Electric Universe Model.,

[VanderL]

Tap your heels together and repeat after me: Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation.

Is there? References please. If not, you've merely made a rhetorical question. Plus, who's to say that the surface effects are not driven by the interior dynamics. That is, increases and decreases in the fusion rate inside the sun could change both the solar neutrino rate and the surface phenomena. While I'm making an equally unsupported statement here, it makes more sense than yours given our current knowledge of the sun, and represents another possible mechanism. So the answer to your question (from this physicist at least) is no. There are other, more likely, possibilities.

That being said, I don't believe we've seen variations in the solar neutrino flux that correlate with the sunspot cycle, and I'm pretty sure we haven't seen spikes in the flux that correlate with solar flares (I'll do a quick check). We've only been able to measure the total flux for about 4 years now, and taking the old measurements and multiplying by 3 may give some indications, but is no substitute for ongoing measurements by SNO and other neutrino observatories.

Might convince me that there is a connection but not that one causes the other. Maybe something deep subsurface is causing both the surface effects and the neutrinos?

Ok, there is a paper on this subject, what I don't see is how the conclusion of the authors that it reflects the fusion parameters deep inside the Sun can be made without the a priori assumption it is trying to support. Imo, it can be equally concluded that the neutrino numbers are generated at the solar surface.

Cheers.

Cheers

[papageno]

Papageno, suppose there is a correlation between solar surface phenomena (sunspots, CME's, flares etc) and solar neutrino counts, would this convince you that fusion is happening at the solar surface?

This was the context:

Solar neutrinos come from surface fusion in flares in the form of x and z pinches.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002700/a002750/

The solar flare at Active Region 10039 on July 23, 2002 exhibits many exceptional high-energy phenomena including the 2.223 MeV neutron capture line and the 511 keV electron-positron (antimatter) annihilation line. In the animation, the RHESSI low-energy channels (12-25 keV) are represented in red and appears predominantly in coronal loops. The high-energy flux appears as blue at the footpoints of the coronal loops. Violet is used to indicate the location and relative intensity of the 2.2MeV emission.

And the evidence of fusion on the surface is where? Nowhere.
So, one more reference that is irrelevant or contradicts your claims, as usual.

It is quite clear that I was referring to the link upriver gave, which does not even mention neutrinos from the Sun.
Therefore I pointed that it does not provide evidence for fusion processes on the solar surface.

[papageno]

Ok, there is a paper on this subject, what I don't see is how the conclusion of the authors that it reflects the fusion parameters deep inside the Sun can be made without the a priori assumption it is trying to support. Imo, it can be equally concluded that the neutrino numbers are generated at the solar surface.

We have used the Date-Compensated Discrete Fourier Transform and Periodogram analysis of the solar neutrino flux data...

[...]

We have found almost similar periods in the solar flares, sunspot data, solar proton data (\bar{\epsilon}>10 Mev) which indicates that the solar activity cycle may be due to the variable character of nuclear energy generation inside the sun.

(bolding mine)

The assumption that nuclear fusion occurs deep inside the Sun is consistent with what we know about the Sun and about nuclear fusion.
The assumption that nuclear fusion occurs at the surface is not.

[VanderL]

The assumption that nuclear fusion occurs deep inside the Sun is consistent with what we know about the Sun and about nuclear fusion.

That still doesn't prove anything, I only said:

I don't see is how the conclusion of the authors that it reflects the fusion parameters deep inside the Sun can be made without the a priori assumption it is trying to support. Imo, it can be equally concluded that the neutrino numbers are generated at the solar surface.

Cheers.

[Nereid]

Ok, there is a paper on this subject, what I don't see is how the conclusion of the authors that it reflects the fusion parameters deep inside the Sun can be made without the a priori assumption it is trying to support. Imo, it can be equally concluded that the neutrino numbers are generated at the solar surface.

There are quite a few "equally concluded" things that one could make (or state) wrt this. For example:

• the neutrinos are generated in the upper atmosphere, when {insert your favourite candidate here} from the Sun hit(s) exosphere atoms
• they are generated at {insert location between Sun's centre and Earth's exosphere of your choice here}, by {insert your favourite alternative method of generating neutrinos here}
• they are generated in the atmosphere above the Super-Kamiokande-I detector
• ditto, wrt rock
• ditto, wrt the detector itself
• invisible pink fairies made those 'neutrino' signals, maliciously, in order to fool scientists into thinking the Sun was somehow involved
• UBL associates, who had infiltrated the {insert your favourite conspiracy theory 'location' here}, generated those signals in the datapipe, in order to discredit {insert your favourite here}
• (and so on)

Indeed, there is a 'subtext'; something like "our understanding of physics, as established by centuries of detailed experiments here on Earth, can be applied to astronomical objects. In the absence of alternative theories which have even half a leg to stand on, we'll assume that the well-established physics applies just as well outside our (Earthly) labs as it does inside them."

Or, if you prefer, "while the EU crowd may have some interesting ideas, half a century (or more) of effort by hundreds (thousands?) of well-educated devotees have failed to turn up anything remotely plausible - in terms of the three consistencies - when compared to the straight-forward application of the hard-won physics we've discovered, right here on Earth".

[Eta C]

Others have answered VanderL's comments, but let me add my inflation adjusted 25 cents.

What you linked to, Vander, was an abstract of an article reporting for searches for periodicity in the solar neutrino flux. It was not an attempt to link spikes in the flux to any particular solar flare event. Such periodicity, if found, would add to our understanding of the fusion processes in the sun. SNO has been looking for similar effects, especially those with periodicities related to those of the sun's rotational period (which could be correlated with flares, etc). Here's their submitted paper in preprint form. Bottom line, they don't observe any periodicity. To quote the abstract "No significant sinusoidal periodicities are found with periods between 1 day and 10 years with either an unbinned maximum likelihood analysis or a Lomb-Scargle periodogram analysis."

While not necessarily the last word, I would think that any claim of correlations between neutrino flux and solar flares is still suspect. And, as many have pointed out, such a correlation does not mean that fusion has to be occurring at the surface.

edit to correct orbital to rotational, which is what I meant

[papageno]

That still doesn't prove anything, I only said:

I don't see is how the conclusion of the authors that it reflects the fusion parameters deep inside the Sun can be made without the a priori assumption it is trying to support. Imo, it can be equally concluded that the neutrino numbers are generated at the solar surface.

The authors of that paper do not point to their result and say: "See? Fusion occurs deep inside the Sun!"
They say: "Solar activity may be linked to fusion processes, which produce the observed neutrino flux."

To restate it in words you used: The conclusion is that it reflects the fusion parameters.
Not: The conclusion is that fusion occurs deep inside the Sun.

When they said: "the solar activity cycle may be due to the variable character of nuclear energy generation inside the sun."
they got the "inside the Sun" from the established theory of the Sun.
They did not need it to reach the conclusion that "the solar activity cycle may be due to the variable character of nuclear energy generation".

[Tim Thompson]

Ok, there is a paper on this subject, what I don't see is how the conclusion of the authors that it reflects the fusion parameters deep inside the Sun can be made without the a priori assumption it is trying to support. Imo, it can be equally concluded that the neutrino numbers are generated at the solar surface.

You are making a mistake here. You are assuming that no knowledge of the sun exists beyond the scope of the observations presented in this paper. Bad assumption. In fact, we already know that the neutrinos are not generated at the surface, so there is no sense in exploring the assumption that they are. Hence, in this case the authors use their a priori knowledge (not assumption) that neutrinos are generated in the solar core, and then use that knowledge as the basis to support the conclusion that variations in the solar interior (indicated by variations in neutrino flux) are a likely cause of observed variations at the solar surface. Of course, this is all self consistent. If the source of energy is at the core, then it is no surprise to anyone that variations in that energy might lead to variations at the surface.

But you must also note that the data presented are not hugely convincing, at least not to me. The authors analyze data sets made up from 5-day, 10-day & 45-day sample periods (bins). If the neutrino flux were truly periodic, then I would expect to see the same period(s) expressed in all 3 data sets. But that is not the case. And your argument would certainly be stronger if the correlation were a spatial one instead of only a temporal one.

[tusenfem]

Okay, I was told to contribute by the website, so I guess I will. :-)

For those who assume that the fusion of the sun takes place in the upper atmosphere and in solar flares, there is some work to do:

1. The atmosphere is tenuous, i.e. the density is rather low. It may be compressed in solar flares. I would like to see some estimates whether the number of observed neutrinos can be produced by the solar flares.

2. If fusion mainly takes place in solar flares, I would like to see a combined statistics of (a) solar flare number and (b) neutrino number. There should be a rather good correlation then. Also, one can look at what happens with the neutrino count when one of the megaflares goes off.

So, I think I have said this before, to quote a famous movie "show me the math! show me the math!" Or, to dumb it down a bit: "show me some insight!" and this without googleing for loads of quotes, do something yourself.

[Tim Thompson]

I said that we already know that fusion takes place in the solar core, and not in the atmosphere. That's because physics does not allow for fusion in the outer layers of the sun. The casual & careless approach of some critics to solar science is a really annoying aspect of trying to carry on a real conversation on a board like this, which is one reason I don't post as much as I might. I'm not always as good at dealing with the frustration as I might be. Tusenfem makes good points. What they amount to is a challenge to produce real physics, supported by real data, to substantiate the claim that fusion is at all possible in the outer layers of the sun. Since the opposition in this case is significantly outgunned, and in a hopeless position (even though they don't know it), I will be a nice guy & help them out.

And so I draw your attention to the successful observing campaign of the Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI). RHESSI measures X-rays & gamma-rays from the sun. Nuclear fusion generates gamma rays, and not just any old gamma rays, but very specific, identifiable line emission. RHESSI is capable of seeing that emission, and if it it there, it should be in the RHESSI data set, and it should be in the RHESSI science reports.

RHESSI Observations of Gamma-Ray Lines From Solar Flares
A.Y. Shih, et al.
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2004, abstract #SH24A-01
The Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI) has detected nuclear gamma-ray line emission from several large solar flares, including four of the X-class solar flares of October-November 2003. Collisions of accelerated ions with the ambient solar medium produce nuclear de-excitation lines, and these lines are spectrally resolved by RHESSI. The fluxes and shapes of these lines depend on the acceleration spectrum and the composition of the accelerated and ambient populations. Several of these flares exhibit changes in the relative fluxes over time, which in some of the flares is consistent with variations of the ambient abundances according to first-ionization potentials (FIP). Also, since these lines are produced by both accelerated protons and accelerated alpha particles, a detailed study of the line shapes constrains the alpha/proton ratio in these flares. We present the latest results from RHESSI on line-ratio variability and constraints on the alpha/proton ratio.

As the abstract shows, line emission is observed, but identified as de-excitation emission. That means it comes from the "decay" of an excited nuclear state, and not from any fusion source. We also see line emission identifiable as coming from accelerated particles. But we do not see any line emission that coresponds to the energy states expected from nuclear fusion. Only the abstract I have posted is available on the web.

Gamma-Ray Line Observations with RHESSI
D.M. Smith
Proceedings of the 5th INTEGRAL Workshop on the INTEGRAL Universe (ESA SP-552). 16-20 February 2004, Munich, Germany.
The Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI) has been observing gamma-ray lines from the Sun and the Galaxy since its launch in February 2002. Here I summarize the status of RHESSI observations of solar lines (nuclear de-excitation, neutron capture, and positron annihilation), the lines of 26 Al and 60 Fe from the inner Galaxy, and the search for positron annihilation in novae.

In this case, one can download the 6-page paper from the linked page. Here again the authors are specific. We see de-excitation, neutron capture & positron annihilation. One might refer to neutron capture as a fusion reaction, and feel vindicated. But it's not that easy. The neutron carries no net charge, and so has no coulomb barrier to overcome. Hence, one only needs to give the neutron a shove, and in it goes. Now, if the neutron produces an unstable nucleus, it can subsequently experience beta decay, turning into a proton that stays in the nucleus, and emitting a positron and an electron anti-neutrino. But this reaction, like the others, produces an identifiable "fingerprint" energy spectrum. We already know the energy spectrum of solar neutrinos, and we can identify the parent nuclear reactions that produce the observed neutrinos (see, i.e., my own webpage: Solar Fusion & Neutrinos). So the neutrinos that result from the after effects of neutron capture cannot account for the observed solar neutrinos generated by the PP and CNO reactions. And the energy released in the beta decay cannot even begin to pretend to account for the high temperature of the sun; not only are they too few, but they do not generate photon emission, and so cannot be an efficient heat source.

I'm not here to provide an exhaustive study of the scientific literature, or the RHESSI observations. Those with alternative ideas are responsible for doing their own homework. However, I do want to make an obvious point. We have a library of observational data already in place, and already described & studied in the open literature, which can be used to verify or falsify the hypothesis of energy generating fusion reactions in the solar surface layers or atmosphere. The reports published thus far produce no verifying indications, even though the capability is there in the instrument, to do just that. The observed characteristics of solar gamma ray emission are consistent with the expectations of the standard models, and are inconsistent with the alternate hypothesis of fusion in the solar atmosphere. So the alternate hypothesis would appear to be either already falsified, or at least seriously weakened.

[VanderL]

I said that we already know that fusion takes place in the solar core, and not in the atmosphere. That's because physics does not allow for fusion in the outer layers of the sun. The casual & careless approach of some critics to solar science is a really annoying aspect of trying to carry on a real conversation on a board like this, which is one reason I don't post as much as I might. I'm not always as good at dealing with the frustration as I might be. Tusenfem makes good points. What they amount to is a challenge to produce real physics, supported by real data, to substantiate the claim that fusion is at all possible in the outer layers of the sun. Since the opposition in this case is significantly outgunned, and in a hopeless position (even though they don't know it), I will be a nice guy & help them out.

And so I draw your attention to the successful observing campaign of the Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI). RHESSI measures X-rays & gamma-rays from the sun. Nuclear fusion generates gamma rays, and not just any old gamma rays, but very specific, identifiable line emission. RHESSI is capable of seeing that emission, and if it it there, it should be in the RHESSI data set, and it should be in the RHESSI science reports.



As the abstract shows, line emission is observed, but identified as de-excitation emission. That means it comes from the "decay" of an excited nuclear state, and not from any fusion source. We also see line emission identifiable as coming from accelerated particles. But we do not see any line emission that coresponds to the energy states expected from nuclear fusion. Only the abstract I have posted is available on the web.



In this case, one can download the 6-page paper from the linked page. Here again the authors are specific. We see de-excitation, neutron capture & positron annihilation. One might refer to neutron capture as a fusion reaction, and feel vindicated. But it's not that easy. The neutron carries no net charge, and so has no coulomb barrier to overcome. Hence, one only needs to give the neutron a shove, and in it goes. Now, if the neutron produces an unstable nucleus, it can subsequently experience beta decay, turning into a proton that stays in the nucleus, and emitting a positron and an electron anti-neutrino. But this reaction, like the others, produces an identifiable "fingerprint" energy spectrum. We already know the energy spectrum of solar neutrinos, and we can identify the parent nuclear reactions that produce the observed neutrinos (see, i.e., my own webpage: Solar Fusion & Neutrinos). So the neutrinos that result from the after effects of neutron capture cannot account for the observed solar neutrinos generated by the PP and CNO reactions. And the energy released in the beta decay cannot even begin to pretend to account for the high temperature of the sun; not only are they too few, but they do not generate photon emission, and so cannot be an efficient heat source.

I'm not here to provide an exhaustive study of the scientific literature, or the RHESSI observations. Those with alternative ideas are responsible for doing their own homework. However, I do want to make an obvious point. We have a library of observational data already in place, and already described & studied in the open literature, which can be used to verify or falsify the hypothesis of energy generating fusion reactions in the solar surface layers or atmosphere. The reports published thus far produce no verifying indications, even though the capability is there in the instrument, to do just that. The observed characteristics of solar gamma ray emission are consistent with the expectations of the standard models, and are inconsistent with the alternate hypothesis of fusion in the solar atmosphere. So the alternate hypothesis would appear to be either already falsified, or at least seriously weakened.

Thanks for the lengthy post with references, I'll take some time reading it. In the meantime think about this: the Electric Sun model doesn't need fusion as an energy source, so it doesn't have to add up to make the Sun shine. It is only a minor effect and it doesn't have to involve a series of specific steps as currently theorised to make sure the Sun has a power source for billions of years.

Cheers.

[Nereid]

Thanks for the lengthy post with references, I'll take some time reading it. In the meantime think about this: the Electric Sun model doesn't need fusion as an energy source, so it doesn't have to add up to make the Sun shine. It is only a minor effect and it doesn't have to involve a series of specific steps as currently theorised to make sure the Sun has a power source for billions of years.

Cheers.

But it [the 'Electric Sun model'] does, I hope, need to account for all the good observational results regarding solar neutrinos, does it not?

[Van Rijn]

Thanks for the lengthy post with references, I'll take some time reading it. In the meantime think about this: the Electric Sun model doesn't need fusion as an energy source, so it doesn't have to add up to make the Sun shine. It is only a minor effect and it doesn't have to involve a series of specific steps as currently theorised to make sure the Sun has a power source for billions of years.

Cheers.

But it does need to add up. The neutrino flux from the sun indicates P-P fusion sufficient to account for the sun's luminosity. If there is additional "electric sun" energy, the sun should have a higher luminosity. Why don't we see it?

Edited to add: Heh. It seems Nereid and I are asking the same question from different directions.

[Tim Thompson]

In the meantime think about this: the Electric Sun model doesn't need fusion as an energy source, ...

But, as others have already pointed out, this raises problems of its own. We know that solar neutrinos come from the sun, we know they are generated by nuclear fusion, and we know that the number of neutrinos counted is sufficient to account for the number of nuclear fusions need to power the sun in the standard model. That's all pretty amazingly coincidental, if we are going to argue at the same time, that the standard solar model is not just "wrong", but "way wrong". That's worth thinking about too.

[tusenfem]

I hate to ask again, but ... can SOMEBODY OF THE ELECTRIC SUN do some math please!!!!
Take the total energy output of the sun , somewhere given in a post by me. And then please show us how much current needs to flow (some estimates have been given by me in a previous post) and show then some observations that such currents exist. And then, also, please explain where the neutrinos come from in this electric sun. And upriver still owes me some explanations/calculations on the iron sun, but that should be moved to another thread.
It all good and well to have some ideas, and theories, but at some point you have to be able to give some quantative answers.
But I know I am crying in the desert, because a lot of the electric crowd (I will not give names, but you know I am talking to you and you and you and ...) have no idea how to do math. That makes a scientific discussion very tedious. And I am sure I will now get comments like "math is just a picture, and does not describe reality," but I do not buy that. If math is not real, then I do hope you live in a cave and cook your meat over a wood fire.

[papageno]

And I am sure I will now get comments like "math is just a picture, and does not describe reality,"...

One of the EU/PC proponents tried to support his idea by pasting a drawing of glow-discharge cell next to a pictorial representation of the Solar System.

[tusenfem]

well, a picture is a 1000 words :-)

[iantresman]

I hate to ask again, but ... can SOMEBODY OF THE ELECTRIC SUN do some math please!!!!

You'll find some maths in the following online articles by Ralph E. Juergens

• Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part I) (Background)
• Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part II) (Maths)

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[tusenfem]

Well, I just took a look at the "math" paper by Juergens (math between quotes, as there is not really done very much mathematically apart from a whole discussion about relativistic electrons). We have already discussed this somewhere above. Juergens says that the sun is the anode and the sphere just outside of Pluto is the cathode. Well there is a problem here, quite clearly. If this would be how the sun has been powered for the last 4.5 billion years, would you not think that the sun would have been neutralized by now? Inflow of 4 10¹⁶ amps would indicate a total amount of:
ne = 4 10¹⁶ (Amp) * 4.5 10⁸ (years) / 1.6 ^-19 (electron charge) = 3 10⁵¹ electrons that have streamed into the sun!

[iantresman]

Well, I just took a look at the "math" paper by Juergens (math between quotes, as there is not really done very much mathematically apart from a whole discussion about relativistic electrons). We have already discussed this somewhere above. Juergens says that the sun is the anode and the sphere just outside of Pluto is the cathode. Well there is a problem here, quite clearly. If this would be how the sun has been powered for the last 4.5 billion years, would you not think that the sun would have been neutralized by now? Inflow of 4 10¹⁶ amps would indicate a total amount of:
ne = 4 10¹⁶ (Amp) * 4.5 10⁸ (years) / 1.6 ^-19 (electron charge) = 3 10⁵¹ electrons that have streamed into the sun!

Juergens address this is in Part I of his paper, where he writes that:

"To avoid the discomfiting assumption that the sun and the planets all started out with enormous positive charges that are now being whittled away, I have to conclude that the sun and the planets are not only negatively charged, but they are collecting more and more negative charge all the time. To explain why the sun does not quickly achieve balance with its galactic surroundings, I have to postulate continually increasing electrification in the galactic atmosphere, so that we have a steady-state situation in which the sun draws enough current to hold its own, but not enough to close the gap between its potential and that of galactic space." In the absence of this postulate, it can be calculated that the sun would "close the gap", or discharge completely, in less than a minute!"

Alfvén suggests that the Sun behaved as a unipolar inductor, see:

• MHD simulation of the three-dimensional structure of the heliospheric current sheet (2001), Israelevich et al

And I just found the following article which suggests that a binary star may be powered electrically as a unipolar inductor:

• An electrically powered binary star? (2002), Wu, et al
  [Abstract and Full text ]

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[tusenfem]

But a unipolar inductor and a ever more negative charge collection are not compatible with eachother. In the inductor, there is a circuit, in Juergens idea, which I find hard to maintain, because ever increasing [fill in as you like] is very hard to achieve, because at some point it runs into infinite energies etc.

the idea by Wu is interesting, goes back to my own work in a way on "magnetic flaring near a black hole".

[papageno]

In the first of his papers, Juergens related the Sun's ability to modulate the incoming flux of cosmic rays (which are protons impinging upon the solar system from all directions at relativistic velocities) to the Sun's driving potential, its cathode drop.(1i) He estimated that a value in excess of 10 billion volts would suffice. From the flux of solar wind protons observed at the Earth's orbit, he calculated that a 10¹⁵ ampere solar wind current was flowing because of the solar discharge.(1j) The solar luminosity of 3.9 x 1026 watts seemingly requires a discharge current which exceeds that of Juergens' estimate by forty fold, but since both the cathode drop and the discharge current values he chose were minima, the power shortage is not likely serious, as either or both values can be adjusted to erase the deficit without affecting the credibility of his arguments.

10¹⁵ A current between the Sun and the interstellar space.
He have seen in this thread that the Solar Wind has been observed to be overall neutral, and that the number of electrons is balanced by the number by the number of positive ions moving in the same direction.

A highly luminous arc discharge thus forms between the Sun and its environment; it stabilizes the electrical flow between the Sun and surrounding galactic space. This secondary discharge - the granular solar photosphere - provides the needed additional electron flow towards the Sun, thereby allowing it to launch an appropriate ion current from the Sun to the galaxy.

So, an electron flow towards the Sun and an (positive) ion flow away from the Sun.
We have already seen that electrons are observed to move away from the Sun.

This paper - like others to follow - was incomplete when Ralph Juergens died, yet it poses several crucial questions. It is published now, not as a final word on the subject, but as a springboard to launch the interested investigator towards a better insight into the phenomenon of electric discharge between the Sun and galactic space, and also to recognize Ralph Juergens as a pioneer in the study of electric stars.

The questions have been answered, and the observations refute Juergen's ideas.
Since none of the references provided on those pages go beyond the end of the 1970s (as with most of iantresman's references), this article may be of historical interest, but it does not constitute a valid alternative of the current theories.

In the past, others have considered the possibility that stars such as the Sun may be powered from the outside, with some "subtle radiation " traversing space providing the power. Such a notion has been greeted with disdain by scientists who prefer an invisible energy source, buried within the solar interior, to an invisible source that surrounds the solar system and is connected "subtly " to the Sun.

Except that solar neutrinos have been observed, consistent with nuclear fusion processes.

Electricity - or more appropriately, electric discharge, since we are concerned with a phenomenon occurring in a gaseous medium - seems to offer precisely the qualities of "subtle radiation" that we are looking for. Electric discharge is a known and observable phenomenon, yet we might live immersed in a cosmic discharge and know nothing of its existence.

