Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

brantc · Sep 24, 2010

Reality Check said:
I am asking the real questions - why are you under the impression that your physcially impossible solid iron surface on the Sun exists?

Because I think the standard solar model has failed. Ok. Just think about what I am saying for a minute. If you could suspend disbelief, just for a minute, my model fits every parameter for the sun. Just look at it.

It explains the structure of the sun perfectly. Why there is a temperature gradient from <5000K to >2MK. Why there is a "convection" layer. The metals problem. Helioseismologically why the sun is more like a bounded sphere than a decreasing density plasma ball. X-rays, gammas, neutrinos.
The change is a real description of the field and its functioning. It doesnt change the way physics work, it only modify''s some of the math, introduces new experimental data and methodology's as well as completing the description of "energy" in the most basic sense.

Does an ice skater do work on herself pushing off from a railing and sliding across the skating rink???

P.S.
First asked 19 September 2010
What magical thing happens in constructing running difference images of light emitted from Fe IX ions in the corona that reveals light relected from your physically impossible surface?

I dont believe in magic. Only in science. However, I do think that there is an quantum explanation for levitation.

And lets throw in yet another question
First asked 21 September 2010
brantc
Stellar formation is well understood.
FYI: Basically a cloud of gas clumps together under gravity until it gets dense enough for fusion to start and you have a star.

How did a gloud of gas form your physcially impossible solid iron surface on the Sun?

The answer lies in supernova. Supernovae are known to have iron cores and iron rich plasma. The hypothesis is the supernova are large plasma pinches that nucleosynthesize iron cores that get ejected.
Plasma pinches are not only hot enough(2 billion+ K) but also use Marklund convection to synthesize new metals.

brantc · Sep 24, 2010

I dont know what to make of this. But it is an unexpected observation.
Does it mean that once a flux tube forms from the sun to the earth the fossil remnant stays? Amazing. And electrical.

Flux tube texture of the solar wind: Strands of the magnetic carpet at 1 AU?

Joseph E. Borovsky

Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space Science and Applications (ISR-1), Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA

It is argued here that the inner heliosphere is filled with a network of entangled magnetic flux tubes and that the flux tubes are fossil structures that originate at the solar surface. 65,860 flux tubes are collected from seven years of measurements with the ACE spacecraft at 1 AU by spotting the flux tube walls with large changes in the magnetic field direction and the vector flow velocity. The tube walls are associated with large changes in the ion entropy density and the alpha-to-proton ratio. The median size of the flux tubes at 1 AU is 4.4 × 105 km. The tubes are larger in slow wind than in fast wind. The tubes are on-average aligned with the Parker spiral, with a large spread in orientations. This large spread may be caused by slight misalignments of tubes in the corona. The flux tubes map to granule and supergranule sizes on the Sun. The amounts of magnetic flux in the tubes at 1 AU correspond to the amounts of magnetic flux in field concentrations in the magnetic carpet. It is argued that the flux tubes do not reconnect during the ∼100-h advection to 1 AU owing to the expansion of the solar wind. The flux tube texture impacts the flow properties of the solar wind, turbulence in the solar wind, energetic-particle propagation in the inner heliosphere, and the driving of the Earth's magnetosphere. A method for using measurements of the flux tube walls for the remote sensing of magnetic field dynamics in the magnetic carpet is suggested.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JA012684.shtml

Ziggurat · Sep 24, 2010

brantc said:
Because I think the standard solar model has failed. Ok. Just think about what I am saying for a minute. If you could suspend disbelief, just for a minute, my model fits every parameter for the sun. Just look at it.

No. Your "model" doesn't fit any parameter for the sun, because your "model" is not a model at all. It has zero quiantitative predictive power.

Why there is a temperature gradient from <5000K to >2MK. Why there is a "convection" layer.

You think that's a problem for the conventional model? Hardly. That's exactly what you should expect when huge amounts of heat are being generated in the core, as they are through fusion.

X-rays, gammas, neutrinos.

What about them? Can you predict the expected flux from any of these? No, you can't.

The change is a real description of the field and its functioning. It doesnt change the way physics work, it only modify''s some of the math

Let's see this modified math, then.

introduces new experimental data

You have introduced no new experimental data.

as well as completing the description of "energy" in the most basic sense.

"Completing" the definition of energy? Hardly. What you're asking us to do is throw the definition out the window completely, for an alternative that you can't actually define at all.

Does an ice skater do work on herself pushing off from a railing and sliding across the skating rink???

Yes. Work = force x distance. She moves as she pushes, so her arms do work on her body.

I dont believe in magic. Only in science.

You haven't convinced us that you can tell the difference.

However, I do think that there is an quantum explanation for levitation.

Yes, there is. You're late to the party, your orgone friend wasn't invited, and this one has nothing to do with the sun.

Reality Check · Sep 24, 2010

brantc said:
Because I think the standard solar model has failed. Ok. Just think about what I am saying for a minute. If you could suspend disbelief, just for a minute, my model fits every parameter for the sun. Just look at it.

I looked at it and it explains nothing because all you have is the debunked assertion that the solid iron surface exists, a link to a crackpot web site for you "aether battery" and a list of unsupported assertions about it.
You have no predictions.

No explanation of the observed structure struct of the Sun which is plasma.
No explanation of the coronal heating problem.
No explanation of the convection layer which is where convectrion is actually observed going through your physcially impossible solid iron surface on the Sun.
No explanation of why helioseismologically sun is a ball of plasma and your your physcially impossible solid iron surface on the Sun is not detected.
No explanation of X-rays, gammas, neutrinos

brantc said:
The answer lies in supernova. Supernovae are known to have iron cores and iron rich plasma. ...snipped hypothesis...

You need to learn about stellar formation and maybe read the question again:

First asked 21 September 2010
brantc
Stellar formation is well understood.
FYI: Basically a cloud of gas clumps together under gravity until it gets dense enough for fusion to start and you have a star.

How did a gloud of gas form your physcially impossible solid iron surface on the Sun?

IOW: Given that the clouds of gas from which stars are formed have small % of iron (maybe 0.2%) and are cloud of gas, how did a gloud of gas form your physcially impossible solid iron surface on the Sun?
What was the mechanism that separated just iron from the cloud?
Why did the same mechanism not separate all other elements from the cloud?
What was the mechanism that created a single hollow sphere per star from that iron?
Why did the same mechanism not create lots of hollow spheres of diffent elements?

Reality Check · Sep 24, 2010

brantc said:
I dont know what to make of this. But it is an unexpected observation.
Does it mean that once a flux tube forms from the sun to the earth the fossil remnant stays? Amazing. And electrical.

Amazing. And magnetic (magnetic flux tube). And electrical due to the laws of physics (flux tubes on the solar surface are created by magnetic fields that are created by currents flowing in the plasma inside the sun).

My guess is that the magnetic flux tubes are flux tubes that were at the solar surface and then moved away, i.e. are "fossils" of the original magnetic activity.

GeeMack · Sep 24, 2010

brantc said:
Because I think the standard solar model has failed.

That is called an argument from incredulity.

Ok. Just think about what I am saying for a minute. If you could suspend disbelief, just for a minute, my model fits every parameter for the sun. Just look at it.

In other words, if we would only forget about all those pesky laws of physics that show your impossible claim to be impossible, and buy into the same arguments from incredulity and ignorance that seem to have you convinced, we might actually believe in that impossible solid surfaced Sun, too.

It explains the structure of the sun perfectly.

So perfectly that your paper is due to be published... okay... that would be too much to expect.

Why there is a temperature gradient from <5000K to >2MK. Why there is a "convection" layer. The metals problem.

Those are called arguments from ignorance.

Helioseismologically why the sun is more like a bounded sphere than a decreasing density plasma ball.

The science of helioseismology is well enough developed that it can be used to locate sunspot activity on the far side of the Sun. The folks who actually understand that science don't have enough of a concern about its reliability to believe there might be some huge discrepancy that would allow for a solid surface on the Sun. And what helioseismology shows us is that there is moving mass, moving at thousands of kilometers per hour up, down, and laterally directly through the region where you seem to believe a solid surface exists. So that is another argument from ignorance.

X-rays, gammas, neutrinos.

