Hmm. I guess I disagree. All movement of particles will carry a certain amount of "heat" with the particles.
Nope. You are confusing heat with thermal energy. They are not actually the same.
Let's put it this way, the sun is somehow able to direct a hell of lot of "net current" our way in a very short period of time.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html
That's not a net current, as the particles involved are basically charge balanced between positive and negative.
By your way of counting "current flow", we received a "net zero" amount of energy in the Earth's atmosphere.
Energy and charge are not equivalent. So what the hell are you talking about?
Which point on the surface?
I didn't ask for a charge density, I asked for the net charge. So logically, I mean for the entire solid surface. Order of magnitude will do.
The "magnetic" field strengths are easy enough to measure.
And the electric field strengths?
What did Birkeland predict?
You're the Birkeland expert, you tell me.
You tell me. What was the "net current" flow seen by the Themis team? Was it zero?
As far as I can tell, yes. Nothing in your link suggested otherwise, at any rate. There seems to be a net mass flow, but current (especially if you're primarily interested in
charged particles, as you keep pointing out) is not the same thing as mass flow.
[/quote]According to Birkeland the surface was charged negatively due to fission process in the core and charged negatively compared to "space' or what would would not call the heliosphere. The flow of positive ions (probably negative too) past the heliosphere would presumably sustain the positive charge and the charge separation.[/quote]
And what's making positive ions fly away from a negatively charged body? "Fission process in the core" is not an answer: not only does experimental evidence indicate no such process is occuring, but even if it were, it provides no mechanism for the preferential expulsion of positive ions from the surface of the sun.
If you want to be though of as anything other than a crank, it would go a long way towards demonstrating that you are not. If you don't care if you're viewed as a crank, or if you are indeed a crank, then there is indeed no point. But that does raise the question of what the hell you're doing here if not to try to convince people of the validity of your ideas.
Did Alfven's "quantification" impress you any? Did you even read them? Did you find any flaw in them? What mistake were you expecting to find in my work that would somehow negate the value of his work?
1) Your ideas do not match Alfven's ideas.
2) A number of Alfven's ideas do not match observed reality.
On the latter point, yes, there's a flaw in them. For example, his ideas about galactic rotation curves simply don't work. The magnetic fields required to move a star like the sun in the appropriate manner are about 10
20 larger than actual fields.
As for
your "work", if you actually did any calculations, I expect that you'd quickly find that the numbers produced absurdities: impossibly high charges, impossibly large mass flows, impossibly large heat capacities, or some combination of the above.
That's simply not so. I cited many folks that "quantified" the work, including Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Kosovichev and many others. I guess you're bitching because I didn't do it all by myself?
I don't really care if you do it yourself. If you can produce the numbers I asked for by digging it up from one of your references, that will do fine. I suspect you will search in vain, however, because I don't think any of those folks advocated what you're suggesting.
What "quantification" process would change your mind here, and why don't you just do it yourself if that is what it takes for you to be happy?
Because I'm not the one making extraordinary claims. You are. It's your theory, you're the one who cares about it, you're the one who wants us to take it seriously. So start treating your ideas seriously: quantify them, if not with your own calculations (because you can't do any), then with the calculations of others. But show us some numbers.
Why can't you be happy with Alfven's quantifications, or Bruce's quantifications?
I don't care who came up with the numbers. But I want numbers for the quantities I asked for. They are
fundamental parameters of the model you are proposing. Why don't you
already have some idea of their magnitude?
One gets the impression that the only reason you do that is because you hope I will make some mistake and you can use that mistake of mine to attempt to discredit ideas first proposed and put forth by folks that knew the math much better than I do. Why does it matter what math I do? Why can't you just take Alfven's math and tell me where it's wrong and why I should reject it?
Alfven never proposed that the sun had a solid shell surface. So which of his calculations should I turn to, pray tell, to find fundamental parameters of
your model?
For what purpose would you have me *PERSONALLY* do this rather than looking up these numbers and calculations in Bruce's material or Alfven's material?
Because I don't think either of them ever calculated the numbers I asked for, and because I don't think either of them believed in anything remotely resembling what you suggested. You are free to prove me wrong: if you find those numbers from another source, I am happy to accept them in lieu of you personally doing the calculations. But I want the numbers. Again, these are
fundamental parameters of your model. Whether you do the calculations, or whether you dig up the numbers from somewhere else, why don't you
already have them? That you don't indicates that you're not serious about testing your ideas. You have convinced yourself, and the last thing you apparently want to do is subject your own ideas to any kind of test which might possibly undermine them.
Hell, I'll even help you out. Given some of the parameters, I can even do some of the calculations for you - for example, if you give me net charge, I can calculate electric field.