(bolding mine)
Electric discharge is an observable phenomenon (lab experiments), but we don't see it in interplanetary space.
But we never observed a net current.
Nuclear fusion is an observable phenomenon (thermonuclear weapons), but we can't see it in the interior of the Sun.
Yet we observe neutrinos.

He blames the scientists of postulating an unobserved process for the Sun (which is consistent with observation, nevertheless), but he substitutes it with a process which is not observed and emphasizing that "electric discharge is a known and observable phenomenon".

Electric discharge offers phenomena so numerous and so diverse that we have little trouble finding analogs for every observable feature of the Sun. Moreover, we need not liken one aspect of the Sun to an arbitrarily chosen discharge phenomenon and then liken another feature of the Sun to another arbitrarily chosen discharge feature; a system of logically and physically related discharge phenomena can be shown to correspond, feature for feature, with the known properties of the solar atmosphere.

Yet we are still waiting for a "a system of logically and physically related discharge phenomena" to describe the Sun in a manner consistent with the observations.

Hannes Alfvén has been a pioneer in seeking understanding of the cosmic roles of electricity and magnetism. Yet, by accepting the prevailing notions that the universe is inherently neutral and that the stars are powered internally, Alfvén has effectively sealed himself off from discovering many important electrical phenomena; thus he has uncovered little fundamental information about the universe from his electrical studies.

So Alfvén's work is too limited.

The fundamental premise of the solar-discharge hypothesis is that a stream of electrons converging upon the Sun from all directions (or possibly, even probably, primarily in the plane of the planets) delivers the energy radiated by the Sun. In electrical-discharge terminology, if the Sun is an anode, the electric field driving the system is primarily confined to the region known as the cathode drop; and the energy gained by the electrons traversing this drop is that which must be cast off by the Sun in the form of radiation.

Note: To avoid the discomfiting assumption that the sun and the planets all started out with enormous positive charges that are now being whittled away, I have to conclude that the sun and the planets are not only negatively charged, but they are collecting more and more negative charge all the time. To explain why the sun does not quickly achieve balance with its galactic surroundings, I have to postulate continually increasing electrification in the galactic atmosphere, so that we have a steady-state situation in which the sun draws enough current to hold its own, but not enough to close the gap between its potential and that of galactic space.

But no such electron flow nor charging of planets is observed, disproving the solar-discharge hypothesis.

(By analogy with laboratory glow discharges [see Appendix I], we may anticipate that most of the discharge current is carried by positive ions leaving the Sun; the loss of positive ions increases the net negative charge of the Sun, while only a comparatively few electrons crossing the cathode drop in the other direction deliver energy to the Sun.
[...])

Yet the difference between positive and negative charge leaving the Sun is observed to be effectively zero.

We have advanced the premise that the kinetic energy of the electrons in a stream converging upon the Sun is the source of the energy thrown off by solar radiation. With a cathode drop of 10 to the power 10 volts, each electron in the stream will arrive at the Sun with kinetic energy in the amount of 10 to the power 10 electron-volts. If these electrons were not moving close to the speed of light we would expect about 2.4 x 10³⁵ electrons (originating in interstellar space not including those liberated by the ionization of solar atmospheric gases) to reach the Sun each second.

Yet somehow we keep missing all these electrons moving towards the Sun, measuring instead electrons moving away from the Sun.

Can the discrepancy between electric theory and satellite observations be reconciled and understood in terms of other yet to be considered environmental factors -- such as the Sun's galactic classification and/or its location within the galaxy?

Or maybe it can be explained with the fact that the electric-discharge model is actually incorrect.

The evidence is sparse, and we can only speculate as to its meaning, but in a tentative sort of way we may conclude that the two populations of stars present no immediate obstacles to the electric discharge hypothesis.

And thirty years later, with much more evidence available and not consistent with electric-discharge models, EU/PC proponents still think the same.

We can picture the solar system as a region in space dominated by a continuous electric discharge, the Sun. To do so we start with the idea of an electrical cavity, a sort of "flaw" in the fabric of the Milky Way Galaxy. From our point of view this cavity has almost incomprehensibly grand proportions, but - from the viewpoint of its scale and importance in the galaxy -- it is a minor, localized disturbance. At the center of this electrical "flaw" is a rather ordinary star, which is induced to absorb great quantities of electrons and spew forth in all directions protons, positive ions, and electromagnetic radiations of every kind.

And since the electrons are observed to move away from the Sun, this picture fails.

Instruments carried into space have shown that there is a "solar wind" of protons and other positive ions blowing outward continuously from the Sun.

And they measured electrons moving away from the Sun as well.

As already indicated, an implicit assumption of the solar-discharge hypothesis is that galactic electrons flow toward the Sun in a stream moving counter to that of the solar protons. This is clearly incompatible with Parker's hypothesis(20) -- the source of the term "solar wind". In his view, which is widely accepted, solar plasma comprising both protons and electrons moves outward in an unending stream from the Sun. Up to now, however, with Parker's assumption implicit in their design, most deep-space probes have sampled only the proton flux, and the drift of electrons has been assumed to correspond to the drift of positive ions.

The sunward currents of electrons that are all-important to the present hypothesis might be investigated with suitably designed space probes, especially since preliminary calculations (see below) suggest that these currents in the vicinity of the Earth would be carried by electrons moving at (very nearly) the velocity of light. Detection may be made difficult, however, by the fact that such fast electrons quickly charge up the detecting instruments to the point where they repel electron currents. Probes of presently feasible proportions may be unable to carry apparatus sufficient to maintain suitable potentials on electron detecting devices, such as the Faraday cup.

But new probes have observed those electrons, moving away from the Sun.
So Parker's assumption has become an established experimental observation, disproving the solar-discharge hypothesis.


A question to iantresman: why did you link to an article that does not actually have calculations for quantitative estimates within the EU/PC view, and - even worse - is about thirty years old and outdated, since new observations already discussed in this thread refute a basic assumption of the model?
Did you actually read the article before posting the links?

[Tim Thompson]

Juergens address this is in Part I of his paper, where he writes that:

"To avoid the discomfiting assumption that the sun and the planets all started out with enormous positive charges that are now being whittled away, I have to conclude that the sun and the planets are not only negatively charged, but they are collecting more and more negative charge all the time. To explain why the sun does not quickly achieve balance with its galactic surroundings, I have to postulate continually increasing electrification in the galactic atmosphere, so that we have a steady-state situation in which the sun draws enough current to hold its own, but not enough to close the gap between its potential and that of galactic space." In the absence of this postulate, it can be calculated that the sun would "close the gap", or discharge completely, in less than a minute!"

I have added boldface to Ian's quote, to emphasize a critical point. Even Juergens realizes that his model is inconsistent with what we know about the sun. So, in order to make it work, he has to postulate an unphysical effect, and even Juergens admits that without his postulate, the model fails.

I call to your attention the definition of "postulate", where I have underlined a key word: 2a: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary : depend upon or start from the postulate of b: to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics) (from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary).

So a postulate is really an assumption in its most pristine form. Scientists make assumptions all the time, but the vast majority of those assumptions are based on some extrapolation, or interpolation from knowledge gained through observation. But a postulate is an assumption that is unfettered by reference to anything else, or to any other knowledge.

Since "we" mainstream scientists are constantly taken to task by alternative claims that we make too many "assumptions" to cover up weaknesses in standard models, I think it is worth emphasizing the fact that Juergens has nothing but assumption going for him, a fact which he himself readily admits.

So why should this idea be considered at all? Why can't we simply observe that it stands already falsified by observation, and forget about it?

[iantresman]

But a unipolar inductor and a ever more negative charge collection are not compatible with eachother. In the inductor, there is a circuit, in Juergens idea, which I find hard to maintain, because ever increasing [fill in as you like] is very hard to achieve, because at some point it runs into infinite energies etc.

I don't think Electric Universe proponents have ever suggested (a) that sun is acquiring only electrons, and hence an increase in negative charge (b) that there isn't a circuit.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[iantresman]

10¹⁵ A current between the Sun and the interstellar space.
He have seen in this thread that the Solar Wind has been observed to be overall neutral, and that the number of electrons is balanced by the number by the number of positive ions moving in the same direction.

Doesn't the heliospheric current sheet carries about 3×10⁹ Amps, in the neutral solar wind?

But no such electron flow nor charging of planets is observed,

• Evidence for negative charging of the lunar surface in shadow (2002), Halekas, et al

A question to iantresman: why did you link to an article that does not actually have calculations for quantitative estimates within the EU/PC view

Doesn't Juergens' article contain maths?

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[iantresman]

So a postulate is really an assumption in its most pristine form. Scientists make assumptions all the time, but the vast majority of those assumptions are based on some extrapolation, or interpolation from knowledge gained through observation. But a postulate is an assumption that is unfettered by reference to anything else, or to any other knowledge.

Since "we" mainstream scientists are constantly taken to task by alternative claims that we make too many "assumptions" to cover up weaknesses in standard models, I think it is worth emphasizing the fact that Juergens has nothing but assumption going for him, a fact which he himself readily admits.

I accept that.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[papageno]

But a unipolar inductor and a ever more negative charge collection are not compatible with each other. In the inductor, there is a circuit, in Juergens idea, which I find hard to maintain, because ever increasing [fill in as you like] is very hard to achieve, because at some point it runs into infinite energies etc.

I don't think Electric Universe proponents have ever suggested (a) that sun is acquiring only electrons, and hence an increase in negative charge (b) that there isn't a circuit.

The fundamental premise of the solar-discharge hypothesis is that a stream of electrons converging upon the Sun from all directions (or possibly, even probably, primarily in the plane of the planets) delivers the energy radiated by the Sun. In electrical-discharge terminology, if the Sun is an anode, the electric field driving the system is primarily confined to the region known as the cathode drop; and the energy gained by the electrons traversing this drop is that which must be cast off by the Sun in the form of radiation.

