The Electric sun, energy, and alternative models

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Saiph

Guest
As it currently exists (and imo will continue to exist) the Standard Model of stellar evolution claims that the stars is powered by nuclear fusion of various elements (mostly hydrogen).<br /><br />Many people have problems with this statement, and produce alternative models, like the "electric sun" theory (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm). Ignoring some of the problems with the underlying premisis (that sunspots are holes to the interior for instance) there is a fundamental question which must be answered by any stellar model.<br /><br /><b>Where does the energy come from?</b><br /><br />stars radiate energy and very high rates, for a very, very, long time. Even if you believe that the sun was much dimmer in the past, say even half as bright, you are dealing with a large amount of energy. This reduction, at most, can add only 2 orders of magnitude to any life-time estimate of a stellar model. This is because you can only reduce the luminosity by 100%, or 10^2. An order of magnitude is a power of ten. As such if a energy scheme is off by a factor greater than 100x the required value, it is not a viable energy source by itself.<br /><br />As an example for such an analysis, (which I was required to write up for an advanced lab course) I give you the following (if the math gets you, skip on a bit) treatise on using gravitational contraction as an energy source. This is the same energy source that makes a brick hurt if you drop it on your foot.<br /><br />The short version: The total time an object can radiate at a given luminosity, is determined by dividing the total energy provided by the method (in this case gravitational potential energy U) by the luminosity. I.e. T = U/L. For the sun, this gives a lifetime of only 30 million years (before it's <i>gone</i> competely) and thus any model that relies on gravitational contraction a significant source of energy, will not work.<br /><br />The Long Ve <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

S

Saiph

Guest
A quick analysis of the electric sun theory, as presented at it's webpage (shown in first post):<br /><br />The Basic Electric Sun Theory, as outlined at it’s own web-page:<br /><br /> http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htmf <br /><br />this Electric Sun model are as follows: <br /><br />• Most of the space within our galaxy is occupied by plasma (rarefied ionized gas) containing electrons (negative charges) and ionized atoms (positive charges). Every charged particle in the plasma has an electric potential energy (voltage) just as every pebble on a mountain has a mechanical potential energy with respect to sea level.<br /><br />• The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts.<br /><br />• The Sun is powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. In the Plasma Universe model, these currents create the galaxies and the stars within those galaxies by the electromagnetic z-pinch effect. It is only a small extrapolation to propose that these currents also power those stars. Galactic currents are of low current density, but, because the size of the stars are large, the total current (Amperage) is high. The Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by a combination of incoming cosmic electrons and outgoing +ions. As the Sun moves around the galactic center it may come into regions of higher or lower total current and so its output may vary both periodically and randomly.<br /><br />• Positive ions leave the Sun and cosmic electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun. This constitutes a plasma discharge analogous in every way (except size) to those that have been observed in electrical laboratories for decades.<br /><br />• <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
That was a very good post. More readings to do. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Existing accepted theories may be correct, but they are not taking us anywhere new, so we have to look at alternative theories also. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

S

Saiph

Guest
Actually, there is plenty of work going on with existing theories, and more papers are published now than before, so we're going somewhere.<br /><br />However, it doesn't hurt to look at the other theories, even if wrong they may inspire an idea.<br /><br /><br />Back to the electric universe:<br /><br />My charge calculations are based of the interpretation that the energy is comming from the instantaneous charge seperation between the plasma stream and the sun. The amount of charge, by this arrangement, is <i>only</i> enough to match gravitational contraction (which isn't enough either). Even combined this won't cut it (gets us 60 million years! yay!)<br /><br />If those 10^31 coulombs of charge are instead distributed through the entire volume, we can see if the system is stable.<br /><br />an electric charge is ~10^-19 coulombs, which means we require 10^50 charged particles to get the required 10^31 coulombs of charge.<br /><br />The sun has 10^30 kg, and an atom weights ~10^-27kg, giving us 10^57 particles total.<br /><br />That's one charged particle out of every 10^7. The density of the sun is such that atoms are typically seperated by one width, so each charge is encapsulated by a box 200 particles on a side, for a net # of charges of ~10^7<br /><br />Now, lets look at the total potential energies between these two figures.<br /><br />The gravitational potential is G*(10^-27kg*10^7)^2 / R giving 10^-46 / R<br /><br />The Electrical potential is K*(10^-18)^2 / R giving 10^-40 / R.<br /><br />The electrical potential of the system, that is the energy required to assemble and hold this much charge, exceeds that of gravity (the attracting force) by 10^6 times! A million times!<br /><br />If this is the charge distribution, the sun blows up. And this isn't enough charge. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

S

Saiph

Guest
<p>bump up and away!</p><p>This posts relevancy has been restored, feel free to peruse at your leasure (or go blind from math shock).&nbsp; If you have anything to add to the analysis, such as sustained current flow calculations etc, as apposed to my "instantaneous" approach...&nbsp;&nbsp; Feel free to post it.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>bump up and away!This posts relevancy has been restored, feel free to peruse at your leasure (or go blind from math shock).&nbsp; If you have anything to add to the analysis, such as sustained current flow calculations etc, as apposed to my "instantaneous" approach...&nbsp;&nbsp; Feel free to post it. <br /> Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I'm not entirely clear on your electrical potential formula.&nbsp; Where you get the charge 10^-18 from?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

S

S

Saiph

Guest
<p>repost of the next post, in its entirety.&nbsp; don't worry, I'll delete or truncate these if the issue gets fixed:</p><p> A quick analysis of the electric sun theory, as presented at it's webpage (shown in first post): <br /> <br />The Basic Electric Sun Theory, as outlined at it&rsquo;s own web-page: <br /> <br /> http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htmf <br /> <br />this Electric Sun model are as follows: <br /> <br />&bull; Most of the space within our galaxy is occupied by plasma (rarefied ionized gas) containing electrons (negative charges) and ionized atoms (positive charges). Every charged particle in the plasma has an electric potential energy (voltage) just as every pebble on a mountain has a mechanical potential energy with respect to sea level. <br /> <br />&bull; The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts. <br /> <br />&bull; The Sun is powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. In the Plasma Universe model, these currents create the galaxies and the stars within those galaxies by the electromagnetic z-pinch effect. It is only a small extrapolation to propose that these currents also power those stars. Galactic currents are of low current density, but, because the size of the stars are large, the total current (Amperage) is high. The Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by a combination of incoming cosmic electrons and outgoing +ions. As the Sun moves around the galactic center it may come into regions of higher or lower total current and so its output may vary both periodically and randomly. <br /> <br />&bull; Positive ions leave the Sun and cosmic electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun. This constitutes a plasma discharge analogous in every way (except size) to those that have been observed in electrical laboratories for decades. <br /> <br />&bull; Because of the Sun's positive charge (voltage), it acts as the anode in a plasma discharge. As such, it exhibits many of the phenomena observed in earthbound plasma laboratories, such as anode tufting. The granules observed on the surface of the photosphere are anode tufts (plasma in the arc mode). <br /> <br />So the full version doesn&rsquo;t claim gravitational contraction at all (though the version I was familiar with did), but an external voltage difference of 10^10 volts between space and the sun. In order to supply as much energy as gravitational contraction did, at this voltage, the sun must have a charge of ~10^31 coulombs, giving a surface charge density (as the sun should be a conductor) of 10^31 coulombs / 1.5 x 10^18 m2 = ~6 x 10^13 coulombs per m2. That&rsquo;s a pretty big charge. I wonder if this is large enough to discharge lightning onto mercury, or how fast the solar wind should be. The energy available to accelerate the electron is m*v2 ~ Q*V <br /> <br /> v2 = Q*V / Me, where V is 10^10 volts (as claimed), Q is ~1 x10^19, and Me is 9 x 10^-31 <br /> <br />This gives a velocity, excluding relativistic corrections, of 10^11 meters per second. Clearly exceeding light. Even protons are ejected at relativistic velocities (without relativity the velocity is ~3x10^9 m/s). Observed solar wind velocity is on the order of 106 m/s, fast but hardly relativistic.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

S

Saiph

Guest
<p>The third post in the series is actually intact in it's entirety..I post it here for continuity though.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>-----------------</p><p>ctually, there is plenty of work going on with existing theories, and more papers are published now than before, so we're going somewhere. <br /> <br />However, it doesn't hurt to look at the other theories, even if wrong they may inspire an idea. <br /> <br /> <br />Back to the electric universe: <br /> <br />My charge calculations are based of the interpretation that the energy is comming from the instantaneous charge seperation between the plasma stream and the sun. The amount of charge, by this arrangement, is <em>only</em> enough to match gravitational contraction (which isn't enough either). Even combined this won't cut it (gets us 60 million years! yay!) <br /> <br />If those 10^31 coulombs of charge are instead distributed through the entire volume, we can see if the system is stable. <br /> <br />an electric charge is ~10^-19 coulombs, which means we require 10^50 charged particles to get the required 10^31 coulombs of charge. <br /> <br />The sun has 10^30 kg, and an atom weights ~10^-27kg, giving us 10^57 particles total. <br /> <br />That's one charged particle out of every 10^7. The density of the sun is such that atoms are typically seperated by one width, so each charge is encapsulated by a box 200 particles on a side, for a net # of charges of ~10^7 <br /> <br />Now, lets look at the total potential energies between these two figures. <br /> <br />The gravitational potential is G*(10^-27kg*10^7)^2 / R giving 10^-46 / R <br /> <br />The Electrical potential is K*(10^-18)^2 / R giving 10^-40 / R. <br /> <br />The electrical potential of the system, that is the energy required to assemble and hold this much charge, exceeds that of gravity (the attracting force) by 10^6 times! A million times! <br /> <br />If this is the charge distribution, the sun blows up. And this isn't enough charge. <br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

S

Saiph

Guest
Okay, now for my actual response to derekmcd:&nbsp; 10^-19 culomb is the charge of an electron and/or proton.&nbsp; Right? or did I make a gaff... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

D

D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Okay, now for my actual response to derekmcd:&nbsp; 10^-19 culomb is the charge of an electron and/or proton.&nbsp; Right? or did I make a gaff... <br /> Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p>{&nbsp;&nbsp; The Electrical potential is K*(10^-18)^2 / R giving 10^-40 / R.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; }</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Is what you have.&nbsp; </p><p>Also, can you, instead of using 1040 for 10^40 (for stuff you are transferring from word), use 1e40 or 1.+40?&nbsp; If not, that's ok.&nbsp; I still understand (as much as my limit allows anyway).</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

S

Saiph

Guest
<p>This isn't transfered from word...but from uplink.&nbsp; Heck the first posts are a direct bump (even if truncated)&nbsp; I have no idea why the formatting is going to pot.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>as for the equations you quoted, those are the equations for electrical potential, leaving R as a variable (since it's the same in both cases) that would drop out if we wanted it to.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This isn't transfered from word...but from uplink.&nbsp; Heck the first posts are a direct bump (even if truncated)&nbsp; I have no idea why the formatting is going to pot.&nbsp;as for the equations you quoted, those are the equations for electrical potential, leaving R as a variable (since it's the same in both cases) that would drop out if we wanted it to.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p>I just don't understand where 10^-18 comes from.&nbsp; Is it represented in coulombs and, if so, what particle is it?&nbsp; Or is it a constant I'm obviously not aware of?&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

D

S

Saiph

Guest
<p>derekmcd:&nbsp; It's a typo, should be 10^-19 Culombs...and it's supposed to be the charge of an electron (or proton, as they are equivelant).</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Dr Rocket...Saiph is sleepy now...I'll peruse my math soon.&nbsp; This was a back of the envelope calculation from...3 years ago.&nbsp; Pretty standard derivation when I was actually taking a stellar modeling course...not so much now.</p><p>With some digging I'm sure we could find a third party derivation...but I'll try and check my work first.</p><p>I do, however, recognize your critique.&nbsp; Basically, for those who don't speak math, he's saying that I've determined the rate the sun needs to shrink to produce the light we see...at it's current radius.&nbsp; As the sun gets smaller, the rate the sun has to shrink changes as well. &nbsp;</p><p>Now, how this balances with the decreased surface area in the luminosity, vs liberated energy due to the collapse... I'm to frazzled to say just now.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Anyway, one of the major points I was trying to make with this post, as the context of 3 years ago is sorta lost, was to demonstrate the sort of work, analysis, and research I would need from anybody espousing an alternate model for the sun.&nbsp; Usually all we see are assumptions and hand waving, no numbers, no formal logic, nothing.&nbsp; Just, "Well, it's gotta be some billion volt potential!" which is sorta vague to begin with.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

