I think electric universe proponents defer to the plasma universe folk. I don't know much about the issue myself, but will extract a quote from Anthony Peratt's book, Physics of the Plasma Universe, who writes:

"Colgate (1990) points outs that because of the high anisotropy of any shock wave acceleration together with the complete lack of any laboratory evidence that shock-wave/charge particle acceleration actually exists, that field-aligned electric fields are the most plausible mechanism for producing cosmic rays."

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

My book about Plasma Physics (Kulsrud, PLasma Physics for Astrophysics) does not agree. In the chapter "Cosmic Rays" it shows that shock acceleration is a viable origin for cosmic rays, despite the anisotropy of the shockwave acceleration.
It also provides a reference:
R. Blandford and D. Eichler, "Particle acceleration at astrophysical shocks: A theory of cosmic ray origin", Physics Reports, Volume 154, Issue 1, October 1987, Pages 1-75

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Unfortunately, if you really want to view the situation like that, you will have to assume that the sun was created a large blob of ions without electrons. For radial inflow of the electrons to the sun to continue at the rate mentioned, I do not think you can drive the "electric sun" for 4.5 billion years.

But then I assume you will come up with the idea that the situtation can be reversed.

However, if the sun works as a large capacitor, pulling electrons in, depleting the charge in the sun, there will be no current in the sun to drive it. The electric sun can only be driven if there is a closed circuit where you can apply the equation we started with. Unless you want to claim that all energy is disspated in the "double layer" outside the "surface" of the sun (like in the pic in the link to Juergen somewhere above), but that gives other problems, because then all energy of the sun is produced in a very diffuse plasma of the corona. So, I guess we can drop this method of driving the sun.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

And in any case, we have the equivalent of a radial inflow (into the Sun) of positive ions, a flow which seems to have been around for a very long time (per tracks in meteorites and Moon rocks) .... they're called cosmic rays.

Whatever mechanisms there might be to create some cosmic charge differences (and so far as I know no EU proponent has come up with any that are even 0.1% plausible, let alone are backed by solid observational and experimental results), surely the greater challenge for EU proponents is to find mechanisms that will maintain these charge differences, over billions of years, over billions of light-years.

Why not? The Sun is merely electron deficient compared to it's surroundings, for the Sun to "wink out" it is only necessary to stop the current flowing, which is part of the current flow in the galaxy as a whole. Energy enough I'd say.

Reversed? I don't think so, but variability is almost a certainty.

I'm not sure, but I think the Sun is not changing it's charge, it is merely dissipating the available energy.

I don't understand exactly why you assume the Sun is producing it's energy only in the corona, the whole solar surface (to at least "sunspot depth") is included as well. Why would this be a problem?

Cheers.

You miss the point here. Assuming the model is right, and only inflow of electrons takes place over the whole sphere, at the rate calculated above, then 4.5 billion years would ask for an enormous amount of charge. Do the calculation, VanderL, you know the current of this model, and assume 4.5 billion years of electron inflow. Then take the mass of the sun, assume only hydrogen, and see if the inflown charge can be contained in the sun. For simplicity we will also assume that the sun kept the same power output over its lifetime.

If the charge in the sun is depleted, the flow stops, the sun goes out, unless you change the flow and start sending out electrons. NOTE that we are discussing here the model in which the sun is a capacitor and radial inflow of electrons is driving the sun. We are not discussing the other model, the Alfven current circuit.

As above, we were discussing the capacitor sun, with radial inflow. In that model the sun cannot but discharge.

Here I took the picture of the Juergens paper. There he has an electric field only outside the sun. Therefore, I assume for this model that the sun would only produce energy in its outer layers. The currents would be dissipated in the electric field that he shows out there.

NOTE: I do not adhere to this model, but I do like to discuss it and show the difficulties that it presents.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

These ions dont specifically aim for the SUN. they go everywhere.

Difficult to find refererence for cosmic rays fluxes , this one has a good graph. :http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/balloon.asp

For 1 Gev rays the flux is only 10⁴ positive ions by second and M2.

Do you have a number for the cumulated flux because it seems to me it is much less important than the decharge flux of electrons needed by the electric sun theory.

Anyway if positive ions are energetic enough to reach the sun they will add to the sun charge and not cancel it. So i dont see your point .

Regards
Galacsi

Indeed. However, some most certainly do 'dump' into the Sun.I'll take a look, but this seems to be as good a place to start as any.You are likely correct.

