6 Models to Compare S: Standard Model: Nebular - Gravity - Nuclear Fusion E: EU Model: Electric Plasma - Compressive Ionization - Anode - Electric Current K: KB Cathode Model: Kristian Birkeland's Hollow Terella - Cathode - Electromagnet C: CC Cathode Model: Charlels' Nebular - Compressive Ionization - Cathode Sun B: BC Cathode Model: Brant's Electric Plasma - Aether - Iron Antenna - Cathode Sun M: MM Cathode Model: Michael's Supernova - Neutronium Core - Iron - Cathode Sun
Why? Why compare these models? Because all of them seem to be based on good data, all of them seem to overlook some data, and by comparing I think we have found ways to unify the data into one complete theory. It appears that combining data from the Standard Model and the EU Model can produce a better hybrid model.
Monty Childs is working on the SAFIRE project to test the EU anode model, but we hope they will also test the cathode model, because all it may require is to reverse the direction of current or the like. Feel free to ask the EU team to test the cathode model. We got word that they may be doing so, but we haven't heard this directly from Monty.
Sun Formation S: Sun formed from gravitational collapse of nebular cloud into hot ball of plasma E: Sun formed from magnetic pinch of galactic electric current as hot ball of plasma K: ? C: Sun formed from electromagnetic gravitational implosion of nebular cloud into hot ball of plasma B: same as EU Model, but the plasma ball was mostly iron and hollow inside M: Sun formed from supernova implosion making a small neutronium core inside an iron plasma
Energy Source S: Fusion in the core by gravitational pressure releasing heat E: Electron stream from galactic electric circuit releasing protons K: Internal electromagnet releasing heat, electrons and protons C: Internal compressively ionized matter releasing heat, electrons and protons B: Aether from galactic center forming and releasing electrons in hollow solid iron globe M: Neutron decay releasing heat, electrons and protons from neutronium core
Explanation of Solar Features S: Plasma heating under gravitational pressure E: External electric currents producing anode tufting and electric discharges K: Internal electric currents producing cathode effects C: Same B: Same M: Same
Solar Interior S: Mostly Hydrogen and Helium throughout with some heavier elements in the core E: Mostly heavy element core and lighter elements above the core K: ? C: Similar to EU Model B: Hollow solid iron with light elements atmosphere M: Neutronium core within solid iron and light elements atmosphere
Hybrid We'll show that the Standard Model seems to be one extreme and the EU Model may be somewhat another extreme, the former relying too much on gravity and EU too much on electric currents. S: Extreme based on gravity E: Extreme based on anode with mostly external electric currents K: Hybrid based on cathode with mostly internal electric currents C: Same B: Same M: Same
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Possible Evidence against the Anode Sun Model
MM mentioned Tim Thompson's old 2001 website article, called On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis at http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html#neutrino. I know the EU team has responded to some of these arguments. Anyone is welcome to share links to such responses, or to briefly restate them.
I gleaned the best info I could find from the article. It's interesting that these data do seem to greatly undermine the anode model, but not the cathode model. Thompson, like many standard model supporters, uses somewhat derogatory language against EU scientists, which is a very unscientific practice, but I think I've removed all such abusive language.
A response to Don Scott's " The Electric Sun" webpage ... it is my intent to show that the arguments of Scott et al. against the standard interpretations of stellar physics are devoid of merit. ... Also see my other web-page, "Thompson Responds to Thornhill", which dates from 1998 and addresses a number of weaknesses in the electric star hypothesis. ... I also have a relevant page on Solar Fusion and Neutrinos which addresses the solar neutrino problem in more detail, and also the basic physics of the fusion reactions inside the sun. Missing Neutrinos New Sudbury Neutrino Results (June 2001) Convection in the Sun Temperature Minimum Below the Corona Acceleration of the Solar Wind Ions Periodic Fluctuations in the Sun's Output and Size The Electric Sun Hypothesis What Powers the Sun? Prominences, Flares and CME's Magnetic Reconnection Where Do We Stand?
1. Missing Neutrinos ... We now know that the expected flux of p-p neutrinos is observed, consistent with solar models. However, the flux of neutrinos from Boron & Beryllium reactions remains low compared to theoretical expectations. ... the neutrinos also have a skewed energy spectrum. That's a clue that indicates an energy dependent process is at work, which leaves the p-p neutrinos essentially alone, and affects differentlty the Boron & Beryllium neutrinos. ... Having determined with satisfaction that the solar models were valid, ... the next step [was] to see if the neutrino models were valid. That was done, and they were found to be invalid. ... the properties [of neutrinos] are far from "magical", unless you consider all of quantum mechanics to be "magical". ... fusion must happen for any neutrinos to exist at all. So, even if it were true that the sun consistently produced only one half of the expected neutrino flux, it would still constitute positive evidence that at least that much fusion must be happening somewhere in or on the sun. Thornhill has argued that the neutrinos seen actually come from a small fusion rate at the surface, an idea that Scott doee not mention. At least Thornhill had the sense to recognize the connection between neutrinos and fusion, even if his version is still pretty lame. It's lame because fusion requires temperature & density both. We know the temperature at the solar photosphere, about 6000 Kelvins. And, we know the temperature in the corona, 1,000,000 to perhaps 5,000,000 Kelvins. But the photosphere is too cold, and the corona far too sparsely populated, to promote enough fusion reactions to cover the one half expected neutrino flux. So, fusion inside the sun, where temperature & density are both high enough, would still be a necessary option. ... the solar neutrino problem [has] been about 85% to 90% solved, but there are still issues. Standard neutrino physics says that the neutrino should be a massless particle, but recent results indicate that neutrinos actually do have a non-zero rest mass. If that is the case, then it is also possible for the neutrino to exist as a superposition of states, such that when the neutrino is actually detected, it has a certain probability of being either an electron neutrino or a tau neutrino. Detailed observations of reactor neutrinos, atmospheric neutrinos, earth crossing neutrinos and solar neutrinos, show clear evidence of a phenomenon known as "neutrino oscillation", which is the act of a neutrino changing from one kind to another. This can happen spontaneously (a "vacuum oscillation") or it can happen in the presence of matter ("matter induced oscillation", also called the "MSW effect"). This provides both theoretical and experimental evidence that electron neutrinos produced in the sun can, by virtue of the MSW effect, change from electron neutrinos to tau neutrinos. ... It is simply a matter of building detectors to find tau neutrinos, and we will know. ... In ... 2001, the Canadian Sudbury Neutrino Observatory ... ... The nuclear reactions inside the sun produce only electron neutrinos, but Sudbury has shown that the solar neutrino flux detected at Earth includes non-electron neutrinos.
2. Convection in the Sun ... Juergens made two big mistakes .... First, ... convection [is] controlled [not] by the Reynolds number, [but] the Rayleigh number .... Second, while the Reynolds number does have a "critical value", its function is to separate laminar flow (low Reynolds number) from turbulent flow (high Reynolds number). 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. - [Recent findings show the Sun's convection is weak. - LK]
3. Temperature Minimum below the Corona ... Helioseismological data pins dow[n] the interior temperature quite nicely, as high as about 15,000,000 Kelvins in the deep solar core .... ... Even though the temperature of the corona is about 1,000,000 Kelvins, much hotter than the photospheric temperature of about 6000 Kelvins, the energy density in the lower corona is only about 0.1 erg/cm3, whereas the energy density in the photosphere is about 300,000 erg/cm3. ... it is the energy and not the temperature which is fundamental, and we see that the energy does as we would expect, it falls off rapidly in the corona. Furthermore, the fact that the temperature increases with height should not present any fundamental problem once we remember that temperature inversions are a dime-a-dozen in the Earth's own atmosphere, and are standard fare in any atmosphere. And finally, we note that there is a fundamental problem if and only if energy transport from the photosphere to the corona is limited to thermal transport. Any non-thermal transport mechanism can easily overcome any complaint based on the fabled second law of thermodynamics. Non thermal heating of the corona is no more of an insult to fundamental physics than is a refrigerator, which pumps heat from the cold interior to the hot exterior of the refrigerator. ... The problem ... is ... that there are too many potential explanations to choose from! 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.
