It's also funny that Charles brought up the example of the "plasma globe" and the bright streaming arcs connecting the central ball and the glass. The idea is that the Sun's circuit must also possess bright arcs at quite a distant outward. But is that neccessary? The arc filaments need only be present inside the double-layer region or voltage drop between the high potential and density plasma and the lower density potentialdensity plasma in the upper atmosphere.
Again, for intuitive processes I call on the arcs and jets observed in discharging comets, the curtain field-aligned currents in the Earth's aurora — and solar spicules as different current-densities involved in the bi-directional flow of current within a Debye sheath where potential difference is breaking downequalizing.
As for the alleged nature of solar spicules from observations:-
Solar ultraviolet spicules have never previously been seen with such a clarity or for such a long single observing sequence. The data reveal the short lifetime of spicules (5 to 15 minutes), as well as many other important dynamic characteristics of those structures, some of which have never been observed before.
What is even more interesting about spicules is that it is still not known how they appear on the solar disc, compared with how they look at the solar limb. Preliminary work suggests that spicules are actually seen on the disc as brightenings, sudden increases of intensity, which themselves are made up from bursts of jet-like features caused by small-scale magnetic flux cancellations.
Why are they not as bright as the Sun in the upper regions? The same question could be asked as to why auroral curtains are only bright for a certain distance upward. The current-density not only increases with proximity, but also the density of atoms and ions increases to the point where enough of them can get excited by the electron flow and thus emit photons. The same is happening above our Sun. Consider the very diffuse plasma of interplanetary space in comparison with the plasma or noble gases in a "plasma ball". Pressures are higher inside plasma balls and atomic densities are higher than anything in interstellar or interplanetary regions.
But if only I could understand that beautiful big shiny ball
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote: What kind of current would produce that B-field? It looks to me like a dynamo.
justcurious wrote: It should be a circular current around the axis of the poles perhaps near the equator (or a bit off-center since one of the poles is apparently stronger than the other). I don;t know how that would happen, but I can speculate that the vortical nature of Birkeland currents would have something to do with it.
But wouldn't the rotating charges in the Birkeland current rotate on the way in, and on the way out? If so, the magnetic lines of force would follow the current — they would have no opportunity to form a closing toroid centered on the Sun, right?
The Birkeland current model also assumes that the conductivity of the Sun is greater than that of the surrounding interplanetary medium, but plasma conductivity varies inversely with density. Furthermore, the electric current would form an auroral pattern, like it does above the Earth's magnetic poles. If the Sun's primary power source was such a current, the pattern would be quite distinctive. But it isn't there at all.
justcurious wrote: The more revealing picture is the mysterious quadrupole configuration also posted by Gary earlier.
That's unusual. The images I posted earlier (Magnetic Butterfly Diagram 1 and Magnetic Butterfly Diagram 2) describe the typical cases, for the quiet & active phases, which should be explained before the exceptions.
justcurious wrote: One might suggest that the rotation causes the current, the prevailing theory regarding the Earth's magnetic field. In the case of the Sun, since it switches polarity regularly, I would be more inclined to look at currents as the driving force, electricity can change swiftly, unburdened by the inertia of massive bodies.
Both the Earth and the quiet Sun have toroidal fields, and both have the same problem invoking a dynamo explanation: the rotation is consistent, while the magnetic polarity flips. I know less about the Earth, but in the Sun, there is a straight-forward explanation: torsional oscillation. If the Sun is made of charged double-layers, it's multiple dynamos, and the overall field is just the net result after all of the fields superimposed. Due to torsional oscillation, the layers speed up and slow down with respect to each other. If they are charged, the polarity of the overall field will flip.
justcurious wrote: The heliospheric current sheet around the Sun also has a strong circular component which I imagine could have something to do with the shape of the magnetic field.
The field lines associated with the HCS radiate outward from the Sun, making them perpendicular to the toroidal lines, and are therefore no help in explaining the main solar B-field. Where these HCS field lines go is an "open" question. (I agree that they are not actually "open field lines".) But that they radiate outward, and that the field density diminishes to an infinitesimal amount before we lose track of them altogether, are simply the instrumented data, so start with those.
justcurious wrote: Why does the Sun have to emit black body radiation? Is it possible that the blackbody theory was traditionaly used as an approximation in astronomy because no other mechanism was imagined which could account for certain radiation types?
What black-body theory? There is some quantum-babble about it, but in the mainstream, there is no mechanistic model of BB radiation. Rather, scientists in the 1800s were learning about spectroscopy, and found that they could identify elements by their spectral lines. Cool. But when they turned their spectroscopes to the skies, they found something they didn't understand, and still don't: a smooth continuum of frequencies. The only thing they ever found in the laboratory that could do this is graphite, up to its melting point. But the center frequencies of the stellar spectra are way hotter. So this has been, and continues to be, extremely problematic for astronomers, and no, it was no matter of convenience that they could attribute stellar spectra to BB radiation and call it a day. Only very recently was supercritical hydrogen found to be capable of BB radiation, so I think that this is the key. The mainstream hasn't jumped on that because BB radiation was the original motivation for developing quantum mechanics, which is now deeply entrenched. So they're stuck, and can't get unstuck. IMO, that's why amateurs are sorting this out, not professionals. There always has to be a reason when professionals are not leading the pack. In stellar modeling, BB radiation is on the short list of progress-impeding quagmires, because it's broken, it cannot be fixed, and it makes a mess of everything else.
justcurious wrote: I propose a simple explanation, if both the direction of the current and the magnetic field reverse, the Sun would rotate in the same direction. This would imply that the magnetic field reversal is not caused by a mere reduction or increase in the current (ie large DC compnent), but that the AC current would change directions altogether.
Wouldn't the Sun "go out" when the current was reversing?
PersianPaladin wrote: The Sun with respect to its galactic environment is an anomalously large conglomeration of positive ions in itself...
What offsets the electrostatic repulsion in this "anomalously large conglomeration of positive ions"? Gravity is no match for the electric force, so it ain't that. What else could it be? Scott's "double-sheath" begs the question of what supplies the force to contain the like charges. If you don't understand that, please ask.
PersianPaladin wrote: More importantly, when Charles brought up issues about Marklund Convection - I conceded that it probably doesn't act alone with respect to matter. But I still hold it important as part of the initiating magnetic "pinch" process and sorting of matter - and gravitational and electrostatic forces may also come into play.
BTW, the electrostatic forces don't help here — they hurt. The z-pinch will certainly compress the matter, selectively on the basis of electric charge. But electrostatic repulsion between like charges opposes the compression, and prevents condensed matter.
PersianPaladin wrote: It's also funny that Charles brought up the example of the "plasma globe" and the bright streaming arcs connecting the central ball and the glass. The idea is that the Sun's circuit must also possess bright arcs at quite a distant outward. But is that necessary? The arc filaments need only be present inside the double-layer region or voltage drop between the high potential and density plasma and the lower density potentialdensity plasma in the upper atmosphere.
The question is not whether or not it is "necessary" within your conception of arc discharges. The question is whether or not it is possible to prevent arc discharges from extending all of the way from electrode to electrode in discrete, magnetically organized channels. In a thunderstorm, do the clouds just sit there with little fuzzy arc discharges with current densities that diminish with distance from the electrode? Or do they have a propensity for propagating toward the other electrode in discrete channels? If so, why? Tip: don't work backwards from the theory you're trying to justify. Work backwards from the observed data, and then double-check the theory to see if it actually predicts the data, in situ and in the laboratory. My point is that if you didn't know that you were trying to explain the Sun, and you ran out the predictions of your model, you'd get a property set that has nothing to do with the Sun.
upriver
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: Perhaps the relationship between currents and luminosity should be looked at with greater care.
