Michael Mozina wrote:Keep in mind in this model that there are *many* possible energy sources, including electrical interactions with the universe itself, and induction as the plasma moves past solid surface features. There is also hydrogen and helium fusion taking place inside the coronal loops.
I don't give the Electric Universe theory much credit, personally. If there were electric fields of that magnitude floating around the solar system, I think they'd make themselves pretty obvious. I've never heard of fusion occuring in the solar corona; it's hot, but the density is far too low.
According to MECO theory, they never quite form a true event horizon, which may be why jets are typically seen streaming away from the center of what are presumed to be "black holes".
I've always understood jets to be sourced from the accretion disk surrounding black holes, not the holes themselves (considering an event horizon is effectively unescapable).
Well, there is heliosiesmology evidence of a "stratification subsurface" that exists between about .985R and .995R. That isn't the only evidence of a surface however. The RD images, particularly the SOHO RD images give us another way to test the concept. The Doppler images from the Tsunami video give us yet another way to confirm the existence of a shallow stratified surface at as shallow depth.
The images show that there are visible surface features of the Sun that have lifetimes measured in hours or more, certainly. But how does this imply that they are rigid or solid structures?
I'd guess that everytime they "blow" their shell, some of the material might be lost. Powerful electrical interactions with another body may also cause them to degenerate. They may even "shed" neutrons based on normal electrical interactions with the universe.
I'm not sure how you're proposing to get a neutron star hot enough to evaporate material. The energy required to pry neutrons free of that gravitational field would be excessive (I figured it roughly to be around 150MeV, but I'm no particle physicist). You
might be able to break bits off of neutron stars in neutron star-neutron star or neutron star-black hole collisions, but the efficiency of this to create 'stellar cores' would be so low as to be useless to your theory.
Where are you getting enough 'neutron star cores' of the correct size to support star formation? For every star that dies in the Milky Way each year, six more are born.
In theory, the lighter elements in the atmosphere would always be over represented. Hydrogen is really "by-product" of what is going on, so every star is likely to have one. Hydrogen and CNO fusion occurs in the coronal loops, so every star is likely to have a helium layer as well. Not every star however may have a neon layer. It depends on what the thicknesses are of each layer.
We see gamma rays from flares on the Sun, but if there were significant fusion going on, wouldn't the gamma ray flux from the Sun be a lot higher? The Sun as it is now isn't a significant source of gamma rays. And again, the density is a bit low on the surface for fusion, isn't it?
If the Sun only has a thin atmospheric layer of hydrogen and helium, why hasn't it all blown off by now, at the temperature the Sun maintains? What's producing enough hydrogen and helium,
and transporting it to the surface fast enough, to continuously replenish this atmosphere?
Now that the Solar Neutrino Problem has effectively been solved...
Well, let me begin by saying *maybe* the"problem" has been "solved", and maybe it hasn't. So far, most studies I've read to date simply equate "missing" neutrinos in these experiments as "oscillated" neutrinos. These studies however do not do a good job of ruling out more mundain options like simple scattering or absorption.
The SNO detector in Sudbury is sensitive to all three flavours of neutrino, and has detected them all in the correct amounts, from what I've read. I'd call that 'solved'. Even if 'scattering' or 'absorption' were the cause of the Solar Neutrino problem, by preventing 2/3s of the produced neutrinos from reaching our detectors, that would still mean that core fusion is the primary source of energy for the Sun.
Besides, what process is going to significantly absorb or scatter neutrinos? Our best detectors can barely catch the little devils.
Borrowing from other posts:
I fail to see how that particular video supports this theory. A large, self-gravitating spherical body is not equivalent to a 30cm ball of water in microgravity, dominated by chemical forces. That's like claiming that since one can blow soap bubbles, that the Earth is hollow.
Is there any evidence at all that a body at hydrostatic equilibrium does
not get more dense with depth?
I also believe that the iron and nickel atoms that makeup the crust of the neutron star are mostly stripped of electrons, and that charge repulsion, temperature and pressure play a major role in the overall configuration of elements and plasma layers that encircle the core. The inner neutron core rotates once every five minutes, and the electrical interactions that play out between the spinning core and the universe itself plays a large role in the sun's total energy output.
Then it's not a solid crust, is it? If you've stripped the atoms of most of their electrons, then you've got a hot plasma, not a solid surface. The pressure that would be required for it to behave as a solid would be enormous.
And again, spin wouldn't be a significant source of energy for the Sun, because it would rapidly stop spinning if it were. A neutron star of that size has enough rotational energy to power the Sun's output for two (2) years.