4. Acceleration of the Solar Wind Ions ... The solar wind is not made of "positive ions" [as per Scott's model]. It is made of "positive ions" (mostly protons), and negative ions (mostly electrons). The electric sun model not only fails to explain why there are negative electrons in the solar wind, it actually predicts that the positively charged sun should attract electrons, not repel them. Far from being a "prediction" of the electric sun model, the solar wind in fact is a contradiction of the electric sun model and serves to falsify the hypothesis. - It is also worth noting that, according to Maxwell's equations, a time variable magnetic field will generate an electric field, which will accelerate a charged particle. This is a point which the proponents of the electric sun have totally overlooked, never mentioned, and essentially denied, by insisting that only static electric fields will do.
5. Periodic Fluctuations in the Sun's Output and Size ... Observations of solar pulsations - A.B. Severny, V.A. Kotov & T.T. Tsap - Nature 259(5539): 87-89 (15 January 1976) - Abstract: We have modified our solar magnetograph to measure velocities at the solar surface, rather than magnetic fields. Using this apparatus, we have observed fluctuations of period 2h 40m, which are remarkably stable. The interpretation of this phenomenon seems to cause much theoretical difficulty. - OK, theoretical difficulty. Now we are getting somewhere. The theoretical difficulty that Severny et al. are talking about is that their measured period of 2h 40m plus or minus a half minute (160±0.5 minutes) is very near the period of 2h 47m (167 minutes) that one would expect for a homogenous sphere with a low core temperature (but not isothermal). They note that for inhomogenous models the period would be shorter, which their measured period is, and so infer from their observation a "nearly homogenous" sphere. This leads them to a pair of alternatives. The first is that normal proton-proton fusion may not be the prime source of energy for the sun, an idea that they admit is "rather extravagant", but also in keeping with recent [1976 or before ] solar neutrino data .... ... However, this interpretation relies on the assumption that the oscillations they see are p-mode, or strictly radial oscillations. If they are not, then the interpretation is out the window. And that leads to the second of their alternatives, that the oscillations they see are g-mode ("gravity wave") oscillations, that are not radial. While they speculate that it would be unusual for such a high order g-mode to be dominant, they also point out that their own apparatus is unable to distinguish between p-mode and g-mode oscillations. ... It's clear that Scott (or his informant) meant to cite the Severny et al. paper, and not the one by Christensen-Dalsgaard & Gough. ... It is no[w] generally agreed that solar g-mode waves have not been unambiguousy observed at all. Furthermore, attempts to replicate the observations of Severny et al. and Brookes et al. have shown that at first the oscillations were seen at much lower amplitudes, and they eventually vanished altogether. See "Observational upper limits to low-degree solar g-modes" ....
- The "Electric Sun" Hypothesis 6. What Powers the Sun ... [Scott said:] "The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts. - "The Sun is powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. In the Plasma Universe model these currents create the galaxies and the stars within them. It is a small additional step to propose that these currents also power those stars. Galactic currents are of low current density, but, because the size of the Sun is large, the total current (Amperage) is high. The Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by incoming cosmic electrons. As the Sun moves around the galactic center it may come into regions of higher or lower total current and so its output may vary (both periodically and over time). - "Positive ions leave the Sun and cosmic electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun. This constitutes a plasma discharge analogous in every way (except size) to those that have been observed in electrical laboratories for decades."
... I already made a link to the ACE Real Time Solar Wind Page, and that page shows plots & data for the main ingredients of the solar wind: electrons, protons, and magnetic field. - The solar wind is a flow of protons and electrons, away from the sun, in all directions, both at the same speed. Now, if the first "major property" of the electric sun model were true, we would expect the positively charged sun to repel positively charged protons, and attract negatively charged electrons. ... but ... The observation of electrons & protons both being "repelled" by the sun immediately negates any consideration of the sun having a net electric charge that can be detected anywhere in the solar wind flow. 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. ... If you were an electron, moving through intergalactic space towards the sun, ... The first significant indication of the sun's presence that you would encounter is the sun's gravity. A slow moving electron could get caught up by that gravity, and become part of the "halo" that includes the Oort cloud, and probably extends about 1.5 light years from the sun. But a typical interstellar electron will be moving at about 20 km/sec with respect to the sun, well in excess of escape velocity, unless the electron finds its way to the inner solar system, so it's more likely that [the electron] would just cruise by and not notice. Of course, an electric sun hypothesizer would hypothesize that you would feel an attraction from the sun's excess positive charge, but we've already shown that to be unreasonable; if an electron at the orbit of the Earth feels no such force, how could one that is a light year away? - But if you are going in the right direction, you would encounter the sun's rather prodigious magnetic field. One of the first things [to] learn[] about electricity & magnetism is the "Lorentz Force", F = qE + V X B, which tells us that the vector force (F) on a charged particle is equal to the charge (Q) times the vector electric field (E) plus the vector cross product (X) of the particle's velocity (V) relative to the magnetic field (B). A vector cross product has the peculiar property that it is perpendicular to the plane that includes the two vectors, in accordance to the right hand rule (in the case of V X B, curl the fingers of your right hand in the direction from V to B, through the smaller angle; your thumb points in the direction of the resultant vector). Hence, the force felt by the electron is perpendicular to its velocity V. So if you were an electron heading towards the sun, you would feel a force pushing you away from the sun, at right angles. In fact this is observed to happen where the solar wind encounters the Earth's magnetic field, and other planetary magnetic fields. ... Juergen's assumed an extremely unrealistic velocity of about 105 meters per second (about 0.1 km/sec), when the real velocity is more like 20 km/sec [Juergens probably said 10^5 m/s, not 105; 10^5 is 100 km/s], and he didn't consider dynamics, so he missed the escape velocity problem altogether. His assumption of 50,000 free electrons per cubic meter is not too far off from the more realistic 30,000. But his assumption of random velocity is entirely wrong, the electrons stream past the sun as the sun moves through the interstellar medium with its own peculiar relative velocity. - So even if the total number of electrons seems like enough for an electric sun, getting them to the sun is quite a chore, since they move in excess of escape velocity, and are pushed off by the magnetic field. But even if those electrons made it past the magnetic field, and pointed right at the sun so they wouldn't zip on by, they would still have to plow through the increasingly dense flow of the solar wind on its way out. 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].
7. Prominences, Flares and CME's - In this section of his webpage, Scott shows an image from the Transition Region And Coronal Explorer (TRACE) spacecraft, of a typical magnetic loop over the photosphere. It's the kind of thing long observed on the sun, but recorded by TRACE in much finer detail than before. Alongside the image is a drawing of the circuit allegedly responsible for this loop. Right away, one sees that there is a problem. - The 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? **Furthermore, the current at the base of the circuit has to flow (and therefore be pushed) horizontally. But the incoming electron flux in the electric sun model will be vertical (i.e., radial), and by simple symmetry can hardly be responsible for the large force at right angles to its own action. So the source of this energy would seem to be a problem. - The other problem is that the hot plasma clearly shows the outline of the loop magnetic field, which forms an arcade structure of parallel lines reaching out of the sun, and then looping back into it. That magnetic field cannot be generated by the current in the diagram, because it has the wrong geometry. The diagrammed 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. - The circuit diagram attempts to explain the loop magnetic field as due to diagrammed inductors, but the magnetic field will hold its shape only inside the inductor coils. Once outside, the loop structure will rapidly vanish. So what maintains the loop magnetic field? The model does not say. - Simply put, the circuit diagram offered is a long way short of explaining the TRACE image, and is not even consistent with it. 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. The simulation on the web includes still images & movies. The major results are published in Laboratory simulations of solar prominence eruptions, P.M. Bellan & J.F. Hansen, Physics of Plasmas 5(5): 1991-2000, May 1998, which also includes color images and a more detailed explanation of the relavant physics.
