Plasma Stars

[jacmac]

continued from Sunward Electrons topic.
Higgsy:

How does that cell-like structure work? What form does this "transfer of energy" take? How would we test your idea? And how does your idea avoid charge accumulation?

How does that cell-like structure work ?
I don't know. How does plasma maintain a double layer ?

What form does this transfer of energy take.?
Well, if you leave your car headlights on, does your battery charge not get used up ?

How would we test your idea ?
We(EU) could start by talking about the chromosphere and stop talking about the sun as if it is one big simple thing (anode ?)

How to avoid charge accumulation ?
Use a lot of it up making heat, light, and keeping the chromosphere working.
And, the "solar wind" looks like a current out to the heliopause where it would be needed to form and maintain the heliopause double layer.

And

and calculations that show that all of this adds up to 10^26W.

See appendix C on page 235, Solar Electron Flux, in The Electric Sky, by Donald E. Scott published in 2006.

[Higgsy]

continued from Sunward Electrons topic.

How does that cell-like structure work? What form does this "transfer of energy" take? How would we test your idea? And how does your idea avoid charge accumulation?

How does that cell-like structure work ?
I don't know. How does plasma maintain a double layer ?

Isn't it your suggestion? I thought you would be able to explain your suggestion of how the double layers "isolate plasma environments while allowing enough transfer of energy to function". Double layers form in plasma in regions of non-homogenety, such as in regions where electrons and ions are being accelerated from electrodes, or between regions of different electron temperature or with different chemical constituents.

What form does this transfer of energy take.?

Well, if you leave your car headlights on, does your battery charge not get used up ?

I don't understand how that's an answer to my question. You claimed energy is transferred, presumably through the double layer(s). What form does this energy take? Is it radiation or kinetic or electrical energy carried by electrons or ions or what?

How would we test your idea ?

We(EU) could start by talking about the chromosphere and stop talking about the sun as if it is one big simple thing (anode ?)

When I say test I mean experiment or make observations which either confirm or falsify it. How could we do that?

How to avoid charge accumulation ?

Use a lot of it up making heat, light, and keeping the chromosphere working.

I am afraid you can't "use charge up". Charge is conserved. If more charge comes in to a volume than goes out then the charge accumulates.

And, the "solar wind" looks like a current out to the heliopause where it would be needed to form and maintain the heliopause double layer.

The net current of the solar wind is zero because the solar wind is neutral. Or to put it another way, if the net charge flow into the Sun is not zero, then charge will accumulate and the Sun will become progressively more charged.

and calculations that show that all of this adds up to 10^26W.

See appendix C on page 235, Solar Electron Flux, in The Electric Sky, by Donald E. Scott published in 2006.

Ah yes, but he doesn't address charge accumulation, he doesn't show that there is a net current into the Sun, and he pulls 10 billion volts out of thin air with no justification and doesn't consider how a charge of 10 billion volts can be maintained in the photosphere. But anyway, I thought you were proposing your own model, not simply promoting Scott's. "I have suggested an alternative electric plasma model..." you said.

[jacmac]

I don't want to argue about these things.
You are obviously more trained and skilled in science than I am.
Although a College graduate, my formal training related to these discussions is : Junior College Degree in Electrical Technology
and two years working For IBM as a "unit record machine" repair person in 1959/61.

I have been participating in these forums on this website for 10 years.
By now I sometimes assume I know what I'm talking about.
and I also like to think that I know what I DON'T know.

The big debate between anode sun and cathode sun was a revelation for me.
I felt that both sides were talking past one another; rarely answering questions.
And, of course, there has been no offerings of what is the actual solar circuit by either side.

Then I thought.... what about something without electrodes, something that does not have a linear circuit
like the ones we build. So now I am thinking of a collecting of plasma about a large body in space.
Eric Dollard says the sun is an antennae.

Plasma does ball lightning, plasma creates double layers around objects,
and plasma seems to be SELF ORGANIZING (now there is a topic for discussion). Perhaps plasma moving through the galaxy
is primed by its nature to find large hospitable bodies to collect around; like breeding grounds for some living species on earth.

To my knowledge I am the only person on this forum to propose a cell like structure that is self maintaining,
by collecting what it needs from the close external environment beyond its sphere of influence.
It is not necessarily my job to explain everything about it.

Perhaps my use of the word MODEL has unintended implications. Perhaps being unprepared to explain everything is bad science.
I don't care. I am interested in figuring out how the sun works. This is a forum for conversation about a topic we find compelling.
This should be a forum where synergy happens; where my idea and yours equals a third new something. If not, why bother.

Jack

[Cargo]

I would say jacmac, you are on the right path and don't be dissolved by The Higgs. The Higgs has a nack for nit-picking to avoid uncomfortable questions.

[JP Michael]

This is a forum for conversation about a topic we find compelling.
This should be a forum where synergy happens; where my idea and yours equals a third new something. If not, why bother.

