Electric universe theories here.

[Michael Mozina]

Antineutrinos (not to mention a completely different abundance of the elements in the Sun).

FYI, the elemental abundance numbers are something that Dr. Manual's work specifically addresses. If you're looking for elemental abundance figures from nuclear chemistry, his work is your best resource IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Are you saying Alfven and Bruce support your iron Sun model?

No, I'm saying that they both support my "electrical discharges originate and occur *UNDER* the photosphere theory. So does the DVD by the way.

If not then they haven't done the maths.

I can't battle every detail at the same time, and I will need to pick my battles, particularly this week as my time is limited. The first and most important part of this theory which is falsifiable or verifiable is the "electrical discharge" aspect. I'll return the the images and the surface features in due time, but we should be able now to all accept that at least the maths related to "electrical solar discharges" have been put on the table. Whatever other maths may be required to demonstrate a solid crust can be resolved at a later time based upon Kosovichev's heliosiesmology data, but this week I'd like to focus on the discharge aspect specifically. It's the most "visually obvious" and visually testable aspect of these theories and these disagreements.

*IF* we can observe discharges in the photosphere (and we can in the DVD) then we can falsify LMSAL belief that the bases of the loops are located in the upper atmosphere. Let's do a little checking of the "maths" with real world observations this week, shall we? Let's tests Alfven's ideas about where the z-pinch originates and where it might be seen. Note that Bruce did a better job IMO of describing the atmospheric chaos and noticing the "speed" of the discharges are related to, and comparable to the speed of the discharges on Earth. Alfven's work is mostly related to circuits and MHD theory proper. Maybe that's preferable? Putting them both together however and I think you'll see that the maths are on my side if you do it their way and look at these events from the standpoint of circuits and discharges in plasma.

 

[Ziggurat]

Of course they do. Electron temperatures in current carrying plasma can often exceed the temperature of the plasma by multiple OOMS. Currents (all charged particles) have a "temperature" and heat associated with them which moves with the particles.

You are referencing particular cases in which currents carry heat. This is not a general principle of currents.

Any movement of any charged particle is technically a "current flow".

Generally only a net current is referred to as a current.

If you read Birkeland's theory, you'll understand why it will sustain the charge.

That's not an answer.

No, I'm saying that the surface is charged negative compared to the heliosphere and it is in a constant state of discharge (towards the heliopshere).

And what's the net charge on this surface? What are the fields? What's the voltage difference? What's the net current? How can it be constantly discharging, since discharging is by definition a decrease in the net charge that is driving the discharge?

That's not so. I've even barked math on command for DRD in forums like this before, to utterly no avail.

I've never seen you quantify anything you say. You certainly haven't quantified anything on your website. And regardless of what you may or may not have done with DRD, the fact remains that you refuse to quantify the ideas you are presenting here.

It's a huge waste of time to throw math at you folks. Alfven did that already and you ignored HUNDREDS of his papers. Bruce did that too. Have you even read his work? What difference does math make to you folks?

All the difference in the world. It's precisely because Aflven did math that others are able to sort out which of his ideas had merit and which did not.

It's only when we look at "pictures" that we can actually see if a model matches prediction or it does not.

Not so. Numbers are far easier to compare than pictures. That is, if you can actually make numerical predictions. Which real physicists do all the time. I've asked you for some rather basic numbers, stuff that you should be able to figure out with back-of-the-envelope calculations. Order of magnitude is good enough, I'm not asking for exacting precision. But I want at least ball-park estimates. This is the sort of stuff you should be figuring out anyways, if you're serious about your own theories. But you're not doing so. Possible because you can't, or possibly because you know that if you do, your ideas will be exposed for the absurdities that they are. Either way, you're following the path of the crank: make lots of claims, but never ever make any numerical predictions. So prove to me you're not a crank, Michael. Show me the numbers.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You are referencing particular cases in which currents carry heat.

Those same particular cases occur in the solar atmosphere!

This is not a general principle of currents.

