Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[tusenfem]

I posted some stuff from aetherometry about this a page ago.

Yeah, and that lacked like every scientific ground, one big crank site.

Thats what this whole thread is about.

about electron beams emitting X-rays? I thought this thread was about the iron sun with aether batteries?

From a previous post. The iron sun acts like an antenna. Antennas take EM(photons) and transform them into electricity.

So the sun takes the "aether" and transforms it into electricity. The leakage current is large enough to generate the effects that we see.

WHAT leakage current? Can you please explain here in sufficient detail what exactly is happening with this aether, what these MASSLESS charges are that are generated by the aether, how this "current" (between quotation marks, as I have the vague suspicion this is not a normal electrical current) is leaking, etc. etc.

See above. The output of the sun is high voltage. Thats why there is not the corresponding high current magnetic field.

Then where does the Sun's magnetic field come from?
How can an output be "high voltage," what do you mean by that?
Do you mean that this leakage "current" is actually volts that are ejected by the Sun?

Yes, that is true. But you have to have a starting point. I think that starting point is the kinetic energy of the electrons from the iron surface. That kinetic energy is imparted by the aether/antenna(the field) configuration. Geometry is important. Just look at antenna design theory.

Please show me in detail how this wonderful aether is doing all this, thank you. And why, prithee is NOBODY doing any experiments with this aether, because it would basically solve the energy crisis.
For the rest I was talking about the changing of the magnetic field not about the reception by some weird sun-antenna of some magical aether radiation. So the only think that remains from your answer is "Yes, that is true."

I dont think its the mechanical motion of the sun changing the magnetic field as a driver. I also think that the Aether may be the driver for the suns rotation.

I never claimed that there was "mechanical motion of the sun," wherever did you get that idea? I think you can hardly deny that we observe motion of the foot points of the magnetic loops on the Sun and motion of the "surface" of the Sun, this being a plasma and not an iron crust.

You just keep on claiming one weird thing after another, dragging stuff into the discussion that you obviously don't understand. Therefore, start anew please with a clear concise detailed description of what exactly your iron sun is doing. Otherwise this whole thread is moot.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is also to bring light that the aether is not out of the realm of possibility. That the standard model has a few problems that may be solved by the judicious application of an alternate theory..

But you don't have an alternate theory. You have a bunch of hand waving based on unreplicated results which have nothing to do with proton spin.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sure, you can tell us why you think the sun is a cathode.

Well, for starters, the aurora, the coronal loops, the jets, the high speed solar wind, etc. These are all direct empirical 'predictions" of Birkeland's cathode solar model.

Seems like a relatively simple thing to prove. Why hasn't it been proven?

It's not as simple as you imagine because it's hard to measure current flow around something as large as a sun. It took the mainstream 70 years to be able to physically verify even the auroral part of Birkeland's theories. We are however see evidence of these predictions play out in solar atmospheric activity just as Birkeland 'predicted" in real empirical experiments.

Seems like a simple thing to test. Have you tested this idea, or is this still all in the realm of hypothetical?

FYI, Birkeland "tested" all these ideas in a lab, they are not "hypothetical" in any way.

It's not "hypothetical" that the sun dumped all that energy into the Earth's atmosphere via a "magnetic rope". That's been "measured" in joules. They simply *REFUSE* to look at Birkeland's solar model with an open mind or to fully consider the implications of "power generation' in terms of "current flow" from the sun! They can easily measure the magnetic fields so they imagine the magnetic field does all the work. in reality, the current flow is the work horse and the magnetic fields we measure are the direct result of that current flow.

 

[GeeMack]

FYI, Birkeland "tested" all these ideas in a lab, they are not "hypothetical" in any way.

I see you're surrounding the word "tested" in quote marks, which means you're applying a different definition than the commonly used one. You might want to clarify what you mean, but in the normal sense of the word, as used by real scientists, Birkeland did not test all those ideas in a lab, your severe misinterpretation of Birkeland's work notwithstanding.

Now how about we get back to the proof, your opportunity to show the world that the Sun has a solid iron surface. Many months ago, for several days, tens of pages of this thread, you were absolutely certain that everyone else was wrong and you were right about the running difference images you could make from the SDO data. You declared without any ambiguity that the results of your creation of those running difference images would be the proof that you were looking for, the evidence that would convince us all that your conjecture is correct, or it would be the nail in the coffin, the evidence that would demonstrate the failure of your entire claim.

You left this thread at the point where the necessary data was becoming available. But now you've decided to get involved in the discussion again. You claim to be a legitimate scientist with every bit as much interest in falsifying your conjecture as proving it. So when can we expect you to post those running difference images?

However it turns out it will be good for you. If you are correct, it will mean getting the attention of the entire world of astrophysical scientists. You'll get the assistance you need with your weaknesses like math, physics, image analysis, and communication. And with all that help from professionals, real scientists, you'll be able to flesh out your conjecture so it becomes a subject of legitimate science.

If it turns out you're wrong, it will mean you're finally be out from under all the ridicule that has been directed at your conjecture by pretty much every person who has heard of it. You'll be able to take down your web site, spend more time with your friends and family, and dedicate your attention to your other interests, hobbies, and your life. Are you prepared to finally show us what you've got and get this whole issue resolved?

 

[Ziggurat]

From a previous post. The iron sun acts like an antenna. Antennas take EM(photons) and transform them into electricity.

So the sun takes the "aether" and transforms it into electricity.

Yeah, um... no. In an antenna, charges move in response to applied electric fields. That is all they do. You can talk about transformation all you want to, but it's still just charges moving in response to an applied electric field. Where's this magic electric field from your aether, why can't we detect it here on earth, and how does it create charges?

See above. The output of the sun is high voltage.

What's the voltage, brantc? Ballpark it for me. Order of magnitude is good enough.

Yes, that is true. But you have to have a starting point. I think that starting point is the kinetic energy of the electrons from the iron surface. That kinetic energy is imparted by the aether/antenna(the field) configuration. Geometry is important. Just look at antenna design theory.

I also think that the Aether may be the driver for the suns rotation.

The sun doesn't need a driver for its rotation.

 

[brantc]

Yeah, and that lacked like every scientific ground, one big crank site.

It seems that way until you understand what they are talking about.

WHAT leakage current? Can you please explain here in sufficient detail what exactly is happening with this aether, what these MASSLESS charges are that are generated by the aether, how this "current" (between quotation marks, as I have the vague suspicion this is not a normal electrical current) is leaking, etc. etc.

Antenna. It picks up EM and converts it to electricity. You can stick an antenna up anywhere and if its the right shape you will get a current on the connecting wire. Very small but a current nonetheless.

What drives that conversion?? Dont know. But you could claim it is the transmitter I suppose.

In my hypothesis which I think is pretty close to Aetherometry's model, the EM that is transmitted "consists of propagating massfree charges." and this is what is truly picked up by the antenna although in standard theory they are called photons.

From http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6309281&postcount=4334
"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."

"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. "

So the antenna picks up these propagating mass free charges, what is called the propagating part of the photon, and converts this to electricity.
In an antenna there are never any photons really involved just the mass free charges pushing electrons around. These electrons come out of the end of the wire and you can measure this with an oscilloscope.
We do it regularly to see if the scope is really operating. Just crank up the gain with the right piece of wire and I can see the local radio station on my scope.

So the analogy is the sun is an antenna that is a hollow sphere the size of the sun.

Maybe with the right thickness, size and composition it will act like a very large antenna and produce an output current. Based on Teslas work with coils and Aetherometry's investigations the output of the sun is high voltage.

And the leakage current is based on the "EM" background of the universe.

I understand that a different model of gravity is required.
Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction
by David Pratt
April 2005
http://www.aetherometry.com/Aetherometry_Intro/pratt_aether_grav.php

Then where does the Sun's magnetic field come from?

I believe that there are currents that flow in the shell around the equator in a solenoidal configuration, that are driven by the electricity conversion process. These currents are interpreted in helioseismology.

How can an output be "high voltage," what do you mean by that?
Do you mean that this leakage "current" is actually volts that are ejected by the Sun?

Actual electrons come out of the iron shell as well as electrons from the ionization process of the neutral gas influx.

From American Scientist.
The Galactic Environment of the Sun
"Athough the ions in the interstellar medium are deflected around the heliosphere, a majority of the neutral interstellar atoms (mostly hydrogen and helium) flow cleanly into the solar system. Remarkably, about 98 percent of the diffuse gas within the heliosphere (excluding material associated with planetary bodies and comets) is interstellar material."
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.862,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

This gas contains O,N,He as well as trace elements and flows out from the center of the galaxy to flow into our solar system. This gas is the raw material for the processes that happen on the solar surface. Plasma activity in the form of pinches(reconnection) is responsible for nucleosynthesis of metals. NS happens on a continuous basis.This explains all the metal content nucleosynthesis results for all stars.

Please show me in detail how this wonderful aether is doing all this, thank you. And why, prithee is NOBODY doing any experiments with this aether, because it would basically solve the energy crisis.
For the rest I was talking about the changing of the magnetic field not about the reception by some weird sun-antenna of some magical aether radiation. So the only think that remains from your answer is "Yes, that is true."

POWER FROM AUTOELECTRONIC EMISSIONS
http://www.aetherometry.com/Labofex_Plasma_Physics/Archive/PwrfromAEemissions.html

There are many experiments that could be attributed to the aether but that are attributed to thing like virtual photons, the field, the permittivity of space etc.

I never claimed that there was "mechanical motion of the sun," wherever did you get that idea?

Sorry. I thought that the standard model claimed the the suns rotational(mechanical) motion was responsible for the magnetic fields.

I'm saying that the suns magnetic field is driven by the conversion process as a toroidal current. This current is responsible for the rotation of the sun as a Faraday Motor.

I think you can hardly deny that we observe motion of the foot points of the magnetic loops on the Sun and motion of the "surface" of the Sun, this being a plasma and not an iron crust.

Cathode spots "move mysteriously". Mysteries of the Cathode Arc Spot. IEEE.

You just keep on claiming one weird thing after another, dragging stuff into the discussion that you obviously don't understand. Therefore, start anew please with a clear concise detailed description of what exactly your iron sun is doing. Otherwise this whole thread is moot.

Tim has asked the question "Why doesnt the solar surface sublimate in seconds due to the UV photon flux."

This has to do with both the structure of the sun as well as its operation.

If it is putting out "solar radiation is electrical, not because it is composed of photons, but because it consists of propagating massfree charges", then there is not heat actually being generated on the solar surface, or the radiation flux is not heat photons until it hits the earth.

The particles are being accelerated away from the solar surface, the temperature is less at the solar surface because of the "electric field" direction. That why you have a cold photosphere and a hot corona because of electrical acceleration. The particle kinetic heat flow is in one direction only ~ because the particles are mostly gaining "heat" as they leave the solar surface.

The other part of this answer is that there is the glow layer that is between the surface and the larger percentage of the UV. From Lyman to EUV comes mostly from the chromosphere thorough corona. Only the brightest White Light Flares are seen by Hinode and BSO. The are correlated by IR observation to be at opacity 1, which is the solid surface of the sun ~400km under the white light surface of the "photosphere" glow layer..
These white light flares are located in the center of sun spots as well as loops are located coming out of sunspots.

So this glow layer is only transparent to the brightest WLF's. This are what I have deduced from the "observations".

In answer to your question I dont know the exact answer but that doesnt stop the sun from working.

The correct model of the sun will also explain alot of other things about the universe as well.

 

[tusenfem]

Sure, you can tell us why you think the sun is a cathode.

Well, for starters, the aurora, the coronal loops, the jets, the high speed solar wind, etc. These are all direct empirical 'predictions" of Birkeland's cathode solar model.

So, let's see:

The aurora is for the main part generated by currents set up in the Earth's magnetotail after e.g. a substorm takes place. There is no direct link between the Sun being a cathode and the Earth's aurora. That the Sun has an influence on the behaviour of the Earth's magnetotail is without question. Only for strong (southward) CMEs the aurora is directly driven by solar wind particles penetrating into the Earth's auroral region (70 - 400 km above the surface of the Earth)

Coronal loops are magnetic entities, loops of magnetic field that are below the Sun's "surface" by the most part, and therefore we see so called foot points of these loops (often lighting up in X-rays through bremsstrahlung). These things could not care less about the Sun being a cathode.

The jets. What kind of jets are meant here? But let's say you mean these as observed by STEREO, which are just accelerated plasma, both electrons and ions and thus, the notion that the Sun is a cathode is ridiculous as a cathode would never emit positive charge. If it would, most electrical engineers would be in great trouble.

The high solar wind speed ... has nothing to do with the Sun being a cathode, because the solar wind is a (quasi)neutral plasma, which means that on scales greater than the Debye sphere the total charge, which is the sum of all positive ions and all negative electrons, is equal to zero. That is the definition of a neutral plasma. Now, if the Sun would be a cathode, then it would be very difficult to accelerate the positive ions away from the Sun (it being a cathode and thus having negative potential), as basic electrodynamics or basice electrical engineering teaches that positive ions are attracted by a cathode, whereas negative ions or electrons are repulsed from the cathode. Now, the only significant negative ion at the Sun would be H_-, however only 1 in 10⁷ hydrogens in the solar photosphere are negatively charged. So that would well not account for the observed solar wind.

Therefore, the whole notion that the Sun would be a cathode, based on the experiments that Birkeland performed with his terrella, is totally wrong. Yes, the picture shows bright loops on the terrella, but those are electrons interacting with the outgassing of the sphere and following the magnetic field lines of the electromagnet inside the sphere. The electrons do not discharge from one spot on the sphere to the other, but they are ejected from both spots towards the furthest part of the field line and there they are no longer magnetized so they can easily move across field lines, and then disappear towards the anode that is on the wall of the box containing the terrella. For those interested in the electric circuit of the terrella experiment, I have attached a figure to this post.

 

[Ziggurat]

Antenna. It picks up EM and converts it to electricity. You can stick an antenna up anywhere and if its the right shape you will get a current on the connecting wire. Very small but a current nonetheless.

What drives that conversion?? Dont know.

If you don't know how antennae work, then why did you bring it up as a way to justify your own model?

Because physicists know exactly how antennae work.

In my hypothesis which I think is pretty close to Aetherometry's model, the EM that is transmitted "consists of propagating massfree charges."

Well, you're wrong. It consists of electromagnetic radiation, which is charge-free fields. There's no such thing as massfree charges.

[quoite]and this is what is truly picked up by the antenna although in standard theory they are called photons.[/quote]

Except that photons are most definitely NOT massfree charges. They are quite definitely charge-free.

"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."

"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. "

Nope. Complete and utter poppycock.

In an antenna there are never any photons really involved

Quite definitely not true.

just the mass free charges pushing electrons around.

Not so. The photons push them around, because photons are electromagnetic fields, and electromagnetic fields apply forces to charges. The ONLY charges involved are the electrons.

So the analogy is the sun is an antenna that is a hollow sphere the size of the sun.

Have you ever seen an antenna shaped like a big sphere? There's a reason for that: it's a crappy shape for an antenna.

Maybe with the right thickness, size and composition it will act like a very large antenna and produce an output current.

Oh, is THAT what those big dangly wires sticking out of the sun are for?

Based on Teslas work with coils and Aetherometry's investigations the output of the sun is high voltage.

Nope. Tesla's work involved electromagnetic radiation (or photons, if you want to use quantum mechanics). It did not involve massfree charges, which do not exist.

And the leakage current is based on the "EM" background of the universe.

The only "EM" background of the universe is the cosmic microwave background (CMB). One can rather easily crunch the numbers to figure out how much energy the CMB contains and how much power it can transmit. And it ain't enough. Not by more than 13 orders of magnitude. Note: that's not a factor of 13, that's a factor of 10,000,000,000,000.

I understand that a different model of gravity is required.
Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction
by David Pratt
April 2005
http://www.aetherometry.com/Aetherometry_Intro/pratt_aether_grav.php

Wow. What utter nonsense. It starts out questioning the fact that a static force applied to an object which does not move does no work. That's freshman physics: it's a basic and VERY well understood fact that, while not intuitive to some people, is fundamental to the very definition of both work and energy. They say,
"Correas argue that, in the presence of a gravitational field, the leaf can only remain deflected for as long as the kinetic energy it expends in doing work against gravity can be replenished in some way. "
Evidently the authors think that a rock sitting on the ground can only remain sitting on the ground as long as the kinetic energy the ground expends in doing work against the rock can be replenished in some way. Because it's the exact same setup. Their arguments used to try to justify claiming it's different are nonsense. For example, the whole bit about extending your arms to the side while holding a weight? Irrelevant. Human muscles can't lock in place. Individual cells are constantly contracting and relaxing. It would be like having a robot with joints that slipped, so that you needed to run the motor constantly to keep the joints in place. The energy isn't going into the object being held up, it's being expended in frictional heating.

I believe that there are currents that flow in the shell around the equator in a solenoidal configuration,

Well, there aren't. Measurements of the sun's magnetic field can tell us where the currents are, and they don't match your description.

These currents are interpreted in helioseismology.

Nope.

Plasma activity in the form of pinches(reconnection) is responsible for nucleosynthesis of metals.

No it isn't. There are no such pinches.

This explains all the metal content nucleosynthesis results for all stars.

It most certainly doesn't. You've got no way of predicting how much of what metals your model should be producing. That's not an explanation, that's hand-waving.

There are many experiments that could be attributed to the aether but that are attributed to thing like virtual photons, the field, the permittivity of space etc.

There's a good reason they aren't attributed to aether.

If it is putting out "solar radiation is electrical, not because it is composed of photons, but because it consists of propagating massfree charges", then there is not heat actually being generated on the solar surface, or the radiation flux is not heat photons until it hits the earth.

You're basically claiming that the physics of the sun is something wholly different from the physics we can observe here on earth (though it miraculously produces effects as if it obeyed the same laws of physics). And despite being wholly different physics, you can still somehow deduce these alternate laws of physics, even though they produce effects as if they obeyed standard laws of physics on earth.

The particles are being accelerated away from the solar surface, the temperature is less at the solar surface because of the "electric field" direction. That why you have a cold photosphere and a hot corona because of electrical acceleration. The particle kinetic heat flow is in one direction only ~ because the particles are mostly gaining "heat" as they leave the solar surface.

Except that the radiation from the sun IS photons, photons ARE charge-free, they WILL radiate in all directions, including inwards, and even if your electric field existed, it wouldn't keep that incoming flux from evaporating your iron shell.

Oh, and what do you think this electric field is? Give us a number. 1 volt/meter? 100 volts/meter? Whatever it is, we can crunch the numbers to see what such a field would actually do, and what it would take to make it.

 

[Reality Check]

Stop calling me names.

And the proton crisis has not been solved by your admission so there is nothing wrong with bringing up a problem to show how long it has been a problem. There are many things that still valid after many years.

This is also to bring light that the aether is not out of the realm of possibility. That the standard model has a few problems that may be solved by the judicious application of an alternate theory..

I did not call you names.

Are we now allowed to derail your trread into every problem in sceince that has not meen solved yet ?
My point was that

• The photon spin problem exists, has not been solved yet and is being actively investigated.
• This has nothing to so with your physically impossible idea.
  There are many 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

 

[Reality Check]

How is light reflected from a physically impossible surface revealed in RD images

Again. If I take my 15000K spectrum light, or my 6500K lamp, I can take pictures with this lamp because the light reflects. I can take pictures with x-rays.

Yes you can so what?

So the idea that you cant see objects that are NOT at the emission temperature of the light with said light is not correct.

I did not say that.
It is obvious that a reflective surface will absorb some light and relect the rest. This of course melts the surface if the light is at a tempertaure greater than the melting point of the surface.

1. We have light at a temperature of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K.
2. This light has been absorbed by your physically impossible surface for billions of years.
3. Thus your already physically impossible surface does not exist.

You need a solid reflective surface. And your solid iron surafce is physically impossible.

But maybe you can show that I am wrong, e.g.
How long does it take for your solid iron surface to sublimate?
8th September 2010

You ignored the simple fact that the first image is a running difference movie from the TRACE spacecraft. It was constructed by taking the difference beween 2 images in a series of images of a coronal mass ejection event.

The dark areas are where the temperature is decreasing, the light where it is decreasing. These areas happen to be next to each other (actually on either side of flares if you look at the original images). This gives the illusion of "mountain ranges".
​

A competent person would look at the original images and see that the physical objects are solar flares not mountain ranges.

This leads to another question for you brantc:
First asked 19 September 2010
What magical thing happens in constructing running difference images of light emitted from Fe IX ions in the corona that reveals light relected from your physically impossible surface?

 

[brantc]

Yes you can so what?


I did not say that.
It is obvious that a reflective surface will absorb some light and relect the rest. This of course melts the surface if the light is at a tempertaure greater than the melting point of the surface.

1. We have light at a temperature of 160,000 K to 2,000,000 K.
2. This light has been absorbed by your physically impossible surface for billions of years.
3. Thus your already physically impossible surface does not exist.

You need a solid reflective surface. And your solid iron surafce is physically impossible.

But maybe you can show that I am wrong, e.g.
How long does it take for your solid iron surface to sublimate?
8th September 2010

You ignored the simple fact that the first image is a running difference movie from the TRACE spacecraft. It was constructed by taking the difference beween 2 images in a series of images of a coronal mass ejection event.

The dark areas are where the temperature is decreasing, the light where it is decreasing. These areas happen to be next to each other (actually on either side of flares if you look at the original images). This gives the illusion of "mountain ranges".
​

A competent person would look at the original images and see that the physical objects are solar flares not mountain ranges.

This leads to another question for you brantc:
First asked 19 September 2010
What magical thing happens in constructing running difference images of light emitted from Fe IX ions in the corona that reveals light relected from your physically impossible surface?

Do you understand the structure of my hypothesis. If you do repeat it back to me. If you cant repeat it back to me then you will keep asking the wrong questions.

My hypothesis is that the sun is like a typical cathode with a glow layer over the cathode.

The light that you are seeing the surface by is from THE LOOPS and the loop FOOT PRINTS. Much smaller total quantity of light than the transition layer or corona.

If there is "2 million degree light" shining down on this glow layer from the corona and transition layer, why is it 6000K??

The light at 2MK is 171 Angstroms which is 72.505eV.

6000K is .6 eV.

So somehow the radiation is not getting down there( or not alot of it).
Unless you claiming that the radiation is passing through the glow layer(photosphere) without affecting it. (That sounds familiar)

The question of "why doesnt my surface sublimate" is not based on observation.

Now if I were to hazard a guess I would say some thing like "The preceding(lower) layer is denser than the layer above, thereby absorbing more than 100% of the incident radiation upon it from the upper layer. This radiation is mostly thermalized because of the lower energy of the preceding layer. Then this particle is carried higher in the atmosphere by the electric field. This carries the heat away from the solar surface."

 

[brantc]

If you don't know how antennae work, then why did you bring it up as a way to justify your own model?

Because physicists know exactly how antennae work.

I mean on a deeper level.

Ok. Explain exactly how the photon dingles the electron.
Exactly what is the physical structure of the photon?? The electron??

What exactly is the field that allows it to transfer kinetic energy from the photon to the electron?? Spin(magnetic field)?

The photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic field.
What is an electromagnetic field made of? i.e What is a photon made of??

I know, I know... Raises hand... Its massless... so its made of Massless energy??

 

[Reality Check]

How did a gloud of gas form your physcially impossible solid iron surface on the Sun

Do you understand the structure of my hypothesis. If you do repeat it back to me. If you cant repeat it back to me then you will keep asking the wrong questions.

I am asking the real questions - why are you under the impression that your physcially impossible solid iron surface on the Sun exists?

Do you understand the structure of my
My hypothesis is that the sun is like a typical cathode with a glow layer over the cathode.

I understand that the universe is telling you that your hypothesis is wrong. The sun is not a cathode.

The light that you are seeing the surface by is from THE LOOPS and the loop FOOT PRINTS. Much smaller total quantity of light than the transition layer or corona.

There is no solid iron surface and so no light from it.

If there is "2 million degree light" shining down on this glow layer from the corona and transition layer, why is it 6000K??

There is no such thing as a "glow layer" on the Sun.
The photosphere is emitting light typical of plasma at ~5700 K. That is beacuse it is being heated from below. It is a plasma so the 600,000K to 2,00,000 K light is absorbed and reemitted.

Since there is "2 million degree light" shining down on your physcially impossible solid iron surface on the Sun, why does it remain at less than the melting point of iron. But wait I have already asked this:
How long does it take for your solid iron surface to sublimate?
8th September 2010

And you have another physically impossible idea (see below) idea

The question of "why doesnt my surface sublimate" is not based on observation.

thus your physcially impossible solid iron surface on the Sun is doubly physically impossible.

Now if I were to hazard a guess I would say some thing like "The preceding(lower) layer is denser than the layer above, thereby absorbing more than 100% of the incident radiation upon it from the upper layer. This radiation is mostly thermalized because of the lower energy of the preceding layer. Then this particle is carried higher in the atmosphere by the electric field. This carries the heat away from the solar surface."

The physical impossiblity is highlighted. A layer cannot absorb more than all of the incident radiation.

P.S.
First asked 19 September 2010
What magical thing happens in constructing running difference images of light emitted from Fe IX ions in the corona that reveals light relected from your physically impossible surface?

And lets throw in yet another question
First asked 21 September 2010
brantc
Stellar formation is well understood.
FYI: Basically a cloud of gas clumps together under gravity until it gets dense enough for fusion to start and you have a star.

How did a gloud of gas form your physcially impossible solid iron surface on the Sun?

 

[Ziggurat]

I mean on a deeper level.

If you really wanted to understand on a deeper level, you'd try and learn quantum electrodynamics. But QED is hard, and it requires a lot of math. So... you won't.

I know, I know... Raises hand... Its massless... so its made of Massless energy??

Did you not notice that your "answer" not only doesn't actually answer any of the questions you just posed, it's also completely different than your previous claim of massless charge? Well, I did.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Proton Spin Crisis & the Sun

Oh. My mistake. I didn't realize the Proton Spin Crisis had been solved!!

The "proton spin crisis" came about as early scattering data on the proton internal structure seemed to imply that the total spin of the proton could not be accounted for by the quarks alone, and so it was thought that perhaps gluons carried some spin (e.g., Ashman, et al., 1988, Brodsky, Ellis & Karliner, 1988). But Veneziano, 1989 showed that the earlier papers were using an inappropriate definition for spin, pretty much putting the crisis away.

My point: I had never heard of the "proton spin crisis" until brantc mentioned it here. After about 15 minutes of exhaustive research using Google and the SAO/NASA ADS I was able to find out what the crisis was and the fact that is was solve a full 20 years before brantc chose to declare it to be still a crisis for physics. Now, it seems only reasonable to me that if one is going to declare a crisis for physics, one might at least spend a few minutes making sure that the crisis is really a crisis. Failing to do so destroys the credibility of the messenger, and therefore any trust that the message might have value or weight. Frankly, anyone that sloppy is truly unbelievable, whether the message be one regarding fundamental physics, or one regarding the power source for the sun.

But there is one more point to make, concerning both the "proton spin crisis", and this ...

Ok. Explain exactly how the photon dingles the electron.
Exactly what is the physical structure of the photon?? The electron??

What exactly is the field that allows it to transfer kinetic energy from the photon to the electron?? Spin (magnetic field)?

The photon is the quantum of the electromagnetic field.
What is an electromagnetic field made of? i.e What is a photon made of??

And here is my one more point: What has any of this to do with the sun and its power source? Photons, electrons, electromagnetic fields & etc. are all well established elements of classical physics, all extensively present in controlled laboratory experiments. So, if we do not know what they "really" are at some deeper level, how does that affect our understanding of the sun using these practical tools? I don't see that these are relevant questions and think we should drop the whole long topic and get back to the point of this thread, namely the sun.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So, let's see:

The aurora is for the main part generated by currents set up in the Earth's magnetotail after e.g. a substorm takes place. There is no direct link between the Sun being a cathode and the Earth's aurora. That the Sun has an influence on the behaviour of the Earth's magnetotail is without question.

This is just a completely irrational statement IMO. Of course there is a direct link. In fact Birkeland "created" his aurora by bombarding his terella with a cathode ray. His entire solar theory, solar wind, jets, loops, etc were all created by "current flow" coming from a cathode sun. Now you can *CLAIM* that there is *ANOTHER* way to generate these events, but so far you've not provide any empirical laboratory evidence to support that claim. Let's see you generate aurora without a cathode.

Coronal loops are magnetic entities, loops of magnetic field that are below the Sun's "surface" by the most part, and therefore we see so called foot points of these loops (often lighting up in X-rays through bremsstrahlung). These things could not care less about the Sun being a cathode.

No, they are not "magnetic entities", they are *ELECTROmagnetic* entities that are driven, created and produce by "current flow" and they themselves are channels of "current flow". They aren't sterile magnetic lines, they are powerful *DISCHARGES* through plasma. They wouldn't form at all if the sun were not a cathode and were not discharging itself to the heliosphere.

There's no point in going through each item because they are all related to "current flow". Once Birkeland turned off the power, the party was over and nothing "worked". You can't duplicate his experiments and his empirical "predictions" in the lab without current flow.

This is a prime example of why you're still living in the dark ages. You can't figure out what the actual "cause" of the acceleration of solar wind even when it's be "lab tested" for you and everything.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And another thing......

Your solar theories are useless. You can't actually "predict" a CME or flares or anything of the sort. I stuck my neck on on Monday to "predict" CME's and flares from a specific region and low and behold today we see a CME and there have been flares too. While you're still playing around with computer models, I'm able to actually *successfully* "predict" solar CME's and solar flares. You can't do that because you don't understand any of it.

 

[Tubbythin]

And another thing......
Your solar theories are useless.

Erm. No. You think the Sun has a solid/rigid iron surface despite the fact that the surface of the Sun is way way way above the the melting point of iron. Oh, and despite the fact that we know that stars collapse from massive clouds of hydrogen and helium.
Anyone can make predictions. Can you make quantitative predictions? If you can't its no more science than the proclamations of Nostradamus.

 

[GeeMack]

And another thing......

Your solar theories are useless. You can't actually "predict" a CME or flares or anything of the sort. I stuck my neck on on Monday to "predict" CME's and flares from a specific region and low and behold today we see a CME and there have been flares too. While you're still playing around with computer models, I'm able to actually *successfully* "predict" solar CME's and solar flares. You can't do that because you don't understand any of it.

You have an obvious misunderstanding of how the word "predict" is used when considering a scientific theory. Your qualifications to understand science, particularly solar physics, have been challenged, and you have been wholly unable to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications.

However, since you acknowledge that you are participating in this thread again, how about you revisit this issue, since you claimed confidently and unambiguously that the SDO data was going to be the evidence that shows the world that your conjecture about the Sun's surface is correct...

Now how about we get back to the proof, your opportunity to show the world that the Sun has a solid iron surface. Many months ago, for several days, tens of pages of this thread, you were absolutely certain that everyone else was wrong and you were right about the running difference images you could make from the SDO data. You declared without any ambiguity that the results of your creation of those running difference images would be the proof that you were looking for, the evidence that would convince us all that your conjecture is correct, or it would be the nail in the coffin, the evidence that would demonstrate the failure of your entire claim.

You left this thread at the point where the necessary data was becoming available. But now you've decided to get involved in the discussion again. You claim to be a legitimate scientist with every bit as much interest in falsifying your conjecture as proving it. So when can we expect you to post those running difference images?

However it turns out it will be good for you. If you are correct, it will mean getting the attention of the entire world of astrophysical scientists. You'll get the assistance you need with your weaknesses like math, physics, image analysis, and communication. And with all that help from professionals, real scientists, you'll be able to flesh out your conjecture so it becomes a subject of legitimate science.

If it turns out you're wrong, it will mean you're finally be out from under all the ridicule that has been directed at your conjecture by pretty much every person who has heard of it. You'll be able to take down your web site, spend more time with your friends and family, and dedicate your attention to your other interests, hobbies, and your life. Are you prepared to finally show us what you've got and get this whole issue resolved?​

You may, of course, admit that you were wrong and that you are unable to support your conjecture as you claimed.

 

[Reality Check]

And another thing......

Your solar theories are useless. You can't actually "predict" a CME or flares or anything of the sort. I stuck my neck on on Monday to "predict" CME's and flares from a specific region and low and behold today we see a CME and there have been flares too. While you're still playing around with computer models, I'm able to actually *successfully* "predict" solar CME's and solar flares. You can't do that because you don't understand any of it.

I did not see that post, can you link to it. This post does lead to a few questions:

1. What is the difference between "predict" and predict.
2. Can you show your working for the prediction in enough detail that someone else can do it (this is a basic part of science)?
   Or was it just a guess, e.g. this area looks like it will produce a CME sometimne.
3. Can you make another prediction?
4. What is your success rate for your predicitions?
   99%? 1%? 0.01%?

Solar theories can and do predict CME, flares and anything of the sort.