Electric Sun: A Quantitative Calculation

[Nereid]

Here's a brief description of the Electric Sun hypothesis source:

The Electric Sun Hypothesis

The Basics

In this day and age there is no longer any doubt that electrical effects in plasmas play an important role in the phenomena we observe on the Sun. The major properties of the "Electric Sun (ES) model" are as follows:

-> Most of the space within our galaxy is occupied by plasma (rarefied ionized gas) containing electrons (negative charges) and ionized atoms (positive charges). Every charged particle in the plasma has an electric potential energy (voltage) just as every pebble on a mountain has a mechanical potential energy with respect to sea level. The Sun is surrounded by a plasma cell that stretches far out - many times the radius of Pluto. These are facts not hypotheses.

-> The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts.

-> Positive ions leave the Sun and electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun. This constitutes a plasma discharge analogous in every way (except size) to those that have been observed in electrical plasma laboratories for decades. Because of the Sun's positive charge (voltage), it acts as the anode in a plasma discharge. As such, it exhibits many of the phenomena observed in earthbound plasma experiments, such as anode tufting. The granules observed on the surface of the photosphere are anode tufts (plasma in the arc mode).

-> The Sun may be powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. This possibility that the Sun may be exernally powered by its galactic environment is the most speculative idea in the ES hypothesis and is always attacked by critics while they ignore all the other explanatory properties of the ES model. In the Plasma Universe model, these cosmic sized, low-density currents create the galaxies and the stars within those galaxies by the electromagnetic z-pinch effect. It is only a small extrapolation to ask whether these currents remain to power those stars. Galactic currents are of low current density, but, because the sizes of the stars are large, the total current (Amperage) is high. The Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by that amperage. As the Sun moves around the galactic center it may come into regions of higher or lower current density and so its output may vary both periodically and randomly.

I've done some quantitative calculations based on this model, and I'd like to share them with you; the sources I used - other than the one for the hypothesis itself - will be given in my next post.

The Sun emits electromagnetic radiation, pretty much isotropically, and at a very stable, unvarying rate; the total energy of this radiation is 3.85 x 10^26 J/sec.

In the Electric Sun hypothesis, this energy comes from an electric current, comprised of incoming ("entering") electrons and outgoing ("leaving") positive ions; let's look at the electrons.

The maximum average energy that an electron in this (Birkeland) current can deliver to the Sun - to be converted somehow into light - is ~1 MeV, which is 1.6 x 10^-13 J (MeV is a unit of energy).

Why?

Because if it were much greater than this, a significant fraction of such electrons would generate electron-positron pairs (through collisions with matter in the photosphere), which would in turn result in emission of 511 keV gamma rays (electron-positron 'annihilation radiation'); the Sun does not emit much of such radiation, certainly far less than that which would be produced by huge numbers of electrons with >1.02 MeV of kinetic energy (see below for details).

To produce 3.85 x 10^26 J of energy, the current needs to deliver ~1.6 x 10^39 electrons (of average kinetic energy 1 MeV) to the Sun, every second.

Where do the electrons come from, the ones which end up powering the Sun?

The Electric Sun hypothesis is rather vague on that, but this suggests that it is in the vicinity of the heliopause: "The planets and their moons each carry an electric charge as they travel through this plasma.The plasma sea in which the solar system floats extends out to what is called the heliopause - where there is probably a double layer that separates our Sun's plasma from the lower voltage plasma that fills our arm of the Milky Way galaxy."

Scott correctly points out that in situ measurements of the properties of the heliopause are few indeed; however, from data returned from Voyager, the following seem reasonable (and are consistent with various, indirect, estimates):

* electron density: 0.001 per cubic cm

* distance from the Sun: 80 au (astronomical units)

* bulk speed: 100 km/s (the Voyager data says away from the Sun, but let's assume it's towards the Sun)

* motion of heliosphere relative to the local interstellar medium (LISM): 20 km/s (this comes from other sources, not Voyager).

If all the incoming electrons, crossing the heliopause/heliosheath/termination shock (or exiting the double layer there) end up entering the Sun, how many electrons would that be?

Approximately 1.8 x 10^35, per second. Which is some four orders of magnitude (a factor of ~10,000) too few. But maybe that's OK; maybe the numbers could be tweaked somehow, some fudge factors added, to bring this estimate closer to ~1.6 x 10^39.

Some tweaks won't work though; for example assuming the average kinetic energy of the electrons is significantly less than ~1 MeV would mean more electrons would be needed, making the gap between demand and supply even greater; including the energy lost due to the kinetic energy of the departing positive ions would likewise make the gap bigger, not smaller.

An interlude: 511 keV gamma rays, and current

If each incoming electron in the current that powers the Electric Sun produced just one outgoing 511 keV gamma ray, then the number we'd see, at 1 au from the Sun (out in space of course!) would be ~6 x 10^11 per square centimetre per second. The space probes (e.g. RHESSI) which have observed (and are continuing to observe) gamma-rays, of this energy, have detected peak counts of ~100-1,000 (per square centimetre per second), during really big flares (the 'quiet Sun' values are essentially zero). Clearly, there can't be very many >1.02 MeV electrons in the incoming current!

The current flowing to the Sun is at least 2 x 10^20 A (from the electrons alone, assuming ~1 MeV electrons), which works out to ~42 Amps per square metre, on average.

An exploding Sun?

1.6 x 10^39 electrons is a lot of electrons. In the Electric Sun hypothesis, all those entering the Sun stay there. This produces an interesting result: if this number of electrons were to be distributed evenly throughout the top metre of the photosphere, that layer of the Sun would explode. Violently.

Why?

This number of electrons, distributed that way, would mean each was <~0.2 microns from its nearest neighbour. Now we all know that the electromagnetic force is many, many orders of magnitude (OOM) greater (stronger) than gravity - for a pair of electrons it's ~39 OOM - so the mutual repulsion of the electrons, that close to each other, would overwhelm the gravitational pull on them of all the mass in the Sun ... by >13 OOM.

Boom!

Looks like the Electric Sun hypothesis is between a rock (energy output of the Sun) and a hard place (unobserved side effects of that energy being supplied by an electric current - electrons entering the Sun).

But perhaps my numbers, or calculations (or both), are wrong; can you, dear reader, find any significant errors of either kind?

Next: sources, and more details of the calculations (if anyone would like to see them; they involve little more than arithmetic).

[PersianPaladin]

Features that have no place being there in a gravity/nuclear-bomb sun:-

heavy elements
solar spectrum
neutrino deficiency
neutrino variability
solar atmosphere
differential rotation by latitude
differential rotation by depth
equatorial plasma torus
the sunspots
sunspot migration
sunspot penumbra
sunspot cycle itself
magnetic field strength
the even magnetic field
helio seismology
solar density
changing size

But of course, you mainstream cosmologists will have to invent exotic mathematical hypotheticals such as "magnetic reconnection", "dark energy" and the "big bang" to try and explain these features in the nuclear-sun model. Plasma and electrical physicsts/engineers have not needed to delve in the world hypothetical and abstract mathematical gymnastics (and creationist "big bang" assumptions) to explain these features.

So...in terms of empirical support and the principle of William Of Occam - I'll be routing for Plasma Cosmology at the moment (since mainstream cosmology has become far too unwieldy).

[mharratsc]

Firstly, there is this:

The Sun emits electromagnetic radiation, pretty much isotropically, and at a very stable, unvarying rate; the total energy of this radiation is 3.85 x 10^26 J/sec.

Highlight mine

Wal Thornhill wrote, in Twinkle, twinkle electric star

CONSTANT STARSHINE


“The Sun is a variable X-ray star; it is fortunate for us that the variability is not reflected in the energy flux in the visible.” — R L F Boyd, Space Physics: the study of plasmas in space.

We rely on the Sun to shine steadily. The variation in light and heat is measured to be a fraction of one percent from year to year. Yet the Sun is a variable star when viewed in X-rays. And X-rays are emitted where electrical activity is most intense.



>> Seen above in X-rays by the Yokhoh satellite, from solar minimum to maximum, the Sun is a variable star. X-rays are the signature of electric arcs.

When considered without tunnel vision, it is obvious that stars with a thermonuclear core are not likely to be stable. So sensitive to core temperature are some of the nuclear reactions that the night sky should look like the fourth of July.

Juergens went to great pains to explain the complex and exquisitely tuned control mechanism of the solar discharge. His insights are of paramount importance for an understanding of the Sun and for clarity on one of the most frequently asked questions: can we rely upon the Sun as a constant source of life-giving energy? As noticed by Scott, the tufted plasma sheath above the stellar anode seems to be the cosmic equivalent of a ‘PNP transistor,’ a simple electronic device using small changes in voltage to control large changes in electrical power output. The tufted sheath thus regulates the solar discharge and provides stability of radiated heat and light output, while the power to the Sun varies throughout the sunspot cycle.



>> The Sun’s plasma sheath. The white curve shows how the voltage changes within the solar plasma as we move outward from the body of the Sun. Positively charged protons will tend to “roll down the hills.” So the photospheric tuft plasma acts as a barrier to limit the Sun’s power output. The plateau between (b) and (c) and beyond (e) defines a normal quasi-neutral plasma. The chromosphere has a strong electric field which flattens out but remains non-zero throughout the solar system. As protons accelerate down the chromospheric slope, heading to the right, they encounter turbulence at (e), which heats the solar corona to millions of degrees. The small, but relatively constant, accelerating voltage gradient beyond the corona is responsible for accelerating the solar wind away from the Sun. Credit: W. Thornhill (after W. Allis & R. Juergens), The Electric Universe.

This ability of the Sun’s plasma sheath to modulate the solar current was demonstrated dramatically in May 1999, when the solar wind stopped for two days. The bizarre event makes no sense if the solar wind is being ‘boiled off’ by the hot solar corona. But in electrical terms, its regulating plasma sheath performed normally and there was no noticeable change in the Sun’s radiant output.

You did say "electromagnetic radiation" and "steady, unvarying rate" in the same sentence.

This is apparently falsified by the Yokhoh satellite data, yes?

I would suggest there are more variables than you have allowed for initially.

[tayga]

Next: sources, and more details of the calculations (if anyone would like to see them; they involve little more than arithmetic).

Thanks, Nereid. This could be an interesting discusssion. I'll wait to see the basis of your calculations and the assumptions you've used before I comment further.

[Nereid]

You did say "electromagnetic radiation" and "steady, unvarying rate" in the same sentence.

Yes I did ... in a sense similar to this (by Thornhill): "The variation in light and heat is measured to be a fraction of one percent from year to year." The Sun's total energy output, in the form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), is observed to be 3.85 x 10^26 W, plus or minus some small fraction of 1%. In other words, by far the majority of the Sun's energy output (in EMR) is in the UV-optical-IR part of the spectrum.

This is apparently falsified by the Yokhoh satellite data, yes?

No.

Mike, I appreciate that - this time - you asked (rather than assumed); in general, as I said in another post, it's amazingly easy to knock over figures made of straw.

In the Electric Sun hypothesis, the Sun's total energy output (in the form of EMR) is due to the electric current, not just its x-ray output.

I would suggest there are more variables than you have allowed for initially.

Now that you are clear about what I actually wrote (I hope! ), may I ask what variables you think I may have left out?

[mharratsc]

What amount of energy is lost with the departing matter in the solar wind?

Ms. Nereid said:

Mike, I appreciate that - this time - you asked (rather than assumed); in general, as I said in another post, it's amazingly easy to knock over figures made of straw.

You're welcome. Likewise, thank you for putting forth this particular argument in a much more progressive and productive tone than some of your other recent posts.

[mharratsc]

One other thing- you're talking about "all those electrons" getting mushed up together and overwhelming the gravitational attraction?

Ms. Nereid said:

Looks like the Electric Sun hypothesis is between a rock (energy output of the Sun) and a hard place (unobserved side effects of that energy being supplied by an electric current - electrons entering the Sun).

If we presume (as the EU model does) that this is an electrodynamic scenario, rather than an electrostatic one, and there is a current flow, then there are likewise magnetic constraints on all of this... much as Prof. Scott talks about with his PnP transistor analogy.

If you factor in the the strengths of the various magnetic fields into this, do you still arrive at your 'explosive demise' proposition? What are the energy storage capabilities of the various double-layers we see, based upon their observable field strengths? o.O

[Lloyd]

PP said: Features that have no place being there in a gravity/nuclear-bomb sun: heavy elements; solar spectrum; neutrino deficiency; neutrino variability; solar atmosphere; differential rotation by latitude; differential rotation by depth; equatorial plasma torus; the sunspots; sunspot migration; sunspot penumbra; sunspot cycle itself; magnetic field strength; the even magnetic field; helio seismology; solar density; changing size.

* If it's handy for you, could you provide sources for any or all of those? I imagine this website and associated ones have likely discussed some or many of these, but it wouldn't hurt to see your sources, if you like.

Nereid said: ... from data returned from Voyager, the following seem reasonable (and are consistent with various, indirect, estimates): * electron density: 0.001 per cubic cm - * distance from the Sun: 80 au (astronomical units) - * bulk speed: 100 km/s (the Voyager data says away from the Sun, but let's assume it's towards the Sun) ... - To produce 3.85 x 10^26 J of energy, the current needs to deliver ~1.6 x 10^39 electrons (of average kinetic energy 1 MeV) to the Sun, every second. ... If all the incoming electrons, crossing the heliopause/heliosheath/termination shock (or exiting the double layer there) end up entering the Sun, how many electrons would that be? - Approximately 1.8 x 10^35, per second. Which is some four orders of magnitude (a factor of ~10,000) too few. But maybe that's OK; maybe the numbers could be tweaked somehow, some fudge factors added, to bring this estimate closer to ~1.6 x 10^39.

* I don't know if your math and analysis is otherwise correct, but a friend has pointed out that your analysis is based on the assumption that electrons hypothetically entering the heliosphere are entering at a uniform density over its entire surface, whereas plasma cosmology contends that electric currents flow in filamentary Birkeland currents and the odds that Voyager entered any such current is very small. So that seems likely to be a major oversight in your analysis.

You said: An exploding Sun? - 1.6 x 10^39 electrons is a lot of electrons. In the Electric Sun hypothesis, all those entering the Sun stay there. This produces an interesting result: if this number of electrons were to be distributed evenly throughout the top metre of the photosphere, that layer of the Sun would explode. Violently. - Why? - This number of electrons, distributed that way, would mean each was <~0.2 microns from its nearest neighbour. Now we all know that the electromagnetic force is many, many orders of magnitude (OOM) greater (stronger) than gravity - for a pair of electrons it's ~39 OOM - so the mutual repulsion of the electrons, that close to each other, would overwhelm the gravitational pull on them of all the mass in the Sun ... by >13 OOM. - Boom!

* This claim was apparently answered by Juergens long ago in the 1970s.
http://saturniancosmology.org/juergens.htm

Sanford also pointed out that "a soap bubble and a platinum sphere of the same diameter, if joined by a connecting wire and charged from the same source, will take equal charges. This shows conclusively that whatever the force may be which holds electrons to a charged conductor it is not a force which acts between the electrons and the atoms of the conductor. This being the case, the outward pressure of the charge upon a conductor will have no tendency to pull the conductor apart."

