Number of Galaxies: Is It Infinite?

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
The questions are:

(a) Why should it be there in the first place?
(b) Why is it so uniform?
(c) Why hasn't an eternity of radiation from stars and galaxies warmed interstellar gas beyond 3K?

I have already explained it enough. I can waste no more time on it.

You're right, I don't know the theory. The website only gives some qualitative assertions (oh, it explains this! and this too!) and does not make any attempt at presenting a solid foundation for anything. Thus, the only reason I have to believe any of its claims are its credibility.

That is total bogus. It gives the theory right on the website itself. Look again.

I'm criticizing the fact the website does not present a theory to be understood.

Having not read the website your claims are once again empty.

The content of the website contains a theory. If you are claiming that it is not a theory then by all means prove it to all of us. Show us that what purports to be a theory is not actually a theory. This will involve reading theory outside your comfort zone, so beware.

No, I can't. I am having difficulty trying to imagine how Earth's electric field could be structured so it magically cancels out the Sun's electric field every on the Earth's surface, everywhere we've been inside the Earth's surface, everywhere in Earth's atmosphere, everywhere in the space around Earth where we have orbiting satellites, and even along the trajectories of probes we have sent far from the Earth.

Yes you are indeed having difficulty. I suggest you learn a bit more about cosmic electro-dynamics.

Even better, not only does the field have to have all of these magical properties, but it has to remain unchanged as the Earth rotates, and as its distance from the sun varies in its orbit!

Why would it?

Sorry, vague implications do not a proof make.

The theory is FAR from vague, but this requires reading it to actually know such a thing.

You totally missed my point. I'm saying that when you are using the phrase "The Standard Model", you do not seem to be referring to the theory named "The Standard Model", which means that your you're adding unnecessary confusion to your statements.

Confusion for you who only knows one side of the story.

People use the word "found" all the time for things they didn't dig up in their back yard with a shovel. Contrary to your low opinion of me, I am quite aware that physicists don't go digging up neutron stars looking for neutronium.

It was a simple demonstration of the confusing connotations inherent in the language of popular physics. That's all. Don't get so worked up about it.

I'm far from an expert on Solar dynamics, but I do have comments on your posts about it:

Neutrino mixing. Duh. Even the website mentions it. (a.k.a. changing flavour)

Incidentally, I'm curious how the electric sun model generates any neutrinos whatsoever.

Changing flavour is a kludge to fix the missing neutrino problem. No one has ever seen this hypothetical flavour change happen. Whether it happens or not is of no consequence whatsoever to the plasma model.

As to your question, since you refuse to enlighten yourself I guess I will have to spoon-feed it to you bit by bit (though in this format you will not get to see the diagrams. For this reason I recommend you actually read the THEORY for yourself instead of arguing about it based on your ignorance of it... oh well...).

"The z-pinch effect of high intensity, parallel current filaments in an arc plasma is very strong. Whatever nuclear fusion is taking place on the Sun is occurring here in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere (not deep within the core). The result of this fusion process are the "metals" that give rise to absorption lines in the Sun's spectrum. Traces of sixty eight of the ninety two natural elements are found in the Sun's atmosphere. Most of the radio frequency noise emitted by the Sun emanates from this region. Radio noise is a well known property of DLs. The electrical power available to be delivered to the plasma at any point is the product of the E-field (Volts per meter) times current density (Amps per square meter). This multiplication operation yields Watts per cubic meter. The current density is relatively constant over the height of the photospheric / chromospheric layers. However, the E-field is by far the strongest at the center of the DL. Nuclear fusion takes a great deal of power - and that power is available in the DL.
It is also well known that the neutrino flux from the Sun varies inversely with sunspot number. This is expected in the ES hypothesis because the source of those neutrinos is z-pinch produced fusion which is occurring in the double layer - and sunspots are locations where there is no DL in which this process can occur.
"

Why wouldn't they? I haven't read anything on heliodynamics that suggest physicists think there should be tubes that remain intact for hundreds of thousands of years; it's a turbulent fluid flow.

The standard model states that the granules are the tops of the convection cells that take hundreds of thousands of years to transport their energy from deep within the core. Is that lengthy time scale of a set of long cells stretching all the way into the core properly considered called "turbulent"? I wouldn't think so. It is theoretically more akin to the Bernard instability cells which are far more stable and rarely change whatsoever.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
I'm only going to deal with this by the moment
There are tree flavours of neutrinos: the muonic, the electronic and the tauonic. Detectors here in Earth were prepared to detect only electronic neutrinos
The lack of neutrinos observed have been yet explained: Some of the electronic neutrinos emitted by the sun change its flavour to electronic or tauonic during its voyage to erth. This is why are not detected

Well that is one explanation, but it is purely hypothetical and is only necessary if one assumes the fusion model of the sun to be accurate. Since the fusion model has so many problems which are easily explainable by the electrical model then why should we stick with the fusion model?

By adopting the plasma model one can discard all of those ad hoc hypotheticals along with the mysteries. Thus the whole stellar process and the entire Hertzsprung-Russell spectrum of stellar bodies becomes easily understandable.

 

[Hurkyl]

That is total bogus. It gives the theory right on the website itself. Look again.

Where on the website does it give the presumed geometry of the universe? Where on the website does it give an explanation of the dynamics of the theory? What is the age of the universe? What is the shape and strength of the sun's electric field? What effects should it have on interplanetary probes? Where is the proof from elementary principles of any of the claims it makes?

Originally posted by Hurkyl

I'm criticizing the fact the website does not present a theory to be understood.

Originally posted by Subtillion
If you are claiming that it is not a theory then by all means prove it to all of us.

Notice I put three more words after "theory"

Changing flavour is a kludge to fix the missing neutrino problem.

If you call "Neutrinos were once presumed massless because we had not found evidence of their mass, but now we're reconsidering that presumption because we know massive neutrinos change flavor in a way that precisely patches up the deficiency in the observed neutrino flux, and we've built detectors to observe the neutrinos of other flavors and have found them, so we now presume neutrinos are massive and thus change flavor) a kludge", then I don't see why you are trying to use the word "kludge" with a negative connotation.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Where on the website does it give the presumed geometry of the universe?

This is not a Big Bang Theory. The entire universe has not been observed thus there is no reason to assume any specific universal geometry.

Where on the website does it give an explanation of the dynamics of the theory?

ALL OVER. Can't you see? It is all dynamics.

What is the age of the universe?

Has anyone observed the birth of the universe? There is no reasn to assume a creation ex nihilo event whatsoever, thus no age is assumed either.

What is the shape and strength of the sun's electric field? What effects should it have on interplanetary probes? Where is the proof from elementary principles of any of the claims it makes?

The proof is spread throughout the website. If you care to explain how the theory is incorrect then you are certainly welcome to do just that, but don't just claim that the data is not there because it is. What isn't there is not part of the theory that we are discussing.

Originally posted by Hurkyl

I'm criticizing the fact the website does not present a theory to be understood.

Notice I put three more words after "theory"

So in other words you do not understand the theory. Is that the extent of your critical evaluation?

If you call "Neutrinos were once presumed massless because we had not found evidence of their mass, but now we're reconsidering that presumption because we know massive neutrinos change flavor in a way that precisely patches up the deficiency in the observed neutrino flux, and we've built detectors to observe the neutrinos of other flavors and have found them, so we now presume neutrinos are massive and thus change flavor) a kludge", then I don't see why you are trying to use the word "kludge" with a negative connotation.

Well maybe "kludge" is not the proper term here. How about --retrofitting the theory to match the un-predicted data through a hypothetical process called "flavour change"? What should we call that?

 

[Hurkyl]

This is not a Big Bang Theory. The entire universe has not been observed thus there is no reason to assume any specific universal geometry.

WMAP observations would disagree...

But ignoring that point...

(a) Classical mechanics DOES assume a specific universal geometry; that the universe is a flat Euclidian three dimensional space, parametrized by a real time parameter.

(b) I didn't even ask for the geometry of the universe as a whole; what about the geometry of the observed universe, or simply the local geometry of the universe?

(Incidentally, the reason to study differential manifolds is because it is the most general model given a specified local geometry. If you think the universe should look like R³ on small scales, then you should model your universe with a riemann manifold. If you think the universe should look like special relativity on small scales, then you use a differentiable manifold with a metric of signature -+++. If you think electromagnetism can be described by a U(1) gauge group, then you tack U(1) onto your differentiable manifold... a.k.a. adding a curled up dimension)

ALL OVER. Can't you see? It is all dynamics.

