1. There is nothing producing electrical energy that the Sun feeds off. In other words, they have no mechanism for electrical energy production outside of the Sun. (no generator)
You obviously do not understand basic electricity. The universe appears to be full of charged particles, ions, plasma. Moving charged particles, charges, is electricity. There are huge magnetic fields observable, which means that electric currents is produced. The solar wind is an electric current! Charges can flow both ways in the complex environment of a Birkeland current. Electricity can also be induced by magnetic fields in flux. It is all plain as day. Where have you been for these past few years?
2. All the energy of the sun is coming OUT of it, not into it. (the solar wind doesn't go backwards it radiates away from the Sun.)
Your contention! Do you have evidence of that? How much electron flow is needed to supply the sun with power? You seem to know.
What if the sun is self powered? It is a complex environment. It may be too complex for you to grasp at a basic level, so you come up with a simple theory that you can understand. You ignore logic, scientific observations, and only rely on imagination and mechanisms that can not be shown. Time to redo some of your gtsm so that rational people will at least look at it. That is what you want, right?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
1. There is nothing producing electrical energy that the Sun feeds off. In other words, they have no mechanism for electrical energy production outside of the Sun. (no generator)
You obviously do not understand basic electricity. The universe appears to be full of charged particles, ions, plasma. Moving charged particles, charges, is electricity. There are huge magnetic fields observable, which means that electric currents is produced. The solar wind is an electric current! Charges can flow both ways in the complex environment of a Birkeland current. Electricity can also be induced by magnetic fields in flux. It is all plain as day. Where have you been for these past few years?
2. All the energy of the sun is coming OUT of it, not into it. (the solar wind doesn't go backwards it radiates away from the Sun.)
Your contention! Do you have evidence of that? How much electron flow is needed to supply the sun with power? You seem to know.
What if the sun is self powered? It is a complex environment. It may be too complex for you to grasp at a basic level, so you come up with a simple theory that you can understand. You ignore logic, scientific observations, and only rely on imagination and mechanisms that can not be shown. Time to redo some of your gtsm so that rational people will at least look at it. That is what you want, right?
I sell electrical equipment. I have never seen a main breaker with just a load side and no line. that is what EU is saying, that electrical current can flow out of a circuit without anything receiving the current. In other words, EU is false. To test EU's idea all we need to do is detach a circuit breaker from the buss bar keeping the load attached and see if the current still flows to the outlets it feeds.
The Sun is a macroscale dissipative system, all the energy it took in when forming is being slowly released in a stable fashion. Its not "powered" by anything, it is releasing the energy from formation (dissipation of energy released via galactic birth).
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In this theory galaxies and their evolution is different than stars and their evolution.
A star is NOT a galaxy.
A leaf is NOT a tree.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
that is what EU is saying, that electrical current can flow out of a circuit without anything receiving the current. In other words, EU is false.
What?! Are you so desperate that you need to come up with misrepresentations to argue against? What you said is just not true.! Most of the members here understand electrical circuits much better than you obviously do. And a person doesn't need to know much to sell a switch..
If you would stop making ridiculous remarks and keep defending them with more nonsense, people might start taking you seriously. You seem to have trouble learning when the new information is not what you want to hear. You really do need to fix that personality deficit. Maybe start by learning what EU is all about. You don't need to misrepresent EU to promote your own agenda! In fact, learning more about EU and electricity would help you quite a bit..
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: The universe appears to be full of charged particles, ions, plasma.
Yes, but it's mostly quasi-neutral, meaning that the electrons might be detached from the +ions, but there isn't any net charge, and thus there isn't much in the way of electric currents. Things like the heliospheric current sheet are the exception rather than the rule, and while the current in the HCS is more robust nearer the Sun, it tapers off to nothing in the outer reaches of the heliosphere (making it an interesting sort of current). The bottom line there is that if it was a point-to-point current, it wouldn't taper off to nothing — it would stay just as robust all of the way to that remote electrode, and in fact, the current density would increase with distance from the Sun, since the magnetic pinch effect would consolidate the current into a filament. So where's the filament? It would be the brightest thing in the sky (day or night), and it would be detectable in visible, infrared, and ultraviolet wavelengths. The bare-faced fact is that it isn't there. The true effect of charge separation in space is not at all that it drives point-to-point currents on an interstellar or intergalactic scale. Rather, there are electrostatic effects between Debye cells, over a range of just a couple of meters. Those are real forces, and I'm in the process of proving that they are responsible for star formation. So the electric force dominates, and stars cannot be understood outside of that context. But interstellar electric currents, as conceived by the EU, are not real.
Sparky wrote: There are huge magnetic fields observable, which means that electric currents is produced.
The magnetic fields might be huge in size, but they're only nano-teslas in strength. The effects of such fields will be observable, but subtle, and in no respect do they constitute any sort of primary power source.
Sparky wrote: How much electron flow is needed to supply the sun with power?
Given that the power output of the Sun is 3.86 × 1026 watts, in an E-field of 1.7 × 109 volts, that works out to 2.93 × 1015 amps. Out at 1 AU, the current is more like 3 × 109 amps, which makes sense if the current is tapering off as it radiates outward. And the 2.93 × 1015 amps of electron flow happens to match (within an order of magnitude) the number of +ions that are expelled from the Sun by CMEs. So the "generator" that creates the electrostatic potential is CMEs, and then the electrons flow outward, to catch up to the +ions. This explains why CMEs balloon out so rapidly (due to the repulsion of +ions), why the electrons emanate from the entire surface of the Sun (the dispersed +ions create a radial electric field), and why it "appears" to be an unipolar electric current, which shouldn't be possible (the "current" is electrons catching up to +ions, so the "current" is instantiated by electrons traveling faster than +ions, when all of the particles are traveling away from the Sun). Throw in the Sun's solenoidal magnetic field, and we can see why the electrons are consolidated into helmet streamers. So it all checks out. If this was a snake, it would have bit you already. There is no interstellar current — the potentials are manufactured by the Sun, and which are neutralized within a couple of AU from the Sun.
Sparky wrote: What if the sun is self powered?
Yes.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Yes, but it's mostly quasi-neutral, meaning that the electrons might be detached from the +ions, but there isn't any net charge, and thus there isn't much in the way of electric currents.
If these charges are moving, then that is electric current.
There is no interstellar current -- the potentials are manufactured by the Sun, and which are neutralized within a couple of AU from the Sun.
Again, moving charges.
The effects of such fields will be observable, but subtle, and in no respect do they constitute any sort of primary power source.
I did not mean to imply that they were a power source, but an indication of electric activity.
There is no interstellar current
same answer...moving charges....
It is theorized that electrons drift into the sun. Maybe, I don't know. If the sun acts as an anode, and the heliosphere as a cathode, as one model suggests, then that would be a circuit.
Good analysis, but information that confuses Jeffrey into making absurd claims!
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
Yes, but it's mostly quasi-neutral, meaning that the electrons might be detached from the +ions, but there isn't any net charge, and thus there isn't much in the way of electric currents.
If these charges are moving, then that is electric current.
If protons and electrons are both moving in the same direction, at the same speed, there is no current. It takes relative motion between the charges to call it a current.
Sparky wrote:
The effects of such fields will be observable, but subtle, and in no respect do they constitute any sort of primary power source.
I did not mean to imply that they were a power source, but an indication of electric activity.
Oh, OK. Well that's true enough — for there to be a net magnetic field, there has to be a net current. But there's a huge undistributed middle between observing interstellar/galactic magnetic fields and concluding that external currents are powering stars.
Sparky wrote: It is theorized that electrons drift into the sun.
No, they drift away from the Sun. (See Bob Johnson's lecture, starting at page 9, for a good overview of the data.) More specifically, both +ions and electrons radiate outward in the solar wind, but the electrons move faster, out to about 10 AU, where the relative motion has tapered down to nothing. That constitutes a current, but only inside 10 AU. So the Sun is definitely acting as a cathode, not an anode. But if the Sun is a cathode, where IS the anode? It isn't the heliopause, or the interstellar medium, because then the relative velocities between +ions and electrons would persist, or even get accentuated. Instead, beyond 10 AU, there aren't any relative velocities, so the voltages have been completely expended, and the solar wind continues to expand just on the basis of hydrostatic pressure and momentum. The ohmic heating in the photosphere can only be the consequence of the mechanical ejection of +ions, creating a voltage between a net negative Sun and a net positive heliosphere (inside 10 AU), motivating the flow of electrons toward the ejected +ions. By 10 AU, the electrons have caught up with the +ions, and past that point, there is no current.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Thank you for clarifying that Charles.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
If protons and electrons are both moving in the same direction, at the same speed, there is no current. It takes relative motion between the charges to call it a current.
What? I have not seen that in a description of electricity.
That constitutes a current, but only inside 10 AU. So the Sun is definitely acting as a cathode, not an anode. But if the Sun is a cathode, where IS the anode?
Yes , there are different models. So, where is the anode? Where does the solar wind/current end? Why not a virtual anode?
Instead, beyond 10 AU, there aren't any relative velocities,
Maybe not locally between electrons and +ions, but IS relative to the aether, and that may be the necessary element for electric production.
I understand that you are looking at this from your model. ANd that does make sense, but I suspect that it is not complete, by not considering aether.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
If protons and electrons are both moving in the same direction, at the same speed, there is no current. It takes relative motion between the charges to call it a current.
What? I have not seen that in a description of electricity.
Most people would define a current as the voltage / resistance. So there has to be a potential there, to accelerate charged particles, because of their charge. The potential comes from a charge imbalance, and produces a net flow of the one charge toward the other. Of course, in plasma physics, sometimes there is a mechanical motivation. For example, consider a +ion jet. That's a flow of net charges, and it's a current, at least in the sense that it will generate a net magnetic field, even if the particles were accelerated mechanically and not electrically. But either way, it has to be a net flow, or you won't see any electrostatic or electrodynamic effects.
Sparky wrote: Where does the solar wind/current end? Why not a virtual anode?
What do you mean by "virtual anode"? I guess you could call my model a virtual anode, in that the +ions are exploded out of the Sun, and then the electrons chase after them. But I'm not sure that this is what you mean.
Sparky wrote: I understand that you are looking at this from your model. ANd that does make sense, but I suspect that it is not complete, by not considering aether.
Invoking aether (or anything else for that matter) would only be necessary if there was something left to explain, once the conventional forces have been taken into account (albeit in a non-mainstream way). If there is nothing left to explain, then the only suitable invocation is for something that explains nothingness itself.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CC
Invoking aether (or anything else for that matter) would only be necessary if there was something left to explain,
These quotes are out of order, but I wanted to address this first. There are things that need to be explained. The big one is the kinetic current from the sun, that is an electric current then is not after the 10AU mark.
the potentials are manufactured by the Sun, and which are neutralized within a couple of AU from the Sun.
This is very strange. Are you saying that all charges have neutralized?
It takes relative motion between the charges to call it a current. ---------------Most people would define a current as the voltage / resistance. So there has to be a potential there, to accelerate charged particles, because of their charge. The potential comes from a charge imbalance, and produces a net flow of the one charge toward the other.
I need documentation for the moving plasma charges needing to be relatively different.
What do you mean by "virtual anode"?
There was suggested a virtual cathode for a pos. sun., so if the sun is the cathode, why not a virtual anode? That would be the heliosphere?
Is there a solar circuit? A circuit that loops back around to the sun? Even electrons of conventional circuits that are captured by other elements of the circuit tend to go back through grounding? Where is the schematic? I understand schematics....
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
As a matter of fact, the vast majority of crystals are grown via physical vapor deposition. They get layered over time on top of substrates that are suitable for the mimicking of the patterns of growth. For instance once that first SiO2 crystal is formed it will only fit other SiO2 crystals in the vicinity that have similar heat tolerances.
A really interesting part to the making of SiO2 in the atmospheres of gas giants (thus a main component of granite as SiO2 is quartz) is something I found on the wiki for quartz:
"Many routes to silicon dioxide start with silicate esters, the best known being tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS). Simply heating TEOS at 680–730 °C gives the dioxide:
Si(OC2H5)4 → SiO2 + 2 O(C2H5)2
Similarly TEOS combusts around 400 °C:
Si(OC2H5)4 + 12 O2 → SiO2 + 10 H2O + 8 CO2"
If you look closely there just might be different types of naturally forming esters inside of the atmospheres of Jupiter/Saturn/Neptune/Uranus, so the ester could form in the higher atmosphere, fall towards the center of the star and as its heated to 400 degrees C and is introduced to oxygen for combustion (exothermic reactions explaining why Jupiter/Neptune/Saturn emit more heat than they take in from the Sun) it becomes silicon dioxide, WATER, and CO2, three components to the evolution of a suitable atmosphere. (in other words, the crust forms at the same time as ocean formation and the production of CO2, (what plants use to metabolize).
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: There are things that need to be explained. The big one is the kinetic current from the sun, that is an electric current then is not after the 10AU mark.
On page 10, there is an image that shows the convergence of electron and +ion temperatures at around 10 AU. When it gets to where the charges are both traveling at the same speed (i.e., same particle temperature), the current has been extinguished.
Sparky wrote: I need documentation for the moving plasma charges needing to be relatively different.
In an electric wire, is there a difference in the number of electrons versus +ions? No — the current is the flow of electrons past the +ions. Stop that flow and you stop the current. So disconnect the wire, coil it up, and run down the street with it. There are still electric charges in the wire (+/-), and they're definitely moving, because now you're running down the street. Does that constitute an electric current? No.
Sparky wrote:
What do you mean by "virtual anode"?
There was suggested a virtual cathode for a pos. sun., so if the sun is the cathode, why not a virtual anode? That would be the heliosphere?
I never figured out what they meant by "virtual cathode", and they never explained. I took it to mean "magic happens here". But a fully specified hypothesis doesn't have anything like that. In my model, the +ion ejection that motivates the catch-up current gives the appearance of a monopole current, but that of course is impossible, and that's not what it is. I'm not sure that it clarifies it to call it a "virtual anode". The anode is the +ions that have been ejected from the Sun, creating an electric field between the Sun and the heliosphere.
Sparky wrote: Is there a solar circuit? A circuit that loops back around to the sun? Even electrons of conventional circuits that are captured by other elements of the circuit tend to go back through grounding?
That takes work, to pump electrons through a circuit, assuming that the electrons are going to do work along the way. So if you have 3.86 × 1026 watts streaming out of the Sun, what does the work?
CharlesChandler wrote: [ So if you have 3.86 × 1026 watts streaming out of the Sun, what does the work?
Marklund convection?:
"Marklund convection, named after Göran Marklund, is a convection process that takes place in filamentary currents of plasma. It occurs within a plasma with an associated electric field, that causes convection of ions and electrons inward towards a central twisting filamentary axis. A temperature gradient within the plasma will also cause chemical separation based on different ionization potentials.
In Marklund's paper, the plasma convects radially inwards towards the center of a cylindrical flux tube. During this convection, the different chemical constituents of the plasma, each having its specific ionization potential, enters into a progressively cooler region. The plasma constituents will recombine and become neutral, and thus no longer under the influence of the electromagnetic forcing. The ionization potentials will thus determine where the different chemicals will be deposited.
This provides an efficient means to accumulate matter within a plasma. In a partially ionized plasma, electromagnetic forces act on the non-ionized material indirectly through the viscosity between the ionized and non-ionized material.
Hannes Alfvén showed that elements with the lowest ionization potential are brought closest to the axis, and form concentric hollow cylinders whose radii increase with ionization potential. The drift of ionized matter from the surroundings into the rope means that the rope acts as an ion pump, which evacuates surrounding regions, producing areas of extremely low density."
I guess what I am saying is that in nature we have spherical objects with surfaces. How would Marklund convection occur inside of spherical objects with surfaces? If at all?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Charles, thank you.. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByVDJsY ... edit?pli=1 I had not seen this before....I went through it and found that it left more questions than it answered. The question, "-are we trying to modify a theory that was fundamentally flawed from the start?", is one we need to consider.
So disconnect the wire, coil it up, and run down the street with it.
But not through a strong magnetic field!
So if you have 3.86 × 1026 watts streaming out of the Sun, what does the work?
