Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Ziggurat]

Tiny. 500 microns.

Exactly. That makes them much smaller than the optical depth most of the time.

The bubbles demonstrate the principle of pressure broadening in the lab.

And pressure broadening is the same thing as decreasing optical depth. If you don't know why, you don't understand optical depth.

And you can track the spectrum with changes in pressure that are not normally available in the lab. It was this that gave me the first clue that lead to an examination of blackbodies.

Keep examining them, because you haven't figured them out yet.

And they give you some number as to what to expect in the way of pressure vs continuum. 9000 atmospheres just to get a continuum, not even a blackbody..

In a 500 micron bubble. Because that's what it takes to make the optical depth that short. But we don't need to go to 9000 atmospheres if we just make the object thick enough. Either way, the critical parameter is the ratio of optical depth to physical thickness. If your object is thinner than the optical depth, you won't get blackbody radiation. If it's thicker than the optical depth, you will. Quite simple, really.

The "bottom"(IR opacity 1) of the photosphere is nowhere near that pressure.

And it's nowhere near 500 microns thin, either. Optical depth, brantc. You still haven't figured it out.

 

[Ziggurat]

The heat capacity of a thin plasma is lower than a solid like iron. It also radiates less(same thing).

Those are NOT the same thing at all. Heat capacity and emissivity are completely different quantities.

And the heat capacity of plasma is irrelevant to the thermodynamic impossibility of your solid iron surface. All that matters is that the hot layer is (observably) opaque. If there is anything at lower temperature underneath this hot opaque layer, then there will be a net energy flow inwards, and the inside will quickly heat up. The only thing heat capacity contributes to that process is the time it takes to reach a given temperature, but even a bit of number crunching reveals that the heat capacity of iron isn't even close to large enough (not by many orders of magnitude) to let it remain solid for as long as we know the solar system has been around.

Your confusing two different models here. My model is using electrons derived from the aether to power the sun.

That's not a model, that's word salad. It means nothing. You've got no description of how electrons are "derived" from the aether, or even what the aether is.

The remarkable thing I think is that I have a laboratory example to back up every process that I am describing.

You've got a laboratory example to back up electrons being derived from the aether and producing power? Yeah, um... no, you don't.

 

[GeeMack]

Thats right!!! My model, idea, hypothesis is just as good.

Well, with the teensy little exception that your conjecture is physically impossible and not supported by evidence.

 

[Reality Check]

I just relaized that I am being a bit charitable to your rather easily debunked idea of a solid iron surface on the Sun by citing the boiling point of iron (3114 K). Actually

1. The measured temperature of the Sun is ~5777 K.
2. The melting point of iron is 1811 K.
3. No place on the Sun has a measured temperature less than the melting point of iron.
4. Thus there can be no solid iron surface on the Sun.

Also see Tim Thompson's clearly written and informational posts on this subject

• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible
• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible II
• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible III
• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IV (in reply to Micheal Mozina's similiar idea)
• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible V
• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible VI

 

[tusenfem]

Your confusing two different models here. My model is using electrons derived from the aether to power the sun. There is some fusion that happens on the surface in loops as evidenced by the gamma observations as well as every other frequency of radiation. and there are temperatures hot enough for the CNO cycle in pinches (reconnections) that happen in loops.

then maybe it is time that you specifically write down this model of yours, powered by "eather electrons" and show the complete circuit and the energy needed that needs to go into the sun to make it shine, and show why those electrons do not create a magnetic field that is orders of magnitude greater than was it observed in the solar wind, and what exactly is driving these electrons, the electromotive force, etc. etc. etc.

And pinches are not reconnections.

 

[brantc]

Stanford Report, August 23, 2010
The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements

When researchers found an unusual linkage between solar flares and the inner life of radioactive elements on Earth, it touched off a scientific detective investigation that could end up protecting the lives of space-walking astronauts and maybe rewriting some of the assumptions of physics.

<snip>

The sun speaks

"On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare."

<snip>

The decay-rate aberrations that Jenkins noticed occurred during the middle of the night in Indiana – meaning that something produced by the sun had traveled all the way through the Earth to reach Jenkins' detectors. What could the flare send forth that could have such an effect?

<snip>

All of the evidence points toward a conclusion that the sun is "communicating" with radioactive isotopes on Earth, said Fischbach.

But there's one rather large question left unanswered. No one knows how neutrinos could interact with radioactive materials to change their rate of decay.

"It doesn't make sense according to conventional ideas," Fischbach said. Jenkins whimsically added, "What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."

