Thunderbolts Forum

'12-01-25, 09:42 mjv1121	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Charles, Thank you for your reply. Michael
'12-01-25, 14:32 Lloyd	The Sun's Complete Structure Better Name * Hi again, Charles. I discussed solar and tornado structures with you I guess 2 years ago. This is a very interesting model you're working on. I think you should have called this thread The Sun's Complete Structure, since that's what your model involves, I guess. Your Solar Model * Let me see if I understand your model properly. The core of the Sun is positive charge, with a layer of negative charge over that, another layer of positive charge over the negative layer and at least one more negative layer over the second positive layer, although you say there could be lots more alternating concentric positive and negative layers (and I don't mean alternating currents). The outermost layer is the negative corona; the next deeper layer is the positive chromosphere; the next deeper layer is the negative photosphere, which is emitting light; and the innermost layer (with zero or more alternating layers between it and the 3 outer layers) is positive. And each layer has velocity, producing magnetic and electric fields. Birkeland Currents * I think Peratt, Thornhill and maybe Scott figure that stars form in galactic Birkeland currents, which pinch, due to increasing magnetic fields. The currents are double layers of positive and negative charge moving in opposite directions. I assume that the inner layer is probably a positive-charged ion tube flowing in one direction and the outer layer is a negative-charged ion or electron tube flowing the opposite direction. How Stars (and Planets?) Form * When the magnetic pinch occurs, both tubular flows are blocked, but, apparently, the ionized matter doesn't stop; instead its forward movement is converted into circular movement, which causes it to form a sphere. All of the ionized matter in the Birkeland current tube to its source must continue to move forward until it piles into the growing ionic sphere. While the positive ion tube is forming the core of the sphere, the negative ion tube flowing from the opposite direction, must pile into the sphere as well, but from the opposite direction, and forms a layer over the positive core. Depending on how much matter is in each ion tube, the sphere will become either an asteroid, moon, planet, or star. Questions * Does all that seem compatible with your model? There's the question of why exactly the ion tubes would form spheres, instead of just scattering in all directions like a spray, but I think Peratt et al have answers for that and maybe you et al do as well. I haven't thought it through that far yet, except that I read Thornhill's ideas before, but don't recall relevant details, if he explained that much. Need for Continuous Current? * Once a star forms, would your model suppose that no further input from galactic currents is needed to keep it emitting light? EU theory says that such currents would re-establish and keep providing ions. I believe it says just negative ions (largely electrons) are needed and are supplied from all directions, but, upon approaching the star, are directed toward the poles. (Have I stated the EU theory correctly, anyone?)
'12-01-25, 21:41 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Complete Structure Hey Lloyd! Your persistent questioning in our "Electric Sun Debate" (focusing primarily on the nature of sunspots, prominences, and granules) is what led me to this model. Something very unfortunate happened to my "electric reconnection" model of prominences, as on closer scrutiny, I realized that I had the magnetic fields all wrong. But before it died, it spawned a conception of granules that revealed the bigger question of the photospheric density drop-off, which is how I got onto this track. Lloyd wrote: Let me see if I understand your model properly... The proposed alternating positive and negative layers are as follows: core radiative zone convective zone (including the photosphere) chromosphere corona In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that mapping my alternating double-layer scheme straight onto the classical anatomy of the Sun might be naive (even by my standards ). I'm thinking that the photosphere is positive, so the layer below that would be negative. And I'm thinking that the core is positive, so the layer above that would be negative. But I don't have any specific reason to believe that the "negative layer below the photosphere" has to be one and the same as the "negative layer above the core", totaling just 3 layers, and assigning a negative charge to the entire radiative zone in the middle. Nor do I have any specific evidence in support of the contention that the entire convective zone is positive. So my model would actually allow for there to be more layers than I'm asserting, though without any reason to do so, for now I'm just going with the fewest possible number of layers, and this matches (perhaps coincidentally?) the layers that scientists have already identified. Lloyd wrote: And each layer has velocity, producing magnetic and electric fields. I'm thinking that the electric fields between these layers are significant, and that overall, the angular velocities of the layers generate overall magnetic fields. But in the convective zone, there are updrafts and downdrafts equaling or exceeding the angular velocities (> 2 km/s), meaning that the magnetic fields are much more complex. These fields cannot possibly be contributing to the proposed vertical stratification of the layers. So I'm saying that the rotation of the core generates a simple magnetic field that accomplishes some charge separation, instantiating a predominantly negative double-layer above it, attracted by the electric force but repelled by the magnetic force. Once the first 2 layers are formed, the successive layers are possible just with electrostatics (i.e., no need for magnetic fields to separate and organize the layers). Lloyd wrote: Birkeland Currents [...] are double layers of positive and negative charge moving in opposite directions. As I understand it, the term "Birkeland current" is getting a bit