Thunderbolts Forum

'11-01-23, 18:55 Sparky	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection charles, thank you for explaining your model. i think i understand a bit more. seems to be a problem for me that you are seeing a plasma rope without any circuit nor current that is maintaining a magnetic field(s) ..somehow your plasma rope is disconnected from a voltage current source and is storing charge like a capacitor. and still has a magnetic field....this does seem strange...especially when it loops back on itself and reconnects..what am i not understanding? as a loop of plasma rope moving in a strong magnetic field, maybe current would be induced, but even then the difference in polarities around the loop seem like they would cancel out...i don't know. as for fusion in or at the sun, i have seen EU theorists saying that it's probably happening, but not at the center due to gravity. do you have any ideas about how such a fusion furnace would begin and continue?...does a spinning gas and dirt disk falling in on itself make any sense?..have i misunderstood your position? and what is being seen around other stars and galaxies?..hot gases blowing about like a wind?...radiation from them?..those all have been seen in lab experiments... seems like a nuclear model sun needs to be falsified and more time spent on putting all the pieces together.. if redshift = distance, determining age, is falsified, then the fanciful constructs from that fall with it...big bang, black holes, etc... hang in there... thank you...
'11-01-24, 07:13 tayga	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection CharlesChandler wrote:The primary source of energy in the Sun is nuclear fusion. We know this because we know from the mass of the Sun that the pressure will be sufficient in the core to fuse hydrogen into helium, and we can see the debris from the reaction in the solar wind. (my bold) Charles, you've come to the wrong place to make such a bald statement. If you are using these assumptions as the basis of your model and for dismissing an Electric Sun model you'll need to justify them. How do we know the mass of the Sun? What debris do we see to support the claim that there is enough fusion going on in the Sun to account for its energy output?
'11-01-24, 13:31 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection Sparky wrote:seems to be a problem for me that you are seeing a plasma rope without any circuit nor current that is maintaining a magnetic field(s) I'm positing that a neutrally-charged parcel of plasma boils up from the radiative zone at a high rate of speed. At extreme velocities, positive and negative charges get split apart by the opposing magnetic fields that are generated by the oppositely-charged particles. So it's the convective motion of the plasma that is the original magnetomotive force, which then splits apart the charges, establishing an electric field. This electric field is what motivates the electric current in the loops. So it's neutrally-charged plasma that gets its charges separated, creating the potential for an energetic recombination. When the split charges figure out that they can meet head-on if they curve toward each other, therefore eliminating the repulsion of opposite-polarity magnetic fields, the charges can be accelerated to relativistic speeds. So the model definitely has an electric field, and the magnetic fields generated by this fast-moving plasma are responsible for splitting the charges in the first place, and for determining that a loop will be the most energetic way in which the charges can recombine. Figure 5. Fast-moving electric charges can recombine if they form a loop. The squishy part in this whole territory is the mechanics of the "erupting" plasma. IF we can get the plasma moving that fast (somehow), then the magnetic fields will split the charges, and then the charges can recombine if they can curve toward each other. How, exactly, to get the plasma moving that fast in the first place is something that neither I nor anybody else has worked out in detail. We know the velocity is there, so I'm not positing the existence of unsubstantiated speeds. But a full mechanistic description has to identify the energy that got the plasma moving in the first place, such that it will generate magnetic fields capable of separating the charges. Until/if/when that end is nailed down, the whole thing is flopping around in the breeze. But I'll definitely be looking at the lower reaches of the convective zone for this energy source, as there is no evidence of sufficient energy flowing down from the chromosphere (or above), nor would it display the observed characteristics if that was the source of the energy. Sparky wrote:as for fusion in or at the sun, i have seen EU theorists saying that it's probably happening, but not at the center due to gravity. So what would be the force that initiates it? If it's in the literature, I've read it, but for whatever reason it didn't stick. Sparky wrote:do you have any ideas about how such a fusion furnace would begin and continue?...does a spinning gas and dirt disk falling in on itself make any sense?..have i misunderstood your position? That's outside the scope of what I'm doing right now, but on a solar system scale, my (uneducated) gut feeling is that gases don't coalesce as the conventional (gravity-only) model asserts. Gravity falls off with the square of the distance, and hydrostatic pressure (molecular collisions) opposes it. So if I went out in space and opened up the valve on an oxygen tank, letting the gas escape into the near-perfect vacuum, and came back a billion years later, I wouldn't expect to find a little spherical ball of frozen oxygen, waiting for me to measure its diameter. Rather, I'd expect the gas to have dispersed. But if there's a galactic (or universal) electric field, even at at infinitesimal level, within the first couple of decades I would expect all of the particles to get oriented according to that field. Once oriented by an external field, the molecules with then be showing opposite charges relative to each other. Then there will be an electrostatic attraction between the molecules, and as the electric force is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, the particles will be far more likely to coalesce. In other words, if we scattered a bunch of small bar magnets on a tabletop, we might expect little net force between them, as they wouldn't all be aligned, and the fields would be random. But if we applied an external magnetic field, and if the magnets didn't have any friction that was preventing them from getting aligned by the external field, they'd wind up pointing all in the same direction. As such, the north pole of each magnet will be facing the south pole of its nearest neighbor, and there will definitely be an attractive force. In short order, we'd expect all of these magnets to clank together. So if I ever get that far, I'll be thinking along the lines of galactic/universal fields (aether?) that offer a subtle but effective force in organizing matter on a large scale. Sparky wrote:if redshift = distance, determining age, is falsified, then the fanciful constructs from that fall with it...big bang, black holes, etc... There we agree. Modern astronomers sound to me like used car salesmen, who would sooner re-spin an existing lie, even to the point of contradicting itself, than 'fess up and pursue the truth. Scientific communities always become the victim of their own successes. They make a discovery, which at first is incredulous, but when it produces value, it gets accepted. Then the scientists become credible. Then, when confronted with anomalies, they stick to their original story, because it's credible, rather than admitting that they don't have the whole picture in focus. They wind up suppressing the evidence that they're wrong, because they can rationalize that it is in the best interest of science to keep it credible, which means suppressing the evidence that they're wrong. When it becomes known that we're paying scientists to suppress science, we stop paying. This is a pattern that has repeated itself many times in the history of science. And it's about to repeat itself again... My (still uneducated) gut feeling is that black holes, pulsars, quasars, etc., are all solenoids, where extremely powerful EM fields have emerged, and where gravity isn't even a factor anymore. And I agree that "redshift = distance" is an assumption, not a proof, and that everything based on it cannot be surer than the foundation upon which it rests. tayga wrote: CharlesChandler wrote:The primary source of energy in the Sun is nuclear fusion. Charles, you've come to the wrong place to make such a bald statement. If you are using these assumptions as the basis of your model and for dismissing an Electric Sun model you'll need to justify them. How do we know the mass of the Sun? What debris do we see to support the claim that there is enough fusion going on in the Sun to account for its energy output? Until modern times, the masses of the Sun/planets/moons were actually calculated with mass like a dimensionless variable. For Newton, who was studying the relationship between gravity and inertia, there was no concept of absolute mass. The celestial bodies could be very heavy or very light, but either way, the balance of inertial and gravitational forces will be the same. But when we go to compare gravity with other forces (EM and nuclear), we need to know the absolute mass (or at least the force of mass as compared to other forces). So how are we going to do that in astronomy? But this is no longer an open debate. How could scientists have sent Voyager I on its mission, using the slingshot effect to propel it out of our solar system, without knowing absolute masses? There are anomalies in the paths of satellites, but scientists have to be better than 99% correct for ANY mission to succeed. So if you're going to debate the absolute mass of objects in our solar system, be careful to constrain yourself to explanations that don't amount to more than 1% of the total force, or that will be the extent to which you are wrong. With a known mass of the Sun, we can then estimate the amount of pressure that will be created by gravity, and that definitely gets us up into the range necessary for nuclear fusion. The neutrinos in the solar wind are among the evidence of such nuclear reactions. There is a debate concerning the number and type of neutrinos. The establishment has solved the problem to its satisfaction by asserting that neutrinos can spontaneously change flavor. But the fact that they thought of this after being confronted with the discrepancy, and only after a good deal of labor in working up the support for the contention, and insofar as much of it is still hypothetical, leaves the solution suspect. But the argument there is not over whether or not fusion is the primary source of energy. The argument is whether or not it's the only source of energy. If the neutrino count is off by a factor of 30%, then fusion is still the primary source of energy, responsible for at least 70% of the energy. Then if you ask electromagnetism to supply even 30% of the energy, you have to posit the existence of forces that should be measurable, but which have not been measured, and which would generate energy releases in a radically different form than have been observed. In other words, you have to promote EM to a position for which it is not qualified, in order to solve a problem that we didn't have. Where the standard model actually breaks down is in the attempt to explain the specific characteristics of the energy release. For example, explaining solar flares and the resulting coronal mass ejections with the magnetic reconnection model is pure gibberish. Or, to put it more accurately, it's pure math, where the math is doing things that physics cannot. This is where EM theorists need to step up and start making assertions that are actually physically possible. We know that the surface of the Sun has an intense degree of EM activity, but we don't understand the nature of the forces. I'm saying that arc discharges occur because of charge separations, and that in a hydrogen-rich environment, imploding discharge channels will create thermonuclear explosions. Now that is actually physically possible. The charge separation process is proposed to be the velocity of plasma erupting from the radiative zone, which generates magnetic fields capable of splitting opposite charges traveling in the same direction. Then the question is (as mentioned above) how do we get the plasma moving that in the first place? There are many possibilities. Simple convection, all by itself, is not one of them. Solar quakes from previous thermonuclear explosions, at or below the photosphere, is one hypothetical possibility. Plasma jets shooting up through the radiative zone is another. But this is how I'm proceeding, as I think that this approach has potential.
'11-01-24, 21:02 Lloyd	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection Charles said: The main problem with the Electric Sun model, as I see it, is that it has the tail wagging the dog. The primary source of energy in the Sun is nuclear fusion. We know this because we know from the mass of the Sun that the pressure will be sufficient in the core to fuse hydrogen into helium, and we can see the debris from the reaction in the solar wind. So there's most of the energy already accounted for, and none of the EU literature seems to even acknowledge that fusion is a factor. As concerns the corona, mainstream astronomy doesn't have an explanation for the 1 MK temperatures, but I located some literature that does a nice job of establishing that the Sun's gravitational field will draw in particles at a high rate of speed, creating high-energy collisions when the particles get into the Sun's upper atmosphere, the same way that high temperatures are created in the Earth's thermosphere by particles getting drawn in by the Earth's gravitational field, with the first couple of collisions being extremely high energy. * I don't think you're going to retain much interest in your ideas here, if you consider nuclear energy to be the source of the Sun's energy. You don't know what the Sun's mass is, or even its diameter. You only know the diameter of the photosphere. * Read "The Electrical Sun" article by Juergens that I referenced above. That may help explain where conventional science went wrong in coming up with the nuclear energy model. * You apparently have overlooked the problems with the Nebular Hypothesis, which the standard model relies on for star formation. Matter does not accrete by gravitational attraction. Only electrical forces can do that. You have a lot to unlearn and learn. * EU theory agrees that electrical forces cause nuclear explosions, but primarily only on the Sun's surface. But those explosions are not the main source of the Sun's energy. Birkeland currents from the galaxy are the main source of energy. * Have you noticed that Sunspots are darker than the surrounding photosphere? Sunspots are openings into the Sun's interior. If they're dark, it means the Sun's energy isn't coming from inside.
'11-01-25, 10:05 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection Lloyd wrote:EU theory agrees that electrical forces cause nuclear explosions, but primarily only on the Sun's surface. Can you post some links for this, as I agree, and I'd like to determine the degree of overlap between what I'm saying and what's already been said. Maybe I got "my idea" (imploding discharge channels create thermonuclear explosions) from somewhere within the EU camp, and I should just quote them and be done with it... Lloyd wrote:Have you noticed that Sunspots are darker than the surrounding photosphere? Sunspots are openings into the Sun's interior. If they're dark, it means the Sun's energy isn't coming from inside. They're only dark in photographs that have been heavily filtered, so we can see the difference in temperature. At 3,000~4,500 K, sunspots are as bright as the flame from an acetylene torch (best viewed with dark goggles on, if you expect not to damage your eyes). I definitely agree that the photosphere is hotter than the underlying convective zone. Not all astrophysicists acknowledge this, because their simplistic "nuclear furnace" model would have the temperature steadily decreasing with increasing distance from the core. And yet we are seeing clear evidence of another heat source in the photosphere. So what's up with that? Where I disagree with you is that I don't think that this proves that the source of the energy in the photosphere is primarily external. Most of the filaments and prominences loop back on themselves. This means that the electric field is between different parcels of plasma within the Sun. If the electric field was between the Sun and the galaxy, the filaments would all radiate outward. In fact, the only outward-directed "currents" are coronal mass ejections, which are a different story. There IS a galactic field, but it's nowhere near as powerful as you think it is, and no, the current density is not sufficient to be considered a solar energy source.
'11-01-25, 11:18 tayga	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection CharlesChandler wrote: How could scientists have sent Voyager I on its mission, using the slingshot effect to propel it out of our solar system, without knowing absolute masses? There are anomalies in the paths of satellites, but scientists have to be better than 99% correct for ANY mission to succeed. So if you're going to debate the absolute mass of objects in our solar system, be careful to constrain yourself to explanations that don't amount to more than 1% of the total force, or that will be the extent to which you are wrong. Charles, thank you for taking the time to give a considered reply to my questions. The masses input into ‘rocket science’ calculations based on Newtonian mechanics and Kepler’s Laws are derived from the same set of laws. When calculating the mass of a remote object, the raw inputs are orbital period and radius. The mass of the remote body emerges from one set of calculations and then disappears (along with G) during subsequent calculation of the force vectors for the satellite. So while it is true that the calculations are accurate they simply confirm that Newton’s description of the behaviour of gravity was right. Our continuing failure to determine a consistent value for G or a means to predict it clearly show that we don’t understand how gravity works. Dubbing G a universal constant is more than a little premature. Newton’s laws allow us to derive the gravitational and inertial mass of the Sun but say nothing about the amount of matter present in it or its internal structure. In the absence of either of these pieces of information there is no reason to believe either that nuclear fusion is or isn’t possible in the Sun’s core. That said, you have made your assumptions clear and falsifiable so I’ll be happy to differ, save my argument for another thread and not derail this one any further.
'11-01-25, 11:26 nick c	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection hi Charles, CharlesChandler wrote: Lloyd wrote:EU theory agrees that electrical forces cause nuclear explosions, but primarily only on the Sun's surface. Can you post some links for this, as I agree, and I'd like to determine the degree of overlap between what I'm saying and what's already been said. Maybe I got "my idea" (imploding discharge channels create thermonuclear explosions) from somewhere within the EU camp, and I should just quote them and be done with it... As Lloyd noted the ES model does include fusion: Scott wrote:Fusion in the Double Layer The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core). The result of this fusion process are the "metals" that give rise to absorption lines in the Sun's spectrum. Traces of sixty eight of the ninety two natural elements are found in the Sun's atmosphere. Most of the radio frequency noise emitted by the Sun emanates from this region. Radio noise is a well known property of DLs. The electrical power available to be delivered to the plasma at any point is the product of the E-field (Volts per meter) times current density (Amps per square meter). This multiplication operation yields Watts per cubic meter. The current density is relatively constant over the height of the photospheric / chromospheric layers. However, the E-field is by far the strongest at the center of the DL. Nuclear fusion takes a great deal of power - and that power is available in the DL. It is also observed that the neutrino flux from the Sun varies inversely with sunspot number. This is expected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is z-pinch produced fusion which is occurring in the double layer - and sunspots are locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur. highlight added http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm Nick
'11-01-25, 15:17 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection tayga wrote:Our continuing failure to determine a consistent value for G or a means to predict it clearly show that we don’t understand how gravity works. Dubbing G a universal constant is more than a little premature. Newton’s laws allow us to derive the gravitational and inertial mass of the Sun but say nothing about the amount of matter present in it or its internal structure. In the absence of either of these pieces of information there is no reason to believe either that nuclear fusion is or isn’t possible in the Sun’s core. Well put — thanks for that. This is getting me to think, and I'm trying to estimate the implications. (This could take days... ) Whether or not fusion is occurring in the Sun's core is actually not terribly central to the main body of my framework. I'm focusing on things going on in the upper reaches of the convective zone, and especially in the photosphere, where I'm saying that plasma jets "bubbling up" are getting their charges separated by opposing magnetic fields, and it's those fields that also set the stage for charge recombination if the opposite charges can curl toward each other. That framework seems to have a lot of nice properties. As mentioned previously, the squishy part is where the framework needs for there to be plasma jets emerging from the lower reaches of the convective zone. Whatever creates these jets is then the prime mover, and the energy released in the photosphere is simply potential that was infused into the plasma when it was accelerated to such a high velocity (several km/sec). It's just that the energy goes through a few transformations along the way (moving charged particles generate magnetic fields that split the charges, that then recombine in the photospheric loop). So what starts out as Newtonian energy gets released as Maxwellian energy. But the point here is that I've got a prime mover that I don't know anything about. The "conventional wisdom" is that there is little to no movement within the core and the radiative zones, as the pressure creates too much friction, and energy radiates outward from the core as EM avalanches. At the top of the radiative zone, the pressure has relaxed to the point that the plasma can flow more freely, so above that level, we see convective cells. But this is non-sense. Roughly halfway up the radiative zone, the pressure is already down to that of water, and it still is too dense to flow? Figure 3. Density of the Sun as a Function of Altitude And even if all of that was true, we still can't get supersonic plasma streams with just convection, as such is not physically possible. So if the initial velocity of the plasma jets is the prime mover, we have to identify the source of that energy. And that's where nuclear fusion in the core enters the picture. Random fusion events in the core (or higher) could be creating jets that could "erupt" to the photosphere (and beyond). Herein I would be agreeing with the mainstream that fusion is occurring, but disagreeing that the core and radiative zones are stationary due to pressure. Sounds like I need to go poking around in the literature for more information on the core and radiative zones. I "think" that the only hard evidence that we have is seismic data. Everything else is construct. So I could see where that leads. But yes, there are a lot of assumptions in the baby framework that I have going so far, and I will give thorough (to the extent of my abilities) consideration to challenges concerning assumptions I'm making about the mass of the Sun, and thereby, the pressures and temperatures that we should expect in the core. Scott wrote:The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core). [...] Nuclear fusion takes a great deal of power - and that power is available in the DL. [...] It is also observed that the neutrino flux from the Sun varies inversely with sunspot number. This is expected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is z-pinch produced fusion which is occurring in the double layer - and sunspots are locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur. Interesting — this is something that I didn't remember reading, and hadn't considered myself. Now I'm fishing around for numbers to support the contention that the speeds in the loops (several km/sec) will generate magnetic fields capable of fusion. That idea and mine (is it still mine?) about imploding discharge channels are not incompatible. When the charges are neutralized, the channels will still implode, and this will definitely result in a thermonuclear explosion. The fact that neutrino flux varies inversely with the number of sunspots is also useful information, for either regime. But I still find the "tufted double-layer" explanation of the photosphere to be unconvincing. If the primary (or sole) source of energy is an electric field between the Sun and its surroundings, we'd expect something that looked more like ball lightning — a frayed cotton-ball of radial discharge channels, tipped with corona discharges. What we actually see is not enough of that to call it the primary (much less the sole) energy source.
'11-01-25, 16:36 GaryN	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection Some computer generated models of the Suns behavior. http://www.suntrek.org/hot-solar-atmosp ... -sun.shtml My model would have not heat, but a charge 'leakage' between the concentric double layer shells being the cause of the 'convection'.
'11-01-25, 17:03 Sparky	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection Charles, thanks for answers and further explanation of your perspective... I have not responded before because my brain was in the shop getting a manufactures recall plugin. And today i may have bent it again posting a new thread.. thanks
'11-01-25, 23:21 GaryN	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection A little light reading for you perhaps Charles. The original version is no longer online, this cached version seems to work. I was only looking into the "(10.4) Experimental proof of continuous creation of elements in the corona by absorbtion of neutrons", but I may as well read it all, there are some interesting statistics. The Corona Effect-Andre Michaud http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cac ... OJtQuhWVLg
'11-01-26, 13:25 mharratsc	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection Hey Charles- don't forget this rather salient point: Moving electric charges generate a magnetic field, yes... But moving a conductor (oh say a plasma) *through* a magnetic field also generates current! Wheels within wheels for a quantitative analysis, eh? :
'11-01-26, 20:07 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection mharratsc wrote:But moving a conductor (oh say a plasma) *through* a magnetic field also generates current! Hey Mike, That's interesting. The more I learn about this, the more possibilities there are... The major issue, as I see it, is that asserting that the magnet fields were there to begin with means that we need to explain where they came from. Anyway, it's many, many more questions than answers. As mentioned earlier, I'm new to the study of the Sun, and though I make brave assertions, that's just because I think it's better to just come out and say what you've got to say, and take the hit if you're wrong, rather than lurking in the shadows with vague, nebulous (i.e., gravity-based?) statements that are tough to falsify, because they didn't actually state anything. Speaking of gravity, I'm still licking my wounds from assertions that I made about absolute masses of celestial bodies. I'm not totally convinced that I'm wrong, but I am absolutely convinced that I really don't know for sure what I'm talking about... So I'm trying to figure out what's up with that... Cheers!
'11-01-26, 20:11 Lloyd	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection Charles said: we still can't get supersonic plasma streams with just convection, as such is not physically possible. So if the initial velocity of the plasma jets is the prime mover, we have to identify the source of that energy. And that's where nuclear fusion in the core enters the picture. * What supersonic plasma streams are you talking about? CMEs? flares? spicules? * The most explosive force there is is probably exploding double layers. And those are all over the Sun; aren't they?
'11-01-26, 20:30 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun: Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection Lloyd wrote:What supersonic plasma streams are you talking about? CMEs? flares? spicules? I'm referring to speeds in the photospheric/chromospheric loops (granules, filaments, and prominences). Lloyd wrote:The most explosive force there is is probably exploding double layers. And those are all over the Sun; aren't they? What forms and sustains persistent double layers? You need a charge separation mechanism, and then you need some capacitance. What's the separation mechanism, and what provides the capacitance? (Plasma is highly-conductive, as others have pointed out, so capacitance is an issue.) And how do they explode?