'13-07-25, 04:08 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler I did research it, and the Wikipedia article said that the fastest that any gas (or plasma) can flow into a pure vacuum is the speed of sound, and that's by definition. This means that supersonic speeds driven by buoyancy are not physically possible. So OK, astronomers who study the subject have no problem with a construct that isn't physically possible. That's not the first time that I've heard that. But in what sense am I wrong for considering other possible explanations? They can edit the Wikipedia article on granules if it turns out that I'm right. Your read the wiki on it, maybe something else would give you a better understanding of the process? Now you resort to argument by wikipedia, When I worked with grade schools students they all knew what wikipedia was, a non definitive source for gather information to start further investigation.
'13-07-25, 04:54 phunk	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler No, that's what I was saying, but phunk and edd are saying that cooler plasma is less opaque. I made no comments on the relationship between temperature and opacity, I said that plasma is more opaque than unionized gas.
'13-07-25, 09:41 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by Reality Check Quibbling about semantics is not wise, Charles Chandler. No one is saying that the Coulomb force vanishes. Everyone says that its effects vanish. Everyone says that Coulomb barrier is overcome or that the Coulomb barrier vanishes. This isn't semantics. It's a matter of whether or not there is a resting Coulomb force that needs to be taken into account in the equation of state. The Coulomb barrier being "overcome" means that the resting force is there (and if it is exceeded, fusion occurs), but saying that it drops out of the equation, because all of the positive and negative charges cancel out, and thus the Coulomb force "vanishes", means that the resting force is not there, and therefore it has no effect on the equation of state. So is the force there or not — that's the question. Originally Posted by Reality Check Stellar fusion is basically just an energy source that ionizes gas and creates plasma. It is a source of plasma and we do not have to include fusion in the equations used to describe plasma. The Coulomb force is sort of neglected for astrophysical plasmas. Here the electric field can be derived from the magnetic field. Thus only the magnetic field is needed in the magnetohydrodynamics of plasma. I'm well aware that in astrophysics, the Coulomb force is neglected. Fusion is only invoked in the energy budget, and the forces necessary to create it are not taken into account in the equations of state. In post #103, ben points out that fusion probability and internal pressure use different formulas, where one of them includes the Coulomb force, and the other does not. But this is what I'm challenging. As I describe in post #107, to think that density is just a function of temperature and pressure is naive. Furthermore, to think that the electric forces in and around atoms are just a matter of whether or not the charges are evenly matched is massively naive. In other words, to think that unbound electrons just whiz around in-between the atoms, such that there is no net electric force, is (sorta) true, if you're only thinking in terms of pluses and minuses, but the reality of the matter is that there is a pressure there, and which has nothing to do with the inertial forces of the particles (i.e., the hydrostatic pressure). Conventional theory acknowledges this. Even in the hottest of plasmas, the random motions of nuclei and electrons allow for electron uptake, if only for a microsecond, before the next collision liberates the electron. But in the bound state, the Pauli Exclusion Principle is in effect, as ben noted in post #88. This creates an "incompressibility force" that has to do with the binding energies of atoms, and which is not a term that shows up in the ideal gas laws. You can say that the ideal gas laws implicitly include these atomic forces, having been heuristically derived. But the reality of the matter is that we can confirm the ideal gas laws by calculating the Newtonian energy budget, and the hydrostatic pressure can be accredited directly to the inertial forces of the atoms. This works just fine until you start hitting the "incompressibility limits" that come from the atomic structures. This is why we have whacky (and poorly understood) phase diagrams for elements. So the compressibility goes up as the temperature goes up? Yes, for supercritical fluids. That's opposite from the ideal gas laws, where increases in temperature increase the pressure. The reason for the compressibility of supercritical fluids is that hidden in the temperature increase is a break-down of the electron shells, that gets the Pauli Exclusion Principle out of the way. This enables supercritical fluids to behave more like ideal gases than they should have had a right. It isn't a perfect match, because like I said above, even in the hottest plasmas, electron uptake is still occurring, so there are some atomic forces present. But we're still missing something here. According to the GSU webpage (Transparency Temperature), hydrogen is completely ionized above 3000 K. Well, that's an oversimplification, but rough numbers will work here. If the atomic speeds at 3000 K are sufficient for full ionization, then why does it take 15 MK to fuse hydrogen into helium? I know the standard answer (i.e., it takes that kind of atomic speed to overcome the Coulomb barrier). And this has nothing to do with the equation of state. But we have to listen to ourselves talk here. We're saying that those unbound electrons can whiz around in-between the atoms, resulting in no net Coulomb force. As we compact the matter more and more, the +ions and the electrons just keep getting closer and closer. In that regime, what is the density at which you ever get a net Coulomb force? There shouldn't be any! The +ions and the electrons should be squash-able, right down to the fusion density. Once you get everything squashed inside the K shell, there shouldn't be any random electron uptake anywhere in the matter, so there won't be any atomic pressure. And we're saying that there isn't any net Coulomb force, because we still have equal quantities of protons and electrons. The only remaining pressure should be just the hydrostatic pressure coming from the particle motions. But then, we should be able to cool the supercritical fluid, to reduce the pressure, and fuse the hydrogen into helium. If we cool it enough, this should take next to no pressure at all. It sounds odd to say it this way, but if all of the above is true, once we have compressed the hydrogen inside the K shells, we should be able to just cool it down until it just "freezes" into helium. Clearly, that's just not how it works, so clearly, we're missing something here. Pressure isn't just a function of heat, plus the Pauli Exclusion Principle (if applicable). So what are we missing? This is where I go from "compressive ionization" (which I guess most of you guys acknowledge) to "compressive charge separation" (which is the contentious point here). I'm saying that those electrons are not just whizzing around in-between the atoms — they're getting expelled, leaving a local surplus of +ions, and a surplus of electrons somewhere else. Then the Coulomb force between the +ions is a repulsion.
'13-07-25, 10:09 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by Dancing David Now you resort to argument by wikipedia, When I worked with grade schools students they all knew what wikipedia was, a non definitive source for gather information to start further investigation. Is this directed at just me, or at Reality Check as well? Either way, it's argumentum ad verecundiam. Do you disagree with this statement (assuming that the context is the principles of fluid dynamics)? Originally Posted by Charles Chandler The fastest that any gas (or plasma) can flow into a pure vacuum is the speed of sound, and that's by definition. This means that supersonic speeds driven by buoyancy are not physically possible. If so, why so?
'13-07-25, 10:22 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Is this directed at just me, or at Reality Check as well? Either way, it's argumentum ad verecundiam. Do you disagree with this statement (assuming that the context is the principles of fluid dynamics)? If so, why so? I am not sure, I have RC on ignore. So when are you going to start discussing the plasma effects, like the debye length and the Coulomb force? I saw your nonsense in the large post above, try again, talk about the data not your model as in "We're saying that those unbound electrons can whiz around in-between the atoms, resulting in no net Coulomb force. As we compact the matter more and more, the +ions and the electrons just keep getting closer and closer. In that regime, what is the density at which you ever get a net Coulomb force?". the Coulomb force still exists between electron-electrons and proton-protons, which is why even at high densities you have to have QM for fusion. Maybe you should study up on what is known about plasma before making a model and tearing it down. Yo are arguing for net Coulomb force, yet have to explain why there should be one, other than your assertion.
'13-07-25, 11:54 godless dave	Charles, you seem to have found some phenomena that your current understanding of physics cannot explain. It seems to me there are two possibilities: either your current understanding of physics is incomplete, or those phenomena violate the standard model of physics that has been developed by physicists, but they don't want to admit it. Which of those two possibilities seem more likely?
'13-07-25, 12:43 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by Dancing David So when are you going to start discussing the plasma effects, like the debye length and the Coulomb force? I already said, in post #56, that "compressive charge separation" has nothing to do with Debye lengths. Originally Posted by Dancing David I saw your nonsense in the large post above, try again, talk about the data not your model... People have been asking about the theoretical foundation for my model, and I'm obligated to answer. I grant that there is no existing theoretical foundation, but I'll further contend that the existing theory has some holes in it, and if we look at what it will take to fill in those holes, we get "compressive charge separation". Without that piece, my whole model blows up, so it's a legitimate topic of conversation. Originally Posted by Dancing David The Coulomb force still exists between electron-electrons and proton-protons, which is why even at high densities you have to have QM for fusion. Actually, the QM literature is a bit more convoluted than that. If you ignore the Coulomb force in the equation of state, then you have to come up with a reason for all supercritical fluids not spontaneously collapsing under their own weight (at least if we're talking about astronomical scales), because there shouldn't be any net Coulomb force in quasi-neutral plasma, and as the thermal energy radiates, it should allow the plasma to collapse. So there's a QM rule to prevent the collapse (i.e., electron degeneracy pressure). But there has to be an exception to that rule, so fusion can still occur. This is where "quantum tunneling" is invoked. So the ideal gas laws are preserved for the equation of state; the energy budget comes from fusion; and as a bonus, you get degenerate matter that can explain neutron stars and white dwarfs, which seem to be too organized for objects of such masses. But when I was reading up on tokamaks, I didn't hear anything about electron degeneracy or quantum tunneling — it was all just the hydrostatic pressure, Coulomb barrier, and the magnetic force. So why two branches of physics for the same thing? Originally Posted by Dancing David You are arguing for net Coulomb force, yet have to explain why there should be one, other than your assertion. That's precisely why I'm identifying the holes in the existing nuclear theory. Originally Posted by godless dave It seems to me there are two possibilities: either your current understanding of physics is incomplete, or those phenomena violate the standard model of physics that has been developed by physicists, but they don't want to admit it. Which of those two possibilities seem more likely? Far better than 99% of the time that somebody thinks that the experts are wrong, it isn't the experts who are wrong. If you want to do science by probabilistics, that's fine. Most people do, and they find it to be an easy way to get a fairly reliable answer. But there's a name for that kind of reasoning (i.e., argumentum ad verecundiam), and there's a reason for it being identified as fallacious. If we never tolerated anything but such reasoning, science as we know it never would have come into existence. If the Pope and all of the scholastic monks were usually right, what would be the chances of Copernicus disagreeing, and being right? If you had been alive during that period, you wouldn't have been Copernicus — you would have been an Inquisitor. (Sorry, but you're the one who made the personal remarks, and this is simply my direct response, at the same level.)
'13-07-25, 12:54 phunk	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler As we compact the matter more and more, the +ions and the electrons just keep getting closer and closer. In that regime, what is the density at which you ever get a net Coulomb force? There shouldn't be any! The +ions and the electrons should be squash-able, right down to the fusion density. The net coulomb force being zero does mean that the coulomb force between any two specific nuclei is zero when they approach each other.
'13-07-25, 13:05 DeiRenDopa	Introductory remark: in exchanges of posts with MM (they really couldn't be called a discussion, or a dialog), one reason why it was hard to understand what he was saying was that he had his own, private, idiosyncratic definitions of a great many standard terms. No matter how often he was pressed, he rarely explained what he meant, and in the rare cases where he did, the explanations were usually inconsistent. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Actually, the QM literature is a bit more convoluted than that. If you ignore the Coulomb force in the equation of state, then you have to come up with a reason for all supercritical fluids not spontaneously collapsing under their own weight (at least if we're talking about astronomical scales), because there shouldn't be any net Coulomb force in quasi-neutral plasma, and as the thermal energy radiates, it should allow the plasma to collapse. So there's a QM rule to prevent the collapse (i.e., electron degeneracy pressure). But there has to be an exception to that rule, so fusion can still occur. This is where "quantum tunneling" is invoked. So the ideal gas laws are preserved for the equation of state; the energy budget comes from fusion; and as a bonus, you get degenerate matter that can explain neutron stars and white dwarfs, which seem to be too organized for objects of such masses. But when I was reading up on tokamaks, I didn't hear anything about electron degeneracy or quantum tunneling — it was all just the hydrostatic pressure, Coulomb barrier, and the magnetic force. So why two branches of physics for the same thing? To me, this reads much like something MM would write. Taking it at face value, and assuming the key terms have their standard (textbook physics) meanings, it comes across as gibberish. So, would you mind explaining just this one part please CC? "a reason for all supercritical fluids not spontaneously collapsing under their own weight (at least if we're talking about astronomical scales), because there shouldn't be any net Coulomb force in quasi-neutral plasma, and as the thermal energy radiates, it should allow the plasma to collapse" In this passage you seem to equate "supercritical fluid" with "quasi-neutral plasma"; do you? By "spontaneously collapsing under their own weight (at least if we're talking about astronomical scales)" are you referring to gravitational collapse? If not, what kind of collapse do you mean? "as the thermal energy radiates" - huh?
'13-07-25, 13:08 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by godless dave Charles, you seem to have found some phenomena that your current understanding of physics cannot explain. It seems to me there are two possibilities: either your current understanding of physics is incomplete, or those phenomena violate the standard model of physics that has been developed by physicists, but they don't want to admit it. Which of those two possibilities seem more likely? I'm curious: CC uses a lot of words which look like standard terms in physics, yet to me they seem inconsistently used (at best). Does that point to the first possibility as being more likely, would you say? Of course, it's entirely possible - likely even - that it's my own limited understanding of physics. However, from many posts by many others, I infer that I am not alone in being unable to understand what CC writes.
'13-07-25, 15:03 Dancing David	Charles, just to respond to your earlier argument: -in a hydrogen plasma, unless there is something strange going on, or an outside influence, when an electron is whizzing around, it is just as likely to pass a fellow electron and/or a proton (a toy model ignoring the debye equations). So in aggregate there is no net Coulomb force. Now the Coulomb barrier applies to individual particles, which is where the QM comes in, regardless of the label tunneling.
'13-07-25, 17:06 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler This isn't semantics. It is semantics, Charles Chandler. People always take account of the Coulomb force (barrier) in considering fusion. That Coulomb force is always there. People sometimes say that barrier vanishes for energetic enough collisions. People sometimes say that barrier is overcome for energetic enough collisions. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler I'm well aware that in astrophysics, the Coulomb force is neglected. ...snipped irrelevant rant... Not quite right, Charles Chandler. The Coulomb force (electric field) is neglected in the appropriate circumstances. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler This is where I go from "compressive ionization" (which I guess most of you guys acknowledge) to "compressive charge separation" (which is the contentious point here). No this is where you have a fantasy that compressive ionization means that the freed electrons magically separate. The real world tells us and should tell you that the fantasy is wrong. I will make this explicit with a question: Charles Chandler Plasmas already have free electrons and these do not separate except in very special conditions (double layers). What is special about these compressive ionization electrons that makes them form double layers? First asked 26 July 2013 - 0 days and counting.
