Logo
Search this site
Navigation
*
An Exposé In Cosmology
*
Updates
*
What We Don't Know
*
What We Do Know
*
Philosophy
*
The Editor's Musings
*
Real Science In The Press
*
Links To Insanity
*
Resources
*
Peer Reviewed Papers In Cosmology
*
Multi Media
*
General Comments
*
About The Editor
*
Political Ranting
*
Sitemap
Forums
Discussion of Electric Cosmology on the Thunderbolts Forums
My Posts On ATS
My Political Blog
Disclaimer
*My videos and web site are not affilitated with the Thunderbolts
project or any other person, entity,
product, or organization. The opinions expressed here are my own.
I make no profits from this web site and charge no fees. This site is
purely an informational resource and a platform for my opinions. Any
works posted here that are not my own are fully referenced to the source
documentation and author. Any copyrighted works are taken in excerpt,
referenced, and used under fair use rules.
The Editor's Musings >
Criticism of the Electric Sun Model
NOTICE
Anthony Peratt's site, which hosted many documents, is down for some
reason.
If you received an email from me, a copy of that email with working
links to Peratt's papers can be found here
.
A mirrored archive of Peratt's papers can be found here
.
*A layman's overview of the Electric Sun Model:*
* Don Scott's model laid out for the layman here
.
* A layman's overview of the model and the reasons behind it can be
seen in this 8 minute
video by Thornhill and Scott.
* Thornhill further expounds on the electric solar model here
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Electric Sun Models:*
Juergens's model:
*Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part I)*
*Ralph E. Juergens Kronos Vol. VIII No. 1*
Part 1
Part 2
Alfven's model:
*Cosmic Plasma*
Hannes Alfven, academic book
Scott's model:
*A Solar Junction Transistor Mechanism*
Scott, D.E, 17-22 June 2007, IEEE Pulsed Power Plasma Science,
10.1109/PPPS.2007.4346305
Scott gives a large amount of supporting evidence in favor of his
model here .
Thornhill's model:
*The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars
Thornhill, W.
*Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
*35 Issue:
4
**Aug.
2007
10.1109/TPS.2007.895423
*****
*
*
Wu's model:
*An electrically powered binary star?*
Kinwah Wu (1,2), Mark Cropper (2), Gavin Ramsay (2), Kazuhiro
Sekiguchi (3) ((1) Univ Sydney, (2) MSSL, (3) NAOJ
Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 331 (2002) 221
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Bad Astronomy forums there exists a supposed refutation of the
electric sun model posted by Tusenfem, a moderator of those boards. His
post can be found here
.
Don Scott has posted a rejoinder to these arguments that I feel deserves
its own web page. Before I get into Scott's rejoinder to BAUT, I'll
include a few responses by Scott to others who have made
arguments against the Electric Star theory:
Don Scott's rejoinder to Tim Thompson
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.pdf
Don Scott's reply to Tom Bridgman
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/RebutTB.pdf
Don Scott's rejoinder to BAUT (formulas not displayed correctly on this
page):
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1474#wrap
A casual reading of this mathematical attempt to falsify the Electric
Sun hypothesis reveals several misstatements, and unsupported assumptions.
1. Juergens hypothesized a solar voltage = 10^10 V, not 10^9. The exact
value is of course conjectural. But if you are going to claim you are
refuting Juergens, you ought to at least quote him correctly.
2. Therefore, the writer’s stated required current value is wrong (too
high) by a factor of ten (if he is claiming to refute Juergens).
Juergens’ total current value is 4 x 10^16 A. But these exponential
magnitudes are just guesses at present.
3. His (the writer’s) assumption that the required current has to be in
the form of an equatorial sheet having a thickness equal to the Sun's
diameter is pure conjecture and not related to anything Juergens ever
suggested. Juergens never claimed the solar electric current was
confined to an equatorial sheet.
4. Imposing structural details of Alfvén’s model onto Juergen’s model is
unwarranted. But even Alfvén suggested his proposed current sheet was
only partially equatorial. Alfvén, of course, never suggested the Sun is
fully externally powered. So mixing the two models is completely
inappropriate.
