Electric universe theories here.

[Reality Check]

Because astronomers oversimplify everything. They count photons from the sun and *ASSUME* that whatever ratio they observe must all be mixed together,iron and nickel mixed with hydrogen and helium and all radiating at the same temperature in the photosphere like a nice "black body" should. Unfortunately the sun isn't "simple" and "nice" and easy to mathematically quantify.

That is what science does - it takes observations and create theories about them. More observations gives updated or new theories.
Astronomers do not "oversimplify everything". In this case they actually measure a near black body spectrum (which is nothing to do with element abundances).

And you are right - the Sun is a complex system. That does not mean that it cannot be mathematically quantified. It just that the maths is hard (beyond you as demonstrated in this forum and definitely beyond my basic knowledge of astronomy).

How *EXACTLY* did you intend to figure out exactly how much of each element is present? I started with SERTS data, but all that really tells me by itself is that iron and nickel exist in that loop at very high temperatures, high enough to ionize iron 10 and 14 times over. That by itself won't tell us what percentage of the whole sun is iron or nickel or any of the other elements present in the SERTS data.

You are the one with the claim.
How "EXACTLY* do you intend to figure out exactly how much of each element is present in the Sun?

 

[Reality Check]

When did you intend to answer this question?

You do not state who the question is for (probably GeeMack) but I will answer: Yes.

 

[tusenfem]

You evidently do *NOT* understand my position on MR theory very well Tim. I don't "dismiss" anything. Birn's paper on MR theory (discussed on space.com) convinced me that the math related to the theory was fine, the approach is "ok" from the standpoint of physical descriptions, but there is no way to physically determine if the this is a "unique" form of energy exchange. How is it physically different (at the point of energy release) than say "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection", or induction or an ordinary discharge process in plasma? I don't see how you (or anyone else) can determine in any of these "experiments" if the magnetic fields are themselves doing anything, or the particles and charge attraction is doing the work.



How exactly would that be a unique energy release process and not "induction"?

Well, if you would like to present a model of this supposed "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" maybe then we could discuss the details.
However, the change in topology of the magnetic field cannot be explained by "induction", because induction cannot create a totally different topology of the field, i.e. from top-bottom anti-parallel squeezed in the middle to left-right anti-parallel moving away from eachother. This is a REAL topological change.
And a plasma-discharge, how are you going to get that in the Earth's magnetotail, where reconnection is observed on a constant basis with every new (group of) satellites that we send up there?

Also, if it would be induction, then the plasma would not be accelerted in a direction perpendicular to the magnetic field, so it most definitely cannot be induction.

But this belongs in the reconnection thread.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You do not state who the question is for (probably GeeMack) but I will answer: Yes.

I'd like to hear *GeeMack's* answer. He seems to show absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about Birkeland's writings or his terella experiments.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/helix_c2c3.mpg

Sorry about the previous link David. Here is the corrected link. I would edit the original post, but I guess it won't let me do that after a certain period of time has passed.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The reason is simple - sunspots are magnetic structures and plasma is affected by magnetic fields.

Your magic "magnetic fields" seem to be necessarily located *UNDER* the photosphere, and they're mysteriously holding a rigid looking 3D shape for a long period of time. How? How do you get "magnetic" fields without "current flow" in light plasma? How does that heat the plasma to millions of degrees? Discharges do that, but when did magnetic fields alone heat an atmosphere?

"We" do not observe "rigid features" in RD images. Ignorant and deluded people see visions of "rigid features" in RD images to fit ther own preconceptions.

That criticism is utterly meaningless coming from a pair of guys that haven't touched a single specific detail in the image. GeeMack even blew the first thing he said, namely that the process itself caused these features. That's not true and it's easy to demonstrate in any LASCO RD image.

The problem is that " lifetimes far in excess" is not forever.

With all that volcanic and electrical activity, why would I expect it to last "forever"? I simply expect it to show "rigidity" far in excess of what we would expect of a light plasma that is thinner than Earth's atmosphere at sea level. We observe that "flying stuff" (most of us anyway) does not have much of a lifetime compared to other features in the image. How exactly did you figure you'd get strong magnetic fields *WITHOUT* current flow?

Can you give a citation for electrons being a major carrier of heat in the Sun?

I doubt it. Then again there are electrons and protons and helium ions streaming off the sun and they are in fact "hot" compared to space as a whole. They will carry heat away from the surface of the photosphere.

My understanding was that it was radiation. Unluess this is just abother of you baseless assertions.

The second law of thermodynamic applies to spontaneous flow of heat. The high temperature of the corona is explained by it being heated by mechanisms such as wave heating or magnetic connection.

Nowhere on Earth does "magnetic reconnection" ever happen on it's own. We do however see "discharges" in the Earth's atmosphere every single day. Why in the world would you look to some new and exotic heating mechanism when the obvious choice is 'electricity'?

If you want an analogy for your thermodynamically impossible, invisible solid iron surface

First of all, let's all stop oversimplifying this solar model, shall we? The surface crust is not "solid iron", it is a "surface crust" not unlike the crust of a planet. It has more iron than most of the Earth's crust, but it is not "solid iron".

then think about a sheet of iron above a fire and the layers of air above that.

Let's try a different analogy. We'll take a terella and turn it into a cathode and put plasma around the teralla. We'll then turn up the voltage and crank up the EM field inside the terella and see what happens. Lo and behold we get "arcs" in the atmosphere that are substantially hotter than the surrounding plasma and the average temperature of the sphere too. Viola, problem solved.

Another point:
If this impossible solid iron sphere existed at a temperature of < 2000 K then the core of the Sun must have a temperature of < 2000 K. No fusion. No fission. No neutron decay. All of the Sun's energy must come from above the iron surface (and how hot is the photosphere again?).

There isn't just single layer of plasma to consider, there are several, all of which radiate at different temperatures with different densities.

Stratification in a plasma would block plasma flow downdrafts at about 4800KM below the surface of the photosphere,

How?

not show up in Doppler images as "rigid shapes" on the photosphere and never show up in RD animations.

Then it's not what we're looking for because we have rigid shapes in the Doppler images. Next idea?

For example:
Notice how in the image below the coronal loops (blue) on the limb do not actually touch the visible surface (yellow) of the Sun. They stop at the layer of solar moss (the bright lines). Astronomers describe this as position as the "base" of the coronal loops as seen in the image. The TRACE 171A images never extend to the photosphere.

The obvious first problem of course is that I have no idea how these images we put on top of each other or whether they are "aligned" to look this way *because* that's where they think they *should* be. I'd need to know a lot of specifics about that image before I could comment on what I can and cannot hope to observe in such an image. There is no obvious way to align these images against one another as there is with the Yohkoh/Trace composite image. For all I know the only reason they "look" that way is because some guy at LMSAL offset them intentionally because they expected to see them above the photosphere. How about some specifics on how they overlayed the two wavelengths?

Keep in mind that this specific image doesn't seem to jive real well with the layered heat signatures we see in the Yohkoh/Trace composite image.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, if you would like to present a model of this supposed "circuit reconnection" or "particle reconnection" maybe then we could discuss the details.

See lightning bolts and "electrical discharges through plasma" for further details. How exactly from this great distance did you decide that this "reconnection" process was between "magnetic lines" rather than between moving particles in plasma, or current streams? What is physically unique about "magnetic reconnection" that cannot be explained in ordinary current sheet acceleration experiments with electricity?

However, the change in topology of the magnetic field cannot be explained by "induction",

The change in the field may create induction, but the change in topology is related to the particle movement not the magnetic field.

because induction cannot create a totally different topology of the field, i.e. from top-bottom anti-parallel squeezed in the middle to left-right anti-parallel moving away from eachother. This is a REAL topological change.

It's called a "short circuit" in plasma. Big deal. It's not anything you can't create here on Earth with *ELECTRICITY*.

And a plasma-discharge, how are you going to get that in the Earth's magnetotail, where reconnection is observed on a constant basis with every new (group of) satellites that we send up there?

How are you going to get a change in the magnetotail without a change in "current flow"? You must realize that the particles flowing into the Earth's magnosphere are a form of "current flow", right? They are whizzing by at a million miles per hour you know.

Also, if it would be induction, then the plasma would not be accelerted in a direction perpendicular to the magnetic field, so it most definitely cannot be induction.

But this belongs in the reconnection thread.

Your term "magnetic reconnection" is purely "made up". You could have slapped any EM term to the process, including "particle reconnection" (since they are doing the actual acceleration part) or "circuit reconnection" because the totals circuit energy determines what occurs at the point of "reconnection". Calling it "magnetic reconnection" however is like calling a short circuit between two copper wires a "magnetic reconnection" between the wires. Yes, the magnetic field topologies might change, but that change is directly related to the flow of electrons through the wire. In this case the conductor is simply made of plasma and it can move around and change it's physical topology. Big deal. The *CURRENT FLOW* will determine both the rate of reconnection and the total amount of reconnection. You just created that term to intentionally muddy the waters and to confuse the public. If there is something physically unique about "magnetic reconnection", what is it?

 

[Reality Check]

I'd like to hear *GeeMack's* answer. He seems to show absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about Birkeland's writings or his terella experiments.

Actually he shows as much knowledge if not more than you.
For example, you have cited Birkeland as supporting a solid iron (or maybe brass) surface for the Sun.

So GeeMack asked for the evidence from you:

Kristian Birkeland did not suggest that the Sun had a solid iron surface, or brass, or silver plated copper, or any such thing. That inane solid surface idea is yours and yours alone, Michael. So speaking of unethical, how dare you pass off the blame for your idiocy onto a dead guy? Your fantasy isn't a solar model. It's a wildass guess based on a seriously wrong interpretation of an image about which you obviously know very little.

And you came up with this quote:

CHAPTER VI.
ON POSSIBLE ELECTRIC PHENOMENA IN SOLAR SYSTEMS AND NEBULAE.

128. The Sun. The series of experiments that I have made with a magnetic globe as cathode in a,arge vacuum-box, for the purpose of studying analogies to the zodiacal light and Saturn's ring, have k to discoveries that appear to be of great importance for the solar theory. We have already several times had occasion to give various particulars regarding the manner in which these experiments were carried out. It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe trt the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and di'uptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 2473 (which happens to be a unipolar di'harge) may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great. If the magnetisation of the globe a Fig. 247. b be -educed (or the tension of the discharge increased) gradually, the luminous ring round the globe will be reduced to a minimum size, after which another equatorial ring is developed and expands rapidly Hi; 247 b). It has been possible for the ring to develope in such a manner that it could easily be deincstrated by radiation on the most distant wall of my large vacuum-tube (see fig. 217). The correspondin; ring would then have a diameter of 70 cm., while the diameter of the globe was 8 cm. It is a corresponding primary ring of radiant matter about the sun that in my opinion can give an efficient explanation of the various zodiacal light-phenomena. In the above-mentioned experiments, it seen how the rays from the polar regions bend down in a simple curve about the equatorial plane of ic globe, to continue their course outwards from the globe in the vicinity of this plane. An aureole is ^reby produced about the magnetic globe, with ray-structure at the poles, the whole thing strongly resnbling pictures of the sun's corona.

Any one who can read can see that at no point in that quote does Kristian Birkeland state that the sun has a metallic surface of any kind.
All he states is that his globes look like pictures of the Sun's corona. That is what "the whole thing strongly resnbling[sic] pictures of the sun's corona" means.

 

[tusenfem]

So they are essentially a "current carrying" thread?

Yes, what else would they be, what is the last time you read a mainstream paper on coronal loops?

How do they "go in" exactly, and where do they "go in" again? I only observe them as partial loops just as in Birkeland's experiments. You folks seem to think we can't even see them until they reach the corona.

Have you ever looked at a picture of a coronal loop? Why do you think it is called loop? At one point the field lines come out of the "surface" (and I use the term loosely) of the Sun, then the bend over, creating a loop and then the field lines go into the surface of the Sun again. You are so good at looking at pictures and you never noticed that there are loops and arcades of loops on the Sun?
But you are playing a word game again, aren't you, MM? You only see "partial loops." Well that is exactly what I was talking about, and in real life these are called coronal loops.
And if you would look at pictures in different frequency bands, you would notice that we can see these loops to the footpoints, where bremsstrahlung is generating copious amounts of X-ray emission.

Where are the "footprints" in your opinion, and how much "shearing" must it take to heat plasma to millions of degrees?

You can observe the e.g. in the X-ray emission. The more shearing the more current that is just a basic physical law, and the shearing can either be the two foot points moving with respect to each other or the the foot point(s) being twisted "rolling up" the magnetic field in the loop.

These two statements are at odds. If the strong currents heat the plasma then there is a discharge process in the plasma.

What is it with you and discharges? The temperatures in the loops can easily be calculated by Ohmic heating in the loops, e.g. papers by Bert van den Oord and Battaglia & Benz and the various referenced in those papers. This all works without "discharges," but I get the idea that you mean something completely different with discharge than what mainstream says. Please explain in detail what you mean with discharge.

But the photosphere plasma is only 6 thousand Kelvin. It's not that "hot". Something is causing it to jump several OOMS in temperature. Here on Earth that happens in "discharges" in the Earth's atmosphere.

6000 deg is rather hot in my opinion, would not want to get caught in an oven at 6000 deg. But anyway, that is besides the point, whether you think something is hot or not. I was talking, I think, about the heated plasma in the loops which would emit radiation. But also a plasma at 6000 deg will emit radiation, because "that is what plasmas do."
But I explained already that the currents in the loop heat the plasma, basically through Ohmic heating and not through discharges and it is also not a "jump" process.

Why would it be ridiculous in your opinion to go with the one known force of nature that does this in the Earth's atmosphere?

Because the currents in the coronal loop are not discharge-like, they are constant, they need to be constant and not just a lightning flash. Also the Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetosphere are not "discharges" they are fully formed current circuits.

It's not originally that hot. Something has to heat the plasma, and that something is *ELECTRICITY*. It happens all the time here on Earth in electrical storms. Why would you need to look to any other form of energy if all you need to do is explain high temperature plasma? Electrical discharges and a do cause these sorts of emissions.

The same as above

How does it get hot then?

see above

"Reconnection" as it describe on WIKI requires the loops to actually "cross" in order for MR to occur. The problem for your theory is that the plasma is *ALREADY* over a million degrees in *BOTH LOOPS* even *BEFORE* they cross. How did that happen?

see above

You haven't personally *EXPLAINED* anything. Start with a single loops and explain how it reaches millions of degrees and sustains those temps.

Read up on the the theory, which was already being formed in the 70s by van Tend & Kuperus and in the 80s Kuperus & van Tend. There you will find all the basics about coronal loops and the currents and the heating and the reconnection/flare mechanism and and and

It's more than looking at pretty math formulas too. Observation and *EXPERIMENTATION* are the cornerstones of science. Math formulas are a dime a dozen. Birkeland's ideas work in a lab. You're idea do not and no terella in a vacuum ever spewed particles from the whole surface due to "magnetic reconnection".

Oh don't be silly, I am not an idea! I am a real person!
I guess you will discard all the experiments on reconnection in the lab, ah well, I guess because Birkeland did not do those experiments, we are not allowed to do them now, as Birkeland seems to be the pinnacle of modern science.

Maybe the terrella did not spew particles due to reconnection, because the set up of the terella experiment does not favour reconnection? Ever thought about that?

Yet that is exactly the mentality you are applying as it relates to Birkeland's solar theory. Anything you think I can't explain automatically seems to validate a gas model solar theory in your head even though none of you can explain those persistent features, or anything specific about either of those two images. Your theories do not work. They don't explain the observations. They don't explain the heliosiesmology data. They don't explain the RD images. They don't explain continuous solar wind acceleration for a whole sphere. They don't explain any of the key things that Birkeland's model not only "explained' but that he actually "simulated" in a lab with "electricity", something that is "natural" and occurs in nature, here on Earth , and in the solar atmosphere.

I doubt that I am doing that, I have great respect for Birkeland, and his deduction about corpuscules flying from the Sun to the Earth and that there is a relation between the appearance of aurora and changes in the magnetic needles that he and his assistants were observing. I am open for many things, but they have to be at least founded in some understanding of electromagnetism and I am sorry to say that your model of the Sun and the solar wind have so many things that are inconceivable in real life that I cannot accept your theory. Naturally, you could try to show me how the electrons from the Sun pull along the ions, regardless of the mass difference between the two and the opposing electric field working on the ions, but after repeated requests all I get is "read Birkeland". But is should be rather simple, so please write it down for us, is it so difficult to defend you model with some quality?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, what else would they be, what is the last time you read a mainstream paper on coronal loops?

Then why not just call them what they are, "current threads" or "discharges"? Why give the process a name that is self conflicted? Magnetic lines lack physical substance and form a full and *COMPLETE* continuum, without beginning and without end. They can't "reconnect". Circuits can and do "reconnect". Why call it "magnetic reconnection" then at all?

Have you ever looked at a picture of a coronal loop?

Literally millions of them.

Why do you think it is called loop? At one point the field lines come out of the "surface" (and I use the term loosely) of the Sun,

Then they should be visible at the surface and also somewhat below the surface of the photosphere, particularly if they are heated at the bases of the loops by shear forces. Why would they only become visible "high up" in the atmosphere?

then the bend over, creating a loop and then the field lines go into the surface of the Sun again. You are so good at looking at pictures and you never noticed that there are loops and arcades of loops on the Sun?

They are not full circles and they have a definite footprint. If they start under the photosphere, why wouldn't we see them *AT* the photosphere?

But you are playing a word game again, aren't you, MM? You only see "partial loops." Well that is exactly what I was talking about, and in real life these are called coronal loops.

Birkeland called them by their proper name - discharges. So did Bruce.

And if you would look at pictures in different frequency bands, you would notice that we can see these loops to the footpoints, where bremsstrahlung is generating copious amounts of X-ray emission.

Yes, but the x-rays are not visible at the base of the 171A images.

Notice the layered effect? What's that from?

You can observe the e.g. in the X-ray emission. The more shearing the more current that is just a basic physical law,

You're trying to tell me that a "shearing effect" in plasma that is like 1/15th the density of air at sea level is going to cause plasma to reach a million degrees? Come on. What's the more likely "cause", shearing or "discharge"? That Birkeland current flying off the sun in the image I posted for David sure has all the "twists" one expects to find in a "Birkeland current".

and the shearing can either be the two foot points moving with respect to each other or the the foot point(s) being twisted "rolling up" the magnetic field in the loop.

That "twisting" helix shape in plasma is called a "Birkeland Current".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

It is often referred to as a "magnetic rope" as well, a term that Alfven explicitly explained as a "current carrying" z-pinch filament or Bennett pinch.

What is it with you and discharges?

What's with nature and all it's discharges? Discharges heat plasma to millions of degrees. "Shear" processes in wind never do that.

The temperatures in the loops can easily be calculated by Ohmic heating in the loops,

What the hell is ohmic heating in loops unless you have "current flow" heating the loops?

Please explain in detail what you mean with discharge.

Look at any electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere. That's what I'm talking about. Nature has created a perfectly "natural" way to heat plasma to millions of degrees, namely by running electrons through plasma. What exactly do you mean is specifically *PHYSICALLY* unique and different from a standard discharge when you say "magnetic reconnection"? When did magnetic reconnection ever "naturally" occur on Earth or Mars or Saturn or any of the places where nature has been shown to generate huge discharges?

6000 deg is rather hot in my opinion,

Compared to the plasma in those loops, it's nothing. The plasma in the loops is OOMS hotter than the plasma doing the "shearing" you describe. It's one thing to expect a 10K shearing effect, it's quite another to expect shearing to cause million degree coronal loops.

Because the currents in the coronal loop are not discharge-like, they are constant,

The discharges in my plasma ball are constant as long as I leave the switch turned on. How does "magnetic reconnection" stay "constant" and heat even individual loops to millions of degrees again?

they need to be constant and not just a lightning flash.

Ok, so what? Birkeland's loops remained there for as long as he kept the power turned on. He had no problems with longevity of the loop because it wasn't "shear" force that powered it. A shear scenario would tend to be short lived.

Also the Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetosphere are not "discharges" they are fully formed current circuits.

Again, that is simply expected and predicted in Birkeland's work. What's your point?

I doubt that I am doing that, I have great respect for Birkeland,

Which explains your witch trials related to anything about his work over at Baut?

and his deduction about corpuscules flying from the Sun to the Earth and that there is a relation between the appearance of aurora and changes in the magnetic needles that he and his assistants were observing. I am open for many things, but they have to be at least founded in some understanding of electromagnetism and I am sorry to say that your model of the Sun and the solar wind have so many things that are inconceivable in real life that I cannot accept your theory.

The things I'm describing were all lab tested by Birkeland and his team, or postulated by Birkeland himself in the case of a fission power source. They created jets and loops and lots of the same things we observe in satellite images.

Naturally, you could try to show me how the electrons from the Sun pull along the ions,

That should be done in a lab, not on website in cyberspace. Instead of spending all your time and money on magic magnetic fields I suggest you folks spend more time in the lab in real experimental settings with real plasma. In spite of all Birkeland's work you refuse to even discuss the bulk of his work on forums where you moderate and you hold witch trials for anyone who dares to do so. That is not science, that is religion. When are you folks ever going to stop playing with your invisible magic math constructs and get in a lab and practice real experimental science for a change? Plasma has predictable properties that are not that difficult to understand as long as you understand that it's "current carrying" plasma.

Nature does not "do" magnetic reconnection. It does generate "discharges" on virtually every planet in the solar system an it generates x-rays and gamma rays that way every single day. Why would you not expect discharges to occur in the solar atmosphere as well?

 

[tusenfem]

Dancing David, I think I may have another way for you to visualize the movement of positively charged ions in an outward direction. In an ordinary solid a lattice of conductive material is held in place and the atoms can't move around freely so the movement of electrons through the metal doesn't cause the metal to move with the electron. It's fixed in place by the whole conductive lattice and the electrons wind their way through the lattice. In the case of plasma, the atoms/ions are not fixed. The flow of electrons through the ion will cause the ion to move toward the flow direction of the elections, particularly if there are many electrons moving in that direction relative to the ion itself. In other words it's going to pick up momentum over time, as will the entire conductive lattice. This movement forms a twisted sort of helix shape through spacetime, a Birkeland current. Does that help you to visualize why the positively charged ions move as well as the electrons? Keep in mind that Birkeland's terella was the cathode and spewed electrons from every direction. Only when the internal magnetic fields were strong enough, and the current flow was strong enough did he create loops in the atmosphere. At all times he was spewing particles into the plasma around the sphere and heating the plasma around the sphere. When he pumped the chamber full of plasma he was able to create visible "layers" of plasma around the sphere that were "lit" by the electrons flowing from the sphere to the sides of the chamber.

This might just work a bit, the "dragging of the ions" in a large sea of electrons, but you willfully ignore the electric field which (according to you) is accelerating the electrons away from the Sun, and said electric field would accelerate any positive ion in the opposite direction of the electrons. Michael your whole idea does not make any sense, and Birkeland would understand that it does not make sense. It is totally against Maxwell's equations and conservation of energy etc. etc. etc.

Also the large quote from Birkeland's book does not say that the Sun has a solid surface. That is just something that you "hineininterpretierst" a figment of your imagination.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Read up on the the theory, which was already being formed in the 70s by van Tend & Kuperus and in the 80s Kuperus & van Tend. There you will find all the basics about coronal loops and the currents and the heating and the reconnection/flare mechanism and and and

Um, they keep talking about how energy is "stored" in a magnetic field of loops composed of light plasma. How exactly is that energy "stored" in your opinion? The reason we have powerful magnetic fields to look at is *BECAUSE OF* the CURRENT flowing inside the thread. Energy isnt' stored in the magnetic field. That's like claiming a lightning bolt "stored" magnetic energy just prior to release. What are you talking about and what are they talking about when you claim that plasma "stores" magnetic energy?

 

[Michael Mozina]

This might just work a bit, the "dragging of the ions" in a large sea of electrons,

It works *A LOT*.

but you willfully ignore the electric field

No, I'm counting on it to cause discharge process between the surface ant the heliosphere like that helix discharge.

which (according to you) is accelerating the electrons away from the Sun,

The electrons "flow" from the surface to the heliosphere and their movement through the ions drags the ions along for the ride. Even Birkeland noticed he left particles of the "globe" on the sides of his experiments. Why?

and said electric field would accelerate any positive ion in the opposite direction

That would depend on the specific type of discharge. Birkeland predicted the sun would shoot electrons at high speed and drag particles along for the ride.

Michael your whole idea does not make any sense,

It makes sense and it works in a lab. You can't simply ignore his experiments and make statements that defy these experiments.

Also the large quote from Birkeland's book does not say that the Sun has a solid surface. That is just something that you "hineininterpretierst" a figment of your imagination.

Ya, and if I had tried to take credit for his work you'd be all over me for that too. Right. Every one of his experiments used a metallic globe, not a plasma body. Nothing he would have seen in satellite images would have surprised him one bit, including all the rigid feature in these images. Every single experiment he performed used a "solid metallic surface" model. Period.

 

[Reality Check]

Um, they keep talking about how energy is "stored" in a magnetic field of loops composed of light plasma. How exactly is that energy "stored" in your opinion? The reason we have powerful magnetic fields to look at is *BECAUSE OF* the CURRENT flowing inside the thread. Energy isnt' stored in the magnetic field. That's like claiming a lightning bolt "stored" magnetic energy just prior to release. What are you talking about and what are they talking about when you claim that plasma "stores" magnetic energy?

That is so ignorant that I just have to answer.

First year physics students are taught the basic fact that energy is stored in any magnetic (or electric) field.
Energy in Electric and Magnetic Fields
Magnetic energy
An introduction to the sun and stars (page 69)
etc.

 

[Reality Check]

Ya, and if I had tried to take credit for his work you'd be all over me for that too. Right. Every one of his experiments used a metallic globe, not a plasma body. Nothing he would have seen in satellite images would have surprised him one bit, including all the rigid feature in these images. Every single experiment he performed used a "solid metallic surface" model. Period.

That is right - the technology of 100 years ago did not allow him to do experiments on a "plasma body" so he used metallic globes.
So what?

Even Kristian Birkeland states that his experiment is studying "analogies to the zodiacal light and Saturn's ring" and the results resemble the Sun's corona.

Kristian Birkeland would not have been stupid enough to think that a running difference animation could show any rigid feature. He would have realized that the animation was showing changes in the images and that any persistent features in the animation were changes happening in one location in the images.

Kristian Birkeland knew basic physics such as black body radiation. He would quickly realize that the measured photosphere was a near black body spectrum. He could read a solar irradiance versus wavelength diagram and see that the emission of the photosphere in the 171 angstrom region was basically zero. He would know that a telescope detecting radiation in the 171 angstrom region would only see the photosphere if there were no stronger sources of 171 angstrom light, such as ~million degree plasma.

Kristian Birkeland would look at this 171 A image of coronal loops and see the gap between the observed base of the coronal loops in the images and the photosphere. He would know that this means that the TRACE instrument is only detecting activity in the corona.

CHAPTER VI.
ON POSSIBLE ELECTRIC PHENOMENA IN SOLAR SYSTEMS AND NEBULAE.

128. The Sun. The series of experiments that I have made with a magnetic globe as cathode in a,arge vacuum-box, for the purpose of studying analogies to the zodiacal light and Saturn's ring, have k to discoveries that appear to be of great importance for the solar theory. We have already several times had occasion to give various particulars regarding the manner in \\ ch these experiments were carried out. It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe trt the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and di'uptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 2473 (which happens to be a unipolar di'harge) may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great. If the magnetisation of the globe a Fig. 247. b be -educed (or the tension of the discharge increased) gradually, the luminous ring round the globe will be reduced to a minimum size, after which another equatorial ring is developed and expands rapidly Hi; 247 b). It has been possible for the ring to develope in such a manner that it could easily be deincstrated by radiation on the most distant wall of my large vacuum-tube (see fig. 217). The correspondin; ring would then have a diameter of 70 cm., while the diameter of the globe was 8 cm. It is a corresponding primary ring of radiant matter about the sun that in my opinion can give an efficient explanation of the various zodiacal light-phenomena. In the above-mentioned experiments, it seen how the rays from the polar regions bend down in a simple curve about the equatorial plane of ic globe, to continue their course outwards from the globe in the vicinity of this plane. An aureole is ^reby produced about the magnetic globe, with ray-structure at the poles, the whole thing strongly resnbling pictures of the sun's corona.

 

[GeeMack]

Huh? I said, "Kristian Birkeland did not suggest that the Sun had a solid iron surface, or brass, or silver plated copper, or any such thing." And you post some random gibberish? Please, if you think something in there actually shows that Birkeland was under the impression the Sun actually had a solid metal surface, highlight it.

You go right ahead and highlight every "metallic globe" and "discharge" in the quote for us GeeMack.

CHAPTER VI.
ON POSSIBLE ELECTRIC PHENOMENA IN SOLAR SYSTEMS AND NEBULAE.

128. The Sun. The series of experiments that I have made with a magnetic globe as cathode in a,arge vacuum-box, for the purpose of studying analogies to the zodiacal light and Saturn's ring, have k to discoveries that appear to be of great importance for the solar theory. We have already several times had occasion to give various particulars regarding the manner in \\ ch these experiments were carried out. It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe trt the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and di'uptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 2473 (which happens to be a unipolar di'harge) may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great. If the magnetisation of the globe a Fig. 247. b be -educed (or the tension of the discharge increased) gradually, the luminous ring round the globe will be reduced to a minimum size, after which another equatorial ring is developed and expands rapidly Hi; 247 b). It has been possible for the ring to develope in such a manner that it could easily be deincstrated by radiation on the most distant wall of my large vacuum-tube (see fig. 217). The correspondin; ring would then have a diameter of 70 cm., while the diameter of the globe was 8 cm. It is a corresponding primary ring of radiant matter about the sun that in my opinion can give an efficient explanation of the various zodiacal light-phenomena. In the above-mentioned experiments, it seen how the rays from the polar regions bend down in a simple curve about the equatorial plane of ic globe, to continue their course outwards from the globe in the vicinity of this plane. An aureole is ^reby produced about the magnetic globe, with ray-structure at the poles, the whole thing strongly resnbling pictures of the sun's corona.

Okay, done. So nothing in that quote supports the idea that Birkeland thought the Sun had a solid surface. I knew that.

And, Michael, you've been reluctant to respond to this. Why do you suppose it is that no professional or academic in astrophysics or any related field, anywhere in the world, agrees with you about that solid surface of the Sun?

 

[Dancing David]

Dancing David, I think I may have another way for you to visualize the movement of positively charged ions in an outward direction. In an ordinary solid a lattice of conductive material is held in place and the atoms can't move around freely so the movement of electrons through the metal doesn't cause the metal to move with the electron. It's fixed in place by the whole conductive lattice and the electrons wind their way through the lattice. In the case of plasma, the atoms/ions are not fixed. The flow of electrons through the ion will cause the ion to move toward the flow direction of the elections, particularly if there are many electrons moving in that direction relative to the ion itself.

Yes but the laws of momentum still apply.

In other words it's going to pick up momentum over time, as will the entire conductive lattice.

Except you don’t have a metallic lattice, you have free ions in space.

This movement forms a twisted sort of helix shape through spacetime, a Birkeland current. Does that help you to visualize why the positively charged ions move as well as the electrons? Keep in mind that Birkeland's terella was the cathode and spewed electrons from every direction. Only when the internal magnetic fields were strong enough, and the current flow was strong enough did he create loops in the atmosphere. At all times he was spewing particles into the plasma around the sphere and heating the plasma around the sphere. When he pumped the chamber full of plasma he was able to create visible "layers" of plasma around the sphere that were "lit" by the electrons flowing from the sphere to the sides of the chamber.

I notice that you have not answered the question MM.

I will try again.

In your model you have negatively charged electrons moving towards the positive heliosphere.

The question is not about the towing.

It is about the fact that your model requires the electrons to move the positive ions against the repulsion of the heliosphere.

That is the one of the contradictions in your model that you refuse to address.

So Birkeland had a cathode and he had 'what' flowing from it?

You are obsessed with not answering this question.

For your model to work, the electrons would have to overcome the force of repulsion on the positive ions.


Your answer is not an answer, I think you are ignoring the point I am making.

Take one proton and one electron, the mass is the proton is 1038 that of the electron. The charges are equal.

So to move the proton, the momentum of the electron would have to exceed the inertia of the proton. Correct? (For it to tow the proton.)

For this to work, you will need the electron to either have a much higher velocity than the proton But then it will immediately loose that as the momentum is transferred to the proton through towing. So you will need more electrons moving at very high velocities to keep the proton moving.

The other alternative is to have the proportion of electrons be higher, say 1038 electrons for the one proton.

So here is the deal MM, and where you seem to be engaging in speculation (which is fine) and not science. What at all data exists to support your idea?

What velocities and ratios are there?

And you know MM, these are rather simple concepts to overcome, you say that the 'standard model' can not account for the solar wind, and that is fine.

The issue I have is that there are inherent contradictions in your model that you refuse to address.

After the momentum issue there are:
-the charge repulsion issue of the positive ions
-the charge separation needed for your model to work
-the issues associated with a large electric charge on the sun
-the measurement of the charge of the heliosphere
-the issue of what maintains the charge separations

 

[Dancing David]

You go right ahead and highlight every "metallic globe" and "discharge" in the quote for us GeeMack.

Either Birkeland said the sun was made up of solid metal or he did not.

Which is it?

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/helix_c2c3.mpg

Sorry about the previous link David. Here is the corrected link. I would edit the original post, but I guess it won't let me do that after a certain period of time has passed.

Great picture, you did not answer the questions.

 

[Dancing David]

It works *A LOT*.



No, I'm counting on it to cause discharge process between the surface ant the heliosphere like that helix discharge.

Yup which is why the maintainence of the charge seperation is an issue.

The electrons "flow" from the surface to the heliosphere and their movement through the ions drags the ions along for the ride. Even Birkeland noticed he left particles of the "globe" on the sides of his experiments. Why?

Could be machine oil, could be that very small fragments of teh sphere attained the same negative charge and were repulsed.

You haven't shown that he created a flow of positive ions, of greater mass than the electrons.

That would depend on the specific type of discharge. Birkeland predicted the sun would shoot electrons at high speed and drag particles along for the ride.

Uh huh, sure. the issue is that if you have a positively charged heliosphere, then the EM field from the heliosphere is going to repulse the positive ions.

It is not an issue of 'discharge', it is an issue of repulsion between two positively charged objects, one the heliosphere and the other positive ions.

It makes sense and it works in a lab. You can't simply ignore his experiments and make statements that defy these experiments.

You can't say that Birkeland created a mini solar wind composed of eual parts protons and electrons either!

Ya, and if I had tried to take credit for his work you'd be all over me for that too. Right. Every one of his experiments used a metallic globe, not a plasma body. Nothing he would have seen in satellite images would have surprised him one bit, including all the rigid feature in these images. Every single experiment he performed used a "solid metallic surface" model. Period.

So , you adimit he did not say that the sun was a ball of solid metal?