seasmith wrote: Re your internal rotating toroidal layers, does any of this tie in?
Intercalation and Lattice Exclusion Versus Gravitational Settling and Their Consequences Relative to Internal Structure, Surface Activity, and Solar Winds in the Sun. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 2, in press)
...provides the ability to add structure to the solar interior.
I've been following Robitaille's work closely, but I'm not sure that I agree with his conclusions concerning lattices.
He's saying that supercritical hydrogen forms a graphite-like crystal, with a hexagonal molecular structure. He favors this mainly because of its ability to generate black-body radiation. In the laboratory (until very recently), the only substance known to emit BB radiation was graphite. Stars (including the Sun) definitely emit BB radiation, but they seem to be too hot for graphite, and they seem to not have enough carbon anyway. So Robitaille is going with the hexagonal molecule of supercritical hydrogen as the BB source. Since supercritical hydrogen has recently been demonstrated to be capable of emitting BB radiation, this seems to be a reasonable strategy.
But then he says that all of the hydrogen molecules have formed a whole- or part-Sun crystal, and that large scale features, such as sunspots, or even coronal holes, are evidence of this crystal structure. This looks to me like somebody who is sold on a model, and who is trying to see how many things it can explain, but who isn't looking carefully to see if the model actually predicts the observations. Sheets of hexagonal lattices are definitely impermeable, and foreign particles between the sheets can definitely be exfoliated. But does that explain sunspots and coronal holes? Not really. If the particles getting "expelled" from the Sun were simply being squished out of a sheet-like material, their ballistics would be purely Newtonian, having picked up momentum in the expulsion. Yet particles expelled from the Sun actually accelerate away, which is non-Newtonian.
As concerns the structure of the solar interior, I don't see where the Robitaille actually specifies what structure the graphite-like hydrogen would prefer. So that's a heckuva leap, from "wow, there's a molecular structure in there that we didn't know about" all of the way to "that explains (without elaboration) why the solar interior is structured". At first blush, to whatever extent the crystal lattice was adding strength, the Sun should be very different, without things like differential rotation, torsional oscillation etc.
What did you mean by "internal rotating toroidal layers"? In my model of the Sun, the layers are all concentric. Bob Johnson was talking about a toroidal plasmoid inside the Sun, but he didn't elaborate on that.
kiwi
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
Hiya Charles
Recently on this thread (i.e., in & after this post), we briefly discussed supernova and red giants. The basic idea is that if it is compressive ionization that is holding a star together, and if, over time, mass loss reduces the pressure, and thus the ionization, ...
Isnt that a reverse way of looking at it? ... isnt "mass" the servant of EM force's? .. so a change in the EM value's must preceed any effect that manifests as a change in an objects Mass? ...
Thornhill regards electro-static's..
However, in a footnote Eddington reveals the fundamental limitation of his theory of stars: "The difficulty is to account for the escape of positively charged particles; unless charges of both signs are leaving the escape is immediately stopped by an electrostatic field." This statement will reverberate down the years as one of the gravest mistakes in science. It is an ELECTROSTATIC model of an isolated, self-contained star. But stellar magnetism is an ELECTRODYNAMIC phenomenon, requiring electric currents flowing in circuits beyond the star.
...So I'm going with electrostatics, because that looks like it's going to work, and because it appears to be the only remaining possibility..
Any comments on this Charles? ... There is of course the possibillty Im confusing 2 seperate issue's
Thanks
CharlesChandler
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
CharlesChandler wrote: Recently on this thread (i.e., in & after this post), we briefly discussed supernova and red giants. The basic idea is that if it is compressive ionization that is holding a star together, and if, over time, mass loss reduces the pressure, and thus the ionization, ...
kiwi wrote: Isn't that a reverse way of looking at it? ... isn't "mass" the servant of EM forces? .. so a change in the EM values must precede any effect that manifests as a change in an object's Mass? ...
Hey Kiwi! I'm not sure that I fully understand your question. Are you considering EM and mass to be coupled properties, as in some of the unified field theories (e.g., Mathis' charge fields)? I don't subscribe to that. EM is certainly far more powerful than gravity, so EM definitely "rules"! But they're still distinctly different properties.
Note that despite its relative weakness, gravity might have a significance in stellar formation far beyond its face value. In the compressive ionization model, the compression comes from a force feedback loop involving gravitational and electrostatic forces. Gravity is certainly weaker, but it is singly responsible for the greater pressure in the center, which gets ionized first, and which sets up the first set of charged double-layers. The electric force between the charged double-layers is far more powerful than gravity, so the matter is further compressed, which increases the ionization. It also increases the density of the gravitational field, which increases the degree of ionization, hence the force feedback loop. Now, since some of the force necessary to ionize the matter is coming from gravity, mass loss will result in de-ionization. And since it's a force feedback loop, de-ionization will reduce the effectiveness of the electrostatic forces, which allows the further expansion of the matter, and which further reduces the density of the gravitational field. So a little bit of mass loss results in way more pressure loss than it otherwise should. Likewise, when the star first formed, way more pressure emerged than can be attributed to gravity alone. That's where the force feedback loop comes in.
Thornhill wrote: However, in a footnote Eddington reveals the fundamental limitation of his theory of stars: "The difficulty is to account for the escape of positively charged particles; unless charges of both signs are leaving the escape is immediately stopped by an electrostatic field." This statement will reverberate down the years as one of the gravest mistakes in science. It is an ELECTROSTATIC model of an isolated, self-contained star. But stellar magnetism is an ELECTRODYNAMIC phenomenon, requiring electric currents flowing in circuits beyond the star.
Eddington was wondering how charged particles could flow, when the electric field should stop them. Thornhill answers with electrodynamics? That assumes the conclusion. What is electrodynamics? It's electric currents, where charged particles respond to electric fields (or time-varying magnetic fields). Eddington wanted to know what electric field could motivate the charged particles, and on not finding one, he concluded that the particles either don't flow, or they're not charged. He didn't ask to be told that the charged particles flow because of the electric currents (which is a tautology).
Goldminer
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
Charles Chandler wrote: "Gravity is certainly weaker, but it is singly responsible for the greater pressure in the center . . . "
Here is where the old question comes in: Assuming each particle constituting the volume of the Earth (or Sun) contributes its share of gravity to the attraction creating the density of said volume; and said attraction emanates in an isotropically spherical pattern from each particle, (Or does each particle of matter cause the aether to isotropically push it into a sphere? I du'no) wouldn't the density reach some maximum about half way to the center, and then remain at about that density the rest of the way down? Hypothetically, does the gravitational attraction at each end of a column of granite, or iron, 6000 miles long equal the same acceleration we find at the surface of the Earth? Is the density at the center of the column more dense than the density towards the ends? Liquids and solids are pretty much non-compressible. Does diamond become something else at some very high pressure? Does it liquify? Heat reduces density; the hotter the matter, the less dense it becomes. Seems to me this "gravitational pull" (the pull of the surface particles on the deeper particles) precludes the formation of "black holes" in the center of any massive object. The center of the Earth is an unknown, let alone the center of the Sun!
seasmith
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
Charles wrote:
What did you mean by "internal rotating toroidal layers"? In my model of the Sun, the layers are all concentric. Bob Johnson was talking about a toroidal plasmoid inside the Sun, but he didn't elaborate on that.
Well i had kind of spedread through the 12 pages, and remembered the phrase "toroidal plasmoids". On reread, it looks like you were comparing centers of quasars and tokamaks
I wpuld be more inclined to see toroidal form associated with solar external ESM 'fields', of which the ecliptical "Ballarina's Skirt" would be an artifact.
btw, some of the quantum-newtonian-phase transition confusion over the your use of "hypercritical hydrogen" , might be alleviated with the term "metallic hydrogen", long said to occupy the interior of Jupiter.
s Metallic conveys the requisite electrical properties, as when so-called "topological insulators" become conductive.
seasmith
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
Moderator,
Please delete above duplicate post. It seems to happen when i try to submit a 'saved draft' and it times out ? and i didn't catch it this time.
also
Charles,
That toroidal bit was on page 5, Nov 12
s
CharlesChandler
Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model
Charles Chandler wrote: "Gravity is certainly weaker, but it is singly responsible for the greater pressure in the center . . . "
Goldminer wrote: Assuming each particle constituting the volume of the Earth (or Sun) contributes its share of gravity to the attraction creating the density of said volume; and said attraction emanates in an isotropically spherical pattern from each particle, (Or does each particle of matter cause the aether to isotropically push it into a sphere? I du'no) wouldn't the density reach some maximum about half way to the center, and then remain at about that density the rest of the way down?
Yes, the gravitational field from a particle is spherical (and it obeys the inverse square law). At the surface, all of the attraction is toward the center, because that is the sum of the vectors of all of the forces. At the center, the forces are all outward, and they cancel each other out, for no net force. In-between, the force goes from maximum at the surface to nothing at the center. (See this for a graph of the forces inside the Earth.) But note that while the gravity decreases to zero at the center, the pressure continues to increase. Pressure is the sum of the gravitational forces acting on all of the particles above it. Nearing the center, the gravity approaches zero, but the pressure still increases, because there is still some gravity adding to the overlying forces.
Goldminer wrote: Seems to me this "gravitational pull" (the pull of the surface particles on the deeper particles) precludes the formation of "black holes" in the center of any massive object.
I don't believe that "black holes" are spherical objects — I think that they're toroidal plasmoids. But even if they were spheres, I agree that matter wouldn't crushed into a singularity by gravity, IMO because thermonuclear explosions would prevent it.
seasmith wrote: I would be more inclined to see toroidal form associated with solar external ESM 'fields', of which the ecliptical "Ballerina's Skirt" would be an artifact.
The "Ballerina's Skirt" is the heliospheric current sheet, which is actually just the particles focused into helmet streamers. Because of the irregularity of the helmet streamers, the rotation of the Sun produces a wavering current sheet (if you could actually call it a sheet anyway). But that doesn't seem to form a toroidal pattern, as Alfven supposed, since polar and equatorial particles all seem to be leaving the Sun, and there is no evidence of a return current.