Alfvén’s contention was that there is substantial electrical activity
near to the Sun that explains several otherwise enigmatic (for
gravity-only fusion hypotheses) observed properties. He also postulated
that the equatorial current sheet balloons out as it approaches the Sun
– becoming unlike a sheet formation and becoming field-aligned:
It seems to be a general rule of cosmic physics that field-aligned
currents frequently manifest themselves as luminous filaments. If the
current in [the ballooned out flow] is spread over an extended region,
we should expect filaments. Equatorial streamers in the solar corona may
be explained in this way.1
As a starting point we all agree that the Sun does in fact have a
magnetic field. The writer of the (mathematical) proof correctly points
out that Maxwell’s equations are dominant in such situations. He cites:
∇ x H = j + ∂D/∂t
where B = µH, j = current density, and D = ε E which demonstrates the
requirement of considering electric currents whenever we have magnetic
fields. In his book Cosmic Plasma2 Alfvén points out that in order to
produce the well-known spiral shaped solar magnetic field, a spiral
current is required. Given the value of the observed field strength (~ 2
x 10^-9 T) at a radial distance from the Sun of one astronomical unit
(Earth’s orbital radius), he calculates the magnitude of the causative
total current as being I0 = 3 x 10^9 Amp.
The writer of the "proof" states that:
The Ulysses spacecraft over the poles of the sun have not shown any
signature AFAIK of strong toroidal magnetic fields associated with the
out flowing currents.
He should be aware that the maximum solar latitude attained by the
Ulysses probe was 80.2 degrees. So to imply Ulysses sought out the
electric current (or magnetic field strength) directly over the Sun’s
poles is inaccurate. Also such currents may be field-aligned and not
produce toroidal magnetic structures. Alfvén stated that the exact
location of current paths and structure was yet to be determined.
The model predicts that there should be currents near the [Sun’s] axis
strong enough to match the current in the equatorial plane. … They may
be distributed over a large region and may in part flow at medium
altitudes.3
He (Alfvén) goes on to state that the presence of the electric current
(in the polar regions) would produce a force on the solar atmosphere via
the Lorentz relation:
Df = I ds x B
that would tend to decelerate the rotation of the Sun in those high
latitudes and thus be an explanation of the observed fact that this is
indeed the case.
Conclusions:
1. Observed magnetic fields around (and due to) the Sun require the
presence of electric currents.
2. The exact locations and paths taken by those currents are not yet
clear – but they must exist if the magnetic fields exist (unless we want
to deny the validity of Maxwell’s equations).
3. We know now that the aurora displays (plasma glow discharges) that we
see both here on Earth and on various other planets are due to electric
currents coming from the Sun moving down into the "cusps" (indentations)
of the magnetospheres (plasmaspheres) of those bodies. It would not be
surprising if the Sun also received electric current from the galaxy via
a similar morphology to produce its plasma arc discharges.
4. It has taken establishment astrophysics over a century (after
Birkeland first described this mechanism) to recognize its existence. It
is premature to deny the possibility of a similar mechanism on the Sun.
5. Juergens’ model implies that the outer surface of the heliosphere is
the collector of the necessary current stream from the nearby region of
our galaxy. Inside the heliopause (within the "solar wind" plasma) the
movement of electrons would consist of a "drift current" moving inward
toward the Sun superimposed on a vastly stronger "Brownian (random)
motion" and therefore be difficult to measure. For a summary of
Juergens’ computation see Appendix C of The Electric Sky.
6. The Electric Sun model is still in its infancy. Whether or not it is
correct in each one of its details is not as important as realizing that
the phenomena observable at and above the photosphere are indeed highly
electrical in nature.
7. Those who demand that ES proponents state exactly how, where, and by
what paths electrons get to the Sun seem not to be even more outraged by
the claim that invisible "missing matter" exists and is responsible for
dozens of otherwise inexplicable observations. Am I the only one to see
the irony in that?
1 Alfvén, H. Cosmic Plasma, D. Reidel, 1981, p. 56.
2 Op cit.pp. 53-55.
3 Op cit. p. 56.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott goes on to comment
about the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Report that further calls the
fusion model of stars into question.