Indeed. And accept no substitutes for rigorous reasoning. The first question that needs to be answered is, "What causes black-body radiation in plasma, which shouldn't be possible, per Kirchhoff's laws of spectroscopy?" The visible surface of the Sun arguably cannot possibly be the "photosphere" (i.e., the sphere from which the photons emanate), because it demonstrably is responsible for the absorption lines in the solar spectrum. The only thing that can emit a black-body spectrum is that which can absorb it. Likewise, the only thing that can emit spectral lines is that which can absorb them. Clearly the topmost plasma is absorbing specific frequencies, so it is thin plasma, incapable of black-body radiation. Therefore, the "photosphere" has to be deeper down. The only known black-body emitters are solids (e.g., graphite) and supercritical fluids. IMO, the Sun is too hot for solids, so I'm going with supercritical hydrogen.
Tsintsadze, L. N.; Callebaut, D. K.; Tsintsadze, N. L., 1996: Black-body radiation in plasmas. Journal of Plasma Physics, 55: 407-413
That frames the question as, "What causes the atomic oscillations in the supercritical hydrogen deeper in the Sun?" (I'm going with ohmic heating from an electric current.)
The sun is too hot for solids if you think of temperature as the same as heat.... So where does the 5K temperature actually originate from?
If you look at the lowest temperature measurement take from the sun spots it turns out to be around 2.5KK...
Wiki "Although they are at temperatures of roughly 3000–4500 K (2727–4227 °C), the contrast with the surrounding material at about 5,780 K (5,510 °C)"
So the 5K number is the average temperature at some surface. 2.5KK is not that far away from the melting temp of iron and it definately below the melting point of Tungsten... 2996 Tantalum Ta 73 3045 Osmium Os 76 3180 Rhenium Re 75 3410 Tungsten W 74 3500 Carbon C 6
As I have mentioned in other posts i think the temperature is a combination of several events... The the higher temperatures come from the areas of the surface that are emitting vaporized iron or iron plasma like the solar moss and loop footprints. "In vacuum tubes, a hot cathode is a cathode electrode which emits electrons due to thermionic emission. In the accelerator physics (particle accelerator) community, these are referred to as thermionic cathodes. The heating element is usually an electrical filament. Hot cathodes typically achieve much higher power density than cold cathodes, emitting significantly more electrons from the same surface area. "
At the footprint of a loop you have the cold surface being plasmaized(new word) over some relatively short distance... The temperature rises from 1500K to 70,000K producing the iron plasma that comprises the loop... No body has ever explained why solar loops are made of iron plasma...
As I have posted before the bulk below the active surface is actually at less than iron melting temperature. The reason the solar surface looks ~ 5800 or whatever, in a sun spot it can be as low as 2700K, is because the surface temperature measurements are averages. The surface is like a cathode in that it has areas of high activity and areas of low activity. For instance at the base of a solar loop you will have a high temperature because it is an area of thermionic emission. In the arc cathode paper I think it describes the process from a cold cathode to a hot cathode. Initially you have a cold surface with an electric field that emits a small amount of electrons. As the emission increases the surface increases in temperature and emits more electrons. The solar surface is emitting electrons at an energy of between 70 and 100eV producing a plasma temperature zone at the surface and immediately above the surface of 70,000 to 1.5 million K in that local area which gives you the temperatures above the melting point of iron. Because this emission is basically a solid that is turning into a plasma you have a BB type signature when combined with the shell IR. So if you measure the surface with what is known as "solar moss", solar loop foot prints etc., my contention is that you wind up with an average temperature of what is observed. This is over laid with all of the spectral lines that make up the solar spectrum plus the IR emission from the solar surface. The reason that the sun does not overheat with the 5000K average temperature is because that is an average not an absolute thin layer opaque non radiative pass through.. So a large portion of the heat is emitted by the iron shell and passes right through the photosphere which prevents heat build up from causing the iron to melt......
Why do you think they use IR to look inside nebular clouds??
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
With respect to the "blueberries" issue Charles, I want to apologize in that regard for the way that I came across. I also consider your points there to be credible and worth taking into account.
And remember, I posted a paper that I wrote that cited your "tornado" work and generally approved of it.
Siggy_G
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
So it isn't the fact that the plasma density is greater than the interplanetary medium that makes the discharges visible, or that it's less than the Earth's atmosphere. It's the fact that the breakdown voltage was exceeded. This enables an arc discharge, in which the electron speeds are relativistic (which are even easier to achieve in the longer mean free path of the interplanetary medium). The relativistic velocities generate powerful magnetic fields, which pinch the currents into discrete channels. And relativistic collisions, inside and at the border of such channels, produce photons.
The reason why I brought up the density comparison is because the scaling needs to be done accordingly; both in terms of size, medium (density/pressure) and voltage/current requirement. As such, the plasma light is a quite different scenario.
Observationally, there are highly numerous perpendicular filaments around the Sun, with some apparent regions of stronger influence. Its plausible that currents are distributed accordingly. It is also plausible that there are internal dynamics that distributes energy. What makes the Sun a massive object of 'radient matter' is a result of this, and not merely how the currents are placed onto the surface. Yet, I believe the footprimts are rather obvious, as both C.E.R. Bruce, Scott and Thornhill have described.
It's also the case that the amount of required current is derived from the output effect. Yet, it has also been hypothesized (by Alfvén and/or C.E.R. Bruce *) that protons in coronal loops colliding into the photosphere cause nuclear fusion. This would in turn contribute to the total energy output without requiring the equvalent (input) currents. This hasn't been included in the debate (does nuclear fusion/fission happen in the photosphere?).
I agree that there's a lot of work to be done at deriving and observing the various energy dynamics, and as to what is going on at each level; from the solar interior, surface and to the heliopause.
* I started looking into this for accuracy, but got lost in papers and old forum threads, and time-capped it. Needs revisiting.
CharlesChandler wrote: It is true that the thinner the medium, the fewer the particle collisions. But it's also true that the fewer the collisions, the more violent they are, since the electrons get going faster between the collisions. So you still get photons, though more of them are in the UV, x-ray, or even gamma ray bands. These are still detectable.
The energy level of the emitted photons depends on the acceleration and interactions of the electrons emitting them, which in turn depends on medium density (interactions) and electric fields (acceleration). Both factors increase towards the Sun, peaking towards the surface, and are relatively weak and sparse throughout the heliosphere. Emissions accordingly.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
The Birkeland current model also assumes that the conductivity of the Sun is greater than that of the surrounding interplanetary medium, but plasma conductivity varies inversely with density. Furthermore, the electric current would form an auroral pattern, like it does above the Earth's magnetic poles. If the Sun's primary power source was such a current, the pattern would be quite distinctive. But it isn't there at all.
Without going too much into issues involving plasma density and conductivity; let us assume that current inflow and outflow is occurring within a DL region across the entire surface of the Sun, not just at the poles. If the photosphere region of the Sun contains a greater density of ions than - say - the ionosphere of Earth, then it will have a larger overall electric field (according to Gauss' law). If the incoming current density is greater and across all surface areas, than you will get arc discharges everywhere rather than auroral phenomena just at the polar regions. The plasma conductivity is calculated from dividing the density of the current, by the electric field (according to Carl-Gunne Fälthammar et al). The double-layer of the Sun is supplied by incoming electrons and negative ions which rapidly accumulate in the DL region as the Sun moves at high-speed throughout the generally very low-density interstellar medium.
CharlesChandler wrote: What offsets the electrostatic repulsion in this "anomalously large conglomeration of positive ions"? Gravity is no match for the electric force, so it ain't that. What else could it be? Scott's "double-sheath" begs the question of what supplies the force to contain the like charges. If you don't understand that, please ask.
What holds back the positively charged ions? Well, Scott states that the lower photosphere with the high incoming negative charge tends to create a strong net inward negative electric-field force that restricts all but the most energetic ions to escape outward. You can ask him for further details on the more in-depth mechanics of that. There is a required electron-positive ion ratio that is needed in order to sustain the DL (which I posted some time ago). I vouch that the "tornadoes", solar jets and spicules (which btw - the spicules occcur all over the surface) are the essential component of the circuit.
CharlesChandler wrote: The question is not whether or not it is "necessary" within your conception of arc discharges. The question is whether or not it is possible to prevent arc discharges from extending all of the way from electrode to electrode in discrete, magnetically organized channels. In a thunderstorm, do the clouds just sit there with little fuzzy arc discharges with current densities that diminish with distance from the electrode? Or do they have a propensity for propagating toward the other electrode in discrete channels? If so, why? Tip: don't work backwards from the theory you're trying to justify. Work backwards from the observed data, and then double-check the theory to see if it actually predicts the data, in situ and in the laboratory. My point is that if you didn't know that you were trying to explain the Sun, and you ran out the predictions of your model, you'd get a property set that has nothing to do with the Sun.
That is presuming that the "electric-tornado" field-aligned discharges in low density plasma environments are the same as lightning arcs discharging in a neutral gas. You're talking apples and oranges.
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: What kind of current would produce that B-field? It looks to me like a dynamo.
justcurious wrote: It should be a circular current around the axis of the poles perhaps near the equator (or a bit off-center since one of the poles is apparently stronger than the other). I don;t know how that would happen, but I can speculate that the vortical nature of Birkeland currents would have something to do with it.
But wouldn't the rotating charges in the Birkeland current rotate on the way in, and on the way out? If so, the magnetic lines of force would follow the current — they would have no opportunity to form a closing toroid centered on the Sun, right?
I just answered your question that the currents would have to be circular to produce the magnetic dipole. The rest as stated is speculation and gut feeling (ie vortical nature). I wasn't necessarily looking for an explanation. I don't understand your statement of "magnetic lines of force following the current" and "o opportunity to form a closing toroid" (no need to elaborate).
CharlesChandler wrote: The Birkeland current model also assumes that the conductivity of the Sun is greater than that of the surrounding interplanetary medium.
I did not know that there was a Birkeland current "model", and I did not know that according to this model the Sun has a greater conductivity than the surrounding interplanetary medium. This is new and very interesting information, do you have a reference to the supporting data?
CharlesChandler wrote: Furthermore, the electric current would form an auroral pattern, like it does above the Earth's magnetic poles. If the Sun's primary power source was such a current, the pattern would be quite distinctive. But it isn't there at all.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. In my opinion you are jumping to conclusions a bit too fast. To me, the images of the corona do resemble the aurora. However the Earth is not the Sun, and the Sun is not the Earth.
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: The more revealing picture is the mysterious quadrupole configuration also posted by Gary earlier.
That's unusual. The images I posted earlier (Magnetic Butterfly Diagram 1 and Magnetic Butterfly Diagram 2) describe the typical cases, for the quiet & active phases, which should be explained before the exceptions.
[/quote] Well, your magnetic butterfly diagram 1 (looks like "data") appears to show cycles of monopoles and quadrupoles. Your diagram butterfly 2, I don't know what the source of it is. It's from your website so I assume it's not "data" but rather your own diagram. I disagree with your opinion that the "exception" should be ignored.
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: One might suggest that the rotation causes the current, the prevailing theory regarding the Earth's magnetic field. In the case of the Sun, since it switches polarity regularly, I would be more inclined to look at currents as the driving force, electricity can change swiftly, unburdened by the inertia of massive bodies.
Both the Earth and the quiet Sun have toroidal fields, and both have the same problem invoking a dynamo explanation: the rotation is consistent, while the magnetic polarity flips. I know less about the Earth, but in the Sun, there is a straight-forward explanation: torsional oscillation. If the Sun is made of charged double-layers, it's multiple dynamos, and the overall field is just the net result after all of the fields superimposed. Due to torsional oscillation, the layers speed up and slow down with respect to each other. If they are charged, the polarity of the overall field will flip.
I'm sorry but I disagree, I don't find your explanation straightforward at all. Torsional oscillatioon.... Is it your own theory? I like the idea of a layer or two of plasma rotating over another one and hence creating a spherical coil like that diagram posted earlier. But the torsional part and the oscillation part, you lost me there (no need to elaborate).
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: The heliospheric current sheet around the Sun also has a strong circular component which I imagine could have something to do with the shape of the magnetic field.
The field lines associated with the HCS radiate outward from the Sun, making them perpendicular to the toroidal lines, and are therefore no help in explaining the main solar B-field. Where these HCS field lines go is an "open" question. (I agree that they are not actually "open field lines".) But that they radiate outward, and that the field density diminishes to an infinitesimal amount before we lose track of them altogether, are simply the instrumented data, so start with those.
I'm very curious about the "instrumented data". Please share your source. The "radiating outward open field lines" I believe are astrophysicists ideas of how it should be. According to Alfven and Peratt's book, currents spiral into the Sun on one side of the HCS and spiral outwards on the other side. The magnetic field in those areas close to the HCS also spiral in and out but on oposit directions to the currents, in a way that they are orthogonal to each-other. Who will you trust when it comes to plasma physics and cosmology, Alfven and Peratt or astrophysicist who "believe in" the big bang?
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: Why does the Sun have to emit black body radiation? Is it possible that the blackbody theory was traditionaly used as an approximation in astronomy because no other mechanism was imagined which could account for certain radiation types?
What black-body theory? There is some quantum-babble about it, but in the mainstream, there is no mechanistic model of BB radiation. Rather, scientists in the 1800s were learning about spectroscopy, and found that they could identify elements by their spectral lines. Cool. But when they turned their spectroscopes to the skies, they found something they didn't understand, and still don't: a smooth continuum of frequencies. The only thing they ever found in the laboratory that could do this is graphite, up to its melting point. But the center frequencies of the stellar spectra are way hotter. So this has been, and continues to be, extremely problematic for astronomers, and no, it was no matter of convenience that they could attribute stellar spectra to BB radiation and call it a day. Only very recently was supercritical hydrogen found to be capable of BB radiation, so I think that this is the key. The mainstream hasn't jumped on that because BB radiation was the original motivation for developing quantum mechanics, which is now deeply entrenched. So they're stuck, and can't get unstuck. IMO, that's why amateurs are sorting this out, not professionals. There always has to be a reason when professionals are not leading the pack. In stellar modeling, BB radiation is on the short list of progress-impeding quagmires, because it's broken, it cannot be fixed, and it makes a mess of everything else.
So why do you use Blackbody radiation in your explanations if it's quantum-babble? You used it, so I asked why, and you responded that it's quantum babble and a history lesson.
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: I propose a simple explanation, if both the direction of the current and the magnetic field reverse, the Sun would rotate in the same direction. This would imply that the magnetic field reversal is not caused by a mere reduction or increase in the current (ie large DC component), but that the AC current would change directions altogether.
Wouldn't the Sun "go out" when the current was reversing?
I guess it all depends on how you think the Sun is lit up. Personaly, I don't subscribe to your idea of the sun being a resistor like the filament in a light bulb I was addressing one thing, the argument of the homopolar motor, without trying to solve all the problems of the universe.
CHARLES ALERT!!! Wall sof text.... 1 or 2 points maximum....!!! Please Charles... this is the LAST time I respond to such a long text. When you dissect my every single word and write all kinds of opinions, I feel obligated to respond. I just spent an hour trying to figure out what the heck is in your mind and trying to respond point by point. It's the last time I do this. You're breaking the deal of no walls of text, and max 1 or 2 points. I hope you realize, no one is going to read all this huge text. So if you want to have these kind if discussions, please take it offline, you can PM me. I'm not only embarassed, but I'm pissed off because I feel an obligation to respond and it's a real time-waster for me. Thanks for your understanding. Control yourself!!!
seasmith
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
some random unwarranted photonic feedback All manner of radiant lines and filaments outward from the sun have been extensively imaged by our hardworking scientists and characterized as emission/absorption bands of frequency. The luminance of each surface and/or filament, and subsequent detectable irradiance, is largely a function of (viewed angle of orbit of) an ellipsoidal helix, ie charge segregating vortex= trajectory of ions at some relative or even relativistic speed. Al this gyration about the solar-system-imposed magnetic domain lines. These being spin-orbits of charge(s) that emit the observed radiations. The tighter the helicoidal pitch, the bluer and more energetic the emission, as per usual. Converted to temperature, the maps can be misleading.
2. Is sun a quadrupole-electrode, generating/transforming/converting/d.all the above, electric 'device' ?
3. Is the main E current equatorial, ie on a planetary plane ?
s
Daniel
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
This image is wrong. It has recently been shown that the accepted model of the flux path of a magnet follows a figure eight pattern, and the two fields either side of the horizon counter - rotate about the central axis.
seasmith wrote: some random unwarranted photonic feedback All manner of radiant lines and filaments outward from the sun have been extensively imaged by our hardworking scientists and characterized as emission/absorption bands of frequency. The luminance of each surface and/or filament, and subsequent detectable irradiance, is largely a function of (viewed angle of orbit of) an ellipsoidal helix, ie charge segregating vortex= trajectory of ions at some relative or even relativistic speed. Al this gyration about the solar-system-imposed magnetic domain lines. These being spin-orbits of charge(s) that emit the observed radiations. The tighter the helicoidal pitch, the bluer and more energetic the emission, as per usual. Converted to temperature, the maps can be misleading.
Thats right. And if you were to say that the black body spectrum of the sun resembles any laboratory spectrum on earth, it would be a carbon arc spectrum.... Carbon arc spectrum's have a small hump in the UV range....
seasmith
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Daniel wrote:
It has recently been shown that the accepted model of the flux path of a magnet follows a figure eight pattern, and the two fields either side of the horizon counter - rotate about the central axis.
That's right, but a sun is not a bar magnet.
Try this (idealized) one:
Daniel
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
This realisation that the flux path of the magnetic lines of force do not follow a spheroidal orbit about the magnetised object does not only apply to bar magnets, but to any magnetic field regardless of size or shape, hence the observation of a Bloch wall at both the central axis region and along the equatorial plane, which, I beleive, has long perplexed theoraticians.
(I agree that they are not actually "open field lines".) But that they radiate outward, and that the field density diminishes to an infinitesimal amount before we lose track of them altogether, are simply the instrumented data, so start with those.
justcurious wrote:What black-body theory?There is some quantum-babble about it, but in the mainstream, there is no mechanistic model of BB radiation. Rather, scientists in the 1800s were learning about spectroscopy, and found that they could identify elements by their spectral lines. Cool. But when they turned their spectroscopes to the skies, they found something they didn't understand, and still don't: a smooth continuum of frequencies. The only thing they ever found in the laboratory that could do this is graphite, up to its melting point. But the center frequencies of the stellar spectra are way hotter. So this has been, and continues to be, extremely problematic for astronomers, and no, it was no matter of convenience that they could attribute stellar spectra to BB radiation and call it a day.
Only very recently was supercritical hydrogen found to be capable of BB radiation, so I think that this is the key. The mainstream hasn't jumped on that because BB radiation was the original motivation for developing quantum mechanics, which is now deeply entrenched. So they're stuck, and can't get unstuck. IMO, that's why amateurs are sorting this out, not professionals.