My point was not so much that CRs are important, as that - AFAIK - no EU proponent has even considered them (if only to show that they are irrelevant).Partly a challenge to EU proponents - what is the basis for the claim that there is an inflow of electrons? Why do they exclude an outflow of electrons, or an inflow of positive charges? By these questions, I mean to ask about both their 'theory' (it still give me an odd feeling to use this word in conjuction with an idea whose proponent have still, after 30+ years, not been able to come up even OOMs, much less equations) and the observational basis for their claims.

Yes it is a quantitative question to debate further.

May be it is my poor command of english , but i fear i don't undestand what you mean.

I have no personal idea where the energy is released. Logic drive me to say it is released where we see the sun shining most : granules.
About "double layer" , it seems to be a mantra for the EU proponents. Me i am an agnostic on the subject.
I still see no necessity for a closed circuit , if we consider the electric sun theory then the sun is just a slowly leaking capacitor , loosing its charge and producing energy in the process. It is not a motor and it is not "driven".
On the other hand inside the sun there must be some current at least to bring charges to the surface.

I think it is a fair question.

A short answer may be is that it is related to the way the sun charge has been built. Charge separation works like this and not like that ? Hum !

I will go to bed on this.

Regards
Galacsi

Philip K. Dick: Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Cosmic ray generation in z-pinches.

http://icrc2005.tifr.res.in/htm/PAPE...-og12-oral.pdf

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

A.A. Petrukhin, Cosmic ray spectrum above 10^15 eV (a new approach):
What about cosmic rays with energy below 10^15 eV?

By the way, you have not addressed this post.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Thinking about it , it is obvious we can exclude an inflow of positive charges or an outflow of electrons because of experimental evidence.
A protons flux or heavier ions directed to the sun is easy to detect and nobody ever detect it . And in case of an outflow of electrons we must have an inflow of positive particules associated , it is simple electrostatic.
And after all ,most currents are made of electrons because they are much more mobile than positive ions.
So in my mind the case is settled.

On the contrary (electron inflow) we dont have experimental evidence of existence of absence. Of course there is a known outflow of positive charges within the solar wind but it is said to be neutral. The inflow of electrons necessary to the ESUN seems too small to be detected.
So the game is not over!

Regards
Galacsi

An after thought about inflow of electrons needed by the ESUN Theory :

From what i have read , proponent of the theory recognise that some fusion do occurs in the sun , not in the core but at the surface.These fusion reactions produce the neutrinos detected on earth. So as the neutrinos are about one third of the expected number in case fusion powered the whole sun , one can deduct ; one third of the sun energy don't come from the inflow of electrons . So this inflow needs only to be 2/3 of what it was hypothised.

Here are some quotes from one of the papers you posted.


"On a time scale of hours, large amplitude solar wind irregularities are generally collisionless hydromagnetic fluctuations. They may be either propagating waves or plasma variations that are at rest with respect to the solar wind. Many such structures can be identified as Alfvén waves, or tangential or rotational discontinuities. |"

"Ion distributions range from isotropic Maxwellian to multiple streaming distributions. Electron distributions appear to be bi-Maxwellian with enhanced heat flux extensions along the magnetic field at higher energies. The distributions can often be modelled in terms of two relatively convecting components carrying significant amounts of free energy."

"Instead, the distributions can frequently be best described in terms of two separate solar wind streams flowing together with somewhat different speeds. For such cases, the spectra reveal two components, usually incompletely resolved, which drift relative to one another at approximately the local Alfvén speed."


"Solar wind electron velocity distributions measured in the ecliptic are complex, usually exhibiting a central, low energy 'core' distribution embedded in a higher energy 'halo' distribution.
Most often, a beamed, unidirectional heat flux component is also present in the distributions, carrying energy from the hot corona out into the colder interplanetary space along the interplanetary magnetic field. Sometimes, the heat flux is observed to be counter-streaming, or bidirectional, due to unusual coronal/solar wind conditions, such as the presence of CMEs propagating past the spacecraft (S/C)."



Yes it has. Debunking doesnt change reality.
As far as I can tell the opticaly opaque photosphere model is based on the fusion model which I think is wrong.
I think that Fe171, 192 pictures are of the surface of the sun underneath the photosphere where loops originate.

As these are.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T1...017_033928.jpg
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif


Everything that is imaged in 171,192 has iron in it. That is the only time you can see it. Ionized. The sun is made of iron which conducts electricity from the poles to the equator. It doesnt affect plasma except for the e-field and magnetic field that the current flow generates.

From the pictures, solid until ionized from the surface.

Since the sun is solid it would be cooler below the surface, I would think below the curie point, there by maintaining the magnetic properties.
It could be magnetic or non magnetic, it will still carry a current that has a magnetic field.

Magnetostrictive iron is usually an rare earth alloy of some sort to improve the response. Iron still has these properties on its own. I dont know what the composition of the suns iron is since the data interpeted to be something that it isnt any way.

I'm sure youve looked at this.
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/birkeland/

Whatever the current density of a loop is, millions of amps.

Yes. I guess it didnt work with you.


Why does anybody make a hypothetical claim?

What would you like to see? A Birkeland current that goes from the Galactic Core to our sun?


I have no idea. It was just a guess.

I have no idea. I dont know.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

Do some density calculations on the sun. After 'proving' it has an iron surface, calculate and explain what lies beneath that iron surface. I smell pie.

Okay, lemme do this for Upriver:

Radius of the sun: 7 10⁸ m
Mass of the sun: 2 10³⁰ kg
Average density: 1410 kg m^-3
Density of iron: 8 10³ kg m^-3

So we take a shell of iron of thickness D and calculate how heavy it is.
Volume is 4 pi R² D (when the thickness is much smaller than the radius of the Sun).

V = 4 pi R² D = 6 10¹⁸ D m[sup3[/sup] = A D

Knowing the density of iron and the volume with parameter D and the mass of the Sun we can get an estimate of how thick the iron layer can be:

D = M / A*Fe = 2 10³⁰ / 6 10¹⁸ * 8 10³ = 41 10⁶ m

Well, here we see that the iron shell in the Sun is only 6% of the radius of the Sun.

I assume that the inside of the shell is filled with cheese :-)

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

As I've pointed out many times, the solar neutrino "problem" galacsi is referring to here was resolved by the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in 2002-2004. The problem was that early neutrino experiments could only detect one "flavor" of neutrino, the electron-neutrino. SNO was sensitive to the other two flavors (mu and tau neutrinos). They were able to detect the missing neutrinos and demonstrate that the total neutrino flux is consistent with the energy output predicted by the standard solar model (and by the way confirm that neutrinos oscillate between flavors and therefore have mass). So any ATM idea (such as Manuel's "iron sun") that depended on the solar neutrino problem is contradicted by observation. (that is, to say, wrong.) Therefore, galacsi, you will have to find another justification for your hypothesis.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

I think this is a little over-interpretation of the data, I thought that neutrino oscillations also introduced new problems. Further, the way I understand it, the "flavor" of the neutrinos that are produced also depends on which fusion reaction is considered. If the Sun is not a ball of hydrogen fusing protons at it's core, all bets are off. You're right that the neutrino problem can't be used as justification for an alternative model, but any new model must be considered on it's own merits. If the alternative model doesn't say anything about what fusion reactions can be expected in which amounts, the neutrino data can't be used to disprove it either.

Cheers.

P.S. The Iron Sun and neutrinos have been discussed elsewhere.

Yes, but galsci brought it up in a way that indicated that he was not familiar with the current research. For someone proposing an alternative this is unacceptable. I suggest you read up on it as well as your post indicates you do not fully understand what's going on here. The sun produces only electron neutrinos in the fusion process in its core. The flux produced is predicted by the standard solar model. Early experiments tried to detect this flux but found only 1/3 the predicted amount. They were sensitive only to nu-e, however, leaving open the possibility that the remaining 2/3 oscillated to nu-mu and nu-tau flavors during their transit from the sun to the earth. SNO was sensitive to all three flavors and measured the total solar neutrino flux. The total of all three flavors, is consistent with the predictions of the solar model. Problem resolved.

Yes, the discovery of neutrino oscillations poses some problems for the standard model of particle physics (which originally predicted them to be massless) but it does not effect the solar models many electric sun types criticize. They still work equally well with either massive or massless neutrinos.

So, I stand by my earlier statement. Any alternative hypothesis of solar physics that ignores the resolution of the solar neutrino problem has failed to consider new research and observation and is contradicted by those observations. If your alternative hypothesis does not predict the same, observed, neutrino flux it is either in need of modification or, more likely, wrong. I've seen more than one electric/iron sun type try to hand wave their way out of this: Mozina, Sparky56 (aka soupdragon2) among others. I'm not going to stand by in this thread and let the same thing happen.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

And how exactly are any of these quotes relevant to the discussion?
Do you think that quote-mining supports you position?


The idea of a solid iron in the Sun does not correspond to reality, despite misinterpretations of the evidence.
And you have a history of misinterpreting the evidence (remember the "tubes" of neutral Helium).


You think?
Based on what?

How exactly do you relate the pictures taken at those lines with solid iron?


Again, where is the evidence that there is enough Iron to have any effect on the fields and plasma?
The answer requires a quantitative estimate of the amount of Iron in the Sun.


How exactly do you relate the pictures taken at those lines with solid iron?


This is just handwaving.
The spectrum of the Sun correspond to a blackbody at about 6000 K.
How is this compatible with a solid Iron surface?


Show that the "mainstream" interpretation is wrong.


Do you realize that there have been important advances in physics and astronomy in the last hundred years?


You try to support the EU view that there is a charge transfer between Sun and interstellar space.
What would be the net current?
And you have not answered this:

You just admitted that you tried to avoid addressing direct questions.


You keep throwing around links and "hypothetical claims", hoping that something will stick.
Do you expect to be taken seriously?

Simply direct answers to direct questions.

So, you cannot support your claim. Why did you present it then?

If you don't know how a link is relevant to the discussion, you should not present it.

By the way, you have not addressed this post:

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

This a magnificent site , sure .But i must confess i undestand nothing about the demonstration above. Maybe neutrinos fluctuate from one flavor to an other but i still wait for a clear explanation why one can say all the neutrinos have been found.it seems like an oversimplification to me. Each time i ask for an explanation somebody just throw at me some indeciferable links . May be the problem is with my thick head or maybe not ; i dont know. but for me it is not an observation just a very popular mainstream explanation.

If you would like to learn more about neutrinos, oscillations, the 'solar neutrino problem' (now mostly historical), etc, please start a thread in BAUT's Q&A section.

I hope you recognise that this topic is quite challenging, and that to fully appreciate it, you really do need to learn some quantum theory (with all the weirdness that that will involve).

But, there's another way to approach it - come up with an alternative explanation! (Of course, should you choose to present that here, then you must be prepared to defend your alternative idea).

Really? Can I call my own witnesses?
LOLOLOL
I will try to answer your questions more honestly and perfectly and directly and with a little less levity next time.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

hey boys look at this research also...
http://super-fluid-universe.8m.com/

Care to elaborate how your research has any bearing on this discussion? I don't want to wade through the whole page. It has a very annoying Javascript popup as well.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Well, I will admit that the SNO site is aimed at an audience of physicists such as myself, and not at the general public. Perhaps a better link to post would be this one which is a description of the experiment from the AIP Physics News Update site. The pertinent quote.
The bolding above is my emphasis. I don't see how it could be stated much more clearly. Again let me state that the solar neutrino problem has been resolved and any alternative hypothesis must take that into account. If it predicts only 1/3 the observed flux, it is wrong or in need of modification.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

Welcome to BAUT, hegne!

Would you please take the time to read the BAUT rules? In particular, there is a section on guidelines for posting to this ATM section. One of those is "[...] keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed."

You already have a thread in the ATM section on your ideas; the Electric Universe ideas are not a subset of yours, nor a superset, so your intrusion into this thread is a violation of our rules.

We do hope you stick around here in BAUT; making sure that you stick to our guidelines for posting will help ensure that your participation is both productive and rewarding.

Galasci (and other interested parties) I suggest you watch the current epidode of NOVA on PBS. It's entitled "The Ghost Particle." It's a description of Pauli's prediction of the neutrino, its eventual discovery, the solar neutrino "problem" that followed and its resolution by SNO. This is how science is really done.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

We are having 2 discussions. One about the solar "wind" and if it was an electric current or not. The other is about the circuit that the electric sun is a part of.
This says there are Alfven waves. Like I said. Also that there are three diffent particle velocities, which I think pertains to the discussion of the solar wind.
And the there is something about bi-directional flow, which was also mentioned in this thread that you wanted to see the references.

I think that quotes support my position but quote-mining does not.
Next time I will read the quotes, put them in my words and refer to the author.

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul