The highest temperatures are to be found quite some distance away from the surface of the Sun; this fact alone suggests that the source of the suns energies have their origins in the Vacuum of Space.
In other words the vacuum of space is the potential source of all our energies.

The Sun has an enormous capture area, which is even more significant than it’s Mass, therefore the corona will be constantly interfaced with this immutable source

This explains perfectly why, in the wake of a large solar flare, that the temperature in hole on the surface (Sun spot) is considerably cooler than else where.

Energy from this unlimited source is available on demand. .

The standard model of the sun claims that at the sun’s core exists a continuous fusion reactor surrounded by a radiative zone which transfers heat from the core by photons and comprises some 50% of the sun’s radius. This is enclosed by another zone in which heat is carried to the surface by convection columns and it is estimate that that the entire journey from core to the surface takes about 100,000 and 200,000 years.

The standard model implies that the temperature gradient decreases from the core to space and obeys the inverse square law, much like the temperature gradient from a hot stove.

What the standard model does not predict is the existence of the hotter chromosphere some 2000-3000km above the sun’s surface or photosphere. It also cannot predict the temperature minimum just above the photosphere and the lower regions of the sun’s corona are millions of degrees higher than its surface.

Furthermore we know that the solar wind sometimes stops completely, and that the speed of the ions comprising the solar wind accelerate the further from the sun they are. The sun also rotates more rapidly at its equator than near its poles, and the magnetic fields near sunspots reverse polarity from one 11 year sunspot cycle to the next.

None of these observations can be explained by the standard model which astronomers insist has been verified experimentally in the laboratory. Wrong. We still have not managed to create a sustained fusion reaction after half a century’s work. The only time fusion of hydrogen and helium is done is via the H-Bomb and that is instantaneous. Apparently recently discovered instabilities in plasma that is generated in the process may make it impossible to control it and make it occur continuously.

All of these observations can be explained by the electric sun model first proposed by Ralph Juergens during the 1970’s and which actually predicts the temperature discontinuity above the photosphere.

The electric sun model assumes that the source of the sun’s energy is external and that there is a sufficient flow of electrons from space into the sun to power it. There is criticism that no one has measured the presence of the electrons assumed to power the sun but that is because most of our measurements were along the sun’s equatorial plane. However during the spring of 2001 the Ulysses spacecraft found long plasma tubes reaching to the south pole of the sun from a distance as far out as Mars, and more recently the THEMIS mission found similar plasma tubes, or magnetic flux ropes, connecting the earth and the sun.

There is another criticism that if the sun’s core is not a fusion reactor, then why hasn’t the sun collapsed upon itself. The standard model assumes that the sun behaves like a ball of gas, with temperature and pressure both increasing from the outer surface toward the centre. The temperature is needed to sustain the pressure which fends of gravitational forces which in the absence of sufficient pressure would lead to collapse.

So if there is no fusion going on inside the sun, what has it not collapsed? Physicist Wal Thornhill explains best – “The electric star model makes the simplest assumption – that nothing is going on in the sun….[In the plasma that makes up the sun] the nucleus of each atom, which is thousands of times heavier than electrons, will be gravitationally offset from the centre of the atom resulting in the formation of small electric dipoles. 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 forces of gravity without the need for a central heat source in the star.

In 1926 Arthur Eddington assumed that the sun was a ball of hot gas and “If there is no other way out we might have to suppose that the bright line spectra in the stars are produced by electric discharges similar to those producing bright line spectra in a vacuum tube,” A.S. Eddington, The Internal constitution of Stars”.

Ralph Juergen’s wrote in 1972 – “The known characteristics of the interplanetary medium suggest not only that the sun and the planets are electrically charged, but that the sun itself is the focus of a cosmic electric discharge – the probable source of all its radiant energy” 1972. Juergen’s model has the sun as a high voltage anode imbedded in galactic plasma of a lower voltage. This model is based on known experimental behavior of electric plasmas. The standard model of the sun relies things which have not been verified experimentally.

Of course the solar fusion model cannot wax and wane in output either, as is observed today.

(adapted from Dr. D Scott’s book, The Electric Sky”, 2006.

Please explain – I understood that the proton-proton reaction was fairly well understood and supported by observations.

As is stellar dynamics and evolution, although there is much to learn.

I cannot understand this statement.

http://www.nocarbontaxes.org

In addition, there is little research being done on this – Brian Tinsley does work in this area (I referred to his url elsewhere on Jen’s blog) but other wise I only know of Wal Thornhill doing research on it and my own lukewarm efforts (I only have so many hours in the day) as an infrequent foray in blosg or as an article in Henry Thornton. (I am writing a summary article for E&E for January next year).

One point which astrophysics has not understood is that Hannes Alfven coined the term magnetohydrodynamics and proposed that magnetic fields could be frozen in plasma. Subsequent experimental work showed him that this was wrong, and despite getting a Nobel Prize for this work, Alfven used that occassion to tell the astrophysical world that the theory was wrong, that electric plasma is not a perfect electrical conductor but a very good one.

Hence ALL magnetic fields observed anywhere in the universe HAVE to be formed by electric currents, and you cannot have electric currents without magnetic fields and vice versa.

This is the chicken and egg condunrum.

Have fun reading this stuff – there is much to learn and the plasma people have only started to scratch the surface.

One thing we are reasonably sure of is that the sun is not powered by a fusion reactor or that other astronomical myth, a neutron star.

No one has yet managed to create a sustainable fusion reaction because the theory of the magnetic bottle, based on Alfven’s magnetohydrodynamics, is flawed.

Thornhill and Scott discuss this in the relevant sections of their expositions.

You can buy their books for Mikamar publications listed on the Thunderbolts site.

There are some bogus sites on the Plasma Universe and the disclaimer on Dr Peratt’s site will guide you to the official ones.

The scientific mafia are alive and well in this area of science too.

Yes, the plasma universe theories on Peratt’s site are the hard science stuff – but Wal Thornhill, a physicist and Dr Don Scott, a retired professor of electrical engineering have both written expositions of the Plasma Universe theory in lay terms which you should find easy reading.

Thornhill’s material is on http://www.holoscience.com and Scott’s http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm

There are links to the Thunderbolts site which might be too controversial, but underlying the science is the principle of only explaining observations with known physical facts – not imaginative mathematical constructs such as string theory, black holes, dark matter, energy etc.

In particular the Plasma Universe position of the earth’s climate is that it is the physical interface between an electrically charged earth immersed in the diffuse electric plasma of the solar system.

The essential assumptions you need to understand is the three modes of electric plasma – dark current mode, glow mode and arc mode. Lightning is arc mode, fluro lights are glow mode, and the electric currents or the solar wind are dark current mode, dark because we cannot see it.

“How many clarets have you had tonight?”

Well spotted. But the fact is I haven’t followed up on the electric universe ideas so I’m lost and am unlikely to be able to click with the tantalizing leads you are lining up.

My thinking, generally speaking, would be that its unlikely that the new paradigm has all the answers holus bolus but I must get around to looking at it.

I was referred to a video with people talking about the electric universe theory and what impressed me about it was that they were attempting to explain observed phenomenon without recourse to the unobserved, and in a way that didn’t contradict absolutely fully known stuff.

But I didn’t follow up.

In economics the neoclassicals have been leaped on as advocates of the revealed truth since they were far superior to the Keynesians. But when I went back to look at the Austrians they were far better still. And then when I read George Reismans synthesis of the British Classical School with the Austrians that was a whole new level better again.

50 billion dollars spent and most of it wasted. We could do more with 5 billion. In a better world people of inherited wealth would be expected on a social level to sponsor these missions to find the truth. And I’m sure they’d do a superior and more cost-effective job of it.