Does F = ma? What is their law of conservation of mass-energy? Do they use Maxwell's equations? Are there any Lagrangians or Hamiltonians on the website?

The website is entirely qualitative descriptions devoid of any proof, or any dynamics that someone could actually learn and apply.

Has anyone observed the birth of the universe? There is no reasn to assume a creation ex nihilo event whatsoever, thus no age is assumed either.

WMAP observations would disagree (at least they think we can see very near the point where GR loses validity).

But ignoring that, one can certainly give a lower bound on the age of the universe.

The proof is spread throughout the website. If you care to explain how the theory is incorrect then you are certainly welcome to do just that, but don't just claim that the data is not there because it is. What isn't there is not part of the theory that we are discussing.

What is the net electric charge of the sun? What is the ratio of H to H₂ in the universe? What is the strength of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of Earth's orbit... where the Earth isn't? What is the net charge of the Earth? What is the predicted rate of nuclear fusion in the sun?

Well maybe "kludge" is not the proper term here. How about --retrofitting the theory to match the un-predicted data through a hypothetical process called "flavour change"? What should we call that?

Are you saying Scientists should ignore data that points out flaws in their assumptions?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
WMAP observations would disagree...

But ignoring that point...

The visible and known mass and gravity of the universe, as interpreted by BBT, says that the universe has a "negative curvature".

WMAP says that the universe is flat AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL.

If you want to call the WMAP results which show no curvature, a "geometry", then be my guest. I happen to know that it is the human mind that imposes geometry in the very act of measurement.

(a) Classical mechanics DOES assume a specific universal geometry; that the universe is a flat Euclidian three dimensional space, parametrized by a real time parameter.

(b) I didn't even ask for the geometry of the universe as a whole; what about the geometry of the observed universe, or simply the local geometry of the universe?

I don't really care about any universal geometry of the observed or the entire universe at this point. It is irrelevant to Plasma Cosmology. Let's deal with the explanations of stellar structure first and move on from there.

Does F = ma? What is their law of conservation of mass-energy?

? Come on. This theory uses standard physics. Why are we debating such banalities? Do you understand the model of the sun put forth on the website? Let us start there.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

Do they use Maxwell's equations? Are there any Lagrangians or Hamiltonians on the website?

Why don't you read it to find out?

Plasma Cosmology is not a replacement for EVERY SINGLE BIT of cosmology. Just use your current knowledge to understand the things that plasma cosmology does not need to deal with.

To properly learn the model you must simply read it with an open mind. If you spend your entire time looking for things that it doesn't talk about, then you will never learn the model. Perhaps that is your point? Are you simply trying to avoid learning? If such is the case then just stop right here. There simply is no point to continue.

The website is entirely qualitative descriptions devoid of any proof, or any dynamics that someone could actually learn and apply.

You cannot read apparently. If you don't want to attempt to debunk the theory that is fine, but don't just claim that the theory is inadequate. If you are going to make such a claim then back it up with quotes and demonstrations of were the theory goes wrong.

But ignoring that, one can certainly give a lower bound on the age of the universe.

One can certainly give any bound one wishes but without any evidence then what is the point?

What is the net electric charge of the sun? What is the ratio of H to H₂ in the universe? What is the strength of the electric and magnetic fields in the vicinity of Earth's orbit... where the Earth isn't? What is the net charge of the Earth? What is the predicted rate of nuclear fusion in the sun?

I am not going to tutor you here. If you wish to debunk it then be my guest.

Are you saying Scientists should ignore data that points out flaws in their assumptions?

I am saying quite the opposite. I am saying that Scientists should pay very close attention to when the theory makes incorrect pre-dictions because this gives important clues that they are on the wrong track.

The predictions of the solar neutrinos were WAAAAY off. And so, once again they fix their incorrect model to fit the data.

Is the model really predictive?? Nope. It has failed test after test. This is called "falsification". It is the only mechanism by which science can learn of important errors in the theory.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't really care about any universal geometry of the observed or the entire universe at this point. It is irrelevant to Plasma Cosmology. Let's deal with the explanations of stellar structure first and move on from there.