8. Magnetic Reconnection ... Magnetic field lines don't "break", they "merge", and their merger is not a violation of Maxwells equations, because the divergence condition is never violated (Scott simply misunderstands the jargon of the trade). Magnetic reconnection is very much a standard (observed) mechanism for transferring energy within a variable magnetic field, or transmitting energy between magnetic fields.
Sparky
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Well, I'm trying to wake up, and being a simple minded person, will just focus on a few things to falsify a hypothesis.
6 Models to Compare S: Standard Model: Nebular - Gravity - Nuclear Fusion
Nonsense...to much evidence against it.
E: EU Model: Electric Plasma - Compressive Ionization - Anode - Electric Current
C: CC Cathode Model: Charlels' Nebular - Compressive Ionization - Cathode Sun
B: BC Cathode Model: Brant's Electric Plasma - Aether - Iron Antenna - Cathode Sun
If there are protons and + ions moving toward the sun, then it is negative. If there are more electrons moving toward the sun than away, it is positive. Iron suns make me hesitant. Why just iron?
M: MM Cathode Model: Michael's Supernova - Neutronium Core - Iron - Cathode Sun
I would consider this one dead at the start line because of the neutronium.
Tell me which direction the majority of + and - particles flow and I will carry that banner into battle.
CharlesChandler
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
While I prefer that solar cathode model, for many reasons, Tim Thompson's rebuttal of the anode model is uselessly flawed. I doubt that anybody is going to slog through all of this, but just for the record...
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.
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Charles said: While I prefer that solar cathode model, for many reasons, Tim Thompson's rebuttal of the anode model is uselessly flawed. I doubt that anybody is going to slog through all of this, but just for the record...
It didn't feel like slogging to me, more like a walk in the park. Now isn't it a bit of an exaggeration to say that Thompson's model is uselessly flawed? You pointed out a few useful comments he made, so I wouldn't call useful comments useless, unless I were being sarcastic or something. Thanks for going to all that effort to get us closer to the truth. Next, maybe I'll post some of Tom Bridgman's EU criticisms and maybe I'll do better at presenting useful arguments against the anode model.
CharlesChandler
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
No worries. I'm a big believer in having all of the arguments on the table, even the ones that we think are blind alleys. Later somebody wants to pursue something, and they don't have to reinvent the argument, and the other side doesn't have to reproduce the response. It's work that has already been done, so just reference it. And sometimes, people revisit old arguments, and with new data, the objections are no longer valid. So this is why I'm interested in seeing all of this categorized. But it's just soooo much stuff...
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
That seems sporting of you, Charles. Now back to some of the occasionally not-so-good sports. I went through some of Tom Bridgman's material and I'll try to post the best of it here, starting with his version of electrical effects in the universe. Of those he mentions, the Pannoekoek-Rosseland Field sounds the most interesting to me. I think the Pulsars and Gamma Ray Bursts are the most likely misunderstood processes listed here. GRBs are likely much closer than conventionally estimated, so they're much smaller than claimed. Pulsar pulses seem more likely to be electrical pulses, than lighthouse beams, especially since the pulse signals are said to greatly resemble lightning signals. Charles has other ideas about pulsars though.
The REAL Electric Universe http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/~ Friday, August 21, 2009 - Many EU advocates try to claim that astrophysics ignores the effects of electric fields and currents as possible drivers of astrophysical phenomena. - ... Yet electric currents and fields are discussed throughout the professional astrophysical literature, predating much of the Electric Universe. Pannoekoek-Rosseland Field: This mechanism of charge separation and resulting electric field generation was first recognized back in the 1920s. Gravitational stratification of plasma gives light electrons a larger scale height than heavy ions. This generates a weak charge separation and small electric field, forming a structure similar to a weak double layer. The presence of dust can significantly strengthen the field. There are a number of astrophysical environments where this process is believed to act: solar atmosphere and out into the solar wind planetary ionospheres (This configuration contributes to the Birkeland currents identified in planetary magnetospheres) galactic disk 'atmospheres' possible source of seed fields for stellar dynamo processes Offset Rotating Magnetic Dipoles: A dipole magnet at rest just produces a magnetic field. But if the dipole is rotated and the magnetic axis of the dipole is tilted from the rotation axis, the magnetic field at any point near the magnet changes, which by Maxwell's equations, produces an electric field. Because Maxwell's equations are Lorentz invariant, the easiest way to find the values of this electric field is to transform the magnetic dipole into a rotating coordinate system. This system is a popular demonstration of how to treat relativity in rotating coordinate systems and dates back to the 1930s. Here's some areas in the astrophysical literature where this process is important: Pulsars: - The strong magnetic fields of fast-rotating neutron stars (~10^10 gauss) generate very strong electric fields in the charged plasma environment around them. Ionospheric & Magnetospheric physics: - This configuration is another contribution to the Birkeland currents identified in planetary magnetospheres. Charge-separation by radiation pressure: - Photons interact with electrons more strongly than protons and can accelerate electrons away. Driver of stellar winds: - In the stellar wind outflow, the electrons will get an extra boost outward due to momentum transfer by scattering from the outflowing photons. Gamma-ray bursts: - High-energy photons can create a charge separation in the interstellar medium (ISM) Currents: Sunspot and active region processes: - Some of these currents may initially be generated by the Pannekoek-Rosseland field.
All these mechanisms create the charge separations and currents using energy from other processes, usually gravity. The charge-separation itself is not the original energy process but can create non-thermal distributions of charged particles.
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
More from Tom Bridgman The highlighted text below is Bridgman's. The main point seems to be what maintains current flow in the EU model. That's a problem for the anode model, but not the cathode model. The latter produce their own electric currents. The anode model requires electric currents from outside, but doesn't specify where exactly. Am I right? I think the next post will get into more detail than this one.
Challenges for Electric Universe 'Theorists' http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/cha~ ... Astronomers have studied the effects of free charges and electric fields in space as far back as 1922 (1922BAN.....1..107P) and 1924 (1924MNRAS..84..720R). ... Rosseland and Pannekoek's work is still cited today since gravitational stratification is one of the easiest ways to generate and sustain an electric field in space. ... Why do EU supporters continue to claim that astronomers ignore electric fields and free charges in space in spite of all the evidence to the contrary? ... Even the classic discharge graphic in Cobine's "Gaseous Conductors" (pg 213, figure 8.4) has been modeled with Particle-In-Cell (PIC) plasma modeling software (see Studies of Electrical Plasma Discharges, figure 10.1). Plasma models, some sold as commercial software, are also used to understand the plasma environment in a number of research, space, and industrial environments (see VORPAL). See also: Electric Universe: Real Plasma Physicists BUILD Mathematical Models, Electric Universe: Plasma Physics for Fun AND Profit!, Electric Universe: Plasma Modeling vs. 'Mystic Plasma' Why do Electric Universe supporters consistently dismiss the use of mathematical modeling of plasmas? Electric Sun/Electric Stars (General) - Mainstream solar physics uses Doppler imaging of the solar surface to construct images of the farside of the Sun (see Acoustic Imaging of the Entire Farside of the Sun). Now the STEREO spacecraft are at positions where we will finally see the entire sphere of the Sun.... This capability critically depends on our understanding of the solar interior, yet EU claims that all our models of the solar interior are wrong. a) If mainstream models of the solar interior are so wrong, why does this technique work at all? b) All of the solar data for this capability are PUBLIC (see MDI Data Services & Information) and the software runs on desktop-class computers you can buy at almost any computer store. So when will EU demonstrate that their Electric Sun model can generate equivalent or better results? - EU 'theorists' or even observers have provided no skymaps (such as those provided by a variety of missions and projects) showing tracks of electric currents powering the stars. These maps are needed so we can direct more sensitive instruments at the appropriate regions to determine if these currents actually exist. - The standard for physical models is that they produce numerical values in agreement with observations (in situ measurements or fluxes) from well-understood, more fundamental principles. Yet the Electric Sun (ES) model produces no such values of solar wind or interplanetary magnetic field, values which we can compare to measurements from the many satellites flown from the orbit of Mercury to the heliopause. Why should the Electric Sun model be regarded as superior to the more standard model(s) when the standard models disagree at the few percent level, or at worst factor of a few, while ES produces no values for comparison at all? (see Mathematics: The Language of Science) Solar Resistor model (Thornhill Z-Pinch) One of the popular EU models for stars is a z-pinch configuration [from] Wal Thornhill. Using Alfven circuit analogies, the major feature of this model is a current stream where the star derives its energy as a resistive load. ... the major shortfalls of this model are: - predicts magnetic fields for the surface of the Sun and at the orbit of the Earth, 1000 to 1,000,000 times larger than measured. - ignores that free current streams of ions and electrons are subject to numerous instabilities which make them break up in short timescales. Solar Capacitor model (Don Scott, The Electric Sky) An alternative solar model, radically different from the Thornhill model above, is a spherical capacitor model with the heliopause as the cathode (source of electrons) and the solar photosphere as the source of ions & protons (anode). ... This spherical current configuration has been studied heavily in theory and experiment since the 1920s. ... Applying basic conservation principles to this configuration, just some of the deficiencies found are - predicts a solar proton wind speed 200 times faster than observed. - predicts energetic particle fluxes far in excess of what we observe. (proton fluxes a billion times larger). These fluxes are also far higher than the most deadly regions of the Earth radiation belts, meaning that interplanetary travel would be sure death for astronauts. - ... in situ measurements do not show a high-energy stream of electrons heading towards the Sun. - Without an external EMF maintaining the potential between the photosphere and heliopause, the Electric Sun will shut down due to charge neutralization in a very tiny fraction of a second. Space Weather & Heliophysics ... The different professional computational models used by NASA, NOAA, the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, etc. (CCMC) agree very well on large-scale behavior of coronal mass ejections and other space weather events. - a) Where is the Electric Sun model that can compute the particle fluxes, energies and fields from first principles which are consistent with the measured solar luminosity and in situ spacecraft particle and field measurements? - b) If EU does not publish its models so they can be tested against other models as well as measurements, how can they claim their model is better, much less that they are doing science? ... where is the EU computation of the size of the Pioneer Anomaly based on the EU model? Such a computation would be valuable for precision navigation of future interplanetary missions yet they have provided nothing.
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
More Detailed Bridgman A later post will be more specific than this one (assuming it gets posted here), but this one seems to be a good introduction, explaining that the magnetic field of a current from outside would be much larger than what is observed, or that the power produced by the Sun would be way less than what's observed, etc. Again, that would likely not be a problem for the cathode model.
Electric Cosmos: The Solar Resistor Model http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2008/~ Sunday, November 16, 2008 ... nick_c asks: "Is Bridgman taking into account the amount of the power output that can be attributed to nuclear fusion taking place on or above the surface of the Sun?" - No I did not. But again, it is so simple to demonstrate that it doesn't help and in many ways makes things much worse for EU claims. - Work the problem from [the] other direction. Knowing the magnetic field value you can have, determine the maximum power you can put into the Sun from an electric current. The difference between this and the total solar luminosity is the amount of energy you must make up from other sources. ... From the relations defined in "Powering the Sun from the Outside", pp 17-18 of "The Electric Sky: Short-Circuited", we find: ... a 'Magnetic Field-Luminosity' relationship - where I've replaced the power, P, with luminosity, L, in the same units of watts. The only free parameter remaining in these relationships is the electron mean kinetic energy, E_k. From these equations, we see that for any given luminosity, if we want to reduce the magnetic field, we must increase the energy of the electrons, an issue that creates a host of additional problems. - For a given electron energy, to drop the magnetic field to an appropriate value on the solar surface requires a current reduction by a factor of about a thousand. For the adjustment at Earth's orbit, a factor of about a billion is required. To solve this, we reduce the luminosity from the current by an equivalent factor. Any reduction of the main current sufficient to solve the magnetic field problem will require the power difference to be made up in nuclear energy, which means that now their model requires the Sun to be predominantly nuclear-powered. - Other than ambiguous references to producing helium from hydrogen, the EU proponents do not specify which nuclear reactions are taking place on the solar surface. Once you know the specific reactions, there are plenty of resources to retrieve experimental and theoretical reaction-rate cross sections. Combined with information about composition, temperature, and density (and it's easy to compute this over some reasonable range of values), it's generally very easy to compute reaction rates and energy output. Many nuclear reaction networks can be run on something as simple as a spreadsheet. I used to do my nuclear astrophysics homework problems in graduate school this way, and that was using a computer from over fifteen years ago. - X- and gamma-rays from nuclear reactions at the Sun's surface will also be very visible, since there is less matter at the solar surface to down-scatter the photons to visible light. The RHESSI spectrometer routinely observes the Sun in gamma-rays. Some nuclear reactions have been identified on the surface but at nowhere near the intensity to explain a substantial fraction of the Sun's output (see the RHESSI web site: http://hesperia.gsfc.nasa.gov/hessi/flares.htm). - David Talbott asks: "Does Bridgman realize that the subject is a glow discharge and that the electrons are drifting in ever-so-slowly (in aggregate, centimeters per hour?) along "transmission lines" following the direction of the magnetic field? Don't know, but let's find out." - Electrons carry energy via their motion. Low-speed electrons are low-energy electrons! If they're moving slowly, you need a lot more electrons to carry the same amount of energy. Note the relationships above. For a given luminosity, lowering the electron energy requires an increase in the current. It also generates an increase in the magnetic field. - And these 'transmission lines' [are] Carrying energy from where to where? - I don't see any demonstration from the EU advocates that a glow discharge (which is generally an emission spectrum) matches the spectrum observed in the solar corona (which varies between the regions known as the F- and K-corona). - MGmirkin asks: "Does he take into account that plasma / electrical processes can be non-linear processes?" - Since I spelled out the assumptions and equations used in my calculation sufficient for anyone to reproduce and/or extend them, you know exactly what non-linearities I'm including. However, if the EU advocates want to play in that ballpark, I invite them to spell out the non-linearities in mathematical form, with the appropriate physical justifications (Maxwell's equations, MHD, etc.). - Beyond that, I did a straight energy-budget calculation. Non-linearities may shift energy content between different modes, but it doesn't alter the overall amount of energy available vs. amount expended. Then again, I don't see any references or links to demonstrate that the EU community has actually done this calculation either. - This question also demonstrates a larger familiarity with buzzwords than physics. 'Non-linear' has become the new 'quantum indeterminancy' or 'zero-point energy', a term bandied about when someone wants to claim something is complex, mysterious and/or unknowable. Non-linear systems can tell you much, provided you ask the right questions. If you want to have fun with some simple non-linear systems, the Lorenz system and the Rikitake dynamo (lots of resources available through search engines with 'Rikitake dynamo') provide some interesting insights that are easily demonstrated on small computers. - This "Solar Resistor Model" raises a number of other questions which the EU proponents don't address but which I will ask here. - Long current streams unconfined by wires are subject to a number of instabilities. How does the EU model prevent these instabilities from switching off the Sun in short timescales? Have they calculated the timescale for this process? - Since the EU model rules out an internal mechanism for powering the Sun, what drives the 22-year solar magnetic cycle that is responsible for the 11-year solar sunspot cycle? How does an approximately steady current (driving a relatively constant luminosity) drive this mechanism? - What is the origin of the current? I regard this as the true mystery of the Electric Cosmos that they never seem to talk about. - If you can correct the problem of the magnetic field being too large, how do you solve the problem that the field is pointed in the wrong direction compared to the measured solar field? - If you claim nuclear reactions are taking place on the solar surface, specify which reactions! - I see no description of the optical effects due to Thomson scattering from the incoming electron streams. At the densities implied by these models, we should see bright columns from the north & south poles of the Sun during eclipses.
