Hmm. Should I conclude that there are no such calculations? Because you're going out of your way to not provide any. I mean that is an article largely about Sn1987a when you were asked to provide calculations about our own Sun.
Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)
- Thread starter Michael Mozina
- Start date
- Status
Hmm. Should I conclude that there are no such calculations? Because you're going out of your way to not provide any. I mean that is an article largely about Sn1987a when you were asked to provide calculations about our own Sun.
Still attacking the messenger rather than the message. That's against the forum guidelines.
You mean this isn't "The Electric Comet" thread?
It explains how the power of an "Electric Sun" can be externally supplied IMHO.
Hold on DRD:
In Tim Thompson’s post An Electric Sun Q&A HERE he ends with this “I do mean that there is no observed behavior of any star which we can say with confidence cannot be explained by any mainstream physics. So there is no valid justification for seeking an alternative model in the first place.”
I just took him at his word and asked my questions to see the mainstream replies. It appears he was wrong and there are no mainstream answers yet.
And Yes, EU/PC theory does give answers to these questions, they are HERE and HERE also HERE, HERE and HERE ...not exhaustive...
Ah! DRD more ad-hom. If I post a short piece from EU/PC theory its “mindless copy-pasting” you say and if I use my own words “I’m parroting” as others say.
I’ll continue to do what I have time for (not much) and within the forum rules. If you or other don't like it, then just don't read it or put me on ignore, I won't mind.
Why the Lower Corona of the Sun Is Hotter Than the Photosphere
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100519corona.htm
Sorry, didn't see your post until now. I think my post above makes my position clear.
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
You're kidding me, right?
I cannot argue with your O, whether it is an HO or not ...
However, since this is the SMMT section of JREF, the topic is well within astronomy/physics/etc (and as these are, at their core, quantitative), it is entirely reasonable to expect that when you use the word "explain" you mean "explain, quantitatively, at least to an order of magnitude or so".
So, please show, to within an order of magnitude or so, that the external source described in some detail in the link you posted can produce ~4 x 10^28 W in the form of electromagnetic radiation when applied to an object with the physical characteristics of the Sun.
Objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to those questions?
Nope.
Objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to those questions?
Nope.
Objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to those questions?
Nope.
Objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to those questions?
Nope.
Objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to those questions?
Nope.
But perhaps I missed all the objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to those questions?
Let's try just one, OK?
Haig: Solar wind is traveling at about 1 million miles an hour by the time it gets close to Earth and goes on past the orbit of Pluto for as far as we have been able to measure. This Solar wind varies with time and has even been observed to stop completely for a period of a day or two. What causes this fluctuation?
An objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answer to this question, if you please Haig.
It does?
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
An Electric Sun Q&A II
The solar wind did not shut down at any time. Rather, the Earth was surrounded by a low density plasma cloud (see Vats, et al., 2001). Outside the low density region around the Earth, the solar wind was apparently in its normal state. Ordinary variations in the solar wind are caused by the fact that the solar wind is emitted by the extremely variable environment of the chromosphere/corona, so it comes as no surprise that the solar wind will be as variable as the environment wherein it is spawned.
Like I said before ...
The solar wind did not shut down at any time. Rather, the Earth was surrounded by a low density plasma cloud (see Vats, et al., 2001). Outside the low density region around the Earth, the solar wind was apparently in its normal state. Ordinary variations in the solar wind are caused by the fact that the solar wind is emitted by the extremely variable environment of the chromosphere/corona, so it comes as no surprise that the solar wind will be as variable as the environment wherein it is spawned.
The visible light output of the sun is dominated by thermal emission from the sun below the photosphere. The variability of that visible light is due to variability in the photosphere (bright spots at the head of convection cells, dark lanes between convection cells, bright plage regions around sunspots, the dark umbral regions of sunspots & etc.). However, the UV & X-ray emission comes mostly from the regions of the chromosphere & corona, not from the photosphere. Those regions are very low in particle and mass density compared to the photosphere and therefore far more dominated by highly variable magnetic fields. UV & X-ray emission comes from the region of the sun that hosts flare & CME activity, where impulsive acceleration of electrons to extremely high energy results in impulsive and highly variable UV & X-ray emission. The physical environment of the regions responsible for UV & X-ray emission is vastly different from the regions responsible for visible light, so it is no surprise that the radiations emitted should be very different from each other.
At the most extreme, the variability of the Sun in visible light only amounts to about 0.2%, which is miniscule compared to the realm of real variable stars, where brightness is seen the change by factors of 10 or more. Your assumption that the energy output from nuclear reactions deep in the solar core should be steady is incorrect; that energy output cannot not be steady under any circumstances because of pulsations in the size of the fusion regions generated by natural thermal instabilities. However, that effect is indeed very small for the Sun, and for the most part "washed out" by the outer layers of the sun anyway (this is not the case for some classes of variable star where the effect is significant and critical). Still, one must get ones assumptions right in any case. The variability of visible light, UV & X-ray emission I have already explained above. All solar emissions, electromagnetic radiation or solar wind particles, are variable because they are emitted by variable sources.
False premise. No, it should not be slowed down by mass loss to the solar wind. The mass loss rate of 2x1012 gm/sec might look like a lot, but it amounts to 10-14 solar masses per year, which amounts to less than 0.01% of the total mass over the entire lifetime of the Sun. That tiny mass loss can do nothing to counteract the obvious effect of simple conservation of angular momentum, which will drive the equator of a rotating fluid body to move faster than the poles. But the Sun's differential rotation is somewhat more dramatic than that because of convection. The convection zone is radially symmetrical but the rotation of the sun obviously is not and the two combine to result in differential rotation and a faster rotation at the equator (see, for instance, chapter 7 in the book Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal Wiley-VCH, 2nd revised edition 2004).
The best guess is called the Babcock Model (see Babcock, 1961 and the 543 citations thereto). The basic scenario is that the differential rotation of the sun twists the magnetic field and the result is a periodic rearrangement of the topology of the field. There is also a discussion of this model, as well as the underlying dynamo theory in the book Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal (Wiley-VCH, 2nd revised edition 2004), section 11.3 "Dynamics of the Solar Magnetic Cycle", beginning on page 376. Also see the book Stellar Magnetism by Leon Mestel (Oxford University Press, 1999 & 2003), where relevant material is scattered throughout the book.
Like I said before ...
Note that it is not necessary, and I do not claim, to be able to definitively answer every question that can be asked. It is only necessary to show that physically plausible explanations are available. Standard stellar physics includes plausible answers to every physical question about the sun and stars. Some of those answers are also definitive as well. But even if they are only plausible and not yet definitive, it remains a fact that there is no valid reason for seeking an alternative model to replace the standard models, since in every case, the alleged failures of the standard model do not in reality exist.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,296
Let's first state that the solar wind did not "stop completely", egreed, the density was very low 0.1 per cc and the velocity was less then 350 km/s.
The solar wind is prone to a large variation, depending where the wind is coming from it can be slow wind or fast wind. This has to do with coronal holes and such. Here is an abstract by Janardhan et al. where they discuss where this lull in the wind originated from, and here is the A&A paper they wrote about it. I will not go through the whole analysis (the paper is freely available from A&A), but I will just quote:
Janardhan et al said:
There is a lot of dicussion of these kinds of events by Janardhan.
The Sun emits a black body spectrum with superposed some extra emissions, especially in the X-rays which are e.g. created in flares on the Sun, like written in the link that you yourself put in the post. To quote
Keller said:
Overall, the Sun's irradiation does not vary much, but as the eruptions on the Sun are not a constant process, but singular events, it is only natural that the X-rays are more variable that the black body spectrum.
The creation of the Sun's magnetic field is a chaotic mechanism, a dynamo in the convection layer. However, that this process is chaotic does not mean that there cannot be periodicities. Check out the pages by Glatzmeier, where there are very good explanation of the how and what, from his numerical simulations. As the magnetic field is created by the so-called alpha-omega dynamo, it is only to be expected that periodicities arise.
Why do you think that the solar wind is only from the equator of the Sun?
The variation in the solar output are very very small, from Encyclopedia Brittannica:
EB said:
So, those "tiny explosions" on the Sun, don't do that much, the Sun is actually very very stable.
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
Haig, notice something quite interesting, even remarkable, about the responses by Tim Thompson and tusenfem, to your questions?
They provided objective, quantitative (far better than order-of-magnitude!), and independently verifiable answers to those questions!
Further, if you have further questions on their answers - or you did not find that they were objective, quantitative, and independently verifiable answers to those questions - you have only to ask, and they (and/or someone else) will be only too happy to provide them.
Have you found any objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to the questions I asked you, in amongst the material you provided links to?
I eagerly await your answer ...
They provided objective, quantitative (far better than order-of-magnitude!), and independently verifiable answers to those questions!
Further, if you have further questions on their answers - or you did not find that they were objective, quantitative, and independently verifiable answers to those questions - you have only to ask, and they (and/or someone else) will be only too happy to provide them.
Have you found any objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to the questions I asked you, in amongst the material you provided links to?
I eagerly await your answer ...
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Electric Sun and Coronal Heating I
This is by no means the simplest idea, if by "simple" one means something like "simple in terms of basic physics". In fact, it's a lousy explanation. The lightest ions, the protons, are 1836 times more massive than electrons, but carry exactly the same electric charge. So, from an energetic standpoint, since the force is simply the product of the electric field and the charge (the Lorentz force equation, where the magnetic field is zero), the electric field required to accelerate a proton to any given speed is 1836 times the electric field required to accelerate an electron to the same given speed. The solar wind comes out of the corona with both electrons and protons moving at the same speed. Therefore, on simple energetics alone, this process cannot describe the heating of the corona at all, unless they come up with a way of slowing down protons or electrons, without slowing down the electrons or protons, so they can exit the corona at the same speed.
Also from the same website:
Also from the same website:
So what we have is you linking to a website that promotes a seriously flawed model of its own while falsely criticizing the standard model. And the mistakes made are not subtle mistakes that even an expert might make, but big fat mistakes like ignoring the magnetic field altogether or assuming that there is some connection between nuclear fusion in the core and the heating of the corona. You need to do better than that.
This is by no means the simplest idea, if by "simple" one means something like "simple in terms of basic physics". In fact, it's a lousy explanation. The lightest ions, the protons, are 1836 times more massive than electrons, but carry exactly the same electric charge. So, from an energetic standpoint, since the force is simply the product of the electric field and the charge (the Lorentz force equation, where the magnetic field is zero), the electric field required to accelerate a proton to any given speed is 1836 times the electric field required to accelerate an electron to the same given speed. The solar wind comes out of the corona with both electrons and protons moving at the same speed. Therefore, on simple energetics alone, this process cannot describe the heating of the corona at all, unless they come up with a way of slowing down protons or electrons, without slowing down the electrons or protons, so they can exit the corona at the same speed.
Also from the same website:
By their own admission they completely ignore any magnetic field effects. But go back and look at that Lorentz force equation and ask yourself, what's that VxB thing, anyway? It's a vector cross product of the particle velocity (V) and the magnetic field (B). The fact that the sun has a magnetic field has been known to us since 1908 (Hale, 1908a; Hale, 1908b; for a modern treatment of stellar magnetic fields in general, see the book Stellar Magnetism by Leon Mestel, Oxford University Press 1999 & 2003). So even though everyone knows there is a highly variable magnetic field throughout the solar photosphere, and everywhere above it, the Thunderbolts people think they can construct a proper, viable theory of the corona & chromosphere by ignoring that magnetic field altogether? That certainly inspires a lot of confidence.Thunderbolts said:
Also from the same website:
This is a fallacious description of the "fusion model". In fact, the process which we are told does not exist in the "fusion model" most certainly does exist in the "fusion model", and the "fusion model" explanation for the heating of the corona is both simpler than the electric sun model, and much more consistent with observation. But most importantly, whether or not nuclear fusion is the ultimate source of solar energy is irrelevant. Any internal source of energy will produce the same observed properties of the photosphere and above, given the same physical properties as observed in the Sun. The standard model does not so cavalierly dismiss the obvious magnetic field, but rather takes advantage of it. The acceleration is magnetic and not electrostatic in origin (magnetic fields are observed in great detail, while electrostatic fields are by observation far less ubiquitous; one must remember Faradays Law and the Maxwell Faraday equation, which show that a time variable magnetic field creates an electric field). A combination of magnetic and acoustic energy is quite capable of explaining the heating of the corona. While all the details are not known and many questions remain, the basic idea is well within the realm of standard physics. See, for instance, the book Solar Astrophysics by Peter Foukal (Wiley-VCH, 2004), chapter 9 "The Chromosphere and Corona"; the books Stellar Magnetism by Leon Mestel (Oxford University Press 1999 & 2003) and Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Practice by Priest & Forbes (Cambridge University Press 2000), both of which have chapters on coronal heating. Or see papers such as De Pontieu, et al., 2009; Cranmer, 2008; Cranmer, van Ballegooijen & Edgar, 2007; Schrijver, et al., 2004; Walsh & Ireland, 2003 and Schrijver, et al., 1997 with references therein & citations thereto.Thunderbolts said:
So what we have is you linking to a website that promotes a seriously flawed model of its own while falsely criticizing the standard model. And the mistakes made are not subtle mistakes that even an expert might make, but big fat mistakes like ignoring the magnetic field altogether or assuming that there is some connection between nuclear fusion in the core and the heating of the corona. You need to do better than that.
Yes, the answers given to my questions byTim Thompson and tusenfem are very interesting. My sincere thanks to both of them.Haig, notice something quite interesting, even remarkable, about the responses by Tim Thompson and tusenfem, to your questions?
They provided objective, quantitative (far better than order-of-magnitude!), and independently verifiable answers to those questions!
Further, if you have further questions on their answers - or you did not find that they were objective, quantitative, and independently verifiable answers to those questions - you have only to ask, and they (and/or someone else) will be only too happy to provide them.
Have you found any objective, quantitative (order-of-magnitude will do), and independently verifiable answers to the questions I asked you, in amongst the material you provided links to?
I eagerly await your answer ...
Most of the answers are similar to what I have read before from mainstream, some not so, and lot of reading for me there too, when I find the time.
Sure, they provided objective, quantitative and independently verifiable answers. However, i'm also sure EU/PC theorists would also provide the same objective, quantitative and independently verifiable answers to support their views IF they had the public funding mainstream has, or even a fraction of it.
In my view, the hostility shown to the “electromagnetic” heretic’s of the 1950's by the mainstream has turned out to be counterproductive as mainstream entered the space age only to find confirmation after confirmation of the heretic’s insights.
I asked first DRD and the answers given, so far, by mainstream just pass the problem upstream, in my view.
This, by Donald E. Scott can help us understand a bit better:-
Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
MHD simulation of the three-dimensional structure of the heliospheric current sheet
And what do you think this has to do with the electric sun theory?
Why don't you plug the numbers into the electric sun model and see what the total energy output from the Sun would be.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,296
I once did a calculation about this model, and after searching I finally found it on BAUT.Let's save it for posterity.
So here goes nothing:
tusenfem said:
That he can. He can help us understand by showing that he hasn't even the slightest idea what he is talking about.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,296
Well that is a nice 'what if' paper, not hampered at all by any real observations about the sun's surroundings and any "charge layers" that should exist around the Sun. But for students a nice exercise in electrodynamics. YAWN!
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,296
Well, apparently Scotty does not understand mainstream nomenclature. No "helioastronomer" (I guess solar physicist would be a better name) will ever claim that there are "open ended" magnetic field lines, because they do not exist. The fact that they talk about "open field lines" is because these are field lines that do not return to the Sun or to the Earth.
Ah again, the frozen in condition. That has been discussed to death here already and the fact that many a EU/ES/EC proponent does not understand what mainstream says. Even in non-ideal MHD, i.e. in the case that the plasma has a resistivity (which is certainly almost always has) the frozen in concept is still valid over time scales that are small compared to the magnetic diffusion time (which is proportional to the conductivity of the plasma). The fact that, when frozen in was first proposed it was taken for granted was an early mistake (as with so many things in science happen) however, you will not find a good plasma physics book where it is not stated that frozen in is only valid over a certain limited time span.
And the magnetic merging or reconnection is proven every time you see aurora in the sky.
Scott is about 20 years behind in modern plasma and space physics.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,296
It is well known that there is a heliospheric current sheet, which needs to be there, because the Sun's magnetic field is still dipolar and stretched out and therefore, just like in the Earth's magnetotail there is a current flowing perpendicular to the solar wind magnetic field which facilitates the turning of the field from away from the Sun in one hemisphere to towards the Sun in the other hemisphere. This is basic Maxwell theory.
Combine this with the fact that, over loooooooong periods averaged there is a Parker spiral in the solar wind magnetic field (if you measure the solar wind properties you never find a Parker spiral, it is a statistical product) then naturally, the flowing of the heliospheric current sheet current will have a radial component. However, this has nothing to do with the notion that the Sun would be an anode and the heliosphere a cathode. This is just basic magnetodynamics and will only work in the idealized version (i.e. a Parker spiral) that Israelivich et al. (2001) put into their solar wind model. Interestingly, they have not even tried to stave their results with solar wind observations.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 60,197
The assertion that electrostatics is inappropriate (and it is only an assertion) is not correct. Electrostatics most definitely apply to the proposed model. Now, you might claim that there are other factors involved beyond electrostatics, but they cannot rescue the model. Where does the energy come from, if not from the electric fields? It cannot be from magnetic fields - we can detect those easily, and they are not big enough. So we are stuck with impossibly large electric fields which would make the charge on the sun explode at relativistic speeds. Electrodynamics cannot rescue the model from that conclusion, which is why no such calculations have ever been done by EU proponents.
That quote is laughable. The electric sun cannot explain the most basic, most important feature of the sun. Never mind whether it can edge out the standard model at the finish line, it falls down at the starting gate. And it is NOT based on standard, well-established physics, it consistently ignores standard, well-established physics.
No solar model should be taken with the least bit of seriousness if it cannot handle the total solar power output. Not only can the electric sun "model" not predict or describe the power output with any degree of precision, it produces impossibilities even at power outputs orders of magnitude smaller than observed. It is a complete and utter failure. Why is anyone attracted to a model which cannot handle the most important feature of the system under discussion?
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Electric Sun: Questions for Haig I
Why are you so sure? The EU/PC enthusiasts have in fact been working on their "science" for decades. They find the time & money to write books and host conferences. It took me less than an hour to search through the archives and find the references that demonstrate valid theory & observation to support my point of view. So how much public funding does that require? I don't believe you or them. They don't cite objective, quantitative and verifiable answers to support their claims because they know they there are none to be found. So they sling together obfuscating arguments in the hop that some poor layman, like you for instance, will fall for it "hook, line and sinker", which appears to be the case here for you.
You keep calling yourself a "layman", so how and/or why do you think this is the case? And what "confirmations" are you talking about, anyway? There are no confirmations and there never were. You make claims like this, you cut & paste and post links and you are always wrong. Does it not bother you to be always wrong?
Why is that your view?
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
Here's a strange and interesting thing: this sort of 'poor us, we don't get funding' claim (moan?) has been made often, in many internet discussion forums, by EU/PC proponents.
No, that's not the strange and interesting part; this is: when asked just what, exactly, they'd spend any funding on, the answers - such as there are any - are, odd (let's leave it at that).
You see Haig, not only will you find no proposals for observations and experiments that haven't yet been made or done, but even simple things in theory development are not mentioned! This last is especially odd since folk like Tim Thompson, tusenfem, Ziggurat, and Tom Bridgman can come up with simple, order-of-magnitude models (of things like an Electric Sun) in an hour or so (half a day, tops). So what "support" do the likes of Thornhill, Scott, and Talbott need? Be paid for five years to get a PhD in plasma physics?
Maybe you're different; maybe you can sketch a few experiments that really should be done, or observations that are just crying out to be made?
I'll go one better: suppose you were granted a whole YEAR of dedicated time on any, or any combo, of the world's leading astronomical facilities - the Hubble, Chandra, XMM-Newton, the VLTs, Planck, Hershel, GALEX, Spitzer, SPT, Kecks, Fermi, VLA, Arecibo, ACTA, ... - what would you observe (and why)?
Name one (objective, quantitative and independently verifiable) such!
Sorry, so many questions not enough time. The heretics in the 1950's were the inspiration for Thunderbolts and a number of the other EU/PC proponents, as I understand it, check their backgrounds.
Some of the answers to your questions are here:
Solar Plasma Circuits
Some of the answers to your questions are here:
Solar Plasma Circuits
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100921circuits.htm
Some more answers here, IMHO
Solar Magnetic Polarity Reversal
Solar Magnetic Polarity Reversal
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090909polarity.htm
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,296
Basically, your frakkin' with us, Haig. You have no real interest in actually discussing anything with us. "too many questions, too little time, let me just find the time to copy and paste this drivel from thunderdolts, that, although I don't understand it, must be the truth, otherwise it would not be on the internet." Your just as much a disappointment as all other EU/ES/EC proponents, with just as little knowledge of actual plasma(astro)physics, left behind in the 50s of the previous century.
Last edited:
Your entitled to your view but if I had more time to "discuss" things you would just say I was parroting someone, right? Actually, I find Thunderbolts quite understandable. Well, as much as a numpty layman can understand that is!
I really don't have a lot of time so Donald Scott can do my discussing for me: -
The chaos of Brownian motion produces the high temperature we see in the solar corona.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100519corona.htm
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,296
No, I would expect someone to actually try to learn a little bit of the basics of physics. Does it not bother you that there is nothing qualitative on the thunderdolts site? (apparently not) Let's take your example below:
Can this actually happen? First of all there are no numbers on the axes in the figure, so how strong is this electric field? Why not put numbers there? Never mind, we will just take Juergens' numbers, which says that the potential drop is of the order of 109 volts. So we have a population of 1 GeV ions running out of the Sun (which means there is also a population of 1 GeV electrons running into the Sun, but that as an aside). The density of the corona is of the order 10-12 kg/m3, (which is about 12 orders of magnitude smaller than our air at sea level) which is in number density 10-12/1.67 10-27 = 6 1014 m-3.
Now, collision need to heat this up. Ion-ion collision rate is given by:
[latex]\nu_i = 4.8 10^{-8} Z^4 \mu^{-1/2} n_i ln\Lambda T^{-3/2}[/latex] per second for a thermal plasma. A full description of this all is given here.. However, we need to know what a fast 1 GeV ion is doing with a thermal plasma of temperature T (note that a 1 GeV ion corresponds to a temperature of 1013 Kelvin) so that should be enough to heat the corona to 15 million degrees, but .......
1 GeV ions correspond to a velocity close to c (as the rest-energy of a proton is ~1 GeV). This means that these ions will have an enormous mean free path in the plasma, which is related to the collision frequency (see above) and the plasma density. You may want to do the calculation (Z=1, mu=1, lnLambda = 10):
[latex]\lambda_i \approx \frac{c}{\nu_i} \approx T^{3/2}[/latex]
This in not exact, this is just an approximation to keep things simple, but all the physics is in there. Now, when the corona has a temperature of 15 million degrees then the mean free path for one of those ions leaving the double layer will be 6 1010 m which corresponds to about 100 solar radii or up to the orbit of Mercury!!!. So basically they will fly through the corona without even having one collision!
I am gladly proven wrong my Mr. Scott, naturally, there are also no numbers given for the amount of ions that are accelerated in the double layer.
Ah, once more ... do I even have to say it again?
(this took me all of 20 minutes of my lunchtime!)
And just for fun, it should be noted that these accelerated ions would emit so called "linear acceleration radiation" in the double layer, basically my PhD thesis was on this kind of radiation from double layers.
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
Let's see if I understand you, Haig.Your entitled to your view but if I had more time to "discuss" things you would just say I was parroting someone, right? Actually, I find Thunderbolts quite understandable. Well, as much as a numpty layman can understand that is!
[...]
You are one of those who does not accept that physics is quantitative, right?
(I added some bold, and did not quote some irrelevant parts)DeiRenDopa said:
Tim Thompson
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2008
- Messages
- 969
Electric Sun: Questions for Haig II
I have asked before, without success, but will try again. How do you know, based on your own personal knowledge of science, that the things you cut & paste, have any valid content at all? And if you have no personal knowledge as a basis for judgement, then what criteria do you use?
Maybe, maybe not. It's usually pretty easy to spot the people who are just parroting somebody else, but since you are already doing exactly that, what have you got to lose? It's one thing to have your own ideas, regardless of how right or wrong they may be, but quite another to avoid all thought of your own and just cut & paste whatever somebody else says.
I have asked before, without success, but will try again. How do you know, based on your own personal knowledge of science, that the things you cut & paste, have any valid content at all? And if you have no personal knowledge as a basis for judgement, then what criteria do you use?
The fact that you can understand the English does not make the science right. If, as you say, you are just a "numpty layman", then how do you know that the science is right?Actually, I find Thunderbolts quite understandable. Well, as much as a numpty layman can understand that is!
Don Scott is wrong, for reasons I already mentioned above. But since you are only a numpty layman, how would you know, one way or the other?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
So let's put this concept to the (observational) test, shall we?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...532..616W
Ooops? You're OOMS off Tim. Now what?
Are *ANY* of you folks going to discuss Alfven's use of "circuits" in these instances?
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...532..616W
Care to address the quantitative aspects of this paper for me DRD? You're so quick to claim to want figures, and so quick to ignore them when they are handed to you on a silver platter. What's up with that behavior?
I'm still waiting for *ANY* of you to even QUALITATIVELY address Alfven's use of "circuits" and "exploding double layers" in flare events.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,296
I have already done so somewhere here on the board.
However, anything that has to do with real physics and math gets ignored by the EU/ES/EC and iron sun proponents.
It is not my fault, MM, that you don't seem to understand the physcis posts I put up on the board, but please do not say that you are waiting for *ANY* to address Alfven or double layers or Birkeland for that (as you have not even written ONE word in the scientific discussion of Birkeland's papers).
Bye bye MM, sweet dreams.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,296
Electric current neutralization by Wheatland (ApJ 532, 616-621, 2000).
From the abstract we learn the following:
Wheatland (abstract) said:
So what we learn here is that (using magnetograms) Wheatfield studies the currents derived from the magnetograms over active regions of negative and positive polarity separately, giving rise to the I- and I+. These two currents I- and I+ are not neutralized over that specific region of polarity (which should not be surprising, actually), however taking the whole active region together (i.e. summation over all polarity region) one gets a Itot, which is not found to be significantly different from zero.
Wheatfield (Introduction) said:
This is the technique used to measure the currents. And the definition of “neutralized” is given a little further down:
Wheatfield (Introduction) said:
Now depending on what is looked at, one can find different results for the neutralization, like is discussed with two examples that give different results:
Wheatfield (Introduction) said:
So then there is a discussion of the technique, which I will not go into, anyone can read it as the paper is freely available from ADS and ApJ. So let’s move to the discussion. The first thing mentioned is:
Wheatfield (Discussion) said:
Then Wheatfield goes into a discussion of how this statistical sample relates to what other people have proposed about the currents coming out of active regions, as there are opposing views. Melrose, e.g. states that A clear example is provided by a coronal magnetic loop subject to a twisting flow at one footpoint. The twist generates a current system that flows along the axis and back along the surface of the loop in the corona. The current follows field lines in the corona but closes across field lines at the footpoint of the loop where the stress is applied. The observed current pattern at the photosphere at each footpoint is a patch of current of one sign at the center of the footpoint, surrounded by a concentric region of current of opposite sign. The pattern is neutralized.
However, Melrose argued that Melrose (1991, 1995) argued that measurements of the vector magnetic Ðeld do not support neutralized current patterns and hence disfavor the in situ storage models. His assessment of the data was based on qualitative descriptions of observed current systems and on published diagrams of currents derived from magnetograms.
And so we come to the conclusions by Wheatfield:
Wheatfield (Discussion) said:
So, this has an interesting result, namely that:
Wheatfield (Discussion) said:
Now, this IS interesting, because footpoint shear is considered to be an important part of driving currents in magnetic loops. However, it should be understood too, that this study deals with the total current above a positive (I+) or negative (I-) polarization active region. It is proposed that the dynamo action in the Sun should be moved to the base of the convection zone in order to be able to get these large scale currents. This also has an effect on solar flares as noted by Melrose:
Wheatfield (Discussion) said:
This whole discussion of the Wheatfield paper is because of the answer that Tim Thompson gave on the question “Are stars charged” and his answer was “Yes” and indeed there was a paper in 2001 by Neslusan that discusses this (the link was nicely taken out by MM).
MM told TT that: Ooops? You're OOMS off Tim. Now what?, but does MM actually know what he is talking about? Apparently not, because TT was discussion the charged Sun and the voltage that could be created by that, whereas Wheatfield goes into a totally different calculation. Let’s take a look:
Wheatfield (Discussion) said:
Ah, this is just Maxwell theory, changes in currents or current directions will lead to voltages. This has nothing to do with the voltages that are related to a charged Sun.
Then Wheatfield goes into a mathematical discussion, so I guess MM will have skipped that, but here it is anyway:
Wheatfield (Discussion) said:
So there can be enormous voltages created by changes in the current loops on the Sun, which is no surprise. However, it is a surprise that MM wants to say that these voltages (that have nothing to do with net charge) are related to a charged Sun.
I thank MM, though, for pointing out this interesting paper, however, I would appreciate when MM would actually put some effort in discussing the papers that he links to and show the (non)relevance of said papers.
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
Does that paper talk about the net electric charge of the sun? It's way above my pay grade, but it seems to me it's more about your famous "current flows" in active regions. It even says as much in the title, after all. If so, maybe you should read what Tim wrote about that:
Tim Thompson said:
ETA: Oops! Should've just lurked and let tusenfem do his thing!
Last edited:
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,296
Well, at least you noticed the problem with the linked paper. That puts you miles above the imaginary iron surface of the Sun on which MM is walking.
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
When the bar is set so low, sometimes even Arts grads like me can step over it.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
Um, where? In relationship to flares?
IMO it's *YOUR* side that keeps ignoring the maths they don't care for. You guys keep claiming that maths are king, yet your side outright ignores the maths related to PC/EU theory entirely. "Circuits"? "What circuits?" That's pretty much par for the course around here, especially since *YOU* are the only actual PC critic that has read a significant portion of Alfven's work on the topic.
Um, in relationship to flares and CME's, that is *EXACTLY* what I'm waiting for.
Right.
Denial seems to be the single biggest "tool" in the PC opponent's arsenal. I'm still waiting for you or anyone else to address Alfven's "circuit" and "explosive double layers" in relationship to flares. When I actually see that happen, we'll know we've left denialville behind. Thus far any "maths" you folks do not care for, you either fail to read or fail to comment on at all.
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
Quit lying, Michael.Right.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176699
Not a single word from you.
Michael Mozina
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2009
- Messages
- 9,361
I would appreciate your side putting in a little effort, noticing that your voltages are off by OOMS at the surface and noticing a "discharge" when you see one. Apparently you believe that if you measure the voltages at both ends of an electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere that they are 'neutralized' (apparently even during the discharge process itself) at all times, and you're outright ignoring the fact that your voltages are not even in the ballpark! This is like a trip to the twighlight zone IMO. Whatever you don't like, you simply ignore or sweep under the carpet. It doesn't matter if maths are included, observations are included, etc. The only thing that seems to matter to you is that it doesn't jive with your belief systems, therefore it has to be outright ignored. How do you explain those voltages and amps T? Notice how the *CIRCUIT* closes *UNDER* the photosphere just as Alfven PREDICTED?
- Status