Moderated Iron sun with Aether batteries...

[Tim Thompson]

Is There a Solar X-ray, Gamma-ray & Neutrino Problem? I

... my model fits every parameter for the sun. Just look at it. ... X-rays, gammas, neutrinos.

All three of these: X-rays, gamma rays and neutrinos are easily explained by the standard solar model. The X-rays come from rapidly accelerated plasma, especially (but not exclusively) in magnetic reconnection events, Gamma rays come from the relaxation of excited nuclear states and neutron capture reactions. See my earlier posts Neutron Capture Gamma Rays (6 April 2010) & Solar Surface Fusion? Not Likely. III (14 May 2010). And of course, neutrinos are emitted in the course of nuclear fusion reactions interior to the sun, and are now known to appear to our detectors in numbers consistent with the standard internal fusion models of the sun. See my earlier post Comments on Neutrino Oscillations (12 July 2009) and references therein.

In what way does your model account for all of these and why is your model superior to the standard model?

 

[brantc]

Yes. Work = force x distance. She moves as she pushes, so her arms do work on her body.

Where does the energy come from? Internal energy.... Internal force.....

"In physics, mechanical work is the amount of energy transferred by a force acting through a distance." Comment Energy transfered to the stationary Bar???

According to the work-energy theorem if an external force acts upon a rigid object, causing its kinetic energy to change from Ek1 to Ek2, then the mechanical work (W) is given by:[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(physics)

"In physics, energy (from the Greek ἐνέργεια - energeia, "activity, operation", from ἐνεργός - energos, "active, working") is a scalar physical quantity that describes the amount of work that can be performed by a force, an attribute of objects and systems that is subject to a conservation law. ...
the units of energy are joules or ergs; "energy can take a wide variety of forms" "

Force requires energy to operate. A force expends energy.
Work is the transfer of energy. Energy is the amount of work.
F=ma Acceleration is because of Force.
Mass has an energy of its own. E=MC^2

What is it that is really being transferred around(conserved)??

I say the term energy is used semi wrongly, and is really the most basic substance of the universe from which everything is made.
This is what is transferred around.

This energy is the Aether. It is massless.
It may be massless with charge or without charge. Or it can be charged and massive.

 

[Reality Check]

Where does the energy come from? Internal energy.... Internal force.....

The energy comes from the ice skater and the railing.
There is no "internal energy" or "internal force". There is the equal and opposite force between the ice skater and the railing. The ice skater exerts the force using the energy from her muscles. The railing exerts the force using the energy from between its atoms.

...snipped standard definitions...
Force requires energy to operate. A force expends energy.
Work is the transfer of energy. Energy is the amount of work.
F=ma Acceleration is because of Force.

Up to here you have basic Newtonian mechanics.

Mass has an energy of its own. E=MC^2

Not quite.
What E=mc^2 states is that a mass m at rest can be considered to be equivalent to an energy of mc^2.
You imply that mass is energy which is wrong.

What is it that is really being transferred around(conserved)??

Energy. Conservation of energy.

I say the term energy is used semi wrongly, and is really the most basic substance of the universe from which everything is made.
This is what is transferred around.

Then you are wrong. By definition energy is a measured property of a system. It is not a thing in itself.

This energy is the Aether. It is massless.
It may be massless with charge or without charge. Or it can be charged and massive.

And you are even more wrong.
The aether is not energy. It is a hypothetical medium through which light travels and there is little evidence for it.
I suspect though that you are referring to the crank web site "Aether" not anything that is actually science.

 

[GeeMack]

[...]

This energy is the Aether. It is massless.
It may be massless with charge or without charge. Or it can be charged and massive.

That is an argument from ignorance, plain and simple.

 

[brantc]

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Just think about what I am saying for a minute. If you could suspend disbelief, just for a minute, my model fits every parameter for the sun. Just look at it.

Let us suppose that you model indeed does fit every parameter for the sun. However, I think we have already convincingly demonstrated that your model is also inconsistent with the known laws of physics.

Aetherometry and my hypothesis are indeed inconsistent with the current interpretations of physical phenomena.

The requirement to to conform my hypothesis to current physics would be a different model of gravity and an aether that explains what the "field" actually is.

Which takes precedence? If your model fits the sun perfectly, but at the expense of not fitting the laws of physics, should we accept it anyway, because of its explanatory powers regarding the sun? Or should we reject it because it is inconsistent with known physics, and seek a better model?

How do you know when to draw the line??

The laws of physics are mathematical models formulated on observations.
They are subject to change as our understanding of the universe becomes more finely grained.

We already know gravity has problems. We also know that aether was not disproved. MM was non zero by some accounts.
This taken with the idea that location can affect results (Dayton Miller) and sidereal signals in data, I would strongly suggest that the idea of some sort of an aether was thrown out prematurely.

It seems as though in our coarse haste to embrace brilliant human concepts like relativity, we missed the finer natural phenomena like the effects of the aether.

 

[brantc]

The answer given here by brantc does not answer the question I asked (which I have bolded here for emphasis). Not only do we see & count individual photons coming from the sun (and other astronomical sources), but we can determine the direction from which the photons enter the detector. According to this aether hypothesis, there are no photons generated at the source, so they must be generated somewhere along the line of sight between the source and the detector, and with directionality consistent with that line of sight.

And so I ask again: Where along the sun-Earth path are they created? Are photons mostly created in close proximity to the sun? In close proximity to the detector? Evenly distributed along the line of sight? Or maybe in some other distribution that is somehow re-oriented to the line of sight?

You could go to http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/English/photon.php and read it also.

Basic Aetherometric Definition

A photon is a swing (a particle, a conjunction of waves, and an energy packet) of electromagnetic energy. Its particulate aspect relates to its linear momentum (its existence as a particle) and the pressure it exerts upon adjacent matter. Its quantization relates to its constant of angular momentum, and its quantized energy forms two distinct spectra - blackbody and ionizing. Photons do not travel through space, nor do they have a fibrous structure. Photons are globular, not fascicular, and they are created and destroyed on the spot - ie local productions. Rays are simply a probabilistic way of approximating the physical reality of the phase or excitation wave that transmits 'across space' the indirect stimulus for the production of light. In the case of blackbody photons, a mediating term must always intervene between the phase wave and the production of photons, or light; the mediating term is always a massbound charge.

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.

1.2. If photons do not travel through space, what is it that travels through space and is the cause of the transmission of the light stimulus, and ultimately of any local production of photons?

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).

Continued......

 

[brantc]

How does a solid iron surface do that? The alleged solid iron surface sits, as you say, 400 km below the "visible surface" of the photosphere. But the temperature gradient you speak of is not smooth, being concentrated in the transition region between the chromosphere & corona. In the transition region the plasma temperature rises from about 6,000 Kelvins (K) to 600,000 K, a factor of 100, over a distance of about 1,000 km. The base of the 1,000 km region is about 1500 km above your iron surface, and between your iron surface and the base of the transition region, the temperature actually drops, from about 10,000 K to about 4,000 K, before rising once again to about 6,000 K over a distance of about 1,000 km before the base of the transition region. So the temperature rises from 4,000 K to 6,000 K over 1,000 km, and then rises from about 6,000 K to 600,000 K over the next 1,000 km (see figure 9-17, page 310, and the attendant text, in the book Solar Astrophysics, Peter Foukal, Wiley-VCH, 2004). A solid iron layer can under no circumstances exceed about 2,000 K under the most optimistic & favorable circumstances we can imagine. And since it is solid, it has no moving parts. So there must be some unexplained remote control mechanism it can use to cause the plasma 1500 km away to skyrocket in temperature, while the intervening plasma actually cools. It will not be sufficient to explain this by simply waving your hands around and appealing to the vague generalities of electricity, aether or orgone power. Specific physics is required. Do you have any?

I am using the simplest model possible, the cathode in a glow discharge.
The sun is in the glow region of the breakdown curve.
http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/dischg.htm#Glow

From a paper entitled
Mysteries of the Arc Cathode Spot: A Retrospective Glance
D. Plasma Expansion and Ion Acceleration

A further astonishing fact of arc spots is the high kinetic energy of ions leaving the cathodic plasma cloud toward the walls and the anode [21], [22] (i.e., in a direction seemingly opposite to the general electric field in gas discharges; the ion part of the arc current is negative).
A simple theory discloses an explanation [23], [24] that may be considered as sufficiently convincing: The ions are accelerated by three forces: 1) the pressure gradient within the cathodic plasma; 2) the electron-ion friction; and 3) the electric field, which has the opposite direction in the plasma expansion zone, forming a potential hump near the cathode spot.
Electrons are accelerated by the dominating pressure gradient also, but are slowed down by friction and the electric field. Thus, the electrical resistance of the expanding plasma is negative, doubtless a further strange property of arc spots. However, at high currents and in gas environments where a kind of constricted dense plasma column develops, this curiosity disappears, the field retains its normal direction. The generation of multiple charged ions in the dense cathodic plasma by thermal and pressure ionization (under nonideal conditions, e.g., in explosions) and freezing of this composition during plasma expansion was investigated, particularly by Brown, Anders, and others (for instance, [25]).

So there is the electrical explanation for the "solar wind".

The standard solar model, on the other hand, can explain this temperature gradient fairly easily, at least in principle. It is due to magnetic or magneto acoustic waves, which steepen into shocks at the transition region. That's an oversimplification but it gets the idea across.

Shocks can pile up but that requires an impedance change, which begs the question, what created the layers in the first place.

In the electrical model the formations are a natural consequence of current flow. Glow layer, dark space etc. The current/voltage also serves to accelerate the particles from the lower temperature surface to the higher temperature corona.

Most of the chromospheric heating, in the 1,000 km below the transition region, can be explained by compressional waves associated with the 5-minute oscillations in photospheric granules (it is far easier for things that move around to generate waves than it is for a static iron layer to do it). Coronal heating is probably due to several simultaneous processes happening at once, including magnetic Alfven waves, and energy released by microflares & spicules at the top of the chromosphere. This is all extensively reviewed in the literature, though usually dismissed without comment by critics of the standard model, who usually prefer to avoid physics whenever possible; see for instance, my earlier post Coronal Heating & Solar Wind I (17 April 2010) and references therein.

The heating is because of the field. Electric fields do a much better job of heating than mechanical methods like compression. Electric fields act directly on the particles where as compressional waves rely on group motion. Magnetic fields are good for guiding ions but not good for accelerating them.

I've looked at micro flares, nanoflares, explosive events, blinkers, spicules, solar moss(plage), etc, etc. as mechanisms for heating of the corona. Lots of TRACE time.

Thats how I got here.

 

[brantc]

One other question set for Brantc. You have mentioned supernova's as the source of the material for the shell you propose.
How did the first starts work in your theory, when the universe was mainly composed of hydrogen?

The first stars in the iron sun universe.

Let suppose there was an imbalance in the aether. This caused an electron to be freed and now there is an potential difference across the universe, or something like that..
This is the Big Bang equivalent.

So now you have a current across the universe which eventually forms into a filament due to the increasing current flow. Filaments(flux tubes, elephant trunks, what ever you want to call them) form when the plasma cant locally support that current flow. From there the right hand rule follows.

Now you have a large filament that is is sorting ions by ionization potentials, Marklund Convection as a z-pinch forms in the filament. The pinch is hot enough to go through the nucleosynthesis process by repeated pinching.
Eventually an iron core pops out which sometimes you see as lone stars racing across space.

And how, in your model, are (super)nova's even possible? The iron shell gathers aether and makes light. We see no massive iron ejection from the sun, so the shell is probably stable. And even if it isn't, when it degrades it will just stop working. So your own model at the moment lacks the ability to produce the materials needed in your model.
Or does iron spontaneously appear through 'aether'?

There are two flows of interstellar gas that flow through our heliosphere. This provide the raw material for the sun to operate as well as synthesize metals.

"Because the Sun's motion relative to the surrounding gas, an interstellar breeze of neutral atoms blows through the heliosphere, very much like the wind felt when driving an open car. Only very close to the Sun is the neutral gas ionized by the Sun's UV light and the by the solar wind, which leads to a small cavity in the neutral gas, roughly of several AU in size. Except for hydrogen, which is affected by radiation pressure, the Sun's gravity deflects the neutral gas flow, leading to a concentration of neutral gas density in the direction opposite to inflow direction of the gas.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/the-galactic-environment-of-the-sun/1

The resulting flow pattern is shown in Figure 1 for helium. It is this flow pattern that is analyzed to derive the flow speed, its direction, and temperature. Helium, the second most abundant element after hydrogen, distinguishes itself by infiltrating closest to the Sun, to distances even inside the Earth's orbit. Furthermore, because its density, temperature, and speed are not affected by processes at the heliospheric boundary, analysis of the properties of the helium gas inside the heliosphere allows one to establish the state of the pristine interstellar medium.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15256

As the interstellar atoms are ionized, they are "picked up" by the solar wind plasma and swept out to the heliosphere's termination shock. Since these pickup ions are products of the interaction between the solar wind and the neutral atoms of the interstellar medium, their measurement offers clues to the composition of the interstellar medium. Helium pickup ions were originally discovered near the earth by a team led by Eberhard Möbius, now at the University of New Hampshire, in the mid-1980s. More recently, as the Ulysses spacecraft left the inner solar system, the onboard SWICS instrument (of George Gloeckler at the University of Maryland and Johannes Geiss at the International Space Sciences Institute in Maryland) was able to detect and identify additional elements in the pickup-ion population, including nitrogen, neon and oxygen, as well as isotopes of helium and neon. Each of these elements is found partially in neutral form in interstellar gas, and the neutrals can enter the heliosphere without diversion by the Lorentz forces. Comparing the abundances of pickup ions with the abundances of ions in the nearby interstellar gas provides important clues about the original ionization level of the cloud feeding interstellar material into the solar system.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/the-galactic-environment-of-the-sun/2

The raw material makes it down to the surface of the sun to take part in processes on the surface.

Mystery: Gas from sun heads in wrong direction

"In defiance of expectations, clouds of solar gas have been observed falling back into the sun. The puzzling behavior could shed light on the mysterious magnetism of the sun, which helps protect planet Earth from lethal cosmic rays.

European astronomers have spotted the enigmatic eruptions on numerous occasions using a powerful sun-watching satellite observatory.

Mostly they take place during times of intense solar activity, characterized by the presence of many sunspots. The inflows have started about 1.7 million miles (2.7 million kilometers) from the sun's surface, a distance equivalent to twice the diameter of the star

For unknown reasons, they are able to fight against the powerful solar wind, which pushes gas and ions away from the sun at speeds of about 75 miles per second (120 km/second).

"I was stunned when I saw the first movies showing these inflows," said Bernard Fleck, a scientist with the European Space Agency. Using the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), a joint ESA-NASA sun-watching satellite, he and others first witnessed the strange phenomenon several years ago.

"Before the discovery with SOHO, no one had any idea that gas could travel the wrong way and be pushed back toward the sun."
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-11-21/...ry-solar-scientists-magnetic-field?_s=PM:TECH

 

[Ziggurat]

Comment Energy transfered to the stationary Bar???

None. Can't you understand what I said? The force applied to the bar is not applied over a distance, so no work is done on the bar. Which should surprise no one, since the bar is exactly the same after the force is applied as it was before the force was applied. But apparently that surprises you.

Oh, and we don't need all those quotes, everyone here but you understands work and energy perfectly well.

A force expends energy.

Only if it's applied over a distance. Otherwise... no.

I say the term energy is used semi wrongly, and is really the most basic substance of the universe from which everything is made.
This is what is transferred around.

You can say it all you want, but it doesn't make any sense, and it's wrong.

This energy is the Aether.

No, brantc, it isn't. Energy is a state variable. It is not a thing.

It is massless.

It's massless only in the most trivial sense (like volume is massless, color is massless, temperature is massless, etc). But it does affect mass and gravity.

It may be massless with charge or without charge.

Nope. All charges have mass.

 

[GeeMack]

I am using the simplest model possible, the cathode in a glow discharge.
The sun is in the glow region of the breakdown curve.

The simplest model possible doesn't violate the known laws of physics. Your "model" does. And I put the word in quotes because a solar model is a mathematical description of the Sun which attempts to explain mass, density, elemental makeup, thermal characteristics, luminosity, and pretty much all the characteristics of the Sun and how they fit the observed data. Your "model" has nothing to do with a mathematical description, and it explains nothing to anyone in any reasonable or scientific way. It's wrong on almost every detail and physically impossible on many. It's a wild guess based on, well...

I've looked at micro flares, nanoflares, explosive events, blinkers, spicules, solar moss(plage), etc, etc. as mechanisms for heating of the corona. Lots of TRACE time.

Thats how I got here.

... looking at a bunch of pictures. Your qualifications to understand solar imagery have been challenged, and so far you have been unable to demonstrate that you possess any such qualifications, at any level. Consequently any guess you make about the Sun based on solar imagery is unsupportable and unscientific, and may therefore be dismissed as meaningless.

 

[ben m]

"The sun is in the glow region of the breakdown curve"? What?

Brantc, I'm very sorry to inform you---hot plasmas do not have a glow region. They don't even have a breakdown curve. If you try to put a voltage (AC or DC) across a hot plasma, like that in the Sun, you just get conduction---Ohm's Law conduction. That's it. No glow region, no discharge region, no insulating region. Just conduction.

Glow discharge only happens when there are coexisting neutral and ionized atoms; the cold bath of neutral atoms sort of serves as a buffer that regulates the rate of ionization.

Glow discharges DO NOT EMIT BLACKBODY RADIATION. They emit atomic line radiation (that's why they are useful for spectroscopy).

The Sun is a hot, conductive plasma, with few (just above the photosphere) or zero (any deeper) non-ionized neutral atoms. You can tell by the spectroscopy, which shows a 6000K blackbody spectrum with a 6000K blackbody's Stefan-Boltzmann total intensity, and which does NOT show any emission lines, and furthermore whose (weak) absorption lines only serve to emphasize how very scarce neutral atoms are in the Sun.

Did you even find out what a glow discharge *was* before deciding to throw those words into your solar vocabulary?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

The first stars in the iron sun universe.

Let suppose there was an imbalance in the aether. This caused an electron to be freed and now there is an potential difference across the universe, or something like that..
This is the Big Bang equivalent.

What causes this imbalance and do you have physical proof of it? Proof that also explains the sponaneous generation of particle antiparticle pairs involved in Hawking radiation, which has been observed? Also bear in mind that you've never actually shown any proof this aether actually exists. What experiments have you done that every other physicist has missed?

So now you have a current across the universe which eventually forms into a filament due to the increasing current flow. Filaments(flux tubes, elephant trunks, what ever you want to call them) form when the plasma cant locally support that current flow. From there the right hand rule follows.

If there is such a massive current flowing trough the universe, why do our space probes not observe this? And yes, I have read the electric universe thread and I find the proof for that utterly unfounded and unrealistic

Now you have a large filament that is is sorting ions by ionization potentials, Marklund Convection as a z-pinch forms in the filament. The pinch is hot enough to go through the nucleosynthesis process by repeated pinching.
Eventually an iron core pops out which sometimes you see as lone stars racing across space.

What ions? A single electron does not an ion make. In order to sort Ion's you'd need them first and while the standard model tentitavely allows for the eventual appearence of hydrogen, bigger masses are so improbable it would require the lifetime of mutliple universes for just a single one. Have you proven such higher atomic number ions can pop out of the aether?

There are two flows of interstellar gas that flow through our heliosphere. This provide the raw material for the sun to operate as well as synthesize metals.

"Because the Sun's motion relative to the surrounding gas, an interstellar breeze of neutral atoms blows through the heliosphere, very much like the wind felt when driving an open car. Only very close to the Sun is the neutral gas ionized by the Sun's UV light and the by the solar wind, which leads to a small cavity in the neutral gas, roughly of several AU in size. Except for hydrogen, which is affected by radiation pressure, the Sun's gravity deflects the neutral gas flow, leading to a concentration of neutral gas density in the direction opposite to inflow direction of the gas.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/the-galactic-environment-of-the-sun/1

That paper just explains how the sun moves trough the interstellar medium and reacts with it. In no way does it even hint that this gas is somehow part of how the sun works. It also claims the interstellar gas is neutral, directly contradicting your ion flow model.

The resulting flow pattern is shown in Figure 1 for helium. It is this flow pattern that is analyzed to derive the flow speed, its direction, and temperature. Helium, the second most abundant element after hydrogen, distinguishes itself by infiltrating closest to the Sun, to distances even inside the Earth's orbit. Furthermore, because its density, temperature, and speed are not affected by processes at the heliospheric boundary, analysis of the properties of the helium gas inside the heliosphere allows one to establish the state of the pristine interstellar medium.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15256


As the interstellar atoms are ionized, they are "picked up" by the solar wind plasma and swept out to the heliosphere's termination shock. Since these pickup ions are products of the interaction between the solar wind and the neutral atoms of the interstellar medium, their measurement offers clues to the composition of the interstellar medium. Helium pickup ions were originally discovered near the earth by a team led by Eberhard Möbius, now at the University of New Hampshire, in the mid-1980s. More recently, as the Ulysses spacecraft left the inner solar system, the onboard SWICS instrument (of George Gloeckler at the University of Maryland and Johannes Geiss at the International Space Sciences Institute in Maryland) was able to detect and identify additional elements in the pickup-ion population, including nitrogen, neon and oxygen, as well as isotopes of helium and neon. Each of these elements is found partially in neutral form in interstellar gas, and the neutrals can enter the heliosphere without diversion by the Lorentz forces. Comparing the abundances of pickup ions with the abundances of ions in the nearby interstellar gas provides important clues about the original ionization level of the cloud feeding interstellar material into the solar system.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/the-galactic-environment-of-the-sun/2

The raw material makes it down to the surface of the sun to take part in processes on the surface.

But the paper states the majority does NOT make it to the surface of the sun and that which does make it TO the sun is ionized BY the sun. Therefore these ions cannot power the sun.

Mystery: Gas from sun heads in wrong direction

"In defiance of expectations, clouds of solar gas have been observed falling back into the sun. The puzzling behavior could shed light on the mysterious magnetism of the sun, which helps protect planet Earth from lethal cosmic rays.

European astronomers have spotted the enigmatic eruptions on numerous occasions using a powerful sun-watching satellite observatory.

Mostly they take place during times of intense solar activity, characterized by the presence of many sunspots. The inflows have started about 1.7 million miles (2.7 million kilometers) from the sun's surface, a distance equivalent to twice the diameter of the star

For unknown reasons, they are able to fight against the powerful solar wind, which pushes gas and ions away from the sun at speeds of about 75 miles per second (120 km/second).

"I was stunned when I saw the first movies showing these inflows," said Bernard Fleck, a scientist with the European Space Agency. Using the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), a joint ESA-NASA sun-watching satellite, he and others first witnessed the strange phenomenon several years ago.

"Before the discovery with SOHO, no one had any idea that gas could travel the wrong way and be pushed back toward the sun."
http://articles.cnn.com/2001-11-21/...ry-solar-scientists-magnetic-field?_s=PM:TECH

Fine, we do not fully understand solar magnetics yet, but then again nowhere in the standard model is the sun considered to be non-magnetic. Its magnetic fields seem to correlate with the thermal movement of highly energised plasma, which is very hard to simulate on earth. But such minor unknowns are far more an indication that the standard model needs some re-adjustment than that we need to throw out the laws of physics. The only way to do that is to prove your laws of physics actually exist.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_1600.mpg

For anyone actually interested, the 1600A images today show a good example of an "active" region's effect on the photosphere. You can see it light up the photosphere and pull material up from the photosphere around the 2:30 position as the active region rolls over the horizon.

The discharge process comes *UP AND THROUGH* the surface of the photosphere, and the kinetic energy inside the loops lights up the photosphere surface and pulls material from the photosphere up and away from the photosphere.

LMSAL blew it when it claimed that to the bases of the coronal loops and solar moss activity are located far above the photosphere. LMSAL keeps claiming that solar moss events start 1200KM *ABOVE* the photosphere, when it's clear you can see the loops are *HIGHLY* energized before they even leave the photosphere.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/9912/17tracemoss/index.html

 

[GeeMack]

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_1600.mpg

For anyone actually interested, the 1600A images today show a good example of an "active" region's effect on the photosphere. You can see it light up the photosphere and pull material up from the photosphere around the 2:30 position as the active region rolls over the horizon.

The discharge process comes *UP AND THROUGH* the surface of the photosphere, and the kinetic energy inside the loops lights up the photosphere surface and pulls material from the photosphere up and away from the photosphere.

LMSAL blew it when it claimed that to the bases of the coronal loops and solar moss activity are located far above the photosphere. LMSAL keeps claiming that solar moss events start 1200KM *ABOVE* the photosphere, when it's clear you can see the loops are *HIGHLY* energized before they even leave the photosphere.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/9912/17tracemoss/index.html

Your qualifications to understand solar imagery of any sort have been challenged, repeatedly, and you have never once demonstrated that you possess any such qualifications. Your argument above is unqualified, contradictory to what is known about solar physics, uses terminology incorrectly, and may therefore be dismissed as meaningless.

 

[Tubbythin]

Proof that also explains the sponaneous generation of particle antiparticle pairs involved in Hawking radiation, which has been observed?

It has?

 

[Reality Check]

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_1600.mpg

For anyone actually interested, the 1600A images today show a good example of an "active" region's effect on the photosphere. You can see it light up the photosphere and pull material up from the photosphere around the 2:30 position as the active region rolls over the horizon.

The discharge process comes *UP AND THROUGH* the surface of the photosphere, and the kinetic energy inside the loops lights up the photosphere surface and pulls material from the photosphere up and away from the photosphere.

LMSAL blew it when it claimed that to the bases of the coronal loops and solar moss activity are located far above the photosphere. LMSAL keeps claiming that solar moss events start 1200KM *ABOVE* the photosphere, when it's clear you can see the loops are *HIGHLY* energized before they even leave the photosphere.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/9912/17tracemoss/index.html

Your "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic does not mean that there are discharges in that movie. As anyone who know basic physics knows:

• Electrical discharges ("discharge process") occur through the breakdown of dielectric medium.
• Plasmas are highly conductive. They are not dielectric.

Your "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic is not evidence that LMSAL was wrong (Trace Spacecraft Discovers Moss on the Sun).
Actual astronomers (with real expertise in astronomy rather than just imaging that they see things in images) measure that solar moss events start 1200KM *ABOVE* the photosphere.

You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that astronomers know that coronal loops are *HIGHLY* energized as they emerge from the photosphere and get even more *HIGHLY* energized during flare activity.

 

[Reality Check]

...snip....
LMSAL blew it when it claimed that to the bases of the coronal loops and solar moss activity are located far above the photosphere. LMSAL keeps claiming that solar moss events start 1200KM *ABOVE* the photosphere, when it's clear you can see the loops are *HIGHLY* energized before they even leave the photosphere.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/9912/17tracemoss/index.html

People may be interested in one technique that astronomers used to measure the height of solar moss above the photosphere.

It is really simple - take an image of solar moss at the limb of the Sun, an image of the photosphere, overlay them and measure the distance from the photosphere to the moss layer.
Moss at the Limb

This composite TRACE image shows a layer of moss seen at the Solar limb. The yellow image is a visible light image of the Sun and shows the "solar surface" or photosphere. The blue image is a TRACE 171 Angstrom image showing 1 to 2 million degree coronal loops and a bright "layer" of moss just above the surface. The moss layer is located between about 1500 to 4000 km (1000 - 2500 miles) above the solar surface, much lower than the typical coronal loop apex heights.

For a paper on this: High-resolution Imaging of the Solar Chromosphere/Corona Transition Region (page L98)

At the limb, moss appears as a thin, low-lying, irregular layer in the atmosphere, occasionally obscured by dark, spiculelike jets. Measurements of moss emission height were made by observing active regions from near disk center to the limb in TRACE 171 A° and white-light images. The white-light images establish a photospheric reference height for the EUV images with an estimated error in image registration of less than 1" (0.725Mm solar).We find an average base height above the white-light limb for the moss layer of 2.8 Mm (sigma ~ 0.9 Mm). Measurements of the thickness of the moss layer are difficult because of the presence of EUV-emitting loops in the line of sight; estimated values are between 1 and 3 Mm. The dark jets sometimes seen to obscure the moss layer are on the order of 1–2 Mm wide and reach typical heights of 5 Mm above the white-light limb.

 

[ben m]

The first stars in the iron sun universe.

Let suppose there was an imbalance in the aether. This caused an electron to be freed and now there is an potential difference across the universe, or something like that..
This is the Big Bang equivalent.

So now you have a current across the universe

... which flows for a tiny fraction of a second. After this current has existed momentarily, the original potential difference has gone away. That's how electricity works.

Everything else you said:

which eventually forms into a filament due to the increasing current flow. Filaments ... plasma cant locally support that current flow. ...
Now you have a large filament ... a z-pinch ... repeated pinching

is included, as far as I can tell, you're imagining the behaviors characteristic of a voltage-regulated power supply---something whose EMF is replenished by, e.g., a gas turbine---and NOT characteristic of an initially-imbalanced supply of charge.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Photons and Mass-free Charges I

And so I ask again: Where along the sun-Earth path are they created? Are photons mostly created in close proximity to the sun? In close proximity to the detector? Evenly distributed along the line of sight? Or maybe in some other distribution that is somehow re-oriented to the line of sight?

You could go to http://www.encyclopedianomadica.org/English/photon.php and read it also. ...

I could. But then again, you could simply answer the question. Well, you could if you knew the answer, anyway. Likewise, the webpage you suggest could answer the question, if they knew the answer. So at this point I can only assume that neither you nor the champions of the aether hypothesis can actually answer the question: Where along the sun-Earth path are photons created? I find your collective inability to answer this question somewhat revealing, since I had already figured it out myself, and it really isn't very hard to do. Furthermore, while the question is easy to answer, that answer turns out to be a critical element in proving that the aether hypothesis regarding photons must be false.

First, the answer. It is well known that the intensity of any light source varies as the inverse square of the distance between the source and the detector, independent of that distance. This makes sense; since solid angle depends on the inverse square of the distance, it's simple geometry that this should be true of the brightness of any source. Now, according to the aether hypothesis, light sources do not emit photons, they emit massfree charges which then decay into photons. All we have to do is make sure that process preserves the invariant dependency on the inverse square of the distance. So, I assume that the intensity of massfree charges itself depends on the inverse square of the distance, where "intensity" is the number count of charges per unit area at the detector, which is exactly what it means for photons. If the fraction of charges per unit area that decay into photons remains constant with distance, then the number of photons at any given point along the trajectory between source and detector must also vary as the inverse square of the distance. If the rate of production of photons were not constant in this manner, then the light intensity of a given source would not be always dependent on the inverse square of the distance, but rather would depend on the variable production rate of photons. So the answer must be that photons are created constantly along the entire line of sight between source (sun, star, etc.) and detector (CCD, eyeball, etc.).

Now, armed with this answer, let us consider an important fact about photons, namely that they interact only very weakly with magnetic fields As your own aether hypothesis webpage tells us: "2.3. Photons and massfree charges also differ in their physical effects. Photons are not deviated, displaced or disturbed by electrical or magnetic fields.". In fact, photons are expected to interact with the extreme magnetic fields found on pulsars & neutron stars (10⁸ - 10¹² Gauss (G), and possibly as high as 10¹⁵ G), resulting in considerable pair production. However, for any magnetic field of ordinary intensity, then it is indeed true that chargeless photons are not deviated or deflected by the magnetic field. Astronomically, this means that photon propagation through the universe is unaffected by the typically weak magnetic fields along the photon trajectory (10^-5 - 10^-4 G inside galaxies; 10^-10 G between galaxies). However, it should be pointed out that the massfree charges are not so unaffected even by these small magnetic fields. Before the massfree charges decay into photons, they will be deflected by the magnetic fields that will be ubiquitous along the entire trajectory of the particles.

The deflection of the parent charged particles by magnetic fields, before they decay into photons, must result in the appearance of photons being deflected by magnetic fields. But we already have a great deal of astronomical experience which shows that photons are deflected as anticipated in general relativity, by gravity only. It must especially be the case that, inside the solar system, where the interplanetary magnetic field is highly variable, then so must the propagation of light within the solar system be equally variable. Such an effect would surely be obvious, but is in fact invisible. The fact that photons are not deflected by magnetic fields, a fact acknowledged on the aether hypothesis photon webpage, is by itself sufficient to confidently establish that if photons are the product of the decay of parent particles, then those particles cannot themselves carry any electric charge.

 

[brantc]

None. Can't you understand what I said? The force applied to the bar is not applied over a distance, so no work is done on the bar. Which should surprise no one, since the bar is exactly the same after the force is applied as it was before the force was applied. But apparently that surprises you.

Oh, and we don't need all those quotes, everyone here but you understands work and energy perfectly well.

Ok. Where was the work done? Where did the energy come from?

Was there any motion at the point of contact? How could work have been done if there was not F*D?

Forces does use energy even if there is no motion.........