Hmm. I guess I disagree. All movement of particles will carry a certain amount of "heat" with the particles. The particles have a temperature and a vibrational "heat" component. If the they all move 100 miles to the right, then they transferred energy from on point to another that is typically associated with heat.

Generally only a net current is referred to as a current.

Let's put it this way, the sun is somehow able to direct a hell of lot of "net current" our way in a very short period of time.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

By your way of counting "current flow", we received a "net zero" amount of energy in the Earth's atmosphere.

And what's the net charge on this surface?

Which point on the surface?

What are the fields?

The "magnetic" field strengths are easy enough to measure.

What's the voltage difference?

What did Birkeland predict?

What's the net current?

You tell me. What was the "net current" flow seen by the Themis team? Was it zero?

How can it be constantly discharging, since discharging is by definition a decrease in the net charge that is driving the discharge?

According to Birkeland the surface was charged negatively due to fission process in the core and charged negatively compared to "space' or what would would not call the heliosphere. The flow of positive ions (probably negative too) past the heliosphere would presumably sustain the positive charge and the charge separation.

I've never seen you quantify anything you say.

Why should I bother? Did Alfven's "quantification" impress you any? Did you even read them? Did you find any flaw in them? What mistake were you expecting to find in my work that would somehow negate the value of his work?

You certainly haven't quantified anything on your website.

That's simply not so. I cited many folks that "quantified" the work, including Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Kosovichev and many others. I guess you're bitching because I didn't do it all by myself?

And regardless of what you may or may not have done with DRD, the fact remains that you refuse to quantify the ideas you are presenting here.

What "quantification" process would change your mind here, and why don't you just do it yourself if that is what it takes for you to be happy? Why can't you be happy with Alfven's quantifications, or Bruce's quantifications? Why does MM personally have to bark math on command?

All the difference in the world. It's precisely because Aflven did math that others are able to sort out which of his ideas had merit and which did not.

So how did you "sort out" the fact he was wrong about the z-pinch loops originating under the photosphere again?

Not so. Numbers are far easier to compare than pictures.

Life isn't "easy' and some times "observation" is absolutely necessary to even begin to do any math.

That is, if you can actually make numerical predictions. Which real physicists do all the time.

Alfven and Birkeland and Bruce did lots of numberical predictions. What's wrong with them?

I've asked you for some rather basic numbers, stuff that you should be able to figure out with back-of-the-envelope calculations. Order of magnitude is good enough, I'm not asking for exacting precision.

One gets the impression that the only reason you do that is because you hope I will make some mistake and you can use that mistake of mine to attempt to discredit ideas first proposed and put forth by folks that knew the math much better than I do. Why does it matter what math I do? Why can't you just take Alfven's math and tell me where it's wrong and why I should reject it?

But I want at least ball-park estimates.

For what purpose would you have me *PERSONALLY* do this rather than looking up these numbers and calculations in Bruce's material or Alfven's material?

So prove to me you're not a crank, Michael. Show me the numbers.

How many fallacies are contained in those two statements?

A) I could be "right' and have no ability to do math and I would not be a crank. I'd be right with no way to prove it.
B) I could be wrong, do lots of math personally, and I would still be wrong (and ultimately a crank).
C) I can provide maths, not understand maths at all, and still be right mathematically. (In the case of heliosiesmology, I admit there is actually some truth to that statement)
D) You cannot judge the math's of Alfven and Bruce and others based upon what some guy posts on a website in cyberspace.

Get real. It doesn't matter one iota if I even understand the maths put forth by Alfven and Bruce and Birkeland and others. It's been done already. My personal abilities in math are utterly *IRRELEVANT* to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of their work. If you think they made a mistake in their math, let's see you find it for us. If not, why come whining to me wanting me to bark math for you?

 

[GeeMack]

FYI, the elemental abundance numbers are something that Dr. Manual's work specifically addresses. If you're looking for elemental abundance figures from nuclear chemistry, his work is your best resource IMO.

You are referring, of course, to the Oliver Manuel whose work you're citing completely refutes your crazy notion that the Sun has a solid/crusty surface. So is he right or is he wrong?

 

[Ziggurat]

Hmm. I guess I disagree. All movement of particles will carry a certain amount of "heat" with the particles.

Nope. You are confusing heat with thermal energy. They are not actually the same.

Let's put it this way, the sun is somehow able to direct a hell of lot of "net current" our way in a very short period of time.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

That's not a net current, as the particles involved are basically charge balanced between positive and negative.

By your way of counting "current flow", we received a "net zero" amount of energy in the Earth's atmosphere.

Energy and charge are not equivalent. So what the hell are you talking about?

Which point on the surface?

I didn't ask for a charge density, I asked for the net charge. So logically, I mean for the entire solid surface. Order of magnitude will do.

The "magnetic" field strengths are easy enough to measure.

And the electric field strengths?

What did Birkeland predict?

You're the Birkeland expert, you tell me.

You tell me. What was the "net current" flow seen by the Themis team? Was it zero?

As far as I can tell, yes. Nothing in your link suggested otherwise, at any rate. There seems to be a net mass flow, but current (especially if you're primarily interested in charged particles, as you keep pointing out) is not the same thing as mass flow.

[/quote]According to Birkeland the surface was charged negatively due to fission process in the core and charged negatively compared to "space' or what would would not call the heliosphere. The flow of positive ions (probably negative too) past the heliosphere would presumably sustain the positive charge and the charge separation.[/quote]

And what's making positive ions fly away from a negatively charged body? "Fission process in the core" is not an answer: not only does experimental evidence indicate no such process is occuring, but even if it were, it provides no mechanism for the preferential expulsion of positive ions from the surface of the sun.

Why should I bother?

If you want to be though of as anything other than a crank, it would go a long way towards demonstrating that you are not. If you don't care if you're viewed as a crank, or if you are indeed a crank, then there is indeed no point. But that does raise the question of what the hell you're doing here if not to try to convince people of the validity of your ideas.

Did Alfven's "quantification" impress you any? Did you even read them? Did you find any flaw in them? What mistake were you expecting to find in my work that would somehow negate the value of his work?

1) Your ideas do not match Alfven's ideas.
2) A number of Alfven's ideas do not match observed reality.
On the latter point, yes, there's a flaw in them. For example, his ideas about galactic rotation curves simply don't work. The magnetic fields required to move a star like the sun in the appropriate manner are about 10²⁰ larger than actual fields.

As for your "work", if you actually did any calculations, I expect that you'd quickly find that the numbers produced absurdities: impossibly high charges, impossibly large mass flows, impossibly large heat capacities, or some combination of the above.

That's simply not so. I cited many folks that "quantified" the work, including Birkeland, Bruce, Alfven, Kosovichev and many others. I guess you're bitching because I didn't do it all by myself?

I don't really care if you do it yourself. If you can produce the numbers I asked for by digging it up from one of your references, that will do fine. I suspect you will search in vain, however, because I don't think any of those folks advocated what you're suggesting.

What "quantification" process would change your mind here, and why don't you just do it yourself if that is what it takes for you to be happy?

Because I'm not the one making extraordinary claims. You are. It's your theory, you're the one who cares about it, you're the one who wants us to take it seriously. So start treating your ideas seriously: quantify them, if not with your own calculations (because you can't do any), then with the calculations of others. But show us some numbers.

Why can't you be happy with Alfven's quantifications, or Bruce's quantifications?

I don't care who came up with the numbers. But I want numbers for the quantities I asked for. They are fundamental parameters of the model you are proposing. Why don't you already have some idea of their magnitude?

One gets the impression that the only reason you do that is because you hope I will make some mistake and you can use that mistake of mine to attempt to discredit ideas first proposed and put forth by folks that knew the math much better than I do. Why does it matter what math I do? Why can't you just take Alfven's math and tell me where it's wrong and why I should reject it?

Alfven never proposed that the sun had a solid shell surface. So which of his calculations should I turn to, pray tell, to find fundamental parameters of your model?

For what purpose would you have me *PERSONALLY* do this rather than looking up these numbers and calculations in Bruce's material or Alfven's material?

Because I don't think either of them ever calculated the numbers I asked for, and because I don't think either of them believed in anything remotely resembling what you suggested. You are free to prove me wrong: if you find those numbers from another source, I am happy to accept them in lieu of you personally doing the calculations. But I want the numbers. Again, these are fundamental parameters of your model. Whether you do the calculations, or whether you dig up the numbers from somewhere else, why don't you already have them? That you don't indicates that you're not serious about testing your ideas. You have convinced yourself, and the last thing you apparently want to do is subject your own ideas to any kind of test which might possibly undermine them.

Hell, I'll even help you out. Given some of the parameters, I can even do some of the calculations for you - for example, if you give me net charge, I can calculate electric field.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Comments on Kosovichev's Doppler image

Post #823 back on page 21 ...

Kosovichev's Doppler image.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/vquake1.avi

Note the angular structures on the left and the "active" (white) area on the right as the wave passes over these structures. Are they above or below the wave in the photosphere in your opinion?

In my opinion is is not possible to determine, from this image alone, whether the features you call attention to are above, below, or on the same level as the expanding circular wave. One might say the features are below the wave, and that as the wave passes over them, it optically distorts our view, much as the ripples seen on the surface of a swimming pool distort the view of objects in the water under the waves. Or, one might say the features are above the wave, and as the wave passes under them they are lifted and mechanically distorted as the wave lifts and stretches the overriding features. Or, one might say that the features are on the same level of the expanding wave, and again mechanically distorted by the wave as it passes through them. I can't see anything in the image that would allow me to break the degeneracy and chose one of these options over the other, without introducing information independent of the image.

I do note that the image includes a number of features apparently fixed in both spatial location and brightness, surrounded by a "flat" background in a constant and rapid state of low amplitude fluctuation that appears random. As the circular wave expands, it triggers a number of transient bright features that appear to ride the crest of the wave. That leads me to the tentative conclusion that the expanding wave and the fluctuating background are at the same level. But restricted to considering this image and this image only, that conclusion must remain tentative.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Flare DVD download

Post #809, back on page 21.

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/bigmovies/DVDs/
This DVD of movies is a compilation of flares taken at various wavelengths, including white light, 171A, etc.

I did download the entire set, but the images are of an unrecognizable format on my MAC and I can't see them. I have to transfer them to another computer and see if I have software that will allow me to see the images.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Net zero charge

By your way of counting "current flow", we received a "net zero" amount of energy in the Earth's atmosphere.

Not so. Rather, we received a net zero accumulated charge, averaged over time and space (small scales of time and space will include statistical fluctuations from zero).

 

[Tubbythin]

I guess I'm not very clear how that gear specifically differentiates between an electron neutrino "hit", and an antineutrino "hit". Could you explain that part to me a bit? That would probably clear things up pretty quickly.

Well, for the charged current reactions:

with electron antineutrinos you have (repeating myself)
nubar_e + p -> e⁺ + n + Cherenkov light
e⁺ + e^- -> 2gamma (0.511 MeV)
n + p -> d + gamma (2.2 MeV)

with electron neutrinos you have
nu_e + n -> e^- + p + Cherenkov light
which is rather different.

FYI, I would expect that other types of shall we say "high energy" fission processes (collisions) in the core would eventually start to kick out other types of neutrinos. I seriously doubt that the collisions and decay reactions in the core would be completely limited to one type of neutrino.

The muon has a rest mass energy of 105 MeV. That's an order of magnitude greater than the Q-values of high energy beta-decays. So muon (and even more so tauon) decays are completely forbidden by energetics.
EDIT: ignore the stuff I wrote here if anyone read it. It was a load of rubbish.

Do the other neutrino detectors have the ability to differentiate to the level of sign? I understand the sensitivity to other types of flavors, but I'm still unclear about the ability to differentiate between neutrinos and antineutrinos.

See above.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electron neutrinos only

II seriously doubt that the collisions and decay reactions in the core would be completely limited to one type of neutrino.

You are seriously wrong. The sun is able to generate electron neutrinos and only electron neutrinos. Your "serious doubts" have no weight. Either you can point to specific interaction you expect to take place inside the sun, which would produce a tau or muon neutrino, or you can't. I'm placing my bet on "can't".

 

[Michael Mozina]

Well, for the charged current reactions:

with electron antineutrinos you have (repeating myself)
nubar_e + p -> e⁺ + n + Cherenkov light
e⁺ + e^- -> 2gamma (0.511 MeV)
n + p -> d + gamma (2.2 MeV)

with electron neutrinos you have
nu_e + n -> e^- + p + Cherenkov light
which is rather different.

Thank you for repeating yourself. I must have missed it earlier. That helps a lot. I'll have to do some more reading now.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Not so. Rather, we received a net zero accumulated charge, averaged over time and space (small scales of time and space will include statistical fluctuations from zero).

Angelopoulos was quite impressed with the substorm's power and he estimated the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion Joules.

That's quite a rather large "small scale fluctuation", and rather long in duration too.

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's not a net current, as the particles involved are basically charge balanced between positive and negative.

Angelopoulos was quite impressed with the substorm's power and he estimated the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion Joules.

That "magnetic rope" was a huge "current carrying" thread that poured a lot of electrical energy into our magnetosphere.

Here's how Alfven explains and describes a magnetic rope. Note the reference to Bennett.

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."

Alfven explicitly talks about the currents inside the filament and mentions Bennett by name in connection to the "pinch" effect we find in current carrying plasma filaments. There is no doubt that this was a "current flow" event that transferred *HUGE* amounts of energy into our magnetosphere. it's not a "net neutral" event in any way shape or form.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Post #809, back on page 21.

I did download the entire set, but the images are of an unrecognizable format on my MAC and I can't see them. I have to transfer them to another computer and see if I have software that will allow me to see the images.

FYI I used Active ISO burner to burn the CD from the IMG file but I did use a Windows system. At worst case you can email me a physical address and I'll send you a copy of the DVD.

There are lots of images related to the Bastille Day flare I want to discuss, but you'll definitely need the DVD.

 

[Ziggurat]

Angelopoulos was quite impressed with the substorm's power and he estimated the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion Joules.

That "magnetic rope" was a huge "current carrying" thread that poured a lot of electrical energy into our magnetosphere.

A lot of energy compared to what? A lightbulb? Sure. For a two-hour event, that's about 7x10¹⁰ Watts average. Quite a few lightbulbs there. But how much power is that, really, for the whole earth? Well, the power that the earth receives from sunlight is about 1.7x10¹⁷ Watts. So this storm, which isn't even constant, is producing a drop in the bucket compared to radiant power. See what happens when you do even simple calculations? You get a much better idea of what things really mean.

Furthermore, nowhere in your quote does the term "current" appear, nor does it indicate that there is any charge imbalance in this flow of particles. The term "current" is only used once in the article, and it is not for two-hour events. But none of this is relevant to the question of the sun's supposed solid shell, and heat transfer away from that shell. Except to suggest that the energies involved in any mass flows are going to be far smaller than the radiant energies involved (ie, you're wrong).

 

[tusenfem]

Yet you reject it in favor of something Alfven called "pseudoscience"?

Wrong place, this was a sentence about the paper being the first to give a mechanism for the creation of a DL, which is not rejected at all. Please try to be accurate in the way you respond.

You mean like an electrical z-pinch process? Why did you folks reject this idea again?

Who says we reject a pinch? More of your outrageous claims that are unfounded.

Oh, you mean like an ordinary plasma thread like in an ordinary plasma ball, only much larger?

NO, this is absolutely nothing like a plasma ball. In a plasma ball there is a discharge through the gas (not plasma) like a lightning bolt in the atmosphere (not plasma). In the loop there is a current (in a plasma), which is increased and at a certain point the drift of the electrons (usually) gets larger than the thermal speed, which causes instabilities, and the electrons need to be accelerated to maintain the increasing current, which is done through an electric field.

For someone, apparently versed in Alfvén's work, you seem to be rather weak on the details. Did you read the paper by Alfvén totally, or did you just skim it a bit and thought "well close enough for my ideas?"

Wait a minute. The current carrying z-pinch threads close *UNDER* the photosphere? I thought you folks claimed that I made up this stuff all by myself? Now you admit that they beat me to the idea by 50 years? Which is it?

Don't be rediculous, Michael Mozina, nobody ever said that the loops don't close, and if you would have read Alfvén's paper (the one you linked to) then you would have noticed that I used Alfvén's words from that paper.

But as div(B)=0 the loops have to close somehow under the photosphere, and YOU certainly did not invent this.

And we get "heat" and light and all the things we see in electrical discharges here on Earth.

It is not a frakking discharge! In a discharge the current goes from 0 to max in an extremely short time, in the coronal loops the current increases slowly and does not have to "work its way through an obstructing dielectric."

A "real" one? What's a "fake" solar flare?

Alfvén and Carlqvist discuss an idealized loop with a self inductance and a resistivity and and and. The energy that is released is the stored magnetic energy of the current flowing in the loop.

It also talks about how the energy of the whole loop can become ejected in these events as a large burst too. Never once does it say squat about "magnetic reconnection". Why is that? These are the guys that wrote MHD theory. What did they say about your beloved magnetic reconnection theory in relationship to these flare events? Nothing? Nothing at all? Oh wait, Alfven did say something about magnetic reconnection theory, but it wasn't kind. That didn't stop you from continuing your pseudoscientific pursuits rather than taking the advice of the masters.

First of all, reconnection cannot occur in MHD (why is that exactly Michael Mozina, care to enlighten us?). A&C do not discuss the ejection of a big magnetic cloud by the flare in that paper. If you think differently, please point is out exactly to me.

Alfvén also complained about the use of frozen in field lines, however, lots of studies show that that idea can be applied anyway. And then there are studies, that specifically look at where and how the frozen in condition is broken. (I have cited the papers before in this thread). So, the fact that Alfvén rejects RX is fine, but he was wrong. RX is observed in the lab, in space and in numerical simulations.

What's all that talk about disruption of the current due to maximum plasma current and his mention of "short-circuits"?

That is just what is says it is. A description of a energy release process in a coronal loop (making it unwind actually, read up on it in Michael Raadu's monograph on double layers). It does NOT discuss the ejection of a magnetic cloud by the flare.

At the "photosphere surface" you mean? You guys seem to be ignorant of some basic things here. Alfven *NEVER* attributed solar events to "magnetic reconnection". He loathed the idea in fact. He was quite specific about the base of the *DISCHARGE LOOPS* or z-pinch filaments. They didn't begin *ABOVE* the photosphere. The guys that wrote MHD theory don't buy your notions about coronal loop footprint starting inside the corona.

The magnetic field is wound around the current flow! It's a current carrying z-pinch filament. When the circuit is cut, the energy in the magnetic field is released *IN THE WHOLE THREAD AT ONCE*. That's the idea behind the flare.

Oh boy, whenever one word does not fit your closed mind you start screaming again. I said one part of the loop remains at the Sun, where naturaly I mean a coronal loop with its foot points entering the photosphere or whatever.

These guys that wrote MHD just wrote about a circuit, energy release by actually unwinding the magnetic field through a double layer. Read up on it in Michael Raadu's monograph.

You'll have to demonstrate you actually "developed" and didn't get lost in what Alfven refers to as pseudoscience. None of you seem to be able to even explain what is physically unique and different in MR energy releases compared to say ordinary induction, or particle reconnection or circuit reconnection. I see no "development" since you still seem mystified by how loops function, where they originate, where they start to "carry current", etc.

And you are doing a rather bad job at trying to keep up the glory of Alfvén with your misinterpretations and misrepresentations of his work. Just like you don't understand, nor have really read and understood Birkelands work.

You speak out of both sides of your mouth IMO. You won't even allow anyone to discuss his full body of work, or even this paper on your website for more than 30 days. If you respect him, you have a very weird way of showing it. You respect him so much you persecute anyone who continues to follow in his footsteps?

Oh I sometimes speak out of my ass too.
Whatever "paper on my website" are you talking about?
And YOU are NOT following in Alfvén's footsteps, nor in Birkeland's, the whole notion is preposterous. When asked, you cannot even give an answer where Birkeland claims something.

 

[tusenfem]

He compares these images to the *SUN'S CORONA* not the atmosphere of Jupiter. Wake up and smell the coffee boys and girls.

Yes, MM, but only after he has changed the setup by reducing the magnetic field inside the terrella and/or increasing the voltage drop between the anode and the cathode.

And then he goes on to claim:

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 the globe, to continue their course outwards from the globe in the vicinity of this plane. An aureole is thereby produced about the magnetic globe, with ray-structure at the poles, the whole thing strongly resembling pictures of the sun's corona.
Rarefied gases, rendered luminous by similar discharges from the sun, would first emit a light of the own, and then diffuse that of the sun.
It is well known that the spectrum of the corona contains above all a brilliant ray of coronium λ =5304, and besides this there is a faint continuous spectrum, probably due to reflected solar light.
If the sun's corona is of an electric origin such as we have here assumed, we might perhaps expect to see an enormous ring of light about the sun every time the earth, during an eclipse of the sun, stood very nearly in the plane of the sun's equator. This would have to be upon the assumption that in the spaces far from the sun there is a gas that can become electrically luminescent, or, in an electric state able to reflect sunlight.

And then there are pics of a big ring around the terrella with some spots on the surface. So, in all, according to Birkeland's experiment, the corona would be a ring around the sun, which his pictures also show.

And the "might perhaps expect" does not seem convincing reasoning.

And by the way, it's the rings of Saturn, not Jupiter (although Jupiter has a very thin ring too).

 

[tusenfem]

Furthermore, nowhere in your quote does the term "current" appear, nor does it indicate that there is any charge imbalance in this flow of particles. The term "current" is only used once in the article, and it is not for two-hour events. But none of this is relevant to the question of the sun's supposed solid shell, and heat transfer away from that shell. Except to suggest that the energies involved in any mass flows are going to be far smaller than the radiant energies involved (ie, you're wrong).

To be fair to Michael Mozina this flux rope that interacted with the Earth's magnetosphere does carry a lot of current. These are structures in the solar wind in which there is a "central guide field" along which the currents flow to create the "toroidal component" of the flux rope. These structures are rather common in the solar wind and enter the Earth's magnetosphere on the day side or the tail on the night side regularly. Usually, these things are called FTEs (Flux Transfer Events).

Chris Russell at UCLA has a nice page on which he mentions flux ropes.

However, the exaggerated language used by the investigators on the press release is not believed by any serious scientist, about there being a "direct connection between the Sun and the Earth's atmosphere". It sounds nice and spectacular, but it is total rubbish and press releases like that should not be send out. The scientists should pre-read what they are claiming in the text before letting it go. I cannot find the published paper at the moment, but will look for it on my pc.

 

[Reality Check]

The same photons you see in the original image are directly related to the photon intensity in the RD images.

Almost right.
The original images were created by photons.
The RD animations were not created by photons. The intensity of the pixels in the RD frames is not related to the photons in an original image.
The RD animations were created by mathematical operations on pairs of original images. The pixels represent changes between pixels in pairs of original images.

...snipped usual rant...