*More layman's articles on the Electric Stars can be found here:*
* Electric Sun Verified
* Twinkle, twinkle electric star
* Sunspot Mysteries
* NASA’s Dim View of Stars
*On The Sun:*
Jul 07, 2009
Mar 09, 2005
Feb 15, 2008
May 26, 2005
Oct 13, 2005
Sep 23, 2009
Oct 09, 2009
Jan 27, 2005
Oct 31, 2005
May 17, 2005
Sep 18, 2009
Dec 07, 2009
Jun 24, 2009
Sep 08, 2009
Sep 06, 2005
Oct 15, 2004
Apr 29, 2009
Feb 08, 2008
Apr 14, 2006
Apr 18, 2006
Jul 01, 2009
Apr 27, 2005
Dec 01, 2005
Feb 03, 2010
Feb 05, 2010
Nov 23, 2005
Jan 20, 2006
Jan 23, 2006
Jan 24, 2006
Jan 26, 2006
Jun 03, 2009
Mar 16, 2010
Jan 07, 2005
Adhering to Fusion
Arc Lamp in the Sky
A String Theory for the Sun
Comet Neat and CME's
Electric Sunspots
HelioPhysics
Impulse Control
Making Sense of Emptiness
Plasma: The other 99.9%
Projecting Nuclear Fusion onto the Sun
Riding the Solar Cycle
Solar Breeze
Solar Electricity
Solar Magnetic Polarity Reversal
Solar Power, Internal or External?
Solar Tornadoes
Space Tornadoes Cause a Stir
Spicules Complete the Circuit
Sunspots Still Surprise Investigators
Sunspot Penumbra Shock Astrophysicists
Tales of Brave Ulysses
The Electric Glow of the Sun
The Explosion that Shattered Solar Theory
The Interconnected Sun (1)
The Interconnected Sun (2)
The Iron Sun
The "Iron Sun" Debate (1)
The "Iron Sun" Debate (2)
The "Iron Sun" Debate (3)
The "Iron Sun" Debate (4)
The New Solar Cycle
The Planck Mission
The Wayward Sun
*On Stars:*
Nov 15, 2006
Feb 28, 2005
Jan 15, 2010
Mar 04, 2005
Sep 22, 2004
Jan 10, 2005
Oct 05, 2004
Jul 16, 2008
Apr 25, 2005
Jun 06, 2008
Jun 04, 2009
Nov 06, 2009
Jul 14, 2009
Jan 11, 2010
Jun 16, 2008
Jan 27, 2005
Sep 26, 2008
Nov 02, 2007
Dec 14, 2009
Jan 04, 2010
May 26, 2008
Aug 14, 2009
Feb 14, 2008
Apr 21, 2008
Apr 07, 2008
Jul 27, 2004
Nov 10, 2006
Jul 17, 2009
Nov 03, 2004
Jan 18, 2010
Mar 08, 2005
Jun 20, 2005
Jun 15, 2005
May 27, 2005
Sep 20, 2004
A “Doomsday” Stellar Flare
A Peek at Star Formation
Beetlejuice
Electrical Birthing of Stars
Electric Stars
Electric Stars in Action
Eta Carinae
Frozen in the Dark
Getting Serious about Sirius
Half-massed Star
"Hot Hot Hot!"
How are Stars Born?
How Old are the Stars?
The Interstellar Medium
Little Star Lost
Making Sense of Emptiness
Misplaced Mavericks
New Stars from Orion's Head
Predictions, Falsifiability and the Standard Model of Stellar Evolution
Presumptive Proplyds
Seeing Red Giants
Siriously Red
Small Star with a Large Planet
Star Formation in the Southern Pinwheel
Stellar Dumbbell May Illustrate Electric Fissioning
Stellar Nurseries
Stellar Ouroboros
Stoking the Star Maker Machinery
Supernova Remnant
The Gorgon's Head
The Smallest Star
The Supernova Nobody Saw
V838 Mon
Variable Stars
Vela Pulsar
*_displayNameOrEmail_* - _time_ - Remove
_text_
Sign in
Recent Site Activity
Terms
Report Abuse
Print page | *Powered by Google Sites
*