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Anode Model Calculations The following shows Bridgman's calculations for magnetic field strengths, electron and proton concentrations etc, based on the Anode Sun model. They show that the fields or radiation would be way too high for life on Earth or space travel, or way too low to produce the amount of solar radiation we detect. The Cathode Sun model does not have these problems, because the electric currents come from inside the sun, as a storage battery or generator, instead of having to receive the electric currents from outside the solar system. By the cathode models, electric currents would have been involved in forming the battery or generator in the first place.
Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. II http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2008/~ Thursday, December 18, 2008 - ... let's compare these predictions of the Solar Capacitor model with some actual observations. - Plenty of satellites patrol the region between the Earth and the Sun: SOHO, ACE, Wind, more recently, STEREO A and B. - They measure solar wind speed, composition, magnetic field, even electron energies. - The data are all public. You can find some of it in places like the online archives and virtual observatories Virtual Space Physics Observatory ACE Real Time Solar Wind Data Solar Wind Data Server - The solar capacitor model requires a flux of about 1e9 protons/cm^2/s at energies of around 990 MeV, nearly a billion times larger than the measured flux at this energy! - Next, we look at the low-energy (velocity) protons, such as from Table 1 of "Space Weather: The Solar Perspective" by Rainer Schwenn http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2006-~ - Here, we see that the low energy flux is very large, but those don't help Scott's model. - For solar wind electrons, we can check "Kinetic Physics of the Solar Corona and Solar Wind" by Eckart Marsch: http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2006-~ *- which shows that the electron velocity distribution in the solar wind at 1AU is not towards the Sun, as required in the solar capacitor model, but largely isotropic (with some enhancement along the magnetic field direction). - We can also examine the 27-day history of the solar electron flux at geostationary orbit http://sd-www.jhuapl.edu/UPOS/MEV/index.html - Here, we see that in situ measurements demonstrate there is no stream of electrons inbound towards the Sun, contrary to the predictions of the solar capacitor model! - Next, let's compare the particle flux predicted for the Solar capacitor to the flux of particles trapped in the Earth's radiation belts http://www.spenvis.oma.be/spenvis/help/background/traprad/t~ - What do we find? Protons with an energy greater than 10MeV have a flux of 1e5/cm^2/s. - Electrons with energies greater than 1MeV have a flux of 1e6/cm^2/s - These peak fluxes at these energies are fatal doses for astronauts! - They also do a notorious amount of damage to spacecraft electronics unless the electronics are radiation hardened. - Yet the steady electron and proton fluxes of the solar wind predicted to power the solar capacitor model is 100-1000 times higher than the flux in the Earth's radiation belts! - Note that this is the STEADY flux in the solar capacitor model. - What does it imply about the radiation shielding required to protect astronauts for interplanetary travel? - There are a number of interesting predictions by this model [that] the EU advocates don't talk about. - What is the total energy in the outbound proton flow?
Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. III http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/~ Sunday, April 26, 2009 - I've encountered a few of complaints from EU advocates - The major complaint seems to be that I haven't included the claim that the electrons are actually moving at very slow velocities in these models. - They claim that these electrons will not be relativistic. - But they never answer the issue of how electrons traveling through a 1e9 (1 billion) volt potential drop, in free space, do not become relativistic! - If the electrons don't carry the full energy (all 4e17 amps worth) when they strike the solar surface, then you don't have enough energy to explain the solar luminosity: - 1e9 volts* 4e17 amps = 4e26 watts. - The electrons in this model are only carrying kinetic energy to the solar surface. - If you still want to power the Sun with electrons striking the surface at a few cm per second (I believe that was the approximate value from an earlier message), then you have a host of other problems. - Let the electron velocity be 10 cm/sec = 0.1 m/s. Then each electron has a kinetic energy of KE=0.5*(9.11e-31 kg)*(0.1 m/s)^2 = 4.56e-33 joules - which it can release when it hits the solar surface. - To explain the solar luminosity of about 4e26 watts, you now need a current of 4e26 watts/4.56e-33 joules = 8.78e58 electrons/s = 1.40e40 amps - This is 3.5e22 (over a billion billion) times more electrons than you started with at the heliopause, as computed in Electric Cosmos: The Solar Capacitor Model. I.! - Where do all these extra electrons come from? - Your only other choice would be to install another 1e9 volt drop in potential between the orbit of the Earth and the solar photosphere. If so, where is it? - Problems keeping charge neutrality - Do you want to keep the heliospheric region electrically neutral? - To cancel the charge of the inbound electrons, you need the same number, 8.78e58, of protons passing through the same region at the same speed in the opposite direction. - Therefore, at the orbit of the Earth, these 8.78e58 protons are spread out in a spherical shell 150e9 meters in radius and a thickness of 0.1m. - This a volume of 4*pi*(150e9 m)^2 * 0.1m = 2.83e22 m^3 = 2.83 e28 cm^3. - This corresponds to a proton density of 8.58e58 protons/2.83e28cm^3 = 3.03e30 protons/cm^3. - The measured particle density of the solar wind is a few protons/cm^3 (see left banner on http://spaceweather.com/). - You clearly don't match the observations. - In addition, 3.03e30 protons/cm^3 has a mass density of (3.03e30 protons/cm^3)*(1.67e-24gm) = 5.06e6 gm/cm^3. - Note that the density of lead = 11.35 gm/cm^3! - So your solar wind is thousands of time denser than lead! - Okay, let's not keep the solar wind electrically neutral... - Don't want to insist on charge neutralization? - You've still got 8.78e58 electrons per second building up on the surface of the sun. - Shall I compute how much energy it will take to keep them there? - After all, I've yet to see the circuit complete on this Electric Sun model to take them away. - 3 comments: - Anonymous said... - "Black box" analysis of the Thornhill Electric Sun model (per pln2bz' post), part 1. - The key output is, of course, the energy output of the Sun. This is ~3.8 x 10^26 J; expressed as power, ~3.8 x 10^26 W. - If the speed of the electrons is 1 m/s (metre per second), then each electron has a kinetic energy of 5 x 10^-31 J (kinetic energy is 1/2 mass times speed squared, and as long as the electrons are not 'relativistic', the mass is the rest mass). - How many electrons, moving at 1 m/s, do we need to generate 3.8 x 10^26 J? 8 x 10^56 (= 3.8 x 10^26 / 5 x 10^-31). - What, then, is the density of electrons at the heliosphere? 3 x 10^29 per cubic metre (m^-3) (the number that pass through each square metre divided by their speed; the electrons all move in only one direction, towards the Sun). - What is the estimated density of electrons, at the heliosphere, as determined by astronomical observations? - it is between 1,000 and 10 million (electrons per cubic metre). - [That's between 10^3 and 10^7, or at least 22 orders of magnitude than EU theory predicts.]
CharlesChandler
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Hey Lloyd!
Thanks so much for taking the time to pull this stuff together. It's important that we see all of the arguments laid out, good, bad, and indifferent.
My general take on Bridgman is that he's shooting at his own straw man. It's partly the EU's fault, that they didn't commit to specific contentions, so Bridgman has to create them so that he can defeat them. Nevertheless, some of the statements are excellent.
Bridgman wrote: The solar capacitor model requires a flux of about 1e9 protons/cm^2/s at energies of around 990 MeV, nearly a billion times larger than the measured flux at this energy!
He's assuming that the flux will be perfectly distributed, and that any instrument in space will pick up the same flux. In actuality, the instruments pick up wildly varying fluxes, and the reported fluxes are averages. Yet electric currents just don't behave this way — they get pinched into discrete channels. I "think" that this is an error on Scott's part, saying that the flux is weak, but distributed. I suspect that this is an argument of convenience, to answer for why we don't see sinuous discharge channels in space around the Sun, like in a plasma lamp. But in the near perfect vacuum of space, the electrons would very definitely get accelerated to relativistic speeds, even in a weak electric field, and they would get pinched into small channels. So you can fault Scott, or you can fix the model and then test it against the data, but instead of looking at averaged fluxes, you'd have to look at peak fluxes. Even then, you'd only have a real argument if you somehow knew that the instrument got right in the middle of a discharge channel.
Bridgman wrote: I've encountered a few of complaints from EU advocates. The major complaint seems to be that I haven't included the claim that the electrons are actually moving at very slow velocities in these models. They claim that these electrons will not be relativistic. But they never answer the issue of how electrons traveling through a 1e9 (1 billion) volt potential drop, in free space, do not become relativistic!
That's exactly correct — the electrons should become relativistic, and should pinch down into a very narrow channel.
Bridgman wrote: The electrons in this model are only carrying kinetic energy to the solar surface.
There wouldn't be any energy release on charge recombination?
Bridgman wrote: Let the electron velocity be 10 cm/sec = 0.1 m/s.
Where did he get that number? It's barely moving. (Average human walking speed is 1.39 m/s.) Then to get the 4e26 watts of power output just from kinetic energy, he has to hit the surface with an impossible number of particles. But that's kinda ridiculous.
Bridgman wrote: You've still got 8.78e58 electrons per second building up on the surface of the sun. Shall I compute how much energy it will take to keep them there? After all, I've yet to see the circuit complete on this Electric Sun model to take them away.
This is absolutely correct. To be a bit more useful, we should note that the Electric Sun model isn't a capacitor — it's a resistor, with a current flowing through it, and releasing photons due to charge recombination and/or ohmic heating. (I can't recall that Scott specifies this.) Anyway, it's not a capacitor that alternately takes charge in and then releases it — it's a resistive node with throughput. But if that's the case, we can derive a whole new set of questions concerning the location of the input and output, and why the current would prefer to flow through the Sun instead of around it.
...has current flowing in through the poles, and out of the equator. No external electric field will get the current to flow like that. If there was an external electric field flowing through the Sun, a current might flow, in one pole and out the other. But only an internal generator could inhale electrons at the poles, and exhale them along the equator. So what is the nature of the generator?
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Thanks for clarifying these issues, Charles. A few need a little more clarification.
Bridgman wrote: The solar capacitor model requires a flux of about 1e9 protons/cm^2/s at energies of around 990 MeV, nearly a billion times larger than the measured flux at this energy!
CC replied: He's assuming that the flux will be perfectly distributed, and that any instrument in space will pick up the same flux. In actuality, the instruments pick up wildly varying fluxes, and the reported fluxes are averages. Yet electric currents just don't behave this way — they get pinched into discrete channels.
Charles, aren't you talking about the anode model's incoming electron stream? Whereas, I believe Bridgman was talking about the outgoing proton movement in this particular case. Isn't that the solar wind, as well as CMEs? Is the solar wind moving in discrete channels?
You said: instead of looking at averaged [electron] fluxes, you'd have to look at peak fluxes. Even then, you'd only have a real argument if you somehow knew that the instrument got right in the middle of a discharge channel.
But you've also said that these electron streams should be easily visible at least within 1 AU of the Sun. Right? So I think he's still right that the predicted flux of the anode model isn't detected and, instead, the flux is much weaker than the model would predict and is actually going in the opposite direction, outward, along with the protons, as expected from Birkeland's cathode model, but not from an anode model.
Bridgman wrote: The electrons in this model are only carrying kinetic energy to the solar surface.
You replied: There wouldn't be any energy release on charge recombination?
Bridgman tried to accommodate the anode model by supposing that the outgoing protons somehow avoid recombining with incoming electrons.
Bridgman wrote: Let the electron velocity be 10 cm/sec = 0.1 m/s.
You replied: Where did he get that number? It's barely moving. (Average human walking speed is 1.39 m/s.) Then to get the 4e26 watts of power output just from kinetic energy, he has to hit the surface with an impossible number of particles. But that's kinda ridiculous.
I think he got it from Dave Talbott. In a previous recent post here one of Bridgman's articles included Dave's statement, which was this:
David Talbott asks: "Does Bridgman realize that the subject is a glow discharge and that the electrons are drifting in ever-so-slowly (in aggregate, centimeters per hour?) along "transmission lines" following the direction of the magnetic field?"
So, if you think centimeters per second is ridiculous, centimeters per hour must be hyper-ridiculous. Maybe Dave was thinking of electron speeds in wire.
More Bridgman Arguments Here are some more of Bridgman's arguments against the EU's Electric Sun model. I tried to pick out the clearest and most relevant arguments.
Death by Electric Universe. I[?]. The Solar Capacitor Model http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2012/~ Sunday, September 2, 2012 - We have active in situ measurements of the field intensities and particle populations at many locations throughout [the solar system]. - Yet none of these spacecraft have detected a particle population with the total energy sufficient to explain the Sun's total luminosity.
Death by Electric Universe. II. The Solar Capacitor Model http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2012/~ Sunday, September 9, 2012 - With the electrons accelerating through the potential, and gaining energy, we find the energy of the electrons at the orbit of Earth is computed to be 4.6MeV (million electron volts). - Electrons with energies of 4.6MeV are IONIZING radiation - it can knock electrons out of atoms, turning them into ions and disrupting chemical bonds. - Comment: go to the moon, or the asteroids, any atmosphereless, no[n]-magnetized, "obstacle" in the solar wind. Guess in which direction the electron wake will be... - the nonsensical conclusion of electrons with sun-ward bulk velocity in the EU model can be refuted with [such] much more simple observations.