'13-07-25, 17:11 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by phunk The net coulomb force being zero does mean that the coulomb force between any two specific nuclei is zero when they approach each other. Yes, but if the net force is zero, then if sometimes there is repulsion between two nuclei approaching each other, this has to be balanced by other cases in which there happen to be an excess of electrons in the vicinity, and the net force is attractive. (Imagine two converging protons, with two electrons in the middle, where the local net Coulomb force will be attractive.) You can't have a net zero body force, and also have a typical repulsion between particles. That's just simple arithmetic. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Introductory remark: in exchanges of posts with MM (they really couldn't be called a discussion, or a dialog), one reason why it was hard to understand what he was saying was that he had his own, private, idiosyncratic definitions of a great many standard terms. No matter how often he was pressed, he rarely explained what he meant, and in the rare cases where he did, the explanations were usually inconsistent. [...] To me, this reads much like something MM would write. Ignoratio elenchi — MM is not the topic of this thread. He isn't even on this board anymore. This is a violation of JREF Rule #11. ("You will not deliberately attempt to derail threads or start threads in the wrong section.") Argumentum ad hominem — you're attacking the person, not the statements. This is a violation of JREF Rule #12. ("Address the argument, not the arguer.") Argumentum ad nauseum — you think that if you repeat this forever, in some twisted sense, you will have won something. This is a violation of JREF Rule #11 (see above) and #0. ("Be civil and polite.") For more info, please see the Membership Agreement. I'm normally pretty thick-skinned about stuff like this, but this is just getting to be a nuisance, and there are some very knowledgeable people on this thread, from whom I could learn a lot. So please try to keep the comments focused and constructive. Thanks! Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa So, would you mind explaining just this one part please CC? "a reason for all supercritical fluids not spontaneously collapsing under their own weight (at least if we're talking about astronomical scales), because there shouldn't be any net Coulomb force in quasi-neutral plasma, and as the thermal energy radiates, it should allow the plasma to collapse" In this passage you seem to equate "supercritical fluid" with "quasi-neutral plasma"; do you? Yes, a supercritical fluid is typically a quasi-neutral plasma, though not all plasmas are supercritical. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa By "spontaneously collapsing under their own weight (at least if we're talking about astronomical scales)" are you referring to gravitational collapse? Yes. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa "as the thermal energy radiates" - huh? Hot objects radiate heat, and eventually cool down. The cooling relaxes the hydrostatic pressure, which enables gravity to further compact the matter. The denser gravitational field then further compacts the matter, so paradoxically, sometimes the temperature can actually go up, at least temporarily, even with an ongoing net loss of thermal energy. This is just because of the way gravity obeys in the inverse square law. But yes, thermal energy tends to propagate outward from its source, unless the heat is encased in a perfect thermal insulator.
'13-07-25, 17:18 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Quote: Originally Posted by Charles Chandler The fastest that any gas (or plasma) can flow into a pure vacuum is the speed of sound, and that's by definition. This means that supersonic speeds driven by buoyancy are not physically possible. If so, why so? Charles Chandler, you must have missed my previous post - your point is irrelevant because this is not happening. Granules are convection cells of plasma within the photosphere. The supersonic velocities that have been measured and are explained by astrophysical models happen within the photosphere plasma. P.S. I suspect that the supersonic velocities are not driven by buoyancy alone. But we should not talk about the validity of the astrophysical models (unless you want to demonstrate the fallacy of false dichotomy, e.g. theory A is wrong thus theory B is right and lets forget about theories C, D, E , ...). However this leads to another question. Charles Chandler What are the velocities of flows in granules from your model? First asked 26 July 2013 - 0 days and counting. I do hope that you have more than a fantasy that your model can explain these flows .
'13-07-25, 17:42 Reality Check	Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa To me, this reads much like something MM would write. Not quite - MM did tend to keep on topic . The quote is just a mishmash of mostly irrelevant stuff, an inability to clearly state what he means and a tiny bit of ignorance. Charles Chandler uses the term Coulomb force which is just about always considered in physics. What he really means (I think) is the Coulomb barrier that governs nuclear fusion. QM literature is "convoluted"! If you ignore the Coulomb force in the equation of state, then you have a reason to ignore the Coulomb force. Supercritical fluid theories do not ignore the Coulomb force. Supercritical fluid theories do ignore the Coulomb barrier because this they do not form under the conditions needed for fusion. Supercritical fluids are irrelevant for this thread because they are not plasma. That plasmas are quasi-neutral means that beyond a certain scale (Debye length) there is no significant Coulomb force. In the Sun that scale is a small part of a meter (not the hundreds of kilometer his idea requires). If you have enough cooling plasma, e.g. a white dwarf star, then electron degeneracy pressure can dominate the thermal pressure. There is no exception to that rule to allow fusion. If electron degeneracy pressure is dominating then the thermal energy of atoms is not enough to cause fusion. There is no "quantum tunneling" invoked. It is ignorant to think that tokamak literature would mention degeneracy or quantum tunneling because degeneracy is the regime of very dense objects and tunneling is basically radioactivity. There are a million other irrelevant things that tokamak literature does not mention !
'13-07-25, 20:23 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by Reality Check What are the velocities of flows in granules from your model? First asked 26 July 2013 - 0 days and counting. First, I don't do models that generate data (which are unbelievably well-predicted by the model) the way scientists do. If something can be directly observed, I just go with the observations, and then challenge the model to explain the data. Anyway, I first answered the question in post #79. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler We're told that granules are driven by convection. Yet the updrafts in granules average 2 km/s, and the downdrafts around the outsides can exceed 7 km/s. So that's -1 day, but who's counting? Originally Posted by Reality Check I do hope that you have more than a fantasy that your model can explain these flows . In my model, the supersonic updrafts are driven by electron drag, and the downdrafts are driven by the electric force. Originally Posted by Reality Check The quote is just a mishmash of mostly irrelevant stuff, an inability to clearly state what he means and a tiny bit of ignorance. Argumentum ad hominem — you're attacking the person, not the statements. This is a violation of JREF Rule #12. ("Address the argument, not the arguer.") Originally Posted by Reality Check If you ignore the Coulomb force in the equation of state, then you have a reason to ignore the Coulomb force. One can hope. Originally Posted by Reality Check Supercritical fluid theories do not ignore the Coulomb force. Supercritical fluid theories do ignore the Coulomb barrier because this they do not form under the conditions needed for fusion. Supercritical fluids are irrelevant for this thread because they are not plasma. Here we could stand to improve the accuracy of our terminology, at least for the sake of this discussion (even if we can't remove the ambiguity in the literature!). For most people, plasma is simply ionized matter. Most people think of it like a gas, except that for whatever reason (e.g., temperature, photo-ionization), electrons have been liberated from atoms, typically breaking down molecular structures, and leaving single atoms floating around. It's still a fluid, just like a gas, but those are atoms, not molecules floating around. In a strongly ionized state, such atoms will never be capable of molecular bonds. Even if compressed down to the density of a liquid for those atoms, they will not form molecules, much less van der Waals bonds that will give it properties like surface tension. Nevertheless, under extreme pressure, plasma begins to display hydrodynamic behaviors, due to large inertia forces and small mean free paths. Due to the dramatic change in properties, many people consider supercritical fluids to be a distinct state of matter. Hence there would be solids, liquids, gases, plasmas, and supercritical fluids. Both plasmas and supercritical fluids are ionized. Liquids, gases, plasmas, and supercritical fluids are all fluids, but only liquids and supercritical fluids are hydrodynamic (i.e., display "incompressible" flows, though supercritical fluids might still be somewhat compressible). Supercritical fluids are also like plasmas and solids in that they are excellent conductors. I'd be happy to go with this definition if you like — that supercritical fluids constitute the 5th state of matter, and are distinctly different from plasmas. But by pretty much everybody's definition, the interior of the Sun is a supercritical fluid, so yes, it's properties are relevant to the discussion at hand. And at least in the standard model, such a supercritical fluid is very definitely capable of nuclear fusion. Originally Posted by Reality Check That plasmas are quasi-neutral means that beyond a certain scale (Debye length) there is no significant Coulomb force. In the Sun that scale is a small part of a meter (not the hundreds of kilometer his idea requires). I have repeatedly stated that my model does not rely on the Debye length. You're right — in the Sun, this isn't a factor. But here you're guilty of the straw man fallacy. I say that "compressive charge separation" creates powerful Coulomb forces in the Sun. You say that the only way to get Coulomb forces in plasmas in at the appropriate Debye lengths, which are too short for my purposes, and therefore I am wrong. You have slain your straw man, but hey... lookie... I'm over here, and I'm still standing! I might be wrong, but you'll never prove it by disproving something that I'm not saying.
'13-07-25, 20:58 sol invictus	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Actually, it should be a lot more transparent, because the model temperature at that depth is over 10 kK, and at that temperature, bound electrons capable of absorbing a photon will be few and far between. Um, what?? You have that completely wrong. Ionized gases (aka plasma) are far less transparent than un-ionzed gasses, precisely because many electrons aren't bound. For someone with a model of the sun that's going to overturn a decades or centuries of work by thousands of brilliant physicists, that's a rather embarrassingly basic mistake - no? Originally Posted by Charles Chandler As the heat radiates out of the pipe and into the surrounding soil, the hydrostatic pressure will relax. But wait — we left the weight on the plunger, so it will press down again. Or more accurately put, the hydrostatic pressure stays the same, but as the temperature drops, so does the volume. Nonsense. The temperature of the gas in the pipe will equilibrate with the surrounding earth, and the resulting density of gas will not be particularly high.
'13-07-25, 21:20 Reality Check	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler First, I don't do models that generate data (which are unbelievably well-predicted by the model) the way scientists do. If something can be directly observed, I just go with the observations, and then challenge the model to explain the data. Anyway, I first answered the question in post #79. Then you are acting more like a crank rather than a scientist. A crank indulges in wishful thinking about what their ideas can do rather then finding out what their ideas can actually do. And what does post #79 have? A description of supersonic flows in granules. Ignorance of what the granules are. A couple of lies. You are not "identifying what's wrong with the standard mode" because You do not know what the standard model is other then popular descriptions of it. You do not know what the actual flows are. You are not "proposing a new solution" because you cannot show that flows in granules will be supersonic form your idea. Charles Chandler: I challenge your model to explain the supersonic flows in granules. Whoops, your model cannot do that because you all have is a vague idea about charges doing whatever you want them to do ! First asked 26 July 2013 - 0 days and counting. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler In my model, ...snipped fantasies... Argumentum ad hominem Wrong - I am attacking a quote. Quote: Originally Posted by Reality Check The quote is just a mishmash of mostly irrelevant stuff, an inability to clearly state what he means and a tiny bit of ignorance. that clearly shows your inability to be clear about what Coulomb force means within the quote. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Here we could stand to improve the accuracy of our terminology, Here we could stand to improve the accuracy of your understanding that supercritical fluids are irrelevant to the discussion of stellar physics because they are not plasmas. Quote: A supercritical fluid is any substance at a temperature and pressure above its critical point, where distinct liquid and gas phases do not exist. It can effuse through solids like a gas, and dissolve materials like a liquid. Yes plasmas are more complex than "ionized gases" but most people know that they are not liquids or gases! Quote: Plasma (from Greek πλάσμα, "anything formed"[1]) is one of the four fundamental states of matter (the others being solid, liquid, and gas). Originally Posted by Charles Chandler But by pretty much everybody's definition, the interior of the Sun is a supercritical fluid, That is totally wrong, Charles Chandler: By pretty much everybody's definition, the interior of the Sun is a plasma. Ask some astronomers. But maybe you have some evidence, Charles Chandler, for this unsupported assertion (aka fantasy ) Charles Chandler Please give the citations to the scientific literature where stellar material (i.e. plasma in all of the textbooks) is shown to be a supercritical fluid. First asked 26 July 2013 - 0 days and counting. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler I have repeatedly stated that my model does not rely on the Debye length. Then you are repeatedly stated your ignorance about the properties of plasmas and double layers. They do depend on the Debye length. Your fantasies ("I say ...") are just that - fantasies. The physics is what I have been trying to tell you. I will try again in simple steps. No fantasies in your reply please, Charles Chandler. Back up what you say to the scientific literature on solar physics. The Sun is made of plasma according to observations, textbooks, scientific papers, astronomers, etc. Plasma is quasi-neutral as you know. That means that on scales above the Debye length, plasma is neutral (no Coulomb forces). The Debye length in the Sun is much less than a meter. That gives double layers on the scales of meters (to be generous). Thus any electrostatic effects (Coulomb forces) will not extend over the scales of the Sun. Therefore your idea is physically impossible.
'13-07-25, 21:24 Reality Check	Since you seem to have missed some of my points and questions I will emphasis this one: Originally Posted by Reality Check But maybe you have some evidence, Charles Chandler, for this unsupported assertion (aka fantasy ) Charles Chandler Please give the citations to the scientific literature where stellar material (i.e. plasma in all of the textbooks) is shown to be a supercritical fluid. First asked 26 July 2013 - 0 days and counting. If there are none then you should retract this assertion.
'13-07-26, 00:56 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by sol invictus Ionized gases (aka plasma) are far less transparent than un-ionzed gasses, precisely because many electrons aren't bound. For someone with a model of the sun that's going to overturn a decades or centuries of work by thousands of brilliant physicists, that's a rather embarrassingly basic mistake - no? Yep! But then again, that's the only useful information that I've gotten out of this thread so far. I'm seeking criticisms, not because I know I'm right, but because I might be wrong, and I want to get right. But I should point out that my contentions concerning the non-Newtonian density gradient were never based on opacities. The more telling observations are those of the hydrodynamic behaviors of the photosphere, including the granules, and s-waves that sometimes propagate after a solar flare. These are only possible at the boundary between two distinctly different densities. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler As the heat radiates out of the pipe and into the surrounding soil, the hydrostatic pressure will relax. But wait — we left the weight on the plunger, so it will press down again. Or more accurately put, the hydrostatic pressure stays the same, but as the temperature drops, so does the volume. Originally Posted by sol invictus Nonsense. The temperature of the gas in the pipe will equilibrate with the surrounding earth, and the resulting density of gas will not be particularly high. No, I said that we'd put a couple of tons of weight on a plunger 1 cm wide. Originally Posted by Reality Check Then you are acting more like a crank rather than a scientist. OK, I'm done trying to slog through your derogatory remarks, to try to find the legitimate questions. There have been a few, but most of your posts have been rhetorical, vaguely worded, and thoroughly infused with hatred, and I just don't have the time for any of that. So I'll be ignoring you. This, of course, means that you can say anything you want, and I won't complain. That's because I won't see it. And you can call all of the attention that you want to the fact that I'm not answering your questions. Bye.
'13-07-26, 02:54 catsmate1	Why is it woo peddlers can't understand what an actual Argumentum ad hominem is?
'13-07-26, 04:49 sol invictus	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler No, I said that we'd put a couple of tons of weight on a plunger 1 cm wide. Yes, and it took me approximately 15 seconds to estimate the resulting density (there's a trick that makes it easy). The air would liquify and equilibrate, so your cylinder is about as exciting as a dewar of liquid nitrogen. But according to you: "Eventually, the volume will have been reduced so much that the nitrogen and oxygen atoms will start fusing into heavier elements." You don't have any sense of physical scale. To induce fusion would require much, much, much, much more pressure than that.
'13-07-26, 08:50 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler First, I don't do models that generate data (which are unbelievably well-predicted by the model) the way scientists do. If something can be directly observed, I just go with the observations, and then challenge the model to explain the data. So how does your model explain the 'razor sharp' transition at the top of the Sun's photosphere? In the standard solar model, what is the change in transparency of the photosphere, from, say, 0.999 to 1.000 R⊙? What is the explanation? Quote: Here we could stand to improve the accuracy of our terminology, at least for the sake of this discussion (even if we can't remove the ambiguity in the literature!). For most people, plasma is simply ionized matter. Most people think of it like a gas, except that for whatever reason (e.g., temperature, photo-ionization), electrons have been liberated from atoms, typically breaking down molecular structures, and leaving single atoms floating around. It's still a fluid, just like a gas, but those are atoms, not molecules floating around. In a strongly ionized state, such atoms will never be capable of molecular bonds. Even if compressed down to the density of a liquid for those atoms, they will not form molecules, much less van der Waals bonds that will give it properties like surface tension. Nevertheless, under extreme pressure, plasma begins to display hydrodynamic behaviors, due to large inertia forces and small mean free paths. Due to the dramatic change in properties, many people consider supercritical fluids to be a distinct state of matter. Hence there would be solids, liquids, gases, plasmas, and supercritical fluids. Both plasmas and supercritical fluids are ionized. Liquids, gases, plasmas, and supercritical fluids are all fluids, but only liquids and supercritical fluids are hydrodynamic (i.e., display "incompressible" flows, though supercritical fluids might still be somewhat compressible). Supercritical fluids are also like plasmas and solids in that they are excellent conductors. I'd be happy to go with this definition if you like — that supercritical fluids constitute the 5th state of matter, and are distinctly different from plasmas. But by pretty much everybody's definition, the interior of the Sun is a supercritical fluid, so yes, it's properties are relevant to the discussion at hand. And at least in the standard model, such a supercritical fluid is very definitely capable of nuclear fusion. At 0.3804812 R⊙, rho is 4.8809578e+00 (g/cm^3), p 3.5413657e+15 (dyn/cm^2), and T 5.3953455e+06 (K), for "for Model S (Christensen-Dalsgaard et al. 1996)" (per your website). Assuming solar composition (i.e. mostly H and He), do you expect matter in this state to be a) a plasma (if so, with what degree of ionization)?, b) a supercritical fluid? c) capable of nuclear fusion? With respect to understanding the observed properties of the Sun, what difference does it make if such matter were not a plasma? not a supercritical fluid? not capable of nuclear fusion? Quote: I have repeatedly stated that my model does not rely on the Debye length. You're right — in the Sun, this isn't a factor. But here you're guilty of the straw man fallacy. I say that "compressive charge separation" creates powerful Coulomb forces in the Sun. You say that the only way to get Coulomb forces in plasmas in at the appropriate Debye lengths, which are too short for my purposes, and therefore I am wrong. You have slain your straw man, but hey... lookie... I'm over here, and I'm still standing! I might be wrong, but you'll never prove it by disproving something that I'm not saying. How does your "compressive charge separation" differ from the Pannekoek-Rosseland effect? In your reading of Alvén's papers, did you come across an expected "charge separation" effect, due to gravity? If not, I recommend that you track down the relevant paper(s). Another suggestion: obtain a copy of the Bahcall paper which cites a 1927 Pannekoek one, and check their calculations for an estimate of the importance of charge separation in plasmas in the solar interior (to solar models). "You don't have any sense of physical scale." - sol invictus. I think that's a pretty good summary.
'13-07-26, 11:58 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by sol invictus Yes, and it took me approximately 15 seconds to estimate the resulting density (there's a trick that makes it easy). The air would liquify and equilibrate, so your cylinder is about as exciting as a dewar of liquid nitrogen. But according to you: "Eventually, the volume will have been reduced so much that the nitrogen and oxygen atoms will start fusing into heavier elements." You don't have any sense of physical scale. To induce fusion would require much, much, much, much more pressure than that. You missed the point in post #107. (The fault is mine, because the whole thing was tongue-in-cheek, and you didn't pick up on the clue at the end, "In reality, I think that there's a little more to it than that. But I'll let you explain." Anyway...) I was questioning standard assumptions about the compressibility of supercritical fluids, as asserted by ben. Put more straightforwardly, the initial compression would generate temperatures sufficient for ionization. A high-pressure, ionized gas is a supercritical fluid, and is therefore capable of being compressed beyond the liquid density of that element. I "think" that we all agree that this is because of the absence of shell conflicts, meaning that the Pauli Exclusion Principle doesn't get invoked. The question is, "What happens when the matter cools?" If we're thinking that only the ideal gas laws matter, we'd think that the volume would decrease as a straight-line function of the temperature. But wait... we've already compressed the matter beyond the liquid density. What's going to prevent it from shrinking into the next-heavier element? We all know that this is not what happens. Paradoxically, as the matter cools, the pressure increases, because more and more electrons settle into shells, and now the Pauli Exclusion Principle matters again. Given a constant weight bearing down on it, the "increase in pressure" is actually manifested just as an expansion of the volume at constant pressure. The whole point is that the astrophysical equations of state only include the ideal gas laws, which isn't correct. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa So how does your model explain the 'razor sharp' transition at the top of the Sun's photosphere? It's the outer edge of a positive layer, being forcefully held down by a stronger negative layer. Imagine a negative electrode, that is actively emitting electrons, while also supporting a positive sheath near it. Due to the flow of electrons through the "positive sheath", it will actually be quasi-neutral, while the electric field will keep the +ions well-organized near the electrode. So the sheath gets its form from +ions in the presence of a strong E-field, even though charge counts should reveal quasi-neutrality. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa In the standard solar model, what is the change in transparency of the photosphere, from, say, 0.999 to 1.000 R⊙? What is the explanation? In the standard model, there isn't any change in transparency until you get above 1.000 R⊙. According to the GSU webpage, when the temperature of the hydrogen drops below 3000 K, which occurs in the chromosphere, it becomes transparent. Below that, the hotter hydrogen is opaque. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa At 0.3804812 R⊙, rho is 4.8809578e+00 (g/cm^3), p 3.5413657e+15 (dyn/cm^2), and T 5.3953455e+06 (K), for "for Model S (Christensen-Dalsgaard et al. 1996)" (per your website). Assuming solar composition (i.e. mostly H and He), do you expect matter in this state to be a) a plasma (if so, with what degree of ionization)?, b) a supercritical fluid? c) capable of nuclear fusion? At that temperature, it will all be fully ionized (H+ and He++). Whether it's a plasma or supercritical fluid depends on whether you consider supercritical fluids to be a distinct state of matter, but at that temperature and pressure, it's definitely above the triple point. But no, that's still pretty far from the fusion density. In fact, even the core density of 1.54e5 kg/m3 still has the atoms on the steep slope of the Coulomb barrier, and will therefore require additional force to achieve nuclear fusion. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa With respect to understanding the observed properties of the Sun, what difference does it make if such matter were not a plasma? not a supercritical fluid? not capable of nuclear fusion? First, if it's not capable of nuclear fusion because of core pressure, a lot of scientists are going to be very, very upset! As concerns plasma vs. supercritical fluids, the main difference there, in solar terms, is wave transmission speeds — nothing about helioseismology would make sense if most of the Sun was not supercritical. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa How does your "compressive charge separation" differ from the Pannekoek-Rosseland effect? In your reading of Alvén's papers, did you come across an expected "charge separation" effect, due to gravity? If not, I recommend that you track down the relevant paper(s). The Pannekoek-Rosseland effect is way, way too weak for my purposes. With a hydrogen atom only 1836 times heavier than an electron, and with the electric force 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity, the charge separation just due to this effect should be theoretically there, but functionally infinitesimal.
'13-07-26, 12:55 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Put more straightforwardly, the initial compression would generate temperatures sufficient for ionization. It would? What's your evidence? Quote: A high-pressure, ionized gas is a supercritical fluid, and is therefore capable of being compressed beyond the liquid density of that element. The pipe contains "air" (per your post #107). Will all the O2, N2, H2O, CO2, ... be dissociated? Will the helium be ionized? Quote: I "think" that we all agree that this is because of the absence of shell conflicts, meaning that the Pauli Exclusion Principle doesn't get invoked. The question is, "What happens when the matter cools?" If we're thinking that only the ideal gas laws matter, we'd think that the volume would decrease as a straight-line function of the temperature. But wait... we've already compressed the matter beyond the liquid density. What's going to prevent it from shrinking into the next-heavier element? Doesn't this depend on the final pressure and temperature? For example, carbon dioxide may form and liquefy, but the helium won't. Quote: We all know that this is not what happens. Paradoxically, as the matter cools, the pressure increases, because more and more electrons settle into shells, and now the Pauli Exclusion Principle matters again. Given a constant weight bearing down on it, the "increase in pressure" is actually manifested just as an expansion of the volume at constant pressure. The whole point is that the astrophysical equations of state only include the ideal gas laws, which isn't correct. Indeed. Which is one reason why an awful lot of work goes into determining the extent to which a plasma (or gas) of astrophysical interest is 'non-ideal'. Have you read that 2000 paper (the one with "Christensen-Dalsgaard, J." as an author) yet? Or any of the hundreds of similar others? Quote: It's the outer edge of a positive layer, being forcefully held down by a stronger negative layer. Imagine a negative electrode, that is actively emitting electrons, while also supporting a positive sheath near it. Due to the flow of electrons through the "positive sheath", it will actually be quasi-neutral, while the electric field will keep the +ions well-organized near the electrode. So the sheath gets its form from +ions in the presence of a strong E-field, even though charge counts should reveal quasi-neutrality. And your evidence for this is ...? In particular, how can such (huge) charge separations be maintained, over many hundred (thousand?) Debye lengths? Quote: In the standard model, there isn't any change in transparency until you get above 1.000 R⊙. Evidence? Quote: According to the GSU webpage, when the temperature of the hydrogen drops below 3000 K, which occurs in the chromosphere, it becomes transparent. Below that, the hotter hydrogen is opaque. Um, you realize, don't you, that that's a general summary, intended as support for explanations of the CMB. Further, that the transparency is - as you yourself have said - depends not only on temperature. Why not find yourself a decent textbook on solar physics? You'd save an awful lot of time (and much egg besides). Quote: At that temperature, it will all be fully ionized (H+ and He++). Whether it's a plasma or supercritical fluid depends on whether you consider supercritical fluids to be a distinct state of matter, but at that temperature and pressure, it's definitely above the triple point. What's the triple point of a plasma comprised of doubly ionized helium? Quote: But no, that's still pretty far from the fusion density. In fact, even the core density of 1.54e5 kg/m3 still has the atoms on the steep slope of the Coulomb barrier, and will therefore require additional force to achieve nuclear fusion. What atoms? Didn't you just say it'd be a fully ionized plasma? Quote: First, if it's not capable of nuclear fusion because of core pressure, a lot of scientists are going to be very, very upset! As concerns plasma vs. supercritical fluids, the main difference there, in solar terms, is wave transmission speeds — nothing about helioseismology would make sense if most of the Sun was not supercritical. For the state of matter above, what is the expected "wave transmission speed"? Does that speed change if you don't call the matter a "supercritical fluid"? Quote: The Pannekoek-Rosseland effect is way, way too weak for my purposes. With a hydrogen atom only 1836 times heavier than an electron, and with the electric force 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity, It is? Evidence please! (hilited part) Quote: the charge separation just due to this effect should be theoretically there, but functionally infinitesimal. And you conclude this because "a hydrogen atom [is] only 1836 times heavier than an electron, and [...] the electric force 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity"? Yet you diss solar physicists for using the ideal gas law, when they know it's "wrong" (but have spent many dozens of person-years of effort working out how wrong, and in certain regimes reaching an equivalent "functionally infinitesimal" conclusion)? What do you call that, hypocrisy? chutzpah? willful ignorance?
'13-07-26, 14:11 DeiRenDopa	A bit slow today ... Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Originally Posted by me So how does your model explain the 'razor sharp' transition at the top of the Sun's photosphere? It's the outer edge of a positive layer, being forcefully held down by a stronger negative layer. Imagine a negative electrode, that is actively emitting electrons, while also supporting a positive sheath near it. Due to the flow of electrons through the "positive sheath", it will actually be quasi-neutral, while the electric field will keep the +ions well-organized near the electrode. So the sheath gets its form from +ions in the presence of a strong E-field, even though charge counts should reveal quasi-neutrality. Which, of course, says nothing - nada, zero, zip, zilch - about what is actually observed! And what is actually observed? SDO to the rescue! The AIA telescope images, through various filters, for starters. How - quantitatively - does your model explain these images?
'13-07-26, 14:39 Charles Chandler	Here's another cool Charles/DeiRenDopa exchange: Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa So how does your model explain the 'razor sharp' transition at the top of the Sun's photosphere? Originally Posted by Charles Chandler It's the outer edge of a positive layer, being forcefully held down by a stronger negative layer. Imagine a negative electrode, that is actively emitting electrons, while also supporting a positive sheath near it. Due to the flow of electrons through the "positive sheath", it will actually be quasi-neutral, while the electric field will keep the +ions well-organized near the electrode. So the sheath gets its form from +ions in the presence of a strong E-field, even though charge counts should reveal quasi-neutrality. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa And your evidence for this is ...? The razor-sharp transition! Follow the logic. The first question assumes the existence of the "razor-sharp transition", and asks for an explanation. I give the explanation, and then am asked for evidence, which of course brings us back to where we started. You might be asking for corroborating evidence, but if I go answering questions that were not asked, you'll accuse me of wandering! So you have to stop asking these vague, rhetorical "let's get this guy to jump through hoops for a while" questions, and start asking pointed, specific questions, if this is to be a worthwhile use of our time. There are many legitimate questions to be asked, and much to be learned (especially by me!). But so far, most of this has been just an exercise in handling sophistry. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa In particular, how can such (huge) charge separations be maintained, over many hundred (thousand?) Debye lengths? I have said repeatedly that Debye lengths aren't a factor in the Sun, and that something else has to be at work. Similarly, the Pannekoek-Rosseland effect is way, way too weak for my purposes. So you (and Reality Check) can repeat all you want that Debye lengths and the Pannekoek-Rosseland effect are not up to the task, and we will only continue to agree on those points. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler In the standard model, there isn't any change in transparency until you get above 1.000 R⊙. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Evidence? You could take a look at the OPAL tables. Originally Posted by Charles Chandler the electric force 39 orders of magnitude greater than gravity, Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa It is? Evidence please! (hilited part) See E/G.
'13-07-26, 15:23 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Put more straightforwardly, the initial compression would generate temperatures sufficient for ionization. A high-pressure, ionized gas is a supercritical fluid, and is therefore capable of being compressed beyond the liquid density of that element. a) It's not a supercritical fluid, it's a plasma, a different phase entirely. b) "capable of being compressed beyond the liquid density" is not specific to plasma. See, for example, https://www.gl.ciw.edu/static/users/...iss/node5.html That shows cold hydrogen phases with densities ten thousand times higher than the atmospheric-pressure liquid. Quote: If we're thinking that only the ideal gas laws matter, we'd think that the volume would decrease as a straight-line function of the temperature. But wait... we've already compressed the matter beyond the liquid density. What's going to prevent it from shrinking into the next-heavier element? a) You're talking about cooling the matter through a phase transition. That means you're changing phases, and therefore changing equations of state. The ideal gas law applies to low-density atomic gases, and to hot plasmas. That's why we use it in the center of the sun, which is a hot plasma of the sort that the ideal gas law applies to. We would NOT attempt to use the ideal gas law to describe liquid nitrogen. Why did you think we would? b) Phase transitions may easily include volume increases. Water-to-Ice is a famous example. Suppose that you pack a bunch of water at 4C into a tungsten can, then allow it to cool to -10C. The water will freeze. But ice, which you would probably describe as incompressible, has a lower density than water. c) fusion? Seriously? Quote: The whole point is that the astrophysical equations of state only include the ideal gas laws, which isn't correct. Nonsense. Astrophysicists have to solve the structure of hot stars, neutron stars, white dwarfs, gas giant planets, rocky planets. In each case, we use the equations of state appropriate to the problem. Jupiter has a gaseous upper atmosphere and a dense metallic interior; white dwarfs have a degenerate equation of state; neutron stars have a variety of EOSes, including the still-unknown QCD-based EOS of the core. No, no, the only issue here is your mistaken idea that the mainstream plasma EOSes are wrong. This idea was ill-informed.
'13-07-26, 16:33 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Here's another cool Charles/DeiRenDopa exchange: The razor-sharp transition! Follow the logic. The first question assumes the existence of the "razor-sharp transition", The first question takes you, CC, at your word. Quote: and asks for an explanation. I give the explanation, The 'razor sharp' transition - your words, your description, your Balmer H-alpha image - is, on its face, unrelated to your explanation. Does your so-called explanation refer to Balmer H-alpha? No. Quote: and then am asked for evidence, which of course brings us back to where we started. And, just so that we don't forget, that starting place is a certain "Figure 1", in a post here in JREF, with a link to a website created by ... CC. Quote: You might be asking for corroborating evidence, but if I go answering questions that were not asked, you'll accuse me of wandering! Oh no! MM-like behavior! (where's my "ad hom" boiler plate text again? ) CC, please show - in quantitative detail - how your idea about charged layers produces the kind of 'razor sharp' edge (your words) in the Balmer H-alpha image (Figure 1)? Quote: So you have to stop asking these vague, rhetorical "let's get this guy to jump through hoops for a while" questions, and start asking pointed, specific questions, if this is to be a worthwhile use of our time. There are many legitimate questions to be asked, and much to be learned (especially by me!). But so far, most of this has been just an exercise in handling sophistry. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. If, however, your aim in posting here - in this part of the JREF forum - is, at least in part, to communicate the deep (?) and paradigm-changing insights you seem to think you have had, then I humbly submit (for your esteemed consideration) that you have, so far, failed. Utterly. Quote: I have said repeatedly that Debye lengths aren't a factor in the Sun, Yes, you have. Quote: and that something else has to be at work. Actually, you've done a great deal more than that. Quote: Similarly, the Pannekoek-Rosseland effect is way, way too weak for my purposes. Yes, you have made that claim. And when asked to back it up (ditto re Debye lengths) how have you responded? A not unfair characterization might be something like "because I said so, so there!" Are you here to promulgate some new religion? "I, CC, have spoken; X is irrelevant, end of story!" Quote: So you (and Reality Check) can repeat all you want that Debye lengths and the Pannekoek-Rosseland effect are not up to the task, and we will only continue to agree on those points. OK, so what experimental - "in the lab" - evidence do you have, to support your "photospheric charged layers" idea? What derivations - from the basic Maxwell (etc) equations - can you show us, that supports this idea? In short, how is your idea on a firmer foundation than, say, "purple space aliens is wot dun it! Why? Coz I sed so!" Quote: Originally Posted by me Evidence? You could take a look at the OPAL tables. Pretend I'm from Missouri; show me. Walk me - and all the other avid readers of this thread - through the relevant parts of the "OPAL tables" as evidence that, in the standard model, "there isn't any change in transparency until you get above 1.000 R⊙". Quote: Originally Posted by me It is? Evidence please! See E/G. Nice. Pity that the Sun's mass is not 9.11 × 10−31 kg, or even 1.67 × 10−27 kg. Disappointing too that whatever net charge the Sun has, it is screened from an isolated electron (or proton) by the quasi-neutral plasma between them. That's it? Is that truly the extent of your analysis (of direct relevance to the question at hand)?
'13-07-26, 16:59 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by ben m "capable of being compressed beyond the liquid density" is not specific to plasma. See, for example, https://www.gl.ciw.edu/static/users/...iss/node5.html That shows cold hydrogen phases with densities ten thousand times higher than the atmospheric-pressure liquid. Those are astrophysical model expectations. Can you show me a laboratory-based phase diagram that says that hydrogen at 10 kK and 1 Mb has a density of 0.32 g/cm3 (i.e., 10-0.5), per their phase diagram? That's 5 times its liquid density (i.e., 0.07 g/cm3), near the standard sea-level pressure, and way hotter than an electric arc! Those are the ideal gas laws hard at work? Again comes the question as to how space hydrogen is so different from Earth hydrogen.
'13-07-26, 17:19 dasmiller	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Those are astrophysical model expectations. Can you show me a laboratory-based phase diagram that says that hydrogen at 10 kK and 1 Mb has a density of 0.32 g/cm3 (i.e., 10-0.5), per their phase diagram? That's 5 times its liquid density (i.e., 0.07 g/cm3), near the standard sea-level pressure, and way hotter than an electric arc! Those are the ideal gas laws hard at work? Again comes the question as to how space hydrogen is so different from Earth hydrogen. (bolding mine) Ummm . . . one of these things is not like the other . . .
'13-07-26, 17:22 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Similarly, the Pannekoek-Rosseland effect is way, way too weak for my purposes. Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa Yes, you have made that claim. And when asked to back it up (ditto re Debye lengths) how have you responded? A not unfair characterization might be something like "because I said so, so there!" Oh, please. I'm agreeing with the scientists who have calculated and concluded that the Pannekoek-Rosseland effect is a weak force. You agree as well. But you can still figure out how to make an insult out of the fact that I haven't proven it to you? You're the one who brought it up — you prove it! But I'm not going to waste my time with your argumentativeness anymore. If you ask a relevant question, without 9/10 of it being emotional baggage, I answer it to the best of my ability. Otherwise, I'll ignore it. Call me whatever you want, but I don't have time for arguments that were manufactured just for the sake of arguing.
'13-07-26, 17:28 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Those are astrophysical model expectations. Can you show me a laboratory-based phase diagram that says that hydrogen at 10 kK and 1 Mb has a density of 0.32 g/cm3 (i.e., 10-0.5), per their phase diagram? That's 5 times its liquid density (i.e., 0.07 g/cm3), near the standard sea-level pressure, and way hotter than an electric arc! Those are the ideal gas laws hard at work? Again comes the question as to how space hydrogen is so different from Earth hydrogen. Originally Posted by dasmiller (bolding mine) Ummm . . . one of these things is not like the other . . . Oops — you're right! OK, I retract the statement.
'13-07-26, 21:45 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Those are astrophysical model expectations. Can you show me a laboratory-based phase diagram that says that hydrogen at 10 kK and 1 Mb has a density of 0.32 g/cm3 (i.e., 10-0.5), per their phase diagram? That's 5 times its liquid density (i.e., 0.07 g/cm3), near the standard sea-level pressure, and way hotter than an electric arc! Those are the ideal gas laws hard at work? Again comes the question as to how space hydrogen is so different from Earth hydrogen. Yikes. Listen to yourself here: you're looking at a phase diagram showing the results of physicists' calculations (and measurements) of the properties of hydrogen. The diagram shows, explicitly, that they're not blindly using the ideal gas law---notice that they identify areas of liquid, gas, metal, solid, etc.. But for some reason you look at this diagram and say the authors are ignorant of non- ideal EOSes? No, their ability to derive non-ideal EOSes is right on the graph. And you're objecting to their use of computation, rather than experiment, to figure out the properties of hydrogen at high temperature and pressure? Except that YOU, who have never done an experiment and who seem poorly acquainted with the state of art, have presented your own computations---or fragments thereof--- and claim that this gives insight into the properties of hydrogen at high temperature and pressure.
'13-07-28, 01:13 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by ben m And you're objecting to their use of computation, rather than experiment, to figure out the properties of hydrogen at high temperature and pressure? No, it was worse than that — I didn't even read the diagram properly. And then I jumped to conclusions. Nevertheless, I still stand by my assertion that the solar density gradient is non-Newtonian. The supersonic hydrodynamics of photospheric granules, and the occasional post-flare s-waves, cannot be rationalized within any Newtonian regime. There shouldn't be a boundary there, much less one with supersonic flows. Scientists invoke MHD, but without identifying the magnetomotive forces, which can only be electric currents, much less the electromotive forces, where the resting potentials necessary to drive such currents shouldn't be possible in an excellent conductor. So there are many unanswered questions, and I'm seeking physical answers. And I'll continue until I see the issues directly addressed.
'13-07-28, 07:04 DeiRenDopa	Originally Posted by sol invictus Charles, it seems you are making two logically distinct claims: (1) Standard solar models cannot explain observations of the sun. Specifically, you think limb darkening indicates the existence of a sharp transition in density that cannot be explained by standard physics. (2) Your model can successfully account for these observations, while not conflicting with anything else. In the ~four days since sol posted this, CC posted no direct response. It's an interesting question, one that we can get a handle on by reading CCs posts in the time since (and the one substantive one before sol's). My own impression is that CC is operating with a poorly calibrated compass. Sometimes what he writes comes across as all-but false dichotomy ("the standard model is rong! therefore my theory is rite!"); for example, posts here are mostly about why CC thinks the standard models are wrong, but this comes pretty close to false dichotomy ("compressive charge separation" is CC's own idea): Quote: People have been asking about the theoretical foundation for my model, and I'm obligated to answer. I grant that there is no existing theoretical foundation, but I'll further contend that the existing theory has some holes in it, and if we look at what it will take to fill in those holes, we get "compressive charge separation". Another poorly calibrated aspect: CC says, with varying degrees of certainty and forcefulness, that his idea can, in fact, "successfully account for these observations" (#2 above). However, he seems exceedingly reluctant to say much about such successes, beyond some vague hand-waving; for example, there have been no details presented, no calculations shown, no chi-squared tests done to show goodness of fit, etc. In fact, I think the closest he's come is this (by "we" I think he's referring to himself): Quote: Nevertheless, we can still come up with a best-fit model, that respects the relevant laws of physics, and accounts for all of the observations. The FEA engine that I'm developing will give me the ability to jiggle the variables, to determine the ranges within which exact solutions are possible. That might be the best that we'll ever be able to achieve, without there ever being a way of obtaining direct evidence from inside the Sun. So I'm currently working on the boundary conditions for each variable. I can find no evidence that there's any awareness of the second part - "while not conflicting with anything else" - much less any attempt to address it. But perhaps the strongest aspect of the poorly calibrated compass is that despite the many, usually forcefully stated, opinions on the wrongness of the standard models, CC's posts display an astonishing ignorance of those models (and the physics behind them).
'13-07-28, 09:02 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler Scientists invoke MHD, but without identifying the magnetomotive forces, which can only be electric currents, much less the electromotive forces, where the resting potentials necessary to drive such currents shouldn't be possible in an excellent conductor. Scientists don't need to invoke "resting potentials". This isn't Intro to Analog Circuits, this is plasma physics. Both theory and experiments (see a review at http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4331) have shown that flowing plasma can generate magnetic fields (and currents) via dynamo effects. No resting potential needed. Seriously, this is the Nth time that your "solar model" is motivated by apparently unresearched guesswork about things that are wrong with mainstream models. Due to your lack of research, you're not making statements about what's wrong with mainstream solar models. You're making statements about what's wrong with your guesses as to what might be in a mainstream solar model.
'13-07-28, 10:17 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by ben m Scientists don't need to invoke "resting potentials". This isn't Intro to Analog Circuits, this is plasma physics. Both theory and experiments (see a review at http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4331) have shown that flowing plasma can generate magnetic fields (and currents) via dynamo effects. No resting potential needed. Actually, this isn't a dismissal of my thesis — it's one of the corroborations. A rotating sphere can certainly generate a magnetic field, by the dynamo effect. But without a soft iron impeller (whose magnetic properties were identified as causal in the generation of the field in those experiments), the dynamo effect is only possible if the plasma has a net charge — otherwise the fields from the equally matched charged particles will cancel out. So how could the Sun have a net charge? That's an interesting question. More interesting is that the polarity of the toroidal field inverts every 11 years, while the Sun's rotation does not, further calling the dynamo hypothesis into question. Yet if we return to the first impossibility (i.e., a net charge in an excellent conductor), and throw in another fact, we get a new hypothesis. The polarity inversion also corresponds with torsional oscillations, in which higher and lower layers speed up and slow down with respect to each other. Aside from there being no Newtonian explanation for torsional oscillations, implying the presence of non-Newtonian forces, the coupling of dynamo field reversals with the torsional oscillations implies that those are charged layers, and while most of the field is cancelled out, the Sun is left with an extremely weak toroidal field from whichever charged layer is moving faster during that cycle. Hence the solar dynamo effect, and its polarity inversions, and the coupling of the inversions with torsional oscillations, all make sense in the charged layer model. But back to the primary focus of this thread — in no sense is the rotation of the Sun (or its more-or-less toroidal magnetic field, or the oscillating dynamo that generates it) relevant to the question of what creates the supersonic hydrodynamic behaviors of the solar surface (e.g., granules and s-waves). So those need separate treatment. The local perturbations in the Sun's magnetic field, which correspond to the location and size of granules, are clearly caused by them. But that begs the same question as the dynamo effect: how does the flow of quasi-neutral plasma generate magnetic fields? To get net magnetic fields, the +ions have to be going one way, and the electrons have to be going the other. This implies electromotive forces of some kind.
'13-07-28, 11:16 ben m	Originally Posted by Charles Chandler A rotating sphere can certainly generate a magnetic field, by the dynamo effect. But without a soft iron impeller (whose magnetic properties were identified as causal in the generation of the field in those experiments), the dynamo effect is only possible if the plasma has a net charge — otherwise the fields from the equally matched charged particles will cancel out. So how could the Sun have a net charge? That's an interesting question. As usual you're wrong. First, the impeller is identified only in the third (VKS) experiment. Second, all of these experiments---impeller if present, liquid sodium, case, etc.,---are, like the solar plasma, net-neutral. No net charge. No static EMF. The impeller in the VKS is important only for, in a sense, focusing and torquing any dynamo-generated magnetic fields; it is not a field source itself. Quote: More interesting is that the polarity of the toroidal field inverts every 11 years, while the Sun's rotation does not, further calling the dynamo hypothesis into question. The inversion of the Sun's dipole field is perfectly compatible with the dynamo hypothesis, which has various mechanisms for starting/stopping/restarting dipolar fields. The reversals do not call the dynamo hypothesis into question for experts on the dynamo hypothesis. The fact that they "call it into question" for you is unremarkable, given that you apparently decided that the dynamo hypothesis was wrong before you knew the first thing about it.
'13-07-28, 12:19 Charles Chandler	Originally Posted by ben m As usual you're wrong. First, the impeller is identified only in the third (VKS) experiment. Second, all of these experiments---impeller if present, liquid sodium, case, etc.,---are, like the solar plasma, net-neutral. No net charge. No static EMF. The impeller in the VKS is important only for, in a sense, focusing and torquing any dynamo-generated magnetic fields; it is not a field source itself. OK, then what IS the field source?