One thing I haven't found either was an actual evolutionary model for the Sun or any of the other older stars in our system inside of EU cosmology. As a matter of fact, I also have not found an evolutionary model for Earth, Uranus, Jupiter, Saturn or Neptune inside of mainstream cosmology either. Makes me think both EU and mainstream find them to be unimportant things, regardless if they are more massive than the Earth and in our neighborhood.
I have also found recent posts made by a Mr. Tom Bridgman concerning the sorting of material in a plasma.
"Using the velocity and ionization states of various elements, compute chemical distributions. While Marklund, Peratt and Alfven DESCRIBE this process, I have yet to see actual predictions of chemical distributions for a given plasma, field, and temperature configuration. This will also impact the spectra of the object."
Put frankly, Mr. Bridgman ignores the fact that the end result of this sorting of chemicals is right below his feet. As Earth itself is the end result of many billions of years of "Marklund Convection". Iron in the center, magnesium, then silicon, oxygen, nitrogen... all sorted based off their ionization energies.
Too bad Mr. Bridgman and EU will ignore this.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: I guess what I am saying is that in nature we have spherical objects with surfaces. How would Marklund convection occur inside of spherical objects with surfaces? If at all?
I don't think that it does.
Sparky wrote:
So disconnect the wire, coil it up, and run down the street with it.
But not through a strong magnetic field!
That's true. Now how about in a nano-tesla magnetic field? I think that the effects will be there, but they will be subtle, and will only amount to something over a long period of time. For example, I think that the spiral arm magnetic field coerced the rotation of the Sun and the Planets onto a plane that approaches the perpendicular to the magnetic field. But this force operated over an extremely long period of time, and still didn't get everything perfectly aligned. So I consider galactic magnetic fields to be on the order of gravity — the force is there, but it isn't powerful enough to be a prime mover.
Sparky wrote:
So if you have 3.86 × 1026 watts streaming out of the Sun, what does the work?
The electric field?
Exactly. But that field is entirely within 10 AU.
Sparky wrote: I was looking for an electrical schematic of the solar system...
Here's a more complete set, at 3 different scales. The first (which I already posted) shows the top 20,000 km of the Sun, which is the outermost layer, and which is a positive double-layer where CMEs cause a charge imbalance, motivating an electric current.
Next is the Sun out to about 3 solar radii, which is the scale of helmet streamers. The radial electric current is steered toward the equatorial plane by the Sun's solenoidal magnetic field, while in the end, the current continues outward, taking the magnetic field with it.
Finally, at about 10 AU, the electrons catch up to the +ions, eliminating the potential. At this point, the Birkeland currents cease, and their magnetic field lines close on each other.
Not shown is the Earth at 1 AU, which puts it within the main body of the heliospheric current sheet. The Earth's magnetic field will sort the Birkeland currents according to polarity, and steer them toward the poles so they can cause the aurora.
Beyond 10 AU, there is a little bit of action at the heliopause, where there is a double-layer caused by electrons getting stripped off of the interstellar wind where it collides with the heliosphere, due to friction. The interstellar wind is quasi-neutral, the outer heliopause is negative, the inner heliopause is positive, and the main body of the heliosphere is quasi-neutral. But there isn't any reason to believe that the double-layer at the heliopause is strong enough to have any effect on what's going on within 10 AU of the Sun.
As best as I can tell, that's a complete summary of the most powerful electrostatic and electrodynamic behaviors within the entire solar system. The Sun is clearly electric, but the significant current is entirely within 10 AU.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: I guess what I am saying is that in nature we have spherical objects with surfaces. How would Marklund convection occur inside of spherical objects with surfaces? If at all?
I don't think that it does.
Good. We have a clear difference then in our own theories. In stellar metamorphosis, Marklund Convection is the cause of weather itself as ALL material is sorted based off its ionization potentials during early stellar evolution.
Iron and nickel both are really hard to ionize, thus they are the first to settle out in the centers of stars as they evolve forming their cores. This is in direct contradiction to the "iron catastrophe" in which iron moves to the center of stars for no reason at all. The establishment's explanation is this, "its there now so it must have moved there as liquid material". This is wrong. It was deposited there as the iron moved from its plasma state to gaseous then to crystalline structure. In other words, the centers of all evolved stars have crystalline iron/nickel cores which was vacuum vapor deposited forming gigantic balls that have this exact composite:
This what the core of the Earth looks like, and Mars, and Mercury... This is a piece of the heart of an ancient star vastly older than the Earth.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Iron and nickel both are really hard to ionize...
No, they are easy to ionize, especially as compared to something like hydrogen, and that's why iron and nickel migrate to the center in Marklund convection. The magnetic pinch operates on particles according to the strength of their electric charge, with the greater charges getting pushed more forcefully toward the center. The more easily ionized atoms are more likely to be charged. So it's not that all of the hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, and iron atoms that are missing one electron are to be found in one layer, while everything that is missing two electrons is found in the next layer closer to the center, still with a good mix of all of the elements present in the entire assembly. Rather, hydrogen and helium are tough to ionize, so they're likely to be neutral, or only missing one electron, and for just a little while. Thus they are found around the outside. Iron and nickel are easy to ionize, so they are likely to be missing one or more electrons, a lot of the time, and thus are to be found in the center.
But I still maintain that vapor deposition doesn't happen in the center, because the Coulomb force between +ions will prevent it. And don't be misled by the confusing terminology concerning lower temperatures along the axis of the filament. In charge separated matter, the Coulomb force removes degrees of freedom, meaning that the effective temperature will be lower. But this does not mean that the matter is more likely to condense. Pure plasma can register at absolute zero, and yet be nowhere near condensing. And when charge recombination occurs, which eliminates the electrostatic repulsion, the heat from the recombination greatly increases the hydrostatic pressure, and the matter still won't condense. To get vapor deposition, you need to start with cool, neutral matter.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Iron and nickel both are really hard to ionize...
No, they are easy to ionize, especially as compared to something like hydrogen, and that's why iron and nickel migrate to the center in Marklund convection. The magnetic pinch operates on particles according to the strength of their electric charge, with the greater charges getting pushed more forcefully toward the center. The more easily ionized atoms are more likely to be charged. So it's not that all of the hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen, and iron atoms that are missing one electron are to be found in one layer, while everything that is missing two electrons is found in the next layer closer to the center, still with a good mix of all of the elements present in the entire assembly. Rather, hydrogen and helium are tough to ionize, so they're likely to be neutral, or only missing one electron, and for just a little while. Thus they are found around the outside. Iron and nickel are easy to ionize, so they are likely to be missing one or more electrons, a lot of the time, and thus are to be found in the center.
But I still maintain that vapor deposition doesn't happen in the center, because the Coulomb force between +ions will prevent it. And don't be misled by the confusing terminology concerning lower temperatures along the axis of the filament. In charge separated matter, the Coulomb force removes degrees of freedom, meaning that the effective temperature will be lower. But this does not mean that the matter is more likely to condense. Pure plasma can register at absolute zero, and yet be nowhere near condensing. And when charge recombination occurs, which eliminates the electrostatic repulsion, the heat from the recombination greatly increases the hydrostatic pressure, and the matter still won't condense. To get vapor deposition, you need to start with cool, neutral matter.
If iron and nickel were easy to ionize then why aren't neon "signs" made with iron/nickel? And not neon, helium/hydrogen? Clearly they are much harder to ionize or else we would be using them to light up rooms. The energy required to make iron go from solid to liquid to gas to plasma is vastly greater than the energy taken to make neon go from gas to plasma.
Thus iron/nickel are vastly harder to ionize than helium/hydrogen. This is why they are in the center of the tube, they are do not ionize as they require a much greater amount of energy. So in other words, its not that the material falls inwards, its the more easily ionized material forces its way outwards.
To boot, you have to have iron at least 5,184 degrees F to boil it, much less turn it into a plasma. Neon signs can be touched and you won't get burned. HUGE difference.
Plus this leads us to our next series of realizations. The cooler body of the Sun IS its interior. As the plasma cools and moves to lower energy levels it will undergo plasma recombination (which is a basic thermodynamic phase transition). As recombination is underway the gas will deposit on ANY substrate that enters the star, thus meaning any much larger iron/nickel meteorite that manages to blast though the shell will seed the beginnings of core formation, and the iron crystal core will being growing like a pearl in an oyster. As the iron core grows more and more iron that has cooled to lower energy levels will deposit on it and the star will begin shrinking becoming what is called a "red dwarf".
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
But I still maintain that vapor deposition doesn't happen in the center, because the Coulomb force between +ions will prevent it. And don't be misled by the confusing terminology concerning lower temperatures along the axis of the filament. In charge separated matter, the Coulomb force removes degrees of freedom, meaning that the effective temperature will be lower. But this does not mean that the matter is more likely to condense. Pure plasma can register at absolute zero, and yet be nowhere near condensing. And when charge recombination occurs, which eliminates the electrostatic repulsion, the heat from the recombination greatly increases the hydrostatic pressure, and the matter still won't condense. To get vapor deposition, you need to start with cool, neutral matter.
You are completely skipping the most important step. Deposition. Gas DOES deposit as solid material, this is can be shown very easily as snow IS the process of deposition, in which a gas forms directly into a solid. Plus the deposition rates and temperatures are much different for material that has different properties. In other words all we need to do is make iron into a gas and watch it deposit. This is what stars do when they make their iron cores, once their cores are formed other types of elements and compounds with different properties will deposit as well. I stress the "round" argument because the angular momentum of a star as it cools remains consistent as it loses mass, thus we should find "planets" spinning at the same rate as "stars". But that's a whole other argument.
We know this happens because ancient stars in excess of 3 billion years of age have iron/nickel cores that are made of crystalline structure (solid structure). In other words, if we SEE objects that are really hot and at very high levels of enthalpy, we via natural philosophy should find those very same objects when they are also really cold. The coldest objects that are "round" that we have found are called planets, the same shape as the hot objects which are round called "stars". Its as simple as that.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
As well we cannot forget iron magnifies a magnetic field greatly and becomes a powerful magnet itself.
This means that the star will form a coherent global magnetic field once the iron core is fully formed. Therefore stars that do not possess global magnetic fields do not possess cores yet (except for the obvious dead stars which do not have fluid interiors, dead ones), thus do not have interior structure (no core).
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Earth inside the general theory of stellar metamorphosis is a giant electromagnet.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Thus iron/nickel are vastly harder to ionize than helium/hydrogen.
Actually, neon is used in gas discharge lamps because of its high ionization energy. Thus in a sufficiently low pressure (which lowers the breakdown voltage), and with a sufficiently high voltage, the glow discharge is vigorous, because of the high ionization energy.
light given off by iron atoms that have lost 11 of their 26 electrons. The energy required to remove that many electrons is far greater than the energy available at the surface of the sun
Thus the planets, Earth included, could be said to orbit inside the Sun's diffuse atmosphere
.
Because temperature is a measure of randomness of motion, the corona appears to "heat up" suddenly, and the [b]11-times-ionized iron atoms begin to radiate their newly acquired energy.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Because temperature is a measure of randomness of motion, the corona appears to "heat up" suddenly, and the 11-times-ionized iron atoms begin to radiate their newly acquired energy.
Temperature is, indeed, a measure of the randomness of motion, but the way temperature is measured in the solar corona isn't just a measure of such motion. They're actually measuring the degree of ionization. This can be a measure a temperature, since hotter atoms collide more vigorously, knocking off more electrons. But degree of ionization is also a measure of something else: electric field. Thus the jump in degree of ionization just above the chromosphere might be evidence of a heat source, but it might also be evidence of an increase in voltage.
So what could increase the voltage?
What if the Sun has a net negative charge, where the heliosphere is positively charged, and where there is also a positive double-layer deeper inside the Sun? Electrons at the surface will then be pulled in two different directions (up and also down), and the net field will be weak. Suppose there is slightly more positive charge in the heliosphere than in the underlying positive double-layer. The electrons will slowly drift upward, away from the Sun. As they go, they will experience more attraction to the heliosphere, and less attraction to the underlying positive double-layer, due to the inverse square law. Thus the field density gets greater in a tripole field, as the electrons in the middle move toward the far pole. For this reason, the electrons don't just flow in the field at a rate that is determined by a constant voltage divided by the resistance — they start out slowly, emanating from all points on the Sun, and then they accelerate as they move away from the Sun. (They also accelerate because of the thinning of the solar atmosphere with distance from the surface, which reduces the resistance.) The higher electron velocities then cause more violent particle collisions, knocking more electrons loose, and thus increasing the degree of ionization, which we can measure in wavelength-filtered photography.
Of course, you might say that those electron/+ion collisions, which increase the degree of ionization, are also increasing the temperature. So we're still just measuring temperature. But this model identifies a realistic way for the temperature to increase with distance from the Sun, which is the obvious source of the energy. In thermodynamics, this shouldn't be possible. But electron drift in a tripole field will necessarily behave in precisely this manner.
And to my knowledge, this is the only way to get a radial arc discharge that doesn't pinch down into a finite number of discrete channels beginning right at the electrode, such as in a plasma lamp. It isn't a dipole field, between the Sun and the heliosphere. It's a tripole field. Then it all makes sense.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Then it all makes sense.
What does this say about the standard model, fusion?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
For those establishment people who are concerned with the rotation rates of galaxies being "off", keep in mind its already explained inside of density wave theory.
Put simply stars migrate as they evolve. Migration is the rule of thumb for solar system formations, as stars are stand alone units. Animation #3 in the middle of the page overviews this. No dark matter is even needed. Besides, dark matter by definition is pseudoscience, it cannot be observed.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Thus iron/nickel are vastly harder to ionize than helium/hydrogen.
Actually, neon is used in gas discharge lamps because of its high ionization energy. Thus in a sufficiently low pressure (which lowers the breakdown voltage), and with a sufficiently high voltage, the glow discharge is vigorous, because of the high ionization energy.
You are forgetting that for iron to be a plasma it has to extraordinarily hot. I'm talking phase transitions, which trump the graph you have presented. Grouping ALL elements into one graph completely ignores the fact that they have transitions between states which require differing amounts of energy.
Making iron into a plasma means adding INCREDIBLE amounts of heat, I mean, its hard just getting iron to MELT much less vaporize.
This graph does not accurately represent the properties of the transitional states of elements. Helium/argon/hydrogen are very easily ionized because they are already naturally at very high levels of enthalpy.
Iron at room temperature at 1 ATM is solid. We can falsify the idea that hydrogen is harder to ionize just by introducing heat to a sample of iron and to a sample of hydrogen just by holding a flame to it. The hydrogen immediately burns (ionizes and combines with the surrounding oxygen to make water) like the Hindenberg did. Yet you can hold a flame to iron all day long and the hottest it will get would be its melting point, WAY below its plasma state.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
That is one thing I have noticed with people who are fans of charge/electricity trying to explain everything. They ignore chemistry.
I think that the effects will be there, but they will be subtle, and will only amount to something over a long period of time. For example, I think that the spiral arm magnetic field coerced the rotation of the Sun and the Planets onto a plane that approaches the perpendicular to the magnetic field. But this force operated over an extremely long period of time, and still didn't get everything perfectly aligned. So I consider galactic magnetic fields to be on the order of gravity — the force is there, but it isn't powerful enough to be a prime mover.
Sparky wrote:Exactly. But that field is entirely within 10 AU.So if you have 3.86 × 1026 watts streaming out of the Sun, what does the work?The electric field?Sparky wrote:Here's a more complete set, at 3 different scales. The first (which I already posted) shows the top 20,000 km of the Sun, which is the outermost layer, and which is a positive double-layer where CMEs cause a charge imbalance, motivating an electric current.
