Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why don't photons melt iron?

Why doesnt this lamp melt??
Pay attention to the conversation. I have already answered that question in another context. See my earlier post Iron Surface Thermodynamically Impossible VI (14 July 2010):
So, why does the mirror on TRACE not melt in the face of melting photons in the 192/5Å passband? It's all about intensity. The TRACE mirror has to deal with a few photons. One at a time, we don't necessarily expect the photons to ionize or melt anything (although the coatings are intended in part to prevent degradation of the primary mirror). But when photons gang up on a surface, they can and will provide enough thermal energy to melt & vaporize that surface, and then ionize the resulting vapor. Here at Earth, where we find TRACE, the incident solar EUV flux will be about 2 erg cm-2 sec-1, whereas at the sun we are looking at roughly 600,000 erg cm-2 sec-1 (which will be much higher near active regions). And do note this is EUV flux only, the bolometric flux at the photosphere is about 60,000,000,000 erg cm-2 sec-1. That's a lot of photons, and we cannot simply pretend that any solid surface is immune to the effect of that kind of photon bath.
Remember that the energy of an individual photon is just Planck's constant x frequency, and that energy can easily be converted to a temperature, where temperature = (energy / Boltzmann's constant). Nobody argues that a single high temperature photon will melt much of anything, but then nobody (?) can deny that a few zillion high temperature photons are likely to melt whatever they encounter, given a sufficient number of photons (that's what intensity is), and barring the effect of outside agents (like refrigerators).
 
Photons and aether theory

It is the view of aetherometric theory that solar radiation does not consist of photons, but of the massfree electrical charges that compose the scalar electrical field [http://aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v2B.html#abstractAS2-17A]. Moreover, it is also the view of aetherometric theory that photons are 'punctual' and local productions, that they do not travel through space but rather occupy a globular space where they are created and extinguished.
...
Aetherometry contends that what travels through space and transmits the light impulse is electrical radiation composed of massfree charges and their associated longitudinal waves (the true phase waves), not electromagnetic radiation composed of photons and their transverse waves. The wave transmission of all electromagnetic signals depends on the transmission of nonelectromagnetic energy, specifically the transmission of electric massfree charges (the propagation of Òthe fieldÓ). "
This fancy looking explanation leaves me with unanswered questions. Here are a few for your consideration.

First question: What laboratory experiment or natural observation can we perform, the result of which will allow us to differentiate between our existing standard scientific theories and the aether ("orgone"?) theory you present here?

Second question: We know that charged particles couple with both electric & magnetic fields, such that their state of motion is radically altered by the presence of such fields, as compared to the absence of such fields, and we know how to precisely predict the effect of the fields. We also know as a result of observation that photons do not couple to these fields as would charged particles, leading to the obvious conclusion that photons do not carry any net electric charge. How does the hypothesis that photons are "massfree charges" reconcile with the observation that photons are not only "mass free", but also "charge free"?

Third question(s): We are now quite adept at detecting individual photons. CCD detectors, and similar solid state technologies, are extensively used in astronomy, and in other branches of science, for the explicit detection of photons (which can be individually counted). So, if there are no photons propagating, say from the sun to Earth, then where do the photons that we do detect come from? Where along the sun-Earth path are they created? And what are they created from? How do we observationally detect the parent entities from which photons are created?
 
von Richenbach is quoted in support of the discovery of the aether, which took place over many years and was the result of the work of many scientists.
[/url]

And subsequently proven not to exist by e.g. the MM experiments. Aether is not necessary, it has no properties apart from "allowing EM waves to travel through vacuum," but as light is also a particle such a medium is superfluous. However, you are naturally allowed to stay in the 19th century, maybe you will discover flogiston in the Sun.

The spherical iron sun acts like an antenna transforming aether into electricity similar to a photon receiving antenna. when you examine this idea in the context of Aetherometrys conceptualization of the photon, its really photons

So, what exactly is aether then? And why don't we pick up that "electricity" here on Earth and use it to solve the energy problem?

"Basic differences between the conventional and aetherometric conceptions of the photon

1. On the nature of photons
1.1. Currently, it is held that solar radiation consists of photons. Implied in this is the notion that photons travel through space, like fibers of light, with analogy to ballistic models for the projection of material particles - as if the photons were hurled across space.

It is the view of aetherometric theory that solar radiation does not consist of photons, but of the massfree electrical charges that compose the scalar electrical field [http://aetherometry.com/abs-AS2v2B.html#abstractAS2-17A]. Moreover, it is also the view of aetherometric theory that photons are 'punctual' and local productions, that they do not travel through space but rather occupy a globular space where they are created and extinguished.

What "massfree electrical charges" why have we not measure these magical electrical charges? And what scalar electric field? Why have we not measured such a electric field? And the bold part is just word salad, "occupy a globular space"????

Looking at the first part of the page you link to, it is clear that the authors have no comprehension of electrodynamics. If you want to read something, then read Eugene Parker's Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos. Point 1.2 is just the same claim with further nonsense.

How is current driven in a radio receiver? Basically you amplify the existing current that shows up on the antenna. It is a resonance phenomena.
At this level the leakage current is great enough to sustain the glow mode operation of the sun.
[/url]

How is the sun receiving this "aether stuff" and what is resonating and where is the energy coming from, what is energizing this "aether" that it emits this "radiation" that the sun can pick up and "amplify." And why is there a leakage current? These magical massfree electric charges or what? Why have we never measured these charges?

As long as the surrounding area is at a lower potential than the sun current will flow out of the sun into space.
Its possible that electrons disintegrate back into aether or that space is expanding requiring more electrons.

And what exactly is creating this potential drop?
Electrons CANNOT disintegrate into the aether as according to your own link the aether produces massfree electrical charges. Maybe you should read the junk that you link to first before you incorporate it into your electric iron sun model.

High voltage doesnt appear to generate much of a magnetic field where as high current does.

But there has to be a great current if these magical massfree electric charges flow from the sun to the whaterver it flows to, and thus creates a magnetic field. A radial current from the sun, however, would not generate the magnetic field that we measure in the interplanetary space. But hey, why bother about actual observations?

There is no doubt that there are polar plumes and electron beam that emit x-rays. This means high voltage.

That is no answer to my question, but as you are changing the electric iron sun model as you go, I cannot be bothered. And no, the electron beams that "emit x-rays" do not immediately mean high voltage, it means strong EMF or induction, which generates high energy electrons which impact e.g. the footpoints of a magnetic loop and generates X-rays through bremsstrahlung.

If you are asking what is the exact physical process that makes electrons out of aether, I dont know exactly. It probably the same problem the Arp and Narlikar were working on. It could be from a pinch process as outlined here

So, you have nothing but a link with junk science. I don't think Arp ever debated an electric sun.

Cosmic ray spectrum above 1015 eV (a new approach)
A.A. Petrukhin
Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow 115409, Russia
Presenter: A.A. Petrukhin (petruhin@nevod.mephi.ru), rus-petrukhin-AA-abs1-og12-oral

From the conclusions: Of course, some contradictions with modern theoretical conceptions and interpretation of existing experimental data remain, and their re-analysis is required. This only works if "a new kind of matter is generated", sure.


Here Aetherometry says they have detected the process.


"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)

I am sorry, but really ORgone? I don't think this "journal" should be taken seriously.
 
It doesnt matter what you want to call it its still the basic energy of the universe. Again nobody has explained why there is a sidereal signal in data. Why are laser gyros locked to the stars on sidereal time??
i.e. Why do the fringes move in response to a frame of reference that is not the earth, and IS the stars?

It does matter what you call it and “the basic energy of the universe” is just nonsense. What makes one form of energy more “basic” than another? Zreo point enegy has a specific meaning it is the point at which no further energy can be extracted from the system. It also has specific and testable implications. Orgone energy (or “the basic energy of the universe) has no specific meaning or testable implications. If you think otherwise please present such test data verifying “Orgone energy (or “the basic energy of the universe).

If you have some specific reference for the “sidereal signal in data” you are referring to that might help.


It was orginally discovered by Karl Reichenbach (Freiherr von), probably someone noticed it before that but Karl wrote down the most complete description. Reich came after Karl. Tesla knew about Von Richenbach's work as well. Crooke (of x-ray tube fame) also was investigating the dark space in connection with this energy. The latest in a long line of research into this energy is Aetherometry.


So think of the sun as an geometric antenna receiving aether and the energy is coming out as electrons. Just like a regular antenna converts photons to electric current.

“receiving aether” from where? Please show any reproducible tests confirming the existence of “aether” let alone that ““receiving aether” produces energy or even just electrons? What are the specific physical properties of “aether”? What reproducible tests have confirmed these properties?



Researches on magnetism, electricity, heat, light, crystallization, and chemical attraction: in their relations to the vital force
http://books.google.com/books?id=KukRAAAAYAAJ&dq=Karl+Reichenbach




"Luminous World" Baron Karl von Reichenbach
One chapter in forgotten science history introduces one of the greatest researchers of all time, whose investigation of basic life-related energies stands paramount in the history of qualitative science. His name forgotten and ignored by modernists, the life and work of Baron Karl von Reichenbach stands as a monument. He is a true scientific legend, a giant, a reminder that the world is more marvelous than we are led to believe by those who misalign our perceptions and misdirect our views. It is for this reason that I have chosen to begin the LOST SCIENCE series with his biography.

Edited by Gaspode: 
Edited for rule 4.


http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/odenergy.htm

From that link.

Somnambulism, night cramp, night fears, and emotional hysteria were remarkably incomprehensible maladies. Each such illness was utterly fascinating to him. They seemed to affect only certain "sensitive" or "nervous" individuals. The mystical nature of these ailments, especially that of "sleepwalking", provoked fear among all classes of people during this time period. No class, ethnic, or religious group lacked victims of the conditions, which seemed to carelessly select its helpless victims. But beneath the surface of these extraordinary maladies Reichenbach suspected the extraordinary.

Oh no, don’t open The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, you might wake the Somnambulist!!! However, your unlikely to reawaken the notion of the Luminiferous aether as it died a long time ago. Though evidently some people are still walking around with its bones like some Weekend at Bernies and while they must be sleepwalking it certainly isn’t (unless you can actually put some meat back on them bones).
 
Is this what you are referring to brantc?


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0406/0406156v1.pdf

In an Earth-fixed reference system, such as that of a ring laser fixed to the Earth’s surface, the forced retrograde diurnal polar motion is best viewed as a principal mode – the so-called “tilt-over mode” (K1) – with the period of exactly one sidereal day (23.93447 hours), whose amplitude is modified as the angles and distances between the Earth, Moon and Sun vary over the course of their orbits.
 
Why do you ask such a silly question?

Because your statements suggest to me that you don't know the answer.

It seems that if the source is bright enough, you can see it at almost all wavelengths due to the thinness of the glow layer above the surface.

That doesn't answer my question. What do you think white light is?
 
Published, where and when?
Results replicated, when?

Replicated every day when a measurement is taken from a laser gyro system.
LTN-92 Ring Laser Gyro Inertial Navigation System

The LTN-92 Inertial Navigation System (INS) is the world's leading laser gyro replacement for the mechanical INSs used on many military transport and commercial aircraft, including "classic" B747s, DC-10s and L-1011s. The LTN-92 uses three ring laser gyros, force rebalanced accelerometers, and three high-speed digital microprocessors to provide an advanced technology, all-attitude, worldwide navigation system offering up to five times the reliability of mechanical inertial navigation systems. The system’s ability to manage internal navigation bulk data storage allows for comprehensive worldwide flight planning.
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/ltn92/index.html

Siderial period of fringe effects used by GPS how?

All interferometers use sidereal time. GPS is not sensative enought to know that so they call it the Sagnac Effect. If you can pick out a sidereal signal, then you can measure sidereal time.

Direct measurement of diurnal polar motion by ring laser gyroscopes
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003JB002803.shtml


Canterbury are the experts in ring laser gyros.

Large Laser Gyroscopes for Monitoring Earth Rotation
Objectives


Today, Earth rotation parameters are routinely obtained using the geodetic space techniques VLBI (Very Long Baseline Interferometry), SLR (Satellite Laser Ranging), GPS (Global Positioning System) und DORIS (Doppler Orbitography by Radiopositioning Integrated on Satellite). Technical progress over the last decades resulted in a precision of recently 0.01 milliseconds in length of day and 0.1 milliarcseconds in pole coordinates. The common principle is the relative measurement of rotation by observing reference points, stars or satellites, outside the rotating Earth. All these techniques require global networks and structures for the observation and data handling, which are coordinated by the international services IVS, ILRS, IGS and IDS.

The absolute measurement of rotation using inertial rotation sensors is a completely different approach. Mechanical gyros measuring the coriolis force are by far not sensitive enough to detect Earth rotation variations. Instruments measuring the centrifugal acceleration as a part of the total gravity vector, gravimeters and tiltmeters, are basically sensitive to Earth rotation variations, but even the excellent resolution of superconducting gravimeters of 10-11 g is not sufficient to resolve short-period Earth rotation variations. In contrast, laser gyroscopes use the Sagnac effect, whereas the small wavelength of the laser light allows an extreme high resolution. An adequate sensitive laser gyroscope attached to the Earth gives us instantaneous access to the spin of the Earth and the orientation of its axis. For the determination of the complete rotation vector, three linear independent laser gyroscopes are required.

The basic goals of laser gyroscopes for Earth rotation monitoring are:

* Detection of short-term spin fluctuations with a resolution of 10-9
* Detection of short-term polar motions with a resolution of 0.2 mas or 6 mm
* Near real time acquisition with a temporal resolution of 1 hour or less

It is not expected that laser gyroscopes will ever reach the excellent long-term stability of the geodetic space techniques. However, the increasing interesting short-time range is poorly covered by these techniques. Furthermore ring laser measurements are continuous, while VLBI and SLR usually have a resolution of one day, with gaps of some days.
http://www.wettzell.ifag.de/LKREISEL/G/LaserGyros.html

Alleged attribution of aether, where in the paper?

Not in a paper. But what would you call it?? I call it the background of the universe since it is NOT in the earth frame.. And it affects light. Typically one would call that the aether.


1991 - Over a six-month period, Roland DeWitte finds, over a 1.5 km underground coaxial cable, a cyclic component in the phase drift between higher-precision cesium-beam clocks on more-or-less the same meridian; the period equals the sidereal day [1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether
 
Pay attention to the conversation. I have already answered that question in another context. See my earlier post Iron Surface Thermodynamically Impossible VI (14 July 2010):

Remember that the energy of an individual photon is just Planck's constant x frequency, and that energy can easily be converted to a temperature, where temperature = (energy / Boltzmann's constant). Nobody argues that a single high temperature photon will melt much of anything, but then nobody (?) can deny that a few zillion high temperature photons are likely to melt whatever they encounter, given a sufficient number of photons (that's what intensity is), and barring the effect of outside agents (like refrigerators).

The iron surface will reflect. Even if it is being sublimated. It will not absorb 100%. There is no material that absorbs 100%.

The flux of photons is from a material that is at least 1 million time less dense than the iron. So the UV photon flux is a million time less at least that if it was from a solid material. So the iron is not being sublimated that quickly.

I can make a fake spectrum that is any temperature that I want it to be. And you could not tell what the source was.
 
von Richenbach is quoted in support of the discovery of the aether, which took place over many years and was the result of the work of many scientists.

And subsequently proven not to exist by e.g. the MM experiments. Aether is not necessary, it has no properties apart from "allowing EM waves to travel through vacuum," but as light is also a particle such a medium is superfluous. However, you are naturally allowed to stay in the 19th century, maybe you will discover flogiston in the Sun.

The MM experiments were a drop in the bucket of such experiments. Especially compared to people like Dayton Miller. If you read all of the experimental conditions you see that there are better chances under certain conditions.
If you want to believe that experiment from 100 years ago proves the aether doesnt exist, thats fine.
But MM says nothing about any other theories or more recent interferometry experiments with better accuracy.

It certainty says nothing about the more recent experiments with large ring laser gyros.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You tell me (a hint - it is not the Sun, there is not roughly black body spectrum).

This does not change the facts for the surface of the Sun:
  1. The measured temperature of the whole Sun is ~5777 K.
  2. No place on the Sun has a measured temperature less than the melting point of iron.
  3. The melting point of iron is 1811 K.
  4. Thus there can be no solid iron surface on the Sun.
You have the idea that the Sun's temperature is only measured as an average. That is wrong, e.g. the temperature of sunspots are also measured to be greater than the melting point of iron.
And then you come up with a very misunderstod bit of physics - arcs melting points in an iron plate. Your mistakes were
  • Your arcs are shining on the iron surface. Whatever light we detect is also being absorbed to some extent by your WHOLE iron surface. That surface melts.
  • At the start the WHOLE surface of your hypothetical iron surface is not boiling - just areas. That destroys the suraface in that area and other areas start to boil. Over time all areas on the surface boil and there is no more surface!
    Basically what your arcs are doing is destroying your surface.
  • The third point that you do not understand is that no point on the Sun has a measured temperature less than the melting point of iron..
You ignored the question wrt that last point so I will ask it again
First asked 4 September 2010
brantc,
But I may be wrong. I am sure that you can cite hundreds of papers measuring areas the surface of Sun being less than 1811 K.
Please cite the many papers measuring areas the surface of Sun being less than 1811 K


Cathode Arc spot.
Sunspots are looking down onto a loop footprint.
Solar moss provides a wide spread elevated temperature.

A mixture of plasma can provide a spectrum similar to a black body but the total heat output is less than a solid surface of an equivalent temperature.

The solid body of the sun re radiates this excess heat as IR.
 
How long does it take for your solid iron surface to sublimate

Cathode Arc spot.
...
The solid body of the sun re radiates this excess heat as IR.
What has this got to do with the physical measurments of the temperature of the Sun?
  1. The measured temperature of the whole Sun is ~5777 K.
  2. No place on the Sun has a measured temperature less than the melting point of iron.
  3. The melting point of iron is 1811 K.
  4. Thus there can be no solid iron surface on the Sun.
Even if you could come up with some way to create your physically impossible, invisible solid iron surface about 5 billion years ago (the age of the Sun) then it will sublimate in a short time frame. Of course I expect that you will claim that it is replaced by magic iron from the aether :)

Actually that raises yet another question about your debunked idea, brantc.
Assume that the entire mass of the Sun is in your physically impossible solid iron surface. Heat it to 3000 K which is the lowest temperature measured on the Sun.
How long does it take for your solid iron surface to sublimate?

As an expert in solar physics you should be able to answer this easily :rolleyes:.
 
1991 - Over a six-month period, Roland DeWitte finds, over a 1.5 km underground coaxial cable, a cyclic component in the phase drift between higher-precision cesium-beam clocks on more-or-less the same meridian; the period equals the sidereal day [1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether
Thank you pointing out this Wikipedia page that shows that the luminiferous aether can be treated as not existing.

You cherry picked the 1991 experiment to quote so here is one of the many that show that the luminiferous aether has no effect:
Timeline of luminiferous aether
2003 - Holger Mueller and Achim Peters carry out a Modern Michelson-Morley Experiment using Cryogenic Optical Resonators at Humboldt University, Berlin. They find no shifting in 10^-15.

Another point is that you are quoting experiments about the luminiferous aether which has nothing to do with your "aether" whatever that is.
 
This fancy looking explanation leaves me with unanswered questions. Here are a few for your consideration.

First question: What laboratory experiment or natural observation can we perform, the result of which will allow us to differentiate between our existing standard scientific theories and the aether ("orgone"?) theory you present here?

Von Richenbach describes many observations in his work. Unfortunately they are under difficult conditions. Dan Davidson describes some experiments with a magnetometer that he did. These are what I'm trying to replicate right now.
Aetherometry has performed a whole series of experiments.

Here is something that is over looked in the lit.

A history of Anomalous (longitudinal) reaction forces in plasma
discharges.


"Anomalous cathode reaction forces varying in proportion to the square of the input current were first identified separately by Tanberg and Kobel, in 1930, during studies of cathode vaporization in "vacuum"-arc discharges (VADs) and stationary cathode spots (1,2)"

"In the 1940's, little work was done on the North-American continent on the presence of longitudinal forces in plasma discharges. The notable exceptions may have been the self-funded research of W. Reich and of T.H. Moray."

"Admission of longitudinal interactions has always been problematic for the relativistic law of Lorentz (11), as well as for the Bio-Savart treatments of Ampere's Law (12). Quantum treatments of (high) field-emission, such as the Fowler-Nordheim law (strong fields pull out electrons with low energies, ie Fermi electrons) (13), also did not take these interactions into account."

"Subsequent research in the 1950's concentrated mainly on the study of cathode and anode spots, as well as on cathode erosion by crater formation (14-15)."

"By the 1960's, it had become apparent that the presence of tremendous electrodynamic forces acting longitudinally in the direction of the discharge could not be accounted for by the Lorentz/Bio-Savart Law. Moreover, as Plyutto et al remarked, the Tanberg vaporization hypothesis also could not explain the observed dependence of cathode reaction forces on gas pressure, nor the high velocity plasma streams emerging from the cathode (18)." Remark: Sound familiar? Like some solar phenomena??

"Since the 1980's, Aspden's theoretical framework has received recognition (49-53) and direct or indirect experimental confirmation (49-50, 54-55). In the mid-eighties, Prof. P. Graneau and his group showed that electrodynamic explosions induced by kilovolt pulsed ion discharges in pure water were greater by three to four orders of magnitude than expected by established theory (54-55)"

"In 1977, Aspden would file a British patent application (24) utilizing thermal conversion of the high anomalous acceleration of cathode-directed ions by electrons in VAD plasmas (25), but his circumstances did not permit him to pursue the work experimentally (26)."

In the 90's
"the emission-triggered Pulsed Abnormal Glow Discharge, or autogenous PAGD for short. The PAGD regime is an homeostatic structure (a fluctuating order) of cyclically recurring discontinuities"
"The autogenous PAGD regime deploys extraordinarily large cathode reaction forces, associated with the rebound of anomalously accelerated ions striking the cathode and the anomalous ion counterflow (vaporized cathode metal and gas ions) being swept forward by the emitted electronic flux."
(Sound like our sun?)

http://www.aetherometry.com/Labofex_Plasma_Physics/Archive/PwrfromAEemissions.html

Cold fusion now know as Low Energy Nuclear Reactions.

Steorn and their magnetic asymmetry anomaly.

There are many examples in the world around you and in the literature over the years. They just get ignored or explained away as an outlier.

Second question: We know that charged particles couple with both electric & magnetic fields, such that their state of motion is radically altered by the presence of such fields, as compared to the absence of such fields, and we know how to precisely predict the effect of the fields. We also know as a result of observation that photons do not couple to these fields as would charged particles, leading to the obvious conclusion that photons do not carry any net electric charge. How does the hypothesis that photons are "massfree charges" reconcile with the observation that photons are not only "mass free", but also "charge free"?

The photons are not mass free charges. They are emitted locally from a "globular space" around the electron/atom during an energy transfer process.

From Aetherometry.
<snip>
1.3. There are two types of photons: ionizing and nonionizing (blackbody). Aetherometry recognizes this accepted distinction, but suggests that it is a distinction still more profound than accepted physics itself holds, in that the two spectra are different as to the very conditions necessary for the production of one or the other type of photons. Specifically, Aetherometry claims that nonionizing or blackbody photons are locally generated whenever material particles that act as charge-carriers decelerate. Thus photons mark the trail of deceleration of massbound particles. This punctual generation of photons that marks the trails of decelerating massbound charges, combined with the decay in the kinetic energy of these charges, their release and scattered reabsorption by other adjacent massbound charges (thus causing so called conversion of electromagnetic energy into longer wavelength radiation), is what accounts for (1) the dispersion of energy through conversion into electromagnetic radiation (and Tesla's persistent claim that his power transmitters were not transmitters of electromagnetic radiation) and for (2) the approximate suitability of the stochastic model for the dispersion of a ray and the scatter of light.
<snip>
Furthermore, these new algebraic physical functions led aetherometric theory to claim that, likewise, the photon relation (E = m0 c2 = hυ) proposed by de Broglie has an equivalent that can be written as (E = λ0 c2 = hυ). This serves to highlight that, whereas the structure of electronic matter at a nanometric scale is electrical and forms a recognizable geometric object, a torus, the structure of a photon is what takes on the generic form of inertia, as per (λ0 c2 = hυ). Photons are the particles constituted by the structure c2, not elements of matter or electrons. The latter are only perceived as having an equivalent wave structure c2 when they are seized in their rest frame or their electromagnetic frame, or transformed into ionizing photons. But the structure of elements of matter while they remain such is electrical, described by the wave-product (Wk Wv), rather than c2. Hence, Aetherometry contends, the finite geometry of photons is globular, forming a quasi-sphere, and composed of two identical waves, whereas the finite geometry of electrons is toroidal and composed of two different waves, one truly electrical and the other truly magnetic. Accordingly, the waves of photons are only geometric product equivalents of the real electric and magnetic waves which compose either the rest mass of a material particle, or its kinetic energy. Therefore Aetherometry argues that photons do indeed possess two transverse fields, but the two fields or their vectors are organized such as to describe a local globularizing vortex, each relating a sine wave, and each wave being described by c in the fundamental derived or resultant relationship (E = m0 c2 = hυ).

Accordingly, Aetherometry explicitly argues that photons do not really have electrical or magnetic fields; this is in accordance with the fact that photons do not present electrical charge and that thus one does not mistake them for electrons! What possesses electrical and magnetic fields are charges, whether massfree or massbound. The latter, furthermore, possess such fields as are associated with their rest energy and also with the energy of their motion.

2.2. In accordance with the preceding, Aetherometry claims that solar radiation is electrical, not because it is composed of photons, but because it consists of propagating massfree charges. Unlike massbound charges, massfree charges have no fixed spin orientation with respect to forward propagation. They can be thought of as net spin 0 charges. But at any time, they may have an effective spin that is either -1/2 or +1/2 (actually, -1 and +1, as spin, in Aetherometry, is a number property of angular momentum, not of the number of 'hyperdimensions' attributed to states of polarization, as it is in Quantum Electrodynamics). They also have transverse, or near-transverse, electrical and magnetic fields, waves and field wave-vectors. But whereas the waves composing a photon are analogous to the transverse waves that propagate in water and limited to circularized motion, the waves composing a massfree charge are analogous to the longitudinal pressure waves responsible for the forward propagation of sound. Massfree charges cannot be described as occupying or forming a globular space, or even a toroidal one, but as occupying or forming a forward-moving cycloidal helix.

Third question(s): We are now quite adept at detecting individual photons. CCD detectors, and similar solid state technologies, are extensively used in astronomy, and in other branches of science, for the explicit detection of photons (which can be individually counted). So, if there are no photons propagating, say from the sun to Earth, then where do the photons that we do detect come from? Where along the sun-Earth path are they created? And what are they created from? How do we observationally detect the parent entities from which photons are created?

Think of it as the same energy that the "field" imparts to things. Aetherometry has identified just what the "field" is. Not virtual photons or whatever. Massfree charges. The lowest form of energy in Aetherometry is massfree energy. No charge, no inertia.

The field transmits the energy causing the particle to move and the particle responds by emitting a photon that is generated in the particle(locally) from the energy imparted by the field.

From Aetherometry.
"claims that solar radiation is electrical, not because it is composed of photons, but because it consists of propagating massfree charges. Unlike massbound charges, massfree charges have no fixed spin orientation with respect to forward propagation."
 
Iron Sun Surface Thermodynamically Impossible VII

The flux of photons is from a material that is at least 1 million time less dense than the iron. So the UV photon flux is a million time less at least that if it was from a solid material. So the iron is not being sublimated that quickly.
None of this has anything to do with the physics of sublimating the iron surface. You don't have to ionize the iron, you only have to break the Fe-Fe bond in the solid state (and in any case, you would not need to ionize the iron atoms, just overcome the photoelectric work function, 4.5 electron volts (7.2x10-16 Joules or 7.2x10-9 ergs) to drive an electron out of the conducting band). In easier to handle numbers, the enthalpy of atomization for solid iron is 414.2 KJ/mole and the molar volume is 7.09 cm3. A cube of that volume will measure 1.921 cm on a side, and the area of one face of that cube will be 1.9212 = 3.690 cm2. Now, let us recall ...
Here at Earth, where we find TRACE, the incident solar EUV flux will be about 2 erg cm-2 sec-1, whereas at the sun we are looking at roughly 600,000 erg cm-2 sec-1 (which will be much higher near active regions). And do note this is EUV flux only, the bolometric flux at the photosphere is about 60,000,000,000 erg cm-2 sec-1. That's a lot of photons, and we cannot simply pretend that any solid surface is immune to the effect of that kind of photon bath.
The relevant number here is the bolometric flux, since we only need to overcome the weak Fe-Fe bond, and that is what the enthalpy of atomization represents, the total binding energy of one mole or 7.09 cm3 of iron. That's 414.2 KJ/mole = 4.142x105 J/mole. Now, at about 6x1010 erg cm-2 sec-1 x 3.690 cm2 we get 2.214x1011 erg sec-1 = 2.214x104 Joules sec-1 deposited on the one exposed face of a molar volume at the surface. So it will take only 18.7 seconds to present enough energy to that exposed molar cube face to vaporize the entire molar cube. The actual time it takes to vaporize it depends on the efficiency with which the energy is absorbed, but that will certainly be very high; the optical reflectivity of iron is 65% at room temperature, but will drop fast with a non-specular surface, so the absorption must be nearly 100%. But even if we give you every benefit of chance and pretend the reflectivity is 65%, and absorption therefore 35%, then the vaporization of that mole of iron will take about 53.4 seconds.

So if you have an iron crust 100 km thick (that's 107 cm) and we get rid of 1.921 cm every 53.4 seconds, then all 100 km will be gone in 2.780x108 seconds. Now, with 3.1557600x107 seconds in one year, you can see that in just under 10 years your entire iron edifice will be destroyed. Make the layer 1000 km thick, and it takes just under a century. So even if you could dream up some way to get the iron there in the first place, you would then have to dream up a way to keep it from vanishing altogether in a really short time (which in fact we seriously over-estimate here because we are assuming an unrealistic 65% reflectivity, when the real reflectivity will br far less than that; double the absorption efficiency and you cut the iron layer lifetime in half).

Physics indicates that an iron surface for the sun is not thermodynamically acceptable.
 
Noticed the question your ignored in the last post so here is a fuller response and the question yet again.
Cathode Arc spot.
Nothing to do with the Sun or the question.
  1. The lowest temperature on the Sun is ~3000 K which is greater than the melting point of iron. So there is no cathode.
  2. If this is the debunked electric sun idea then we should merge this thread with the Electric universe theories here. thread.
But it is more likely to be random words from you.

Sunspots are looking down onto a loop footprint.
Wrong. Sunspots are under the coronal loops. They do not "look down" onto them.

Solar moss provides a wide spread elevated temperature.
Solar moss
Solar moss does not "provide" a wide spread elevated temperature. It is plasma at a temperature of ~2,000,000 K.

A mixture of plasma can provide a spectrum similar to a black body but the total heat output is less than a solid surface of an equivalent temperature.
Doubly wrong.
  1. A solid surface at an equivalent temperature of a solar plasma is a plasma because it is above the boiling point of the solid in general and certainly for iron.
  2. Stefan–Boltzmann law (black bodies at the same temperature radiate the same total energy per unit surface area).
You ignored the question wrt that last point so I will ask it for the thrid time
First asked 4 September 2010
brantc,
But I may be wrong. I am sure that you can cite hundreds of papers measuring areas the surface of Sun being less than 1811 K.
Please cite the many papers measuring areas the surface of Sun being less than 1811 K
 
Replicated every day when a measurement is taken from a laser gyro system.
LTN-92 Ring Laser Gyro Inertial Navigation System

The LTN-92 Inertial Navigation System (INS) is the world's leading laser gyro replacement for the mechanical INSs used on many military transport and commercial aircraft, including "classic" B747s, DC-10s and L-1011s. The LTN-92 uses three ring laser gyros, force rebalanced accelerometers, and three high-speed digital microprocessors to provide an advanced technology, all-attitude, worldwide navigation system offering up to five times the reliability of mechanical inertial navigation systems. The system’s ability to manage internal navigation bulk data storage allows for comprehensive worldwide flight planning.
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/ltn92/index.html



All interferometers use sidereal time. GPS is not sensative enought to know that so they call it the Sagnac Effect. If you can pick out a sidereal signal, then you can measure sidereal time.

Direct measurement of diurnal polar motion by ring laser gyroscopes
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003JB002803.shtml


So you are referring to the “measurement of diurnal polar motion by ring laser gyroscopes” of the Earth and the paper I linked?

What does this have to do with your “aether“? Please try to be specific.

Canterbury are the experts in ring laser gyros.

Large Laser Gyroscopes for Monitoring Earth Rotation
Objectives


Today, Earth rotation parameters are routinely obtained using the geodetic space techniques VLBI (Very Long Baseline Interferometry), SLR (Satellite Laser Ranging), GPS (Global Positioning System) und DORIS (Doppler Orbitography by Radiopositioning Integrated on Satellite). Technical progress over the last decades resulted in a precision of recently 0.01 milliseconds in length of day and 0.1 milliarcseconds in pole coordinates. The common principle is the relative measurement of rotation by observing reference points, stars or satellites, outside the rotating Earth. All these techniques require global networks and structures for the observation and data handling, which are coordinated by the international services IVS, ILRS, IGS and IDS.

The absolute measurement of rotation using inertial rotation sensors is a completely different approach. Mechanical gyros measuring the coriolis force are by far not sensitive enough to detect Earth rotation variations. Instruments measuring the centrifugal acceleration as a part of the total gravity vector, gravimeters and tiltmeters, are basically sensitive to Earth rotation variations, but even the excellent resolution of superconducting gravimeters of 10-11 g is not sufficient to resolve short-period Earth rotation variations. In contrast, laser gyroscopes use the Sagnac effect, whereas the small wavelength of the laser light allows an extreme high resolution. An adequate sensitive laser gyroscope attached to the Earth gives us instantaneous access to the spin of the Earth and the orientation of its axis. For the determination of the complete rotation vector, three linear independent laser gyroscopes are required.

The basic goals of laser gyroscopes for Earth rotation monitoring are:

* Detection of short-term spin fluctuations with a resolution of 10-9
* Detection of short-term polar motions with a resolution of 0.2 mas or 6 mm
* Near real time acquisition with a temporal resolution of 1 hour or less

It is not expected that laser gyroscopes will ever reach the excellent long-term stability of the geodetic space techniques. However, the increasing interesting short-time range is poorly covered by these techniques. Furthermore ring laser measurements are continuous, while VLBI and SLR usually have a resolution of one day, with gaps of some days.
http://www.wettzell.ifag.de/LKREISEL/G/LaserGyros.html



Not in a paper. But what would you call it??

How about what they called it in the paper I linked and you referenced “the forced retrograde diurnal polar motion” of the Earth. In basic terms the Earth has a bit of a daily wobble.


I call it the background of the universe since it is NOT in the earth frame.. And it affects light. Typically one would call that the aether.

What “is NOT in the earth frame”? How does “the forced retrograde diurnal polar motion” of the Earth affect light?

1991 - Over a six-month period, Roland DeWitte finds, over a 1.5 km underground coaxial cable, a cyclic component in the phase drift between higher-precision cesium-beam clocks on more-or-less the same meridian; the period equals the sidereal day [1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether

Oh a phase drift, like what, the Sagnac effect?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect#Synchronization_procedures


“on more-or-less the same meridian;”?


The assertion of an aether looks far more wobbly than the Earth.
 
What has this got to do with the physical measurments of the temperature of the Sun?
[*]The measured temperature of the whole Sun is ~5777 K.
[*]No place on the Sun has a measured temperature less than the melting point of iron.

Can you show me a spot measurement of the solar surface temperature?

I have showed you.
 
So, what exactly is aether then? And why don't we pick up that "electricity" here on Earth and use it to solve the energy problem?

What exactly is a quark and why dont we use it for energy here on earth?

1987: Only 14% +- 23% of proton’s spin carried by quarks’ spins!

The Proton Spin Crisis begins!!

Looking at the first part of the page you link to, it is clear that the authors have no comprehension of electrodynamics. If you want to read something, then read Eugene Parker's Conversations on Electric and Magnetic Fields in the Cosmos. Point 1.2 is just the same claim with further nonsense.


Originally Posted by brantc View Post
There is no doubt that there are polar plumes and electron beam that emit x-rays. This means high voltage.
That is no answer to my question, but as you are changing the electric iron sun model as you go, I cannot be bothered. And no, the electron beams that "emit x-rays" do not immediately mean high voltage, it means strong EMF or induction, which generates high energy electrons which impact e.g. the footpoints of a magnetic loop and generates X-rays through bremsstrahlung.

From Hyperphysics;
"When a voltage is generated by a battery, or by the magnetic force according to Faraday's Law, this generated voltage has been traditionally called an "electromotive force" or emf. The emf represents energy per unit charge (voltage) which has been made available by the generating mechanism and is not a "force"."
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elevol.html


Strong EMF. High voltage. Maybe you should read the stuff I'm giving you since the stuff you are reading has obviously confused you.

And I dont know how you get x-rays from induction unless you are say the high voltage from the induced EMF will generate x-rays.
 
Can you show me a spot measurement of the solar surface temperature?

I have showed you.
How big a spot?
But do not be lazy brantc - do your own research, don't trust my small knowledge of solar physics. Please cite the many papers measuring areas of the surface of Sun being less than 1811 K(5th September 2010).

We have showed you.
  1. The measured temperature of the whole Sun is ~5777 K.
  2. No place on the Sun has a measured temperature less than the melting point of iron.
  3. The melting point of iron is 1811 K.
  4. Thus there can be no solid iron surface on the Sun.
There are many other reasons that this physically impossible soild iron surface on the Sun is wrong as I pointed out before on 5th September 2010.

P.S.
How long does it take for your solid iron surface to sublimate?
8th September 2010
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom