Thunderbolts Forum

'12-11-16, 10:41 meemoe_uk	Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model Hi Charles, thanks for interesting reply. From what you say, and continuing my idea that the sun can gain mass over long periods of time, you've made me think that maybe the solar wind can vary from outward flow to inward flow. The solar wind is observed to be highly variable, and to also cease. It strikes me that the solar wind is dependent on the position of the sun in the galactic electric field. That is, the sun will have a voltage wrt to any other point in the galaxy. Depending on the net voltage of the sun in its local galactic environment, the solar wind will be either inward or outward. Currently it is outward. Effects such as the heliopause are dependent on this solar voltage, and so will also vary with time - i.e. its radial distance from the sun, it's charge density, perhaps its polarity. I think as the sun moves thru the spiral arms, and the strong electric fields in them, it will gain mass and become much more electrically active. And during times when its out the spiral arms it will lose mass and be electrically relatively quiet. The solar wind is the mode of transport of the mass, most of which is hydrogen plasma.
'12-11-20, 17:18 Lloyd	Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model Meemoe, I suspect that Charles will doubt that the solar wind could reverse, or that negative charge could flow inward overall, but it's an interesting idea, and, if Charles doesn't comment soon, you or I should PM him and ask for his own comment. Another way stars may gain mass is by receiving debris from within their star systems, or by planetary-type collisions, or even by collisions with other stars. However, in interstellar areas where electric fields are strong, it seems, according to Thornhill, that any star that grows very large from such collisions etc, would fission into smaller parts because of the intensity of the charge field. Do you have further ideas or info relating to your last post here?
'13-01-20, 21:50 meemoe_uk	Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model Well there must be some way stars gain mass by attracting space local dust. Otherwise stars wouldn't form in the first place. It seems to me that the accepted EU star formation mechanism - the concentration of mass via the Z-pinch - will continue to function after the star has been created. Indeed, leading EU proponents insist every active star is at the centre of a Z pinch. Therefore every star should retain the ability to gain mass from its Z pinch. All that is needed is for the star to travel through a gas cloud. The galactic arms tend to be both electrically more active and have more gas clouds in. On whether or not the solar wind is able to reverse, consider this : every object has a charge, which, relative to any point, has a voltage. So in theory if the environment has a stronger electric field than the sun then yes the solar wind will reverse. But why should the empty space near the sun have a stronger electric field? The only spaces in the galaxy that I think will probably have stronger electric fields than the sun are the galactic arms, which are thought to contain the galactic circuit current. I'm sure stars can gain mass. But the other way stars might to do it, other than have their solar winds reverse, is from Z-pinch polar deposition, or even simple gravitation attraction as a star wanders thru a gas cloud. I doubt that collisions between other stray space objects is a considerable way for stars to gain mass. A star might reabsorb its planets or binary partner. However I think the usual trend is for stars to gain mass as they pass thru the galactic arms. When they do this, they also becoming electrically stressed due to the electrical activity or the galactic arms, so they also give birth to new planets and binary stars. This explains the apparent different ages of planets and moons in the solar system. If the conditions are stable, binary systems become ternary, quandary and higher number star systems with each pass thru a galactic arm. If conditions remain stable, i.e. these stars don't throw each other out of orbit via conventional >2 body gravitation instability, then a small star cluster may form, which can grow to a large star cluster, such a large group of stars will attract the inter galactic currents, and the electrical intensity may allow the cluster to develop into a a quasar which will then electrically contend with the galactic core and so will either fall into the core and merge with it, or be repelled from the galaxy to become a satellite galaxy. This is an alternative galaxy formation model, one which takes a very long time. But it doesn't negate the standard EU galaxy formation model, that of galactic cores emitting new galaxies. Both processes could occur. For most stars, this rarely happens. Why? Because it happens to the largest star, or star group around ( electric currents tend towards the best conductors, stars are metal balls.The bigger they are, the better they conduct ), and so since there's millions of stars, for most stars, another star will get the major mass boost. Other stars get smaller mass boosts as they go thru the galactic arms. In the case of the Sun, next time it's in an gassy electrical environment, it will get enough new mass and electrical stress to create more planets, and so will the gas giant planets create more moons. But it'll be nearby larger star systems that get the mass and electricity to produce new stars.
'13-01-21, 08:21 CharlesChandler	Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model Stellar mass loss/gain is an interesting topic. The work that I did on the solar energy budget shows that charge separation due to mass loss in CMEs, and the resulting recombination, accounts for the half of the heat generated by the Sun. But while this "mass loss in CMEs" is well-known and measurable, it doesn't prove that the Sun isn't gaining the mass back in-between CMEs. So it's possible that there is no net mass loss through the entire cycle. A CME expels material that perhaps rains back down during the quiet phase, and we don't have accurate measurements on the "rain". We also don't really know whether the heliosphere is scavenging matter from the interstellar wind, or if the interstellar wind is whisking away plasma from the heliosphere. The interstellar wind is relatively weak (i.e., 23 km/s compared to the outward expansion of the solar wind at 450 km/s). If the solar wind is expanding 20 times faster than the interstellar wind, the interstellar wind isn't blowing "around" it, and there's no coma on the leeward side of the heliosphere. But on the windward side, oncoming interstellar wind could be merging with the heliosphere, adding mass. It seems to be pretty thin stuff, and the approaching velocity is relatively slight, but over a long period of time it might add up to something. The bottom line is just that mass loss/gain is definitely open to debate. But I'd like to challenge the accepted EU star formation mechanism, which is the concentration of mass via the z-pinch. It's certainly true that at relativistic velocities, the z-pinch can concentrate mass. But that isn't going to create condensed matter. While the z-pinch pushes like charges together, the corollary is that it pushes opposite charges apart. This is because the magnetic fields generated by moving electric charges obey either the left-hand rule (for negative charges) or the right-hand rule (for positive charges). The opposing magnetic fields generate "magnetic pressure" that pushes the opposite charges apart, with the same force that like charges are pushed together. As a consequence, the neutrality necessary for condensed matter is not present anywhere in a z-pinch. You can get nuclear fusion with a sufficiently powerful magnetic field, but you can't get molecules and crystal lattices — it will always be just charge-separated plasma. If you relax the magnetic field, like charges will repel, and opposite charges will attract. Then you'll get a big flare-up, as all of the opposite charges recombine. But then you have nothing but a superheated, rapidly expanding gas cloud, not a steady-state star. I'm of the opinion that the force binding matter together into a star is definitely EM, but it isn't electrodynamics (i.e., the z-pinch). Rather, it's electrostatics. I've been studying the properties of compressive ionization, where matter under sufficient pressure gets ionized because there isn't the room for electrons between the atoms. The result is charged double-layers that cling tightly together due to the electric force between them. And this explains many, many things about the Sun. So I think that this is the way to go.
'13-01-21, 18:29 Lloyd	Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model Thornhill and Reference Charles, your explanation of why a z-pinch cannot compress matter significantly seems clear enough that I sent a copy of your statements to Wal Thornhill to ask if he tends to agree with them or not. Although he favors the z-pinch mechanism to explain stars etc, I don't know the details of his model, so it seems possible that he could agree with your statements more or less, but nonetheless have reasons to think that there are other properties of a z-pinch that would allow sufficient matter compression to form stars etc. Can you provide a reference for your statements, or are those too well-known to need one? Possible Z-pinch Involvement? I certainly think it's possible that the z-pinch contributes to star formation in the earlier nebula stage and or it may contribute to galactic features that may be involved. I don't know if that's worth taking time to discuss now, but it's something that will probably need to be addressed eventually. Overall, it looks like the z-pinch might tend to concentrate like charges in different locations and then those concentrations, if not too far apart, may be attracted to each other and, if the masses are large enough, they will gravitate and compressively ionize the masses in double layers forming stars or planetoids. You said: If you relax the magnetic field, like charges will repel, and opposite charges will attract. Then you'll get a big flare-up, as all of the opposite charges recombine. But then you have nothing but a superheated, rapidly expanding gas cloud, not a steady-state star. I'm not sure what might reduce the magnetic field of your z-pinch here, but, if the mass involved is great enough, wouldn't the recombined charges have enough gravity to overcome the heat expansion and thus form a star or planetoid?
'13-01-22, 05:58 CharlesChandler	Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model Lloyd wrote: Can you provide a reference for your statements [on z-pinches]? Here's a demonstration of the magnetic pinch/push effect done by the MIT Department of Physics. http://techtv.mit.edu/tags/441-physics/ ... rying-wire MIT wrote: Two flexible wires are suspended vertically. The wires are connected in series or parallel to a 12V storage battery. When the wires are connected in series and power is applied they will repel each other; when they are connected in parallel they will attract one another. This effect is due to the magnetic fields created by the charge flowing through the wires. When the wires are in parallel, the currents in each are going in the same direction and thus attract. In series the currents are going in opposite directions and repel. To make the demonstration relevant to the point at hand, we have only to realize that opposite charges traveling in the same direction will create the same magnetic pressure as like charges traveling in opposite directions. Hence in a relativistic plasma jet, containing both positive and negative charges, the positive charges are pinched together, the negative charges are pinched together, and the positive and negative charges are pushed away from each other by magnetic pressure, despite the attractive electric force. Lloyd wrote: Overall, it looks like the z-pinch might tend to concentrate like charges in different locations and then those concentrations, if not too far apart, may be attracted to each other and, if the masses are large enough, they will gravitate and compressively ionize the masses in double layers forming stars or planetoids. Until the charges are neutralized, the repulsion of like charges will be far more powerful than the gravitational attraction between them. So I don't see a way of going straight from z-pinches to condensed matter. If a relativistic plasma jet slows down (e.g., due to friction from plowing through stationary plasma), the magnetic fields will relax. As they do, the pinching will relax as well, and the charge streams will expand. A wider charge stream will encounter more friction due to more collisions with stationary particles, and the velocity will be further reduced. This explains why plasma jets (such as the bipolar jets from AGNs) stay organized for a long time, but when they start to randomize, they fall apart quickly. Once the velocity has been reduced, and the magnetic confinement goes away, two things happen: the charge streams expand, due to electrostatic repulsion, and opposite charges can recombine. The charge recombination generates heat, with its associated hydrostatic pressure, resulting in an outward acceleration. At that point, I think that it's just an expanding, neutrally charged gas cloud, and the force of gravity is insufficient to cause the collapse of gases. So disintegrated plasma jets shouldn't be stellar nurseries, and I "think" that the data support this.
'13-01-22, 08:35 meemoe_uk	Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model But I'd like to challenge the accepted EU star formation mechanism, which is the concentration of mass via the z-pinch. It's certainly true that at relativistic velocities, the z-pinch can concentrate mass. But that isn't going to create condensed matter. Well here's my critique of your challenge to the z-pinch idea. If you want to challenge Thornhill, you might want some practice 1st by replying to me! While the z-pinch pushes like charges together, the corollary is that it pushes opposite charges apart. Yes but the matter than makes up the current is only a tiny fraction of the matter that makes up the resultant star. neutral atoms are attracted to electric currents, including birkland currents. It's this filament of neutral matter that gets compressed along with the current in a z pinch. This is because the magnetic fields generated by moving electric charges obey either the left-hand rule (for negative charges) or the right-hand rule (for positive charges). The opposing magnetic fields generate "magnetic pressure" that pushes the opposite charges apart, with the same force that like charges are pushed together. In birkland currents, the opposite charge currents are moving in opposite directions, so the magnetic fields of the 2 currents reinforce each other. This reinforcement pulls the 2 currents close together into a z-pinch. As a consequence, the neutrality necessary for condensed matter is not present anywhere in a z-pinch. The matter of the z-pinch currents and conductor themselves are, taken together, near enough electrically neutral, like the current and the conductor in a copper wire. Along with the neutral matter drawn into the z-pinch, everything is near neutral. You can get nuclear fusion with a sufficiently powerful magnetic field, but you can't get molecules and crystal lattices — it will always be just charge-separated plasma. Thats because plasma is too hot, not because of charge-separation repulsion. If you relax the magnetic field, like charges will repel, and opposite charges will attract. The only way to switch off the magnetic field in a proto-stellar z-pinch is if the cosmic birkland currents gets shut off somehow. At this point, its sensible to consider your point of ionization due to matter compression and the resultant double layers and self electrostatic binding ( gravity perhaps?). If the matter has been compressed enough then the star will be stable in a compressed state, otherwise it'll disperse as you say. I'm sticking with the Z-pinch stellar formation mechanism for now!
'13-01-22, 09:00 meemoe_uk	Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model btw, what are your thoughts of your ionization due compression creating self electrostatic binding being the cause of gravity? I think its worth consideration. If its the cause, then it casts a new ( for me at least! ) and interesting angle to explain gravity. If its correct, then gravity is something thats 'frozen' into a planet or star, and can't be changed easily. Electric events can't change the gravity unless they are strong enough to alter the compression of matter at the core of the star/planet. I can see how a secondary ( after the initial one which created the star/planet ) major z-pinch on the planet/star could compress it's core further, therefore strengthening the gravity there after. But I can't see how the matter in the core could be decompressed. Z-pinches don't decompress matter. Therefore, it looks like gravity change is a one way process, to higher gravity. This suggests that all planet and star gravity can only increase with time. One challenge to this idea for gravity is the micro gravity of small bodies. A comet or asteroid isn't the result of a z-pinch so doesn't have a compressed core, so shouldn't have gravity. Yet I think gravity is detected on them. Maybe micro gravity is just a net result of the micro forces of atomic molecular attraction. It also explains why the Earth's surface has a net negative charge. It's due to a double layer due to it's compressed ionized core.
'13-01-22, 15:02 CharlesChandler	Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model meemoe_uk wrote: Neutral atoms are attracted to electric currents, including Birkeland currents. How is that? meemoe_uk wrote: In Birkeland currents, the opposite charge currents are moving in opposite directions, so the magnetic fields of the 2 currents reinforce each other. This reinforcement pulls the 2 currents close together into a z-pinch. That's not how Birkeland had it. Strictly speaking, a Birkeland current is charged particles moving in an external magnetic field, which experience a Lorentz force that sends them into a spiral. Loosely speaking, a Birkeland current is any moving charges in space. Anyway, you're right, that if the opposite charges are flowing in opposite directions, the magnetic fields will all line up, and everything will get pinched together along the same axis. But it takes relativistic velocities for the z-pinch to become noticeable. If you're talking about opposite charges flowing in opposite directions along the same axis at relativistic velocities, the temperatures will be into the millions of degrees, and the hydrostatic pressure will be respectable. How is that going to produce condensed matter? meemoe_uk wrote: What are your thoughts of your ionization due compression creating self electrostatic binding being the cause of gravity? It isn't that the electric force between charged double-layers creates gravity directly. It's that the electric force consolidates the matter, which increases the density of the gravitational field, which further compresses the matter, increasing the degree of ionization, and thus the force between charged double-layers. So it's a force feedback loop that ultimately stabilizes when the matter is far more dense than it would have been otherwise. The fundamental forces are distinct, but in this case, they happen to work together. meemoe_uk wrote: It also explains why the Earth's surface has a net negative charge. It's due to a double layer due to it's compressed ionized core. Yes.
'13-01-22, 16:41 meemoe_uk	Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model >How is that? The simplest case of charged particles attracting neutral atoms is in electro-statics. rub a balloon on dry hairs and then it will stick to a neutral dry surface. There's a double layer at the contact surfaces. The same thing sorta happens with electric currents, via there magnetic field. A high power electric cable will tend to attract neutral dust more than its surroundings. Most matter when under the influence of a magnetic field, tends to take on similar magnetic properties. The obvious example is non-permanent iron in contact with a magnet, or near a high strength current. The iron will be attracted to the magnet, take on similar magnetic properties of the magnet, and extend the range of the magnet. The same thing happens with most matter, but to a lesser extent. This is what happens around currents thru galactic gas clouds. >The fundamental forces are distinct, but in this case, they happen to work together. I don't think gravity is a fundamental force. I think it's a product of electric forces. If we agree that the force of attraction felt on a planet's surface is partly due to the ionized core induced electro-static double layer, and not fully due to independent gravity, then we might as well try and explain away the remaining gravity with micro electro-magnetic atomic attraction.
'13-01-22, 18:59 CharlesChandler	Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model meemoe_uk wrote: A high power electric cable will tend to attract neutral dust more than its surroundings. OK, but does it attract nitrogen and oxygen from the air, so forcefully that it causes it to condense? No, because nitrogen & oxygen in the air are above their boiling points, so even if they were magnetic, the hydrostatic pressure would still be too great. (Water molecules are diamagnetic, and water vapor does tend to condense in magnetic fields, but only if the air is very near the dew point.) Now, if you have opposite charges traveling in opposite directions at relativistic speeds, everything will get pinched together along the same axis, but the relativistic collisions will put the temperature into the millions of degrees, which is above the boiling point for everything. So I think that you're right in principle, but all factors considered, the z-pinch isn't going to do the job. meemoe_uk wrote: I don't think gravity is a fundamental force. I think it's a product of electric forces. And yet we can take an object here on Earth, and we can give it a slight but nevertheless detectable net charge, either negative or positive, and the object isn't freed from the [mystery force] that's pulling it toward the Earth. So I think that gravity is a force in its own right. It seems to be 39 orders of magnitude weaker than the electric force, so it's only a factor if the EM forces just aren't present. I'll go on to say that at the astronomical scale, a lot of what passes for gravity might actually be the electric force. For example, I don't believe that CDM exists — I think that there is an electrostatic attraction between celestial bodies that accounts for the gravitational anomalies, and without having to invent any Strange New Stuff. But this doesn't mean that gravity reduces to EM. At least that's my take on all of that.
'13-01-22, 21:01 meemoe_uk	Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model >OK, but does it attract nitrogen and oxygen from the air, so forcefully that it causes it to condense? No, because nitrogen & oxygen in the air are above their boiling points, so even if they were magnetic, the hydrostatic pressure would still be too great. Correct, but for cosmic gas clouds, the starting temperature is only 5 Kelvin. In which case these elements would condense a lot easier when concentrated. >everything will get pinched together along the same axis Well, for the non- z-pinch part of the birkeland current, yes the material is filimented onto an axis, however its very tenuous, like spread over 100-10,000AU. At the z-pinch the currents contract down to a few kilometres. This is a effectively a point rather than an axis with respect to the scale of the rest of the birkeland current. Now, if you have opposite charges traveling in opposite directions at relativistic speeds, everything will get pinched together along the same axis, but the relativistic collisions will put the temperature into the millions of degrees, which is above the boiling point for everything Yes but this only applies to the conducting axis of a z-pinch proto-star. Most of the protostar will be many thousands of kilometers away. The main source of heat for the rest of the proto-star will come from thermodynamic compression of a gas. I can see the heat from compression will oppose the compression. A calculation should be done to see if the magnetic field of a z-pinch can overcome the thermal expansion of the gases it is compressing in the theorectical case of a z-pinch protostar. That calculation is beyond me. However, its apparent to me that heat of such gas compression is temporal and so given enough time, a z-pinch protostar isn't prevented from forming by resistance of the gas to compression. The only internal heat source then is the few kilometers wide axial conductor core. However, if the core of the protostar has indeed been formed from heavier elements, such as good electrical conductors like iron and gold, then this reduces the requirement for arc temperature plasma. i.e. as more heavy conducting elements condense at the z-pinch, the required temperature to carry the current should reduce. Gravity And yet we can take an object here on Earth, and we can give it a slight but nevertheless detectable net charge, either negative or positive, and the object isn't freed from the [mystery force] that's pulling it toward the Earth Electro-statics are too smart for that. Its like trying to stand on top of the sea. You can give yourself an initial greater height, but the sea just moves out your way as your stand on it. The Earth is a conductor, the net charge on the surface is like a gas. So if you isolate yourself from it and give yourself a charge, all that will usually happen will be that an equivalent charge moves out from under you. It is possible to electro-statically levitate if you isolate yourself and have a good insulator underneath you, but the charges involved are dangerous. If my theory of your theory being the cause of gravity is correct, a person trying to levitate or escape the Earth's gravity is competing against a 6300km column of Earth underneath them which is ionized and electro-statically double layered due to compression of the core.
'13-01-23, 08:41 CharlesChandler	Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model meemoe_uk wrote: Yes but this [ohmic heating] only applies to the conducting axis of a z-pinch proto-star. Most of the protostar will be many thousands of kilometers away. OK, so now I'm starting to understand that you've got a current running through a filament that's accreting matter outside of the current by the magnetic force. I've heard other conceptions of this, such as particles in a Birkeland current spiraling around a magnetic line of force, and encircling neutrally charged matter. That has its own problems. Then I think that some people just never conceived the thing in physical terms, so they don't have a concept that's specific enough to evaluate. Anyway... meemoe_uk wrote: The main source of heat for the rest of the proto-star will come from thermodynamic compression of a gas. I can see the heat from compression will oppose the compression. A calculation should be done to see if the magnetic field of a z-pinch can overcome the thermal expansion of the gases it is compressing in the theoretical case of a z-pinch protostar. My most sincere compliments to you, as vanishing few people even realize that this is a big problem. The calcs are actually easy to make. The ideal gas laws tell us that the temperature will vary directly with the compression ratio. So all we have to do is find out the original volume and temperature of the dusty plasma that accretes into a star, and compare that to the final volume of the star, to get the compression ratio. Then we just multiply the initial temperature by the compression ratio to get the final temperature. 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. That's right... 1020 K. Think about that for a little while, and let it sink in. That's a huge problem for the standard "hydrostatic equilibrium" model, wherein (supposedly) the force of gravity overpowers the hydrostatic pressure to form a star. We all know that gravity is insufficient to condense gases, but when we look at the actual numbers, it goes from implausible to absurd! Never mind that the actual temperature of the Sun (in the standard model) averages 105 K, which IMO is on the high side. That's still 15 orders of magnitude of missing thermal energy in the standard model! Oops... This led me directly to the consideration of forces far more powerful than gravity for accomplishing the compression of matter into a star. At the macroscopic level, there are only two other forces: the magnetic force, and the electric force. The magnetic force is far more powerful than gravity if it's iron than you're talking about. Other elements and compounds are either diamagnetic (i.e., without a resting magnetic dipole, but capable of becoming polarized in an applied field, and then responding to that field), or non-magnetic. Water molecules are diamagnetic, but the force is extremely weak. So maybe I could see iron getting pulled in by the magnetic force, but not the other elements. So I focused on the electric force. And while only some elements are responsive to the magnetic force, all elements can become electrically charged. So then I started looking for ways of developing and sustaining a charge separation inside the star, such that the electric force between charged double-layers would hold the whole thing together. At first I looked at z-pinches within the star. But at least for the Sun, the velocities are nowhere near sufficient to develop the magnetic field necessary to overcome the expected hydrostatic pressure from the compression. Then I found research indicating that the compression answers its own question, because under extreme pressures, electrons are expelled, leaving positive ions behind, and thus accomplishing a charge separation. Then the electric force pulls everything together. But you need extreme pressures to do this. So how do you get that much pressure? The magnetic force won't do it, and the electric force isn't present yet. I "think" that the only possible answer is the momentum of the imploding dusty plasma. Normally we'd expect an imploding gas/plasma to just bounce off itself, because the momentum would cause the matter to overshoot the hydrostatic equilibrium, developing too much hydrostatic pressure, which would then accelerate everything back out to the distance from which it started. So somehow, something is going on in the compression that violates the ideal gas laws, allowing the matter to clank together, despite the hydrostatic pressure. This can only be evidence of a non-Newtonian force, and which can only be the electric force. Hence the momentum that should have just bounced off of itself and rebounded actually gets converted into electrostatic potential that binds everything together. Here again I "think" that the only possible way to convert hydrostatic potential into electrostatic potential is with compressive ionization. Hence the extreme pressure from the imploding momentum ionizes the matter, and then the electric force latches on and holds the matter together. The amount of energy stored in the Sun's electrostatic potentials is enormous. Remember that the heat sink absorbed 15 orders of magnitude of thermal energy. How do we get that heat back? By charge recombination. When charges are separated like that, the heat gets converted to electrostatic potential, and the "temperature" of the matter actually drops, since the electric force removes all of the degrees of freedom from the particles. If the charges are allowed to recombine, the arc discharges convert the electrostatic potential back into heat. So the conservation of energy runs throughout the entire process. This means that the heat generated by the Sun is that of charge recombination — it's ohmic heating from electric currents. And despite the fact that gravity is the weakest of the forces, it actually still plays an important part in this process, because without it, there would be no concentration of pressure in the core, and this is important. Once the core gets ionized, a negative double-layer forms around it, with all of the electrons that were expelled from the core. The negative double-layer induces a positive charge around the outside of it, and now you have a series of charged double-layers, with electric forces between each one, binding the whole thing together. Without gravity specifying that there has to be a concentration of pressure somewhere in there, the pressure would be the same throughout, and so would the degree of ionization, and that isn't going to set up distinct layers of charge. Since gravity is such a weak force, it takes a lot of it for this to happen. Hence there is a minimum mass for something to become a star. This mass is well-known, having been derived heuristically. But it would be at least theoretically possible to prove that it takes that much mass to get the compression necessary for a star, on the basis of the gravity necessary to create the required degrees of ionization. I'm still working on those calcs. It's a fourth-order tensor, being a non-linear feedback loop between gravity, hydrostatic pressure, electrostatic attraction, and electrostatic repulsion. Ah, if I live long enough... As concerns gravity reducing to the electric force, I think that I see at least some of your point, that the way we measure gravity, we haven't actually isolated it from the electric field. I'll have to think about that one some more...
'13-01-23, 13:08 meemoe_uk	Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model >That's right... 10^20 K. Think about that for a little while, and let it sink in. Well from your simple reasoning I think this quantity is roughly correct. For me this implies the standard EU model of star formation is wrong. A z-pinch concentrating a solar mass from a 1000AU gas cloud would just cause it to thermally explode well before it could condense down to a star. There must be something else going on. The approaches you looked at strike me too much like trying to engineer (trick) physics into creating stars from just a gas nebula and a z-pinch. Here's my idea. There's already a condensed, conductive mass at the centre of a z-pinch beforehand. A large planet perhaps. Planets are born from stars, and then after a while they can possibly drift away from the parent star to wander alone in space. They will be attracted towards cosmic currents and the associated gas nebula. Their conductivity induces large currents to concentratefocus onto them, causing a z-pinch. The intense electromagnetism of the z-pinch will compact the core of the planet, ionizing it, and by my great gravity idea, it'll become a more powerful gravity sink. Gas and dust will naturally fall onto the planet by gravity as it travels about the nebula. More gas falls onto the planet and more z-pinches happen to it, until its big enough to be a star. What a great idea. Rock on.
'13-01-27, 06:47 meemoe_uk	Re: Please Review CC's Electric Sun Model I've been debating on web forums for over a decade. I love it, I've learnt so much from it. Some really smart and knowledgeable people inhabit web forums. I love to pick their brains, debate with them, test them with criticism, and see how they get on in the ocean of nutters that is the internet web forums. In debating with someone in something they feel strongly on, there's a cardinal rule any web debater learns early on. That is : if someone realises they've been outsmarted at their own game, they won't admit it. They just go quiet. They don't reply. I used to 'cheat' at this by going on chess web sites and debated opening moves. Of course I was using a computer, so occasionally I could point out to a chess master they'd got it wrong. Every time they could show my move was flawed, they would quickly reply and add a bit a jab saying I needed to work on my openings or something like that. But when I was right, they simply wouldn't reply. Their pride couldn't face the fact that a freshman layman armed with a computer could correct them at their lifelong pastime. It's the same in every web forum. So excuuuuuuuuse me... but I've just done it again. CC is technically much more expert than me, he's clearly spent hundreds of hours on EU theory. But when he admits to resorting to an exotic mix of mathematic models of gravity, electro-magnetism, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics to try explain spontaneous z-pinch of a gas nebula into a star, he's fallen into the same trap as conventional astrophysics, and has spent the last don't know how many months playing with mixing maths theories just like they do. Fail. There's a much simpler model that he's overlooked. A star starts as a large planet, which provokes cosmic Z-pinches, and therefore attracts matter. There's no need for a single epic, theory bending event, it can be a slower or repeat step process. There's no need for new or exotic mathsphyiscs. The process is already understood and simple. EU theory has just made a step forward. ( unless someone can point me to someone else suggesting this in the past ) and CC was the 1st to congratulate me in the time honoured way of suddenly ignoring me. Just like conventional astrophysicists ignore EU theory. You read it here 1st! Steve smith or lloyd need to inform Wall so he can present it at the next EU conference.