X2 class solar flair

How the hell would you know that god?

Whatever works for you. Unfortunately, you haven't discovered --. org

Beavers (especially the dark ones) seem to have a tough time figuring out how not to fall trees on themselves. Physics? lol

You can tell it's important cuz it has reality in the URL. That is a scientifically discovered URL for sure. It's not plain brown reality it's scientific reality. Why do I hear harps when I say scientific reality?

Jesus, you're reduced to picking on my totem.

How would I know? Psychotropic drugs maybe?
What goes around comes around. You choose to ignore facts and spew crap, I hand you the shovel.

Do you have electrical appliances in your home? If so you may begin your quest with the toaster and then survey every other appliance in your house and garage and you will discover no gravity driven examples whatever and no fusion devices either I bet. Electricity is the most powerful force in the universe gravity is practically nothing compared to it. Basically your choices are the demonstratably electrically powered unexpanding universe or the hopelessly insane gravity model which was killed mercifully seven decades ago and only exist now in it's undead zombie theory form complete with miles of bandages covering all the sewn on pieces that make the freak. Literally everything is electric.

I'm not surprized that you had a shovel at hand.

According to your thoroughly debunked suppositions anyway.



Well, yeah. It's winter and it just dumped about 20 cm on us here last night. It can shovel your shyte for you as well as it can snow for me.

It's perfectly obvious. You want reality to be simple enough to be explicable by 19th century physics. It's not.

And you like it completely inexplicable no matter how many centuries may pass.

Overview of the Electric Sun
In the electric model, the thin plasma layer of the Sun’s photosphere acts as a PNP transistor, a device used to control current flow. It maintains the photosphere’s steady radiation of heat and light while the power input varies during the sunspot cycle and other changes in electrical input. (See discussion of “The Sun’s PNP Transistor” below.)
In the schematic below, the “hills” are the slopes of voltage change outward from the subsurface of the Sun (region beneath the photosphere). Positively charged particles will “roll down the hills.” So the tufted plasma of the photosphere (B-C) acts as a barrier, limiting the Sun’s power output. When it is breached we see gigantic coronal mass ejections.
As Scott explains, solar protons that reach the point (C) on the voltage curve accelerate down the “waterfall,” causing the turbulence at the bottom of the steep curve that is the source of the million-degree corona.
Fig. 7. The Sun’s implied voltage curve in relation to elevation, as originally envisioned by Ralph Juergens, and further analyzed by Wal Thornhill and Donald Scott.

Electrical theorists are not surprised by the fact that the most energetic and variable activity of the Sun occurs well above the Sun’s photosphere, in the corona—the spectacular halo which shows up when the Sun’s light is blocked by a solar eclipse (below). In electrical terms its counterpart is the corona of a glow discharge.
Fig. 8. Left: the corona of the Sun as seen in an eclipse. Right: glow discharge in the laboratory

Coronal Heating
The temperature gradient from the Sun’s surface to the corona has always presented a problem for astrophysical models. If the Sun were like a glowing ember or a flame (or a nuclear furnace), one would expect the temperature to drop off with distance from the central heat source. Yet, as seen, this is not the case.
At about 500 kilometers (310 miles) above the base of the photosphere, we find the coldest measurable temperature of the Sun, about 4400K. Moving outward, the temperature then rises steadily to about 20,000K at the top of the chromosphere, some 2200 kilometers (1200 miles) above the Sun’s surface. Here it abruptly jumps hundreds of thousands of degrees, then continues slowly rising, eventually exceeding 2 million degrees. And incredibly, ionized oxygen at a distance of 1 or 2 solar diameters reaches 200 million K!
Professor Jay Pasachoff, of the Department of Astronomy at Williams College, puzzles over the manner in which the heating of the solar corona defies “everyday physics.” How could this be? he asks. What events are “transporting energy from the cold part to the hot part?” Pasachoff’s wry assessment is refreshing. “The problem has been solved,” he states. “It’s been solved a dozen times over, and there are a dozen different answers. So of course that means it really hasn’t been solved…” [20]
Fig. 9. Schematic illustration of the Sun’s reverse temperature gradient. Credit: W. Thornhill.

But can astronomers and astrophysicists break free from the arbitrary assumption that the energy is “coming from the cold part”? In fact, the reverse temperature gradient of the Sun contradicts every original expectation of the thermonuclear model. However, it mirrors perfectly the behavior of glow discharge phenomena in the laboratory.
Fig. 10. In contrast to the candle on the left, a candle in a Mir space station experiment produces a luminous surrounding shell, signifying the transaction between the vaporized wax of the candle and the external atmospheric oxygen.

The inescapable key is the external energy source. A crude analogy would be the flame of a candle. The relatively cool temperature at the base of the flame gives way to much higher temperature above the candle at the region of maximum exchange with the oxygen-bearing atmosphere. In a weightless environment, as seen in an experiment on the Mir Space Station a few years ago (above), the exchange shows up as a luminous shell around the candle. The analogy with the corona is crude, but it does illustrate the indispensable external contribution to a reverse temperature gradient. Nature as we know it offers no contradiction of this principle.
--

Mysteries of the Solar Wind
A direct confirmation of the Sun’s electric field is the solar wind, a continuous flow of charged particles streaming from the Sun and continuing to accelerate out past the planets. Electric fields accelerate charged particles, and it is not reasonable to reject the obvious when no comparable effect can be achieved by any other known force in interplanetary space.
Great volumes of material depart from the Sun without regard to its massive gravitational tug. The Sun’s blast of particles typically reaches speeds of 400 to 700 kilometers (about 250 to 435 miles) per second. And though a few authorities anticipated a “wind” from the Sun due to thermodynamic expansion in the solar atmosphere, it soon became clear that the measured rapid acceleration was far beyond the explanatory ability of any prior guess about “heat” expansion as the source.
The solar wind is also highly variable. In 2010, its speed dropped by 3%, its temperature by 13%, its density by 20%, and its magnetic field strength by more than 50%. Why a stable star will send out a wind of charged particles at widely varying speeds is a mystery with no apparent connection to anything going on inside the Sun.
When considering unsolved mysteries of this sort, often the most critical evidence comes from the extremes. In this case the two extremes would be, 1) a blast of solar wind in the form of a coronal mass ejection in 2005, reaching up to a quarter the speed of light before striking the Earth, and 2) the complete cessation of the solar wind for two days in May, 1999 (See discussion below.)
Fig. 11. Chart of ion velocities in the solar wind. From D. Scott, The Electric Sky.

The first problem is that even the more normal ranges of solar wind velocities are beyond the reach of any traditional model. The typical coronal mass ejection (CME) will reach Earth in 15 to 50 hours. But in January 2005, a CME exploded from the Sun, accelerating so rapidly that it reached Earth in only 30 minutes, producing what NASA scientists called “the most intense proton storm in decades.”
The protons reached the Earth at nearly one quarter the speed of light—a theory-busting test of the nuclear Sun, and a theory-affirming testament to the electric Sun, the center of a heliospheric electric field.

The above information simply and completely destroys the fusion model of the sun.

lol

--

Um, I don't suppose you have the math that supports this nutty idea? Or even equations?

See, the thing about laws is that they are provable using mathematics. If you have no mathematics to represent how your hypothesis works, then you cannot claim provability, nor can you even show where the laws of physics are screwy. So your words mean nothing.
So, for instance, if electricity can travel at warp velocities, even warp 2 should be measurable. We can show the velocity of electrons under perfect circumstances (the dot in front of the letters means I couldn't find any way of indicating subscripts):
e.k= E.at + 2t cos(ka) where a= 0.409 * 10^-9 m, t= 4 eV= 4 * 1.6 * 10^-19= 6.4 * 10^-19 J
So, e.k= E.at + 1.28 * 10^-18 cos(0.409 * 10^-9k)
v.g= 1/h(with line) * (d e.k/dk)
d e.k/dk= -1.28 * 10^-18 * 0.409 * 10^-9 sin(0.409 * 10^-9k)
v.g=-4.96 * 10^6 sin(0.409 * 10^-9k)
When the sine is maximum = 1, the velocity is a maximum and the velocity is -4.96 * 10^6 m/s

Couldn't sleep, so I made some cocoa and dug around in a physics book.

Oh, and BTW, the - sign in front just means negative charge. And the velocity of light is about 3 * 10^8 m/s

Good one Les, but the beave has never allowed himself to be confused by the facts, and like everybody else in the Electric Cosmos world, with the possible exception of a crackpot named Donald Scott, he talks a lot of physics but can't actually do any. It's all qualitative, they can't do the quantitative analysis. Scott's the only one I've ever seen produce any equations, but he routinely applies them to circumstances where they don't apply, like the inverse square law discussed in that link you provided three posts back, fails to understand the basic physics, and makes claims that just aren't true, like that bit about the neutrino flux in the same link. They also reject quantum theory and general relativity, despite their successes, and view them at best as calculating tricks that just happen to produce the right answers. Many of them also cling to Velikovskian catastrophism, which is a good indicator of how little of reality they understand. Long as you're having fun with this, go for it, but you'll never change anyone's mind, this is a matter of faith and ignorance, not science.

Lester I've seen math in support of a non existent impossible fusion sun, an expanding universe black holes dark matter you name it there's math stuffed with assumptions proving whatever you want. Math is not reality.

I'm not surprised you linked to "professional" skeptics, by the way that is an extremely poor debunking job and the author has so little confidence that she or he left no name. There are many of these sites designed to bolster the sagging fortunes of stupid relativists.

SOLAR Physics

--
Posted on --
One of the more interesting “scientific” assumptions is the idea that the Sun is powered by a nuclear fusion core. The problem is explaining variations in the output of this fusion reaction to produce the sunspot cycles, (and other related ones), and another of how to explain occasional still-stands of the solar wind. What’s moderating solar output? Angels with graphite moderating rods?
The alternative explanation is that the nuclear fusion model is wrong and what known mechanism could replace it? Notice that nuclear fusion has not yet been demonstrated to be a sustainable replicable reaction – the US has been working for at least 50 years on the TOKOMAK project with not success in sight.
If the sun is an electrical phenomenon as advocated by the --, then mundane solutions become possible. Solar fluctuations then are the result of changes in electrical flux of the galaxy-sized Birkeland currents powering the sun.

Of course it isn't, but as a language it describes reality. And it describes physical reality a whole lot better than words, especially words from crackpot EU religionists claiming to use science (the language of which IS mathematics). Like Dexter said, you people are qualitative without being quantitative, just like Christians and other religionists; all talk, no proof.


Lame argument. There are dozens of real scientists that have debunked EU "theory" and lots have attached their names to their work. --

Finally, something from real scientists. However, 3 problems associated with flux does not mean that solar fusion is mistaken. It just shows we haven't quite discovered everything about fusion.

" These experiments provide
direct evidence that the stars shine and evolve as the result of nuclear fusion reactions among
light elements in their interiors" - --

--