Thunderbolts Forum

'12-10-26, 04:54 Sparky	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Charles, thank you! The "field lines" inexactness that I referred to is that of describing magnetic flux density with imagined lines, which in reality, do not exist, and for me makes it difficult to comprehend what is really taking place. In your papers, @ http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5237 , you referred to "field lines" and to those being "followed". Sorry, I don't have the quote, and I may very well be in error. Anyway, I think there should be a better way to describe what is going on. If you have gone into detail on this subject somewhere, that is what I was after. We need to maybe invent an anachronim:? thanks edit for quote: CME'S -If there is a difference in net charge from one sunspot to the other, an electric current between the two will follow the magnetic field lines.
'12-10-26, 06:58 GaryN	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model @ Charles But before you lock down on an alternative interpretation, question it. I am trying to question it, but the data available, or at least what I have found, is inconclusive as far as flow directions. So in order for me to be able to 'can' my model, I need to be certain about flow direction, and the only material I have to go by mentions the sampling needing to be done over a longer period, at other 'frame rates', and at shorter wavelengths. I have not seen the results of a follow up study, but thought you might have, and if so, I'd like to see it and convince myself their results are accurate. The main problem with the older survey is that of the frame rate, like when it appears that a cars wheels are going backwards in a film, can give the appearence of movement in the opposite direction. This animation does seem to show an outflow to the fore, but possibly an inflow at the rear. http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~cwalker/M87/index.html So, if you have any more recent, more conlusive material, that's what I'm after.
'12-10-26, 08:30 Sparky	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model This animation does seem to show an outflow to the fore, but possibly an inflow at the rear. the inflow is an illusion caused by the reduction of glow from out to in.. if you look to farthest outflow point you will see something still going out while the illusion is showing an inward.
'12-10-26, 17:57 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Lloyd wrote: I didn't understand your reply to my question about Thornhill's quasar model. You talked about bipolar jets, I guess from galaxies, but I was talking about quasars rather than jets. [...] I don't know of jets being significantly involved in Thornhill's quasar model. Oh OK, so he's talking about a big plasma cannon that shoots huge shells (i.e., quasars), while I'm talking about a little plasma sub-machine gun that just sprays ions. AGNs in elliptical galaxies do produce bipolar jets. I "think" that Arp was just observing that quasars tend to move away from the galactic centers, implying that they were ejected. I actually don't know for sure if there is common ground between the jets and the quasars. Interesting question. Lloyd wrote: I think his stellar model is similar. Like AGNs forming plasma guns that shoot out quasars, planetary nebulae form plasma guns that shoot out smaller plasmoids, which are stars, if I understand him correctly. The accretion in both cases then would be a result of plasma gun action. If you say accretion is due to a natural tokamak, would that be very similar to or different from a plasma gun? I'm saying that the natural tokamak IS the gun. Thornhill didn't provide the schematic in case you wanted to build one and go wake up somebody else's galactic neighborhood. (Kids, this requires adult supervision.) But the plasma gun and the accretion are two different things. The gun produces the ejecta, but it's going to take other forces to get the ejecta to accrete, once they have been superheated and accelerated to relativistic velocities. This is where I'm invoking Feynman's "like-likes-like" principle, instead of gravity and CDM, to cause the condensation of dusty plasmas. (See Accretion.) This requires that the plasma already be fully neutralized, otherwise electrostatic repulsion would prevent accretion. Sparky wrote: The "field lines" inexactness that I referred to is that of describing magnetic flux density with imagined lines, which in reality, do not exist, and for me makes it difficult to comprehend what is really taking place. [...] Anyway, I think there should be a better way to describe what is going on. Writing can always be clearer, so I'm currently working on better diagrams. In the meantime... You quoted from CMEs, where I'm talking about electric currents in coronal loops following magnetic field lines between active regions of opposing polarities. The magnetic fields definitely exist. They are detected by the Zeeman effect, where spectral lines get split. We also know that there are electric currents in the coronal loops, which have been estimated (probably conservatively) to be at least 1~3 A/m2. So the two active regions are of opposite magnetic polarity, and there is also a charge disparity, and an electric current flowing from one to the other. When electric lines of force are parallel to magnetic lines of force, the current falls into a helical motion, known as a Birkeland current. This produces distinctive synchrotron emissions, as the electrons rotate around the magnetic lines of force, generating EM waves as they go. So that much is real. It's the way magnetic fields are discussed in the mainstream literature that is so confusing. They talk about magnetic lines of force like rubber bands that can be stretched, and sometimes snap, releasing huge amounts of energy. This has nothing to do with reality. GaryN wrote: This animation does seem to show an outflow to the fore, but possibly an inflow at the rear. Sparky wrote: The inflow is an illusion caused by the reduction of glow from out to in. Gary, this is a better example than anything else I've seen so far, but I agree with Sparky that looks can be deceiving. The matter could be flowing in, while some sort of process in it is propagating outward, creating the illusion. I'll keep my eye out for more evidence, but I think that all of it is sketchy. IMO, redshift data are not reliable at such great distances, so I didn't cite any of those. I personally think that the jets are flowing out, and that the inflow on the other side is from the accretion disc, on a plane perpendicular to the jet. The more reliable evidence is from planetary nebulae within our own galaxy, where redshift data are less contentious. Then I generalize from those ejecta to other jets, and say that all of them are flowing out, and I use the "natural tokamak" construct to explain how inflow can get converted into collimated outflow. Perhaps there is an error there. But do consider the implications of inwardly-flowing jets. Is the matter feeding the accretion disc? (In which case, does that make it a "discretion" disc??? ) Anyway, keep thinking...
