Tim Thompson wrote:We now know that the expected flux of p-p neutrinos is observed, consistent with solar models.
He's quoting research from 2001 and before, saying that the neutrino problem has already been solved. But Koshiba, in his Nobel lecture in 2003, describes more accurate research confirming the neutrino deficit.
Koshiba, M., 2003: Nobel Lecture: Birth of neutrino astrophysics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75 (3): 1011-1020
The problem has since been "resolved" by simply modifying quantum mechanics to enable electron neutrinos to change flavor into tau or muon neutrinos. As did Thompson in 2001, today's scientists are confidently asserting that if they could ever figure out how to detect tau or muon neutrinos, they'd find them. In rigorous science, this would be called an open issue. Making an ad hoc alteration to the theoretical substrate to absorb an anomaly, without considering the possibility that the neutrino count is actually low, and then concluding that the problem is solved and needs no further scrutiny, is not what I call rigorous reasoning.
So I take the neutrino count at face value, which indicates that 1/3 of the Sun's power comes from nuclear fusion. This leaves 2/3 coming from arc discharges. Oh and by the way, the fusion isn't occurring in the core. Rather, as Mozina's work has shown, it's occurring in... arc discharges.
Tim Thompson wrote:The properties [of neutrinos] are far from "magical", unless you consider all of quantum mechanics to be "magical".
No, heuristics ain't magic. But when a framework has custom pieces for each explanandum, without any reason for the differences except for "that's just the way it works", there is no difference in kind between them and any garden-variety pathological liar.
Tim Thompson wrote:Fusion inside the sun, where temperature & density are both high enough, would still be a necessary option.
In the standard model, the core temperature of 15 MK doesn't prove that fusion is occurring. Rather, the standard model assumes that fusion is occurring, and then finds the temperature necessary to make it happen. Then the model temp is passed off as proof. Wow.
Tim Thompson wrote:So, in reality, the high Reynolds number of a stellar photosphere guarantees that any convective motion will be turbulent, a result that is consistent with the observation of turbulent convection in the solar photosphere.
The updrafts in the photosphere average 2 km/s, and the downdrafts average 7 km/s. These speeds are supersonic. In what sense do the principles of convection explain supersonic speeds?
Tim Thompson wrote:Helioseismological data pins dow[n] the interior temperature quite nicely, as high as about 15,000,000 Kelvins in the deep solar core
Actually, we don't get any helioseismic waves at all from the core. And if we did, how would that pin down the temperature?
Tim Thompson wrote:Does the corona heat by virtue of magnetohydrodynamic waves in the plasma? What about heat input due to collapsing magnetic flux tubes at convective cell boundaries? Both of these are observed to happen, and both are capable of heating the corona.
He's observed an MHD wave, and a collapsing magnetic flux tube? These are mathematical constructs, not observables.
Tim Thompson wrote:If the sun had a net charge that was large enough, then it should repel one charge and attract the other, depending on the sign of the sun's excess charge. But we don't see that.
Yes we do. For example, in balloon CMEs, there are both outward and inward accelerations.
Tim Thompson wrote:And since the solar wind is made of charged particles, the incoming electrons would be buffeted by the electric fields of the protons and electrons of the solar wind, as well as the relativistic magnetic fields caused by the relative motion between the incoming electrons and the outgoing solar wind plasma, as well as the solar magnetic field that is embedded in the solar wind plasma, and moves outward at the same velocity. [...] All of these difficulties from plain physics, coupled with the fact that the alleged incoming electrons certainly appear to be not there, leave one to wonder why this is such a hot idea. Indeed, in my opinion this is the number one argument against the "electric sun" hypothesis. Electrons are not magic, and if there are interstellar electrons coming towards the sun, they cannot escape the attention of a small fleet of spacecraft which have measured electrons & protons in the solar system for the past few decades. The electrons are quite simply not there. And we know that they are not there, and that knowledge destroys the foundation of the electric sun hypothesis [i.e. the anode sun model].
This is a bit sloppy, but he's got the makings of a good point. He thinks that galactic electrons traveling above the gravitational escape velocity of the Sun will ignore the Sun, and zip right past. If there was an electric field there, you wouldn't estimate its influence by the gravitational escape velocity, but rather, the electrostatic escape velocity, which is 39 orders of magnitude greater. But he's right that the electron flux has not been detected. He assumes that if it was there, it would have been detected by any of the spacecraft measuring +/- ion densities, not considering that it would be pinched into a discrete stream, and you'd only see it if you got lucky enough to pass through it. The real question there is, "Why isn't it pinched, such that it tunnels through the solar wind, and creates a visible charge stream through space?" Regardless, he also thinks that the Sun's magnetic field is prodigious. I'm wondering what comparison he made to settle on "prodigious" as the correct adjective. The Sun's average magnetic field is merely twice that of the Earth's, while its mass is 333,000 times greater. Gravity is the dominant force on the face of the Earth. I'd kinda think that the Sun's gravity would be just a tad greater than its magnetic field, but who's crunching numbers here? Anyway, there is an implication to the Sun's magnetic field — if there was an inflow of electrons, they'd be deflected to the poles, the way the Earth's magnetic field deflects ions into the organized structure we call the aurora.
All in all, if we start from the premise of the Electric Star model, and derive predictions from it, we'd expect a sinuous charge stream snaking in through the heliosphere, getting pinched by its own magnetic fields. Within the influence of the Sun's magnetic field, we'd expect synchrotron radiation from the spiraling Birkeland current. Nearing the Sun, we'd expect the charge stream to become visible. On arrival at the Sun, it would create polar auroras, and the footpoints would be the brightest features on the solar surface. In other words, it would look pretty much like a plasma lamp, except that the footpoints wouldn't be random — they'd be organized into an auroral pattern by the Sun's magnetic field (at least during the quiet phase). None of these expectations are met. And while the statements in question are qualitative instead of quantitative, there's a relative statement in this that's fairly absolute. If the Sun was externally powered, the footpoints of the charge stream would be brighter than the surrounding photosphere, just as the footpoints of the arcs in a plasma lamp are brighter than the rest of the electrode. I don't think that there's a way around that. If you're going to say that spicules are the footpoints, then you're talking about a specific, measurable feature. But they're not in an auroral pattern; they are not organized above the surface as they certainly would be if it was an incoming charge stream; and while they are brighter, they don't emit more total photons than the surrounding photosphere.
Richard P. Feynman wrote:It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
Indeed. So the anode model is unsupportable. I just don't think that a flawed rebuttal should stand...
Tim Thompson wrote:The [Electric Sun's prominence] circuit requires a generator to supply an electromotive force (emf) to push the current along. But the electric sun hypothesis holds that the solar interior is isothermal, and that there are no internal energy sources. So where does the energy come from?
This is a great question. My model directly addresses this issue, and to my knowledge, it's the only one that does.
Tim Thompson wrote:The diagrammed [prominence] current would generate a solenoidal field that wraps around the current like a coil. There is no such field outlined by the plasma, which implies that the glow we see in the TRACE image is not from an electric current of single charge, but from a hot plasma that carries both negative & positive charge.
No, electric currents in prominences follow the lines of force in coupled solenoidal fields, and the synchrotron radiation unambiguously certifies that those are Birkeland currents. The question not answered by the Electric Sun, or by the mainstream model, is, "What sets up the coupled solenoidal fields?" But just because Thompson's naive assumptions aren't met doesn't mean that those are not electric currents.
Tim Thompson wrote:The implication, of course, is that standard theory cannot explain the phenomena we see as flares, prominences and the larger coronal mass ejections (CME's). That happens to be quite a mistake. The Bellan Plasma Group at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), has successfully operated a laboratory simulation of solar prominences.
I don't see the similitude in any of that. Yes, they produced looping plasma structures that disintegrate outwardly. So what are the real forces in the Sun that could instantiate their laboratory apparatus?
Tim Thompson wrote:Magnetic reconnection is very much a standard (observed) mechanism for transferring energy within a variable magnetic field, or transmitting energy between magnetic fields.
Really? How come you won't find the term in any engineering textbook? Why did it have to be invented just for solar physics? What's the magnetomotive force? You really can't claim that mainstream solar physicists are working on a solid foundation, doing rigorous work, when they have no idea what the prime movers are, and don't seem to care.
In conclusion, Thompson's dismissal of the anode model is as shoddy as the mainstream model he's defending. Go figure.