ambiguous these days, and I'm as guilty as anybody of sloppy usage, so I should be more specific. Originally, Birkeland currents were just the solar wind that gets split into distinct charge streams by the Earth's magnetic field: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schematic-of-combined-FAC~ An extension of these electrodynamic principles leads to an understanding of how "twisted pair" charge streams can stay organized indefinitely as they shoot through space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Magnetic_rope.png Note that the difference between these two "Birkeland currents" is that in the first case, opposite charges travel in opposite directions due to the interaction between the streams' magnetic fields and the Earth's, while in the second, everything is traveling in (more or less) the same direction, and the plasma jet stays organized because of the electric force, though the charges do not recombine due to the magnetic force. Lloyd wrote: I assume that the inner layer is probably a positive-charged ion tube flowing in one direction and the outer layer is a negative-charged ion or electron tube flowing the opposite direction. I don't think that this is correct. If we're talking about a plasma jet in free space, a core-sheath configuration of opposite charges traveling in opposite directions shouldn't be possible. The positive and negative charges would generate the same magnetic field, and therefore, they would both be pinched together, and the charges would recombine. In other words, as opposite charges, the electric force will pull them together. Now we're saying that they're both generating magnetic fields that will push them toward the axis of those fields, which is the same for both charges. So both the electric and magnetic forces will ram the opposite charges together. Without any dielectric to keep them separate, they'll recombine. So if my understanding is correct, in the twisted pair configuration, everything is traveling in (more or less) the same direction, where the electric force pulls the charges together, but the magnetic force keeps them from recombining. Ampere's Corollary.png I then apply those principles to a circular charge stream, resulting in vertically stratified layers, with a positive core and a negative double-layer outside of that. The core would be semi-toroidal, while the radiative zone would be semi-ellipsoidal, and all the way out at the edge, the photosphere is spherical. Lloyd wrote: When the magnetic pinch occurs, both tubular flows are blocked, but, apparently, the ionized matter doesn't stop; instead its forward movement is converted into circular movement, which causes it to form a sphere. All of the ionized matter in the Birkeland current tube to its source must continue to move forward until it piles into the growing ionic sphere. While the positive ion tube is forming the core of the sphere, the negative ion tube flowing from the opposite direction, must pile into the sphere as well, but from the opposite direction, and forms a layer over the positive core. Depending on how much matter is in each ion tube, the sphere will become either an asteroid, moon, planet, or star. I need to see a diagram of this, explicitly identifying the field alignments, and explaining how the forces resolve into this configuration. As put, this is either a very lossy reduction of far more complex behaviors, or it's just incorrect. I know that the onus is on me to read... read... read... until I either understand or definitely disagree with good reason. But I got burned out on reading high-level generalizations that attributed fancy behaviors to plasma that could explain anything, when what they're actually saying doesn't actually make any sense. That's my whole problem with the mainstream theories, and I'm not going to be equally wrong but in a different way by taking an alternative view... I want to see the whole thing laid out, with the nuts and bolts necessary to hold the whole thing together clearly labelled. Lloyd wrote: Once a star forms, would your model suppose that no further input from galactic currents is needed to keep it emitting light? My model doesn't require a galactic current in the first place. I'm saying that the condensation of angular momentum in a collapsing dust cloud can result in angular velocities sufficient to generate magnetic fields capable of partial magnetic confinement, and likewise of partical charge separation, which sets up the first 2 charged double-layers. If so, we can get hot plasma to stick to itself in free space. In this model, it would be theoretically possible for all of these layers to stack neatly on top of each other and not produce any light at all. But with a little bit of turbulence, things can get more interesting, and arc discharges can occur across charged double-layers. It's possible that the relativistic particle speeds in these discharges are responsible for the nuclear fusion that is occurring in the Sun. The density in the core doesn't really look like it would be capable of fusion, and the temperatures attributed by the standard model (15 MK!) are ridiculous. At those temperatures, the pressure would be way, way more than the force of gravity could sustain. So the plasma would expand; the core would be much, much less dense than helioseismology reveals; and at the reduced density, there wouldn't be any nuclear fusion at all! This leads to the conclusion that gravity-induced fusion just isn't going to work. Yet we know that some fusion is occurring. So I'm thinking that arc discharges, at and below the surface, accelerate particles to speeds sufficient for fusion on collision. The fusion events then keep stirring the soup, and thermal bubbles erupt to the surface (as granules). At the edge of the photosphere, the bubbles cool enough to be able to hold onto electrons for a little while. The charge neutralization emits the photons that we see, but it also re-heats the plasma to the point that it can't hold onto the electrons, so it regains its positive charge, and gets sucked back into the Sun by the more powerful underlying negative charge in the radiative zone. As such, the model doesn't have any external energy sources.
'12-01-25, 23:35 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Notes for Charles * I don't have time to say much now, but have you read the EU Essential Guide? Here are two quotes. Maybe more later. If you've read it, which parts of the Guide do you doubt? http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12/06/essential-guide-~ 6.11 Condensation of Matter this mechanism offers a means by which diffuse matter can be accumulated and compressed in a much more efficient way than gravitational compression of diffuse clouds of fine dust particles. 7.5 Flow Instabilities and CCDLs CCDLs can also be formed as a result of flow instabilities in the counter-streaming electrons and ions comprising the current. the DL accelerates particles, in opposite directions depending on their charge
'12-01-26, 01:51 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient The Essential Guide is full of what I call "grab-bag explanations". Lots of fancy electrodynamic things can happen when working with high voltages between solid electrodes, especially when the current is just electrons, which have little mass and therefore respond to the slightest of electric fields. Things get way more complicated if there is a powerful external magnetic field. Then you get all kinds of spins and sub-spins, and you can even get toroidal plasmoids along a pinched current where there is a sudden change in the external magnetic field. But when you say that electron spins falling into a highly unstable toroidal configuration along a pinched current constitute an explanation for the aggregation of matter into moons, planets, and stars, you've committed a non-trivial category error. In the laboratory, you're not going to see those configurations in the flow of atomic nuclei, as the mass is too great, and the inertial forces preclude such behaviors. So it just applies to electrons. If you turn off the E-field, you're not going to be left with a little clump of matter there. More critically, nobody can answer how such voltages ever occurred in the first place, when the anodes and cathodes have to be instantiated in plasma, which are quite easily dispersed by the repulsion of like charges. So even if you could get a toroidal plasmoid made of atomic nuclei in a pinched charge stream, where are the electrodes that caused such a current? To have a true explanation, you have to demonstrate that the form is the same, and for the same reason, and that all aspects of the metaphor are relevant. Then you've got a physical identity, which constitutes a real explanation. But if there are fundamental differences between the conditions causing the two sets of phenomena, the visual similarity is purely coincidental, and you haven't explained anything.
'12-01-26, 06:18 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Plasmoids Charles, you said: when working with high voltages between solid electrodes, especially when the current is just electrons, which have little mass and therefore respond to the slightest of electric fields ... if there is a powerful external magnetic field ... you get all kinds of spins and sub-spins, and you can even get toroidal plasmoids along a pinched current where there is a sudden change in the external magnetic field. But when you say that electron spins falling into a highly unstable toroidal configuration along a pinched current constitute an explanation for the aggregation of matter into moons, planets, and stars, you've committed a non-trivial category error. * I said streams of positive ions and streams of electrons aggregate matter into celestial bodies. Didn't I? In the laboratory, you're not going to see those configurations in the flow of atomic nuclei, as the mass is too great, and the inertial forces preclude such behaviors. So it just applies to electrons. If you turn off the E-field, you're not going to be left with a little clump of matter there. Electrodes More critically, nobody can answer how such voltages ever occurred in the first place, when the anodes and cathodes [electrodes] have to be instantiated in plasma, which are quite easily dispersed by the repulsion of like charges. So even if you could get a toroidal plasmoid made of atomic nuclei in a pinched charge stream, where are the electrodes that caused such a current? Plasma Guns * Have you read about plasma guns and Thornhill's idea that AGNs, or Active Galactic Nuclei, act as plasma guns, which shoot out high velocity, low mass, quasars periodically, the quasars consisting largely of positive ions, due to magnetic fields holding back electrons? The electrons follow behind later, when the magnetic fields subside. Wouldn't quasars be electrodes then? And the electron streams would also be electrodes? Quasars are considered to form into companion galaxies as they lose velocity and gain mass by Marklund convection. Marklund Convection * Do you suppose Marklund had no lab evidence to support this statement? It's from http://bazaarmodel.net/phorum/read.php?3,8232 - Marklund, G. T., "Plasma convection in force-free magnetic fields as a mechanism for chemical separation in cosmical plasma", Nature, vol. 277, Feb. 1, 1979, p. 370, 371. "In my paper in Nature the plasma convects radially inwards, with the normal E x B/B2 velocity, towards the center of a cylindrical flux tube. During this convection inwards, the different chemical constituents of the plasma, each having its specific ionization potential, enter 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 species will be deposited, or stopped in their motion." ProjectC added: Stars formed in this way have an outer envelope of helium and hydrogen. Working inwards, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen will form the atmospheric middle layers, and iron, silicon and magnesium will make up the core, which is cool. Tokamak Supports EU * And what about this from http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-x-ray-puzzle-protostell~ on Jun 23, 2011? Another interesting irony pertains to the Tokamak. Designed as an attempt to recreate the Sun's power source, it has ironically validated a couple of the EU's claims: that of fractal-like plasma scaling and of filamentary and Faraday motor structures embedded within plasmas of all types. See "Observations of Skeletal Microstructures in Various Types of Dust Deposit in Tokamak T-10" and "Similarity of Skeletal Structures in Laboratory and Space and the PROBABLE Role of Self-Assembling of a Fractal Dust in Fusion Devices". The key word there is "PROBABLE", as these guys are deploying artificial intelligence techniques — aka "probabilistic reasoning" — to objectively infer the existence of filamentary structures in cosmic plasmas. That's the behavior of an *electrical* plasma. Their research corroborates Gerrit Verschuur's observation that interstellar plasmas are highly filamentary, and even exhibit critical ionization velocities (an electrical property of plasmas). So, to the extent that people look to the results of the Tokamak experiments as an attempt to validate the standard solar model, there is no philosophy behind ignoring results which support the competing view — that dusty plasmas naturally transport electrical energy over Birkeland Currents, and can do so over enormous distances. The algorithms now demonstrate that these structures are "probable" within interstellar space. There is no bias in these algorithms, as there is in human reasoning about theories. There exists a burden to explain structures like the Cygnus Loop, shown at: http://www.everythingselectric.com/images/cygnus-loop-nebul~ The perfect twisting is virtually impossible to generate with a shock wave model based upon a gravitational framework — and yet, we know from laboratory plasma physics that electrical plasmas do this naturally due to long-range attraction and short-range repulsion between plasma filaments.
'12-01-26, 08:58 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient We're bouncing off the walls here... Lloyd wrote: I said streams of positive ions and streams of electrons aggregate matter into celestial bodies. Didn't I? You said earlier: Lloyd wrote: When the magnetic pinch occurs, both tubular flows are blocked, but, apparently, the ionized matter doesn't stop; instead its forward movement is converted into circular movement, which causes it to form a sphere. All of the ionized matter in the Birkeland current tube to its source must continue to move forward until it piles into the growing ionic sphere. While the positive ion tube is forming the core of the sphere, the negative ion tube flowing from the opposite direction, must pile into the sphere as well, but from the opposite direction, and forms a layer over the positive core. Depending on how much matter is in each ion tube, the sphere will become either an asteroid, moon, planet, or star. But then you're quoting the Essential Guide 6.11: Remembering that pinches can occur if any misalignment of I and B occurs, any matter that has been drawn into the filament will also be compressed if a misalignment of I and B occurs. If the pinch force is large enough, it can fragment the filament into discrete spherical or toroidal plasmoids along the axis of the current. Any matter in the pinch zone would then become compressed into the same form. Because the electromechanical forces are vastly stronger than gravity, this mechanism offers a means by which diffuse matter can be accumulated and compressed in a much more efficient way than gravitational compression of diffuse clouds of fine dust particles. I'm questioning whether "matter" can be fragmented into discrete spherical or toroidal plasmoids. I think that this only happens in electron streams (as correctly noted in the Essential Guide 6.2), leaving the aggregation of matter into celestial bodies unexplained. Also, you have positive and negative streams traveling side-by-side in opposite directions, which I questioned earlier. Lloyd wrote: Have you read about plasma guns and Thornhill's idea that AGNs, or Active Galactic Nuclei, act as plasma guns, which shoot out high velocity, low mass, quasars periodically, the quasars consisting largely of positive ions, due to magnetic fields holding back electrons? The electrons follow behind later, when the magnetic fields subside. Wouldn't quasars be electrodes then? And the electron streams would also be electrodes? Quasars are