'12-10-27, 04:51 Sparky	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model CharlesChandler wrote: Sparky wrote:The "field lines" inexactness that I referred to is that of describing magnetic flux density with imagined lines, which in reality, do not exist, and for me makes it difficult to comprehend what is really taking place. [...] Anyway, I think there should be a better way to describe what is going on.Writing can always be clearer, so I'm currently working on better diagrams. In the meantime... You quoted from CMEs, where I'm talking about electric currents in coronal loops following magnetic field lines between active regions of opposing polarities. The magnetic fields definitely exist. It's the way magnetic fields are discussed in the mainstream literature that is so confusing. They talk about magnetic lines of force like rubber bands that can be stretched, and sometimes snap, releasing huge amounts of energy. This has nothing to do with reality. okay, I think I see where I was getting confused. By using "field Lines", it implies, in my mind, that a line designates a certain flux strength. Maybe by just using "field"would be a bit more accurate? There is so much going on, but now I think that the plasma current will react more strongly to higher flux density, and that is what throws the plasma up into a loop, moving into less flux density. Does that sound correct? ireallydonno thanks
'12-10-27, 08:23 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Field "lines" just indicate the direction of the force. In the case of electric fields, it is the path that a charged particle will follow in that field. For magnetic fields, if magnetized particles are present, their dipoles will get aligned to those lines, and they "might" be accelerated along the lines, if the lines are converging. So it's a useful conceptual device, so long as you know that it's just a way of designating the direction of the force. When both electric and magnetic fields are present, it gets more complex, because a moving charged particle generates its own magnetic field, and then there's that other magnetic field, and the clash between the two (i.e., the Lorentz force) will send the charged particle into a spin. The axis of that spin will be the magnetic line of force at that point. And once so organized, these "B-field aligned" currents (i.e., Birkeland currents) tend to get pinched down into discrete filaments, as in coronal loops. So you might have started out with evenly distributed magnetic and electric fields, but then you get these discrete channels of electric current, looking likes lines on a drawing. At that point, the magnetic field is no longer evenly dispersed. Rather, it has been perturbed by the magnetic fields generated by the electric current. So that's a complex environment. "Flux" is a confusing term. It has a number of different definitions, and in all but the most specific statements, it can usually be taken in a variety of ways. Sometimes it means "field density", and sometimes it means the rate at which the field density is varying. To be perfectly honest with you, I have no idea what a "magnetic flux tube" is. I've never heard the term used in such a specific way that the meaning was clear.
'12-10-28, 04:16 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model In a previous post I threatened to calculate the total amount of thermal energy that should be in a star the size of the Sun, given the initial temperature of the dusty plasma, and the compression ratio. I found the information I needed on Wikipedia: In the dense nebulae where stars are produced, much of the hydrogen is in the molecular (H2) form, so these nebulae are called molecular clouds. The largest such formations, called giant molecular clouds, have typical densities of 100 particles per cm3, diameters of 100 light-years (9.5×1014 km), masses of up to 6 million solar masses, and an average interior temperature of 10 K. So here's the drill. * Find the volume of a spherical gas cloud 9.5×1014 km across. * Divide that by 6 million, to get the volume of a gas cloud that would condense into something the size of the Sun. * Divide that by the actual volume of the Sun, to get the compression ratio. * Multiply the compression ratio by 10 K, to get the resultant temperature after compression. The result came out to 5.31 x 1020. The actual temperature of the Sun, according to the standard model, is only 1.5 x 107 in the core, and 6 x 103 at the surface, for an average of roughly 105 K. So there is a discrepancy of 15 orders of magnitude. And that isn't even taking into account the fact that the standard model assumes that the 15 MK is being generated internally by nuclear fusion. Without the fusion furnace, what would the temperature be? Whatever it would be, it would be a lot less, and the thermal discrepancy would be even larger. Note also that these calcs don't even take into account the thermalization of high-velocity particle collisions when the gas cloud collapses. I'm just compressing all of the resting thermal energy into a smaller space, not figuring that I'd have to accelerate particles from light years away to get them compressed. So again, the actual discrepancy is a lot more than 15 orders of magnitude. So where did all of that heat go? Part of it got used up expelling the plasma in the heliosphere. Next I'll see if I can find the numbers for that. But that's not going to make up the missing 15 orders of magnitude. Where else could that energy go? There IS one other place: it could have gotten converted to electrostatic potential inside the Sun, due to compressive ionization. Note that powerful electric fields remove degrees of freedom from the plasma, and thereby suck all of the heat out of them. How do you get all of that heat back? You relax the pressure. Then the electrons flow back in, and the charge recombination regenerates all of the heat. So the conservation of energy is maintained all of the way through. But with the electrostatic attraction of charged double-layers, plus a little bit of gravity, you get enough force to hold the whole thing together, without the hydrostatic pressure that should have blown it apart. And you have a whole lot of potential energy in there that will keep the thing glowing white-hot for a long, long time, because you still have all of the energy of an imploding gas cloud that was all converted to electrostatic potential. Oh and by the way, the nature of the energy release will act like an electric current, and will never make sense to anybody who expects it to act like a fusion furnace.
'12-10-28, 14:57 Lloyd	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model * CC, that's a nice explanation of where the heat is stored from the collapsing gas cloud. * Is this explanation of solar magnetic flux tubes detailed enough for you: http://www.vets.ucar.edu/vg/MFT/index.shtml?
'12-10-28, 17:54 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Lloyd wrote: Is this explanation of solar magnetic flux tubes detailed enough for you? UCAR wrote: Magnetic Flux Tubes (MFT), also called "pores", are magnetic field concentrations near the surface of the sun. They are caused by surrounding convective motion which brings together small components of magnetic field. Naaaa, that's not an explanation. I want to see vectors showing the direction of the moving charged particles that generate the B-field, and vectors showing the direction of the field so generated. Nowhere in the MHD literature have I found the magnetomotive force discussed, much less the electrostatic potentials that drive the electric currents that generate the magnetic fields. So this is the type of working that I'm doing — actually tracing the measurements back to the physical forces responsible for them. And every time I find a force, I want to know what caused that force. Once the prime movers have been identified, I want to know how the energy gets converted, and in a way that corresponds directly to the observables. And what I'm finding is that we have plenty of data to build a realistic model of the Sun. But we have to learn to think like engineers who need to know how all of the parts are actually going to fit together into a working engine.
'12-10-28, 18:58 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model OK, I found the numbers on the heliosphere. The radius is roughly 100 AU, which works out to 1.5 × 1010 km, with a volume of 1.4 × 1031 km3. The average temperature seems to be something like 105 K. If we compress that much volume down to the point that it has the same 5.31 x 1020 K as the original collapsed dust cloud, it's 0.00187 of the volume of the present Sun (or roughly 2/10 of a percent). This means that 99.8% of the thermal energy of the collapsed dust cloud is still bottled up (somehow) inside the Sun, and only 0.2% of the energy has already escaped in the solar wind. So where did all of that heat go? I "think" that conversion to electrostatic potential is the only possible answer to that question.
'12-10-29, 05:49 nick c	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model What are the effects/implications to various solar models of this study ANOMALOUSLY WEAK SOLAR CONVECTION
'12-10-29, 07:59 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Weak convection in the "convective" zone is obviously a huge problem for the standard model. It has an internal energy source that is (supposedly) putting out photons that (somehow) need to be thermalized before they reach the surface, so that the Sun will emit black-body radiation, instead of the gamma rays that we'd normally expect from nuclear fusion. Why the thin plasma is the standard model wouldn't convect with an internal heat source is a question that has no answer. The model I'm using has an energy source (i.e., arc discharges) at a depth of 125,000 km, which is given credit for 1/6 of the heat released by the Sun. The number was derived from the facts that 1/2 of the total heat is attributable to ohmic heating near the surface, and 1/3 is attributable to nuclear fusion, based on the neutrino count. That leaves 1/6. Some of that heat is responsible for the buoyancy of supergranules. I haven't found any estimates on the amount of heat that drives the supergranules, but I think that it's a lot less than 1/6 of the total solar output. Whatever heat is not carried by convection to the surface will propagate via conduction. In the standard model, the topmost 125,000 km is very thin, but in the model I'm using, that's a supercritical fluid, which conducts heat very nicely. The other models with which I'm familiar have all of the heat being released at, near, and/or above the surface, so they don't suffer at all from this new finding (though those models cannot account for the convection in the supergranules). BTW, I'll probably be without power for a couple of days, as Hurricane Sandy is only 150 miles away and headed straight this way, so if you don't hear from me for a while, that's why.
'12-10-30, 10:45 GaryN	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model BTW, I'll probably be without power for a couple of days, as Hurricane Sandy Hope you are safely riding this one out Charles, not as bad as forecast, in some areas it seems. I just came across this abstract from a professor I will be E-Mailing with some questions, can't seem to find anyone willing to speculate on a possible maximum magnitude of a CME, or it's effects on the magnetosphere, ionosphere, or potential surface effects. MEASUREMENT OF THE ELECTRIC CURRENT IN A kpc-SCALE JET We present radio emission, polarization, and Faraday rotation maps of the radio jet of the galaxy 3C303. From these data we derive the magnetoplasma and electrodynamic parameters of this 50 kpc long jet. For one component of this jet we obtain for the first time a direct determination of a galactic-scale electric current (~3 × 1018 A), and its direction—positive away from the active galactic nucleus. Our analysis strongly supports a model where the jet energy flow is mainly electromagnetic. http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/741/1/L15
'12-10-30, 11:09 tayga	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model Charles, congratulations on an excellent piece of work and compliments on your encouraging of open review. This is how science should be done IMO. How would your model account for the Sun being a star and the gas giants not?
'12-10-30, 18:09 CharlesChandler	Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model GaryN wrote: I just came across this abstract from a professor I will be E-Mailing with some questions. Please post any additional information you gain (within the limits of the confidentiality of your offline correspondence, of course), as this is of interest to all of us. You might also mention to the professor that there is a proposed schematic diagram for the plasma gun responsible for such "currents". Section of a toroidal explosion Anybody who says that bipolar jets are electromagnetic (even scientists!) have to explain the charge separation mechanism responsible for the currents. In a "natural tokamak", that mechanism is magnetic pressure, as relativistic rotational velocities in the tokamak generate magnetic fields capable of pushing like charges together, and pushing opposite charges apart, hence the initial charge separation. Positive charges that collide forcefully enough will fuse into heavier elements, and 50% of the ejecta will get collimated by the geometry of the open-air tokamak. As these are all ions, their extreme velocities in a collimated outflow will generate a magnetic pinch effect that will keep them collimated as they move away. Electrons attracted to this positive charge would have to fight magnetic pressure to get inside the stream. So they will prefer to loop back around, such that they can enter the positive charge stream traveling in the opposite direction, thus eliminating the magnetic conflict. Electric Currents around a Natural Tokamak This produces a local current, with positive charges flowing out from the center, and negative charges flowing inward, down through the collimated jet. GaryN wrote: I can't seem to find anyone willing to speculate on a possible maximum magnitude of a CME, or it's effects on the magnetosphere, ionosphere, or potential surface effects. I briefly discuss the implications of another Carrington Event in the new Motivation section on my site. In 1859, people could get by without telegrams for a few weeks, until the wires that got burned out could be repaired. But in 2012, what if a geomagnetic storm of the same proportions knocks out power across most of North America? And what if the factories that manufacture replacement wire, switches, etc., are without power? The good news is that we could avoid a lot of the damage by shutting down the power grid before the storm. The bad news is the existing science cannot predict such events with the degree of confidence necessary to order the power-down. When everything comes as a surprise to scientists, nobody listens when they issue predictions. So we need a more accurate model, founded on real physics, if we are to predict the next Carrington Event in advance, with the necessary degree of reliability. In other words, if the predictions of a better model start coming true on a regular basis, then people will listen. BTW, I put up on my site a design for a laboratory experiment that might be able to reproduce some of the characteristics of the solar discharge. See this for more info. tayga wrote: How would your model account for the Sun being a star and the gas giants not? First, we know that the gas giants produce more heat than they absorb, so there is definitely something going on inside them. I think that this "something" is arc discharges across charge-separated matter. The charge separation mechanism is compressive ionization due to gravity. Once separated, disruptions in the electrostatic layering result in arc discharges. So the root question is, "How much gravity is there, to produce how much compressive ionization, that will enable how many arc discharges?" In other words, the more massive the object, the more ionized it is, and the more electromagnetically active it will be. Hence the different between a planet and a star might not be a difference of kind, but rather, just of degree. When a dusty plasma is first starting to condense, something that we would call a planet starts to form. If the accretion continues, the mass increases, and thus the ionization. When the temperature increases to the point that the "planet-proto-star" starts producing visible light, we'd call it a star. When the star has ejected so much stellar wind that the mass is no longer capable of compressive ionization, the light goes out, and what's left is what we would once again call a planet.