Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Dancing David]

Let's try an analogy here that might help illustrate my point. Lets change the formula just a bit and will keep it simple. A+B=C. A = Horse, B = Cart, C=I get home with my groceries in my cart.

Now we can see that if the horse is pulling the cart and the cart is following the horse everything will work just fine. Now along come the math experts and they put the cart in front of the horse and claim, "Hey, it's all the same thing, it's just math!" Now what? Is it really all the same?

The electrical current is driving the parade, not the magnetic field. If you look at ordinary plasma filaments (AKA flux tubes), it's the current flow that creates the magnetic field around the tube. The magnetic field simply acts to constrict the current flow and "pinches" it into the tubular funnel.

Um if you put the cart before the horse it changes the dynamics of observable motion, you have not shown that there is a difference between the two models and have agreed that they are equivalent.


Analogies that don't translate are not useful in science.

Electrons are not little planets orbiting the nucleus either.

Maybe there is another analogy that would work.

What difference in the motion of of the horse/cart system can be observed between the cart/horse system in your analogy?

Again what observable difference is there?

 

[Ziggurat]

I am asking you to defend you model. Sure he charged an iron ball (in a partial vacuum), but what does that have to do with actually modeling the behavior of the sun?

Didn't you know? Michael thinks the surface of the sun is solid iron. He's got a web page all about it, he posted the link at some point.

Edit: here's the page:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

 

[Ziggurat]

The argument for the Earths magnetic field that I had advanced before on another forum was that the magnetic field was the result of the Van Allen belts but I think the current was not strong enough.

Screw the strength: that would violate Maxwell's equations. We can measure the earth's magnetic field, and we KNOW from those measurements that it has a non-zero curl inside the earth. That requires currents (free or bound) inside the earth.

 

[sol invictus]

Didn't you know? Michael thinks the surface of the sun is solid iron. He's got a web page all about it, he posted the link at some point.

Edit: here's the page:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

The surface crust of the sun is mostly made of iron.

Is the moon made of fresh cheese, too? Are the stars holes in the primum mobile?

 

[Ziggurat]

Is the moon made of fresh cheese, too?

Don't be absurd. There's no bacteria on the moon. Clearly it's a rock crust on top of milk.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Duly noted that you did not answer the question!

1. What observational difference does it make?

None as far as I know. It evidently is a "conceptual" problem, not an observational one. The "flux tube" has a magnetic field around it and current running through it that creates that magnetic field in the first place. The conceptual problem is suggesting that the magnetic field is the driving force of an electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere or the solar atmosphere. It is not.

Uh huh, sure, we know you don't like math and are semantically opposed to the use of theories that describe events but whose terminology you don't like.

I do like math when it's used properly. Math however requires conceptual understanding of the physical process itself as well as a mathematical understanding of how that process manifest itself. The math is actually not a problem when you look at "magnetic reconnection" theory. It's a physical conceptual problem and a labeling problem, not a mathematical error. Magnetic field lack physical substance, and they form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. They can't "disconnect" or "reconnect" to other magnetic lines. Only particles and circuits reconnect in plasma.

So really it makes no difference, so the two are equivalent and you are arguing if it is the words we use?

I'm willing to accept that "magnetic reconnection" can be equated to "circuit reconnection" and "particle reconnection" inside the plasma. If we *all* agreed on this point, it might not be a big deal. Since that is not the case, it is a big deal and it creates a *HUGE* amount of confusion because magnetic fields can't actually connect or disconnect to other lines. It is a misapplication of the English language, and it is ultimately false statement.

Show me the data and the difference taht it would make, that is how you determine the choice between theories (which are descriptive approximations.)

Have you read any of Birkeland's work yet? He showed *empirically* that "electricity* is driving this process, not "magnetic lines".

1. How does it scale to the sun,

You'll find some rough calculations in Birkeland's work.

what charges,

The outer surface of the sun "charges" relative to the heliosphere. The surface then discharges toward the heliosphere.

what fields and what currents?

It's all one big EM field with "current flow" generating the "magnetic lines".

I am hopeful that you will answer this direct and simple question.

I'm hopeful you find my answers sufficient. If not, please be more specific and I'll try again.

You say that the phenomena that Birkeland studied somehow relate to solar processes: so take us from the scale of the iron ball to the scale of the sun!

