Sparky wrote: Your explanations are simplistic and vague, and are ad hoc as mainstream mumbo jumbo. So, in your "realistic" model , what is the voltage produced by each of your batteries? Or power with current so's I can convert to voltage...
I think I've noticed the problem. You think the Sun has a "model". Meaning it can be explained with just one idea. This is oversimplification. The Sun is not some simple little model. It is a highly complex phenomenon which has many hundreds of phenomenon all acting in unison, and many thousands of things happening inside of it and on top of it. You have to ignore some parts to reality to draw up a "model".
For instance, just because a sunspot can resemble a simple galvanic cell, does not mean the entire sun is a galvanic cell, just as just because there was a lightning bolt strike outside your house does not mean the entire Earth even experiences lightning!
The Sun is NOT a simple thing. It has many different phenomenon. To answer the voltage drop question it can actually be measured with a ruler. 30,000 volts is about 1 cm of arcing in air, a lightning bolt (1 billion volts) about 1/3 a kilometer. The breakdown voltage for air is about 3 million volts per meter.
So all you have to figure is what is the breakdown voltage for a charged plasma, measure the distance of the current carrying conductor and there you go, the breakdown voltage.
Oh and current is something else entirely. Just because something carries a lot of current does not mean its voltage is very high. Most equipment that I sell only has voltages of around 120-600 v. This is a very, very small voltage. The breakdown voltage in air from a 600 volt source would be like .2 mm. One fifth of a millimeter. That is a very tiny arc, but HUGE amounts of current can pass though that very small arc. For instance a 1000 Amp breaker would have maybe 500 Amps of current flowing though it at 480 volts, this would mean 500 AMPs * 480 volts = 240,000 watts. That's a lot of juice.
But if you have a very small current, the voltage can be huge and still not provide that same amount of juice. This is what those flares are like, sure the voltage is really high, but not that much juice is flowing through them as it looks.
I guess the best way to understand the difference, which works for me is to consider voltage as water pressure in a pipe (higher pressure higher voltage) and AMPs as how MUCH water is flowing through that pipe.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
In this theory no matter needs to be formed in a "star". All matter is formed from a birthing galaxy:
How about H and He? They are matter and are they formed in a birthing galaxy?
This is M87, as we can see matter is coming out of the central object: Astronomers have ignored these objects, they would rather keep a. stellar fusion, b. big bang, c. supernova matter synthesis
All three are not required in this theory. In this theory a galaxy creates matter. As we can literally see it happening. It is a sound observation.
Off we go with a logical strawman fallacy!! Why not provide a better model instead of tearing down strawmen?!!
And what magical model do you propose that generates matter from nothing?!! What special goggles do you have that you can see "matter" being generated??!! So, you have a magical model and magical goggles to see what others can"t, and it all agrees with your fantasy gtsm?!
On with the fantasy!
Notice the similarities:
So long story short, there are HUGE redox reactions taking place on the Sun. A sunspot is the formation of a giant galvanic cell, or a temporary battery larger than the Earth.
What similarities!!!?? One is a container, separated into compartments with differing chemicals and connected by a conductor. The other is a plasma eruption! CC explained this!! And no one else has your cereal box, magic goggles!
It is very strange for me seeing scientists just placing matter synthesis inside of stars, when it is very clear matter is created during galaxy birth. Very, very strange. It is even stranger that they place mathematical objects (black holes) that by definition cannot have matter escaping them in the center of events when clearly there is many trillions upon trillions upon trillions of tons of material being ejected from them.
Very, very strange?! Yes indeed, especially when we have gone over that point several times and you still make the mistake of assuming that "matter" is created!
You have no idea what you are talking about, but proceed as if you are an authority. Which you prove not to be with almost every post!
Since the Sun is highly electrical and full of elements that can make chemical compounds and molecules then electro-chemical reactions probably rule it.
Probably not! You have looked in your chemistry book, picked up some terms and a vague knowledge of chemistry, then come up with another fantasy action. Charles Chandler has a workable model for the sun, and it is purely electrical.! I used CC's model to compare your untenable model to one that could be workable.
To also wrap up my lessons in regards to electrochemistry now, I have actually stumbled upon one of the the greatest misdirections of science, the idea that stars are nuclear and not electrochemical events.
So, you admit to sounding like an authoritative professor ?~! And one that gets nothing right! But ignores basic science and logic to continue on with nonsense!
Why not explain how, "A sunspot is the formation of a giant galvanic cell, or a temporary battery larger than the Earth." are these batteries connected in series or parallel?!!
In parallel or series would represent multiple galvanic cells.
Exactly! There are numerous sunspots, so are they connected? Or do they operate independently ?
I am surprised there is no literature concerning this in any textbook or wikipedia entry I have found.