Or to quote Marinus van der Sluijs in his most recent book:

...hostility to mainstream research characterises many an 'alternative' project, but has no place here. To be conservative and critical is the normal, necessary attitude of science and no-one in his or her right mind would wish to antagonise - and thereby lose the potential interest of - specialists, without whose valuable labour informed debate would not even be possible. I value all professional and dispassionate disagreement as salutary signs of the scientific progress, conducted by fellow humans indulging a shared passion. (On the Origin of Myths in Catastrophic Experience [Vancouver: All-Round, 2019], p. 2)

Later, van der Sluijs outlines the importance of maintaining multiple working hypotheses and must, to maintain integrity, outline its 'inconvenient facts' (ibid, pp.3-4). Fortunately, folks like Eugene (paladin17) and Higgsy are very good at outlining many inconvenient facts regarding some preferred hypotheses (solar anode/cathode, current flow in double layers,etc). Ultimately, no-one really fully knows how the sun works, or how it interacts with the galactic or intergalactic environments due to paucity of data. There are only two ~40 year old probes even near the heliopause taking in information of what it's like (rather than what astrophysicists think it is or should be like).

I perceive a lot of hostility to the mainstream by members of this forum (to say nothing of myself - I do it as well), starting from the top with Thornhill's regular anti-establishment diatribes. It is a good reason to pause and reassess what we're really trying to accomplish here.

A decent dose of humility should make us all realise that, in spite of our expertise (or lack thereof) or assertions to the contrary, we still do not have all the answers. Mainstream cosmological models remain as flawed as EU versions, and only patience and careful attention to detail will creep us closer to a holistic understanding of the universe and our place in it.

[jacmac]

Thank you Cargo and JP Michael for those remarks.

[Higgsy]

I don't want to argue about these things...

Perhaps my use of the word MODEL has unintended implications. Perhaps being unprepared to explain everything is bad science.
I don't care. I am interested in figuring out how the sun works.

Indeed and I applaud that ambition. However we learned six hundred years ago that the way to figure out the workings of the natural world is to put forward ideas, and then test them against observations. That's all that science is. So you want to figure out how the Sun works? Great, so do I. You're never going to do it by making statements about how you think it might work and then avoiding questions that seek to compare your idea with what is already known and observed. No-one expects you to explain everything, but if a model has some features that go against fundamental things, like, for example, conservation of charge, well then we can dispense with that idea right away and move on to the next one. And I am sorry if I come over as confrontational sometimes, but that's how scientists are with one another, how I am with my colleagues and vice versa. The immediate response to someone saying "I think it's like X" is to say "have you thought of Z and what does that mean for X". (In fact you do that yourself, when you query how the electric Sun's circuit is closed). It's no shame then to say "Hmm, you're right, maybe not X exactly, but how about X plus Y" or "Hmm, you're right, I'll abandon X and go back to the drawing board." Rinse and repeat. However it is certain that no progress will be made in any scientific topic by coming up with ideas and not being prepared to consider their implications and how you would test them.

[Cargo]

Why would the conservation of charge even matter? There's no such thing anywhere except in an isolated system cut off from the universe.

And I'm pretty sure you haven't really held your own standard of science to what you already believe is known. Big Bang Multiverse Dark Things. Did you throw away the Icy Comet yet?

[Higgsy]

Why would the conservation of charge even matter? There's no such thing anywhere except in an isolated system cut off from the universe.

Why would the conservation of charge even matter? I think I'll make that my signature line. The consequence of charge conservation is that the rate of change in the charge within any arbitrary volume (say the Sun) (coulombs per second) is equal to the current (amps) flowing into or out of the volume. Or, at any point, the rate of change of charge density with time (coulombs per cubic metre per second) is equal to the divergence of the current density (amps per square metre per metre). So that if there is a net curent flowing into or out of the Sun, then its positive or negative charge must increase depending on the sign of the current.

[Cargo]

Sorry, I mean it the other way. As in why would it even be a part of the discussion. It's Universal. The entire universe is converting and carrying charge everywhere, thus making sure conservation occurs. That fact you claim there's a exception to this law for an electrical model of the universe is completely shameful zealotry that can only come from believing in a Big Bang and all that other Dark Nonsense.

[jacmac]

You are correct Higgsy. I have challenged Brigit's offerings on the anode sun model as you have challenged mine.
That is why I take my cellular solar system proposal here.
And I do understand the scientific method of testing a hypothesis.
Here are a few remarks for today.

I can now see that one does not "use up charge" as I have said and understand the basic "conservation of charge" law;
which in its more complete version is "conservation of net charge in a closed system law".
I have used the word charge where voltage would have been a better choice.
However, I do agree with Cargo that the sun is hardly a good example of a closed system due to the complexities involved
within and around the sun and the solar system.

I cannot explain the form of a "transfer of energy."
We know energy comes from somewhere to generate heat and light, as well as all the other solar activities.
I was pointing out that energy is also needed to to maintain a double layer at the chromosphere.
Dr. Scott's description of a double layer within the chromosphere seems to have been overlooked by the EU community.
Perhaps it somehow contradicts the anode sun idea, and gets in the way of the anode sun discharging to the cathode heliopause.
I do think the chromosphere might be the key to understanding the sun, especially from an EU point of view.
The Mainstream does not seem to have an explanation for the three main parts of the sun.
I certainly do not know how plasma self organizes into a double layer.

But if plasma can self organize into a double layer why not into a cell structure.
Someone has said there should be a basic simple reason for stars because there are so many of them.
I agree.

[Higgsy]

I can now see that one does not "use up charge" as I have said and understand the basic "conservation of charge" law;
which in its more complete version is "conservation of net charge in a closed system law".
I have used the word charge where voltage would have been a better choice.
However, I do agree with Cargo that the sun is hardly a good example of a closed system due to the complexities involved
within and around the sun and the solar system.

Sorry, I mean it the other way. As in why would it even be a part of the discussion. It's Universal. The entire universe is converting and carrying charge everywhere, thus making sure conservation occurs. That fact you claim there's a exception to this law for an electrical model of the universe is completely shameful zealotry that can only come from believing in a Big Bang and all that other Dark Nonsense.

So both of you guys still misunderstand the implications of charge conservation, jacmac in afriendly way, and Cargo in an insulting and abusive manner. Nevertheless, you are both wrong about this. I have already explained it in some detail, but let me see if I can find another form of words that clarifies it for both of you.

What charge conservation means is that for any volume (that's any volume in the Universe you choose, say a volume within which there is just a grain of sand, or a volume containing Higgsy and a good book but nothing else, or a volume containing New York with all its skyscrapers and subways and sewers and so on, or a volume containing the Sun out to say, 0.5 solar radii from the photosphere), the change of the charge contained within that volume over any time period is given by the amount of charge entering or leaving the volume in that time. It's an exact balance - if you don't put any in or take any out, then the charge contained in the volume doesn't change. If what you put in equals what you take out, then the charge contained in the volume doesn't change. But if you put more in than you take out then the charge increases and vice versa. There are no complexities around the Sun that affect this. If there is a net current into the Sun (which is the same as saying we are putting more charge in than we taking out) then charge will accumulate. That's all there is to it. Draw a closed surface round an uncharged object and keep a tally of charges crossing the surface in and out, and you will know exactly how much charge there is inside that surface (ie in the volume enclosed by the surface) at any time.

The Mainstream does not seem to have an explanation for the three main parts of the sun.

What do you regard as the three main parts? Have you reviewed the standard explanations for those parts?

I certainly do not know how plasma self organizes into a double layer.

Perhaps, but the theory of double layers is quite advanced so people who study these things do know, (although it is a bit more complicated than most EU advocates seems to think).

But if plasma can self organize into a double layer why not into a cell structure.

You are going to have to say a bit more about what you mean by the cell structure as I'm not getting it. Do you mean cell as in biological cell, or cell as in battery?

Someone has said there should be a basic simple reason for stars because there are so many of them.
I agree.

So do I.

[Cargo]

Slick Higgs, you can't isolate (no in/out charge occurring, isolated) the city to measure it's charge in the first place. You can't measure the charge of a planet or star either. You can guess and estimate, but you can't isolate it. Ever/Never. And you also can not measure every charge going in or out.
If we are to believe Dark Matter and Dark Energy, these things are invisible and outside all known EM wavelengths.
So the premise of the CoC being violated is over-generalizing and pointless pandering. Another straw for the Higgstack.

[jacmac]

Higgsy

What do you regard as the three main parts? Have you reviewed the standard explanations for those parts?

Photosphere....chromosphere.....corona.
I have only seen general popular press descriptions of these parts.
Perhaps you have a link to a more robust explanation of why they exist.

the theory of double layers is quite advanced so people who study these things do know,

I would read a paper on that, but I have not researched it myself.

Do you mean cell as in biological cell, or cell as in battery?

Biological cell. I have read that plasma exhibits life like properties;
we might say that life has plasma like properties given its ubiquitous presence and electromagnetic component.

[Higgsy]

Higgsy

What do you regard as the three main parts? Have you reviewed the standard explanations for those parts?

Photosphere....chromosphere.....corona.
I have only seen general popular press descriptions of these parts.

Don't you think the core and the convection zone are main parts? Anyway "Solar Astrophysics" by Peter Foukal is comprehensive but heavy going. A book I have recommended before, R J Tayler's "The Stars: their structure and evolution" is not just about the Sun but stars generally and is a very good book.

Other than those, there are a number of technical monographs, but I am not aware of popular books. I'm sure they must exist but I don't have any and can't recommend any.

the theory of double layers is quite advanced so people who study these things do know,

I would read a paper on that, but I have not researched it myself.

Peratt has a good chapter on astrophysical double layers in Physics of the Plasma Universe. For a more up to date overview see any current textbook on plasma physics. Again, I can't suggest anything more popular.

Do you mean cell as in biological cell, or cell as in battery?

Biological cell. I have read that plasma exhibits life like properties;
we might say that life has plasma like properties given its ubiquitous presence and electromagnetic component.

Ah - ok, I suppose there are similarities in the self-organising, but ultimately plasma double layers are not organic and should be describable by physics alone.