Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Zeuzzz]

Yay! This is gonna be fun. Glad this had been revived.

This thread I started a while a go about Mag reconnection and (the seemingly non existant) physical processes that accompany it may be a good reference, if we're going down this road again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120782&referrerid=6535

I'll be back

And lets try to keep it civilized people, Ad Homs and accusations are not needed.

* "When presented with two possibilities, scientists tend to choose the wrong one."
* The stronger the evidence, the more attitudes harden.
* "The game here is to lump all the previous observations into one 'hypothesis' and then claim there is no second, confirming observation."
* "No matter how many times something has been observed, it cannot be believed until it has been observed again."
* "If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.
* "When looking at this picture no amount of advanced academic education can substitute for good judgment; in fact it would undoubtedly be an impediment."
* Local organizing committees give in to imperialistic pressures to keep rival research off programs
* "It is the primary responsibility of a scientist to face, and resolve, discrepant observations."
* Science is failing to self-correct. We must understand why in order to fix it.

Halton Arp

Birkeland deserves credit for what he actually did, not for what you imagine that he did.

He did a lot more than he himself realised, I think the issue here is. In terms of plasma scaling and laboratory simulations of space.

 

[Dancing David]

As far as I know, most of the acceleration takes place in the Transition region, and the base of the corona. By the time the solar wind reaches Mercury, it has long since stopped accelerating.




Factually false statement. Birkeland never modeled the solar wind, either in a laboratory or in a publication, so far as I know. Feel free to cite specific references if you think otherwise.

Birkeland (about 1903) postulated that the sun emitted a wind of charged particles and that this wind was responsible for auroral phenomena. He used a plasma gun to generate the plasma that encountered his terella, but never said anything about how the solar wind was accelerated, nor did he describe the solar wind beyond the general observation that it was a plasma of both positive & negative charge carriers (Birkeland came to reject the idea of current streams by 1916, realizing that such a stream would be unstable against electrostatic repulsion and dispersion).

It was in fact R.C. Carrington & R. Hodgson who first suggested the idea that a solar emission of some kind was responsible for magnetic storms at the Earth ("Description of a Singular Appearance seen in the Sun on September 1, 1859", R.C. Carrington, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (20):13-15 (1859); On a curious Appearance seen in the Sun", R. Hodgson, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (20):15-16 (1859)). They had both independently observed a bright white light solar flare, and noted that it was followed by an exceptional magnetic storm. Neither Carrington nor Hodgson was willing to connect the flare and the storm, but they made careful note of the possibility.

Sir Oliver Lodge asserted that "a torrent or flying cloud of charged atoms or ions" connected the Sun to Earth ("Sunspots, Magnetic Storms, Comet Tails, Atmospheric Electricity and Aurorae", Oliver Lodge, The Electrician (46):249, 1900). But Lodge was aware of G.F. FitzGerald, who had already come to the same conclusion, and in fact estimated the speed of such clouds at about 300 km/sec, which we now know to be quite a reasonable estimate (The Electrician (30):481, 1892).

But none of these people talked about how the solar wind was actually accelerated away from the sun. It was Eugene Parker who seems too have been the first to suggest that the Sun's variable magnetic field was the ultimate source of energy to drive the solar wind ("The Hydrodynamic Theory of Solar Corpuscular Radiation and Stellar Winds", E.N. Parker, Astrophysical Journal, 132: 821, November 1960). Even the legendary Alfven knew quite well that the electric field that accelerates the solar wind must come from the variable magnetic field of the sun, and that is exactly what he shows in figure III.20 in his book Cosmic Plasma (D. Reidel publishing, 1981, page 76), as well as equation 39 on the prior page.

Birkeland deserves credit for what he actually did, not for what you imagine that he did.

Great history post, thanks.

 

[tusenfem]

The whole story about Birkeland can be read in the excellent book "The Northern Lights" by Lucy Jago.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Driven by an external power source. What's the power source for an electric sun? Where does all that energy come from? "Currents" isn't an answer. The only proposed answer I've seen is the potential energy from a massive net charge on the sun. But the charge required to provide enough energy to do that is simply ridiculous. It would indeed explode from Coulomb repulsion. I've been through the numbers: the net charge would literally explode off the sun and reach relativistic speeds in less than a second.

Zig, I dont think many people (maybe with a few exceptions) think that charges of the magnitude are likely anymore. There are various theories on all of these points. As I understand them at the moment:

What's the power source for an electric sun?

>Ohmic disspation due to the current circuits within and outside the sun.
>IECF fusion resulting from the glow discharge produced by the charge separation/double layer
>Z-pinch/magnetic confinement fusion in particular area of high current density where current circuits interact.
>Does not rule out the possibility of Nuclear fusion, depending on how you model the core and how gravity/EM functions internally.

The Earth does not explode, and we know that it possesses a significant net negative charge compared to the atmosphere, and possesses complex birkeland current systems in the upper atmosphere. Any atmospheric scientist will inform there is a constant huge voltage difference between the Earths surface and the very upper atmosphere. The sun will also contain one, but much larger, and also it will have many additional plasma characteristics as it is in a far richer plasma environment (hotter, denser, etc), leading to the possibility of a plasma double layer, or verious related plasma phenomenon that could explain many of the enigmas assosciated with the sun.

The main Problems with the current model of the sun, as I see them, are as follows:

* Temperature of the halo-like corona is 300 times that of surface, violating the inverse square law for radiation
* Rotates faster at equator, faster on surface
* Solar wind accelerates (somehow) upon leaving the Sun
* Sunspots reveal cooler interior
* Sunspots travel faster than surrounding surface
* Sunspot penumbra (interior walls) reveal structured filaments and move much faster than slow convection should allow

The heliospheric current circuit of 10⁹Amps could also flow into the sun, based on MHD considerations first derived by Alfven. We only found the similar currents of 10⁶ amps flowing from the sun into the Earths poles a few years ago and they were right next to us, theres no reason why we should exclude the possibility that the heliospheric current circuit enters the sun from the galaxy. Infact it would be illogical to say it didn't.

And where does that charge come from and why doesn't it balance out?

How does charge separate to huge voltages of up to 300,000V (from the surface of the Earth up to 30km) to cause large sprites/lightning?

And what maintains the magic charge separation?

What maintains the half a million coulomb negative charge on the Earths surface? We dont really know. No-one really knows. But we know its there due to lightning storms and negative and positive lightning considerations. Explanations for the why charge separates so much to create small lightning storms is severaly lacking, apart from vague convective/gas ideas.

Plama and electric behaviour on the other hand could be an explanation. Double layers do exactly this, separate charge. Large birkeland currents that create self sustaining helical structures possess charge. As usual, the answer will not lie with convection, gas laws, friction or fluid equations, the answers will be found with plasma behaviour, electricity, charge separation and circuits.


[sorry of this does not makje any sense, i dont have time to proof read fully]

 

[Zeuzzz]

The whole story about Birkeland can be read in the excellent book "The Northern Lights" by Lucy Jago.

That looks very interesting, thanks! My uni has this in its library too by the looks of things, will be having a look for sure.

 

[Ziggurat]

What's the power source for an electric sun?

>Ohmic disspation due to the current circuits within and outside the sun.

That is NOT a power source. That is how power can get dissipated, but it says nothing about where that power comes from. Charge separation can store energy, but how much charge do you think is separated, where is it, and what potential is it at? The answers given so far have been simply ridiculous. And if your answer is "I've got no idea", which it seems to be, then you've really got no theory.

>Z-pinch/magnetic confinement fusion in particular area of high current density where current circuits interact.

Yeah, um... no. There's no feedback mechanism. Fusion in a Z-pinch doesn't lead to the currents that confine it. That's why it's such a b**** to do in the lab. And since the currents have dissipative resistance, those currents will dissipate and the whole thing will grind to a halt after a little while. Pressure confinement, however (ie, the standard model for fusion in the sun), has a simple and obvious feedback mechanism, a mechanism we KNOW works because we've done it.

>Does not rule out the possibility of Nuclear fusion, depending on how you model the core and how gravity/EM functions internally.

Unless you're proposing a different model of gravity (which Mr. Mozina would require, though I don't think he understands that yet), that doesn't cut it.

The Earth does not explode, and we know that it possesses a significant net negative charge compared to the atmosphere,

But not a lot of energy is stored in that charge separation. And it's only stable because the atmosphere is a pretty good insulator, which plasma is not.

Any atmospheric scientist will inform there is a constant huge voltage difference between the Earths surface and the very upper atmosphere. The sun will also contain one, but much larger

Why would the voltage be larger if the resistivity of the medium is so much smaller? It should be far harder to maintain significant charge separation in a conducting medium than in an insulating one.

and also it will have many additional plasma characteristics

Yeah: like the fact that it readily conducts.

The heliospheric current circuit of 10⁹Amps could also flow into the sun,

At what voltage? The sun's power output is on the order of 4x10²⁶ Watts. At 10⁹ Amps, you'd need a potential of 4x10¹⁷ V in order to power the sun from that current. It would take about 3x10¹⁷ Coulombs. We've already been over this: that sort of charge is simply not possible to confine on the sun. Not by MANY orders of magnitude. You could get a current of 10⁹ A without that large a charge, but if you limit yourself to realistic charges, this kind of current cannot contribute a significant amount to the sun's total power output.

What maintains the half a million coulomb negative charge on the Earths surface? We dont really know. No-one really knows.

Yes, but whatever it is doesn't need to produce all that much power, so it's a far less fundamental question. We know that wind, for example, can create more than enough power required for that charge separation. And we know that friction can cause charge separation (rub a balloon on your head if you don't believe me), and that wind creates friction. But where's the power coming from in your model? You've got no idea, really. It's all hand-waving.

 

[Zeuzzz]

As usual you make a lot of valid (and highly annoying) points. I'll try to repond in detail when I've got a clearer head than at the moment (its pound a pint day)

Maybe I should ask, what DO you agree with in my post? You have not responded to everything.

What do you think about my article on IECF fusion at PU.com and its potential application to stellar power generation? The e-fields required for this are not that untenable from my viewpoint.

Can you also agree that no-one really understands how large charge separation occurs, even on Earth, let alone in deep space.

 

[Ziggurat]

What do you think about my article on IECF fusion at PU.com and its potential application to stellar power generation?

I don't see why anyone thinks it has any relevance to solar fusion. It relies upon a potential generated by charges fixed in a particular place by a solid structure. Without the solid metal wire structure (and its associated work function), the charges that form the "containment" would repel each other and the whole thing would dissipate. Hell, even with the solid metal cage, you still need to continually pump charge into it from outside because it's always discharging (in fact, that discharge is part of how it works).

The e-fields required for this are not that untenable from my viewpoint.

But the structure is.

Can you also agree that no-one really understands how large charge separation occurs, even on Earth, let alone in deep space.

I don't think we know all the details. But we know enough to place hard constraints on both how much charge separation can occur, how much energy it takes to separate them, and how much energy they store. And none of those numbers come close to accounting for what's going on in the sun.

 

[Michael Mozina]

As I said before, the shape of a blackbody spectrum is utterly independent of whether or not inflation occurred or dark energy is "real". In fact, I derived it in a statistical mechanics course a few years. No reference to cosmology whatsoever.

We seem to be talking past one another on this point. Let me try to explain it this way....

At worst case PC/EU theory has no legitimate solution to explain this spectrum. So? The mainstream "explanation" of this background involves at least three forms of metaphysics to work "properly", and it failed to "predict" those "dark flows" or those "holes" they found in the universe. It's not like I find the mainstream "explanation" of that background to be in any way convincing, anymore than you might be swayed by an argument based on magic. It's not like I find this particular observation to be of such great importance that it becomes the "be-all=end=all" of reasons to select a specific cosmology theory.

Now I might feel quite differently if the mainstream explanation did not use inflation and dark energy and things they can't demonstrate to exist here and now. Since mainstream theory seems to be resorting to nothing less that "magic" from my perspective, I certainly don't find their explanation of this observation to be "impressive" in any way. I most certainly would therefore put little or no weight on that particular issue when deciding which cosmology theory is most "useful" at making key predictions, specifically key predictions inside our solar system.

EU/PC theory "predicts" solar wind. It 'predicts" aurora and solar storms. It "predicts" coronal loops. It "predicts" the existence of "jets' in the solar atmosphere. These have all been "observed" in solar satellite images. The mainstream still finds these things to be "enigmas" and they have no legitimate "explanation" for any of these things, let alone a working model.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Wrong.

The mainstream "explanation" of this background involves at least three forms of metaphysics to work "properly", ...

If by this you mean (1) inflation, (2) dark energy and (3) dark matter ("3 forms of metaphysics") then you are entirely wrong. All big bang cosmologies absolutely require a thermal shape regardless of the presence of inflation, dark matter or dark energy. In fact, the thermal shape of the spectrum is completely independent of all 3. Only dark matter is involved directly in the CMB, and then only in the relative power for the peaks in the angular power spectrum of the temperature anisotropies, and not in the thermal shape of the spectral energy distribution (SED).

 

[Michael Mozina]

So you wrote that nonsense?

Immediate posturing, how unexpected. Care to explain that first LMSAL RD image for us with standard theory?

Wow, you're far more confused than I thought. The sun is mostly iron? Wow. An iron sun would necessarily be far heavier than our current estimates of its mass, so it should (according to Newton's law) provide far more gravitational attraction than it does. So Newton must be wrong too.

You then followed it with a strawman? Wow.

Evidently you don't comprehend the difference between "percentages" of elements and total mass. Nobody claimed the total mass was any different.

Fission of what? Surely not of iron.

Er, what?

What's the rate of fission you need in order to match the observed power output?

That depends on how much energy is due to fission, how much is due to fusion and how much is externally generated.

How old do you think the sun is,

Ancient. I'd say it's 4 billion+ years old at least.

and how much fission material does your model require has been burned during that time?

Beats me.

Yeah, I was thinking about that. You say that these subsurface structures are solid, and that they only change because of erosion.

The surface features change not *only* due to erosion, but also due to volcanic activity.

What do you think the vertical length scales are?

Typically hundreds if not thousands of kilometers depending on which image were talking about. Hinode images are quite a bit better resolution than say an Yohkoh image.

What's the rate of erosion,

That depends on what's going on. In that LMSAL image, we're watching a CME in action, and the process is extremely rapid. Other events are much less "dramatic". Typically the more activity we observe in iron ion wavelengths, the greater the surface erosion. The solar maximum produces all sorts of activity, whereas during solar minimum, the events and changes aren't nearly as dramatic.

and can your model realistically produce such erosion rates?

I think we better be clear about what "erosion" is going to do before you get too carried away. The RD images in particular show "outlines" of "surface features" do to the way they reflect light. Even a relatively "small" amount of erosion could drastically alter the reflection patterns of light that we observe in RD images. It's not all together clear how you, me, or anyone else might decide how much 'erosion" we observe in that LMSAL image for instance.

Because given the absolutely enormous horizontal length scales involved (larger than the earth), I think we've GOT to be talking at least kilometers in height, and I just don't see how you can conclude that kilometers of solid iron (or silicon, or whatever) are going to get blasted off within hours.

That would likely be due to a volcanic event, not a simply coronal loop event. There are several factors to consider here, not just one.

Got any evidence that such phenomenal rates of erosion can be produced by plasmas? Birkeland certainly never showed such a thing.

Ever used an arc welder before?

Basically, I don't think you've got a model at all.

You are correct, it's not *my* model to begin with, it's "Birkeland's" solar model, not mine.

You haven't put up a single calculation on your page.

Birkeland's book is full of them. I don't suppose you've read his work?

If your model is correct, the mass of the sun should be much greater than the commonly accepted mass.

Why? The "structure" of the material will make a big differences. You seem to be under the illusion that I am trying to suggest that the whole sun is made of solid iron. That is not what I have suggested. In space, it isn't even a guarantee that the heaviest elements will necessarily sink to the core.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXsvy2tBJlU

That should be something that can be probed experimentally (by, you guessed it, observing the sun's gravitational field). But you haven't put a number on such a fundamental and easily testable parameter. Hell, not even a lower limit.

Again, you seem to be under the impression that I am suggest the total mass is greater. That is not what I am suggesting.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not really, you haven't explained a toy model of why the sun shines, and you are still being coy.

I have "explained" it to you, and if I was being "coy" I would not have put up an entire website on Birkeland's solar model. He wrote about it more extensively that I did however.

Nope you are justa sserting that, take us through Birkelands model then and explain how is models works, what values it predicts, what numbers and forces it gives, and then compare it to the data.

I realize that astronomers have a "fixation" on "quantification" and a completely disregard for "qualification", but I'm not. I realize that the model requires additional "work" in that arena, but I guarantee you that nobody here besides me and maybe a few other EU proponents have even read Birkeland's work. Until you do, it's not my job to be your math mommy. There's plenty of "quantification" to be found in his work, but more importantly, it's "qualified" in a lab too.

I have to say in the past we were shown pictures of a big iron ball and told that it was a model of the sun.

Is that all Birkeland did in your opinion?

Now why don't you explain it to a dummy like me.

My website is the "dummy" version. If you want quantified numbers, I suggest you read Birkeland's work on this topic. It is much more detailed in it's mathematical presentation.

What is Birkeland's model, what math and predictions does it use and make and how does the model and predictions match the theory.

http://www.archive.org/download/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf

Happy reading.

in other words you are being obtuse and deliberately opaque or you don't know.

I am not obligated to bark on command. If you want mathematical numbers, I suggest you begin at the beginning and with Birkeland's work. My website is simply a "made for the masses" sort of visual introduction to the idea based on satellite imagery. If you wish to "understand" the model from a "scientific" point of view, I suggest you read Birkeland's work.

[QUOTE\What gives the surface a continuing negative charge to produce the current, or what is the source of the electrons for the current?[/QUOTE]

My assumption is that fission releases the free protons and electrons and that fusion also does the same. Neutrons are also being "pinched" out of the plasma during the electrical discharge process, and these free neutrons decay into protons and electrons. Unlike the standard model there is no "single" energy source in a Birkeland solar model. There may even be external currents that flow into the sun.

What gives the heliosphere an opposite polarity thus causing the current to flow.

It's being buffetted by particles, much like our magnetosphere.

You really just kinds of glossed over the details and didn't explain it.

Just keeping up around here in a single thread is far more challenging that I realized due to the volume of responses and I have two threads going now. You'll have to accept the "readers digest" version if you won't read Birkeland's work on your own.

Okay, so put it to the test, stop hiding and pretending.

Birkeland did all that. Read it. At least read the parts that are specifically related to his solar model and solar ideas and if you still have questions, I'll try my best to answer them. Unfortunately I will not be able to answer everyone's specific question on every single possible topic. You'll have to do some reading on your own.

 

[Ziggurat]

Immediate posturing, how unexpected. Care to explain that first LMSAL RD image for us with standard theory?

Explain what? That processing an image a certain way makes it look a bit like a relief map? Big whoop. Don't play with image processing if you don't know what it actually means.

Evidently you don't comprehend the difference between "percentages" of elements and total mass. Nobody claimed the total mass was any different.

You're claiming that it's solid. Doesn't that require a higher density? Unless you want to claim that we've radically mistaken the size of the sun, then yes, claiming it's solid makes a rather BIG difference to the total mass.

That depends on how much energy is due to fission, how much is due to fusion and how much is externally generated.

Translation: you haven't got a clue.

I think we better be clear about what "erosion" is going to do before you get too carried away. The RD images in particular show "outlines" of "surface features" do to the way they reflect light. Even a relatively "small" amount of erosion could drastically alter the reflection patterns of light that we observe in RD images. It's not all together clear how you, me, or anyone else might decide how much 'erosion" we observe in that LMSAL image for instance.

So basically, you have no idea of how to relate the image to surface topography.

Ever used an arc welder before?

Not to burn through a kilometer of iron in an hour, no.

You are correct, it's not *my* model to begin with, it's "Birkeland's" solar model, not mine.

So you're saying Birkeland thought the sun was solid?

Why? The "structure" of the material will make a big differences.

Not really. Iron only comes in a few structures, and they all have similar densities.

You seem to be under the illusion that I am trying to suggest that the whole sun is made of solid iron. That is not what I have suggested. In space, it isn't even a guarantee that the heaviest elements will necessarily sink to the core.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXsvy2tBJlU

Bwahahahaha!
You're using an example of water bubbles on the international space station, a situation in which the dynamics are dominated by surface tension and gravity is irrelevant, to try to argue that iron can float on top of something lighter in the sun? Wow. Talk about fail.

But what do you think it is floating on, and how is it able to float on that? Given an average density roughly equal to water, what keeps the iron surface from collapsing?

 

[Tim Thompson]

Problems ... problems ...

* Temperature of the halo-like corona is 300 times that of surface, violating the inverse square law for radiation
* Solar wind accelerates (somehow) upon leaving the Sun

The inverse square law of radiation is irrelevant to the temperature of the corona, so the problem you describe does not in fact exist at all. Neither is there any fundamental problem with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, since the energy involved on the temperature of the corona is on the order of 1% of the total energy available to heat the corona. The problem is one of identifying which of several possible mechanisms available to heat the corona are actually most effective.

The answer for the acceleration of the solar wind is exactly the same. There is no fundamental problem, only difficulty in identifying specific processes as more or less efficient.

* Rotates faster at equator, faster on surface

This is not a problem at all. The differential rotation of the sun is easy to explain as rotational shear acting on convection. Convecting gas at the equator is subject to shear, while convecting gas at the poles is not. Hence, convective energy is translated into rotational energy, and the equator outspins the poles. The same effect is partly responsible for the superrotation of Earth's atmosphere.

* Sunspots reveal cooler interior

This could be a problem, but it does not look very serious. The magnetic field inside a sunspot is significantly stronger than is the field outside in the photosphere. The jxB volume force of the magnetic field inhibits convection, which means it inhibits convective heat flow, which means that the sunspot must be cooler than the gas/plasma around it. The photosphere is a thermal "superconductor" so the blocked heat energy will diffuse into the photosphere, rather than just creep around it, all quite consistent with observed trends in the photosphere.

* Sunspots travel faster than surrounding surface
* Sunspot penumbra (interior walls) reveal structured filaments and move much faster than slow convection should allow

I am at the moment unaware of either of these effects, so I will need to do a little study before trying to respond.

I recommend the book Solar Astrophysics by Peter V. Foukal, Wiley-VCH 2004 (2nd revised edition) for anyone desirous of knowing what the standard model of the sun is. My answers come primarily from this text, and one other, Stellar Astrophysics Fluid Dynamics, edited by Michael J. Thompson & Jorgen Christensen-Dalsgaard.

 

[Michael Mozina]

As far as I know, most of the acceleration takes place in the Transition region, and the base of the corona. By the time the solar wind reaches Mercury, it has long since stopped accelerating.

Once it lifts off the surface, the hard work is done. I would imagine most of the acceleration takes place fairly close to the sun.

Factually false statement. Birkeland never modeled the solar wind, either in a laboratory or in a publication, so far as I know. Feel free to cite specific references if you think otherwise.

Factually "true" statement Tim.
http://www.archive.org/download/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf

Birkeland (about 1903) postulated that the sun emitted a wind of charged particles

He didn't just "postulate" it, he built a *working model* in a lab, complete with "control mechanisms". This is called "qualification". Qualification is something your industry has almost entirely forgotten.

and that this wind was responsible for auroral phenomena.

Yes. They accept his aurora explanations, but refuse to accept the fact that he demonstrated and cause and effect relationship between charge separation between the solar surface and the heliosphere and aurora on Earth. Why is that?

He used a plasma gun to generate the plasma that encountered his terella, but never said anything about how the solar wind was accelerated,

Tim, he built working models! I think you better read his terella experiments for yourself before we go any further. You seem to be entirely unaware of the bulk of his terella "experiments".

It was in fact R.C. Carrington & R. Hodgson who first suggested the idea that a solar emission of some kind was responsible for magnetic storms at the Earth ("Description of a Singular Appearance seen in the Sun on September 1, 1859", R.C. Carrington, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (20):13-15 (1859); On a curious Appearance seen in the Sun", R. Hodgson, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (20):15-16 (1859)). They had both independently observed a bright white light solar flare, and noted that it was followed by an exceptional magnetic storm. Neither Carrington nor Hodgson was willing to connect the flare and the storm, but they made careful note of the possibility.

Sir Oliver Lodge asserted that "a torrent or flying cloud of charged atoms or ions" connected the Sun to Earth ("Sunspots, Magnetic Storms, Comet Tails, Atmospheric Electricity and Aurorae", Oliver Lodge, The Electrician (46):249, 1900). But Lodge was aware of G.F. FitzGerald, who had already come to the same conclusion, and in fact estimated the speed of such clouds at about 300 km/sec, which we now know to be quite a reasonable estimate (The Electrician (30):481, 1892).

One really nice thing about you Tim is that you are a wealth of really useful information. Thanks for the links and references. How many of them built working lab models?

But none of these people talked about how the solar wind was actually accelerated away from the sun.

Birkeland did that. He "simulated" it too.

It was Eugene Parker who seems too have been the first to suggest that the Sun's variable magnetic field was the ultimate source of energy to drive the solar wind

But Birkeland demonstrated *qualitatively* that it is "charge separation" that drives this process, not "magnetic fields".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Explain what? That processing an image a certain way makes it look a bit like a relief map? Big whoop. Don't play with image processing if you don't know what it actually means.

Bwahahahaha!

That's your best effort at satellite image analysis? No wonder this industry is so screwed up and confused!

You're claiming that it's solid. Doesn't that require a higher density?

Yes indeed. Notice in Kosovichev's Doppler image that the wave in the photosphere passes over the jagged "structure" below the wave and the outline of that structure is completely unaffected by the wave? Did you happen to read any of that heliosiesmology data on my website by any chance, or read about that "stratification subsurface" they found at about .995R?

Unless you want to claim that we've radically mistaken the size of the sun, then yes, claiming it's solid makes a rather BIG difference to the total mass.

I'm not claiming it is "solid iron". Again, you are confusion "composition percentages" with "total mass". The total mass need be no different.

Translation: you haven't got a clue.

Translation: You don't like to read or study, you like to "argue".

So basically, you have no idea of how to relate the image to surface topography.

That is not so. You would have to read some of that heliosiesmology data from the website however to understand that, but of course you would never actually read any of the references I have provided you on that website.

Not to burn through a kilometer of iron in an hour, no.

How much "current" did you use?

So you're saying Birkeland thought the sun was solid?

He believed the surface was solid. He didn't make a lot of predictions about the interior, other than it contained uranium.

Not really. Iron only comes in a few structures, and they all have similar densities.

The crust of the earth has lots of structures and lots of different densities. I'm sure the same is true of the crust of the sun.

Bwahahahaha!
You're using an example of water bubbles on the international space station, a situation in which the dynamics are dominated by surface tension and gravity is irrelevant, to try to argue that iron can float on top of something lighter in the sun? Wow. Talk about fail.

Talk about stupid responses. Why should I even bother with you if you won't read the links I provide you and your responses are flippant nonsense?

You don't figure surface tension, and interior pressure might affect other objects in space?

But what do you think it is floating on, and how is it able to float on that?

How did that water shell "float" on that air bubble?

Given an average density roughly equal to water, what keeps the iron surface from collapsing?

No doubt it is "high pressure" and "energy" from the core.

 

[Ziggurat]

How much "current" did you use?

Total current isn't the issue, current density is. What current density do you think is required to burn through kilometers of solid in an hour?

He believed the surface was solid.

Then he is as mistaken as you are. Not that I blame him: he didn't have a lot to go on. Just like Newton didn't have a lot to go on when he came up with his ideas about light.

The crust of the earth has lots of structures and lots of different densities. I'm sure the same is true of the crust of the sun.

Yes, and strangely enough, they're all denser than water. Is the same true of the crust of the sun?

You don't figure surface tension, and interior pressure might affect other objects in space?

Well, duh. Surface tension doesn't scale with volume. It's going to be irrelevant for something as big as the sun. Hell, it's irrelevant for tides on earth. And interior pressure says NOTHING about stability. An iron shell on top of a less dense interior is unstable, regardless of the interior pressure.

How did that water shell "float" on that air bubble?

Because there's no gravity! Did you somehow miss that part?

No doubt it is "high pressure" and "energy" from the core.

That's not an explanation. It doesn't matter what the pressure is, if the density is less, the crust will be unstable and will collapse inwards, for the same reason that you can't get a foot of water to stick to your ceiling even though the atmospheric pressure underneath it is large enough to support the weight. And no, iron isn't strong enough to form a rigid shell on those scales.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Total current isn't the issue, current density is. What current density do you think is required to burn through kilometers of solid in an hour?

You keep insinuating that this is my claim and I have claimed nothing of the sort. The massive scale changes we observe on the surface are almost exclusively due to volcanic activity, not surface erosion due discharge activity. The surface erosion is more "cosmetic" than terrain changing. It can have *significant* changes in the reflection patterns mind you, but it isn't ripping through kilometers of solid iron every hour.

Yes, and strangely enough, they're all denser than water. Is the same true of the crust of the sun?

Which parts? I've seen volcanic rock float on water, haven't you?

Well, duh. Surface tension doesn't scale with volume. It's going to be irrelevant for something as big as the sun.

No, that is simply your contention. You have no evidence of this, nor do I. In theory those water molecules should have floated to the surface of the sphere but they did not. Why?

Hell, it's irrelevant for tides on earth. And interior pressure says NOTHING about stability. An iron shell on top of a less dense interior is unstable, regardless of the interior pressure.

Another handwave instead of an actual argument. That didn't work with the air inside the water bubble, even when the put water droplets inside the air bubble. You're totally and completely ignore the issues of surface tension, pressure, EM fields, etc.

Because there's no gravity! Did you somehow miss that part?

The whole contraption is in a state of free fall, but even then the molecules of water are attracted toward one another and toward a center of gravity. The air bubble stayed inside the water shell even still.

That's not an explanation. It doesn't matter what the pressure is, if the density is less, the crust will be unstable and will collapse inwards, for the same reason that you can't get a foot of water to stick to your ceiling even though the atmospheric pressure underneath it is large enough to support the weight. And no, iron isn't strong enough to form a rigid shell on those scales.

All of these are simply assertions and not one of them addresses a single one of those satellite images on my website or the heliosiesmology data I have presented on my website, or the fusion processes observed by Rhessi.

I hate to burst anyone's bubble here, but since Bruce and Alfven used a "standard" solar model, with relatively "minor' modifications (charge separation between the photosphere and heliosphere), PC/EU theory is not actually predicated upon the validity of Birkeland's solar model. Keep that in mind during this conversation. Most of the same physics applies to standard theory, not just Birkeland's solar model. Each of them presumes the sun is the primary energy source and there is charge attraction between the 'surface' and the heliosphere. The validity of PC/EU theory is not predicated upon any particular solar model. As long as we are simply combining GR and MHD theory, it still falls under the umbrella of PC/EU theory, and PC/EU theory can be applied to either solar model.

 

[Tim Thompson]

I stand corrected.

... or the fusion processes observed by Rhessi.

RHESSI does not observe fusion processes. All of the gamma rays observed by RHESSI are identifiable as positron annihilation, neutron capture or nuclear de-excitation (mostly the latter). I have seen it suggested that deuteron fusion could take place in hot solar flares, but I am unaware of any observational evidence to support such speculation. But I am aware that there is no evidence for CNO or PP fusion from RHESSI data.

Factually "true" statement Tim. ... He didn't just "postulate" it, he built a *working model* in a lab, complete with "control mechanisms".

In that case I shall stand corrected, although I cannot at the moment download the PDF document. Every time I try a "network error" ensues and the document fails to transfer. I suspect the server at the other end is unhappy about something.

But Birkeland demonstrated *qualitatively* that it is "charge separation" that drives this process, not "magnetic fields".

Rather say that Birkeland demonstrated qualitatively that charge separation could be the driver for the process, not that it is the driver for the process. But of course charge separation is an entirely unphysical argument and can be safely ignored. Magnetic fields, on the other hand, are easy to generate & maintain, and are well known to accelerate charged particles through Faraday's Law (which is the driving mechanism in all particle accelerators, so we know it works).

 

[Reality Check]

Yay! This is gonna be fun. Glad this had been revived.
..snip....

Welcome back Zeuzzz.
I assume that you have managed to come up with a consistent plasma cosmology theory that can actually be compared with the Big Bang theory?