Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Andrew Wiggin]

Yet another epic fail of physics ignorance.

QFT

Is there any way we can add this to the thread title?

A

 

[tusenfem]

[qimg]http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/birkelandyohkohmini.jpg[/qimg]

Hey look, it's Birkeland trying to explain the rings of Saturn using his terrella emitting white light and a picture of the sun taken in X-ray.

Yeah, that's really the same!

ETA: Let's go to Birkies book (coz I need to use it anyway for my presentation on Aurora in September). This terella pic first shows up in Book 3, Chapter IV, page 84 (or page 765 (661) of the pdf). Mr. B. writes (my bolding):

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 that the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and disruptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 247b [that would be the terrella pic, 1005] (which happens to be a unipolar discharge) may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great. If the magnetisation of the globe be reduced (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 (Fig. 247 b) [which would be a side view of a ring around the terrella, 1005]. It has been possible for the ring to develope in such a manner that it could easily be demonstrated by radiation on the most distant wall of my large vacuum-tube (see fig. 217). The corresponding 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.

So, it apparently serves many purposes, first it is supposed to be Saturn's rings and then suddenly come a "ring around the sun" creating zodiacal light. Anyway, in this whole study note that the matter is radiant, i.e. it produces its own light, which is clearly not what the rings of Saturn and zodiacal light are doing.

Then there is some discussion about coronium (interesting that MM has not taken that up).

Then Mr. B. starts to discuss discharges, and finds "white spots" on his globe.

In the experiments represented in figs. 248 a e, there are some small patches on the globe, which are due to a kind of discharge that, under ordinary circumstances, is disruptive, and which radiates from points on the cathode. If the globe has a smooth surface and is not magnetized the disruptive discharges come rapidly one after another, and are distributed more or less uniformly all over the globe (see a). On the other hand,
if the globe is magnetised, even very slightly, the patches from which the
disruptive discharges issue, arrange themselves then in two zones parallel
with the magnetic equator of the globe; and the more powerfully the globe
is magnetised, the nearer do they come to the equator (see b, c, d|. With a
constant magnetisation, the zones of patches will be found near the equator
if the discharge-tension is low, but far from the equator if the tension is high.

Then an interesting comment:

If the pressure of the gas is very small during these discharges, there issues (fig. 249, globe not magnetised) from each of the patches narrow pencil of cathode-rays so intense that the gas is illuminated all along the pencil up to the wall of the tube. This splendid phenomenon recalls our hypothesis according to which sun-spots sometimes send out into space long pencils of cathode-rays.

Though interesting this may be, we know that sun spots are magnetic structures. So, it is reminiscent of, but that is all. The experiment is NOT a model for the emission of a sunspot as the globe was unmagnetized. Although later the globe gets "slightly magnetized" and then there are still pencils of cathode rays.

Then about "MM's mountains"

If the metallic globe surrounding the electro-magnet is not smooth, but has sharp points on its surface, for instance near the poles, the disruptive discharges would issue at these points, and it will be necessary to use a stronger magnetisation to make the patches arrange themselves in zones round the equator.

Then the pressure of the gas is increased in the experiment.

If the pressure of the gas increases, the pencils of rays no longer issue radially from the globe, as in fig. 249, but the disruptive discharges as seen to manifest themselves in the shape of a star with four or five arms (see fig. 250), coming from an eruptive spot, and almost following the surface of the non-magnetic globe, to meet often at a point on the globe diametrically opposite.

and then something about vortices in these "stars"

It almost always happens too, in the experiment in which the cathode-globe is magnetised, that there are two or three luminous branches turning in a spiral about the eruptive spot and near the surface of the globe. These vortices move in the opposite direction to that of the hands of a watch on the hemisphere containing the magnetic north pole, and in the same direction on the opposite hemisphere.
This corresponds exactly with the results recently obtained by HALE, ELLERMAN, and Fox relative to vortices in the hydrogen filaments and calcium vapour round a sun-spot, provided it is admitted, as I
have found, that the sun and the earth are inversely magnetised

Then on page 769(665) the same picture turns up as at the beginning of the chapter, the one describing the rings of Saturn. About the picture Mr. B. now writes:

Fig. 253 shows how a branch of discharge issuing from the spots sometimes follows the magnetic lines of force in the neighbourhood of the equator, giving rise to a phenomenon which greatly resembles the black filaments on the sun, studied by HALE, ELLERMAN, Fox, EVERSHED, DESLANDRES and D'AZAMBUJA.

(ofcourse Mr. B was wrong about field lines here, they do not exist as the magnetic field is a conituum, but that as an aside)

Now, here it is getting interestig, because how is this cathode "discharging" onto itself? I do not see an explanation for this, in the text, how this discharge is happening in the terella, where the globe is only a cathode. I guess we would have to find the answer at the bottom of the page:

Sun-spots may be considered as the eruptive centres of similar disruptive discharges, and the question then immediately arises: Where shall we seek for the positive pole of these discharges, in which the spots, or that which surrounds them, represent the cathode?

There are several possible solutions to this question.

In the first place, it might be imagined that the interior of the sun formed the positive pole for enormous electric currents, while perhaps the faculae, in particular, round the spots, formed the negative poles. Or it might be imagined that the positive poles for the discharges were to be found outside the photosphere, for instance in the sun's corona, the primary cause of the discharge being the driving away of negative ions from the outermost layers of the sun's atmosphere in some way or other for instance, as ARRHENIUS has assumed, by light-pressure after condensation of matter round them. Finally, it might be assumed and this, according to the experimental analogies, seems the most probable assumption - that the sun, in relation to space, has an enormous negative electric tension of about 600 million volts.

What I think is happening is that there is, indeed, a discharge between the cathode ball and the anode box. With the strong magnitization of the ball, the electrons will follow the magnetic lines of force, and they excite the "dense" gas, making it glow and at the "tips" of the luminiscent rings, the electrons are uncoupled and go to the anode, which is not visible in the pictures that Birkeland took.

So, unfortunately, this experiment, how interesting it may be, does not describe sun spots, nor solar flares.

 

[Myriad]

Well, the intent of downloading the Solarsoft libraries was to start that process [measuring the angular velocity vs. latitude] in a more professional manner. We'll see how it goes, but I like the results I see thus far, particularly in less active phases of the sun's cycle.

I look forward to your paper showing the results of quantitative measurements of the angular velocity of the surface features you claim to be observing with this imaging method, versus solar latitude.

If and when you can show measurements consistent with a rigid sphere with a solid surface, that can withstand scrutiny of the methodology and quantitative analysis used, you'll have a case to offer.

Until then, I have a different explanation to offer for the persistence of local features on or near the sun's surface for periods of hours to days: sheer scale. The scale of features in the images you post is not always clear from the images themselves (I'm sure it was clear in context in the original sources) but at least some of them (in which the arc of the limb is apparent) are on the order of the diameter of the earth, and larger. So for instance if a feature is 10,000 kilometers across, lateral fluid movement at velocities on the order of 2,000 kilometers per hour would take at least 5 hours to erase it, even in the absence of such structurally persistent fluid processes as vorticity or convection cells.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Reality Check]

No, the "correct explanation" is that these are typically discharge processes that are directly related to volcanic activity, or they are related to induction processes as plasma sweeps past the rigid, sometimes metallic surface features. The CME event was certainly related a volcanic event so the center of that activity is located at the main volcanic vent that dumps solids into the plasma atmosphere and sets off a firestorm of electrical activity in the plasma atmosphere.

I see that the "correct explanation" is your continued ignorance of basic physics and just what an electrical discharge is.
Volcanic activity in a "iron crust" at a temperature of at least 9400 K! This volcanic activity is your iron crust vaporizing billions of years ago .

I will give you another chance to answer the actual question before adding it to the evergrowing list:
Why are the coronal loops in the RD images aligned along your "mountain ranges"?

All you have to do is show how your electric discharges that violate all the laws of physics also obey some other magical rule that aligns them along the mountain ranges.

Tomorrow I will also add:
Why does the apparent height of your "mountain ranges" depend on the timing of source images for the RD process when the light sources and mountains in the images are the same?
(No measurement of the height of the mountains is needed. Just explain why they change according to how you do the RD process.)

 

[GeeMack]

You evidently read only one half of the article and missed the rest, the part where he explains its a "shallow" phenomenon:



Emphasis mine. The *ROOTS* are HOTTER and the "tornado" in the atmosphere is a relatively "shallow" event at which point by the way, all the movements of plasma flatten out and go horizontal.

All you're observing is twisters in the atmosphere where they eventually touch down at the surface and the movements of plasma (air in the case of a planet) follow the contours of the surface again. The photosphere "surface" is not the surface I'm talking about. What Kosovichev is ultimately describing is this:

http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_991127.mov

It's the same image I posted for Tim yesterday. Those twisters follow along the "surface", the rigid surface under the photosphere, not the surface of the photosphere that Kosovichev is describing.

That "subsurface stratification" sticks out like a giant, dense, rigid sore thumb inside what is supposed to be an open convection zone of upwelling superheated plasma in gas model theory.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

You're simply "misrepresenting" what he said in terms of heliosiesmology and how it applies here. Nobody claimed the photosphere was "rigid", and you missed the whole "shallow phenomenon" aspect of his comments.

In terms of helioseismology, Kosovichev is describing a change in the direction of the movement of the plasma. It is still moving. That "giant, dense, rigid sore thumb inside what is supposed to be an open convection zone of upwelling superheated plasma in gas model theory" is plasma changing its generally up/down movement, at several thousands kilometers per hour, to a generally horizontal movement, oh, and still at several thousand kilometers per hour.

Nothing about plasma moving at such great speeds directly through your mythical solid surface would indicate in any way that there's anything solid in there.

Oh, and speaking of misrepresenting Kosovichev's work, you're using it to try to sell the idea of an impossible solid iron crust on the Sun. You are the one misrepresenting something here. And, Michael, that is fraud. It's fraud when you say it here and it's fraud when you say it on your web site.

Kosovichev disagrees with you, as do all other professional physicists on Earth. You have failed to demonstrate that helioseismology supports your crackpot claim.

 

[Reality Check]

Where is your calculation that the crust is detected in Helioseismology

They do. Read the article and notice what happens to all the sound waves at approximately .997-.995R. Why does that happen?

It happens because there is a subsurface stratification, i.e. a change in the density of the plasma, as stated in the paper.

First asked 15 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
Do you think that Sandrine Lefebvre, Alexander Kosovichev and other scientists investigating the subsurface stratification of the Sun cannot tell the difference between

• A small change in density in a plasma and
• An iron crust at massive densities compared to the surrounding plasma (that happens to be at a tempertaur of > 9400 K and so vaporized the iron crust billions of years ago)?

If your answer is yes then show your calculations that show that they cannot tell the difference and so your thermodynamically impossible iron crust is still cannot be what they detect.

Helioseismology uses models in which the Sun is a plasma and the waves are deformed by changes in plasma density. IMO The deformations caused by your thermodynamically impossible iron crust woyuld be very different and easily detected.

 

[Reality Check]

How thick would your iron crust need to be in order to not collapse under gravity

First asked 15 April 2010
Michael Mozina,
A simple question that you must have done the calculations for years ago.

How thick would your iron crust need to be in order to not collapse under the force of gravity?

 

[Dancing David]

Probably because you wouldn't like either possible answer I could give you?

Shall we base this overly-simplistic "very quick one number" you're looking for on *mainstream* plasma abundance figures and plasma layering schemes, or the layered plasma model on my website? That one isn't "very quick" nor very likely to please you anyway. The first one isn't even of interest to me personally.

So I take it your answer is "No I can't" and here is a list of reasons why.

Okay MM, he asked and it is a valid question, you don't have yet another quantifiable result.

How about a fudged back of the envelope guesstimate?

 

[GeeMack]

I assume you're saying all of this for Brantc's benefit not mine because I personally am definitely not suggesting that the sun is made of solid iron.

The sun's overall composition is pretty much what we find in ordinary meteorites IMO, but the overall mass is exactly the same as standard theory. There's simply a different arrangement of elements and a different composition of elements in the solar models I have proposed. The overall mass need not be, and is in fact not different than standard theory IMO. It is therefore impossible IMO for the sun to be "solid iron".

... or for it to have a solid iron surface/crust. But it sure is easy for you to claim that without, you know, any quantitative support whatsoever. Where was it I read something like this?...

Since you never produced any paper to back up that claim we can only surmise that you pulled that [idea] out of your ^ss.

 

[GeeMack]

I have *NEVER* claimed anyone could measure the height of mountains in RD solar images. That is your own strawman.

So you're saying the mountains on the Sun could have no height at all. After all, they can't be measured. Although I can change the height of the mountains by adjusting the offset on the running difference graphs. But then again, I'm somewhat of an expert at that running difference stuff while you've never been able to demonstrate that you're qualified to even venture a valid opinion on it.

 

[sol invictus]

Michael?

I'm asking you for one number, a number that you must have immediately available if not in your head.

What is the optical depth to the iron surface at the wavelengths where you claim it is visible?

 

[Dancing David]

I missed this one earlier too. Actually its not an "iron shell", that claim is actually their strawman. FYI, GM and RC spend an inordinate amount of time *MISREPRESENTING* my model. IMO it's composed of an an ordinary volcanic surface "crust", complete with silicates and carbon, etc.

Given the mass and size of the sun MM, it would be a hollow sphere, not a solid iron ball. A solid ball would be much heavier than the current measured mass of the sun.

So now it is not an iron sun but a 'roccky sun?

I bet that makes things worse, as the melting point is probably even lower.

 

[Dancing David]

It doesn't because I have never claimed you could measure the height of mountain ranges in RD images. That's another of your personal *MISREPRESENTATIONS* of my theory.

The reason these structures "blur" so badly in GM's RD images is due to the relative movement of the surface over that lengthy timeframe (6 hours?). The images still retain a lot of "structure" but it's "blurred" by the significant movement of the surface during that time. The RD images are not "blurred" like that as long as the two images used are less than about 30 minutes apart.

So, it is a mountain but it has no heigth?

 

[Dancing David]

From TRACE you can see the surface at 1200. But the actual temperature is an average of the surface conditions; look at this HINODE map. This shows the expansion of the iron plasma. It cools and then is accelerated(heats).
http://hinode.nao.ac.jp/news_e/20100309_press_e/

Click on the bottom picture.
See how the footprints expand outward as the magnetic field climbs. That is the reason for the appearance of the elevated temperature at the limb. Because you are looking at a combination of hot footprints(molten to FeIV) and cold surface.



Iron has the very interesting property of what is termed "Magnetostriction."
When current is passed through iron it acts like a piezoelectric electric crystal in that it contracts and expands. See Terfenol-D.

So when the huge current that runs through the shell to power the flares and CME's oscillates from the latest flare. It shows up as a clear signal in the iron as it expands and contracts in response to the current flow.



The surface can be seen with the light from the surface. Its actually light from the footprints, solar moss and other activity. It just happens to show at the same wavelength as the transition layer. So when you are looking at the lower transition layer you are also looking at the surface(using 1200A) etc..

So where does that current come from?

 

[Dancing David]

Conceptually its a pretty simple idea.

A sphere the size of the sun has the ability to focus a lot of energy in the center if it were to act like an antenna.
If it were an spherical antenna that received "aether"(insert "some universal energy") and acted like a transformer and then turned it into electrons which then flowed in the shell to produce the current driving the effects we see.

Kinda like a sphere when it gets statically charged except in this case the charge is huge.

And the evidence for this mechanism with the aether is?

 

[Dancing David]

I assume you're saying all of this for Brantc's benefit not mine because I personally am definitely not suggesting that the sun is made of solid iron.

The sun's overall composition is pretty much what we find in ordinary meteorites IMO, but the overall mass is exactly the same as standard theory. There's simply a different arrangement of elements and a different composition of elements in the solar models I have proposed. The overall mass need not be, and is in fact not different than standard theory IMO. It is therefore impossible IMO for the sun to be "solid iron".

So now it is a rocky sphere that is hollow.

 

[GeeMack]

No but you'll find more images by Kosovichev on my website on the Blog page near the bottom that demonstrate that effect from another paper.

Those graphs that show mass moving at somewhere in the neighborhood of 1300 meters per second directly through your mythical solid surface?

They do. Read the article and notice what happens to all the sound waves at approximately .997-.995R. Why does that happen?

What happens at .995R? Well according to the article the plasma flow changes from a generally vertical to a generally horizontal direction. There is nothing at all that indicates the plasma stops moving. And that continued movement, regardless of direction, is wholly contradictory to the existence of some mythical solid iron surface hiding in there somewhere.

It's been proven to the satisfaction of the participants in this discussion that you aren't qualified to understand running difference imagery, and now you're well on your way to proving that you are equally competent when it comes to helioseismology.

And you seem to have changed the location of your mythical surface from somewhere within the photosphere to somewhere around 3000 kilometers down. Oh, that's right, you don't do numbers!

 

[GeeMack]

Hey look, it's Birkeland trying to explain the rings of Saturn using his terrella emitting white light and a picture of the sun taken in X-ray.

[...]

So, unfortunately, this experiment, how interesting it may be, does not describe sun spots, nor solar flares.

Thanks for the good analysis, tusenfem. Michael never has been willing to take responsibility for his own crackpot ideas. Somehow it seems to make him feel better to blame the dead guy.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Conceptually its a pretty simple idea.

A sphere the size of the sun has the ability to focus a lot of energy in the center if it were to act like an antenna.
If it were an spherical antenna that received "aether"(insert "some universal energy") and acted like a transformer and then turned it into electrons which then flowed in the shell to produce the current driving the effects we see.

Kinda like a sphere when it gets statically charged except in this case the charge is huge.

See, now this is a testable hypothesis. After all, that 'aether' should be affecting the earth too, so if you were to create an iron sphere that mimics the sun as you believe it works, it would start heating up. Now the heat gained would of course be minimal due to size differences, but fortunately there are machines that nowadays can detect such minimal gain in energy.
So all you have to do to prove your theory is find a someone willing to perform said experiment. As it would also immediately give humanity a new and unknown source of power and upset physics as we know it, I'm sure someone, somewhere is willing to do so, after all, it wouldn't have to take too long.
Of course, there is the rather large possibility that nothing will actually happen, in which case your solar model is wrong. But at least you'd have tested it. And that is the only true way to do science.

 

[Michael Mozina]

See, now this is a testable hypothesis. After all, that 'aether' should be affecting the earth too, so if you were to create an iron sphere that mimics the sun as you believe it works, it would start heating up. Now the heat gained would of course be minimal due to size differences, but fortunately there are machines that nowadays can detect such minimal gain in energy.

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

Personally I'd be inclined to start with Tesla's earliest and frankly "crudest" designs related to wireless transfers of energy. It would have to be a fairly simple process. The overall effect on bodies in space would have to work in a "natural" setting, and be easily created in a "natural" way.

You mentioned the size difference that might be important, but the "internal configuration" (hollow vs solid) may have a lot to do with the process. Planets like Saturn and Jupiter experience *FAR* more powerful discharges in their atmosphere's than the Earth. The size of the sphere seems to dictate the flow of energy, and the transfer of wireless energy. Perhaps a larger body tends to be hollow and tends to resonate, whereas a solid core body like the Earth tends to simply "heat up" at a much slower pace?

If we imagined the universe as a infinite series of standing waves of EM energy, the larger the diameter of the inner chamber of the sphere, the larger the transfer of energy from the field to the center of the sphere. The largest sphere in the area tends to "resonate" that energy through the shell and creates a "bubble" and electromagnetic current flow between the surface of the sphere and the heliosphere where the interstellar plasma meets up with the current flow from the resonating sphere.

So all you have to do to prove your theory is find a someone willing to perform said experiment.

Birkeland tested all the key components with the exception of the wireless energy transfer part. It would be really interesting to give the idea a shot in a lab and see what happens. The primary discharge processes have already been explained and tested by Birkeland and his friends, so the real focus would need to be on the wireless energy aspect. The rest of the design already works and has already been "tested".

FYI, you'll find links to his work on my website along with links to Alfven's work. Those are your two best references in terms of EU theory IMO.

As it would also immediately give humanity a new and unknown source of power and upset physics as we know it,

You might check out that wireless energy link. That market is already being exploited for profit. It doesn't really "explain" where the energy originates (though the core of the galaxy would be the obvious first choice), but it would explain the longevity of a sun pretty darn well.

I'm sure someone, somewhere is willing to do so, after all, it wouldn't have to take too long.

Hey, if someone is willing to fund it, I'd be willing to pitch in, in fact I'd be happy to do it if someone want to pay for all the toys and time.

Of course, there is the rather large possibility that nothing will actually happen, in which case your solar model is wrong.

Well, the worst that could happen is the wireless transfer of energy thing might not pan out. Oh well. How much does the government spend every year on "dark energy" research anyway?

But at least you'd have tested it. And that is the only true way to do science.

Well, it's only time and money. The money part is what makes me resent all the money being spent on "frivolous" research, and nothing that might actually work in a real lab and turn into a real consumer product.