Death by Electric Universe. IV. The Z-Pinch (Solar Resistor) Model http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2012/~ - Sunday, September 30, 2012 - ... [The results of] this equation would be the minimum magnetic field produced by such a Z-pinch powered 'Electric Star'. - The equation above assumes that ALL the energy, L, goes into powering the star and none makes it out the other side to power more distant stars. - Therefore, in reality, any realistic star in this model would need a much larger value of L and therefore have a much larger magnetic field than what we will explore next. - For a given average electron kinetic energy and stellar luminosity, we can graph the relationship of magnetic field with distance from the star. - Mimimum magnetic field for a Thornhill Z-pinch powered star with several choices of luminosity, L. - Average electron kinetic energy is 511keV. - The vertical blue dashed line marks the magnetic field value at 1 AU from the Sun. - We see that for electrons with an average kinetic energy of 511keV, the Sun's magnetic field at the orbit of Earth is about 5 Tesla, far larger than the measured value of a few nano-teslas (billionths of a tesla). - You can see near-real time values of the Solar magnetic field near Earth posted in the sidebar at http://SpaceWeather.com. - ... What Happens when a Conductor Moves Through a Magnetic Field? - ... So what happens when our satellite ..., which contains some conductive components, moves through the magnetic field generated by this solar Z-pinch? - ... the magnetic field created by our Z-pinch, at a distance from the Sun of 1 AU, per analysis above, is about 5 Tesla - This means the voltage induced in a circuit around our satellite is on the order of: V = (5 Tesla) * (1 m) *(4e4 m/s) = 200,000 volts. - If the Sun were powered by Thornhill's Z-pinch, the induced current would most certainly fry most any solar-orbiting satellite. - Needless to say, in now fifty years of interplanetary travel, we've seen no evidence of this kind of effect induced on satellites. - Anonymous said ... could a star be the "byproduct" of a past z-pinch? October 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM - W.T."Tom" Bridgman said ... To Anonymous, I haven't looked at that particular question. - The issues that initially come to mind are: - 1) What powered the original z-pinch? We know (polar jets) and bipolar outflows can generate currents (see this post) but they break up because z-pinches are unstable. These jets aim outward from the formation region and are slowed as they press into the interstellar medium to form Herbig-Haro objects. - 2) Before the pinch collapses, can a z-pinch compress a mass of gas such that gravity could hold it together after the pinch was gone? Molecular clouds can collapse under gravity only when they have enough mass and must be *cold*, so that heating by compression doesn't halt the collapse under gravity too soon (star formation). If the pinch raises the temperature too high, the gas will expand instead of collapse. - Under gravity, the highest pressure and temperature is in the center during the collapse. The high temperature in the transition region at a star's surface drives some mass loss via solar wind but it isn't enough to destroy the star. - In a z-pinch, the magnetic field, and therefore the compressive forces are largest at the boundary. I'm not 100% positive, but that is probably where temperature and pressure are highest as well. High temperature with high density at the surface would make it easier for the gas to expand and dissipate when the current is broken. October 4, 2012 at 8:12 PM
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Bridgman on Peratt's Galaxy Model I guess this will be my last item from Bridgman. This one challenges the EU view of intra- and intergalactic electric circuits. The Anode Sun models of Juergens, Peratt, Thornhill and Scott seem to require such circuitry, but the Cathode Sun models of Birkeland, Brant, Michael and Charles do not require them, although they allow the possibility of weak electric currents. The Anode models don't seem to specify what generates the interstellar or intergalactic electric currents, but the Cathode models do, that being the stars themselves, which act as electric generators or batteries. Hopefully, we'll eventually try to narrow down the possible extent of the circuitry. Michael thinks there are intergalactic and interstellar electric currents. I don't know about Brant, but Charles is more skeptical, although he acknowledges that the Mars video suggests that interplanetary lightning probably produced some of the features on Mars, i.e. scalloped ridges etc.
The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2009/~ Scott Rebuttal. II. Monday, June 15, 2009 - ... In mainstream cosmology, [observed] filaments are NOT due to electric currents. Computer simulations of structure formation are perfectly capable of forming filamentary structures without the need for them to be powered by currents. You can see for yourself the results of some of these simulations at the website for "Simulating the joint evolution of quasars, galaxies and their large-scale distribution". This group even makes their simulation code, called Gadget, generally available so others may evaluate it. - ... WMAP CMB is produced by a combination of measurements from FIVE all-sky maps. The raw input data is available as well. Some high-level image products [and] the input bands (23-94 GHz) are available here. ... Free electrons, such as needed for Peratt's currents, show up in the synchrotron radiation maps and the free-free (bremsstrahlung radiation) maps. The WMAP frequency bands were chosen ... for a region near the minmum of microwave emission by galaxies. The yellow bands in the figure below (K, Ka, Q, V, W) represent the frequency coverage of WMAP. ... http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/foreground/ - ... What powers these cosmic-scale Birkeland currents? What is the origin of the EMF that drives them? Are there any laboratory or theoretical models that such currents of such size and magnitude could be driven by turbulence? With a mean length of ~350 Megaparsecs for Peratt's filaments, the ends of these filaments should be visible in our current galaxy surveys so we should be able to see the source of the EMF and magnetic field which maintain them. Not only do we not see any objects that could fulfill this role, even Don Scott admitted that they did not know the source of these Birkeland current systems. ... Because their predicted emission is well within the sensitivity of our present day instruments, these invisible current sources are a far larger problem for EU than Dark Matter is for the standard cosmology. - With currents driven by 30 keV electrons in Peratt's simulations, this is more than enough energy to ionize intergalactic neutral hydrogen (ionization potential = 13.6 eV). Recombination (electron and proton reforming the hydrogen atom) will emit photons at these energies, in the ultraviolet. ... More distant and sensitive surveys should see these currents in the range of optical emission! ... References - A. L. Peratt [et al]
- ... 6 comments: Anonymous said: ... There are ... inconsistencies between Peratt's model ... and well-established astronomical observations. * in spirals, rotation curves for stars, neutral gas, and ionised plasmas are the same (with some possible exceptions a long way out); in Peratt's model this cannot happen (many reasons) * few, if any, spirals have a 'double bulge' morphology; in Peratt's model, nearly all should * a great many aspects of the characteristics of what we today call AGNs are misaligned, or completely inconsistent, with Peratt's model.... Peratt's own estimates of the current streams microwave emission mean they should be visible even before the background subtractions are performed. ... - July 30, 2009 at 9:18 AM - Siggy_G said... Is it to be assumed that electrons within a Birkeland current move in circular and spiraling motions? A circular motion at least, would indicate that the internally induced magnetic fields are more important than the ones driving the Birkeland current in the first place. Now, the Birkeland currents are per definition initially field alligned, and the additional induced magnetic fields (a collective cylindrical one), would be surrounding the Birkeland current, seen from a classical point of view. However, it is the Debye shielding that prevents the effect you propose are happening (that otherwise would produce cyclotron radiation). For this reason, it seems likely that Birkeland currents can be in "dark mode" until they interact with considerable densities of plasmas or gases, seen as glow mode in various wavelengths (double helix above Milkyway centre?) or as auroras. - Sincerely, Siggy_G (EU proponent) - July 13, 2010 at 11:41 AM - W.T."Tom" Bridgman said... Siggy_G: I've responded to this claim here: Electric Universe: Everything I needed to know about science I learned from watching Star Trek?http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2010/~. - July 23, 2010 at 8:21 PM
nick c
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Lloyd wrote: The Anode models don't seem to specify what generates the interstellar or intergalactic electric currents,
I do not understand why this keeps cropping up, is not the answer obvious from the basics of the Electric Universe model? PLASMA! Everywhere we look in the cosmos there is plasma: stars, interplanetary space, interstellar space, intergalactic space... These plasmas are moving, and as such they generate electric currents and magnetic fields. There are plasmas moving inside of larger plasma structures which in turn are moving inside of even larger plasma structures creating an intricate web of electric currents and magnetic fields. Take it from there...
CharlesChandler
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Lloyd wrote: I think he's still right that the predicted flux of the anode model isn't detected and, instead, the flux is much weaker than the model would predict and is actually going in the opposite direction, outward, along with the protons, as expected from Birkeland's cathode model, but not from an anode model.
OK, you're right, but I fault the anode model's inexactitude. In an electric field, where a proton weighs 1836 times more than an electron, it's the electron that actually moves in response to the field, not the proton, due to the inertial forces. So what exactly does the anode model say anyway? If the Sun is positive and the heliosphere is negative, does the Sun have protons flowing outward? Or electrons flowing inward? Or both? I don't know, but the only way I'd conceptualize the problem is in real terms, and if the electric field is the way the anode model has it, that would be electrons flowing inward, and protons staying where they are. But of course the evidence doesn't agree.
Lloyd wrote: But you've also said that these electron streams should be easily visible at least within 1 AU of the Sun. Right?
Exactly. So something is seriously wrong with the anode model.
Lloyd wrote: Bridgman tried to accommodate the anode model by supposing that the outgoing protons somehow avoid recombining with incoming electrons.
How?
Bridgman wrote: Let the electron velocity be 10 cm/sec = 0.1 m/s.