I do, and so would any physicist.

? Come on. This theory uses standard physics. Why are we debating such banalities? Do you understand the model of the sun put forth on the website? Let us start there.

It certainly does not use standard physics, because it likes to take every opportunity to try and assert that standard physics is flawed. We are debating these "banalities" because the dynamical foundation for a theory is important.

And it has even come up in one of these threads; you referenced a "proof" that classical mechanics can explain the perihelion shift of Mercury... but it used laws that were quite invalid in classical mechanics (the law of conservation of mass-energy is relativistic; classical mechanics has the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass), and fundamentally breaks the classical picture of the (local) universe by demanding that measurements in different locations use different rods and clocks.

Why don't you read it to find out?

I looked; I didn't find any.

Just use your current knowledge to understand the things that plasma cosmology does not need to deal with.

My current knowledge is strongly inconsistent with the claims of plasma cosmology.

To properly learn the model you must simply read it with an open mind. If you spend your entire time looking for things that it doesn't talk about, then you will never learn the model.

The things that it doesn't talk about are very important, that's why I'm complaining about it.

One can certainly give any bound one wishes but without any evidence then what is the point?

There is evidence. For example, I can certainly find evidence that the universe is at least a few days old; I know the properties behind the timestamps on this form and I can check them.

I am saying quite the opposite. I am saying that Scientists should pay very close attention to when the theory makes incorrect pre-dictions because this gives important clues that they are on the wrong track.

You forget one thing; the model's predictions are mostly correct, and generally only minor corrections of the assumptions need to be made to fix the errors.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I do, and so would any physicist.

Good for you, but I am not debating any universal geometry. You will have to discuss that with someone else.

It certainly does not use standard physics, because it likes to take every opportunity to try and assert that standard physics is flawed.

Is Plasma Physics not standard physics? Please tell me an instance when standard BASIC proven science is rejected by plasma physics?

Plasma Physics is laboratory science. plain and simple.

We are debating these "banalities" because the dynamical foundation for a theory is important.

We have not even got into the dynamical foundation. You are still stuck in the periphery.

And it has even come up in one of these threads; you referenced a "proof" that classical mechanics can explain the perihelion shift of Mercury...

There are other proofs that I also referenced which are quite valid indeed.

but it used laws that were quite invalid in classical mechanics (the law of conservation of mass-energy is relativistic;

E=MC2 can be derived by purely classical means. It is not part of the theory of relativity.

classical mechanics has the law of conservation of energy and the law of conservation of mass), and fundamentally breaks the classical picture of the (local) universe by demanding that measurements in different locations use different rods and clocks.

You are wrong here. Relativity is superfluous when understanding e=mc2.

I looked; I didn't find any.

So look somewhere else and give up on Plasma Cosmology. You simply cannot open your mind to anything new.

My current knowledge is strongly inconsistent with the claims of plasma cosmology.

Indeed!

The things that it doesn't talk about are very important, that's why I'm complaining about it.

That is a cop out. It is a tactic for not learning the model. "Let's just debate what it DOESN'T talk about!" Just admit that you cannot even understand the theory.

There is evidence. For example, I can certainly find evidence that the universe is at least a few days old; I know the properties behind the timestamps on this form and I can check them.

Lol. Oh ok. more banalities...

[zz)]

You forget one thing; the model's predictions are mostly correct, and generally only minor corrections of the assumptions need to be made to fix the errors.

The predictions have been incorrect and constantly fixed and retrofitted since day one. They certainly aren't going to tell you this in school however.

You want references? I can give them.

 

[Hurkyl]

Good for you, but I am not debating any universal geometry. You will have to discuss that with someone else.

What about the geometry of the observable universe, or local geometry?

Is Plasma Physics not standard physics? Please tell me an instance when standard BASIC proven science is rejected by plasma physics?

Plasma physics does not assert that, for instance, gravitational lensing is a myth. http://www.electric-cosmos.org/localspace.htm does. If you search for respectable plasma physics sites (instead of the crackpot sites like http://www.electric-cosmos.org/localspace.htm ), you'll find that they aren't trying to replace any established theories (such as providing an alternative to the fusion model for the sun's power source)... they're working to supplement established theories.


(Note: up until this point, whenever I referred to "plasma cosmology" or similar phrases, I was referring to the crackpot theory expoused by you and sites like http://www.electric-cosmos.org/localspace.htm , not the actual science of plasma)

So look somewhere else and give up on Plasma Cosmology. You simply cannot open your mind to anything new.

Open mind != believe anything without proof.

The predictions have been incorrect and constantly fixed and retrofitted since day one. They certainly aren't going to tell you this in school however.

You want references? I can give them.

So? That's the cycle of knowledge; formulate a hypothesis that explains known data. Gather more data. Revise the hypothesis to account for any inconsistencies. Gather more data. et cetera.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl

Plasma physics does not assert that, for instance, gravitational lensing is a myth. http://www.electric-cosmos.org/localspace.htm does. If you search for respectable plasma physics sites (instead of the crackpot sites like http://www.electric-cosmos.org/localspace.htm ), you'll find that they aren't trying to replace any established theories (such as providing an alternative to the fusion model for the sun's power source)... they're working to supplement established theories.

So your definition of a crackpot theory is one that is attempting to supplant a faulty theory with a better one?

Open mind != believe anything without proof.

nope. it means understand first, falsify later.

So? That's the cycle of knowledge; formulate a hypothesis that explains known data. Gather more data. Revise the hypothesis to account for any inconsistencies. Gather more data. et cetera.

RETRO-FITTING

How does falsification fit into such a scheme?

Are you aware that this is exactly how the Earth-centered model of the solar-system survived for so long? The retro-fitting in this case was called an epicycle.

 

[Hurkyl]

So your definition of a crackpot theory is one that is attempting to supplant a faulty theory with a better one?

Nope.

How does falsification fit into such a scheme?

When an observation is made that contradicts predictions, you change your assumptions. How else would it fit in?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
When an observation is made that contradicts predictions, you change your assumptions. How else would it fit in?

Really? So when the data comes in that the Doppler interpretation has been falsified what happened? Absolutely nothing. It was ignored and the astronomer who took the pictures was barred from using the telescopes.

The question is which assumptions do you change? You can change them at a superficial level like adding epicycles or hypothetical flavour change or you can dig deeper and search for a more consistent model that solves many problems at once, such as the Plasma model of the plasma sun.

 

[Hurkyl]

The question is which assumptions do you change?

You make changes in which you have the least confidence, and the ones that don't cause the model to fail in areas where it is currently successful.

model that solves many problems at once

You're not getting it; it solves nothing. It is merely a vague theory that gives vague mechanisms for observations, but no concrete, mathematically precise model from which we can make numerical predictions that coincide with observations.

 

[meteor]

If in the electric sun model there's no production of energy at the core of the sun, what prevents the sun from collapse?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
If in the electric sun model there's no production of energy at the core of the sun, what prevents the sun from collapse?

I thought we already discussed this. Try to follow along.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
You're not getting it; it solves nothing. It is merely a vague theory that gives vague mechanisms for observations, but no concrete, mathematically precise model from which we can make numerical predictions that coincide with observations.

You still do not know the theory. You are rejecting it in ignorance of it. If you think it is faulty then prove it plain and simple.

 

[meteor]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by meteor
If in the electric sun model there's no production of energy at the core of the sun, what prevents the sun from collapse?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I thought we already discussed this. Try to follow along.

Why? Because the sun is positively charged? And why must be the sun positively charged? This is an ad hoc assumption.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by meteor
Why? Because the sun is positively charged? And why must be the sun positively charged? This is an ad hoc assumption.

Nuclear energy is simply not needed to prevent collapse. I'll post it again in case you missed it

