Number of Galaxies: Is It Infinite?

[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.