considered to form into companion galaxies as they lose velocity and gain mass by Marklund convection. I agree that plasma jets emitted by AGNs are well-known, and I agree that the jets are charged. I also agree that knots form in the jets. But I don't think that the knots are necessarily the same as the "accumulation of matter" mentioned in the Essential Guide 6.11. The knots could be sputtering in the jet source, or places where the jet encountered other accretions, and the collisions produced the x-rays that we call "knots". Furthermore, jets have a source but not a destination. So yes, a plasma gun can create a jet that stays organized indefinitely, due to the electrodynamic effects. But that's not a current responding to a voltage between two electrodes, which means that the results of high voltage experiments are not necessarily relevant. You have to establish how the "discrete spherical or toroidal plasmoids" can occur in plasma jets. Further still, suppose the quasar has a net charge, making it a potential electrode which could support a current. Is there any evidence of this? We know about plasma jets being emitted, but have we ever seen a current from something into an AGN? And further still, what formed the quasar in the first place? In other words, if you have electrodes, you can get a current, and if you have a current, you can get pinch effects. If you could get these effects to occur in plasma streams that included both electrons and atomic nuclei, you'd have all of the makings for a stable celestial body. But you never explained how the first two electrodes were formed. Lloyd wrote: Do you suppose Marklund had no lab evidence to support this statement? I'm not questioning Marklund. But I would question whether this is relevant in star formation. How does plasma convecting towards the center of a cylindrical flux tube roll up into a ball to make a star? What happened to the flux tube? Did something strip it away? Elsewhere we're agreeing that plasma jets can continue indefinitely, due to the organizing electrodynamic forces. Another interesting irony pertains to the Tokamak. Designed as an attempt to recreate the Sun's power source, it has ironically validated a couple of the EU's claims: that of fractal-like plasma scaling and of filamentary and Faraday motor structures embedded within plasmas of all types. I totally do not see what "skeletal microstructures in various types of dust deposit in tokamaks" has to do with star formation. I can point to other things in nature that are filamentary. Like trees. Does that prove that filaments in astrophysics are made of wood? There exists a burden to explain structures like the Cygnus Loop... We agree that plasma jets are organized by electrodynamic forces. But that isn't going to form a star.
'12-01-26, 09:30 CharlesChandler	Black Holes BTW, I hinted earlier (in a response to mjv1121), that this model can explain black holes. Then, in a subsequent post, I contended that it would be theoretically possible for all of the proposed solar layers to stack neatly on top of each other, and not produce any light at all. But that isn't my theory of black holes. So without any encouragement whatsoever, and just to make sure people don't read between the lines and come to a mistaken impression, I'll (ah shucks) have to expose my theory of black holes. What do we know about black holes? We know that they have a strong gravitational field, and that they don't produce any light, not even infrared radiation, which simply has to be present as matter gets compacted by the force of gravity. Scientists then conclude that black holes have so much gravity that even light cannot escape. But that's just a brain-dead attempt to turn an observation into an explanation. In reality, no one has ever proved that gravity can actually deflect photons. This was one of Einstein's predictions, which was supposedly proved by evidence of the so-called "gravitational lensing" effect. But there is a much simpler explanation for the observations, and which is commonplace on Earth. When light passes through a density gradient in a gas, it is deflected in the direction of the greater density. On Earth, this sometimes produces what is called a "mirage". For example, on a hot day in the desert, hot air near the surface of the Earth is less dense, and light from above the horizon can get bent upwards, toward the denser air above, on its way to the observer, creating the illusion of a blue lake on top of the sand. This is actually just light from the blue sky that got bent by the inverted density gradient. If this is true on Earth, we can expect it to be true out in space (even if astronomers have never heard of mirages). If light passes near a planet with an atmosphere, the atmosphere will certainly have a density gradient due to gravity, and therefore, light will be bent toward the planet, as if it was bent by gravity. The same is true of galaxies that have been credited with "gravitational lensing", but which surely are surrounded by gas clouds with density gradients (at least if gravity is present). If gravitational lensing is to be proved, the mirage effect first has to be taken into account, and any discrepancy might then be attributed to gravity. But since this has not been done, gravitational lensing and the so-called event horizon of black holes remain completely unsubstantiated. So we'll look elsewhere for an explanation for the blackness of black holes. Can the mirage effect explain it? No. Light generated at the center of gravity will radiate outward, perpendicular to the density gradient in the surrounding gas, and therefore will not get deflected. So we still have no answer. Ah, but there is yet one other possibility... In an extreme gravitational field, particles in space can get accelerated to relativistic speeds. And what is the significance of that? At extreme speeds, moving electric charges generate powerful magnetic fields. Now, a neutrally charged particle being pulled in by gravity is generating right-hand-rule fields by its protons, and left-hand-rule fields by its electrons. These fields will cancel each other out, so there will be no net field that could influence anything else. But if somehow an electron gets split off of the particle, the fields of the positively charged particle and the negatively charged electron will oppose each other, and therefore, there will be magnetic pressure pushing them away from each other. It's also significant to note that while the electric force that binds electrons to atomic nuclei falls off with the inverse of the square of the distance, the magnetic force generated by moving electric charges only falls off with the distance. So if an electron is split off of a particle, the electric force pulling it back in drops off more rapidly than the magnetic force that is pushing it away. This increases the chance that any electron that gets split off of a particle will stay split off, and will never get close enough to a positive ion to get pulled in by the electric force. So what's the significance of that? What can split an electron off of a particle? One possibility is photoionization. And as mentioned earlier, we can surely expect plenty of photons from the collisions of particles getting drawn in by the gravitational field. So incoming particles are being bombarded by photons radiating outward from the center of gravity. A photon absorbed by an electron already in its highest energy state will liberate the electron from the particle, creating a free electron and leaving a positive ion behind. Normally, the electron doesn't stay free for long, and attaches itself to the nearest ion (perhaps its former host), when it re-emits the photon. But... If we take into account that the ion and the free electron are generating opposing magnetic fields that will discourage recombination, we have electrons absorbing photons and getting liberated from particles, but never re-attaching to ions and re-emitting photons. And what's the significance of that? Photons getting absorbed and not re-radiated equals opacity. In other words, there is a light source that should be shining through the gas, but none of the light makes it through. Inexplicably black, so to say. Chuh-ching.
'12-01-26, 10:12 ifrean	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Hi Charles, very interesting take on gravitational lensing, its all a mirage. your last post on black holes however is leaving me really scratching my head, how do we "know" that "black holes" have strong Gravitational fields?? what instrument is used to come to this conclusion? are we basing our knowledge on just observation? in reality also i can come across no actual empirical evidence for gravity and am at a loss as to what it is, mjv seems to think that gravity pushes, is this right? and yes i have been on the thread regarding scientists admit gravity is electro but still ponder if gravity is a newtonian slip of the tongue I must admit I am having trouble getting to grips with your star forming theory without outside interference so to say however your posts are clear and concise and a pleasure for me to try get my head around....thanks
'12-01-26, 10:56 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient ifrean wrote: How do we "know" that "black holes" have strong Gravitational fields? The mass of a black hole is estimated by the orbital periods of its satellite stars. ifrean wrote: I must admit I am having trouble getting to grips with your star forming theory without outside interference... Actually, I haven't laid out a star formation theory yet. All that I have presented so far is a proposed explanation for the density gradient (especially the sharp density drop-off at the edge of the photosphere), and then the black hole thing, which is related simply by virtue of the fact that it uses the "Ampere's Corollary" principle (i.e., opposite charges traveling in the same direction generate opposing magnetic fields that are capable of maintaining charge separations). As concerns star formation, I'll try to get something posted this evening, but as a preview, I agree with the EU that accretion just on the basis of gravity is a bit hard to believe. So I'm looking at EM effects. But they aren't high voltage currents as the EU asserts. If you just can't wait, the full description of the whole model is here: Astrophysics wants its physics back.
'12-01-26, 11:12 mjv1121	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Ifrean, Black holes have no gravity-well because black holes do not exist. The most powerful gravity-well in the universe is around every single proton. Atoms cannot be compressed by gravity. Make absolutely no mistake, gravity is not electromagnetic As regards the supposed density gradient of the Sun as presented in the original post, I would treat it with great scepticism. I would suggest that said density gradient has no basis in measurement, but is entirely based on the fusion powered star theory. The proposal of radiative and convective zones belongs entirely to the fusion powered star theory, with no evidence of any kind, whatsoever, in any way at all, to support such a supposition. Conversely, any such theory is firmly rooted in the false logic of E=mc2, which is as completely and utterly erroneous as the other superstitious concept of positive and negative charge. Michael
'12-01-26, 11:38 saul	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Interesting reading A couple comments which may or may not be useful: 1) Any study of solar density gradients needs to consider helioseismology results. 2) The Pound-Rebka experiment measured gravitational effect on light.
'12-01-26, 12:01 mjv1121	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Saul, Helioseismology: A disturbance on the Sun's surface of unknown cause or origin and of unknown magnitude and of unknown method of operation may or may not produce a seismic shock wave that may or may not travel through the Sun and may or may not result in other surface disturbances. Therefore to calculate the density gradient of the Sun: Close your eyes and pin the tail on the donkey. By observing the cloud formations on Earth from 150,000,000 km away, what is the density gradient of the Earth? Since: E=mc2 is erroneous Mass Increase is erroneous Length contraction is erroneous Time Dilation is erroneous. Mass curved non-inertial empty space is erroneous Then, my faith in the Pound-Rebka experiment is limited. With no theory of gravity and no theory of light, I would say that General Relativity lacks a certain credibility. Michael
'12-01-26, 12:30 ifrean	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Charles thanks for your reply and ur link, "The mass of a black hole is estimated by the orbital periods of its satellite stars" in other words we have to rely on math, I can understand this link http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure ... ollary.png and i wonder could orbits be based on this without any thing called gravity required? my apologies for misquoting you on star formation, I can actually relate to your theory on the suns density gradient and would ask if that the reason we cannot easily leave earths atmosphere is because the earth is a negatively charged body and the materials we use in spaceflight are negatively charged that they attract maybe we should ensure that only positively charged materials are used would it be easier...ahem my apologies if i am way of track here. mjv - i would tend to agree with you on black holes and e=mc2, gravity is a word used to express (imho) the ignorance we have on the world and universe around us........dont understand something, just say gravity, its a cure all you know. Maybe if all the facts were laid bare it would be easier yet there is experiments conducted to falsify observation and maths just compund the confusion. Thank you both for your time and patience
'12-01-26, 13:57 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient mjv1121 wrote: As regards the supposed density gradient of the Sun as presented in the original post, I would treat it with great scepticism. I would suggest that said density gradient has no basis in measurement, but is entirely based on the fusion powered star theory. The proposal of radiative and convective zones belongs entirely to the fusion powered star theory, with no evidence of any kind, whatsoever, in any way at all, to support such a supposition. As I mentioned in a previous post, the fact that the surface supports transverse waves means that there is a sharp change in density between the photosphere and the chromosphere. If you argue with that, you'll argue with anything. As concerns the core, radiative, and convective zones, I disagree that these layers belong only to the fusion model. To my understanding, helioseismology has revealed that the core rotates as a solid body, while above the core, angular velocity is preserved while rotational period decreases with altitude. So there's the distinction between the core and radiative zones. The difference between the radiative and convective zones is that the latter has updrafts and downdrafts, while the former does not. Yet I agree that the gravity-fusion model is busted, and that all of its assertions of energy production and transmission need to be re-evaluated. saul wrote: 1) Any study of solar density gradients needs to consider helioseismology results. 2) The Pound-Rebka experiment measured gravitational effect on light. 1) Are my statements just above correct? 2) The Pound-Rebka experiment measured gravitational redshift, not deflection. ifrean wrote: i wonder could orbits be based on [EM] without any thing called gravity required? There are only 3 possibilities here: gravity, the electric force, and the magnetic force. I actually believe that the electric and magnetic forces are active at the astronomical scale, and there are things that cannot be explained without taking them into account. But IMHO, the net charges are small. For example, the net charge of the Earth is about 500,000 Coulombs, which for something as big as the Earth is virtually zero. Too much net charge would be hard to contain. So (IMHO) if you're looking for huge EM effects in astronomy, where they're the only effects, you're not going to find them, while if you look for influences, you'll very definitely find those. So how much could that alter our estimate of the mass of a particular black hole? I don't know.