Michael

[Goldminer]

so that they are, as Ralph Juergens pointed out, essentially a plasma discharge

Except that a plasma discharge is NOT a circuit, and the Sun is not "powered" by a circuit.

Michael

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but you cannot make up the evidence. A battery discharge is not a circuit, either, but it requires a circuit to discharge. If you believe the Sun is internally powered, you belong in the consensus believer's religion. If you believe the Sun is externally powered, you probably follow the EU paradigm. Most of us here at Tbolt Forum understand the consensus opinion that the Sun is completely powered by internal fission and fusion. We also understand that there are many anomalies that that interpretation doesn't explain; that the Electric Sun does explain. So, if you think the Sun is powered internally, but not by nuclear reactions, what do you think internally powers it? Copper top batteries? Coal? The fast oxidation of iron?

.

[mjv1121]

Goldminer,

OK, more specifically, a lightning bolt is not a circuit discharge.

I believe (read strongly suspect) that the Sun is "powered" by electrons which in turn are supplied by the quantum vacuum. Electrons subjected to an increased quantum particle flux emit photons. I would suggest that the overwhelming majority of the Sun’s emissions are a consequence of the mutual proximity of such a vast quantity of charge and photon emitters. In other words, the Sun shines bright simply because it is so massive.

Clearly, the outcome of nuclear reactions is a substantial amount of photon emission. Lightning also results in significant photon production without recourse to nuclear reactions. The idea that the Sun may be fed by an inward drift of electrons or more directly by Birkeland "currents" is flawed on many levels, not the least of which is an utter absence of any theory of charge, electromagnetism and electricity.

Michael

[Sparky]

mjv,

Electrons subjected to an increased quantum particle flux emit photons. I would suggest that the overwhelming majority of the Sun’s emissions are a consequence of the mutual proximity of such a vast quantity of charge and photon emitters. In other words, the Sun shines bright simply because it is so massive.

What process produced the massive sun?

**************

- lightning bolt is not a circuit discharge.

I am trying to imagine a very large series/parallel circuit that might allow for lighting to be a circuit discharge between elements of those circuits.

[MrAmsterdam]

Goldminer,

OK, more specifically, a lightning bolt is not a circuit discharge.

I believe (read strongly suspect) that the Sun is "powered" by electrons which in turn are supplied by the quantum vacuum. Electrons subjected to an increased quantum particle flux emit photons. I would suggest that the overwhelming majority of the Sun’s emissions are a consequence of the mutual proximity of such a vast quantity of charge and photon emitters. In other words, the Sun shines bright simply because it is so massive.

Clearly, the outcome of nuclear reactions is a substantial amount of photon emission. Lightning also results in significant photon production without recourse to nuclear reactions. The idea that the Sun may be fed by an inward drift of electrons or more directly by Birkeland "currents" is flawed on many levels, not the least of which is an utter absence of any theory of charge, electromagnetism and electricity.

Michael

So how would you explain the following device -> based on natural phenomena;

???