I'm not exactly sure why you would want me to scale something to the size of the suns since Birkeland aready scaled his work to size for you and provided calculations.

2. What charge on the ball relates to what charge on the sun?

The way Birkeland created a spherical discharge pattern from the sphere is by charging the outside surface as a cathode and it discharged toward the more positively charged sides of the chamber, often leaving "soot" on the glass from the sphere.

3. What current near the ball relates to what current on the sun?

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. The discharge of electrons toward the heliosphere drag charged particles along in their wake. It creates a "current flow" outward from the sun, toward the heliosphere.

4. We know the source of charge and current on the iron ball, what is source of the charge and current on the sun?

The energy source of the sun would be the primary energy source. Alfven used a standard solar model, so his brand might be based on fusion. Birkeland seemed to suggest it would be a fission oriented process although he fission was not actually known at the time. He has some idea of nuclear decay and he mentioned several fissionable elements including uranium. In Birkeland's model, the sun was the primary energy source.

5. Why does the solar wind show both positive and negative ions?

Because the electrons pull the protons along for the ride to the heliosphere. That is why the solar wind ions are H+1, He+2, and He+1 in exactly that order. There is a mass/charge ratio to consider. Lighter and more positively charged particles are more likely to leave the surface with the electron streams. The He+2 is favored over He+1 by something like 30 to 1 because He+2 is more attacted toward the flow of electrons than He+1.

Some great discussion can occur around these five questions and if answered you could certainly change my mind.

I will do my best.

The biggest one being number four, which ia sked before, what is the source of the current that you say drives the mechanism you say relate to Birkeland's iron ball?

I personally believe the primary energy source is internal fission and that is the model you will find on my website. That is consistent with Birkeland's statements as well.

IMO if you're interested in these issues, I strongly suggest you study at least the Birkeland's empirical experiments in the lab. You need not read the whole volume, but do a search on the word "uranium" in that pdf file and I believe you find his energy calculations around that page.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf

Careful, it's a 160 meg file. It's well worth the download. This is the book that make me embrace EU/PC theory without reservation. I'm a "show me" sort of person and I'm more impressed with a physical demonstration of concept than I am impressed by math alone. Whole virtual worlds can be made from math formulas on a computer that have nothing to do with "reality' as we experience it. That is why one "test" is worth a thousand expert opinions and ten tons of math.

 

[Ziggurat]

I personally believe the primary energy source is internal fission and that is the model you will find on my website.

I couldn't find much in the way of details. What's fissioning? What rate would it need to fission at in order to produce the observed power output? If you go back a few billion years, what would the rate have been since decay rates decrease over time? How much total decay must have happened during the sun's lifetime? Since the end products of fission should be mostly metals, shouldn't that produce a dense sun? How can the sun have a density equal to water if it's largely metal? You don't have a model, you've got some vague ideas.

Careful, it's a 160 meg file.

Which means there's no way in hell I'm downloading it. That's WAY too big.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Is the moon made of fresh cheese, too? Are the stars holes in the primum mobile?

The guys with the biggest egos are always the ones to react like that, and the first ones to run from the actual observations that support Birkeland's model. There are many observations on my website to support Birkeland's model. How about you just take two of them and "explain" them qualitatively using the standard gas solar model. Start with Kosovichev's doppler image on the tsunami page, and then explain the first gold RD image from LMSAL on my website using standard solar theory. I'm all ears.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I couldn't find much in the way of details. What's fissioning?

I would assume that the sun contains all the fissionable elements that are found here on Earth.

What rate would it need to fission at in order to produce the observed power output?

Unlike standard solar theory, EU theory allows for, and most likely includes, several possible energy sources. Only recently have I pretty much ruled out most of the other options I've seen and explored, and only recently have I figured out a way that I might be able to come up with some numbers without just pulling out of thin air. You'll have to stay tuned on that one for awhile.

If you go back a few billion years, what would the rate have been since decay rates decrease over time? How much total decay must have happened during the sun's lifetime?

There would almost necessarily be a "breeder reactor" sort of process in play, but again only recently have I been willing to rule out some of Alfven's ideas so that I could even be able to start answering such questions. They are however legitimate and good scientific questions that should be answered.