Those are called arguments from ignorance, too.

The change is a real description of the field and its functioning. It doesnt change the way physics work, it only modify''s some of the math, introduces new experimental data and methodology's as well as completing the description of "energy" in the most basic sense.

Yet you haven't shown that you have the qualifications to understand math or physics at a level necessary to modify anything to make it fit, well, anything relevant to your claim. But to go to the heart of your comment above, it's gibberish, a handful of sciency sounding words strung together and poured out onto the page, but lacking in any real relevant meaning whatsoever.

I dont believe in magic. Only in science. However, I do think that there is an quantum explanation for levitation.

That is sort of a combination between an argument from incredulity and an argument from ignorance.

The answer lies in supernova. Supernovae are known to have iron cores and iron rich plasma.

And even if so it doesn't in any way support your claim that the Sun has a solid surface, iron surface, solid iron surface, rigid surface, or any of the other ways that you or Michael have tried to describe your physically impossible conjecture. So no, the answer doesn't lie there at all.

tusenfem · Sep 24, 2010

brantc said:
I dont know what to make of this. But it is an unexpected observation.
Does it mean that once a flux tube forms from the sun to the earth the fossil remnant stays? Amazing. And electrical.

Ah, it's Joe Borovski, you're not supposed to understand.
The flux tubes do not get formed "from the sun to the Earth" they are, in the words of Joe:

A working hypothesis is that the flux tubes are seeded into the solar wind at the top of the magnetic carpet, wherein they survive intact the ~100-h advection time to 1 AU.

He basically looks at changes in field direction near the Earth, as compared to the Parker spiral direction and look at the sizes of the regions with these directions and decides that it's all intertwined flux tubes.

Nothing electrical about it actually, indeed the word electrical is never used in the whole paper (except in the title of a reference), there are current sheets, but those are there because of bordering otherly directed magnetic fields.

For those interested I (naturally) have a copy of this paper.

Michael Mozina · Sep 24, 2010

Marcus said:
Michael Mozina, sorry to butt in, I think there are a few lurkers also wondering about the difference images you're making with the SDO data. Have you given up on that idea?

Not at all. I have however been rather preoccupied at work. We're about (next month) to release a new module for our program and I had to first upgrade the base language of our program and replace a number of DLL's to facilitate that process. It's been pretty time consuming frankly, and my "hobbies" have had to take a back seat for a bit while I work on improving my real source of income now that my oldest daughter is in college.

All of the 1600A and 1700A SDO images make it very clear that the discharge loops originate *FAR BELOW* the surface of the photosphere and have a direct effect on the light output at the surface of the photosphere as they traverse that surface. They completely support that white light image we were discussing awhile back. LMSAL blew it big time on the issue of where the "footprints" of the loops are located whereas NASA got it right.

Just as with this white light image we discussed earlier, the loops have a direct physical effect on the surface of the photosphere. They "light it up", not only in white light, but in 1600A, and sometimes even 1700A. These 1600A images show the loops coming up and through the photosphere and the flare "light up" the photosphere too.

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/dailymov/2010/09/20/20100920_1024_1600.mpg
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/dailymov/2010/09/21/20100921_1024_1600.mpg

What is still "in debate" is whether or not the iron line emissions can be seen *below* the surface seen in 1600A, or just as they leave the surface seen in 1600A. That is going to take some time to demonstrate. I still need to download the SOLARSOFT libs for SDO to even begin that process so I can create accurate RD images. Those libraries look to be *HUGE*.

Once I get my new reoccurring revenue going, I'll have time to work on it in earnest. At the moment however, it simply has to wait. By the end of next month however, things should start to slow down for me at work and I'll have more time to put into that process.

Tubbythin · Sep 24, 2010

brantc said:
Because I think the standard solar model has failed. Ok. Just think about what I am saying for a minute. If you could suspend disbelief, just for a minute, my model fits every parameter for the sun. Just look at it.

No it doesn't. Not in the slightest. It violates basic physics.

It explains the structure of the sun perfectly. Why there is a temperature gradient from <5000K to >2MK.

You won't mind showing us that maths to prove this then.

Why there is a "convection" layer.

Really?

The metals problem.

What metals problem?

Helioseismologically why the sun is more like a bounded sphere than a decreasing density plasma ball.

It's in complete contradiction to helioseismology data.

X-rays, gammas, neutrinos.

I suppose you have your calculations for this too.

The change is a real description of the field and its functioning. It doesnt change the way physics work, it only modify''s some of the math, introduces new experimental data and methodology's as well as completing the description of "energy" in the most basic sense.

Nonesense. You've basically been claiming that all of physics is wrong. You may not realise it but that would have to be the case if your "model" was correct.

Does an ice skater do work on herself pushing off from a railing and sliding across the skating rink???

Pardon?

I dont believe in magic. Only in science. However, I do think that there is an quantum explanation for levitation.

Huh?

The answer lies in supernova. Supernovae are known to have iron cores and iron rich plasma. The hypothesis is the supernova are large plasma pinches that nucleosynthesize iron cores that get ejected.
Plasma pinches are not only hot enough(2 billion+ K) but also use Marklund convection to synthesize new metals.

Only type II supernovae have iron cores.

GeeMack · Sep 24, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
All of the 1600A and 1700A SDO images make it very clear that the discharge loops originate *FAR BELOW* the surface of the photosphere and have a direct effect on the light output at the surface of the photosphere as they traverse that surface. They completely support that white light image we were discussing awhile back. LMSAL blew it big time on the issue of where the "footprints" of the loops are located whereas NASA got it right.

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/15%20April%202001%20WL.gif[/qimg]

Just as with this white light image we discussed earlier, the loops have a direct physical effect on the surface of the photosphere. They "light it up", not only in white light, but in 1600A, and sometimes even 1700A. These 1600A images show the loops coming up and through the photosphere and the flare "light up" the photosphere too.

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/dailymov/2010/09/20/20100920_1024_1600.mpg
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/dailymov/2010/09/21/20100921_1024_1600.mpg

What is still "in debate" is whether or not the iron line emissions can be seen *below* the surface seen in 1600A, or just as they leave the surface seen in 1600A. That is going to take some time to demonstrate. I still need to download the SOLARSOFT libs for SDO to even begin that process so I can create accurate RD images. Those libraries look to be *HUGE*.

Once I get my new reoccurring revenue going, I'll have time to work on it in earnest. At the moment however, it simply has to wait. By the end of next month however, things should start to slow down for me at work and I'll have more time to put into that process.

Once again, your qualifications to understand solar imagery of any sort have been challenged, and you have repeatedly shown that you do not possess any such qualifications. On the other hand, the people at NASA and LMSAL and Stanford who are primarily responsible for planning and executing the solar research programs you always misunderstand, the people who are responsible for acquiring and analyzing the data from those satellite projects, those people who are eminently qualified to understand solar imagery, wholly disagree with your position. Your qualifications are as nonexistent as your solid surface. Your argument has failed.

Lukraak_Sisser · Sep 24, 2010

brantc said:
Because I think the standard solar model has failed. Ok. Just think about what I am saying for a minute. If you could suspend disbelief, just for a minute, my model fits every parameter for the sun. Just look at it.

But for your model to even start to be valid we'd need to throw out all observations made on both iron and gravity ever made on earth. Physics (backed by untold amounts of empirical data in working with iron) shows that under no condition could your hollow iron shell be stable. Even without becoming a sun. A shell that size will collapse in on itself. Gaseous/molecular iron will not spontaneously from a shell, but rather a solid ball. No interstellar gas cloud or solar material has anywhere near the amount of iron needed for your model

brantc said:
It explains the structure of the sun perfectly. Why there is a temperature gradient from <5000K to >2MK. Why there is a "convection" layer. The metals problem. Helioseismologically why the sun is more like a bounded sphere than a decreasing density plasma ball. X-rays, gammas, neutrinos.
The change is a real description of the field and its functioning. It doesnt change the way physics work, it only modify''s some of the math, introduces new experimental data and methodology's as well as completing the description of "energy" in the most basic sense.

Yes, your model DOES require physics to be extremely different from what we find on earth

brantc said:
Does an ice skater do work on herself pushing off from a railing and sliding across the skating rink???

Yes. Pushing off is work. Keeping balance is work. Both are done upon herself.

brantc said:
I dont believe in magic. Only in science. However, I do think that there is an quantum explanation for levitation.

But you do believe in magic. You call it aether. It makes physical laws be different in the sun than on earth. It can create energy out of nothing. And it cannot be demonstrated except to those that believe in it.

brantc said:
The answer lies in supernova. Supernovae are known to have iron cores and iron rich plasma. The hypothesis is the supernova are large plasma pinches that nucleosynthesize iron cores that get ejected.
Plasma pinches are not only hot enough(2 billion+ K) but also use Marklund convection to synthesize new metals.

Yes, supernova create some iron. Using nuclear fusion which starts with hydrogen. The very nuclear fusion you claim doesn't drive the sun. And said iron is nowhere near enough to form a shell the size of a sun and also does not come in handy IKEA like puzzle blocks ready to form a shell. So more magic aether will also fix this problem in your theory.
You do realize that your theories solve minor to imaginary problems in the standard model by introducing far larger problems and then saying 'aether' to make it go away?

Lukraak_Sisser · Sep 25, 2010

One other question set for Brantc. You have mentioned supernova's as the source of the material for the shell you propose.
How did the first starts work in your theory, when the universe was mainly composed of hydrogen?
And how, in your model, are (super)nova's even possible? The iron shell gathers aether and makes light. We see no massive iron ejection from the sun, so the shell is probably stable. And even if it isn't, when it degrades it will just stop working. So your own model at the moment lacks the ability to produce the materials needed in your model.
Or does iron spontaneously appear through 'aether'?

Tim Thompson · Sep 25, 2010

Photons and aether theory II

brantc said:
Tim Thompson said:

Third question(s): We are now quite adept at detecting individual photons. CCD detectors, and similar solid state technologies, are extensively used in astronomy, and in other branches of science, for the explicit detection of photons (which can be individually counted). So, if there are no photons propagating, say from the sun to Earth, then where do the photons that we do detect come from? Where along the sun-Earth path are they created? And what are they created from? How do we observationally detect the parent entities from which photons are created?

Click to expand...

Think of it as the same energy that the "field" imparts to things. Aetherometry has identified just what the "field" is. Not virtual photons or whatever. Massfree charges. The lowest form of energy in Aetherometry is massfree energy. No charge, no inertia.

The field transmits the energy causing the particle to move and the particle responds by emitting a photon that is generated in the particle(locally) from the energy imparted by the field.

From Aetherometry.
"claims that solar radiation is electrical, not because it is composed of photons, but because it consists of propagating massfree charges. Unlike massbound charges, massfree charges have no fixed spin orientation with respect to forward propagation."

The answer given here by brantc does not answer the question I asked (which I have bolded here for emphasis). Not only do we see & count individual photons coming from the sun (and other astronomical sources), but we can determine the direction from which the photons enter the detector. According to this aether hypothesis, there are no photons generated at the source, so they must be generated somewhere along the line of sight between the source and the detector, and with directionality consistent with that line of sight.

And so I ask again: Where along the sun-Earth path are they created? Are photons mostly created in close proximity to the sun? In close proximity to the detector? Evenly distributed along the line of sight? Or maybe in some other distribution that is somehow re-oriented to the line of sight?

Tim Thompson · Sep 25, 2010

Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IX

brantc said:
You question was:
Why isnt the photosphere at a higher temperature from this surface sublimating UV flux, or am I misunderstanding the question.

More precisely, my question is: How do you maintain a solid iron surface in the presence of a thermal bath that exceeds the vaporization temperature/energy of solid iron?

You provide an answer:

brantc said:
My surface is 400km below the photosphere visible surface. 90% of the solar UV comes from above it. Thats why my surface does not sublimate.

That source of UV will radiate the same flux upwards as it does downwards, if it is isothermal. If it is hotter towards the bottom than towards the top, then it will actually radiate more UV downwards towards the iron surface, which does not bode well for its solidity. Now, I will assume that photosphere visible surface is the photospheric layer with optical depth = 1 for visible light (in fact the photosphere has a visible volume not a visible surface). We can see about 100 km below that layer and combine our observations with our knowledge of the laws of physics, and determine a temperature of 9400 kelvins (e.g., Solar Astrophysics, Foukal, page 153; adopted from the photosphere reference model in Maltby, et al., 1986). This is where the high resolution models stop, but a linear extrapolation down to -400 km shows an expected temperature ~18,400 Kelvins. I simply note that all of these temperatures are significantly higher than the boiling point for iron, 3134 Kelvins. Now, the boiling point in-situ in the sun might be higher due to higher pressure, but it's not going to be that much higher (no doubt this can be quantified by someone with more expertise and greater industry than myself).

Furthermore, see my earlier post Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible VII ...

Tim Thompson said:
The relevant number here is the bolometric flux, since we only need to overcome the weak Fe-Fe bond, and that is what the enthalpy of atomization represents, the total binding energy of one mole or 7.09 cm³ of iron. That's 414.2 KJ/mole = 4.142x10⁵ J/mole. Now, at about 6x10¹⁰ erg cm^-2 sec^-1 x 3.690 cm² we get 2.214x10¹¹ erg sec^-1 = 2.214x10⁴ Joules sec^-1 deposited on the one exposed face of a molar volume at the surface. So it will take only 18.7 seconds to present enough energy to that exposed molar cube face to vaporize the entire molar cube. The actual time it takes to vaporize it depends on the efficiency with which the energy is absorbed, but that will certainly be very high; the optical reflectivity of iron is 65% at room temperature, but will drop fast with a non-specular surface, so the absorption must be nearly 100%. But even if we give you every benefit of chance and pretend the reflectivity is 65%, and absorption therefore 35%, then the vaporization of that mole of iron will take about 53.4 seconds.

So if you have an iron crust 100 km thick (that's 10⁷ cm) and we get rid of 1.921 cm every 53.4 seconds, then all 100 km will be gone in 2.780x10⁸ seconds. Now, with 3.1557600x10⁷ seconds in one year, you can see that in just under 10 years your entire iron edifice will be destroyed. Make the layer 1000 km thick, and it takes just under a century. So even if you could dream up some way to get the iron there in the first place, you would then have to dream up a way to keep it from vanishing altogether in a really short time (which in fact we seriously over-estimate here because we are assuming an unrealistic 65% reflectivity, when the real reflectivity will br far less than that; double the absorption efficiency and you cut the iron layer lifetime in half).

Physics indicates that an iron surface for the sun is not thermodynamically acceptable.

So aside from the temperature, I have also examined the energy density and shown that an iron surface simply cannot continue to exist more that a few years after it appears (however that happens). Bottom line for me: Your answer, that 90% of the solar UV comes from above the layer, is vastly inadequate to address the serious physical problem. No matter high you try to look at it, unless you want to deny the validity of thermodynamics (be my guest if you do), then you have a layer of solid iron sitting in a thermal energy bath far beyond anything required to vaporize that iron.

So how do you propose to avoid this thermodynamic problem? Can you provide an answer with some content relevant to physics?

Tim Thompson · Sep 26, 2010

Is the Standard Solar Model a Failure? I

brantc said:
Because I think the standard solar model has failed.

Why? Just to keep things focused and orderly, what do you think is the single greatest failure of the standard solar model?

Tim Thompson · Sep 26, 2010

Physics and Solar Models I

brantc said:
Just think about what I am saying for a minute. If you could suspend disbelief, just for a minute, my model fits every parameter for the sun. Just look at it.

Let us suppose that you model indeed does fit every parameter for the sun. However, I think we have already convincingly demonstrated that your model is also inconsistent with the known laws of physics. Which takes precedence? If your model fits the sun perfectly, but at the expense of not fitting the laws of physics, should we accept it anyway, because of its explanatory powers regarding the sun? Or should we reject it because it is inconsistent with known physics, and seek a better model?

Tim Thompson · Sep 26, 2010

Is There a Coronal Heating Problem?

brantc said:
It explains the structure of the sun perfectly. Why there is a temperature gradient from <5000K to >2MK.

How does a solid iron surface do that? The alleged solid iron surface sits, as you say, 400 km below the "visible surface" of the photosphere. But the temperature gradient you speak of is not smooth, being concentrated in the transition region between the chromosphere & corona. In the transition region the plasma temperature rises from about 6,000 Kelvins (K) to 600,000 K, a factor of 100, over a distance of about 1,000 km. The base of the 1,000 km region is about 1500 km above your iron surface, and between your iron surface and the base of the transition region, the temperature actually drops, from about 10,000 K to about 4,000 K, before rising once again to about 6,000 K over a distance of about 1,000 km before the base of the transition region. So the temperature rises from 4,000 K to 6,000 K over 1,000 km, and then rises from about 6,000 K to 600,000 K over the next 1,000 km (see figure 9-17, page 310, and the attendant text, in the book Solar Astrophysics, Peter Foukal, Wiley-VCH, 2004). A solid iron layer can under no circumstances exceed about 2,000 K under the most optimistic & favorable circumstances we can imagine. And since it is solid, it has no moving parts. So there must be some unexplained remote control mechanism it can use to cause the plasma 1500 km away to skyrocket in temperature, while the intervening plasma actually cools. It will not be sufficient to explain this by simply waving your hands around and appealing to the vague generalities of electricity, aether or orgone power. Specific physics is required. Do you have any?

The standard solar model, on the other hand, can explain this temperature gradient fairly easily, at least in principle. It is due to magnetic or magneto acoustic waves, which steepen into shocks at the transition region. That's an oversimplification but it gets the idea across. Most of the chromospheric heating, in the 1,000 km below the transition region, can be explained by compressional waves associated with the 5-minute oscillations in photospheric granules (it is far easier for things that move around to generate waves than it is for a static iron layer to do it). Coronal heating is probably due to several simultaneous processes happening at once, including magnetic Alfven waves, and energy released by microflares & spicules at the top of the chromosphere. This is all extensively reviewed in the literature, though usually dismissed without comment by critics of the standard model, who usually prefer to avoid physics whenever possible; see for instance, my earlier post Coronal Heating & Solar Wind I (17 April 2010) and references therein.

Tim Thompson · Sep 26, 2010

Is There a Solar Convection Problem?

brantc said:
Why there is a "convection" layer.

Convection is nothing more than the mechanical transport of matter in the general direction of warmer towards cooler. There is certainly no need to invoke any kind of surface. Standard physics answers this question very easily. If the temperature gradient in the plasma is less steep than the adiabatic gradient, then energy transport is most efficient by purely radiative transfer and there is little or no convection (this is the case for the inner radiative zone of the sun). If the temperature gradient becomes steeper than the adiabatic gradient, then energy transport is more efficient by mass motion than by radiative transfer, and convection sets in (this is the case for the convective zone of the solar interior, that includes the last 25% or so of the solar radius). This is general physics that must be true for all atmospheres; it works quite the same on Earth as it does for the sun. See, for instance, section 6.1.2 "Energy Transport" (pages 169-170) in Foukal's book Solar Astrophysics. But this too is a bit of simplification, so if you want to leave no stone of physics unturned in your quest to understand convection, see chapter 4 ("Radiative and Conductive Heat Transfer") and chapter 5 ("Heat Transfer by Convection") in the book Stellar Interiors by Hansen, Kawaler & Trimble, Springer 2004 (2nd edition), or see the various relevant topics in the books Stellar Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, Thompson (no relation) and Christensen-Dalsgaard, Cambridge University Press 2003 or Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics, Andrew Soward, et al., editors, CRC Press 2005.

Tim Thompson · Sep 26, 2010

Is There a Solar Metals Problem?

brantc said:
The metals problem.

I don't know what the "metals problem" is supposed to be. But even if I did, how would a solid iron layer solve it? Solid iron is, after all, a metal (singular) and the problem you allege is metals (plural). A solid iron layer might conceivably help resolve the iron part of this problem, depending of course on what the problem is really supposed to be, but what about all those other metals? Is there also an aluminum layer? Tin? Lead?

Tim Thompson · Sep 26, 2010

Does Helioseismology Require a Solid Solar Surface?

brantc said:
Helioseismologically why the sun is more like a bounded sphere than a decreasing density plasma ball.

Wrong. Helioseismologically the sun is in fact exactly like a decreasing density plasma ball, and is remarkably not like anything with a solid boundary. You made this claim once before, and I refuted it once before (3 April 2010):

Tim Thompson said:
brantc said:

Actually the measurements(harmonics) support a bounded sphere as opposed to a decreasing density "plasma ball" of fusion.

Click to expand...

Actually, GeeMack is quite correct, and you are way wrong. Helioseismology is extremely supportive of the standard model. This is extensively documented in the literature; e.g., Helioseismology, Jorgen Christensen-Dalsgaard, Reviews of Modern Physics 74(4): 1073-1129, November 2002; The Internal Rotation of the Sun, M.J. Thompson, et al., (not me & no relation that I know of), Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 41: 599-643 (2003), and the many citations to both. More recently, see M.J. Thompson, 2010; Gizon, Birch & Spriut, 2010; Solar Interior Rotation and its Variation, Rachel Howe, Living Reviews in Solar Physics 6(1), February 2009 (free access online); Zhao, et al., 2009; Chaplin & Basu, 2008; Christensen-Dalsgaard, 2007; Gough, 2006 & etc. Finally, see the book Stellar Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, edited by M.J. Thompson & Jorgen Christensen-Dalsgaard, Cambridge University Press 2003.

The idea that a bounded sphere is implied by helioseismological data is unacceptable, and very much contradicted by the weight of scientific study of the topic.

Tim Thompson · Sep 26, 2010

Is There a Solar X-ray, Gamma-ray & Neutrino Problem? I

brantc said:
... my model fits every parameter for the sun. Just look at it. ... X-rays, gammas, neutrinos.

All three of these: X-rays, gamma rays and neutrinos are easily explained by the standard solar model. The X-rays come from rapidly accelerated plasma, especially (but not exclusively) in magnetic reconnection events, Gamma rays come from the relaxation of excited nuclear states and neutron capture reactions. See my earlier posts Neutron Capture Gamma Rays (6 April 2010) & Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely. III (14 May 2010). And of course, neutrinos are emitted in the course of nuclear fusion reactions interior to the sun, and are now known to appear to our detectors in numbers consistent with the standard internal fusion models of the sun. See my earlier post Comments on Neutrino Oscillations (12 July 2009) and references therein.

In what way does your model account for all of these and why is your model superior to the standard model?

brantc · Sep 28, 2010

Ziggurat said:
Yes. Work = force x distance. She moves as she pushes, so her arms do work on her body.

Where does the energy come from? Internal energy.... Internal force.....

"In physics, mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force acting through a distance." Comment Energy transfered to the stationary Bar???

According to the work-energy theorem if an external force acts upon a rigid object, causing its kinetic energy to change from Ek1 to Ek2, then the mechanical work (W) is given by:[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)

"In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energos, "active, working") is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. ...
the units of energy are joules or ergs; "energy can take a wide variety of forms" "

Force requires energy to operate. A force expends energy.
Work is the transfer of energy. Energy is the amount of work.
F=ma Acceleration is because of Force.
Mass has an energy of its own. E=MC^2

What is it that is really being transferred around(conserved)??

I say the term energy is used semi wrongly, and is really the most basic substance of the universe from which everything is made.
This is what is transferred around.

This energy is the Aether. It is massless.
It may be massless with charge or without charge. Or it can be charged and massive.

Reality Check · Sep 28, 2010

brantc said:
Where does the energy come from? Internal energy.... Internal force.....

The energy comes from the ice skater and the railing.
There is no "internal energy" or "internal force". There is the equal and opposite force between the ice skater and the railing. The ice skater exerts the force using the energy from her muscles. The railing exerts the force using the energy from between its atoms.

brantc said:
...snipped standard definitions...
Force requires energy to operate. A force expends energy.
Work is the transfer of energy. Energy is the amount of work.
F=ma Acceleration is because of Force.

Up to here you have basic Newtonian mechanics.

brantc said:
Mass has an energy of its own. E=MC^2

Not quite.
What E=mc^2 states is that a mass m at rest can be considered to be equivalent to an energy of mc^2.
You imply that mass is energy which is wrong.

brantc said:
What is it that is really being transferred around(conserved)??

Energy. Conservation of energy.

brantc said:
I say the term energy is used semi wrongly, and is really the most basic substance of the universe from which everything is made.
This is what is transferred around.

Then you are wrong. By definition energy is a measured property of a system. It is not a thing in itself.

brantc said:
This energy is the Aether. It is massless.
It may be massless with charge or without charge. Or it can be charged and massive.

And you are even more wrong.
The aether is not energy. It is a hypothetical medium through which light travels and there is little evidence for it.
I suspect though that you are referring to the crank web site "Aether" not anything that is actually science.

GeeMack · Sep 29, 2010

brantc said:
[...]

This energy is the Aether. It is massless.
It may be massless with charge or without charge. Or it can be charged and massive.

That is an argument from ignorance, plain and simple.

brantc · Sep 29, 2010

Tim Thompson said:
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Just think about what I am saying for a minute. If you could suspend disbelief, just for a minute, my model fits every parameter for the sun. Just look at it.

Click to expand...

Let us suppose that you model indeed does fit every parameter for the sun. However, I think we have already convincingly demonstrated that your model is also inconsistent with the known laws of physics.

Aetherometry and my hypothesis are indeed inconsistent with the current interpretations of physical phenomena.

The requirement to to conform my hypothesis to current physics would be a different model of gravity and an aether that explains what the "field" actually is.

Which takes precedence? If your model fits the sun perfectly, but at the expense of not fitting the laws of physics, should we accept it anyway, because of its explanatory powers regarding the sun? Or should we reject it because it is inconsistent with known physics, and seek a better model?

How do you know when to draw the line??

The laws of physics are mathematical models formulated on observations.
They are subject to change as our understanding of the universe becomes more finely grained.

We already know gravity has problems. We also know that aether was not disproved. MM was non zero by some accounts.
This taken with the idea that location can affect results (Dayton Miller) and sidereal signals in data, I would strongly suggest that the idea of some sort of an aether was thrown out prematurely.

It seems as though in our coarse haste to embrace brilliant human concepts like relativity, we missed the finer natural phenomena like the effects of the aether.

brantc · Sep 29, 2010

Tim Thompson said:
The answer given here by brantc does not answer the question I asked (which I have bolded here for emphasis). Not only do we see & count individual photons coming from the sun (and other astronomical sources), but we can determine the direction from which the photons enter the detector. According to this aether hypothesis, there are no photons generated at the source, so they must be generated somewhere along the line of sight between the source and the detector, and with directionality consistent with that line of sight.

And so I ask again: Where along the sun-Earth path are they created? Are photons mostly created in close proximity to the sun? In close proximity to the detector? Evenly distributed along the line of sight? Or maybe in some other distribution that is somehow re-oriented to the line of sight?

You could go to http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/English/photon.php and read it also.

Basic Aetherometric Definition

A photon is a swing (a particle, a conjunction of waves, and an energy packet) of electromagnetic energy. Its particulate aspect relates to its linear momentum (its existence as a particle) and the pressure it exerts upon adjacent matter. Its quantization relates to its constant of angular momentum, and its quantized energy forms two distinct spectra - blackbody and ionizing. Photons do not travel through space, nor do they have a fibrous structure. Photons are globular, not fascicular, and they are created and destroyed on the spot - ie local productions. Rays are simply a probabilistic way of approximating the physical reality of the phase or excitation wave that transmits 'across space' the indirect stimulus for the production of light. In the case of blackbody photons, a mediating term must always intervene between the phase wave and the production of photons, or light; the mediating term is always a massbound charge.

Basic differences between the conventional and aetherometric conceptions of the photon

1. On the nature of photons
1.1. Currently, it is held that solar radiation consists of photons. Implied in this is the notion that photons travel through space, like fibers of light, with analogy to ballistic models for the projection of material particles - as if the photons were hurled across space.

It is the view of aetherometric theory that solar radiation does not consist of photons, but of the massfree electrical charges that compose the scalar electrical field [http://aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v2B.html#abstractAS2-17A]. Moreover, it is also the view of aetherometric theory that photons are 'punctual' and local productions, that they do not travel through space but rather occupy a globular space where they are created and extinguished.

1.2. If photons do not travel through space, what is it that travels through space and is the cause of the transmission of the light stimulus, and ultimately of any local production of photons?

Aetherometry contends that what travels through space and transmits the light impulse is electrical radiation composed of massfree charges and their associated longitudinal waves (the true phase waves), not electromagnetic radiation composed of photons and their transverse waves. The wave transmission of all electromagnetic signals depends on the transmission of nonelectromagnetic energy, specifically the transmission of electric massfree charges (the propagation of Òthe fieldÓ).

Continued......

brantc · Sep 29, 2010

Tim Thompson said:
How does a solid iron surface do that? The alleged solid iron surface sits, as you say, 400 km below the "visible surface" of the photosphere. But the temperature gradient you speak of is not smooth, being concentrated in the transition region between the chromosphere & corona. In the transition region the plasma temperature rises from about 6,000 Kelvins (K) to 600,000 K, a factor of 100, over a distance of about 1,000 km. The base of the 1,000 km region is about 1500 km above your iron surface, and between your iron surface and the base of the transition region, the temperature actually drops, from about 10,000 K to about 4,000 K, before rising once again to about 6,000 K over a distance of about 1,000 km before the base of the transition region. So the temperature rises from 4,000 K to 6,000 K over 1,000 km, and then rises from about 6,000 K to 600,000 K over the next 1,000 km (see figure 9-17, page 310, and the attendant text, in the book Solar Astrophysics, Peter Foukal, Wiley-VCH, 2004). A solid iron layer can under no circumstances exceed about 2,000 K under the most optimistic & favorable circumstances we can imagine. And since it is solid, it has no moving parts. So there must be some unexplained remote control mechanism it can use to cause the plasma 1500 km away to skyrocket in temperature, while the intervening plasma actually cools. It will not be sufficient to explain this by simply waving your hands around and appealing to the vague generalities of electricity, aether or orgone power. Specific physics is required. Do you have any?

I am using the simplest model possible, the cathode in a glow discharge.
The sun is in the glow region of the breakdown curve.
http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/dischg.htm#Glow

From a paper entitled
Mysteries of the Arc Cathode Spot: A Retrospective Glance
D. Plasma Expansion and Ion Acceleration

A further astonishing fact of arc spots is the high kinetic energy of ions leaving the cathodic plasma cloud toward the walls and the anode [21], [22] (i.e., in a direction seemingly opposite to the general electric field in gas discharges; the ion part of the arc current is negative).
A simple theory discloses an explanation [23], [24] that may be considered as sufficiently convincing: The ions are accelerated by three forces: 1) the pressure gradient within the cathodic plasma; 2) the electron-ion friction; and 3) the electric field, which has the opposite direction in the plasma expansion zone, forming a potential hump near the cathode spot.
Electrons are accelerated by the dominating pressure gradient also, but are slowed down by friction and the electric field. Thus, the electrical resistance of the expanding plasma is negative, doubtless a further strange property of arc spots. However, at high currents and in gas environments where a kind of constricted dense plasma column develops, this curiosity disappears, the field retains its normal direction. The generation of multiple charged ions in the dense cathodic plasma by thermal and pressure ionization (under nonideal conditions, e.g., in explosions) and freezing of this composition during plasma expansion was investigated, particularly by Brown, Anders, and others (for instance, [25]).

So there is the electrical explanation for the "solar wind".

The standard solar model, on the other hand, can explain this temperature gradient fairly easily, at least in principle. It is due to magnetic or magneto acoustic waves, which steepen into shocks at the transition region. That's an oversimplification but it gets the idea across.

Shocks can pile up but that requires an impedance change, which begs the question, what created the layers in the first place.

In the electrical model the formations are a natural consequence of current flow. Glow layer, dark space etc. The current/voltage also serves to accelerate the particles from the lower temperature surface to the higher temperature corona.

Most of the chromospheric heating, in the 1,000 km below the transition region, can be explained by compressional waves associated with the 5-minute oscillations in photospheric granules (it is far easier for things that move around to generate waves than it is for a static iron layer to do it). Coronal heating is probably due to several simultaneous processes happening at once, including magnetic Alfven waves, and energy released by microflares & spicules at the top of the chromosphere. This is all extensively reviewed in the literature, though usually dismissed without comment by critics of the standard model, who usually prefer to avoid physics whenever possible; see for instance, my earlier post Coronal Heating & Solar Wind I (17 April 2010) and references therein.

The heating is because of the field. Electric fields do a much better job of heating than mechanical methods like compression. Electric fields act directly on the particles where as compressional waves rely on group motion. Magnetic fields are good for guiding ions but not good for accelerating them.

I've looked at micro flares, nanoflares, explosive events, blinkers, spicules, solar moss(plage), etc, etc. as mechanisms for heating of the corona. Lots of TRACE time.

Thats how I got here.

brantc · Sep 29, 2010

Lukraak_Sisser said:
One other question set for Brantc. You have mentioned supernova's as the source of the material for the shell you propose.
How did the first starts work in your theory, when the universe was mainly composed of hydrogen?

The first stars in the iron sun universe.

Let suppose there was an imbalance in the aether. This caused an electron to be freed and now there is an potential difference across the universe, or something like that..
This is the Big Bang equivalent.

So now you have a current across the universe which eventually forms into a filament due to the increasing current flow. Filaments(flux tubes, elephant trunks, what ever you want to call them) form when the plasma cant locally support that current flow. From there the right hand rule follows.

Now you have a large filament that is is sorting ions by ionization potentials, Marklund Convection as a z-pinch forms in the filament. The pinch is hot enough to go through the nucleosynthesis process by repeated pinching.
Eventually an iron core pops out which sometimes you see as lone stars racing across space.

And how, in your model, are (super)nova's even possible? The iron shell gathers aether and makes light. We see no massive iron ejection from the sun, so the shell is probably stable. And even if it isn't, when it degrades it will just stop working. So your own model at the moment lacks the ability to produce the materials needed in your model.
Or does iron spontaneously appear through 'aether'?

There are two flows of interstellar gas that flow through our heliosphere. This provide the raw material for the sun to operate as well as synthesize metals.

"Because the Sun's motion relative to the surrounding gas, an interstellar breeze of neutral atoms blows through the heliosphere, very much like the wind felt when driving an open car. Only very close to the Sun is the neutral gas ionized by the Sun's UV light and the by the solar wind, which leads to a small cavity in the neutral gas, roughly of several AU in size. Except for hydrogen, which is affected by radiation pressure, the Sun's gravity deflects the neutral gas flow, leading to a concentration of neutral gas density in the direction opposite to inflow direction of the gas.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/the-galactic-environment-of-the-sun/1

The resulting flow pattern is shown in Figure 1 for helium. It is this flow pattern that is analyzed to derive the flow speed, its direction, and temperature. Helium, the second most abundant element after hydrogen, distinguishes itself by infiltrating closest to the Sun, to distances even inside the Earth's orbit. Furthermore, because its density, temperature, and speed are not affected by processes at the heliospheric boundary, analysis of the properties of the helium gas inside the heliosphere allows one to establish the state of the pristine interstellar medium.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15256

As the interstellar atoms are ionized, they are "picked up" by the solar wind plasma and swept out to the heliosphere's termination shock. Since these pickup ions are products of the interaction between the solar wind and the neutral atoms of the interstellar medium, their measurement offers clues to the composition of the interstellar medium. Helium pickup ions were originally discovered near the earth by a team led by Eberhard Möbius, now at the University of New Hampshire, in the mid-1980s. More recently, as the Ulysses spacecraft left the inner solar system, the onboard SWICS instrument (of George Gloeckler at the University of Maryland and Johannes Geiss at the International Space Sciences Institute in Maryland) was able to detect and identify additional elements in the pickup-ion population, including nitrogen, neon and oxygen, as well as isotopes of helium and neon. Each of these elements is found partially in neutral form in interstellar gas, and the neutrals can enter the heliosphere without diversion by the Lorentz forces. Comparing the abundances of pickup ions with the abundances of ions in the nearby interstellar gas provides important clues about the original ionization level of the cloud feeding interstellar material into the solar system.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/the-galactic-environment-of-the-sun/2

The raw material makes it down to the surface of the sun to take part in processes on the surface.

Mystery: Gas from sun heads in wrong direction

"In defiance of expectations, clouds of solar gas have been observed falling back into the sun. The puzzling behavior could shed light on the mysterious magnetism of the sun, which helps protect planet Earth from lethal cosmic rays.

European astronomers have spotted the enigmatic eruptions on numerous occasions using a powerful sun-watching satellite observatory.

Mostly they take place during times of intense solar activity, characterized by the presence of many sunspots. The inflows have started about 1.7 million miles (2.7 million kilometers) from the sun's surface, a distance equivalent to twice the diameter of the star

For unknown reasons, they are able to fight against the powerful solar wind, which pushes gas and ions away from the sun at speeds of about 75 miles per second (120 km/second).

"I was stunned when I saw the first movies showing these inflows," said Bernard Fleck, a scientist with the European Space Agency. Using the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), a joint ESA-NASA sun-watching satellite, he and others first witnessed the strange phenomenon several years ago.

"Before the discovery with SOHO, no one had any idea that gas could travel the wrong way and be pushed back toward the sun."
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-11-21/...ry-solar-scientists-magnetic-field?_s=PM:TECH

Ziggurat · Sep 29, 2010

brantc said:
Comment Energy transfered to the stationary Bar???

None. Can't you understand what I said? The force applied to the bar is not applied over a distance, so no work is done on the bar. Which should surprise no one, since the bar is exactly the same after the force is applied as it was before the force was applied. But apparently that surprises you.

Oh, and we don't need all those quotes, everyone here but you understands work and energy perfectly well.

A force expends energy.

Only if it's applied over a distance. Otherwise... no.

I say the term energy is used semi wrongly, and is really the most basic substance of the universe from which everything is made.
This is what is transferred around.

You can say it all you want, but it doesn't make any sense, and it's wrong.

This energy is the Aether.

No, brantc, it isn't. Energy is a state variable. It is not a thing.

It is massless.

It's massless only in the most trivial sense (like volume is massless, color is massless, temperature is massless, etc). But it does affect mass and gravity.

It may be massless with charge or without charge.

Nope. All charges have mass.

GeeMack · Sep 29, 2010

brantc said:
I am using the simplest model possible, the cathode in a glow discharge.
The sun is in the glow region of the breakdown curve.

The simplest model possible doesn't violate the known laws of physics. Your "model" does. And I put the word in quotes because a solar model is a mathematical description of the Sun which attempts to explain mass, density, elemental makeup, thermal characteristics, luminosity, and pretty much all the characteristics of the Sun and how they fit the observed data. Your "model" has nothing to do with a mathematical description, and it explains nothing to anyone in any reasonable or scientific way. It's wrong on almost every detail and physically impossible on many. It's a wild guess based on, well...

I've looked at micro flares, nanoflares, explosive events, blinkers, spicules, solar moss(plage), etc, etc. as mechanisms for heating of the corona. Lots of TRACE time.

Thats how I got here.

... looking at a bunch of pictures. Your qualifications to understand solar imagery have been challenged, and so far you have been unable to demonstrate that you possess any such qualifications, at any level. Consequently any guess you make about the Sun based on solar imagery is unsupportable and unscientific, and may therefore be dismissed as meaningless.

ben m · Sep 29, 2010

"The sun is in the glow region of the breakdown curve"? What?

Brantc, I'm very sorry to inform you---hot plasmas do not have a glow region. They don't even have a breakdown curve. If you try to put a voltage (AC or DC) across a hot plasma, like that in the Sun, you just get conduction---Ohm's Law conduction. That's it. No glow region, no discharge region, no insulating region. Just conduction.

Glow discharge only happens when there are coexisting neutral and ionized atoms; the cold bath of neutral atoms sort of serves as a buffer that regulates the rate of ionization.

Glow discharges DO NOT EMIT BLACKBODY RADIATION. They emit atomic line radiation (that's why they are useful for spectroscopy).

The Sun is a hot, conductive plasma, with few (just above the photosphere) or zero (any deeper) non-ionized neutral atoms. You can tell by the spectroscopy, which shows a 6000K blackbody spectrum with a 6000K blackbody's Stefan-Boltzmann total intensity, and which does NOT show any emission lines, and furthermore whose (weak) absorption lines only serve to emphasize how very scarce neutral atoms are in the Sun.

Did you even find out what a glow discharge *was* before deciding to throw those words into your solar vocabulary?

Lukraak_Sisser · Sep 30, 2010

brantc said:
The first stars in the iron sun universe.

Let suppose there was an imbalance in the aether. This caused an electron to be freed and now there is an potential difference across the universe, or something like that..
This is the Big Bang equivalent.

What causes this imbalance and do you have physical proof of it? Proof that also explains the sponaneous generation of particle antiparticle pairs involved in Hawking radiation, which has been observed? Also bear in mind that you've never actually shown any proof this aether actually exists. What experiments have you done that every other physicist has missed?

brantc said:
So now you have a current across the universe which eventually forms into a filament due to the increasing current flow. Filaments(flux tubes, elephant trunks, what ever you want to call them) form when the plasma cant locally support that current flow. From there the right hand rule follows.

If there is such a massive current flowing trough the universe, why do our space probes not observe this? And yes, I have read the electric universe thread and I find the proof for that utterly unfounded and unrealistic

brantc said:
Now you have a large filament that is is sorting ions by ionization potentials, Marklund Convection as a z-pinch forms in the filament. The pinch is hot enough to go through the nucleosynthesis process by repeated pinching.
Eventually an iron core pops out which sometimes you see as lone stars racing across space.

What ions? A single electron does not an ion make. In order to sort Ion's you'd need them first and while the standard model tentitavely allows for the eventual appearence of hydrogen, bigger masses are so improbable it would require the lifetime of mutliple universes for just a single one. Have you proven such higher atomic number ions can pop out of the aether?

brantc said:
There are two flows of interstellar gas that flow through our heliosphere. This provide the raw material for the sun to operate as well as synthesize metals.

"Because the Sun's motion relative to the surrounding gas, an interstellar breeze of neutral atoms blows through the heliosphere, very much like the wind felt when driving an open car. Only very close to the Sun is the neutral gas ionized by the Sun's UV light and the by the solar wind, which leads to a small cavity in the neutral gas, roughly of several AU in size. Except for hydrogen, which is affected by radiation pressure, the Sun's gravity deflects the neutral gas flow, leading to a concentration of neutral gas density in the direction opposite to inflow direction of the gas.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/the-galactic-environment-of-the-sun/1

That paper just explains how the sun moves trough the interstellar medium and reacts with it. In no way does it even hint that this gas is somehow part of how the sun works. It also claims the interstellar gas is neutral, directly contradicting your ion flow model.

brantc said:
The resulting flow pattern is shown in Figure 1 for helium. It is this flow pattern that is analyzed to derive the flow speed, its direction, and temperature. Helium, the second most abundant element after hydrogen, distinguishes itself by infiltrating closest to the Sun, to distances even inside the Earth's orbit. Furthermore, because its density, temperature, and speed are not affected by processes at the heliospheric boundary, analysis of the properties of the helium gas inside the heliosphere allows one to establish the state of the pristine interstellar medium.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15256

As the interstellar atoms are ionized, they are "picked up" by the solar wind plasma and swept out to the heliosphere's termination shock. Since these pickup ions are products of the interaction between the solar wind and the neutral atoms of the interstellar medium, their measurement offers clues to the composition of the interstellar medium. Helium pickup ions were originally discovered near the earth by a team led by Eberhard Möbius, now at the University of New Hampshire, in the mid-1980s. More recently, as the Ulysses spacecraft left the inner solar system, the onboard SWICS instrument (of George Gloeckler at the University of Maryland and Johannes Geiss at the International Space Sciences Institute in Maryland) was able to detect and identify additional elements in the pickup-ion population, including nitrogen, neon and oxygen, as well as isotopes of helium and neon. Each of these elements is found partially in neutral form in interstellar gas, and the neutrals can enter the heliosphere without diversion by the Lorentz forces. Comparing the abundances of pickup ions with the abundances of ions in the nearby interstellar gas provides important clues about the original ionization level of the cloud feeding interstellar material into the solar system.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/the-galactic-environment-of-the-sun/2

The raw material makes it down to the surface of the sun to take part in processes on the surface.

But the paper states the majority does NOT make it to the surface of the sun and that which does make it TO the sun is ionized BY the sun. Therefore these ions cannot power the sun.

brantc said:
Mystery: Gas from sun heads in wrong direction

"In defiance of expectations, clouds of solar gas have been observed falling back into the sun. The puzzling behavior could shed light on the mysterious magnetism of the sun, which helps protect planet Earth from lethal cosmic rays.

European astronomers have spotted the enigmatic eruptions on numerous occasions using a powerful sun-watching satellite observatory.

Mostly they take place during times of intense solar activity, characterized by the presence of many sunspots. The inflows have started about 1.7 million miles (2.7 million kilometers) from the sun's surface, a distance equivalent to twice the diameter of the star

For unknown reasons, they are able to fight against the powerful solar wind, which pushes gas and ions away from the sun at speeds of about 75 miles per second (120 km/second).

"I was stunned when I saw the first movies showing these inflows," said Bernard Fleck, a scientist with the European Space Agency. Using the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), a joint ESA-NASA sun-watching satellite, he and others first witnessed the strange phenomenon several years ago.

"Before the discovery with SOHO, no one had any idea that gas could travel the wrong way and be pushed back toward the sun."
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-11-21/...ry-solar-scientists-magnetic-field?_s=PM:TECH

Fine, we do not fully understand solar magnetics yet, but then again nowhere in the standard model is the sun considered to be non-magnetic. Its magnetic fields seem to correlate with the thermal movement of highly energised plasma, which is very hard to simulate on earth. But such minor unknowns are far more an indication that the standard model needs some re-adjustment than that we need to throw out the laws of physics. The only way to do that is to prove your laws of physics actually exist.

Michael Mozina · Sep 30, 2010

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_1600.mpg

For anyone actually interested, the 1600A images today show a good example of an "active" region's effect on the photosphere. You can see it light up the photosphere and pull material up from the photosphere around the 2:30 position as the active region rolls over the horizon.

The discharge process comes *UP AND THROUGH* the surface of the photosphere, and the kinetic energy inside the loops lights up the photosphere surface and pulls material from the photosphere up and away from the photosphere.

LMSAL blew it when it claimed that to the bases of the coronal loops and solar moss activity are located far above the photosphere. LMSAL keeps claiming that solar moss events start 1200KM *ABOVE* the photosphere, when it's clear you can see the loops are *HIGHLY* energized before they even leave the photosphere.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/9912/17tracemoss/index.html

GeeMack · Sep 30, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_1600.mpg

For anyone actually interested, the 1600A images today show a good example of an "active" region's effect on the photosphere. You can see it light up the photosphere and pull material up from the photosphere around the 2:30 position as the active region rolls over the horizon.

The discharge process comes *UP AND THROUGH* the surface of the photosphere, and the kinetic energy inside the loops lights up the photosphere surface and pulls material from the photosphere up and away from the photosphere.

LMSAL blew it when it claimed that to the bases of the coronal loops and solar moss activity are located far above the photosphere. LMSAL keeps claiming that solar moss events start 1200KM *ABOVE* the photosphere, when it's clear you can see the loops are *HIGHLY* energized before they even leave the photosphere.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/9912/17tracemoss/index.html

Your qualifications to understand solar imagery of any sort have been challenged, repeatedly, and you have never once demonstrated that you possess any such qualifications. Your argument above is unqualified, contradictory to what is known about solar physics, uses terminology incorrectly, and may therefore be dismissed as meaningless.

Tubbythin · Sep 30, 2010

Lukraak_Sisser said:
Proof that also explains the sponaneous generation of particle antiparticle pairs involved in Hawking radiation, which has been observed?

It has?

Reality Check · Sep 30, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_1600.mpg

For anyone actually interested, the 1600A images today show a good example of an "active" region's effect on the photosphere. You can see it light up the photosphere and pull material up from the photosphere around the 2:30 position as the active region rolls over the horizon.

The discharge process comes *UP AND THROUGH* the surface of the photosphere, and the kinetic energy inside the loops lights up the photosphere surface and pulls material from the photosphere up and away from the photosphere.

LMSAL blew it when it claimed that to the bases of the coronal loops and solar moss activity are located far above the photosphere. LMSAL keeps claiming that solar moss events start 1200KM *ABOVE* the photosphere, when it's clear you can see the loops are *HIGHLY* energized before they even leave the photosphere.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/9912/17tracemoss/index.html

Your "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic does not mean that there are discharges in that movie. As anyone who know basic physics knows:

Electrical discharges ("discharge process") occur through the breakdown of dielectric medium.
Plasmas are highly conductive. They are not dielectric.

Your "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic is not evidence that LMSAL was wrong (Trace Spacecraft Discovers Moss on the Sun).
Actual astronomers (with real expertise in astronomy rather than just imaging that they see things in images) measure that solar moss events start 1200KM *ABOVE* the photosphere.

You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that astronomers know that coronal loops are *HIGHLY* energized as they emerge from the photosphere and get even more *HIGHLY* energized during flare activity.

Reality Check · Sep 30, 2010

Michael Mozina said:
...snip....
LMSAL blew it when it claimed that to the bases of the coronal loops and solar moss activity are located far above the photosphere. LMSAL keeps claiming that solar moss events start 1200KM *ABOVE* the photosphere, when it's clear you can see the loops are *HIGHLY* energized before they even leave the photosphere.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/9912/17tracemoss/index.html

People may be interested in one technique that astronomers used to measure the height of solar moss above the photosphere.

It is really simple - take an image of solar moss at the limb of the Sun, an image of the photosphere, overlay them and measure the distance from the photosphere to the moss layer.
Moss at the Limb

This composite TRACE image shows a layer of moss seen at the Solar limb. The yellow image is a visible light image of the Sun and shows the "solar surface" or photosphere. The blue image is a TRACE 171 Angstrom image showing 1 to 2 million degree coronal loops and a bright "layer" of moss just above the surface. The moss layer is located between about 1500 to 4000 km (1000 - 2500 miles) above the solar surface, much lower than the typical coronal loop apex heights.

For a paper on this: High-resolution Imaging of the Solar Chromosphere/Corona Transition Region (page L98)

At the limb, moss appears as a thin, low-lying, irregular layer in the atmosphere, occasionally obscured by dark, spiculelike jets. Measurements of moss emission height were made by observing active regions from near disk center to the limb in TRACE 171 A° and white-light images. The white-light images establish a photospheric reference height for the EUV images with an estimated error in image registration of less than 1" (0.725Mm solar).We find an average base height above the white-light limb for the moss layer of 2.8 Mm (sigma ~ 0.9 Mm). Measurements of the thickness of the moss layer are difficult because of the presence of EUV-emitting loops in the line of sight; estimated values are between 1 and 3 Mm. The dark jets sometimes seen to obscure the moss layer are on the order of 1–2 Mm wide and reach typical heights of 5 Mm above the white-light limb.

ben m · Oct 1, 2010

brantc said:
The first stars in the iron sun universe.

Let suppose there was an imbalance in the aether. This caused an electron to be freed and now there is an potential difference across the universe, or something like that..
This is the Big Bang equivalent.

So now you have a current across the universe

... which flows for a tiny fraction of a second. After this current has existed momentarily, the original potential difference has gone away. That's how electricity works.

Everything else you said:

which eventually forms into a filament due to the increasing current flow. Filaments ... plasma cant locally support that current flow. ...
Now you have a large filament ... a z-pinch ... repeated pinching

is included, as far as I can tell, you're imagining the behaviors characteristic of a voltage-regulated power supply---something whose EMF is replenished by, e.g., a gas turbine---and NOT characteristic of an initially-imbalanced supply of charge.

Tim Thompson · Oct 2, 2010

Photons and Mass-free Charges I

Tim Thompson said:
And so I ask again: Where along the sun-Earth path are they created? Are photons mostly created in close proximity to the sun? In close proximity to the detector? Evenly distributed along the line of sight? Or maybe in some other distribution that is somehow re-oriented to the line of sight?

brantc said:
You could go to http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/English/photon.php and read it also. ...

I could. But then again, you could simply answer the question. Well, you could if you knew the answer, anyway. Likewise, the webpage you suggest could answer the question, if they knew the answer. So at this point I can only assume that neither you nor the champions of the aether hypothesis can actually answer the question: Where along the sun-Earth path are photons created? I find your collective inability to answer this question somewhat revealing, since I had already figured it out myself, and it really isn't very hard to do. Furthermore, while the question is easy to answer, that answer turns out to be a critical element in proving that the aether hypothesis regarding photons must be false.

First, the answer. It is well known that the intensity of any light source varies as the inverse square of the distance between the source and the detector, independent of that distance. This makes sense; since solid angle depends on the inverse square of the distance, it's simple geometry that this should be true of the brightness of any source. Now, according to the aether hypothesis, light sources do not emit photons, they emit massfree charges which then decay into photons. All we have to do is make sure that process preserves the invariant dependency on the inverse square of the distance. So, I assume that the intensity of massfree charges itself depends on the inverse square of the distance, where "intensity" is the number count of charges per unit area at the detector, which is exactly what it means for photons. If the fraction of charges per unit area that decay into photons remains constant with distance, then the number of photons at any given point along the trajectory between source and detector must also vary as the inverse square of the distance. If the rate of production of photons were not constant in this manner, then the light intensity of a given source would not be always dependent on the inverse square of the distance, but rather would depend on the variable production rate of photons. So the answer must be that photons are created constantly along the entire line of sight between source (sun, star, etc.) and detector (CCD, eyeball, etc.).

Now, armed with this answer, let us consider an important fact about photons, namely that they interact only very weakly with magnetic fields As your own aether hypothesis webpage tells us: "2.3. Photons and massfree charges also differ in their physical effects. Photons are not deviated, displaced or disturbed by electrical or magnetic fields.". In fact, photons are expected to interact with the extreme magnetic fields found on pulsars & neutron stars (10⁸ - 10¹² Gauss (G), and possibly as high as 10¹⁵ G), resulting in considerable pair production. However, for any magnetic field of ordinary intensity, then it is indeed true that chargeless photons are not deviated or deflected by the magnetic field. Astronomically, this means that photon propagation through the universe is unaffected by the typically weak magnetic fields along the photon trajectory (10^-5 - 10^-4 G inside galaxies; 10^-10 G between galaxies). However, it should be pointed out that the massfree charges are not so unaffected even by these small magnetic fields. Before the massfree charges decay into photons, they will be deflected by the magnetic fields that will be ubiquitous along the entire trajectory of the particles.

The deflection of the parent charged particles by magnetic fields, before they decay into photons, must result in the appearance of photons being deflected by magnetic fields. But we already have a great deal of astronomical experience which shows that photons are deflected as anticipated in general relativity, by gravity only. It must especially be the case that, inside the solar system, where the interplanetary magnetic field is highly variable, then so must the propagation of light within the solar system be equally variable. Such an effect would surely be obvious, but is in fact invisible. The fact that photons are not deflected by magnetic fields, a fact acknowledged on the aether hypothesis photon webpage, is by itself sufficient to confidently establish that if photons are the product of the decay of parent particles, then those particles cannot themselves carry any electric charge.

brantc · Oct 3, 2010

Ziggurat said:
None. Can't you understand what I said? The force applied to the bar is not applied over a distance, so no work is done on the bar. Which should surprise no one, since the bar is exactly the same after the force is applied as it was before the force was applied. But apparently that surprises you.

Oh, and we don't need all those quotes, everyone here but you understands work and energy perfectly well.

Ok. Where was the work done? Where did the energy come from?

Was there any motion at the point of contact? How could work have been done if there was not F*D?

Forces does use energy even if there is no motion.........

Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Muse

Muse

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Philosopher

Philosopher

Muse

Muse

Muse

Muse

Muse

Muse

Muse

Muse

Muse

Muse

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Muse

Muse

Muse

Muse

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Unregistered

Philosopher

Banned

Banned

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Unregistered

Muse

Muse