"It's an effect that no one yet understands," agreed Sturrock. "Theorists are starting to say, 'What's going on?' But that's what the evidence points to. It's a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too."

If the mystery particle is not a neutrino, "It would have to be something we don't know about, an unknown particle that is also emitted by the sun and has this effect, and that would be even more remarkable," Sturrock said.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

You say neutrinos I say Aether.....

 

[phunk]

You say neutrinos I say Aether.....

Then we'd be talking about 2 different things.

 

[brantc]

And pinches are not reconnections.

I dont want to go through the whole flux tube filamental pinch thing again.

You can have a single filament that pinches, or you can have a twisted filament pair that pinches the 2 filaments together(reconnection). Thats what I mean in this context. If you are in doubt, go back to the Large Plasma Device page and refresh yourself.

 

[Dancing David]

And that effects has been replicated by other people? Or just cited by tehs ame person who publisehd the original study.

Here is the PDF
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0808/0808.3156.pdf

So how do you link your alleged aether to nutrinos, still no model, just words.

And Sturrock is not an author of the paper.

 

[Reality Check]

,snip.http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html

You say neutrinos I say Aether.....

You say aether and are totally wrong because the aether is not a elementary particle. Or the "aether " is somthing else that only exists in your head because you have not defined it for us.

We say the neutrinos that have actually measured to exist.

 

[brantc]

I just relaized that I am being a bit charitable to your rather easily debunked idea of a solid iron surface on the Sun by citing the boiling point of iron (3114 K). Actually

1. The measured temperature of the Sun is ~5777 K.
2. The melting point of iron is 1811 K.
   [*]No place on the Sun has a measured temperature less than the melting point of iron.
   [*]Thus there can be no solid iron surface on the Sun.

Also see Tim Thompson's clearly written and informational posts on this subject

• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible
• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible II
• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible III
• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible IV (in reply to Micheal Mozina's similiar idea)
• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible V
• Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible VI

YOU HAVE NOT LISTENED TO ANYTHING I HAVE SAID.

Go read up on thermionic emission.

The surface is hot because the electrons are leaving it.
Just below the surface where the electrons are leaving, it is cold.

Think about an over heated cathode in a plasma tube. The cathode starts to loose ions from surface melting yet the whole cathode does not melt.

The surface temperature is at the melting point of the metal due to thermionic emission but the cathode does not melt.

Just like a carbon arc, the temperature of the arc is greater than the temperature of the solid electrodes, and it has molten metal close to the electrode as well as a dense plasma further away from the electrode.

If you could examine this process under a microscope you would see flares and other phenomena that looks like the surface of the sun.

Until you understand this point I cannot explain the rest of my model.

This is what you need to read.
Mysteries of the arc cathode spot: A retrospective glance
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1240019

The other part is that the layer above the surface(above opacity 1) is a thin plasma layer. This generates a plasma emission over the solid surface like a cathode glow.
This layer(the part of the "photosphere" that is <1 opacity in IR) of plasma does not generate enough heat to melt the solid surface below. And what heat comes from it is re radiated as IR.
The measured temperatures of the sun are "AVERAGES" over some area and layers.

They are measuring a combination of the solid surface and the plasma/molten/arc.
This gives a higher temperature reading than just the solid cool surface alone, making you think that the sun's surface is at this temperature..

 

[brantc]

I see no "linear structures", That is a bit of "bunny in the clouds" logic.
I know it is plasma because the 171nm pass band detects light emitted primarily from Fe IX which forms at temperatures of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K.


That is really wrong brantc. Debunked by one simple fact:
A collection of TRACE images (6) ... "(~1 million degrees)" (my emphasis)

Reflection, reflection, reflection. 171nm light reflects just like any other light.
The linear structures under the loops are lit up by the loops.

 

[brantc]

Exactly. That makes them much smaller than the optical depth most of the time.

And pressure broadening is the same thing as decreasing optical depth. If you don't know why, you don't understand optical depth.

Keep examining them, because you haven't figured them out yet.

In a 500 micron bubble. Because that's what it takes to make the optical depth that short. But we don't need to go to 9000 atmospheres if we just make the object thick enough. Either way, the critical parameter is the ratio of optical depth to physical thickness. If your object is thinner than the optical depth, you won't get blackbody radiation. If it's thicker than the optical depth, you will. Quite simple, really.

And it's nowhere near 500 microns thin, either. Optical depth, brantc. You still haven't figured it out.