Since the end products of fission should be mostly metals, shouldn't that produce a dense sun?

In terms of what it is composed of, yes. In terms of *average density* that depends on how it's "put together". I assume the core is hot and pressurized.

How can the sun have a density equal to water if it's largely metal?

It could not be solid iron and the arrangement would have to be something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Iax3wNqktA

You don't have a model, you've got some vague ideas.

I also have "experiments" that explain all the core observations we see on the sun, including those satellite images nobody ever seems to wish to deal with.

Which means there's no way in hell I'm downloading it. That's WAY too big.

Unless you're still on a modem it's not that big of a deal. It just takes time and a bit of bandwidth.

 

[ben m]

There would almost necessarily be a "breeder reactor" sort of process in play, but again only recently have I been willing to rule out some of Alfven's ideas so that I could even be able to start answering such questions. They are however legitimate and good scientific questions that should be answered.

Good heavens! That's trivially ruled out by neutrino observations. The Sun emits neutrinos (like fusion) and not antineutrinos (like fission). We explicitly see the neutrinos; we explicitly look for antineutrinos and do not see them. The Sun is not powered by fission.

(And: don't get this confused with the "solar neutrino problem", the 1960-1990 situation where *neutrinos* (not antineutrinos) were indeed seen, but with surprisingly low numbers. This problem went away when (a) the SNO detector was built to see all three neutrino (not antineutrino) flavors, and (b) the flavor-oscillation explanation was tested on Earth by SuperK, Kamland, Borexino, Chooz, SNO, SAGE, Gallex, Homestake, Nomad, MINOS, K2K, etc., which even you'd have a hard time arguing are not "controlled experiments".)

 

[sol invictus]

I would assume that the sun contains all the fissionable elements that are found here on Earth.

I don't know if you've noticed, but the earth is not undergoing fission. Why? Because the density of U235 is extremely low, and because it's mixed with all sorts of neutron-absorbing materials (like U238, among other things). And increasing the temperature makes it much harder to sustain a fission reaction. I could run the numbers, but stars are ridiculously far from critical. And on top of that, you'd have to explain why they aren't undergoing fusion too. And where the iron came from. And why the uranium supply hasn't run out after 4.5 billion years. And why the spectrum is the spectrum of a hydrogen burning star. And why standard solar models work to about 1% errors if they're totally wrong. Then there's a teensy weensy problem with neutrinos, as ben points out. Etc. etc. etc.

The whole idea is so breathtakingly stupid I don't even know where to start.

 

[Dancing David]

Didn't you know? Michael thinks the surface of the sun is solid iron. He's got a web page all about it, he posted the link at some point.

Edit: here's the page:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

I was aware of that, just callin him out. I doubt from his posts that he has actually scaled it. Saying "So you have an iron ball, what does that have to do with the sun?"

or shown where the current comes from.

 

[Dancing David]

Thanks again!

None as far as I know. It evidently is a "conceptual" problem, not an observational one. The "flux tube" has a magnetic field around it and current running through it that creates that magnetic field in the first place. The conceptual problem is suggesting that the magnetic field is the driving force of an electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere or the solar atmosphere. It is not.

So an erderberder is the same as a berdergerder.

Empirically there is no observable difference from either model.

So , huh?

You can't tell a difference in the models, right?

Whay music do the angels on the head of a pin listen to?

(That is just humor not a jab, it is meant to be funny, not sarcastic.)

So there is no point, it is a semantic hangup. The only utility in concept is in discernable observations?

I do like math when it's used properly. Math however requires conceptual understanding of the physical process itself as well as a mathematical understanding of how that process manifest itself.

that is not the way models work, you are still stuck in some strange thoughst about concepts and models. All concepts and models are abstractions, all of them.

Finger=moon. All fingers are equal, it is where they make predicitions that the utility lies. Not in apriori assumptions about the model.

You can not do more than approximate reality.

The math is actually not a problem when you look at "magnetic reconnection" theory. It's a physical conceptual problem and a labeling problem, not a mathematical error. Magnetic field lack physical substance, and they form as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end. They can't "disconnect" or "reconnect" to other magnetic lines. Only particles and circuits reconnect in plasma.

You are again just arguing semantics. You can not demonstrate a difference, so there is no difference.

