Key points of Thornhill’s Thesis: the Sun is externally powered and the Earth is electrically connected to the sun

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

This is a remarkable article.  2 big thumbs up.

Please don't get turned off by the fairly pedantic beginning of the article.  I assure you the points discussed get pretty darn interesting, pretty darn quick.

This is a lengthy article, with meaty concepts of the universe and energy. 

Get settled into a comfy chair and engage your little grey cells into looking at planet Earth and the Sun and Gravity and Electricity and Energy in a slightly different perspective.

You don't need to agree with the author, but he does a great job in provoking some thoughts to chew over and kick around and ponder. 

Read the whole thing, there is no tl;dr version.

 

 

Climate Change in a Climate of Ignorance

<here is an excerpt from the middle of the article>

... It is crucial that we know what is really going on in space-and in particular how the Sun really works. By historical accident the theory of what makes the Sun shine was developed at the time nuclear energy was discovered and when plasma physics was in its infancy. The Sun, instead of being an aboriginal campfire in the sky with limited fuel, became a “thermonuclear campfire” with practically limitless fuel. Not such a big advance over Stone Age thinking!

It seems very satisfying—and safe. We don’t need to put coins in the meter to keep it burning. However, the reactions which are thought to generate heat in the Sun’s core are hypersensitive to temperature variations, and mechanisms to control the reactions are difficult to devise. In view of this, the steadiness of the Sun’s output is a puzzle. Furthermore, if thermonuclear reactions generated all the Sun’s energy, a certain number of subatomic particles called electron neutrinos would be produced. And critically—the number of electron neutrinos coming from the Sun is woefully inadequate.

Astronomers appealed to particle physicists to help patch things up. Particle physicists responded with a clever subterfuge, saying that all is well if you add up the different neutrino “flavors” and propose that some were electron neutrinos that swapped flavours en-route to the detectors on Earth. Astrophysicists grasped this lifesaver like drowning men and women. It became “proof” of their “thermonuclear campfire” model overnight. Unfortunately, it cannot be proven without a neutrino detector close to the Sun. Occam’s razor recommends that we take the neutrino data at face value and re-examine our assumptions about the Sun.

Meanwhile astronomers discovered that the Sun is an amazingly complex magnetic body—while campfires are not noted for their magnetism. So heroic attempts have been made to conjure up a “dynamo” inside the Sun to match its weird magnetic behaviour. Not surprisingly, all attempts have failed. It is simply assumed there must be a hidden dynamo because the magnetic fields are there and no one believes they could come from outside the Sun. The mysteriously generated magnetic fields are called upon to explain most of the puzzling observations about the Sun. It fits the astrophysicists’ maxim, “When we don’t understand something, we blame it on magnetism.” They then show their ignorance of magnetism by describing electric discharge phenomena in terms of the ‘snapping’ and ‘reconnection’ of imaginary field lines. The father of plasma physics, [Nobel laureate] Hannes Alfvén, wrote concerning the mistreatment of magnetism by astrophysicists:

“Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that part of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority in the latter group.”

The view of the Sun as an isolated, self-sufficient, self-immolating, magnetic body is the chief peculiarity and drawback of the campfire Sun.

But the refutation of this theory blazes down on us in plain view. Nothing seen on or above the Sun conforms to the “campfire” model!

—the odd solar magnetic field, the remarkable photospheric granulation, dark sunspots, the filamentary sunspot penumbrae, the sunspot cycle, the variation of rotation rate across the surface and with depth, the blisteringly hot corona above a cool photosphere (like boiling the kettle on a cold campfire), the solar flares and coronal mass ejections, the acceleration of the solar wind.

Simply put, we do not understand the Sun. And if we do not understand the Sun we have no basis for understanding its influence on the Earth’s climate.

But there is a way to understand the Sun, if only we can step outside the traditional astrophysical assumption that gravity alone operates in space. The generation and transmission of power for electric lights involves magnetism. And unlike any campfire, the Sun manifests an abundance of magnetic phenomena. Those phenomena suggest that the Sun is an electrical body. The magnetic field of the solar wind shows that electric currents flow within the solar system. The million-degree temperature of the solar corona points to an external power source for the Sun. The polar plume and equatorial plasma torus show that the Sun, like all stars, is the focus of galactic currents “pinching” naturally into an hourglass form with an equatorial current sheet.  ...

 

[remake it + 288]

11 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

This is a lengthy article, with meaty concepts of the universe and energy. 

Given Thornhill’s ideas were pseudoscience over 20 years ago it is amusing to say his concepts are “meaty”.

Edited July 14, 2019 by remake it
Linked

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

12 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

This is a lengthy article, with meaty concepts of the universe and energy. 

Get settled into a comfy chair and engage your little grey cells into looking at planet Earth and the Sun and Gravity and Electricity and Energy in a slightly different perspective.

You don't need to agree with the author, but he does a great job in provoking some thoughts to chew over and kick around and ponder. 

 

1 hour ago, remake it said:

Given Thornhill’s ideas were pseudoscience over 20 years ago it is amusing to say his concepts are “meaty”.

 

The stated purpose here was to look at Energy from a different perspective.  I think the author does a fine job in doing just that.

On many topics, I tend to wander pretty far from mainstream agreement.

I don't expect others to agree.  What I am pursuing is the thought process ... kicking the brain's little grey cells into re-thinking viewpoints.  Mulling things over.  Poking around from different angles.

[remake it + 288]

21 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

 What I am pursuing is the thought process ... kicking the brain's little grey cells into re-thinking viewpoints.  Mulling things over.

Thornhill requires that you stop thinking, unless you believe it is possible to explain physics without using laws of physics - otherwise expressed as logically contradictory.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I actually read the article and found it gave food for thought. To disparage Thornhill you must also disparage those whose work was mentioned in the article. 

[remake it + 288]

4 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I actually read the article and found it gave food for thought. To disparage Thornhill you must also disparage those whose work was mentioned in the article. 

Mr Buckland, you have a profound ability to abuse principles of logic.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

Coming from you, I take that as a compliment!