This map illustrates that magnetic fields permeate the universe. We can not see the complete universe, let alone what is beyond, if that is possible. To argue that since we do not know where the source is it is therefore illogical to argue a viable source for EU. There is a huge amount of electrical energy in our local universe. Now, what the electrical energy is can be argued. I submit that all energy and matter/energy comes by way of an aether. That is not provable, but can be inferred. Anyway, the presence of magnetic fields indicates electrical currents. Do you disagree with that?!
Sorry, but saying that The Sun isn't powered by anything! It is a dissipative event still cooling from initial formation is just not accurate. YOU do not know! Do you agree that you do not know for sure!??
""Stars are in LTE according to establishment!"" That is from their model!!!! I do not subscribe to that model!!!! So, again, why is LTE in question with EU model? Explain how EU model of stars violate the 1st law of thermodynamics. And if stars are powered externally, will you agree that they do not violate 1st law?
I see that jw has posted again!!!! :D Babbling about his nonsense, ignoring the obvious, with his head in the sand!
If you can show me how a star is powered externally then I will consider EU's model. Until then, they have yet to dazzle me. *yawn*
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: So does the Sun shine from within? If so, and if convection currents are far too feeble to generate the necessary "power," then the Sun is like a light bulb filament plugged into a wall, powered from without. What other way would there be? Filmamentary superstructures are observed in space from every angle. This network of filaments are plasma structures both ionized and "dark." So yes it is akin to dark energy but this variety is actually detectable. If you can witness cloud to cloud lightning then you are seeing the scaled phenomena of intergalactic power.
My money is on the sun not shining from within as they do on the outside, as I took Mr. Robitaille's argument to heart, you absolutely need a lattice (liquid/solid structure) in order to emit black body radiation. Thus, the Sun could possibly have a liquid surface of iron (his argument is of hydrogen, but hydrogen is too singly ionized, iron has a much lower ionization potential so it would be the lower of the two).
Since the Sun would have a liquid iron shell, then it would mean it does internally radiate because of the intense heat, but it looks very different on the interior of the Sun. In other words, the Sun has a genuine hollow interior.
How this shell collapses is another thing entirely.
I don't really follow much of that above. What does this mean: "My money is on the sun not shining from within as they do on the outside," ??? What are you saying again? Restate it. Much of the above is confusing to read as if you're on Tylenol PM.
JeffreyW wrote: The thin iron liquid surface could easily repair itself from an impact, but would so so in dramatic fashion. It would be suggested to install filters to examine the surface during an impact event, filters that look for the iron only in other words, the hydrogen and helium dogma is nonsense, that star has structure, the plasma/gas only model of the Sun is looking more and more incorrect as I look at Mr. Robitaille's arguments.
Again... huh?
JeffreyW wrote: No EU person has ever convinced me of some "giant intergalactic web" of electricity powering stars that are in later stages of evolution and I don't think they will ever, simply because it violates the conservation of energy.
Does lightning violate the laws of physics?
JeffreyW wrote: A star can be born as energy is absorbed from outside of it in the case of bi-polar emission nebulas which appear as pinched tubes of material, but the idea that stars remain so through their evolution is absurd nonsense.
Huh? WTF does this mean: "A star can be born as energy is absorbed from outside of it in the case of bi-polar emission nebulas".... ?? This whole post is uncharacteristic of your normally articulate writings. You're incoherent today. Are you hung over? Not enough sleep?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: So does the Sun shine from within? If so, and if convection currents are far too feeble to generate the necessary "power," then the Sun is like a light bulb filament plugged into a wall, powered from without. What other way would there be? Filmamentary superstructures are observed in space from every angle. This network of filaments are plasma structures both ionized and "dark." So yes it is akin to dark energy but this variety is actually detectable. If you can witness cloud to cloud lightning then you are seeing the scaled phenomena of intergalactic power.
My money is on the sun not shining from within as they do on the outside, as I took Mr. Robitaille's argument to heart, you absolutely need a lattice (liquid/solid structure) in order to emit black body radiation. Thus, the Sun could possibly have a liquid surface of iron (his argument is of hydrogen, but hydrogen is too singly ionized, iron has a much lower ionization potential so it would be the lower of the two).
Since the Sun would have a liquid iron shell, then it would mean it does internally radiate because of the intense heat, but it looks very different on the interior of the Sun. In other words, the Sun has a genuine hollow interior.
How this shell collapses is another thing entirely.
I don't really follow much of that above. What does this mean: "My money is on the sun not shining from within as they do on the outside," ??? What are you saying again? Restate it. Much of the above is confusing to read as if you're on Dayquil.
JeffreyW wrote: The thin iron liquid surface could easily repair itself from an impact, but would so so in dramatic fashion. It would be suggested to install filters to examine the surface during an impact event, filters that look for the iron only in other words, the hydrogen and helium dogma is nonsense, that star has structure, the plasma/gas only model of the Sun is looking more and more incorrect as I look at Mr. Robitaille's arguments.
Again... huh?
JeffreyW wrote: No EU person has ever convinced me of some "giant intergalactic web" of electricity powering stars that are in later stages of evolution and I don't think they will ever, simply because it violates the conservation of energy.
Does lightning violate the laws of physics?
JeffreyW wrote: A star can be born as energy is absorbed from outside of it in the case of bi-polar emission nebulas which appear as pinched tubes of material, but the idea that stars remain so through their evolution is absurd nonsense.
Huh? This whole post is uncharacteristic of your normally articulate writings. You're incoherent today. Are you hung over? Not enough sleep?
You expect my writings to read like a textbook? Go to school for that and become another parrot. We already have tens of thousands of parrots running about, with the most original stuff they have coming out of their asses.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: So does the Sun shine from within? If so, and if convection currents are far too feeble to generate the necessary "power," then the Sun is like a light bulb filament plugged into a wall, powered from without. What other way would there be? Filmamentary superstructures are observed in space from every angle. This network of filaments are plasma structures both ionized and "dark." So yes it is akin to dark energy but this variety is actually detectable. If you can witness cloud to cloud lightning then you are seeing the scaled phenomena of intergalactic power.
My money is on the sun not shining from within as they do on the outside, as I took Mr. Robitaille's argument to heart, you absolutely need a lattice (liquid/solid structure) in order to emit black body radiation. Thus, the Sun could possibly have a liquid surface of iron (his argument is of hydrogen, but hydrogen is too singly ionized, iron has a much lower ionization potential so it would be the lower of the two).
Since the Sun would have a liquid iron shell, then it would mean it does internally radiate because of the intense heat, but it looks very different on the interior of the Sun. In other words, the Sun has a genuine hollow interior.
How this shell collapses is another thing entirely.
I don't really follow much of that above. What does this mean: "My money is on the sun not shining from within as they do on the outside," ??? What are you saying again? Restate it. Much of the above is confusing to read as if you're on Dayquil.
JeffreyW wrote: The thin iron liquid surface could easily repair itself from an impact, but would so so in dramatic fashion. It would be suggested to install filters to examine the surface during an impact event, filters that look for the iron only in other words, the hydrogen and helium dogma is nonsense, that star has structure, the plasma/gas only model of the Sun is looking more and more incorrect as I look at Mr. Robitaille's arguments.
Again... huh?
JeffreyW wrote: No EU person has ever convinced me of some "giant intergalactic web" of electricity powering stars that are in later stages of evolution and I don't think they will ever, simply because it violates the conservation of energy.
Does lightning violate the laws of physics?
JeffreyW wrote: A star can be born as energy is absorbed from outside of it in the case of bi-polar emission nebulas which appear as pinched tubes of material, but the idea that stars remain so through their evolution is absurd nonsense.
Huh? This whole post is uncharacteristic of your normally articulate writings. You're incoherent today. Are you hung over? Not enough sleep?
You expect my writings to read like a textbook? Go to school for that and become another parrot. We already have tens of thousands of parrots running about, with the most original stuff they have coming out of their asses.
No but what you wrote in reply to my post was unfollowable. You went into things that had no prompting like "liquid iron surface" and "impacts..." And your sentences were not coherent. I asked that you restate what your rebuttals were. For example, "A star can be born as energy is absorbed from outside of it in the case of bi-polar emission nebulas..." is not understandable as an English sentence. Can you clarify? That is all I ask.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: [ No but what you wrote in reply to my post was unfollowable. You went into things that had no prompting like "liquid iron surface" and "impacts..." And your sentences were not coherent. I asked that you restate what your rebuttals were. For example, "A star can be born as energy is absorbed from outside of it in the case of bi-polar emission nebulas..." is not understandable as an English sentence. Can you clarify? That is all I ask.
Okay I will. Give me 2 hours.
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Where is the power source? Where is the Sun receiving its power from?
This is a philosophical question that has no answer. Similar types of questions can be asked of any model that humans can propose. The answer is that human understanding of the universe is limited. We do not how big the universe is, how old it is, or where the power comes from. Everytime technological development has allowed us to look further into the Universe we see more and more large scale structure. Why would we not think that future technology is only going to reveal more and more larger structure? What we do know is what we can presently observe. We do observe filamentary structures; experiments in the lab reveal that this is precisely the form that electric currents take in plasmas. We do observe powerful magnetic fields, which seem to be everywhere and associated with all types of celestial objects and magnetic fields and are the signature of electric currents. Charge separation is observed and most of the universe is a tenuous plasma, not a vacuum. Asking for the source of the power is like asking "why are things the way they are?" Charge separation is there, it is observed. The nature of plasmas can be observed in labs. So, the Electric Universe takes it from there and realizes that questioning the lack of evidence for an ultimate power source is not a valid criticism. Not knowing if or where there is an original power source in no way takes away from the Electric Universe model. The electric currents are there, they are everywhere. Sometimes they can be seen directly in glow or arc mode and other times the magnetic fields give away their presence, the currents being in dark mode. Your denial of their existence puts you in the same boat as mainstream.
Tom Bridgman asked a similar question, Don Scott's reply is here:
WHERE DOES THE ENERGY COME FROM? His question on pg 42, "Where does the energy come from to form these accumulations [of separated charge in space]?" comes full circle back to the argument raised against Birkeland's idea that the auroras are powered by currents from the Sun. On page 21 of The Electric Sky I said: "For decades, students in astronomy classes have been told by their professors, 'There cannot be charge separation in space. Therefore, all proposals of cosmic electrical effects can be safely ignored.' Many astronomy graduate students have heard their professors give the 'teaspoon of salt' lecture. The lecturer takes a teaspoon of salt, holds it up in front of the class, and then asks the students to calculate how much energy it would take to separate one electron from each of the molecules of sodium chloride in the spoon. The answer is horrendously large. 'See,' cries the professor, 'There cannot be charge separation in space. There just isn't enough energy out there to do it.' " But separated charge IS out there; we have measured it. Bridgman will no doubt chastise me for not giving the name, place, and date of the 'Teaspoon of Salt Lecture.' In return I ask Bridgman: Where did all the rotational spin energy (angular momentum) in the universe come from if the Big Bang just blew things radially outward? Everything in the cosmos seems to be spinning, rotating, and revolving. How? Why? Where does the shockingly high energy of cosmic rays come from? (Plasma cosmology has reasonable explanations for these phenomena.) These ought to be easier questions for him to answer than: "Where did the energy to power the Big Bang come from?"
Such questions are beyond the scope of present scientific understanding.
This map illustrates that magnetic fields permeate the universe. We can not see the complete universe, let alone what is beyond, if that is possible. To argue that since we do not know where the source is it is therefore illogical to argue a viable source for EU. There is a huge amount of electrical energy in our local universe. Now, what the electrical energy is can be argued. I submit that all energy and matter/energy comes by way of an aether. That is not provable, but can be inferred. Anyway, the presence of magnetic fields indicates electrical currents. Do you disagree with that?!
Sorry, but saying that The Sun isn't powered by anything! It is a dissipative event still cooling from initial formation is just not accurate. YOU do not know! Do you agree that you do not know for sure!??
""Stars are in LTE according to establishment!"" That is from their model!!!! I do not subscribe to that model!!!! So, again, why is LTE in question with EU model? Explain how EU model of stars violate the 1st law of thermodynamics. And if stars are powered externally, will you agree that they do not violate 1st law?
I asked civil questions and expected a half way intelligent answers. But, again you ignore questions that put you in a corner!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Liquid iron shell is easy to understand. The iron would be really hot so yes it would radiate internally in the infrared. The liquid iron shell is the structure of the star itself followed by consecutive layers of much hotter ionized gases, decreasing in pressure from the liquid shell. The radiation from outside the Sun from our perspective is much brighter and hotter as the corona stretches out significantly away from the Sun.
JeffreyW wrote: The thin iron liquid surface could easily repair itself from an impact, but would so so in dramatic fashion. It would be suggested to install filters to examine the surface during an impact event, filters that look for the iron only in other words, the hydrogen and helium dogma is nonsense, that star has structure, the plasma/gas only model of the Sun is looking more and more incorrect as I look at Mr. Robitaille's arguments.
The real surface of the Sun, underneath all the singly ionized plasma and gases, can be seen if we install a 171 angstrom filter which is sensitive to calcium ferrite. http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/T171_000828.avi
If there is an impact which could break this surface, it would repair itself very quickly. Think of a large rock splashing into a pool. The water engulfs the rock and then collapses upon itself sending up a bunch of water in the opposite direction as the rock came in. In other words, a "flare event" on the Sun is just a meteorite crashing into it. The bigger the meteorite, the bigger the flare. That's all. No magic.
JeffreyW wrote: No EU person has ever convinced me of some "giant intergalactic web" of electricity powering stars that are in later stages of evolution and I don't think they will ever, simply because it violates the conservation of energy.
Lighting is just the ground and the clouds serving as a giant capacitor with very large surface areas and a thick dielectric (air). A dielectric is a resistive substance. So no lightning does not violate our basic physical understanding. But we have a huge problem with saying the sun operates as such. With a dielectric as thick as the solar system, and vacuum being more resistive than even air, we should see lighting arcing from all the way outside of the solar system to the Sun.
But we don't. As a matter of fact we don't even have the Sun sending lightning bolts to Mercury, which means that what ever is making the Sun bright, it is definitely NOT interstellar/interplanetary/intergalactic charge separation. If it was, Mercury and the Sun would have a constant electric arc crossing them, since they don't we can guarantee interplanetary charge separation does not "power" stars. The charge separation meaning voltage drop as well. The bigger the voltage drop, the higher the charge separation. Not to mention, the extreme distances to sustain a charge separation in interplanetary scales are just too great. Charge separation only works for things at a much closer distance given the dielectric's resistance isn't too great, the anodes and cathodes are made of conductive material, and the charge build-up is sufficient. Since the Sun is constantly radiating almost evenly across the entire surface including the poles, there will be no charge buildup to cause arcing to being with. It is releasing its energy at a constant rate, not storing and releasing like a cloud into a lightning bolt or other capacitor-like structure from star to star or star to planet or whatever. The capacitor like behavior is on the Sun itself, meaning the charge separation is on the Sun itself.
JeffreyW wrote: A star can be born as energy is absorbed from outside of it in the case of bi-polar emission nebulas which appear as pinched tubes of material, but the idea that stars remain so through their evolution is absurd nonsense.
A star is born as energy materializes. This energy is pulled in from outer space or "the vacuum", meaning vacuum itself is neither "plasma" or "empty space" it is pure energy, completely massless and so energetic that not even gravitational fields can manipulate it. This energy materializing causes extremely cold temperatures of the surrounding area. I think vacuum is a fifth state of matter, not the "Bose-Einstein" condensate of scientism. (But that's a whole other thing). Remember in thermodynamics heat only flows in one direction from the hotter to the colder, when you have interstellar gases heating up, it will cause the surrounding areas to get really f&^king cold. We have evidence of this in the Bow Tie Nebula, where the coldest temperatures in the universe are measured to be. Thus, the Bow Tie nebula is evidence of a birthing star. I am 100% sure beyond any reasonable doubt that this is what a birthing star looks like, it is a bi-polar emission nebula. I covered this in the book too Viscount.
nick c wrote: This is a philosophical question that has no answer. Similar types of questions can be asked of any model that humans can propose. The answer is that human understanding of the universe is limited. We do not how big the universe is, how old it is, or where the power comes from. Everytime technological development has allowed us to look further into the Universe we see more and more large scale structure. Why would we not think that future technology is only going to reveal more and more larger structure? What we do know is what we can presently observe. We do observe filamentary structures; experiments in the lab reveal that this is precisely the form that electric currents take in plasmas. We do observe powerful magnetic fields, which seem to be everywhere and associated with all types of celestial objects and magnetic fields and are the signature of electric currents. Charge separation is observed and most of the universe is a tenuous plasma, not a vacuum. Asking for the source of the power is like asking "why are things the way they are?" Charge separation is there, it is observed. The nature of plasmas can be observed in labs. So, the Electric Universe takes it from there and realizes that questioning the lack of evidence for an ultimate power source is not a valid criticism. Not knowing if or where there is an original power source in no way takes away from the Electric Universe model. The electric currents are there, they are everywhere. Sometimes they can be seen directly in glow or arc mode and other times the magnetic fields give away their presence, the currents being in dark mode. Your denial of their existence puts you in the same boat as mainstream.
Tom Bridgman asked a similar question.
I am aware of Mr. Bridgman's argument. I think I have spotted the problem:
1. EU takes charge separation as being a real phenomena and firmly places it as being responsible for phenomenon at all distances.
2. Mr. Bridgman's argument is of placing charge separation as not even existing in outer space.
I can see the problem very clearly.
1. EU is partially correct, partially wrong.
2. Mr. Bridgman is just wrong.
Here is the straight skinny:
1. Charge separation does exist, but that depends on three things, the resistance of the dielectric to form the gap for the voltage drop to form, the conductive materials on either side to allow for voltage build-up, and the distance of the dielectric gap.
But to say vacuum (which is an excellent insulator), with gaps of many billions of miles to form an arc between star to star is, well, I'm not going to say it.
We see filamentary structures in outer space because the dielectric (mildly resistive material) is plasma itself! Not vacuum! Plasma is charged particles correct? Vacuum is an absence of charged particles! Vacuum is another thing altogether! IMO the purer the vacuum, the purer the energy (none of it has converted into substance that contains mass). I'm going there because Big Bang doesn't make any sense, it violates the conservation of energy. The vacuum itself has to somehow become matter!
2. Mr. Bridgman considers it okay to violate basic laws of thermodynamics for his understandings to make sense, such as Big Bang, and stellar evolution models which are in LTE, regardless if the Sun is undergoing plasma recombination, and apparently gas deposition (now), and are radiating meaning they are losing mass.
Is is easy to debunk Mr. Bridgman. Lighting. The Earth is in outer space, lighting is on Earth. We're done.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
nick c wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Where is the power source? Where is the Sun receiving its power from?
This is a philosophical question that has no answer. Similar types of questions can be asked of any model that humans can propose. The answer is that human understanding of the universe is limited. We do not how big the universe is, how old it is, or where the power comes from.
I'll grant you that a model that asserts a potential between near and far electrodes doesn't necessarily fail if it cannot provide detailed information on the far electrode, since the model asserts that the far electrode is too far away to measure accurately.
But that doesn't mean that you're totally out of the woods.
What are the expected properties of an electric current at the near electrode (e.g., at the Sun)? Given that the breakdown voltage in space less than 1 V/m, the current should easily graduate to an arc discharge, especially on the surface of the Sun itself, where the current density is greater. In fact, the Electric Sun model explicitly states that the Sun is a sustained arc discharge. But arcs quickly get pinched into narrow discharge channels, where the drift velocity becomes relativistic, and the magnetic pinch effect kicks in. This fact is acknowledged in many aspects of EU theory. So why doesn't the discharge on the surface of the Sun resolve into discrete discharge channels, where all of the charges drift at relativistic velocities? This is not a philosophical question — in the Electric Sun model, the heliosphere should look like a plasma lamp, and no reason is given as to why it doesn't.
As Sparky noted correctly, science attempts to apply some of the following criteria. Here is my evaluation of the EU on these criteria:
Skepticism of unsupported claims
In general, the EU's debunking of mainstream models is good, though it could be better. On closer scrutiny, mainstream models can be thoroughly disproved — not just dismissed due to problems.
Critical thinking
The EU is critical of others, but not of itself.
Relies on evidence and reason
EU theories are not tied directly to observations — they mainly leverage the fallacy of the false dichotomy, in saying that because the mainstream is wrong, and EM is the next likeliest candidate, people should give it a chance. That's true, but on closer scrutiny, the EU models don't offer much specificity beyond the opening epiphanies.
Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge
I don't knock off points for over-assertiveness, because clearly stated contentions are easier to evaluate. Open-mindedness is a virtue, but cloaking statements in obtuse CYA-speak is not.
Produces useful knowledge
It's too early to tell.
Testability: Performs controlled experiments
EU models ignore the available evidence. For example, the Electric Sun model can't explain why the Sun doesn't look like a plasma lamp.
Attempts to repeat experimental results.
The attempts that have been made (e.g., the blueberry experiment) did not display critical reasoning.
Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis
Fail — when questioned, EU proponents merely give "flood" responses, citing more examples that could be considered evidence of its assertions, never considering the flip side, that they might actually be missing something.
Self-correcting
Fail — problems have been identified, but no attempt has been made to fix them.
The last couple of problems do not speak so well to the EU's existing position, but rather, to where it's headed, and are, in fact, the most serious problems of all. Being wrong is a short-term problem. Not wanting to get right is a long-term problem.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
What are the expected properties of an electric current at the near electrode (e.g., at the Sun)? Given that the breakdown voltage in space less than 1 V/m, the current should easily graduate to an arc discharge, especially on the surface of the Sun itself, where the current density is greater. In fact, the Electric Sun model explicitly states that the Sun is a sustained arc discharge. But arcs quickly get pinched into narrow discharge channels, where the drift velocity becomes relativistic, and the magnetic pinch effect kicks in. This fact is acknowledged in many aspects of EU theory. So why doesn't the discharge on the surface of the Sun resolve into discrete discharge channels, where all of the charges drift at relativistic velocities? This is not a philosophical question — in the Electric Sun model, the heliosphere should look like a plasma lamp, and no reason is given as to why it doesn't.
I've always considered outer space to be an excellent vacuum. 25,000 volts per inch of breakdown voltage, which would translate to ~1,000,000 volts per meter, much different than 1V/m. Where did you get that number Charles?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Great assessment, Charles...
The EU is critical of others, but not of itself.
There are exceptions. And it depends on who you include in the EU. If EU includes you.....?
Would it be possible for you to present views at one of their conferences?
EU theories are not tied directly to observations — they mainly leverage the fallacy of the false dichotomy, in saying that because the mainstream is wrong, and EM is the next likeliest candidate, people should give it a chance. That's true, but on closer scrutiny, the EU models don't offer much specificity beyond the opening epiphanies.
This is still a very young discipline, and it is evolving.
EU models ignore the available evidence. For example, the Electric Sun model can't explain why the Sun doesn't look like a plasma lamp.
Interesting! Would your model present a sun as a plasma lamp?
The attempts that have been made (e.g., the blueberry experiment) did not display critical reasoning.
Maybe an inflow of money would open that field up?
Fail — when questioned, EU proponents merely give "flood" responses, citing more examples that could be considered evidence of its assertions, never considering the flip side, that they might actually be missing something.
That will be corrected when the population of EU theorists expands. Example: You! Charles should be included in the camp of theorists.! Wal and the others are probably overwhelmed with input from well meaning people, but could use you as a filter/buffer, to evaluate down to the most promising of the suggestions...
It was once thought that "cold, non-radiating matter", such as burned-out stars, or large planets exert forces on galactic structures. These "normal" but invisible structures were called MAssive Compact Halo Objects (MACHOs). Telescopes looked for stellar occultations caused by MACHOs. However, years of investigation returned no discoveries.
Strange! They found no burned out stars or large planets!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:
What are the expected properties of an electric current at the near electrode (e.g., at the Sun)? Given that the breakdown voltage in space less than 1 V/m, the current should easily graduate to an arc discharge, especially on the surface of the Sun itself, where the current density is greater. In fact, the Electric Sun model explicitly states that the Sun is a sustained arc discharge. But arcs quickly get pinched into narrow discharge channels, where the drift velocity becomes relativistic, and the magnetic pinch effect kicks in. This fact is acknowledged in many aspects of EU theory. So why doesn't the discharge on the surface of the Sun resolve into discrete discharge channels, where all of the charges drift at relativistic velocities? This is not a philosophical question — in the Electric Sun model, the heliosphere should look like a plasma lamp, and no reason is given as to why it doesn't.
I've always considered outer space to be an excellent vacuum. 25,000 volts per inch of breakdown voltage, which would translate to ~1,000,000 volts per meter, much different than 1V/m. Where did you get that number Charles?
I mean, could a mistake in translation be made? I mean 1V/m looks very similar to 1MV/m.
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Charles Chandler wrote: •Critical thinking ◦The EU is critical of others, but not of itself.
Since when is that a requirement? It is up to others to criticize.
•Relies on evidence and reason ◦EU theories are not tied directly to observations — they mainly leverage the fallacy of the false dichotomy, in saying that because the mainstream is wrong, and EM is the next likeliest candidate, people should give it a chance. That's true, but on closer scrutiny, the EU models don't offer much specificity beyond the opening epiphanies.
Of course attacks are going to be devoted to mainstream. What else is there? Did you ever play "king of the mountain" as a child? The one at the top of the hill is always the focus of the attack!
•Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge ◦I don't knock off points for over-assertiveness, because clearly stated contentions are easier to evaluate. Open-mindedness is a virtue, but cloaking statements in obtuse CYA-speak is not.
I do not know what this means?
•Testability: Performs controlled experiments ◦EU models ignore the available evidence. For example, the Electric Sun model can't explain why the Sun doesn't look like a plasma lamp.
Bad example. Plasma lamps display filamentary structure which is expandable to scale. The EU identifies this as Birkeland currents. The Sun is contained within one of these galactic filaments, furthermore features on the Sun itself display these "ropes" or filaments. The EU does address this extensively. As far as the Sun appearing as a filament instead of ball, well there is no requirement for that, it is your own strawman. A better example would be the Birkeland terella experiment which displayed most of the features of the Sun. Note the terella experiment was powered by an external electric current.
•Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis ◦Fail — when questioned, EU proponents merely give "flood" responses, citing more examples that could be considered evidence of its assertions, never considering the flip side, that they might actually be missing something.
Wrong, Thornhill has proposed an "experimentum cruscis". This can be found on the Holoscience site.
•Self-correcting ◦Fail — problems have been identified, but no attempt has been made to fix them.
The last couple of problems do not speak so well to the EU's existing position, but rather, to where it's headed, and are, in fact, the most serious problems of all. Being wrong is a short-term problem. Not wanting to get right is a long-term problem.
I answered this on another thread. see below: "No, the problem is with your choice of venue for expressing your concerns and attacks on the EU. This forum is not the place for one to expect to engage in debate with Scott, Thornhill, and other EU theorists. They simply do not come here and are probably not even aware of your criticisms. You may as well be yelling out your criticisms in your backyard, no one is gong to answer, except maybe an annoyed neighbor.
The forum is now, for all practical purposes, functioning as an introduction to newcomers to discussions of EU related issues. When the forum started circa 2007 it was a place that was visited by the TB team, but over the years it came to be realized that the venue was not conducive to debate due to the inherent flaws in the setup ..... this is basically a "coffee shop" where people curious and interested in the EU can sit and have informal discussions related to the EU. Anyone can chime in at any time and those talking softly can be shouted down, issues are raised and never answered, and so on. That is the limitation of the venue.
So, if you want your criticisms answered then you should publish them in a more suitable venue. I am not asking you to stop posting here, I am just telling you that your expectation of engaging in a debate with Scott or Thornhill on this forum is highly unlikely and not a reasonable expectation on your part. Thinking that they are going to come here to answer your posts is incredibly naïve on your part. They do not regard this forum as a proper venue for debate, and justifiably so.
You need to write and publish papers in a scientific format (perhaps on a website of your own) with specific criticisms directed at the EU. These papers must attract the attention of various EU opponents who will cite your papers in their attacks on EU. Perhaps you could link or send a copy of your papers to someone like Bridgman, Nereid, or some other opponent of EU theory who can cite your work in their published or circulated criticisms. Exposure of the ideas through this process will compel EU theorists to eventually respond. Both Thornhill and especially Scott have shown a willingness to respond to criticisms with their own rebuttal papers. I am sure that if your points of contention were to be presented in this manner and presented by opponents as the coup de gras for EU theory, then there would have to be answers."
Not enough sleep?