Oh look! "A stream of electrons converging upon the Sun from all directions." = The Sun is acquiring electrons (and shooting out positive ions). = The Sun has increasing negative charge.

The primary purpose of this paper is to suggest that the Sun is powered by a cathodeless discharge.

Oh look! "A cathodeless discharge" = No closed circuit.

Again, iantresman, did you actually read the article?

10¹⁵ A current between the Sun and the interstellar space.
He have seen in this thread that the Solar Wind has been observed to be overall neutral, and that the number of electrons is balanced by the number by the number of positive ions moving in the same direction.

Doesn't the heliospheric current sheet carries about 3×10⁹ Amps, in the neutral solar wind?

You completely disregarded the context.
If you read the article or my post about it, you would know that the current is a net current: electrons flow in and positive ions flow out (inconsistent with the observations).
If you followed the thread, you would know that the heliospheric current sheet is not compatible with this net current, as the reference you gave says (right before your 3×10⁹ Amps):

The electric current in the heliospheric current sheet is directed radially inward, the circuit being closed by outward currents aligned with the Sun's magnetic field in the solar polar regions.

(bolding mine)
A closed circuit is not compatible with Juergen's model (see also the quotes above).

But no such electron flow nor charging of planets is observed,

* Evidence for negative charging of the lunar surface in shadow (2002), Halekas, et al

You are not actually reading my posts, are you?

Note: To avoid the discomfiting assumption that the sun and the planets all started out with enormous positive charges that are now being whittled away, I have to conclude that the sun and the planets are not only negatively charged, but they are collecting more and more negative charge all the time. To explain why the sun does not quickly achieve balance with its galactic surroundings, I have to postulate continually increasing electrification in the galactic atmosphere, so that we have a steady-state situation in which the sun draws enough current to hold its own, but not enough to close the gap between its potential and that of galactic space.

(bolding mine)
For Juergen, the Sun and the planets are continuously charging up, because of the electrons flowing in from interstellar space.
This is not compatible with a negative charging of the surface in shadow (how do you put the Sun in shadow?).

A question to iantresman: why did you link to an article that does not actually have calculations for quantitative estimates within the EU/PC view

Doesn't Juergens' article contain maths?

What is the point of collecting the formulas in the appendixes, if he does not show how he uses those formulas for his estimates?
And he does not even show if his estimates fit the observations.

By the way, you missed this when you quoted from my post:

...and - even worse - is about thirty years old and outdated, since new observations already discussed in this thread refute a basic assumption of the model?

But at least I had the answer to this:

Did you actually read the article before posting the links?

And the answer is: "Not really."

You are doing like upriver: posting lots of irrelevant references in the face of the objections to your posts.

[upriver]

You are doing like upriver: posting lots of irrelevant references in the face of the objections to your posts.

I retract everything I have ever said.
I do not have the facts to back it up.

Anything I say from now on is pure unsupported conjecture.
Because I do not have the facts to back it up.

[tusenfem]

I don't think Electric Universe proponents have ever suggested (a) that sun is acquiring only electrons, and hence an increase in negative charge (b) that there isn't a circuit.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

mm the end of my post is a little confusing. What I say is that in the unipolar inductor theory (as proposed for Io-Jupiter, but may no longer be applicable, see Russell and Huddleston, Advances in Space Research, 26, 1665-1670, 2000) there is a circuit.

In the Juergens model there is only an ever increasing charge of the sun, which is not sustainable, at least because of problems with infinite energies.

Doesn't the heliospheric current sheet carries about 3×109 Amps, in the neutral solar wind?

Yes, there is the heliospheric current sheet, but that is generated because of the oppositely directed magnetic fields at both sides of the heliospheric equator. Just like the current sheet in the Earth's magnetotail.

Doesn't Juergens' article contain maths?

Juergens' paper has some math in it in the appendix, something about relativistic electrons. That may or may not be useful, he does not do a full calculation of the system that he describes, the ever increasing charged sun. I would like to see (but we are not likely to see it anymore) how he thinks he can collect this enormous charge in the sun without "our little ball of shiny gas" blowing apart from the electrostatic forces. that is the kind of math that is needed in such a paper, not all those calculations about relativistic electrons. I just took another look at Appendix III and I find that very strange, taking charge per meter flowing, but it may make sense if you decide to work in 1D. His definition that current is the number of charge flowing past a point OR through some small area, well Juergens, make up your mind, do you work 1D or not?
In all, it is not very good, and not the right math.

[papageno]

I retract everything I have ever said.
I do not have the facts to back it up.

Anything I say from now on is pure unsupported conjecture.
Because I do not have the facts to back it up.

This disclaimer will not excuse you from backing up your future claims.
Even if you label them "pure unsupported conjectures", you still will be asked to show that they are consistent with the experimental data and that they do not contradict well-established theories (within their domain).
The burden to prove that your "pure unsupported conjectures" are scientifically valid is still yours.