I am not surprised that you can't find references. Look in the science nonsense section!
I think I've noticed the problem. You think the Sun has a "model". Meaning it can be explained with just one idea.------YADA YADA YADA---------I guess the best way to understand the difference, which works for me is to consider voltage as water pressure in a pipe (higher pressure higher voltage) and AMPs as how MUCH water is flowing through that pipe.
Off on distracting tangents again, and not addressing the questions. Lots of words, but no real explanations.
A model is not "one idea"!!!! And the real problem is your misunderstanding of just about everything!!!
This is what those flares are like, sure the voltage is really high, but not that much juice is flowing through them as it looks.
Really??!! That streamer of plasma is not much current? Strange world you live in!
Since you do not understand plasma discharges, batteries, current/voltage relationships within the plasma environment, . and the simple definitions of words and phrases, communicating in a meaningful way with you is near impossible, unless one ignores your mistakes and illogic.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
Charles Chandler has a workable model for the sun, and it is purely electrical.! I used CC's model to compare your untenable model to one that could be workable.
The Sun being purely electrical does not make sense, esp since it is a sea of elements interacting with each other at high temps and pressures. Trying to explain what the Sun does with electricity alone is really bad. That is like establishment trying to explain everything with gravity alone. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
In this theory you have stars as giant chemical hells in which material is mixed very violently at multiple levels of temps and pressures as the star evolves and cools. I have just been finding out this stuff very recently how and why establishment has been ignoring electrochemistry inside of stars. They have been ignoring electrochemistry because, well, its hard to try and explain things when you don't know what is actually going to happen to the star. Now that we understand stars cool and shrink and eventually become what are called "gas giants" which then cools some more to become what are called "planets" we can reverse engineer the Earth.
Sparky wrote: Exactly! There are numerous sunspots, so are they connected? Or do they operate independently ?
Well if there is a sunspot on one side of the Sun, and another on the other side of the Sun, then they are not connected. I guess they would have to be at least close to each other to influence each other. But as to the sunspots "powering" the star because they resemble giant galvanic cells, I do not think that is true. They manifest as the Sun dissipates the energy from initial formation. Natural batteries can form in nature and release their energy, but they are only as a consequence of their environment hosting the conditions required, albeit temporarily.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
As to me being an "expert" or "professor" yes, I am an expert of this theory, because I created it, I can teach it.
As far as I can tell there are only 2 or three other human beings on the Earth that are actively working on this understanding. Though I wish there were more, it just simply takes an incredible amount of creative thinking and hard work. Most people don't like hard work, and the vast majority cannot think creatively, it is much easier just to go with the crowds' belief. At least with that you don't get called names and treated as if you are some idiot.
I guess my strength with this theory is that I have nothing to lose if I'm wrong, and everything to gain if I'm correct. Establishment astronomers have everything to lose if they go with the idea that stellar evolution is planet formation, including but not limited to their credibility, their educational knowledge, their status, their paychecks, their reputations, their feeling of importance, their sanity, etc.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The Sun being purely electrical does not make sense, esp since it is a sea of elements interacting with each other at high temps and pressures.
Well, what we see and what you just described is plasma! And what we see is plasma reacting to electrical influences, B and E fields! So, why is that not making sense?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
The Sun being purely electrical does not make sense, esp since it is a sea of elements interacting with each other at high temps and pressures.
Well, what we see and what you just described is plasma! And what we see is plasma reacting to electrical influences, B and E fields! So, why is that not making sense?
Plasma on the sun is all these elements:
Not only that, but they have different properties under different pressures, temperatures, different phase transition temps/pressures... they become even stranger when they combine with each other thus have even additional properties on top of them in their "pure" form.
In other words, the "models", if they ignore chemistry or the differing electrical properties of differing elements then the "models" are not useful. If anything the "model" is just an ignoring of reality.
There are anodes and cathodes as they literally refer to charged material inside of solutions. You have the properties of differing types of electrolytic substances (such as sea water). You have the properties of differing types of acids and bases as they interact and formed inside of the star's interior.
As well, there are event electrolytic capacitors on the surface of the Sun (which probably contain oxides that can act as temporary insulators) that can also store energy and release it in different ways than the galvanic cells.
Just explaining it away won't do. The Sun is an incredibly complex phenomenon that is beyond the bounds of those who believe its just "a big fusion powerplant" and definitely beyond those who believe it is just some giant lightbulb.