David Talbott wrote: Does Bridgman realize that the subject is a glow discharge and that the electrons are drifting in ever-so-slowly (in aggregate, centimeters per hour?) along "transmission lines" following the direction of the magnetic field?
Lloyd wrote: So, if you think centimeters per second is ridiculous, centimeters per hour must be hyper-ridiculous.
Yep. This can only be an argument of convenience, where a low current density explains why the discharge channels are not visible in the night sky, but Bridgman then correctly puts the whole model to rest by showing that the current density is then wholly insufficient to account for the power output.
Note that at least in my flavor of the cathode model, there is no expectation of any current out at 1 AU. The current is between positively charged ejecta from CMEs and the Sun that was left negatively charged in their absence. The entire heliosphere is positively charged...
May, H. D., 2008: A Pervasive Electric Field in the Heliosphere. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 36 (5): 2876-2879
...and for the conceptual simplicity, I frequently talk about the "solar~heliospheric" current. But that isn't the current that lights up the photosphere. Here, since we're talking about specific predictions, I should elaborate a little bit on where, exactly, I'm saying the solar current is actually the densest, and why.
I'm saying that CMEs eject positive plasma from the Sun, because CMEs occur near the surface, and the topmost 20 Mm of the Sun is a positive double-layer in my model. The ejections then represent a net loss of positive charge for the Sun, resulting in a net negative charge being left behind, and a net electric field between the Sun and the ejecta.
The speed of the ejection gets the positive ions out of the Sun's gravitational field, and thereafter, their high temperatures preclude their condensing back into the Sun. This produces a stable net positive charge around the Sun. The E-field then accelerates electrons out of the Sun, and the ohmic heating that is produced by this electron flux is in the right ballpark as the primary power source. (We get the amps from the estimates of the mass of CMEs. We get the volts from Alfven's calculations. Then we just multiply to get the watts.)
Watts = Amps × Volts = (2.93 × 1015 A) × (1.7 × 109 V) = 4.99 × 1024 W
So the primary E-field is really only between the Sun and the ejecta. What is the extent of that? I don't know. By the time the solar wind gets to our instruments in space, it is already quasi-neutral (i.e., plasma, but with equal quantities of positive and negative charge). I think that there is still an electric current running through this plasma, and the quasi-neutrality doesn't disprove that. (The atoms in a current-carrying wire are net neutral, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a current.) I think that a weak E-field is still pulling electrons outward, toward the heliopause. This is the current that lights up the aurora on Earth, Saturn, and Jupiter. I just don't think that it's a powerful current at that point.
Bridgman wrote: Go to the moon, or the asteroids, any atmosphereless, no[n]-magnetized, "obstacle" in the solar wind. Guess in which direction the electron wake will be...
As I've said elsewhere, I think that the negatively charged coma behind asteroids is because of the positively charged detached bow shock. There is no reason to suspect that it is because of any resting potential between the asteroid and its environment, nor is a non-relativistic asteroid going to leave an electron "wake" (as if it was a motorboat crossing the lake).
Bridgman wrote: If the Sun were powered by Thornhill's Z-pinch, the induced current would most certainly fry most any solar-orbiting satellite. Needless to say, in now fifty years of interplanetary travel, we've seen no evidence of this kind of effect induced on satellites.
This point is specious. A satellite is a Faraday cage, and wouldn't be harmed by exposure to a powerful field or an intense current. For example, this guy survived being extremely close to a 10 MV discharge: http://onlinephys.com/faradaycage.jpg
Anonymous wrote: Could a star be the "byproduct" of a past z-pinch?
Bridgman wrote: What powered the original z-pinch?
Excellent question.
Bridgman wrote: Molecular clouds can collapse under gravity only when they have enough mass and must be *cold*, so that heating by compression doesn't halt the collapse under gravity too soon (star formation).
This is a great point, but Bridgman needs to realize that this is the death of the mainstream model of stellar formation as well. The Sun condensed from a dusty plasma with a volume of something like 7.48 × 1037 km3. The temperature would have been roughly 10 K. The volume of the Sun is 1.41 × 1018 km3, meaning a compression ratio of 5.31 × 1019. If we multiply 10 K by that ratio, we get an expected temperature of 5.31 × 1020 K. Needless to say, that's way out of range for condensed matter. And the actual temperature of the Sun varies from 6 × 103 K at the surface to 1.5 × 107 K in the core (in the "fusion furnace" model), for an average temperature of roughly 105 K. That's a discrepancy of 15 orders of magnitude! So where did all of that heat go?
To my knowledge, only the compressive ionization model directly answers this question. The momentum in the collapse of the dusty plasma resulted in the compression of the plasma into a supercritical fluid, and ionization established charged double-layers. The electric force between these layers removed the degrees of freedom from the particles, thereby converting all of the heat into electrostatic potential, and pulling the double-layers together into a tightly wound ball. Conventional astronomy only acknowledges gravity and hydrostatic pressure, and stars shouldn't be physically possible, as there is no heat sink.
Bridgman wrote: Computer simulations of structure formation are perfectly capable of forming filamentary structures without the need for them to be powered by currents. You can see for yourself the results of some of these simulations at the website for "Simulating the joint evolution of quasars, galaxies and their large-scale distribution".
OK, so let's see what kind of simulation they're talking about (with my bolding).
Springel wrote: The cold dark matter model has become the leading theoretical paradigm for the formation of structure in the Universe. Together with the theory of cosmic inflation, this model makes a clear prediction for the initial conditions for structure formation and predicts that structures grow hierarchically through gravitational instability. Testing this model requires that the precise measurements delivered by galaxy surveys can be compared to robust and equally precise theoretical calculations. Here we present a novel framework for the quantitative physical interpretation of such surveys. This combines the largest simulation of the growth of dark matter structure ever carried out with new techniques for following the formation and evolution of the visible components. We show that baryon-induced features in the initial conditions of the Universe are reflected in distorted form in the low-redshift galaxy distribution, an effect that can be used to constrain the nature of dark energy with next generation surveys.
Calling a "simulation" that includes cold dark matter "physical" is what I call fraud. Scientists these days are brazenly attempting to make their abstract models sound like they represent physical reality. They seem to be getting away with this, because the unsuspecting general public sees fancy computer graphics, and they just assume that the scientists are using the computer to run out physics computations that couldn't be done any other way. But when scientists are simulating cold dark matter, and dark energy, in what sense is it physical? CDM and DE only exist because previous physics simulations fell apart (because they failed to include EM in the forces being simulated). Now they've fixed the code such that they can get exact solutions, proving that they have achieved a fully physical understanding of the phenomenon? They really only simulated what a cold dark mind can do to so much physical funding when they don't know the meaning of the term "professional integrity".
To my knowledge, the only physical explanation for the filamentary nature of the cosmos is the electric force, in a like-likes-like configuration. (See Galaxies for more info.)
Lloyd wrote: What powers these cosmic-scale Birkeland currents? What is the origin of the EMF that drives them?
Excellent questions. BTW, the EU responds by saying that they don't have to answer that.
Lloyd wrote: Because their predicted emission is well within the sensitivity of our present day instruments, these invisible [galactic] current sources are a far larger problem for EU than Dark Matter is for the standard cosmology.
Ah but of course, it's safer to assert the existence of something that cannot be measured, because by definition no one can disprove it. So if I say that there are little pink fairies buzzing all around your head, but you can't see them because they're invisible pink fairies, my point stands, because there's no way that you can disprove it? How much does reasoning like that cost?
So again, Bridgman makes some good points, but his criticisms are just as flawed as what he's criticizing. We can do better.
This can only be an argument of convenience, where a low current density explains why the discharge channels are not visible in the night sky, but Bridgman then correctly puts the whole model to rest by showing that the current density is then wholly insufficient to account for the power output.