* So your exploding Sun claim based on math also seems to be proven false by the reality of a soap bubble being able to hold as much charge as a platinum sphere.

[Siggy_G]

PP said: Features that have no place being there in a gravity/nuclear-bomb sun: heavy elements; solar spectrum; neutrino deficiency; neutrino variability; solar atmosphere; differential rotation by latitude; differential rotation by depth; equatorial plasma torus; the sunspots; sunspot migration; sunspot penumbra; sunspot cycle itself; magnetic field strength; the even magnetic field; helio seismology; solar density; changing size.

* If it's handy for you, could you provide sources for any or all of those? I imagine this website and associated ones have likely discussed some or many of these, but it wouldn't hurt to see your sources, if you like.

It's from Thunderbolts of the Gods, about the Sun.
Thunderbolts of the Gods part 5/7 From 2:20 and onwards.

[Physicist]

Positive ions leave the Sun and electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun.

So the charge just accumulates on the sun? I guess it's even more nonsensical than I thought.

The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts.

the current needs to deliver ~1.6 x 10^39 electrons (of average kinetic energy 1 MeV) to the Sun, every second.

Nereid - here's an amusing calculation - try calculating the time it would take for this influx of electrons to reduce that 10 billion volt potential to zero.

[Nereid]

Sources: Voyager data, 511 keV gamma emission (RHESSI, PDF), standard solar motion (and references and citations), solar irradiance.

Selected calculations:
the current needs to deliver ~1.6 x 10^39 electrons (of average kinetic energy 1 MeV) to the Sun, every second:
* Sun's energy output, in the form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), per second: is 3.85 x 10^26 J
* this is 2.4 x 10^39 MeV (1 J = 6.24 x 10^12 MeV)
* if the electrons are assumed to have an average kinetic energy of 1 MeV, then the current needs to deliver ~2.4 x 10^39 electrons (of average kinetic energy 1 MeV) to the Sun, every second
(i.e. my post contains an error)

Approximately 1.8 x 10^35, per second. (If all the incoming electrons, crossing the heliopause/heliosheath/termination shock (or exiting the double layer there) end up entering the Sun, how many electrons would that be?):
* area of the heliopause/heliosheath/termination shock: 1.81 x 10^27 square metres (1 au = 1.5 x 10^11 m)
* distance electrons leaving here will travel in 1 second: 100 km = 10^5 m
* volume containing the electrons that will leave here, in 1 sec: 1.81 x 10^32 cubic metres
* number of electrons in this volume: 1.81 x 10^35 (there are 1 x 10^6 cubic centimetres in 1 cubic metre)

the number we'd see, at 1 au from the Sun (out in space of course!) would be ~6 x 10^11 per square centimetre per second (If each incoming electron in the current that powers the Electric Sun produced just one outgoing 511 keV gamma ray):
* all the outgoing 511 keV gammas will cross the boundary of a sphere of radius 1 au (by definition)
* such a sphere has a surface area of 2.83 x 10^23 square metres
* number of incoming electrons, per sec: 1.6 x 10^39
* number of outgoing gammas, per sec: 1.6 x 10^39
* number of gammas crossing 1 square metre, of a 1 au radius sphere, per sec: 5.66 x 10^15
* that number, in square centimetres per sec: 5.66 x 10^11
(note that if you use 2.4 x 10^39 instead of 1.6 x 10^39, you get 8.5 x 10^11 gammas per square cm per sec).

This number of electrons, distributed that way, would mean each was <~0.2 microns from its nearest neighbour:
* 1 cubic metre contains 2.63 x 10^20 incoming electrons (every second) (1.6 x 10^39 divided by the surface area of the Sun, multiplied by 1)
* on average, 1 electron will be found within a volume of 3.8 x 10^-21 cubic metres
* centre-to-centre distance of points occupying adjacent volumes of 3.8 x 10^-21 cubic metres: 1.56 x 10^-7 m, which is <0.2 microns
(note that there is a range of possible values, depending on how the electrons are packed, for example; however, these will vary by no more than a factor of ~2).

If any reader would like further details - of these or any other calculation - please ask (you can do so by PM if you wish).

Thanks PersianPaladin, mharratsc, tayga, Lloyd, Siggy_G, and Physicist for taking the time and trouble to respond and comment. I will address your questions, comments, etc in a later post.

[David Talbott]

Hold on there, Nereid and Physicist. Both of you need to go back to the beginning. And I really do mean the beginning. No offense intended here, but try this simple page for newcomers, dealing with the most common mistake seen in "criticism" of the electric sun hypothesis:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... hballs.htm

Nereid, do you really believe that the assumptions you've stated above are representative of the electric sun model? Where, for example, did you get the idea that, in the electric hypothesis, the electrons arriving at the Sun "stay there"?

I've noticed in several of your threads that you've covered a lot of ground in your research (though very selectively, I might add). But please, if you're going to challenge the electric sun hypothesis, do the research first.

The electric sun model is far from a complete diagram of the implied, complex circuitry. But neither of you seems to know what a circuit is.

Let's do this. Instead of flitting about with observations designed to deflect newcomers from serious interest in the subject, let's organize a debate on the topic of the electric Sun, starting with the list of the key questions to be answered. We'll then publish the debate on the Thunderbolts website. All that will be required is that neither side in the debate be permitted to ignore evidence that is presented.

Does that make sense?

An interesting quote was passed on to us by a friend today. It was given by columnist George Will in an article this morning, and originated with Upton Sinclair in 1935: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

How true. So let's do an intelligent, focused, publishable debate and stop feeding the impression of so many folks writing to me, to the effect that you are simply professional debunkers holding full time jobs on behalf of institutionalized theory.

[Nereid]

PersianPaladin,

Your post contains nothing of any relevance to mine, that I can fathom. If there is any relevance, would you please spell it out, in detail?

What amount of energy is lost with the departing matter in the solar wind?

What about it?

As far as I know, it's trivial (<0.01%?), compared with that radiated as EMR. And in any case, it would only add to the apparent supply-demand gap, wouldn't it?

If we presume (as the EU model does) that this is an electrodynamic scenario, rather than an electrostatic one, and there is a current flow, then there are likewise magnetic constraints on all of this... much as Prof. Scott talks about with his PnP transistor analogy.

Indeed.

If you factor in the the strengths of the various magnetic fields into this, do you still arrive at your 'explosive demise' proposition?

The only magnetic fields that would have any relevance - to your actual question - would seem to be those which would have a component in the force vector pointing towards the centre of the Sun, right?

I, myself, cannot think of any; at least none that could supply an even 10 OOM's stronger force than the gravitational pull on the electrons; can you?

Oh, and keep in mind that my calculation used only the estimated number of incoming electrons in one second; extend that to a million seconds (a bit over a week), or a billion (not even a generation), and the conclusion becomes rather overwhelming, doesn't it?

What are the energy storage capabilities of the various double-layers we see, based upon their observable field strengths? o.O

Could you remind me, please, what these observed double-layers are? and what their estimated field strengths are?

* I don't know if your math and analysis is otherwise correct, but a friend has pointed out that your analysis is based on the assumption that electrons hypothetically entering the heliosphere are entering at a uniform density over its entire surface, whereas plasma cosmology contends that electric currents flow in filamentary Birkeland currents and the odds that Voyager entered any such current is very small. So that seems likely to be a major oversight in your analysis.

That's directly relevant to the 'demand-supply gap' I mentioned in my post, and could well go a long way to closing the ~4 OOM gap.

However, it has no relevance to the 'no 511 keV gammas' and the 'top layer of the photosphere would explode' points (or do you think otherwise?).

* This claim was apparently answered by Juergens long ago in the 1970s.
http://saturniancosmology.org/juergens.htm [...] * So your exploding Sun claim based on math also seems to be proven false by the reality of a soap bubble being able to hold as much charge as a platinum sphere.

I don't understand this, Lloyd; can you explain a) what this example means, and b) how it's relevant to the specific calculation I made? In particular, may I ask what the charge was, that was placed on the soap bubble and platinum sphere (and how that compared, in terms of charge density, with that in my calculations)?

Nereid - here's an amusing calculation - try calculating the time it would take for this influx of electrons to reduce that 10 billion volt potential to zero.

This sort of thing has been asked, many times, by critics such as Tim Thompson, Tom Bridgman, and tusenfem (sorry, I don't have his IRL name to hand immediately). Of course, their questions/challenges may not be exactly the same as what you write, but still. If I recall correctly, all such questions and challenges have been addressed, by Scott and others, along the lines of what's in Mike's post ("If we presume (as the EU model does) that this is an electrodynamic scenario, rather than an electrostatic one, ") Lloyd's ("plasma cosmology contends that electric currents flow in filamentary Birkeland currents"), and David Talbott's post - be sure to read each one's comments in context.

Hold on there, Nereid and Physicist. Both of you need to go back to the beginning. And I really do mean the beginning. No offense intended here, but try this simple page for newcomers, dealing with the most common mistake seen in "criticism" of the electric sun hypothesis:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... hballs.htm

Thanks for that David.

However, and no offense intended here either, my calculations are quite independent of the concerns discussed in that TPOD (with the possible exception of the last one); energy is conserved whether you take an 'electrostatic' or 'electrodynamic' view, isn't it?

Nereid, do you really believe that the assumptions you've stated above are representative of the electric sun model? Where, for example, did you get the idea that, in the electric hypothesis, the electrons arriving at the Sun "stay there"?

From the website http://www.electric-cosmos.org, which I quoted from at the very beginning of my post. I searched all the material by electrical theorists that I could find, to see if there was anything about the electrons not staying there, but I came up blank (that doesn't mean that there is no such material; merely that I couldn't find any).

However, given what Scott wrote (that I quoted), I think it would be remarkable if any electrons could leave! "The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts" - how can electrons leave, in the teeth of such a huge potential?

Let's do this. Instead of flitting about with observations designed to deflect newcomers from serious interest in the subject, let's organize a debate on the topic of the electric Sun, starting with the list of the key questions to be answered. We'll then publish the debate on the Thunderbolts website. All that will be required is that neither side in the debate be permitted to ignore evidence that is presented.

Does that make sense?

Yes, it does.

And I applaud you for suggesting it.

I would be interested to know what you consider the rules of such a debate should be; for example, who gets to decide what an (observational) fact is?

Some background to this: based on many years' of posting in internet fora, I have come to conclude that meaningful dialogue is not possible, in astrophysics (especially that concerning things beyond our solar system), without pretty firm, mutual, agreement on the framework.

When I started posting here in this forum in earnest, I put a lot of time and effort into making my own views of what that framework should be clear. Subsequently, my conviction on the importance of establishing an agreed framework has been re-inforced, many, many times, in the exchanges of posts I've had with various Thunderbolts forum members (a recent example).

[tayga]

The advantage of doing pseudoscience is that your "models" don't have to conform to basic laws of physics in the first place.

That is clearly the attraction of making a career in fantasizing about the big bang, black holes and neutron stars, etc..

In light of your failure to condemn these it is preposterous that you allude to the Electric Sun model as pseudoscience when it is based on sound plasma science principles. Thanks to the contribution of others more honestly critical than yourself your own contribution has been exposed as nothing more than nitpicking and if there is anything pseudo- here it is your skepticism.

[Lloyd]

Electrons Stay on the Sun?

Dave T said to Nereid: Where ... did you get the idea that, in the electric hypothesis, the electrons arriving at the Sun "stay there"?

Nereid replied: From the website http://www.electric-cosmos.org, which I quoted from at the very beginning of my post.

* In the resources part of this website Dave calls himself a comparative mythologist, but I think he's also got a degree in engineering. Anyway, I agree that the EU Theory seems to suggest that electrons entering the Sun stay there, although Dave probably understands physics much better than I do.

High Electron Charge Would Explode the Sun?

Nereid, you suggested above that: 1.6 x 10^39 electrons is a lot of electrons, [which, if] distributed evenly throughout the top metre of the photosphere, that layer of the Sun would explode. Violently.

I replied by saying: This claim was apparently answered by Juergens long ago in the 1970s.
http://saturniancosmology.org/juergens.htm and I supplied a quotation.

You replied: I don't understand this, Lloyd; can you explain a) what this example means, and b) how it's relevant to the specific calculation I made? In particular, may I ask what the charge was, that was placed on the soap bubble and platinum sphere (and how that compared, in terms of charge density, with that in my calculations)?

* I'll attempt to show the relevance next, but I don't know how much charge was applied to the soap bubble, although it would be interesting to find out. Now I'll quote more from the same link.

Juergens said: ... [L]et us consider Rowland's notion that an enormous electric charge must blow the earth to smithereens [the same notion must apply to the Sun - LK]. This is the same idea advanced by Donald Menzel in 1952 to add zest to his "quantitative refutation of Velikovsky's wild hypothesis" that the sun is electrically charged (7). - In the first place, as Professor Fernando Sanford pointed out 40 years ago [around 1937?], "Such conclusions are all based upon the assumption that electric charges are held to conductors by (gravity)"

* Nereid, do you assume "that electric charges are held to conductors by (gravity)"?

Sanford continued: ... If this assumption were correct, it would be impossible to give a negative charge to any small conductor while in the gravitation field of the earth".

* Do you agree that "If this assumption were correct, it would be impossible to give a negative charge to any small conductor while in the gravitation field of the earth"?

Juergens said: Sanford also pointed out that "a soap bubble and a platinum sphere of the same diameter, if joined by a connecting wire and charged from the same source, will take equal charges. This shows conclusively that whatever the force may be which holds electrons to a charged conductor it is not a force which acts between the electrons and the atoms of the conductor. This being the case, the outward pressure of the charge upon a conductor will have no tendency to pull the conductor apart."

* What parts of this reasoning do you disagree with?
* What evidence do you have that, if the huge number of electrons you calculated for the Sun were .2 microns apart and "distributed evenly throughout the top metre of the photosphere, that layer of the Sun would explode - Violently"?
* What if they were distributed several kilometers or hundreds of kilometers thick under the photosphere?
* Wouldn't those electrons act like a bunch of magnets that all had their north poles on the outside and their south poles on the inside? If there were a huge number of such magnets several inches or feet deep on a small asteroid, I don't imagine they would explode. The magnets or the electrons would likely just levitate over each other. Wouldn't they?
* Not all the answers are yet supplied by EU Theory, since it's not a totally completed theory, but it seems to be much more and better completed than conventional theory.
* I almost forgot to discuss charge separation. There are many known means of charge separation. Even friction separates charges. Even within atoms charges are separated. High temperatures separate charges. Lightning produces such high temperatures. AGNs, active galactic nuclei, apparently separate charge via a plasma gun effect, according to Thornhill, basing his theory on Arp's observations. Thornhill also considers that gravity itself can separate charges. He says within large bodies, many molecules would act as dipoles, with atomic nuclei being more attracted toward the center of gravity, while some of the electrons on each molecule will be repelled from each other and discharge as lightning toward the body's surface, leaving behind positive ions, which repel each other, I imagine like the magnets I described above. Does anyone see any flaws in such theories or know of other mechanisms of charge separation?