A

aulfat_hussain

Guest
<p>&nbsp;&bull; The Sun is powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. In the Plasma Universe model, these currents create the galaxies and the stars within those galaxies by the electromagnetic z-pinch effect. It is only a small extrapolation to propose that these currents also power those stars. Galactic currents are of low current density, but, because the size of the stars are large, the total current (Amperage) is high. The Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by a combination of incoming cosmic electrons and outgoing +ions. As the Sun moves around the galactic center it may come into regions of higher or lower total current and so its output may vary both periodically and randomly. </p><p><font size="2">The mentioned line&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "the sun is powered"&nbsp; this point has no such kind of possiblity and prove because sun itself is very massive source of energy and it would not effected by other source of energy easily and also the distance between sun and other stars are so far. If we think about radiated energy from other source of energy then there are alot of matters in unverse which obsorbe radiated energy. May be very little energy would repel and obsorb by sorrounding of sun which has no effective effect. </font></p><p><font size="2">On other point we know that universe is in status of expanding so universe has alots of matters which are thirsty of radiated energy. It is obvious that our galaxy is in status of bombardment by different amount of energy and different scattered particles but their ratio is very less as we compare them with matter of our galaxy like black body, which they are obsorbed by them in very thirsty mode.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

D

DrRocket

Guest
<p>[</p><p>QUOTE]derekmcd:&nbsp; It's a typo, should be 10^-19 Culombs...and it's supposed to be the charge of an electron (or proton, as they are equivelant).&nbsp;Dr Rocket...Saiph is sleepy now...I'll peruse my math soon.&nbsp; This was a back of the envelope calculation from...3 years ago.&nbsp; Pretty standard derivation when I was actually taking a stellar modeling course...not so much now.With some digging I'm sure we could find a third party derivation...but I'll try and check my work first.I do, however, recognize your critique.&nbsp; Basically, for those who don't speak math, he's saying that I've determined the rate the sun needs to shrink to produce the light we see...at it's current radius.&nbsp; As the sun gets smaller, the rate the sun has to shrink changes as well. &nbsp;Now, how this balances with the decreased surface area in the luminosity, vs liberated energy due to the collapse... I'm to frazzled to say just now.&nbsp;Anyway, one of the major points I was trying to make with this post, as the context of 3 years ago is sorta lost, was to demonstrate the sort of work, analysis, and research I would need from anybody espousing an alternate model for the sun.&nbsp; Usually all we see are assumptions and hand waving, no numbers, no formal logic, nothing.&nbsp; Just, "Well, it's gotta be some billion volt potential!" which is sorta vague to begin with.&nbsp; <br />Posted by Saiph[/QUOTE]<br />&nbsp;</p><p>I understand the sleepy problem -- I was in that condition also, but the wife wanted a cable TV movie recorded,so there I was.</p><p>When you get around to trying to check the&nbsp;calculation&nbsp;you might want to consider some of the following.&nbsp; It might help to use slightly more accurate figures for electron charge, sun mass, etc.&nbsp; You do have the correct order of magnitude and that is OK for your main point, but in the final analysis is as easy to use more accurate figures, if you use a calculator or a computer to do the arithmetic.&nbsp; The two main issues are to look at the derivation and satisfy yourself that the gravitational potential formula models the geometry of the sun accurtely enough for your purposes.&nbsp; I think it represents a thin spherical shell of radius R rather than a solid ball of radius R, but I could be mistaken.&nbsp; I need to think about that issue a bit more.&nbsp; The other, and easier to handle, thing is that if you pursue your derivation what you get is an expressioin for dR/dt that involves R, a non-linear first-order ordinary differential equation.&nbsp; It is separable and integrable.&nbsp; You can solve it fairly easily and get and expression for R as a function of t.&nbsp; You can also find t as a function of R and it is relatively easy from that to compute a "half-life" for R.</p><p>Trying to actually show the math in this format is something that I have not found a reasonable approach for at this point.&nbsp; I have not been able to apply anything from my scanner so far, as apparently either the files are too big or I don't quite know the trick to get the job done.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