All I'm asking is that you show me an experiment that supports this contention that distance is the same as density is producing a black body from plasma. I have seen the math.

I showed you an experiment that all is required is that you pressurize a plasma to get a black body.

My contention is that a thin plasma will show lines no matter how how far the distance. It may show a continuum but it will not be a black body until pressure is involved.

 

[brantc]

Those are NOT the same thing at all. Heat capacity and emissivity are completely different quantities.

You are right.

And the heat capacity of plasma is irrelevant to the thermodynamic impossibility of your solid iron surface. All that matters is that the hot layer is (observably) opaque.

It is opaque at certain wavelengths. In IR and white light(white light flares) you can see to the surface.

That's not a model, that's word salad. It means nothing. You've got no description of how electrons are "derived" from the aether, or even what the aether is.
You've got a laboratory example to back up electrons being derived from the aether and producing power? Yeah, um... no, you don't.

Experimental Aetherometry
Experimental Aetherometry encompasses the empirical and analytical investigation of the physical and biophysical properties and interactions of massfree energy. Chief amongst these interactions of interest are the so-called "anomalies" of physical processes and biological systems. The following are the most salient contributions made by published experimental studies in Aetherometry:

<snip>
9. Identification of the fundamental latent energy units responsible for the cosmological creation of leptons
<snip>

http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/English/experimental_aetherometry.php



AS2-17C The cosmic background microwave radiation as evidence
for cosmological creation of electrons with minimum kinetic energy
and for a minimum of cosmic ambipolar massfree energy

Correa PN, Correa AN
Exp Aetherom, Series 2, Vol. 2B, 17C:1-61 (April 2002)

"Lastly, a prediction of radio CBR blackbodies issued from cosmological protons and other hadrons in resonance with the identified spectrum of cosmological ORgone energy is presented, together with a model of how it might account for observed anisotropies of the microwave CBR spectrum. There are thus three distinct cosmological spectra: an ambipolar Cosmic Background Orgone Radiation spectrum, the CBOR, and the derived photon spectra - a lepton-based microwave Cosmic Background Radiation blackbody (mCBR) and a predicted hadron-based radio Cosmic Background Radiation blackbody (rCBR). We claim identification of both the CBOR and the rCBR spectra, as well as of their physics.

The conclusions from this aetherometric investigation can be summarized as follows. The microwave CBR spectrum composed exclusively of LFOT photons constitutes proof of:

1. the cosmological creation of electrons, with attendant gravitons, and having discrete minima of kinetic energy, with a main mode at 4 -2

2. the existence of a minimal spectrum (which we identify) of ambipolar electric radiation throughout the cosmos - confirming Reich's notion that there is a minimum of ORgone energy that permeates the entirety of Space.

3. the existence of a physical process that converts free, nonelectric, nonelectromagnetic, nongravitic, 'latent thermal' or 'antigravitic' massfree energy into ORgone energy, or ambipolar electric radiation and, in the process, also converts other elements of the free nonelectric Aether into mass-energy (and thus monopolar electricity) and into gravitational energy.

Armed with these findings, we are bound to conclude that the CBR does not present any direct or indirect evidence that permits its interpretation as a fossil radiation, or its being construed as proof for an originary hadronic era of the universe. On the contrary, the CBR constitutes instead effective evidence for the continued cosmological generation or ongoing production of leptons, and the very eternity of the cosmos."
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Science/abs-AS2v2B.php

 

[Reality Check]

YOU HAVE NOT LISTENED TO ANYTHING I HAVE SAID.
...

YOU HAVE NOT LISTENED TO ANYTHING THAT I (or other posters) HAVE SAID.
There is no surface for the electrons to leave:

1. The measured temperature of the Sun is ~5777 K.
2. The melting point of iron is 1811 K.
3. No place on the Sun has a measured temperature less than the melting point of iron.
4. Thus there can be no solid iron surface on the Sun.

 

[brantc]

And that effects has been replicated by other people? Or just cited by tehs ame person who publisehd the original study.

Here is the PDF
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0808/0808.3156.pdf

So how do you link your alleged aether to nutrinos, still no model, just words.

And Sturrock is not an author of the paper.

So what do you think they found?? Bad data?? Experimental error??

The Purdue researchers submitted a paper on the solar flare correlations to Physical Review Letters but it was rejected, they say, because there was no mechanism to back it up (they have since uploaded the preprint to arXiv:0808.3156).
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/36108

Well now they have neutrinos. But that shouldnt be the deciding factor for publishing a paper.