I'm willing to accept that "magnetic reconnection" can be equated to "circuit reconnection" and "particle reconnection" inside the plasma. If we *all* agreed on this point, it might not be a big deal. Since that is not the case, it is a big deal and it creates a *HUGE* amount of confusion because magnetic fields can't actually connect or disconnect to other lines. It is a misapplication of the English language, and it is ultimately false statement.

Nope it is your pedantic insistence that you are right. the theory works even if you don't like it.

Have you read any of Birkeland's work yet? He showed *empirically* that "electricity* is driving this process, not "magnetic lines".

Argument from opinion.

What difference does it make, you have been countered on this point as well, and you ignore the counters.

What about a near vacum with magnetic fields in it? What carries the magnetic field, even if there are no particles (wave forms of energy anyway) to carry the field.

You'll find some rough calculations in Birkeland's work.

So no real numbers just a guess and still no theory just speculation.

To be a theory you have to put meat in it, what current generates what force and how does that relate to the radiance?

The outer surface of the sun "charges" relative to the heliosphere. The surface then discharges toward the heliosphere.

You are still avoiding the question! I mean that in the best way.

If the sun has one charge and the heliosphere another , waht is the source of charge for both?

It's all one big EM field with "current flow" generating the "magnetic lines".

that is really vague, you do know that the standard model can tell you the spectrum of a star relates to it's mass? How about something along those lines.

I'm hopeful you find my answers sufficient. If not, please be more specific and I'll try again.



I'm not exactly sure why you would want me to scale something to the size of the suns since Birkeland aready scaled his work to size for you and provided calculations.

Sure he did, okay.

So where can you show that the sun or helio sphere has that kind of charge, what maintains the cahrge in the heliosphere?

The way Birkeland created a spherical discharge pattern from the sphere is by charging the outside surface as a cathode and it discharged toward the more positively charged sides of the chamber, often leaving "soot" on the glass from the sphere.

I know, you however haven't really provided a source for your charge in the sun or the heliosphere.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. The discharge of electrons toward the heliosphere drag charged particles along in their wake. It creates a "current flow" outward from the sun, toward the heliosphere.

Really? Negative ions are dragging positive ions? isn't the mass a little small for the electrons in comparison to the nucleus? they must have a huge evelocity and therefore a huge charge speration must exist. Don't they merge with the heliosphere? What keeps them moving past it?

That is interesting, tell me more.

The energy source of the sun would be the primary energy source. Alfven used a standard solar model, so his brand might be based on fusion. Birkeland seemed to suggest it would be a fission oriented process although he fission was not actually known at the time. He has some idea of nuclear decay and he mentioned several fissionable elements including uranium. In Birkeland's model, the sun was the primary energy source.

okay so we have thermal energy in an iron sphere, how does that create a charge seperation between the sun and the heliosphere?

Because the electrons pull the protons along for the ride to the heliosphere. That is why the solar wind ions are H+1, He+2, and He+1 in exactly that order.

the eelctrons are drawn to a positively charged heliosphere?
Would that not repel the positive ion?

There is a mass/charge ratio to consider. Lighter and more positively charged particles are more likely to leave the surface with the electron streams.

And more likely to be repeled by the heliosphere?

The He+2 is favored over He+1 by something like 30 to 1 because He+2 is more attacted toward the flow of electrons than He+1.



I will do my best.

Thanks, we are already in the process.

I personally believe the primary energy source is internal fission and that is the model you will find on my website. That is consistent with Birkeland's statements as well.

heat equals free electrons?

IMO if you're interested in these issues, I strongly suggest you study at least the Birkeland's empirical experiments in the lab. You need not read the whole volume, but do a search on the word "uranium" in that pdf file and I believe you find his energy calculations around that page.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/birkeland.pdf

Careful, it's a 160 meg file. It's well worth the download. This is the book that make me embrace EU/PC theory without reservation. I'm a "show me" sort of person and I'm more impressed with a physical demonstration of concept than I am impressed by math alone. Whole virtual worlds can be made from math formulas on a computer that have nothing to do with "reality' as we experience it. That is why one "test" is worth a thousand expert opinions and ten tons of math.

that may be, i am interested in your answers.

 

[Tim Thompson]

CNO Redux

Ok, we're working here on "cause". Something has to generate a lot of heat in the corona. So how exactly does the plasma reach those temps sitting above a 6000K photosphere?

How, exactly, nobody knows. However, the problem is not that there are no explanations available, but rather how to choose between the likely candidates. Cranmer, 2008 gives a nice review of the general choice between wave dissipation and magnetic loop reconnection, and has a lot of useful references in it. We know that there is a clear correlation between small scale magnetic structure and coronal structure at much higher altitudes (see, for instance, chapter 9 in Solar Astrophysics by Peter V. Foukal; Wiley-VCH, 2004). Schrijver, et al., 1997 was a big deal when it came out (and has 185 citations so far, a respectable number). They were able to make models based on the high resolution images of the sun's "magnetic carpet" (Title & Schrijver, 1998) and show that the loss of energy from the shearing magnetic structures can drive coronal heating, at least in principle. One also sees the keyword "nanoflares" associated with this idea (i.e., Hudson, 1991; Kopp & Poletto, 1993 & citations thereto & etc.).

There is no fundamental problem having a multi-million degree corona sitting on a 6000 degree photosphere, although it may look that way if your approach is too naive. The 2nd law of thermodynamics does not stop refrigerators from working, because they pump heat "uphill" by doing work. likewise, magnetic processes can pump energy "uphill" and heat the corona. The only real problem to watch out for is to make sure the photospheric energy reservoir is up to the task. Since we know that it is, then there is no problem.

Neutron capture signatures in particular are a bit unusual aren't they? What known forces of nature might generate them in the atmosphere of a body in our solar system?

Why should neutron capture signals be unusual? After all, it's not as if neutrons are unusual, and that's really about all you need; a few neutrons, a few nuclei and - voila, neutron capture. In Earth's atmosphere, and I suppose any planetary atmosphere (why not?) neutron capture gamma rays are observed in the polar regions, maybe connected with auroral displays, when energetic solar wind protons impact the upper atmosphere. We see narrow line emission from neutron capture (neutrons are knocked loose by protons and then are captured by other nuclei), and we see narrow line emission from nuclear de-excitation (collisionally excited nuclei relax to the ground state by emitting gamma rays); see for instance Letaw, et al., 1989, who identify neutron capture on ¹⁴N and ¹⁶O, and Compton scattering of annihilation gamma photons; Share & Murphy, 2001, who don't identify line sources in their abstract; Share & Murphy, 2002, who identify ¹⁴N de-excitation and ¹²C spallation; Harris, Share & Leising, 2003, who show that gamma ray line emission from Earth's atmosphere is modulated on the period of the solar cycle, consistent with solar wind excitation as the ultimate source.

I'm not sure the idea of "any other way" actually applies here. What we are looking for is the "logical reason" we might observe gamma rays in an atmosphere of a body in our solar system and also neutron capture signatures. There may be many 'possible' ways to do it, but how many ways does nature do it given these specific conditions? In other words we need to be looking from the "most likely" scenario.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/307/5712/1054?ck=nck
http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-43938.html

It seems like the "most likely" way we might explain gamma rays is due to an electrical discharge. It certainly happens in our atmosphere and in the atmospheres of many planets. Why not the solar atmosphere as well?

Well, if it's "most likely" you want, then we can easily rule out electrical discharges. The links you provide refer to gamma rays associated with sprites & lightning, Terrestrial Gamma-Ray Flashes (TGFs). But TGF gamma rays, and lightning gamma emission are broadband, exactly as one would expect from an electrical discharge. However, I am talking about narrow line emission, which you will never see from an electrical discharge. And furthermore, the narrow line emission is readily identifiable with specific known sources; i.e., nuclear de-excitation, neutron capture, positron annihilation & etc. Fusion reactions, CNO processes included, produce narrow line gamma ray emissions which will be easily identifiable with the parent process. That's why I made the point in critiquing your paper that you rely on the other narrow lines for a weak indirect argument, and totally ignore the direct narrow line emission from the CNO reactions. Find those narrow lines in coronal loops and you will have something to say about CNO fusion in the solar atmosphere.

While sprites & lightning cannot themselves generate narrow line gamma ray emission, it has been suggested that they can excite nuclei, which will then decay to the ground state, with associated narrow line emission. Whether or not this is in fact the case remains unclear (Boggs, et al., 2005). So you can get high energy from electrical discharges, at least in principle, but then that was never a point in dispute.

You are left bereft of direct evidence. You have no direct evidence of CNO fusion in the solar atmosphere, and no direct evidence of electrical discharge in the solar atmosphere. In both cases you have to rely on pure faith, exactly what I am supposed to be doing

 

[ben m]

Ok, we're working here on "cause". Something has to generate a lot of heat in the corona. So how exactly does the plasma reach those temps sitting above a 6000K photosphere?

Do you want an answer in the mainstream world? I suspect you know what that answer is; don't pretend not to have heard this 1000 times.

Or do you want an answer in an alternate reality in which (a) magnetic fields have no intrinsic energy, (b) there's no such thing as induction, only kinetic energy, and (c) "magnetic reconnection" doesn't occur---which I think amounts to saying "Curl B can never change sign"----or doesn't transfer energy from the fields to particles. In that world ... gosh, MM, in that world, a hot corona would be a real mystery!

 

[Michael Mozina]

Do you want an answer in the mainstream world? I suspect you know what that answer is; don't pretend not to have heard this 1000 times.

Or do you want an answer in an alternate reality in which (a) magnetic fields have no intrinsic energy,

Who said that?

(b) there's no such thing as induction,

Or that?

only kinetic energy,

Well, there is plenty of kinetic energy in plasma thread.

and (c) "magnetic reconnection" doesn't occur

It doesn't. You can't even tell me what is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection' that is demonstrated to be different from A) particle reconnection or B) induction.

---which I think amounts to saying "Curl B can never change sign"----or doesn't transfer energy from the fields to particles.

Well, there is such a thing as *INDUCTION* but that is not "magnetic reconnection".

 

[Ziggurat]

I would assume that the sun contains all the fissionable elements that are found here on Earth.

Funny thing: the earth is not glowing hot. What fission is occuring is mostly decay of uranium, but it's at a much lower rate now than when the earth was born. Similar uranium fission in the sun should also have led to a massive decay over time of the sun's power output too. And the sun would have to be radically different in composition (as in, dominated by heavy fissionable elements) or order to have sufficient fuel to make it glow. So that response doesn't answer my question at all.

Edit: plus, as ben_m pointed out, neutrino flux already disproves that idea.

Unlike standard solar theory, EU theory allows for, and most likely includes, several possible energy sources. Only recently have I pretty much ruled out most of the other options I've seen and explored, and only recently have I figured out a way that I might be able to come up with some numbers without just pulling out of thin air. You'll have to stay tuned on that one for awhile.

In other words, you don't have a model yet, you just have some vague ideas.

In terms of what it is composed of, yes. In terms of *average density* that depends on how it's "put together". I assume the core is hot and pressurized.

We've been through this before. A heavy shell on top of a light core is gravitationally unstable. No amount of pressure from inside can ever make it stable. Hell, at solar temperatures, your shell shouldn't even be solid. Talk about physically untested ideas: what material is going to remain solid at 6000 K? Not iron, that's for damned sure.

It could not be solid iron and the arrangement would have to be something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Iax3wNqktA

We've been through this before too. A water bubble has no appreciable gravitational self-interaction. Therefore, the collapse mechanism that would make your sun model impossible shouldn't even exist in this water bubble in free fall. That you don't understand the gravitational instability, and why it's not present in a small water bubble in free fall, does not speak well of your grasp of basic freshman-level physics.

 

[Zeuzzz]

We've been through this before. A heavy shell on top of a light core is gravitationally unstable. No amount of pressure from inside can ever make it stable. Hell, at solar temperatures, your shell shouldn't even be solid. Talk about physically untested ideas: what material is going to remain solid at 6000 K? Not iron, that's for damned sure.

While we're on the topic of physically untested ideas, can you prove that our extrapolation of surface gravity and gravity in space to the interior of solid bodies is viable?

As far as I've seen, the deepest the gradient of g has been measured on Earth is 3-4km below sea level (in a submarine) and 5 km under a deep glacier in Iceland. Some of which showed marked divergence from what gravity would predict, but some have been repeated since and shown to fit better.

Now, considering that the deepest that anyone has drilled into the Earth is something like 30 km and there is another 6000km to go to the core to verify shell theorem and newtonian gravity inside solid bodies, I'd say that saying that we definitively know how gravity works internally is as best naive. With only something like 0.3% of the Earth directly tested to make sure it fits the theory, a bit of leeway should be given to alternatives.

Plus my favorite mad scientific theory relies on the failure of newtonian gravity inside bodies. Hollow Earth and Planets Theory

 

[Ziggurat]

While we're on the topic of physically untested ideas, can you prove that our extrapolation of surface gravity and gravity in space to the interior of solid bodies is viable?

You don't need to. All you need to do are two things: show that gravity is approximately linear (which it is - the only observed deviations from linearity are relativistic effects which make it stronger, not weaker), and show that it follows 1/r² down to relevant length scales (which we have also done).

Now, considering that the deepest that anyone has drilled into the Earth is something like 30 km and there is another 6000km to go to the core to verify shell theorem and newtonian gravity inside solid bodies, I'd say that saying that we definitively know how gravity works internally is as best naive.

No. The ONLY thing you need for the shell theorem are gravitational linearity and the 1/r² law. You MUST violate at least one of those for the shell theorem to be wrong. And it is absurd to think that you could violate them specifically inside shells but nowhere else. So no, I do not consider that possibility to be in the least bit credible.

With only something like 0.3% of the Earth directly tested to make sure it fits the theory, a bit of leeway should be given to alternatives.

What alternatives? What nonlinearities or deviations from 1/r² are you proposing? GR provides nonlinearities, but they're actually of a nature that preserves the shell theorem, and at solar system densities, they're a minor perturbation anyways. And that hollow earth theory page doesn't actually suggest any modified form of gravity which could account for a violation of the shell theorem, so as Fermi said, it's not even wrong.

 

[Zeuzzz]

You don't need to. All you need to do are two things: show that gravity is approximately linear (which it is - the only observed deviations from linearity are relativistic effects which make it stronger, not weaker), and show that it follows 1/r² down to relevant length scales (which we have also done).

Which all works out very well outside of the bodies that are generating the mass. But proves nothing internally. And will prove nothing until verified in experiments.

it is absurd to think that you could violate them specifically inside shells but nowhere else. So no, I do not consider that possibility to be in the least bit credible.

Why absurd? Has anyone ever tested this that I'm not aware of?

Q: What stops you from falling due to gravity into the the Earth? A: The EM forces that retain the Earths solid structure and rigidity. Proposing that EM forces could also in some way effect the way that gravity functions internally in areas of high mass density is a possibility that should not be overlooked. All areas that have been studied in detail are low density (atmosphere, upper oceans, space, etc) As usual things have been modelled as gravity first, then EM phenomenon as a secondary aspect, but as Alfven had the knack of realizing (with many models in space which are still used to this day) it could be the other way round, EM forces and structures could be primary and give rise to gravity and the internal structure. We know that huge currents flow through the Earth. We also know that telluric currents are very hard to fit in with our standard model of the Earth. Also the huge billion current flows at each pole have been detected recently and are unlikely to completely short circuit on the surface. And there have also been many caves and underground caverns discovered without plausable geophysical gravity based explanations.

No, I dont actually have an alternative model to propose, but I can do some more hand waving if you want.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf036/sf036p11.htm

We have little appreciation of the immense electrical currents that flow through the rock formations beneath our feet. These "telluric" currents are primarily those induced by the earth's changing magnetic field, as it is affected by the solar wind. Telluric cur-rents do not flow uniformly through the earth's crust. Rather, they seek out low resistance rocks, in accordance with Ohm's Law. Such current concentrations can be detected at the surface with magnetometers.

The present paper announces the discovery of a regional telluric current flowing in the vicinity of the San Francisco Peaks volcanic field in Arizona. The shallow part of the current flows in an unidentifiable "geoelectrical" structure not more than 10 kilometers below the surface. There are no surface hints as to what this geoelectrical structure could be.

Comment. Could it be that a portion of the earth's "permanent" magnetic field is likewise generated by internal electrical currents? Are the ponderously moving internal convection cells and widely accepted dynamo effect really necessary? In other words, could our planet be a huge natural battery based upon geochemical differences?