---

Why Doesn't the Sun Collapse of Its Own Weight?
How can we account for the fact that the Sun has been around for a long time with something like the same luminosity, yet has not collapsed in upon itself? 3 In orthodox theory, a main-sequence star like the sun behaves like a ball of gas, its temperature and pressure both increasing monotonically from the outer surface toward the center. The temperature is needed to sustain the pressure, and the pressure is needed to fend off gravitational forces which, in the absence of sufficient pressure, would lead to collapse. It is hard to understand how in Juergens' theory, with no fusion going on in the core, such a "reverse" temperature gradient can be maintained.
The answer is best stated by physicist Wal Thornhill:
"The electric star model makes the simplest assumption - that nothing is going on inside the Sun. ... So for most of the volume of a star where the gravity is strongest, atoms and molecules will predominate. (In the electric model that applies to the entire star). The nucleus of each atom, which is thousands of times heavier than the electrons, will be gravitationally offset from the centre of the atom. The result is that each atom becomes a small electric dipole. These dipoles align to form a radial electric field that causes electrons to diffuse outwards in enormously greater numbers than simple gravitational sorting allows. That leaves positively charged ions behind which repel one another. That electrical repulsion balances the compressive force of gravity without the need for a central heat source in the star. An electric star will be roughly the same density throughout, or isodense."

We should remember, considering a pair of such protons, that the strength of the electrostatic repulsion force between them is something like 35 orders of magnitude greater than the strength of gravitational attraction! (Not 35 TIMES, but 35 Orders Of Magnitude). So the offset of the electron from the nucleus can be truly minuscule and yet produce an extremely strong electrical force to counteract gravitational collapse.

The Sun does not require internally generated heat in order to avoid collapse.

3. The same question ("Why doesn't it collapse due to gravity?") should be asked about globular clusters of stars. The real answer in this case is also electrical in nature. And no "missing matter" or "dark energy" is required.

 

[Hurkyl]

We should remember, considering a pair of such protons, that the strength of the electrostatic repulsion force between them is something like 35 orders of magnitude greater than the strength of gravitational attraction! (Not 35 TIMES, but 35 Orders Of Magnitude). So the offset of the electron from the nucleus can be truly minuscule and yet produce an extremely strong electrical force to counteract gravitational collapse.

(a) How does this change the fact there is still enough pressure in the depths of the sun to ignite fusion? (and thus the generated heat, in combination with the charge, would blow the star apart)

(b) Since you posit that the electrostatic repulsion is so strong, how does gravity manage to overcome repulsion to hold the star together?

(c) What mechanism thwarts the combined effort of the sun's gravity and electrostatic field to suck up enough electrons out of the surrounding space to neutralize the sun's charge?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
(a) How does this change the fact there is still enough pressure in the depths of the sun to ignite fusion?

That is not a fact that is a guess that is unsupported by the evidence.

(b) Since you posit that the electrostatic repulsion is so strong, how does gravity manage to overcome repulsion to hold the star together?

That is quite hilarious. How does the Earth stay together? What a joke!

(c) What mechanism thwarts the combined effort of the sun's gravity and electrostatic field to suck up enough electrons out of the surrounding space to neutralize the sun's charge?

What makes you think there are enough electrons?

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
(a) How does this change the fact there is still enough pressure in the depths of the sun to ignite fusion?

Just as the standard model predicted a pressure within Jupiter much greater than the galileo probe found so the sun has much less pressure than assumed by the standard model.

 

[Hurkyl]

That is quite hilarious. How does the Earth stay together? What a joke!

I asked it for the sun, since you posit that the sun has a large net positive charge. Why would it be a joke?

Do you think the Earth too has a large net positive charge? There are a whole slew of problems with that one beyond simply asking how the Earth stays together.

What makes you think there are enough electrons?

The fact that there isn't an observable electric field permeating our solar system.

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
I asked it for the sun, since you posit that the sun has a large net positive charge. Why would it be a joke?

The positive charge exists at the surface not all through the interior.

The fact that there isn't an observable electric field permeating our solar system.

Non sequiter.

"This plot [... http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm] is easily measured for a laboratory plasma contained in a column - a cylindrical glass tube with the anode at one end and the cathode at the other. These two terminals are connected into an electrical circuit whereby the current through the tube can be controlled. In such an experiment, the plasma has a constant cross-sectional area from one end of the tube to the other. The vertical axis of the plot in figure 4 is the voltage rise from the cathode up to the anode (across the entire plasma) as a function of the current passing through the plasma. The horizontal axis shows the Current Density. Current density is the measurement of how many Amps per square meter are flowing through a cross-section of the tube. In a cylindrical tube the cross-section is the same size at all points along the tube and so, the current density at every cross-section is just proportional to the total current passing through the plasma.

When we consider the Sun, however, a spherical geometry exists - with the sun at the center. The cross-section becomes an imaginary sphere. Assume a constant total electron drift moving from all directions toward the Sun and a constant total radial flow of +ions outward. Imagine a spherical surface of large radius through which this total current passes. As we approach the Sun from deep space, this spherical surface has an ever decreasing area. Therefore, for a fixed total current, the current density (A/m^2) increases as we move inward toward the Sun.


In deep space the current density there is extremely low even though the total current may be huge; we are in the dark current region; there are no glowing gases, nothing to tell us we are in a plasma discharge - except possibly some radio frequency emissions.
As we get closer to the Sun, the spherical boundary has a smaller surface area; the current density increases; we enter the normal glow region; this is what we call the Sun's "corona". The intensity of the radiated light is much like a neon sign.
As we approach still closer to the Sun, the spherical boundary gets to be only slightly larger than the Sun itself; the current density becomes extremely large; we enter the arc region of the discharge. This is the anode tuft. This is the photosphere. The intensity of the radiated light is much like an arc welding machine or continuous lightning. A high intensity ultraviolet light is emitted.

Some early plasma researchers and most modern astronomers believe that the only "true" plasma is one that is perfectly conductive (and so will "freeze" magnetic fields into itself). Figure 4 indicates that this does not happen. Every point on the plot (except the origin) has a non-zero voltage coordinate. The static resistivity of a plasma operating at any point in figure 4 is proportional to the slope of a straight line drawn from the origin to the point. This means that, at every possible mode in which a plasma can operate, it has a non-zero static resistivity; it takes a non-zero E-field to produce the current density. Obviously the static resistivity of a plasma in the high end of the dark mode can be quite large. (The arc region and the left half of the glow region exhibit negative dynamic resistance - and the E-field can be quite small - but that is not what is in question.) No real plasma can "freeze-in" a magnetic field. The highest conductivity plasmas are those in the arc mode. But, even in that mode, it takes a finite, non-zero valued electric field to produce a current density. No plasma is an "ideal conductor".

"

 

[Hurkyl]

The positive charge exists at the surface not all through the interior.

[?]

If all of the charge were on the surface of the sun, the charge could then do absolutely nothing to resist the gravitational collapse in the interior.

Non sequiter.

Good call; I don't like to say that myself, so it's nice that you prefaced your quote with the label.


Anyways, you are aware that the electric-cosmos site does not state that the sun has net positive charge; it tries to explain the resistance to gravitational collapse by a giant cooperative effort of dipoles causing the positive charge to collect in the core and negative charge to collect on the surface

 

[subtillioN]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[?]

If all of the charge were on the surface of the sun, the charge could then do absolutely nothing to resist the gravitational collapse in the interior.

Not ALL of the charge is at the surface obviously. There are protons in each and every atom of the sun of course. The surface is just te region with the most charge density.

Good call; I don't like to say that myself, so it's nice that you prefaced your quote with the label.

Ha ha. Did you even read it?

Anyways, you are aware that the electric-cosmos site does not state that the sun has net positive charge; it tries to explain the resistance to gravitational collapse by a giant cooperative effort of dipoles causing the positive charge to collect in the core and negative charge to collect on the surface

Yes that is a good point. I am not satisfied with that portion of the model either, but you will understand that there is no evidence of anything going on in the core including no evidence of nuclear fusion either. In fact the evidence says that the fusion is going on at the surface as I have pointed out with the neutrino flux. It is pure speculation on the part of ALL cosmologies as to why the sun doesn't collapse, but it is also pure speculation to assume that it would collapse. Remember also that the sun has a high degree of angular momentum. It seems fair to say that the interior is much more complex than we know and all of these factors lead to the fact that there is no evidence that any fusion reactions are going on in the core. If there were fusion in the core there wouldn't be the correlation between the neutrino flux and the sunspot density.

Physics has no clue what an atom really is and what gravitation really is as well. This is where ALL of physics breaks down as manifested in the uncertainties and singularities, the neccessity of the invention of Dark Matter and MUCH else. This is where Sorce Theory comes in, but qualitatively it is RADICALLY different from the standard model yet it fits perfectly with the fluid equations at the core which model the quantum vacuum as a zero-energy superfluid.