Plus, we have to try to explain these events in terms of the actual elements with which we are referring to. The majority of the Earth's crust is silicon, aluminum and oxygen. Why? Clearly there is something special about those metals/gas which can be explained by their individual properties. Aluminum conducts electric current well at STP, oxygen is highly electro-negative, silicon is a semi-conductor... Just saying Earth was a giant rock that melted together is neglecting its rich history as a much hotter, bigger, brighter star.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I think what is really cool is that with this theory we can point ourselves in the right direction for studying stars and their evolution into life hosting stars:
Thermochemistry!! This has two basic statements which preceed the first law of thermodynamics:
Thermochemistry rests on two generalizations. Stated in modern terms, they are as follows:
Lavoisier and Laplace's law (1780): The energy change accompanying any transformation is equal and opposite to energy change accompanying the reverse process.
Hess' law (1840): The energy change accompanying any transformation is the same whether the process occurs in one step or many.
These statements preceded the first law of thermodynamics (1845) and helped in its formulation.
In other words, as the star evolves in much later stages and synthesizes the natural gas, and oil like compounds which release energy when heated (exothermic reactions), they must have been endothermic reactions taking place to form vast chains of hydrocarbons. To make oils/natural gas they must have been heat absorbing reactions, making the surrounding area much cooler. This means the synthesis of natural gas/oil does not happen under high heat and pressure, it happens under low heat and pressure.
My take is that it would mean oil synthesis happens in the upper atmospheres of late stage blue dwarfs, and that the oil/natural gas rains down before there is a crust to trap it on the interior of the star.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Plasma on the sun is all these elements:
As long as you are using the periodic table to make one of your arguments, let's be a bit more accurate and show percentages:
Element (% of total mass) Hydrogen 71.0 Helium 27.1 Oxygen 0.97 Carbon 0.40 Nitrogen 0.096 Silicon 0.099 Magnesium 0.076 Neon 0.058 Iron 0.14 Sulfur 0.040
Astronomers study the spectrum of the Sun to determine it's chemical composition. In the visible region alone, from 4000 to 7000 angstroms (10-10 meters), there are thousands of absorption lines in the solar spectrum. These lines have been cataloged, and tell us that there are 67 chemical elements identified in the Sun. There are probably even more elements in the Sun that are present in such a small amount that our instruments can't detect them. Here is a table of the 10 most common elements in the Sun:
Not that I go along with this standard theory, but I tend to take the words of educated scientists over those of someone caught up in an illusion of illogic and ignorance.
When other stars are studied spectroscopically it is found that most stars are composed of around 70 percent hydrogen and 28 percent helium by mass, very similar to what we see in the Sun. The fraction of all other elements, the "heavier" elements, is small and varies considerably from 2 or 3 percent by mass in Sun-like stars to 0.1 to 0.01 percent by mass in stars found in globular clusters. We call those stars with very little heavy elements "population II stars" and those with Sun-like heavy element abundances "population I stars". Theories of stellar evolution state that the population I stars are a later generation of stars, that formed after some enrichment of gas clouds between stars had already taken place. That is because stars "burn" lighter elements into heavier ones during their lives (scientists call this process "nucleosynthesis"). Right now, the Sun is burning hydrogen into helium at it's center, or "core". This is the chain of nuclear fusion that powers the Sun. The net effect is that four hydrogen nuclei combine to create one helium nucleus, some gamma-ray radiation and two neutrinos. The gamma-ray photons slowly lose energy as they pass through the solar interior, and the energy eventually escapes in the form of visible light. The neutrinos escape unhindered into space at the speed of light, and the helium stays in the core. Other stars, which have used up all the hydrogen fuel in their cores, burn helium into beryllium and carbon. Massive stars that evolve beyond this point then burn carbon into heavier elements, and so on. This process is called nucleosynthesis.
So, we have plasma, and it is conducting in glow or arc mode.! Where are the chemicals that make up the "sunspot" battery? Is the battery electrolyte protected from the heat and electrical forces to keep it in liquid state? Or is all of that theory the same type of nonsense as the rest of the gtsm model?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
Where are the chemicals that make up the "sunspot" battery? Is the battery electrolyte protected from the heat and electrical forces to keep it in liquid state?
Well, you could use multiple elements, all you need is an imbalance and a conducting fluid.
In this example you have:
In this example zinc is the anode and copper is the cathode. Since the majority of the elements inside the solar atmosphere are ionized (positive/negative) then you could literally have any element acting as the cathodes/anodes.
Thus the "anode" tufting in a sunspot isn't the "anode" with the solar atmosphere acting as the "cathode", what is really happening is inside of the granules.
The anode is the charged material in the center and the cathode is are the walls of each granule which form a feedback loop keeping them stable. When you have a rise in material from the center it gets charged and tossed in the mix throwing the feedback loop off and the battery gets much bigger. Therefore its not that sunspots are something different than the solar granules it is more likely that they magnify the effect of the granules as additional matter rises to the surface.
As to your incessant "gtsm" is nonsense, I find that annoying. I choose to keep on topic and try my best with this discovery, if you choose to consider it nonsense, create a thread that is called "stellar metamorphosis is nonsense" and post your issues there to talk among others.
