Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,208
- 2,512
Barbarian observes:
Oh, and of course the fact that we have ourselves demonstrated the phenomenon of hydrogen fusion at the appropriate pressures. We know it's going on in the sun, because we can demonstrate the phenomenon on Earth. It also nicely explains the ratio of elements in the sun and other stars, which the "electric universe" belief cannot.
Except it can't explain the ratio of elements, the thermal energy of the sun, the presence of ions of both charges in the solar wind, and many other things. On the other hand we know that fusion is the source of energy on the Sun. We can even produce that effect on Earth.
Barbarian observes:
That fusion is going on in the sun is clearly and unambiguously shown. That some other things aren't known is not support for your beliefs, nor does it contradict the fusion process we observe.
You're claiming atomic fusion is going on with an arc welder?!!
Barbarian observes:
Sunspots are on the surface. Which should be cooler than the interior. And it is.
You've been misled about that. They aren't holes in the Sun. They are only slight depressions, where convection from the lower, hotter layers of the Sun is inhibited and therefore the spots are cooler. The energy that would have been in the spot, is found in the increased brightness of the surface next to the sunspot, where the thermal energy is more concentrated.
Since sunspots are darker than the surrounding photosphere it might be expected that more sunspots would lead to less solar radiation and a decreased solar constant. However, the surrounding margins of sunspots are brighter than the average, and so are hotter; overall, more sunspots increase the Sun's solar constant or brightness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
See above. Consistent with fusion, but not with an electrical source from outside the Sun.
What we don't know, isn't proof of anything. It's the nature of crackpot "theories" to argue that if we don't know everything, then they must be right.
Barbarian observes:
Large masses undergoing fusion should have oscillations in temperature and pressure. Pretty basic physics.
That contradicts a lot of established physics. But let's see your evidence and numbers for that.
We'll know that when we see the calculations.
Barbarian observes:
Nope. Fusion is well-characterized. We can study it directly:
In nuclear physics, nuclear fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei collide at a very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic nucleus. During this process, matter is not conserved because some of the matter of the fusing nuclei is converted to photons (energy). Fusion is the process that powers active or "main sequence" stars.
The fusion of two nuclei with lower masses than iron (which, along with nickel, has the largest binding energy per nucleon) generally releases energy, while the fusion of nuclei heavier than iron absorbs energy. The opposite is true for the reverse process, nuclear fission. This means that fusion generally occurs for lighter elements only, and likewise, that fission normally occurs only for heavier elements. There are extreme astrophysical events that can lead to short periods of fusion with heavier nuclei. This is the process that gives rise to nucleosynthesis, the creation of the heavy elements during events such as supernovae. Following the discovery of quantum tunneling by Friedrich Hund, in 1929 Robert Atkinson and Fritz Houtermans used the measured masses of light elements to predict that large amounts of energy could be released by fusing small nuclei. Building upon the nuclear transmutation experiments by Ernest Rutherford, carried out several years earlier, the laboratory fusion of hydrogen isotopes was first accomplished by Mark Oliphant in 1932. During the remainder of that decade the steps of the main cycle of nuclear fusion in stars were worked out by Hans Bethe. Research into fusion for military purposes began in the early 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project. Fusion was accomplished in 1951 with the Greenhouse Item nuclear test. Nuclear fusion on a large scale in an explosion was first carried out on November 1, 1952, in the Ivy Mike hydrogen bomb test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
(Barbarian checks)
You were just misled. This isn't at all about "electric universe." People just cite stuff they think you won't understand, when they want to get you to think there's evidence for their beliefs.
I think you're looking for stuff that isn't there. I'm just pointing out that the cited research offers no support whatever for an "electric universe."
And their findings don't support your ideas.
Indeed. Fusion couldn't work without them. It's just that the data here don't support your ideas about them. Accept their findings or don't. Science is moving on. And electric universe is, along with flat Earth and geocentrism, on the sidelines.
Oh, and of course the fact that we have ourselves demonstrated the phenomenon of hydrogen fusion at the appropriate pressures. We know it's going on in the sun, because we can demonstrate the phenomenon on Earth. It also nicely explains the ratio of elements in the sun and other stars, which the "electric universe" belief cannot.
Except it can't explain the ratio of elements, the thermal energy of the sun, the presence of ions of both charges in the solar wind, and many other things. On the other hand we know that fusion is the source of energy on the Sun. We can even produce that effect on Earth.
Barbarian observes:
That fusion is going on in the sun is clearly and unambiguously shown. That some other things aren't known is not support for your beliefs, nor does it contradict the fusion process we observe.
You're claiming atomic fusion is going on with an arc welder?!!
Barbarian observes:
Sunspots are on the surface. Which should be cooler than the interior. And it is.
You've been misled about that. They aren't holes in the Sun. They are only slight depressions, where convection from the lower, hotter layers of the Sun is inhibited and therefore the spots are cooler. The energy that would have been in the spot, is found in the increased brightness of the surface next to the sunspot, where the thermal energy is more concentrated.
Since sunspots are darker than the surrounding photosphere it might be expected that more sunspots would lead to less solar radiation and a decreased solar constant. However, the surrounding margins of sunspots are brighter than the average, and so are hotter; overall, more sunspots increase the Sun's solar constant or brightness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
See above. Consistent with fusion, but not with an electrical source from outside the Sun.
What we don't know, isn't proof of anything. It's the nature of crackpot "theories" to argue that if we don't know everything, then they must be right.
Barbarian observes:
No. So long as fusion goes on, you should see continuing changes.
Large masses undergoing fusion should have oscillations in temperature and pressure. Pretty basic physics.
That contradicts a lot of established physics. But let's see your evidence and numbers for that.
We'll know that when we see the calculations.
Barbarian observes:
We see that in fusion experiments on Earth. It works the way physicists predicted. No magic electric effects needed. Standard physics does it nicely.
The fusion model goes against standard physics:Nope. Fusion is well-characterized. We can study it directly:
In nuclear physics, nuclear fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei collide at a very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic nucleus. During this process, matter is not conserved because some of the matter of the fusing nuclei is converted to photons (energy). Fusion is the process that powers active or "main sequence" stars.
The fusion of two nuclei with lower masses than iron (which, along with nickel, has the largest binding energy per nucleon) generally releases energy, while the fusion of nuclei heavier than iron absorbs energy. The opposite is true for the reverse process, nuclear fission. This means that fusion generally occurs for lighter elements only, and likewise, that fission normally occurs only for heavier elements. There are extreme astrophysical events that can lead to short periods of fusion with heavier nuclei. This is the process that gives rise to nucleosynthesis, the creation of the heavy elements during events such as supernovae. Following the discovery of quantum tunneling by Friedrich Hund, in 1929 Robert Atkinson and Fritz Houtermans used the measured masses of light elements to predict that large amounts of energy could be released by fusing small nuclei. Building upon the nuclear transmutation experiments by Ernest Rutherford, carried out several years earlier, the laboratory fusion of hydrogen isotopes was first accomplished by Mark Oliphant in 1932. During the remainder of that decade the steps of the main cycle of nuclear fusion in stars were worked out by Hans Bethe. Research into fusion for military purposes began in the early 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project. Fusion was accomplished in 1951 with the Greenhouse Item nuclear test. Nuclear fusion on a large scale in an explosion was first carried out on November 1, 1952, in the Ivy Mike hydrogen bomb test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion
(Barbarian checks)
The evidence for electrical currents in cosmic plasma
Authors: Peratt, Anthony L.
Affiliation: AA(Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM)
Publication: IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 26-32
Abstract
With the advent of fully three-dimensional, fully electromagnetic, particle-in-cell simulations, investigations of Birkeland currents and magnetic-field-aligned electric fields have become possible in plasmas not accessible to in situ measurement, i.e., in plasmas having the dimensions of galaxies or systems of galaxies. The necessity for a three-dimensional electromagnetic approach derives from the fact that the evolution of magnetized plasmas involves complex geometries, intense self-fields, nonlinearities, and explicit time-dependence. A comparison of the synchrotron radiation properties of simulated currents to those of extragalactic sources provides observational evidence for galactic-dimensional Birkeland currents.
Nothing about electric universe there. You're claiming Peratt is an electric universe believer? I don't think so. I gather you pick this up from a list somewhere. Some crank just listed something he thought might support his beliefs, without understanding the paper.
Show us something of substance.
Authors: Peratt, Anthony L.
Affiliation: AA(Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM)
Publication: IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 26-32
Abstract
With the advent of fully three-dimensional, fully electromagnetic, particle-in-cell simulations, investigations of Birkeland currents and magnetic-field-aligned electric fields have become possible in plasmas not accessible to in situ measurement, i.e., in plasmas having the dimensions of galaxies or systems of galaxies. The necessity for a three-dimensional electromagnetic approach derives from the fact that the evolution of magnetized plasmas involves complex geometries, intense self-fields, nonlinearities, and explicit time-dependence. A comparison of the synchrotron radiation properties of simulated currents to those of extragalactic sources provides observational evidence for galactic-dimensional Birkeland currents.
Nothing about electric universe there. You're claiming Peratt is an electric universe believer? I don't think so. I gather you pick this up from a list somewhere. Some crank just listed something he thought might support his beliefs, without understanding the paper.
Show us something of substance.
You were just misled. This isn't at all about "electric universe." People just cite stuff they think you won't understand, when they want to get you to think there's evidence for their beliefs.
I think you're looking for stuff that isn't there. I'm just pointing out that the cited research offers no support whatever for an "electric universe."
And their findings don't support your ideas.
Indeed. Fusion couldn't work without them. It's just that the data here don't support your ideas about them. Accept their findings or don't. Science is moving on. And electric universe is, along with flat Earth and geocentrism, on the sidelines.
