Electric universe theories here.

[Reality Check]

What temperature is the solar wind?

The tempertaure corresponding to a million milles per hour.
ETA
Fast solar wind: 750 km/s, a temperature of 8 × 105 K.

This is a silly question. Did you even read the paper, yes or no?

What paper?
I read the link you gave. There is no math in the appropriate section.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, it's not "wrong", you simply selected a plasma with more valence shell configurations and therefore a broader spectral output.

You don't get it, do you? Either emission is confined to atomic absorption lines, or it's not. Adding more lines doesn't change that.

It' is however still limited to emitting photons at wavelengths related to the valence shell configurations of the plasma.

No, it clearly isn't. Let me quote from my source:
"Its output simulates sunlight because it provides intense broadband illumination without prominent spectral lines in either the ultraviolet or the visible wavelength regions (Figure 2)."
And this is figure 2. Note the red curve: we've got light output across the entire spectrum. This is in marked contrast to the actual spectral lines of xenon. We've got a hell of a lot of light which is not spectral lines.

Because hydrogen and helium lack the internal valence shell configurations as Xenon! These lighter elements are not capable of emitting the same spectral lines!

I know they are not. But that doesn't matter, because plasmas can emit light at energies other than atomic spectral lines. Which is exactly what a xenon arc lamp shows: xenon is emitting at energies other than xenon spectral lines. Which brantc said was impossible, but is rather clearly happening. But evidently, you can't understand that rather simple fact even after having it presented to you on a silver platter.

Edit: and you still haven't backed up your claims about the solar wind keeping your solid surface cool with any numbers, your own or anyone else's.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Oh sit on it, MM, in all of my papers electro is in there (but then I am in the Cluster team, even in the top 10 of first-author publications after 1000 Cluster/DoubleStar papers ex aequo on #5).

Yet you continue to peddle "magnetic reconnection" theory even though Alfven himself called it "pseudoscience"? Why?

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

The culprit turns out to be magnetic reconnection, a common process that occurs throughout the universe when stressed magnetic field lines suddenly "snap" to a new shape, like a rubber band that's been stretched too far.

Boloney. Not only is it not a "common process" in nature, it does not ever actually occur in nature. An electrical discharges however is a "common process" that is known to release vast amounts of energy.

You apparently have no knowledge about what modern mainstream plasma(astro)/space physics is all about. Did you read my last paper, in which I discussed currents, looked at electron data, etc etc.? I guess not.

Got a link? I'll be happy to read it.

And apparently you have no knowledge about how energy cascading happens in plasmas. This has *NOTHING* to do with electron flow, it has *NOTHING* to do with conductivity, and it has *NOTHINH* to do with a pinch effect.

Then it also has *NOTHING* whatsoever to do with what is heating the plasma in the solar atmosphere! It's these kinds of comments that erode your credibility with me. On one hand you note the "current flow" in the magnetic rope between the sun and the Earth, and yet you peddle something that is not only physically impossible, but something that Alfven himself rejected *vehemently*.

Your ignorance of modern plasma physics is staggering, why not stay at MHD and uncle Hannes, and please don't do any modern stuff.

Uncle Hannes kicked your whole team's butt as it relates to solar physics. Alfven wasn't peddling pseudoscience like magnetic reconnection theory. He chalked up these events to real events, specifically electrical discharge activities inside of plasma. His ideas work too, as we can see from the Rhessi images of Earth. Indeed the discharges in our own atmosphere emit the same high energy photons we expect to see from discharges in plasma and the same photons we observe in the solar atmosphere. You keep ignoring the work of a Nobel prize winning physicist and you keep peddling nonsense. Magnetic lines lack physical substance. They form as a full continuum, and they are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting' to any other magnetic "line". A null point of a magnetic line has no energy, so there is no way in hell that a null point in a magnetic line could release energy in the first place! On the other hand, a short circuit in two current carrying threads can and does emit photons and high energy particles.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You don't get it, do you? Either emission is confined to atomic absorption lines, or it's not. Adding more lines doesn't change that.

Adding more valence shells definitely *WILL* change the wavelength output!

No, it clearly isn't. Let me quote from my source:

Yes, it clearly is:

http://books.google.com/books?id=1X...le3wDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

"Its output simulates sunlight because it provides intense broadband illumination without prominent spectral lines in either the ultraviolet or the visible wavelength regions (Figure 2)."

A Xenon plasma has *MORE* spectral lines because it has MORE VALENCE shell configurations! Duh! Let's see recreate this same broad spectrum with hydrogen and helium ions without all the extra valence shells of Xenon.

Either you are utterly ignorant of quanta and how valance shells emit photons or you are ignoring the implications of this *PHYSICAL FACT*. Hydrogen and helium have a much smaller number of quanta that can be emitted from these atoms because they have significantly fewer valence shell configurations! That is a fact.

 

[Michael Mozina]

What paper?

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

I read the link you gave. There is no math in the appropriate section.

Which "section" did you actually read this morning?

 

[Ziggurat]

Adding more valence shells definitely *WILL* change the wavelength output!

But it cannot produce the observed spectrum unless plasma can radiate at frequencies other than atomic emission lines. Which is the point. And if Xenon can do that, why can't hydrogen? It can. Perhaps not as efficiently, but that's a step removed from the point we're at right now.

Yes, it clearly is:

Which has what, precisely, to do with the observed emission spectra of a xenon arc lamp? Oh, that's right: basically nothing. A xenon arc lamp emits across the entire spectrum, and not just at its atomic emission lines. I've shown that. You have no response to that experimentally observed fact.

A Xenon plasma has *MORE* spectral lines because it has MORE VALENCE shell configurations!

Yes, it does. And a xenon arc lamp also emits at frequencies which are not spectral lines of xenon. A fact you have yet to come to terms with. Or even acknowledge. Even though I've provided you with the experimental (not just theoretical) evidence of exactly that.

And I'm still waiting for you to quantify the basic parameters of your own theory. Come now, Michael, how hard can it be? The world wants to know about your theory, don't keep us in the dark any longer.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm

Which "section" did you actually read this morning?

As I stated:

What math?
In the "Solar Discharge Temperature" prediction (the topic we are talking about), he merely compares lightening to hypothetical electrical discharges on the Sun.

Of course Bruce's model is

1. Not yours (his electrical discharges are in the photosphere).
2. Wrong (Bruce, Discharge, gamma rays, solar electric & magnetic fields).

 

[Michael Mozina]

(bold added)

Perhaps you have difficulty remembering what JREF Forum members have said in response to your claims, per what they wrote in their posts?

Well, that's entirely possible considering how many folks I'm responding to.

Perhaps you remember quite well but choose to lie about it?

I have no reason to lie about anything, certainly nothing associated with any actual response you've ever made about these images because you won't touch them with a ten foot pole.

But one last attempt ...

The first images you posted here, in the JREF Forum, IIRC, are the two you copied, yet again, in post #1088 in this thread; specifically, a reproduction of a photograph of one of Birkeland's terrella experiments and a soft x-ray image of the Sun by Yohkoh. On your website this pair is captioned "Dr. Kristian Birkeland produced results in his experiments with an electromagnetic cathode sphere in his lab in the early 1900's that mirror observations from the Yohkoh satellite. Notice the energy and the photon emissions are concentrated in the arcs in both images. Coincidence?"

So, how did you conclude that "the energy and the photon emissions are concentrated in the arcs in both images"?

The photon emissions are clearly visible in the loops of both images, so your question about photon emission concentrations doesn't make sense to me. The loops would not emit light at all if there wasn't energy in them to emit that light.

What steps did you take to make your conclusion independently, objectively verifiable?

Birkeland explains his methods for creating these specific discharges in the atmosphere of the sphere. Did you read about how he created them? He "predicted' their existence in the solar atmosphere, and indeed we find them there as he predicted. Bruce scaled them to size in his work. Did you read that work?

PS Aren't you the one making claims about the Sun having a solid surface (or is it a rigid one)?

Well, it's one or the other, but IMO it's solid.

Doesn't the burden of substantiating that claim, through objectively verifiable *quantitative* analysis rest with you?

Yes and no. That depends on who's "claim" we're scrutinizing. Your side claims that our sun has no solid or rigid surface, it is mostly made of hydrogen and helium and yet none of you can explain these solar satellite images, or the heliosiesmology data using that theory. Why is that? In over four years of online discussions, not one of you has really explained these images using conventional theory. Why?

Your beliefs are not immune from scrutiny as it relates to these images, but you seem to believe that is the case here. If you want to change my opinions on this topic, all you really need to to is explain these images using conventional gas model theory. Since none of you can do that, I see no evidence that standard solar theory correctly "predicts" these images and events or that it has any merit. On the other hand, Birkeland's model does predict these features.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But it cannot produce the observed spectrum unless plasma can radiate at frequencies other than atomic emission lines. Which is the point.

You never demonstrated that point. You selected materials that are capable of emitting more lines!

And if Xenon can do that, why can't hydrogen? It can.

No, it cannot. You evidently didn't read anything in that link I provided you! Each quanta of energy that we observe (and that is absorbed) is directly related to a specific valance shell change inside the atom. Each element is unique internally and only certain elements are capable of emitting or absorbing specific wavelengths of light. As long as you attempt to deny this *FACT*, you will be in pure denial of atomic physics. I'll throw you a bone and note that on the *EMISSION SIDE* (not the absorption side) there is one rare exception (I won't tell you what it is since you haven't mentioned it yet), but it would have no effect at all on the absorption spectrum.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes, it does. And a xenon arc lamp also emits at frequencies which are not spectral lines of xenon.

That argument has no merit by the way. Xenon isn't the only element in a xenon lamp.

 

[Ziggurat]

You never demonstrated that point. You selected materials that are capable of emitting more lines!

Xenon arc lamps emit light at frequencies which are not xeonon emission lines. Do you honestly not understand what that means? I gave you the emission lines for xenon. I gave you the xenon arc lamp spectra. Look, for example, at 460 nm (4600 A). What do you see from Xenon atomic spectra? A big fat hole. What do you see in the xenon arc lamp spectra? Plenty of light. Can you really not compare the two? No, evidently you cannot.

No, it cannot. You evidently didn't read anything in that link I provided you! Each quanta of energy that we observe (and that is absorbed) is directly related to a specific valance shell change inside the atom. Each element is unique internally and only certain elements are capable of emitting or absorbing specific wavelengths of light. As long as you attempt to deny this *FACT*, you will be in pure denial of atomic physics.

Oh, this is rich. Suddenly experimental observations take a back seat to theory. Too bad you don't actually understand the theory. Or the fact that free electrons can also emit light. Now, if only I could find some free electrons...

And I'm still waiting for you to quantify your ideas.

 

[Ziggurat]

That argument has no merit by the way. Xenon isn't the only element in a xenon lamp.

It's the only gas, and hence the only element in the plasma. There are also xenon-mercury arc lamps, but I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the xenon-only arc lamps. And yes, the light comes from the xenon plasma, not the electrodes. So fail. Again.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Xenon arc lamps emit light at frequencies which are not xeonon emission lines.

How? You do realize the xenon isn't the only particle inside a xenon bulb, right?

Do you honestly not understand what that means?

Ya, but I don't think you do understand what that means. If xenon was the only element present, you argument might have merit. Because that is not the case, you have no argument.

I gave you the emission lines for xenon.

How about tungsten or any of the other impurities present in such a bulb?

Oh, this is rich. Suddenly experimental observations take a back seat to theory.

No, the quanta emission pattern of elements has been measured in *MANY* experiments. You're citing *ONE* scenario where *MANY* elements are actually present and ignoring the fact that other elements are also present in that bulb.

Too bad you don't actually understand the theory. Or the fact that free electrons can also emit light. Now, if only I could find some free electrons...

Now if only you could make them move at relativistic speeds you might have an argument.

 

[D'rok]

Yes, you keep saying that. But how much heat is it moving away from the sun? How much heat can it move away from the sun? Is that enough to keep your solid shell layer colder than the 6000 K part of the sun that we see? Why can't you answer such basic, fundamental questions about your own theory? Why was it left to me to do the calculations? And if you don't like my calculations, why don't you provide what you consider more accurate numbers? Like I said before, these aren't complex calculations. They're rather easy, in fact. But you consistently refuse to quantify any of your ideas.

Bump for Michael. Enquiring lurkers want to know.

Bumpity-bump.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It's the only gas, and hence the only element in the plasma.

BS. From your own link:

Lamp construction
An end-view of a 15 kW IMAX lamp showing the liquid-cooling ports

All modern xenon short-arc lamps use a fused quartz envelope with thorium-doped tungsten electrodes. Fused quartz is the only economically feasible material currently available that can withstand the high pressure (25 atmospheres for an IMAX bulb) and high temperature present in an operating lamp while still being optically clear. The thorium dopant in the electrodes greatly enhances their electron emission characteristics. Because tungsten and quartz have different coefficients of thermal expansion, the tungsten electrodes are welded to strips of pure molybdenum metal or Invar alloy, which are then melted into the quartz to form the envelope seal.

So.....
You're ignoring the impurities that were *ADDED INTENTIONALLY* to the xenon bulb. You ignore the pressure differences between the 25 ATM in a xenon bulb and your extremely light photosphere. You ignore the fact you can't get synchrotron light from anything without electricity. You ignore the fact that hydrogen and helium are not the same as xenon in terms of the emissions they generate. Is there anything else you didn't acknowledge?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Let's look at the emission lines for elements
http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/discharge/xenon.html

Notice all those different lines at different locations?

http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/discharge/hydrogen.html
http://astro.u-strasbg.fr/~koppen/discharge/helium.html

Do you notice the few number of emission lines present in hydrogen and helium?

Don't you figure that the whole reason they use xenon inside of a xenon bulb rather than helium and hydrogen has something to do with the "white light" that xenon emits? Did you read that part about how they doped the electrode? Do you notice that the xenon gas has very *specific wavelengths* that it actually generates? Why are these lines in these images?

 

[Dancing David]

From the Cluster article:



Are they really attempting to claim that "heat' drives the solar wind process, or is that just one of those 'press release' errors?

Here was an interesting comment.....



So how exactly does the sun heat plasma at over 50 AU if not due to a discharge process between the sun and the heliosphere?

I really do not understand how your industry can see all these different pieces of the electric puzzle and still not be able to put them together to be able to see the whole picture. It's like watching the blind lead the blind.

Maybe you should read what you quote
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=45273

This result could improve the theoretical models which describe heating of the corona and the solar wind. Indeed, the heating as evidenced here is shown to happen via damping of the turbulence by Landau resonances rather than cyclotron ones, which are generally evoked to heat the solar corona. It is also shown that damping of turbulence by electrons is more important and efficient than by protons, which may be considered in global modelling of heat fluxes and radiation in the corona. More generally, this new vision of turbulence, where a large amount of energy is deposited onto electrons may be applicable in other astrophysical contexts where electrons are heated or accelerated (for example, accretion disks around stars and the acceleration of cosmic rays).

Landau damping (Which is beyond my math but apparently plasma is well studied)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Kf...n13J8B&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

It would appear to my untrained eye and mind but appeciative self, that the plasma in large small, medium and large scale structures of astronomy is not unconsidered or unstudied.

 

[tusenfem]

Yet you continue to peddle "magnetic reconnection" theory even though Alfven himself called it "pseudoscience"? Why?

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


Boloney. Not only is it not a "common process" in nature, it does not ever actually occur in nature. An electrical discharges however is a "common process" that is known to release vast amounts of energy.

Alfvén was wrong, living in an MHD world in which reconnection cannot happen. I would love to see you explain in detail the observations by Runov et al. 2003 with just induction, please amuse us, and show how it really works.

Got a link? I'll be happy to read it.

Here you go

Then it also has *NOTHING* whatsoever to do with what is heating the plasma in the solar atmosphere! It's these kinds of comments that erode your credibility with me. On one hand you note the "current flow" in the magnetic rope between the sun and the Earth, and yet you peddle something that is not only physically impossible, but something that Alfven himself rejected *vehemently*.

That's rubbish! Do you really think that the only way of heating a plasma and moving energy from large to small scales it though electric current dissipation? And Alfvén hardly wrote the last chapter on plasma physics, there have been new developments in the last 30 years that Alfvén did not actively participate in new research in plasma physics.

But I very much doubt that Alfven would have objected to turbulence and cascading from large to small scales, until it reaches the dissipation scale. Maybe you should read some of the work by my colleage Vörös about turbulence and dissipation.

Uncle Hannes kicked your whole team's butt as it relates to solar physics. Alfven wasn't peddling pseudoscience like magnetic reconnection theory. He chalked up these events to real events, specifically electrical discharge activities inside of plasma. His ideas work too, as we can see from the Rhessi images of Earth. Indeed the discharges in our own atmosphere emit the same high energy photons we expect to see from discharges in plasma and the same photons we observe in the solar atmosphere. You keep ignoring the work of a Nobel prize winning physicist and you keep peddling nonsense. Magnetic lines lack physical substance. They form as a full continuum, and they are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting' to any other magnetic "line". A null point of a magnetic line has no energy, so there is no way in hell that a null point in a magnetic line could release energy in the first place! On the other hand, a short circuit in two current carrying threads can and does emit photons and high energy particles.

Okay, then show us, MM, show us in detail that you can explain all observations by Runov et al. without "disconnection", how you explain the change in topology with induction, how you explain the outflow of plasma and magnetic field, how you explain the quadrupolar magnetic field, etc. etc. It is time that you show something significant, because we only get your whining about Alfven's pseudoscience. You have no notion about the details of magnetic reconnection, nor any idea about plasma physics. You are stuck in the 1960s MHD.

But I am sure I will only get as an answer "Read Birkeland, it's all in his book."

 

[Dancing David]

BS. From your own link:



So.....
You're ignoring the impurities that were *ADDED INTENTIONALLY* to the xenon bulb. You ignore the pressure differences between the 25 ATM in a xenon bulb and your extremely light photosphere. You ignore the fact you can't get synchrotron light from anything without electricity. You ignore the fact that hydrogen and helium are not the same as xenon in terms of the emissions they generate. Is there anything else you didn't acknowledge?

Wow MM, perhaps you should chill and take a step back. Zig gave you a reference for how a xenon bulb approximates a black body and you get all bent out of shape. You seem to ignore the caveats that Zig put into his statement and then go all Don Quixote on a straw giant. Take a break, try to respond rationally. Zig was pointing out that it has an approximate balck body spectrum.

Stay on focus and you will be more coherent.

Chill dude, how thick is the photosphere? Calling it a 'light' photosphere does not change it's size, optical depth references were also given by another.

Chill lest you get shrill.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Bumpity-bump.

I hear you. I'm still trying to figure out a valid way of calculating such a number. It seems like a fair request, but it isn't a simple calculation.