A layman's overview of the Electric Sun Model:
Electric Sun Models:
The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars
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.
Don Scott has posted a rejoinder to these arguments that I feel deserves its own web page. Before I get into Scott's rejoinder to BAUT, I'll include a few responses by Scott to others who have made arguments against the Electric Star theory:
Don Scott's rejoinder to Tim Thompson
Don Scott's reply to Tom Bridgman
Don Scott's rejoinder to BAUT (formulas not displayed correctly on this page):
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.
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.
Scott goes on to comment about the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory Report that further calls the fusion model of stars into question.
More layman's articles on the Electric Stars can be found here:
On The Sun: