Thunderbolts Forum

'12-01-26, 14:03 Sparky	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient CharlesChandler, We're bouncing off the walls here... LOL LOL LOL ********* ******************* *************** mjv, Helioseismology: A disturbance on the Sun's surface of unknown cause or origin and of unknown magnitude and of unknown method of operation may or may not produce a seismic shock wave that may or may not travel through the Sun and may or may not result in other surface disturbances. Therefore to calculate the density gradient of the Sun: Close your eyes and pin the tail on the donkey. By observing the cloud formations on Earth from 150,000,000 km away, what is the density gradient of the Earth? Since: E=mc2 is erroneous Mass Increase is erroneous Length contraction is erroneous Time Dilation is erroneous. Mass curved non-inertial empty space is erroneous Then, my faith in the Pound-Rebka experiment is limited. With no theory of gravity and no theory of light, I would say that General Relativity lacks a certain credibility. Can i keep my neutron star?... I'll clean up after it...
'12-01-26, 14:25 mjv1121	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Sparky, Sorry mate, the neutron star theory is old, tired and useless, it's gonna have to be put down. Michael
'12-01-26, 18:14 seasmith	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient As I mentioned in a previous post, the fact that the surface supports transverse waves means that there is a sharp change in density between the photosphere and the chromosphere. Charles, you know the surface of a block of steel will support (propagate is a more accurate term in both cases) transverse waves as well, and it has the same density all the way through... http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/Helioseismology.shtml
'12-01-26, 21:09 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Sun's Soundwaves * Seasmith, your link about sound waves producing helioseismic effects sounds persuasive. Galaxy Formation * Charles, I read much of your website material on astronomical matters yesterday and today. It's very interesting to me. Sounds very plausible, but I have a hard time understanding electrical and magnetic effects, so I don't fully understand much of it. I'd like to hear you have a friendly debate with Thornhill, or Scott, or someone. By the way, you start your model of galaxy formation with a uniform neutral gas, I think, which you say forms enough dipoles, similar to magnets, I think, to cause the gas to clump together and cascade into aggregates of asteroids, planets, stars etc. Have you figured out details of that process yet? What would produce the initial uniform neutral gas? How dense would the gas have to be to cause such aggregation in enough time to equal the normal age of a galaxy? What would be the stages of growth from atoms to molecules to compounds to meteors etc and the exact mechanism involved at each stage? Net Charge on Earth ifrean wrote:i wonder could orbits be based on [EM] without any thing called gravity required? Charles replied: There are only 3 possibilities here: gravity, the electric force, and the magnetic force. I actually believe that the electric and magnetic forces are active at the astronomical scale, and there are things that cannot be explained without taking them into account. But IMHO, the net charges are small. For example, the net charge of the Earth is about 500,000 Coulombs, which for something as big as the Earth is virtually zero. Too much net charge would be hard to contain. So (IMHO) if you're looking for huge EM effects in astronomy, where they're the only effects, you're not going to find them, while if you look for influences, you'll very definitely find those. * I agree that EM doesn't seem to have a huge effect on orbits within the Solar System, but your statement about the amount of charge possible on the Earth or any planet seems to conflict with the following, which latter I find persuasive. How sure are you about your statement in light of this? In 1972 Ralph Juergens said in an article at http://saturniancosmology.org/juergens.htm: Professor James Warwick, of the University of Colorado, recently pointed out that the "dynamo theory has not yet successfully predicted any cosmical [magnetic] fields. Its use today rests on the assumption that no alternative theory corresponds more closely to observations (5)." [Warwick's italics] - Even stronger objection to the dynamo theory is implied in this remark by Palmer Dyal and Curtis W. Parkin of NASA's Ames Research Center: "No rigorous theory has evolved that satisfactorily explains the earth's permanent magnetic field (6)." - "Satisfactorily," of course, means without acknowledging the electric charge of the earth. - Before proceeding, let us consider Rowland's notion that an enormous electric charge must blow the earth to smithereens. This is the same idea advanced by Donald Menzel in 1952 to add zest to his "quantitative refutation of Velikovsky's wild hypothesis" that the sun is electrically charged (7). - In the first place, as Professor Fernando Sanford pointed out 40 years ago, "[Such] conclusions are all based upon the assumption that electric charges are held to conductors by [gravity] ... If this assumption were correct, it would be impossible to give a negative charge to any small conductor while in the gravitation field of the earth (8)." - Sanford also pointed out that "a soap bubble and a platinum sphere of the same diameter, if joined by a connecting wire and charged from the same source, will take equal charges. This shows conclusively that whatever the force may be which holds electrons to a charged conductor it is not a force which acts between the electrons and the atoms of the conductor. This being the case, the outward pressure of the charge upon a conductor will have no tendency to pull the conductor apart."
'12-01-27, 00:40 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient seasmith wrote: The surface of a block of steel will support (propagate is a more accurate term in both cases) transverse waves as well, and it has the same density all the way through... Indeed, the transverse waves are along the surface, where there is a difference in density between the steel and the surrounding environment. In the interior, there can only be longitudinal waves. Lloyd wrote: I'd like to hear you have a friendly debate with Thornhill, or Scott, or someone. I'd be happy to discuss these issues with folks like that, online or offline. Can you arrange it? Lloyd wrote: You start your model of galaxy formation with a uniform neutral gas, I think, which you say forms enough dipoles, similar to magnets, I think, to cause the gas to clump together and cascade into aggregates of asteroids, planets, stars, etc. Basically, but it requires that the mass distribution not be completely uniform throughout the Universe, or gravity would pull in all directions, and not accomplish any aggregation. Lloyd wrote: Have you figured out details of that process yet? What would produce the initial uniform neutral gas? How dense would the gas have to be to cause such aggregation in enough time to equal the normal age of a galaxy? What would be the stages of growth from atoms to molecules to compounds to meteors etc and the exact mechanism involved at each stage? These are all excellent questions, and the quick answer is that I have no idea! I believe it to be a very useful exercise to attempt an explanation of a process starting from scratch. It isn't always possible to complete this exercise, and failure doesn't mean that you have nothing — it just means that you don't have everything. At present, I don't have much... But here are my thoughts... Like many in the EU camp, I have a hard time believing that gravity alone is capable of the degree of aggregation that we see in the Universe. But you have to start from somewhere, so either you have a non-uniform mass distribution in which gravity begins the aggregation process (and then covalent bonding in whimpy gravity-induced collisions starts building assemblies of atoms), or you start with a non-uniform charge distribution, and you get electrodynamic effects from the voltages and/or from the charges shooting through space from some sort of pre-existing velocity. I decided to start with an uneven mass distribution, of unknown origins, which causes the initial acceleration, which invokes electrodynamics. Perhaps one day I'll try working it up from one or more other angles, to see what I get. For example, you could start with the initial condition being relativistic velocities that invoke electrodynamics, or you could start with an initial charge separation that would create relativistic velocities and thereby invoke electrodynamics. Lloyd wrote: How sure are you about your statement about the amount of charge possible on the Earth (i.e., 500,000 Coulombs)? Now I'm looking for this in the scientific literature, and I'm not finding it right away. I know I've seen this, but the stuff I was looking at was older literature. I know that it's a contentious issue, but I can't recall ever seeing anything about the net charge being greater than 1 MC. And this, BTW, is the net difference between the Earth and the ionosphere, which causes the fair weather field of 100 V/m. In terms of the solar system, you'd want to know the sum total net charge of the Earth, and I'm not sure that I've ever seen that figure. Help us out here — is there an estimate for this? If so, how is it derived? And how does that account for the Earth's magnetic field? Does the net charge of the Earth generate a solendoidal magnetic field just due to the rotation? If so, why is the field offset from the axis of rotation? It's not a current through the poles, because that would create an Amperian field, correct? Sanford wrote: A soap bubble and a platinum sphere of the same diameter, if joined by a connecting wire and charged from the same source, will take equal charges. This shows conclusively that whatever the force may be which holds electrons to a charged conductor it is not a force which acts between the electrons and the atoms of the conductor. This being the case, the outward pressure of the charge upon a conductor will have no tendency to pull the conductor apart. I don't think that this is accurate. A net negative charge certainly isn't going to pull the conductor apart — the excess electrons will simply fly off (and you still don't have a substantial net charge). But a net positive charge can certainly disintegrate just about anything. It is electrons that form the glue that holds matter together, via covalent bonding. Remove the electrons, and there isn't anything to maintain the crystal lattice, and all you have is the repulsion of like charges between atomic nuclei. In other words, it's plasma under electric pressure, which disperses quite nicely. So you need to know how much net positive charge is there. If the electrostatic repulsion is greater than the remaining covalent bonding, atoms start flying off of the solid conductor, as they have been converted to plasma. If it's already plasma (because of extreme heat), and if it's not bathed in a dielectric, I'd tend to agree with Menzel and Rowland, that a large net charge isn't possible.
'12-01-27, 13:09 seasmith	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient As I mentioned in a previous post, the fact that the surface supports transverse waves means that there is a sharp change in density between the photosphere and the chromosphere. -CCCharles, you know the surface of a block of steel will support (propagate is a more accurate term in both cases) transverse waves as well, and it has the same density all the way through... http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/Helioseismology.shtml Indeed, the transverse waves are along the surface, where there is a difference in density between the steel and the surrounding environment. In the interior, there can only be longitudinal waves. -CC I think you've missed the drift of your own post there Charles. If your waves are between the chromosphere and photosphere, then they are Not traveling on the surface, (as the NASA images depict). In your model they would be traveling >between< the two layers. You may have just chosen the wrong terms, so it may help to remember that Surface waves are a special combination of Longitudinal waves and Transverse waves. Both surface and transverse waves are a sub-geometry of , and ultimately are powered by longitudinal oscillations ie p-waves. imho, neither the NASA model above, nor yours, fully consider all the possible Drivers of the observed oscillations. s
'12-01-27, 22:18 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Solar Granules * Charles, I like your explanation of solar granules etc. Below I'm copying passages from your webpage: http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/?top=6324. So far, our model of the Sun has a positive core, a negative radiative zone, and a positive convective zone, all rotating in the same direction, and generating opposing solenoidal magnetic fields that keep the charges separate, while the electric fields between them bind the layers together. ... For the time being, we will assume that the force that makes the plasma rise into a photospheric granule is simple thermal buoyancy. This limits its speed to a maximum of the speed of sound minus the viscosity of the plasma. But when it reaches the photosphere, it expands more rapidly than it should, and at the edges of the granule, the plasma dives back into the Sun at up to 7 km/s. - Passing through the sharp density gradient in the photosphere, the plasma can expand dramatically just because of the loss of hydrostatic pressure. So we will expect some sort of mushrooming effect. The curvature in its path is then significant because then the electric force between the positively charged plasma and the underlying negatively charged radiative zone will continue the deflection until the plasma is shooting back down into the Sun. As it is motivated by the electric force, it can be pulled back into an extreme pressure gradient, and at supersonic speeds. ... The plasma rises because of its extreme heat (and thus its positive buoyancy), while being held down by the electric force. Once it releases its heat, and its inertia is redirected outward by the loss of hydrostatic pressure, the electric force once again dominates, and pulls the plasma inward. - The cooling of the plasma allows more of it to hold onto electrons, which emit photons when they enter orbits around the atomic nuclei. This is the source of the light that is radiated outward by the Sun. It might also be the source of the constant stream of particles away from the Sun known as the solar wind. Any nucleus that picks up enough electrons to become neutrally charged will not be drawn back into the Sun by the electric force, but rather, will be free to escape. http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/2ndParty/Images/Cha~ Marklund Convection and Questions * Would the neutral atoms that become the solar wind come from the core? And would they become re-ionized in the radiative zone? If so, can you explain how? * Would an arc welder be an example of Marklund Convection? Does it involve a flow of ions? Have you heard of positive lightning? That's said to be a flow of ions and it's much more powerful than negative lightning. So why could not the layering of positive and negative layers that your theory says forms planets and stars be supplied by ion flows, like lightning? * If positive and negative megalightning can form planets and stars, that would be Marklund Convection, I presume, which could contain iron etc toward the center of the flow. Could the core of the Sun then be solid iron, just below the photosphere, as conceived in some Iron Sun models? Or could there not be solids in the Sun? The Earth is solid. So why could the Sun not be?
'12-01-28, 03:37 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient seasmith wrote: If your waves are between the chromosphere and photosphere, then they are Not traveling on the surface, (as the NASA images depict). In your model they would be traveling >between< the two layers. You may have just chosen the wrong terms... I misspoke myself. There is nothing between the photosphere and the chromosphere. I'm talking about surface waves in the photosphere, but at the boundary, due to the difference in density "between" the photosphere and chromosphere. Anyway... seasmith wrote: imho, neither the NASA model above, nor yours, fully consider all the possible Drivers of the observed oscillations. I agree. I haven't really studied the waves, and my only interest in them is in what they tell us about the density gradient. But even a casual inspection of the data reveals major problems with the interpretation. Here's a quote from a SOHO webpage: NASA wrote: Unlike water ripples that travel outward at a constant velocity, the solar waves accelerated from an initial speed of 10 km/s to a maximum of 100 km/s before disappearing. [...] The solar seismic waves appear to be compression waves like the "P" waves generated by an earthquake. So p-waves can start out traveling faster than the speed of sound in the relevant medium, and then accelerate... to relativistic speeds??? Here is evidence of "p-waves" traveling at 250 km/s (1/1000 the speed of light). http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2009/11/24/24nov~ If I was a scientist, I wouldn't call these sound waves, because then they'd probably travel at the speed of sound, or something would be wrong. So I'd call them hypersound waves, which are kinda like sound waves, but which travel much faster, or something. Then I'd change the subject really fast... I actually consider this to be evidence of a net positive charge in the photosphere, where particle motion starts accelerating the next particle before they would have collided, due to the electrostatic repulsion between like-charged atoms. This gets the waves well above the speed of sound, but still below the speed of light. They act like p-waves, but the "pressure" is electric instead of hydrostatic. Lloyd wrote: Would the neutral atoms that become the solar wind come from the core? And would they become re-ionized in the radiative zone? If so, can you explain how? Here I agree with the mainstream in saying that what happens in the core stays in the core. The helioseismic data show the core to behave as a solid body, without any convection, and without any layered laminar shearing as we find in the radiative and convective zones. But I depart from the mainstream, and agree with the EU camp, in questioning whether any nuclear fusion occurs in the core. The pressure isn't sufficient, and the theoretical temperatures are not possible, as these would reduce the density, given the pressure, making fusion even less likely, and eliminating the heat source. So I'm thinking that the solar wind comes straight out of the granules. That's certainly what it looks like in the coronagraphs. Steady streams of particles fly out from areas much broader than the active sunspot regions, so we have to look at the normal photospheric conditions for the source of these particles. I'm thinking that the particles gained their initial velocity (2 km/s) as part of a thermal bubble, but which were accelerated beyond the gravitational escape velocity (600 km/s) by the burst in temperature in the photosphere, while not being sucked back into the Sun because of their neutral charge. The photospheric temperatures, and the electrodynamics invoked by particles traveling at 1/500 the speed of light, will re-ionize the particles. But overall, the stream is neutrally charged, and moving fast enough to escape the Sun's gravity, so off it goes. Lloyd wrote: Would an arc welder be an example of Marklund Convection? Does it involve a flow of ions? In arc welding, only electrons are moving. In plasma torches, ions are involved, but that's just because the plasma is forced out of the nozzle by hydrostatic pressure. Then, as the positive ions travel toward the work, a flow of electrons from the (grounded) work recombines with the positive ions, resulting in an electric arc. So you've got high velocity ions, rotating because of the Lorentz force, in the middle of an arc discharge, which makes a nice torch because the rotation of the plasma helps evacuate slag, making the cutting go even faster (but making for a very rough cut). By contrast, EDM simply vaporizes anything in the way of the arc, leaving a very clean cut, but going slower. But in all cases, the electric current is the flow of electrons, and any ion movement is slow, and occurring for its own reasons, which have nothing to do with the voltages. Lloyd wrote: Have you heard of positive lightning? That's said to be a flow of ions and it's much more powerful than negative lightning. The term "positive lightning" actually just means that it was from a positive charge in the cloud down to an induced negative charge in the ground, as opposed to the 90% of all lightning that is from a negative cloud to positive ground. But either way, it's just electrons flowing. Positive strikes are more powerful because they arc through 10 km of air (from the anvil down to the ground), requiring upwards of 100 Mv, whereas negative strikes typically come from 5 km above ground, and can happen in 20 Mv of potential. Lloyd wrote: So why could not the layering of positive and negative layers that your theory says forms planets and stars be supplied by ion flows? If positive and negative megalightning can form planets and stars, that would be Marklund Convection, I presume, which could contain iron etc toward the center of the flow. I agree that Marklund convection can concentrate neutrally charged matter inside a plasma jet, and even cool it to the point that it might become liquid or even solid. But starting with a cooled thread of solid matter along the axis of a plasma jet moving at the required relativistic speeds, how do you convert that to a spherical clump of matter moving slowly through space? The answer sometimes given is toroidal knots in a pinched charge stream, but that's a category error. The toroidal knots are just electrons — inertia precludes such behaviors in positive ions. So there's a "magic happens here" in the "Marklund convection forms astronomical orbs" construct. Lloyd wrote: Could the core of the Sun then be solid iron, just below the photosphere, as conceived in some Iron Sun models? Or could there not be solids in the Sun? The Earth is solid. So why could the Sun not be? While I think that we all agree that the interpretation of the helioseismic data is contentious (because waves are propagating at non-hydrodynamic velocities), they at least guide us toward some hunches and away from others. At the very least, we're not seeing any distinct density shifts inside the Sun, the way we do in the Earth, delineating the difference between the mantle and the core. So whatever it is, it's well-mixed. What is it? Due to the updrafts and downdrafts in the convective zone, we can suspect that it's well-mixed. This means that what we know about the elemental composition of the photosphere (74% hydrogen and 25% helium) is probably true for the entire convective zone. Since we're not seeing helioseismic waves bouncing off of the boundary between the convective and radiative zones, the density fares smoothly from the one to the other. This means that if you assert a different elemental composition in the radiative zone, you raise the question of how it doesn't create a density difference that would be detectable. Not an impossible question to answer — just a question. It's all neat and clean to just say that it's all hydrogen and helium as we observe at the surface, but the reality is that we just don't know. My model actually wouldn't really be bothered by that, as I'm assuming that it's all hot enough to be plasma, even if it gets compacted to the density of a solid in the core, and the electrodynamic effects that I'm asserting would happen regardless of the species of ion. Semi-relativistic speeds will accomplish partial charge concentrations and separations, resulting in an electrostatic attraction between the stratified layers. They could be hydrogen atoms, or iron, or whatever. Then the remaining issue with the Iron Sun model is the question of the density/mass ratio. If we know the mass of the Sun, and if you go in there with heavier elements, you need higher temperatures to create greater pressures to reduce the density, so that you get the right overall mass. But then the density is all wrong, meaning that the helioseismic data need to be reinterpreted. If I apply my thoughts concerning fast waves in the photosphere to estimates of the density inside the Sun, interesting things happen. If the core is positively charged, waves will flow faster through it, as electric pressure acts faster than hydrostatic pressure in transferring inertia from one particle to another. If that's true, the density inside the core is grossly over-estimated, and it might even be less dense than the radiative zone (which I have as a negatively charged layer that would not accelerate waves with electric pressure). If the core is less dense, then the elements have to be heavier, in order to get the mass of the Sun right. Also, if the density is less, the temperature has to be greater than what the ideal gas laws predict. It might not be the 15 MK that the standard model asserts, but it would be greater than the surrounding layers. That would suggest that there is an energy source in the core (otherwise its heat should have equalized by now). This brings us back to the mainstream possibility that there is some nuclear fusion going on in the core. (At least we got there by following the data instead of with quick-n-dirty rationalizations.) But this wouldn't be the sole energy source, as the mainstream asserts. It might just be the energy that keeps the convective zone boiling, while the primary energy source in the photosphere is more probably electric arcing. I'm saying that the arcing is due to a charge separation within the Sun, while the Electric Sun model has it as a separation between the Sun and the rest of the solar system. Either way, photospheric arcing it is. Yet either way, some fusion is occurring in the Sun. I think that CMEs are the result of nuclear explosions due to arcing in or below the photosphere. Would that account for the neutrino flux? Or do we need a small nuclear furnance in the core to make up the difference? Interesting questions. Anybody?
'12-01-28, 15:48 Sparky	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Charles, ""In arc welding, only electrons are moving. "" I am confused.... I thought all arcs involved plasma.. In plasma torches, ions are involved, but that's just because the plasma is forced out of the nozzle by hydrostatic pressure. I asked this question elsewhere: Ions can be contained under pressure? thanks
'12-01-28, 23:32 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient No Solid Iron Sun? * According to your statements, Charles, it sounds like the Sun could only contain a lot of iron in liquid form, since you say the density could be greater only if the heat were much higher, whereas Brant's Iron Sun theory supposes that it's mostly solid (just below the photosphere), except where the magnetic loops form. He says it's only the average temperature that's about 5,800 K, but that temperature measurements combine those of the extremely hot loops with majority of the cooler surrounding surface. Some EU theorists suppose that the gravitational constant isn't constant, so the density calculations aren't reliable. Have you considered that? Solar Wind * Some more questions. Does the solar wind contain equal amounts of positive and negative charges? I read lately that plasma in the lab maintains charge separation and wouldn't it do so in the solar wind as well? Isn't that why it accelerates till it approaches the heliopause? Electric currents in wiring involve a very slow movement of electrons. The solar wind moves much faster, hundreds of miles per hour, I believe. So it seems to me that there would be electric currents in the solar wind. The auroras are produced by the solar wind, aren't they? Global Electric Current * This video, mentioned in the Electric Earthquake thread recently by Komorikid, http://www.livestream.com/naturalclimatechange/video?clipId~, toward the end shows a graph of daily global electric current, which varies in sync with time of day, according to how much land area is directly facing the sun. The more land area that's exposed to sunlight, the higher the current. It's thought that the reason for this is that there are more thunderstorms over land than over oceans. Around the international dateline there's least land exposure and least current; when Australia reaches noon, there's more land and more current; when Africa reaches noon, there's still more of each; and finally, when the Americas reach noon, there's a maximum of each, followed by a large drop as the international dateline again reaches noon in mid-Pacific. Are the auroras powered by electron current? If so, I suppose the global electric current would also be powered by electron current. I'm guessing that the positive ions bypass the Earth, because Earth has a positive charge. Do you know if that's correct?
'12-01-29, 03:04 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Sparky wrote: I thought all arcs involved plasma.. It's always plasma, but almost all of the movement is electrons — the ions stay where they were, due to their inertial forces. Ionic drift is possible in an electric field, but it's generally subsonic, while electron drift in plasma is generally relativistic. Sparky wrote: Ions can be contained under pressure? Yes. The ions coming out of the plenum of an ionic air purifier are ions under pressure. In other words, ions are just a gas that is missing some electrons, so it still has hydrostatic/dynamic properties. If the charge separation becomes great enough, the ideal gas laws might be insignificant compared to the EM forces at play. But plasma still has pressure, density, inertia, etc. Lloyd wrote: According to your statements, Charles, it sounds like the Sun could only contain a lot of iron in liquid form, since you say the density could be greater only if the heat were much higher... No, I'm saying that the Sun could only contain heavier elements (such as iron) if the density was lower, to get the same mass either way. And to get a lower density, you'd need more heat. So this might mean that an iron core wouldn't be dense enough to call solid or liquid — it might still be plasma. Lloyd wrote: Some EU theorists suppose that the gravitational constant isn't constant, so the density calculations aren't reliable. Have you considered that? I'm not going to let speculation like that derail all other speculation. It is true that there are unexplained anomalies in the gravitational field. But here we have to remember that we put a man on the moon, and that necessitated getting all of the calculations to within 99.99% of actual, or somebody wasn't going to make it home for dinner. And a .01% anomaly doesn't give us the wiggle room to swap hydrogen for iron (with an atom that's 56 times heavier), in the solid state (much, much heavier), from just below the photosphere (99% of the Sun's volume). Other theorists have questioned the method used to determine mass and the gravitational constant in the first place. For Newton, this was not a solvable problem. The Sun and the planets could be really heavy, or really light, and the orbits would still work. In order to calculate the mass of an object, given its orbit, you need to know the mass of the object that it's orbiting — otherwise it's all just relative. But in the space age, we can now answer such questions. Mass has two properties: response to gravity, and inertia. Here on Earth, we can measure these two properties independently, and we see the 1:1 relationship. When we started launching stuff into space, we gained the ability to calculate the mass of the Earth, because we knew the mass of the objects that we launched (by measurements of the inertia of objects weighing that much at the surface). Knowing Earth's mass, we can then calculate the mass of the Sun. So now mass is understood as an absolute property, while weight is relative to mass and proximity to another object, and the gravitational constant is fairly constant. I attribute the anomalies to EM forces, but without overestimating them. Lloyd wrote: Does the solar wind contain equal amounts of positive and negative charges? I read lately that plasma in the lab maintains charge separation and wouldn't it do so in the solar wind as well? Isn't that why it accelerates till it approaches the heliopause? Electric currents in wiring involve a very slow movement of electrons. The solar wind moves much faster, hundreds of miles per hour, I believe. It's more like hundreds of thousands of miles per second (~600 km/s) to escape the Sun's gravity. Lloyd wrote: So it seems to me that there would be electric currents in the solar wind. The auroras are produced by the solar wind, aren't they? Yep. I need to read up on the solar wind. I asserted in a previous post that it is primarily particles flowing out of the granules, which still seems correct. But I also said that the particles get their initial velocity from the thermal bubble, and then they get an extra boost by the temperature in the photosphere, which accelerates the particles to 600 km/s. I was thinking as I was writing that something about that didn't sound quite right, and now I'm reading that scientists have calculated that the photospheric kick (i.e., the expansion of hot plasma) shouldn't give the particles that much of a boost. I think I'm starting to agree. But then, of course, their answer is that it's the energy of magnetic reconnection, which is gibberish. To get relativistic speeds, we're definitely looking for some sort of EM accelerator. I'd be tempted to start with the electric force, which would seem to realign me with the Electric Sun model, though I'm not going to jump to conclusions like that. I'm still convinced that if there was a sufficient voltage to accelerate ions away from the Sun, the ions would rather stay where they were, and pull the electrons inward, due to the inertial differences between ions and electrons (as mentioned above). If I stick with my model, which states that the photosphere is positively charged and the chromosphere is a negative double layer, I might consider something like this: Ions rise in a thermal bubble at 2 km/s. Photospheric heat boosts the speed to 20 km/s. Electrostatic attraction to the negative charge in the chromosphere boosts the speed to 200 km/s. Passing through the chromosphere should neutralize the ionic charge, but at such temperatures, the electrons don't stick, so the ions continue to be accelerated through the chromosphere by the electric force, eventually achieving escape velocity. This would have the solar wind starting out as only positive ions. If, by the time the wind reaches the Earth, there are a bunch of electrons in there too, then the ions picked up those electrons on the way (in the chromosphere or in the corona). But like I said, I need to do some more reading, to get more facts before attempting to nail this piece down. Lloyd wrote: I'm guessing that the positive ions bypass the Earth, because Earth has a positive charge. Do you know if that's correct? The surface of the Earth has a slight negative charge, while the ionosphere has a slight positive charge. Even if both of those charges were perfectly matched, leaving the Earth with zero net charge, one would think that the solar wind would be more affected by the charges in the (positive) ionosphere, as such charges would be closer to the wind as it entered the magnetosphere. But I really don't know.
'12-01-29, 10:44 Sparky	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd wrote:So it seems to me that there would be electric currents in the solar wind. The auroras are produced by the solar wind, aren't they? http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2732.html The process is indirect because the solar magnetic field carried by the plasma that reaches the Earth, interacts with the geotail magnetic field. A 'reconnection' event then occurs, and like the snapping of a rubber band, some of the geotail magnetic field lines snap back into the inner magnetosphere. Charged particles carried along for the ride are accelerated to very high energies in the 5 - 6000 volt range, and when these slam into the upper atmosphere the electrons excite the oxygen and nitrogen atoms to produce red green and blue lights. One can observe the thrashing field lines in the auroras!! They wiggle, twist and squirm, as the magnetic field lines desperately attempt to find reconnection nirvana
'12-01-29, 10:51 Solar	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient CharlesChandler wrote: Yep. I need to read up on the solar wind. I asserted in a previous post that it is primarily particles flowing out of the granules, which still seems correct. But I also said that the particles get their initial velocity from the thermal bubble, and then they get an extra boost by the temperature in the photosphere, which accelerates the particles to 600 km/s. I was thinking as I was writing that something about that didn't sound quite right, and now I'm reading that scientists have calculated that the photospheric kick (i.e., the expansion of hot plasma) shouldn't give the particles that much of a boost. I think I'm starting to agree. But then, of course, their answer is that it's the energy of magnetic reconnection, which is gibberish. To get relativistic speeds, we're definitely looking for some sort of EM accelerator. I'd be tempted to start with the electric force, which would seem to realign me with the Electric Sun model, though I'm not going to jump to conclusions like that. I'm still convinced that if there was a sufficient voltage to accelerate ions away from the Sun, the ions would rather stay where they were, and pull the electrons inward, due to the inertial differences between ions and electrons (as mentioned above). If I stick with my model, which states that the photosphere is positively charged and the chromosphere is a negative double layer, I might consider something like this: Ions rise in a thermal bubble at 2 km/s. Photospheric heat boosts the speed to 20 km/s. Electrostatic attraction to the negative charge in the chromosphere boosts the speed to 200 km/s. Passing through the chromosphere should neutralize the ionic charge, but at such temperatures, the electrons don't stick, so the ions continue to be accelerated through the chromosphere by the electric force, eventually achieving escape velocity. This would have the solar wind starting out as only positive ions. If, by the time the wind reaches the Earth, there are a bunch of electrons in there too, then the ions picked up those electrons on the way (in the chromosphere or in the corona). But like I said, I need to do some more reading, to get more facts before attempting to nail this piece down. Hello again Charles. Maybe I'm not understanding but are you trying to posit a 'mechanism' to account for the 'stratification' of the Sun's atmospheric layers or the acceleration of the solar wind, or both, or...?
'12-01-29, 11:52 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Charles' Website * Hi Ty. You asked Charles: are you trying to posit a 'mechanism' to account for the 'stratification' of the Sun's atmospheric layers or the acceleration of the solar wind, or both, or...? * Charles started by trying to explain the Sun's density gradient, but he's also trying to explain many or all of the known features of the Sun. He linked to his website about that at: http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/?top=5237. He's also working on explaining other astronomical phenomena at http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/?top=6031. Marklund Convection & Filimentary Structures * Charles, when I said you seemed to say that the Sun could only contain a lot of iron in liquid form, since you say the density could be greater only if the heat were much higher , I meant the density of the elements in the Sun, not the density of the Sun itself, so I didn't explain my meaning well. I'm still looking for a possible way for Marklund Convection, or something, to form astronomical bodies of heavy elements. So far, your model seems to suggest that such bodies form from a combination of gravity and EM forces acting on a cloud of gases, where EM forces aren't very great. Is that right? And I don't see yet how your model could explain the filamentary structures, jets etc in the universe that are often many lightyears in length. What do you think explains such structures? Miles Mathis' Theories * Thanks for explaining your take on the gravitational constant and other things. It sounds reasonable. Have you read Miles Mathis' theory about Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation? He claims that that law already includes EM forces within it, along with the gravitational force. I think it's explained at these links: http://milesmathis.com/uft.html http://milesmathis.com/uft2.html http://milesmathis.com/weight.html. If you have time to read his stuff, I'd like to hear your take on this. * I think his idea about gravity being a push resulting from constant rapid expansion of everything in the universe (including subatomic particles etc) is nonsense, but some of his ideas seem reasonable, like this one, http://milesmathis.com/pause.html, which may explain magnetospheres etc. Here's an index to his articles: http://milesmathis.com/index.html.
'12-01-29, 13:43 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd wrote: ...he's also trying to explain many or all of the known features of the Sun... Yes, and I'd be done by now, except I got 2nd degree burns on my fingertips from typing too fast, so I had to take a break... In all due seriousness, I have, indeed, been working on a model with comprehensiveness as one of the primary criteria. I've been using a "top-down" approach, meaning that I've been making broad surveys of astrophysical phenomena (solar and cosmological), and applying sanity checks to various possibilities. Whether or not this model will actually go the distance remains to be determined. The first solar model that I developed (concerning granules, sunspots, and prominences) was discussed in the Mad Ideas forum about a year ago, and fatal flaws were revealed. So I expanded the scope to take more cosmological phenomena into account, and now I'm re-applying what passed the cosmological sanity checks to solar theory. Please note that I'm not an expert on any of this stuff, and I'm not even well-read by EU standards. I'm rarely right on the first try, but I am open-minded, meticulous, and persistent, and if I put enough effort into it, interesting things can happen. Most people just come up with ideas and then attack the world with them, never considering that they might be wrong. Such is not the road to truth. I'm at my best when I'm listening carefully to my critics. So please, don't let my assertive tone put you off — feel free to criticize! Many of you are extremely well-read, and have put a great deal of thought into the issues. You guys don't know how brilliant you truly are, and how near we might be to seeing all of the pieces start to fit together into a far bigger picture. But it takes patience, humility, and circumspection to make progress, and there will be unforeseeable problems as we take new data into account. We always need to be prepared to re-conceive the problems and re-assess the solution domain, or we won't get past the next brick wall.