home
 
 
 
Prove Cathode Sun Model
© Lloyd
 

G: Prove the Sun is a cathode to the EU team. The first part is from the Electric Sun Discussions. After that is the Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun discussion. Both are from the TB forum.

Thanks for the lead,  Brant. Now you just need to spell out all of the details so us amateurs can understand the implications, and then even the EU team will have to cave. Si?


 So, Charle s, I'm thinking that, if we target the lower echelons first, as well as Dave Talbott, we can prove the cathode model enough to stop the train. Talbott will at least listen for a while anyway.  So I'd like to develop an ironclad ca se. To do that, pre sumably all that's needed is to show enough details of both models and contrast them side-by-side.


I went through the Electric Sun Discussions pretty thoroughly now and came up with 24 points suggestive of the Sun being a cathode. I'm showing them below and also on the webpage:

Prove Cathode Sun Model.


 I'm also including some questions after the 24 points. I think it will take quite a few more questions and answers to make the cathode case ironclad, but not that many more.


Can you guys add details for any of these arguments to help clinch them?
(Should we have a Google Doc discussion or something on these points?)

The sun must not be an anode, because:

_1. the surface of the photosphere would be of negative charge and would not have a sharp or distinct boundary, because electrons would repel each other;
_2. a very strong magnetic field would be detected in the flow of electrons from the interplanetary medium into the Sun;
_3. the sunward flow of electrons would look like earthly lightning strikes, pinching down at the solar surface, or like in a plasma ball, instead of helmet streamers that pinch away from the surface in the opposite direction at the top of the corona;
_4. coronal loops would not be able to rise up above the photosphere;
_5. Birkeland's cathode terella would not have been able to duplicate all of the solar features;
_6. the Sun would not have cathode features;
_7. it would not have sunspots, which are cathode spots;
_8. it would not have flares, which are discharges between sunspots;
_9. Birkeland's terella would not have had loops like coronal loops;
_10. electrons would flow into the Sun and protons would flow out, instead of both particles flowing out as in Birkeland's terella;
_11. if current flowed only into the Sun, it would be a mere resistor in the galactic circuit, which would not produce so many neutrinos; and there'd be no source for the galactic circuit, if stars don't power it;
_12. the solar wind conforms to an Arc Cathode paper's findings;
_13. the photosphere has extremely low eV temperature (.6 eV) and the corona has high eV temperature (~100 eV);
_14. Scott or someone would have worked out the schematic drawings for the solar instantiation of the PNP transistor by now;
_15. if the photosphere charge was negative, considering the conductivity of the plasma, it wouldn't exert a body force on the plasma itself; it would just strip off the electrons;
_16. there are plenty of references to "electron strahl", which are beams of electrons leaving the Sun and are typically found at the tips of helmet streams and in spicules;
_17. the only construct that can produce the full compliment of observed properties of the Sun is that [of] the Sun as a cathode emitting 2.93×10^15 A which causes 4.99×10^24 W of ohmic heating.
_18. particles accelerate going away from the Sun, not toward it;
_19. the photons that are emitted by a cathode electron zipping past a nucleon without recombining are different from the photons emitted by anode electron uptake
_20. the sun, like a cathode, possesses an ionized atmosphere;
_21. Milton said spicules are huge fountains that spit electrons high into the corona
_22. when counter-streaming electrons toward the sun were observed, it was the exception rather than the rule
_23. electrons are able to rise, spiral and ramp up the magnetic field to form sunspots
_24. positive charged CMEs would be more attracted to the denser negative charged photosphere, if it were an anode, than to the thin supposedly incoming streaming electrons


Can you guys answer these questions for me, or think of better questions?
1_. Do you all agree that granules are cathode tufts, rather than anode tufts, or something else?
2_. MM, can you document all of Birkeland's terella findings that support the cathode Sun model?
3_. CC et al, what's the evidence that the IPM is positive-charged?
4_. Is Milton right that "The solar gas shows an increasing percentage of ionized-to-neutral atoms with altitude"? If so, is it because the IPM is positive charged?
5_. Can Scott's PNP photosphere graph apply to a positive charged photosphere? Here'
s his diagram. 


Energy, electric field strength, and charge density as a function of radial distance from the Sun's surface

Fig. 12. Energy, electric field strength, and charge density as a function of radial distance from the Sun's surface. Illustration from Don Scott's book The Electric Sky.


6_. I
s Michael's point worth including, that, if stars are electrically connected, they must generate the electric currents that connect them, since there are no other known candidates?

← PREV Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite®
© 2010~2017 SCS-INC.US
UP ↑