Sunward Electrons

[nick c]

I'd hardly call it a model so far as surface fusion goes.

I was referring to Scott's model of the Electric Sun. If you don't think it is a model then good for you. I choose to call it a model.

And while I have your attention, in your expert opinion, Is the Sun composed of plasma or is it an ideal gas?

[Higgsy]

I'd hardly call it a model so far as surface fusion goes.

I was referring to Scott's model of the Electric Sun. If you don't think it is a model then good for you. I choose to call it a model.

I was talking specifically about the fusion at the surface thing. He just plucks it from thin air and inserts without any justification. So it has little or no merit.

And while I have your attention, in your expert opinion, Is the Sun composed of plasma or is it an ideal gas?

Is a camel a mammal or a beast of burden?

[Brigit]

by Higgsy » Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:59 am
"Is a camel a mammal or a beast of burden?"

To answer that question, let us suppose a perfect sphere.
Yes, the camel is glowing and arcing.

[nick c]

Hi Higgsy,

I was referring to Scott's model of the Electric Sun. If you don't think it is a model then good for you. I choose to call it a model.

I was talking specifically about the fusion at the surface thing. He just plucks it from thin air and inserts without any justification. So it has little or no merit.

Its mostly semantics. The point being that Scott's model of the Electric Sun has fusion at the photosphere as a logical consequence (z pinch) of the overall proposition (external power source). Furthermore the difference is that the process suggested by Scott is not hidden whee it cannot be seen in the core, but rather is in plain view just waiting for future observation and analysis. Call it a model or don't, that is up to you.

And while I have your attention, in your expert opinion, Is the Sun composed of plasma or is it an ideal gas?

Is a camel a mammal or a beast of burden?

No, its not the choice between a camel being a mammal or a beast of burden. I would prefer to go with the traditional "apples and oranges" analogy.

I am certainly not a physicist but I do know that the merit of a model is dependent upon the a priori assumptions. And the Sun is not an ideal gas nor did it start out as an ideal gas, as cosmic molecular "gas" clouds are plasmas. The fusion in the core model (as first proposed in Eddington's 1926 work: “The Internal Constitution of the Stars”) assumes the Sun behaves as an ideal gas.
That is not a realistic assumption.
Ideal gases are characterized by minimal interaction between atoms whereas plasmas are characterized by electromagnetic interactions of charged particles and ions.

In 1926 Eddington came up with a model of fusion at the core as the power source of the Sun. Not much was known about cosmic plasmas at that time. it was a good model for its day, but its day is gone.

This begs the question of what are the reasons that modern astrophysics has gone down the path of ignoring the electrical implications of the cosmos being composed of 99% plasma?
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... 07sep99_1/

Plasma is not a gas, liquid, or solid - it is the fourth state of matter. Plasma often behaves like a gas, except that it conducts electricity and is affected by magnetic fields. On an astronomical scale, plasma is common. The Sun is composed of plasma, fire is plasma, fluorescent and neon lights contain plasma.

[Higgsy]

Hi Higgsy,

I was referring to Scott's model of the Electric Sun. If you don't think it is a model then good for you. I choose to call it a model.

I was talking specifically about the fusion at the surface thing. He just plucks it from thin air and inserts without any justification. So it has little or no merit.

Its mostly semantics. The point being that Scott's model of the Electric Sun has fusion at the photosphere as a logical consequence (z pinch) of the overall proposition (external power source).

It's not a logical consequence as it's not a matter of pure logic. It might be a physical consequence, which he would have justify by exploring all the quantitative criteria I mentioned above. But he doesn't, so it's just a bare assertion, apparently made in the hope that the reader thinks that it's a logical consequence of the rest of his model.

Furthermore the difference is that the process suggested by Scott is not hidden whee it cannot be seen in the core, but rather is in plain view just waiting for future observation and analysis.

Indeed it's not hidden, so he can't hide from the fact that we don't see the gamma ray flux and other fusion by-products in substantial quantities, so the fact that it's not hidden means it's not there. It really isn't a model in any meaningful sense of the term.

And while I have your attention, in your expert opinion, Is the Sun composed of plasma or is it an ideal gas?

Is a camel a mammal or a beast of burden?

No, its not the choice between a camel being a mammal or a beast of burden. I would prefer to go with the traditional "apples and oranges" analogy.

Would you now? You think apples and oranges describe the concept of a false dichotomy accurately? I suppose if you're offered them after dinner "would you like an orange or an apple", and you fancy both. Like Pooh: “Rabbit said, ‘Honey or condensed milk with your bread?’ Pooh was so excited that he said, ‘Both’ and then, so as not to seem greedy, he added, ‘But don’t bother about the bread, please.'”

I am certainly not a physicist but I do know that the merit of a model is dependent upon the a priori assumptions. And the Sun is not an ideal gas nor did it start out as an ideal gas, as cosmic molecular "gas" clouds are plasmas. The fusion in the core model (as first proposed in Eddington's 1926 work: “The Internal Constitution of the Stars”) assumes the Sun behaves as an ideal gas.
That is not a realistic assumption.

No real gas is an "ideal gas" whether it is made up of neutral particles, or is partly ionised or fully ionised. The question is whether the conditions in the Sun are such that we can use ideal gas laws to approximate the Sun's structure (pressure, temperature etc at different depths), and how good that approximation is.

Ideal gases are characterized by minimal interaction between atoms whereas plasmas are characterized by electromagnetic interactions of charged particles and ions.

So, in order to determine whether we can use ideal gas laws to approximate solar structure, we have to determine whether the classical interactions assumed by clasical kinetic gas theory play a big enough role compared with electrostatic interaction of ions and electrons. I'll leave you to do that simple sum, and if you run into difficulty, just ask and I'll show you. No-one is saying that the ideal gas laws give precise results, but they do give an excellent first approximation to the overall picture which then has to be refined with electrostatic pressure, heat convection, radiation pressure and transport considerations etc etc. Do you think no-one has done any work on this since Eddington? And of course the overall picture can and has been tested by helioseismology.

In 1926 Eddington came up with a model of fusion at the core as the power source of the Sun. Not much was known about cosmic plasmas at that time. it was a good model for its day, but its day is gone.

I don't think so. Perhaps wishful thinking floats your boat.

[Cargo]

The Higgs is stretching the limits of credibility like a wormhole bending time. Like wishing for a Big Bang and Dark Energy/Matter to the bring the Universe into one simple quanta. And the other 99% doesn't matter. How many Unicorns does it take to make the Dust turn into a Core and go Nuclear to become a Star?

[nick c]

Hi Higgsy,
Your position for the equivalence (or that it doesn't make any difference) between an ideal gas and plasma is in my view wrong. Ideal gas is not plasma. If that distinction wasn't important than why did Eddington specify ideal gas as an assumption of his model? Obviously, everything in the ensuing analysis stems from the a priori assumptions.

If it does not matter whether it is an ideal gas or a plasma, since they are both beasts of burden, then why don't you begin your "revised" Eddington model by dropping the assumption of an ideal gas and change it to a plasma? and begin your modeling from there?
'
How can a cosmic plasma cloud, dominated by electric forces, be made to collapse under the force of gravity?

[Brigit]

Sunward Electrons subtopic: Nucleosynthesis in the photosphere and chromosphere (Thornhill/Scott)

Nucleosynthesis in the Electric Sun model is occurring in the photosphere and chromosphere. The products of this fusion are found in the metals that give rise to the absorption lines in the Sun's spectrum, and in the variable production of neutrinos.

• Figure 13
  https://player.slideplayer.com/91/15075 ... lide_9.jpg
  "There have been 200 years of people looking at the Sun through spectroscopes, and we've managed to discover about 68 of the known elements on the Sun, even in the Sun's atmosphere. They're there, they're on the sun...If the Sun gets its energy from Hydrogen-Helium fusion in the core, then yes, I see where the Hydrogen and Helium came from, but where did the Ca and the Mn and the Ti and all the rest of them come from?" ~Dr. Donald Scott, interview

• Figure 14
  https://images.newscientist.com/wp-cont ... ?width=800
  "The neutrino flux is high when solar activity is low and declines to near-zero values as the number of sunspots rises to a peak."
  
  All Bright Stars Produce Heavy Elements
  "Experimentally, a D[ense] P[lasma] F[ocus] produces nuclear fusion and is a copious source of neutrons. Neutron capture in a dense plasma environment of protons and positive ions is necessary to ‘build’ the heavy elements from the lighter elements. So here we have a straightforward possible solution to the continuous production of heavy elements by all stars. The resultant complex nucleosynthesis in the photospheric granules can also be expected to produce a mix of different neutrino types. The observed neutrino modulation by sunspots is then easily explained because the sunspots clear areas of the photosphere of granulation. Common sense demands an alternative to the conventional story of heavy-element production only from rare dispersive supernova explosions, followed by somehow accreting the scattered matter to form the ‘next generation’ of stars containing more heavy elements." ~Wal Thornhill

[Higgsy]

Hi Higgsy,
Your position for the equivalence (or that it doesn't make any difference) between an ideal gas and plasma is in my view wrong.

You are entitled to your view, but your view is not well informed. By the way, I didn't say that it doesn't make any difference, so please don't put words in my mouth. What I did say was "No-one is saying that the ideal gas laws give precise results, but they do give an excellent first approximation to the overall picture which then has to be refined with electrostatic pressure, heat convection, radiation pressure and transport considerations etc etc." Do you understand that that is different from "it doesn't make any difference". It makes a difference, but not enough of a difference to disqualify an ideal gas treatment to a reasonable approximation.

Ideal gas is not plasma.

Indeed, a plasma is not an ideal gas, nor is any real gas an ideal gas. The clue is in the adjective. If a gas has to be an ideal gas to be treated as one, then the concept of an ideal gas would be altogether useless.

If that distinction wasn't important than why did Eddington specify ideal gas as an assumption of his model?

Because he understood that an ideal gas sufficiently closely approximated the plasma so far as thermodynamic properties such as pressure and temperature go, and the behaviour of an ideal gas is well understood. So it is a reasonable first step. But you write as though no further work has ever been done on the Sun since Eddington proposed the model, that it has never been refined to take into account the difference between the plasma and the ideal gas behaviour, and that the model has not been tested empirically. You also write as though you think solar physicists are stupid, and the idea that the fact of the gas being fully ionised might affect the precision of the model has never occurred to them.

If it does not matter whether it is an ideal gas or a plasma, since they are both beasts of burden, then why don't you begin your "revised" Eddington model by dropping the assumption of an ideal gas and change it to a plasma? and begin your modeling from there?

Because it would end up in the same place as the current model which does take the difference between a fully ionised gas and an ideal gas into account, as well as taking into account many, many other things like radiation pressure, convection and other mass flows and so on, which are not covered by the ideal gas laws.

How can a cosmic plasma cloud, dominated by electric forces, be made to collapse under the force of gravity?

Well that is an entirely different question, but in what way is the star forming region of a cosmic plasma "dominated by electric forces", seeing as such a plasma is neutral at all scales above the Debye length, which in this case is about 10m? I can tell you how to calculate the Debye length, but I don't get the impression that quantifying things comes high on your agenda. And while we're talking about the Debye length, you might be interested to learn that in the core of the Sun it is of the order of 10^-11m

Finally, the polytropic model of the Sun, which is what you are talking about, was proposed long before Eddington - by Lane and Ritter in the 1870s and refined by Emden in the early 1900s. Eddington represented another step along the way, and after him, a vast quantity of work has been done by an army of astrophysicists. Some things that Eddington proposed have been shown to be wrong (the details are rather arcane, at least at the level of this conversation), but there is no prospect that the line of argument you have embarked on can be successful.

[Higgsy]

Sunward Electrons subtopic: Nucleosynthesis in the photosphere and chromosphere...

Summary so far:

1. A proposition that a double layer at the heliopause is a cathode for the electric Sun
2. The volume of the heliosphere is really big
3. The electron density outside the heliopause seems to double or treble in the first few AU after crossing to the ISM from about 0.05 electrons per cm^3 to about 0.12 electrons per cm^3 at about 23AU.
4. Double layers exist and sometimes carry current and accelerate ions and electrons between the layers
5. The heliopause travels through the ISM encountering electrons. What will they do?
6. Metals in the Universe being produced by nuclear fusion in the photosphere and chromosphere of stars is proposed as a bare assertion without physical justification.

[Brigit]

Location, location, location.

But that was a subtopic.

[Higgsy]

Location, location, location.

But that was a subtopic.

Oh - so it's not relevant to the argument you're developing about the source of the Sun's power? Is this better:

Summary so far:

1. A proposition that a double layer at the heliopause is a cathode for the electric Sun
2. The volume of the heliosphere is really big
3. The electron density outside the heliopause seems to double or treble in the first few AU after crossing to the ISM from about 0.05 electrons per cm^3 to about 0.12 electrons per cm^3 at about 23AU.
4. Double layers exist and sometimes carry current and accelerate ions and electrons between the layers
5. The heliopause travels through the ISM encountering electrons. What will they do?
(6. Metals in the Universe being produced by nuclear fusion in the photosphere and chromosphere of stars is proposed as a bare assertion without physical justification)

What does happen to the electrons encountered by the Sun's heliopause as it travels through the ISM? I can't wait to find out. In fact this process reminds me a little of glaciers.

[Michael Mozina]

Well that is an entirely different question, but in what way is the star forming region of a cosmic plasma "dominated by electric forces", seeing as such a plasma is neutral at all scales above the Debye length, which in this case is about 10m? I can tell you how to calculate the Debye length, but I don't get the impression that quantifying things comes high on your agenda. And while we're talking about the Debye length, you might be interested to learn that in the core of the Sun it is of the order of 10^-11m

What a crock of complete BS.

Is that you RC, or do you all just parrot the same falsified nonsense?

Plasma in space isn't "neutral" at all. It's *moving current*.

[Higgsy]

https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3 ... ?f=3&t=319
Is that you RC, or do you all just parrot the same falsified nonsense?
Plasma in space isn't "neutral" at all. It's *moving current*.

I had a look at your link and your main objection in there is correct. The Debye length does not limit the "length" of a current in the presence of a driving voltage, and it certainly doesn't limit overall plasma flow in any way.

However cosmic plasmas are neutral on scales above the Debye length because they are highly conducting, and so any charge separation will result in an electric field which will drive a current to restore neutrality.

And to say "Plasma in space isn't "neutral" at all. It's *moving current*." is not a good definition of a plasma, "moving current" is a tautology, and currents are not necessary for cosmic plasmas to exist.

[Brigit]

by Michael Mozina » Fri Dec 18, 2020 3:02 am
"Plasma in space isn't "neutral" at all. It's *moving current*."

And, "an electric current in plasma generates a magnetic field that will constrict the current flow."

Speaking of camels, what is this emu looking at?

• Figure 15
  https://images.theconversation.com/file ... 8&fit=crop
  
  Figure 16
  https://www.dunlap.utoronto.ca/wp-conte ... _600px.jpg