http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php
==========================================================
Cosmology Quest
Criticism of the Electric Sun Model
On the Bad Astronomy forums there exists a supposed refutation of the
electric sun model posted by Tusenfem, a moderator of those boards.
His post can be found here:
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/41877-electric-sun.html
Thunderbolts researcher Stephen Smith posted a rejoinder written by Don
Scott to the supposed refutation that I feel deserves its own web page.
Before I get into Scott's rejoinder, I'll include a few published papers
on the model and a link to Jurgen's work that is being called into question.
A laymans overview of the model and the reasons behind it can be seen in
this 8 minute video by Thornhill and Scott:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihVaL-FHUyk
*Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part I)*
Ralph E. Juergens Kronos Vol. VIII No. 1 (Fall 1982)
Part 2
*Cosmic Plasma*
Hannes Alfven, academic book
More recent work:
*A Solar Junction Transistor Mechanism*
Scott, D.E, 17-22 June 2007, IEEE Pulsed Power Plasma Science,
10.1109/PPPS.2007.4346305
*An electrically powered binary star?*
Kinwah Wu (1,2), Mark Cropper (2), Gavin Ramsay (2), Kazuhiro Sekiguchi
(3) ((1) Univ Sydney, (2) MSSL, (3) NAOJ Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 331
(2002) 221
Don Scott's rejoinder (formulas not displayed correctly on this page):
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1474#wrap
A casual reading of this mathematical attempt to falsify the Electric
Sun hypothesis reveals several misstatements, and unsupported assumptions.
1. Juergens hypothesized a solar voltage = 10^10 V, not 10^9. The exact
value is of course conjectural. But if you are going to claim you are
refuting Juergens, you ought to at least quote him correctly.
2. Therefore, the writer’s stated required current value is wrong (too
high) by a factor of ten (if he is claiming to refute Juergens).
Juergens’ total current value is 4 x 10^16 A. But these exponential
magnitudes are just guesses at present.
3. His (the writer’s) assumption that the required current has to be in
the form of an equatorial sheet having a thickness equal to the Sun's
diameter is pure conjecture and not related to anything Juergens ever
suggested. Juergens never claimed the solar electric current was
confined to an equatorial sheet.
4. Imposing structural details of Alfvén’s model onto Juergen’s model is
unwarranted. But even Alfvén suggested his proposed current sheet was
only partially equatorial. Alfvén, of course, never suggested the Sun is
fully externally powered. So mixing the two models is completely
inappropriate.
Alfvén’s contention was that there is substantial electrical activity
near to the Sun that explains several otherwise enigmatic (for
gravity-only fusion hypotheses) observed properties. He also postulated
that the equatorial current sheet balloons out as it approaches the Sun
– becoming unlike a sheet formation and becoming field-aligned:
It seems to be a general rule of cosmic physics that field-aligned
currents frequently manifest themselves as luminous filaments. If the
current in [the ballooned out flow] is spread over an extended region,
we should expect filaments. Equatorial streamers in the solar corona may
be explained in this way.1
As a starting point we all agree that the Sun does in fact have a
magnetic field. The writer of the (mathematical) proof correctly points
out that Maxwell’s equations are dominant in such situations. He cites:
∇ x H = j + ∂D/∂t
where B = µH, j = current density, and D = ε E which demonstrates the
requirement of considering electric currents whenever we have magnetic
fields. In his book Cosmic Plasma2 Alfvén points out that in order to
produce the well-known spiral shaped solar magnetic field, a spiral
current is required. Given the value of the observed field strength (~ 2
x 10^-9 T) at a radial distance from the Sun of one astronomical unit
(Earth’s orbital radius), he calculates the magnitude of the causative
total current as being I0 = 3 x 10^9 Amp.
The writer of the "proof" states that:
The Ulysses spacecraft over the poles of the sun have not shown any
signature AFAIK of strong toroidal magnetic fields associated with the
out flowing currents.
He should be aware that the maximum solar latitude attained by the
Ulysses probe was 80.2 degrees. So to imply Ulysses sought out the
electric current (or magnetic field strength) directly over the Sun’s
poles is inaccurate. Also such currents may be field-aligned and not
produce toroidal magnetic structures. Alfvén stated that the exact
location of current paths and structure was yet to be determined.
The model predicts that there should be currents near the [Sun’s] axis
strong enough to match the current in the equatorial plane. … They may
be distributed over a large region and may in part flow at medium
altitudes.3
He (Alfvén) goes on to state that the presence of the electric current
(in the polar regions) would produce a force on the solar atmosphere via
the Lorentz relation:
Df = I ds x B
that would tend to decelerate the rotation of the Sun in those high
latitudes and thus be an explanation of the observed fact that this is
indeed the case.
Conclusions:
1. Observed magnetic fields around (and due to) the Sun require the
presence of electric currents.
2. The exact locations and paths taken by those currents are not yet
clear – but they must exist if the magnetic fields exist (unless we want
to deny the validity of Maxwell’s equations).
3. We know now that the aurora displays (plasma glow discharges) that we
see both here on Earth and on various other planets are due to electric
currents coming from the Sun moving down into the "cusps" (indentations)
of the magnetospheres (plasmaspheres) of those bodies. It would not be
surprising if the Sun also received electric current from the galaxy via
a similar morphology to produce its plasma arc discharges.
4. It has taken establishment astrophysics over a century (after
Birkeland first described this mechanism) to recognize its existence. It
is premature to deny the possibility of a similar mechanism on the Sun.
5. Juergens’ model implies that the outer surface of the heliosphere is
the collector of the necessary current stream from the nearby region of
our galaxy. Inside the heliopause (within the "solar wind" plasma) the
movement of electrons would consist of a "drift current" moving inward
toward the Sun superimposed on a vastly stronger "Brownian (random)
motion" and therefore be difficult to measure. For a summary of
Juergens’ computation see Appendix C of The Electric Sky.
6. The Electric Sun model is still in its infancy. Whether or not it is
correct in each one of its details is not as important as realizing that
the phenomena observable at and above the photosphere are indeed highly
electrical in nature.
7. Those who demand that ES proponents state exactly how, where, and by
what paths electrons get to the Sun seem not to be even more outraged by
the claim that invisible "missing matter" exists and is responsible for
dozens of otherwise inexplicable observations. Am I the only one to see
the irony in that?
1 Alfvén, H. Cosmic Plasma, D. Reidel, 1981, p. 56.
2 Op cit.pp. 53-55.
3 Op cit. p. 56.
k