S

Saiph

Guest
<p>drRocket:&nbsp; Your scanned files are likely to big. I was going to host my images using Google's Picasa program, though I suppose Flickr is another option.&nbsp; Then just link to them from here.&nbsp; Also keeps load times down for those who don't wish to see it, or just wish to see a text reply.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>One reason the figures are so general is the original reason I did those figures, was for a "rapid estimation" paper in one of my advanced lab courses in college.&nbsp; Granted, I did so to tie into the topic on SDC at the time, but that's why the analysis is so loose.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

O

origin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Trying to actually show the math in this format is something that I have not found a reasonable approach for at this point.&nbsp; I have not been able to apply anything from my scanner so far, as apparently either the files are too big or I don't quite know the trick to get the job done.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The easiest way to do this (I think) is to do the work on Powerpoint and save it as a .jpg.&nbsp; You can then upload it on one of the many sites that hold pictures for free and subsquetly download it to the forum.&nbsp; Be sure and compress the picture - it is just a calculation so&nbsp;it&nbsp;won't really lose anything.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The easiest way to do this (I think) is to do the work on Powerpoint and save it as a .jpg.&nbsp; You can then upload it on one of the many sites that hold pictures for free and subsquetly download it to the forum.&nbsp; Be sure and compress the picture - it is just a calculation so&nbsp;it&nbsp;won't really lose anything.&nbsp; <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>I'm not sure that trying to do mathematics on PowerPoint would be successful at anything more than driving me nuttier than I already am.&nbsp; Trying to use real symblols and show calculation using a computer has been really frustrating.&nbsp; I know people who set things up for exposition and publication using LaTex and they have become very adept at its use.&nbsp; It is rather standard with university mathematicians these days.&nbsp; Lots of lecture notes are prepared that way.&nbsp; But, as far as I know they do research calculations the old-fashioned way -- pencil and paper.</p><p>I'm not sure that I want to take the time to learn LaTex.&nbsp; The software is available for free, and I think I have it stored on disk somewhere.&nbsp; But I am not sufficiently committed to spend the time to actually learn to use it.&nbsp;I can do everything that I normally want to do more efficiently on paper.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

D

drwayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not sure that trying to do mathematics on PowerPoint would be successful at anything more than driving me nuttier than I already am.&nbsp; Trying to use real symblols and show calculation using a computer has been really frustrating.&nbsp; I know people who set things up for exposition and publication using LaTex and they have become very adept at its use.&nbsp; It is rather standard with university mathematicians these days.&nbsp; Lots of lecture notes are prepared that way.&nbsp; But, as far as I know they do research calculations the old-fashioned way -- pencil and paper.I'm not sure that I want to take the time to learn LaTex.&nbsp; The software is available for free, and I think I have it stored on disk somewhere.&nbsp; But I am not sufficiently committed to spend the time to actually learn to use it.&nbsp;I can do everything that I normally want to do more efficiently on paper. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Wow! It's been 25 years since I touched TeX (I never really did LaTeX - though the girl that did the typesetting on my dissertation did).&nbsp; My rememberance of it was it was addictive, more like programming a document than writing one.</p><p>Wayne<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

D

M

D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> nothing about EU theory is based upon mysticism.&nbsp; That is in fact why I am drawn to the theory in the first place. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The effect of the magnetosphere on charged particles is well known.&nbsp; But what does that have to do with shielding Earth&nbsp;from the enormous magnetic field that would result from an equally enormous current powering the sun ?</p><p>EVERYTHING about EU relies on a mystical current flow through the universe, that has not been detected and that would more obvious than an elephant in the strawberry patch if it did.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
0
Views
987
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
538
Replies
1
Views
708
Replies
0
Views
1K