I know its not a refed article but its not the first time and I dont expect it to be the last time.

Russian Discovery Challenges Existence of ‘Absolute Time’

by Jonathan Tennenbaum


|Russian scientists discover unexpected regularities in radioactive decay, linked to astronomical cycles

Two years ago, nearly unnoticed in the West, the Russian biophysicist S.E. Shnoll published a paper in the prominent Russian physics journal Uspekhi Fisicheskikh Nauk1 summing up the results of more than three decades of investigations of anomalous statistical regularities in a wide range of physical, chemical, and biological processes, from radioactive decay to the rates of biochemical reactions.

The evidence points unambiguously to the existence of a previously unknown relationship between fluctuations in the rates of radioactive and other processes in the laboratory, and major astronomical cycles, including the day, month, and year. The implication is, that many phenomena which until now have been regarded as purely statistical in character—such as the distribution of fluctuations in the momentary rates of radioactivity measured in a sample—are somehow controlled or at least strongly influenced by an astrophysical factor, which varies in time in the same way at all points on the Earth.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/time.html

 

[Reality Check]

Reflection, reflection, reflection. 171nm light reflects just like any other light.
The linear structures under the loops are lit up by the loops.

I know: Reflection, reflection, reflection. 171nm light reflects just like any other light.
I also know: Absorption, absorption, absorption. 171nm light absorbs just like any other light.
This means that the already physically impossible solid iron surface (temperature of the Sun is ~5777 K + melting point of iron is 1811 K = physically impossible) is even more impossible! It is absorbing the 1,000,000 K light. It will have to be very reflective (99.999%?) not to be at 1,000,000 K.

There are no "linear structures" under the loops.
A collection of TRACE images (6) (close to the bottom of the page).
I see spikey dark areas under the loops. These are areas with no light, i.e. plasma that is emitting light outside of the passband.
I see swirling bright areas under the loops. These are areas that are about half bright, i.e. plasma that is emitting light in the middle of the passband and so is ~1,000,000 K hot.

BTW: Lets use some "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic !
I assume you see the enormous mountain that is blocking the light in the lower right of the image?

 

[Ziggurat]

I have seen the math.

But you don't understand it.

I showed you an experiment that all is required is that you pressurize a plasma to get a black body.

Indeed. But you still don't understand why. You think that this is somehow different from optical depth issues, but it isn't.

My contention is that a thin plasma will show lines no matter how how far the distance.

Well, you're wrong. Free electrons scatter continuously at all wavelengths. Plasmas have free electrons. Therefore, they are not infinitely transparent to any wavelength. Therefore they must have a finite optical depth at all wavelengths. Therefore they will exhibit blackbody characteristics when the physical depth is longer than the optical depth.

It may show a continuum but it will not be a black body until pressure is involved.

Wrong again. And pressure is always involved. Seriously, do you imagine that there are any zero-pressure plasmas?

 

[tusenfem]

I dont want to go through the whole flux tube filamental pinch thing again.

You can have a single filament that pinches, or you can have a twisted filament pair that pinches the 2 filaments together(reconnection). Thats what I mean in this context. If you are in doubt, go back to the Large Plasma Device page and refresh yourself.

I am not in doubt at all, dear brantc, I am just commenting on your sloppy use of physical terms as if they were equal.

A current filament can pinch together when enough current flows.
Two current filaments can attract each other and through the opposite directed field components of the helical magnetic field can produce reconnection.

Now, please start describing your "electric sun" model in full detail, which was the main question in that post.

1. How is the sun powered in this electrical model
2. How is the current driven that you need to sustain the solar output
3. What is the current loop, i.e. how does it close on itself
4. What is the magnetic field generated by this current driving the sun
5. Is this magnetic field compatible with the magnetic field measured e.g. near the Earth
6. How come that Ulysses did not measure any such currents while passing over the poles (if you want to use Alfvén's heliospheric current system) (and the same question goes to Mozina)
7. How you do mean that your electrons come from the Aether, and what properties does the Aether have

So, put your money where your mouth is, show us the money, or better yet, show us your electric sun model in full detail.

 

[tusenfem]

The surface is hot because the electrons are leaving it.
Just below the surface where the electrons are leaving, it is cold.

Ahhhh so now the Sun is cold underneath the solid iron crust.
That would really do wonders with helioseismology.
This "model" (which we don't have, only inconsistent little blurbs) gets curiouser and curiouser.
How about actually presenting a complete model for this electrical Sun???????????????

And the cathode spots would be interesting to read, but I ain't got no access to IEEE.