I am here to discuss the discovery that stellar evolution is the process of "planet formation". I am also here to defend gtsm against mythology presented by EU and creationism presented by establishment dogma.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Thus the "anode" tufting in a sunspot
hmmmmmmmmm,,, I didn't know that sunspots had "tufting"? But, that fits in right well with the gtsm nonsense...And since this whole thread is mostly nonsense, this is the place to point that out. Your latest nonsensical tangent, batteries on the sun, is dead on arrival. But I am sure you will milk the illusion for your own ego satisfaction. Yes, jeffrey, sunspots are giant, 3volt batteries that explode when over charged!
hmmmmmmmmm,,, I didn't know that sunspots had "tufting"? But, that fits in right well with the gtsm nonsense...And since this whole thread is mostly nonsense, this is the place to point that out. Your latest nonsensical tangent, batteries on the sun, is dead on arrival. But I am sure you will milk the illusion for your own ego satisfaction. Yes, jeffrey, sunspots are giant, 3volt batteries that explode when over charged!
All three are necessary to complete any explanation of the solar interior or its evolution into a life hosting star.
Where is the chemistry? Its non-existent! I guess from this point on I should coin the phrase, "show me the chemistry", as models of stellar evolution/planet formation are simply ignoring reality if there is no mention made of it.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Here is a great page on lists of electrolytic, weak electrolytic and non-electrolytic substances that are naturally occurring.
I have to include all of these in reference to stellar evolution. I have my work cut out for me big time. Sorting out what are acids/bases, salts... its going to take me an even greater amount of time than I previously expected. If there is anybody who wants to jump in and help me out I'm right here!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I choose to keep on topic and try my best with this discovery,
JeffreyW wrote: This theory/discovery means that the first "discovery" of an exoplanet belongs to the person who first looked up at the night sky on a clear dark night. They had to be brave enough to step out of their cave when the sky became dark. So kudos to you, Mr/Mrs Cave Dweller who had the courage to peer out into the vast unknown.
Its is definitely anti-climatic for the Kepler scientists. On one hand they make grand discoveries, on the other they discover that they were wrong about a great many things.
Either establishment scientists "get it" now, or they never get it. I mean I'm literally handing to them on a silver platter, green eggs and ham style.
All three are necessary to complete any explanation of the solar interior or its evolution into a life hosting star.
Ummm... the thermalization of momentum, and adiabatic compression, are not thermodynamics?
Anyway, as concerns chemistry, just remember that the surface of the Sun averages 6000 K, and everything is monoatomic at that temperature. There "could" be compounds below the surface, if (like me) you believe that the interior of the Sun is actually cooler than the surface. My model doesn't have any heat sources any deeper than 120 Mm below the surface, and the core is absolute zero. But extreme degrees of ionization due to electron degeneracy pressure prevent covalent bonding, and there still aren't any compounds. So I don't see how chemical batteries are getting instantiated inside the Sun.
All three are necessary to complete any explanation of the solar interior or its evolution into a life hosting star.
Ummm... the thermalization of momentum, and adiabatic compression, are not thermodynamics?
Anyway, as concerns chemistry, just remember that the surface of the Sun averages 6000 K, and everything is monoatomic at that temperature. There "could" be compounds below the surface, if (like me) you believe that the interior of the Sun is actually cooler than the surface. My model doesn't have any heat sources any deeper than 120 Mm below the surface, and the core is absolute zero. But extreme degrees of ionization due to electron degeneracy pressure prevent covalent bonding, and there still aren't any compounds. So I don't see how chemical batteries are getting instantiated inside the Sun.
Plasma recombination?
thermalization of momentum? Don't you mean ionization?
The reverse of that is plasma recombination...
adiabatic compression?
An adiabatic process is a process that occurs without the transfer of heat or matter between a system and its surroundings.
The Sun is radiating massive amounts of heat and losing massive amounts of matter to solar wind and flares.
If covalent bonding is prevented, your model of the Sun has it as never undergoing plasma recombination then, a basic thermodynamic phase transition, because ions depending on their valance will combine with each other forming molecules and releasing heat (exothermic reaction). We see these molecules in more evolved stars... they are called methane, water, oxygen gas, hydrogen gas, etc.
So in your model of the Sun it is perpetually hot? This would violate the first law of thermodynamics. You cannot have energy coming out of the Sun indefinitely without there being a source for this energy, and since the Sun is radiating it away, and nothing is coming in, its enthalpy is always decreasing. This means the plasma will become gas and release massive amounts of energy as it does this. In other words hot young stars like this:
Will eventually cool and shrink becoming what are called "planets".
Without basic phase transitioning, the models are not correct.
Notice the similarities:
