4096 4096 pixels on the solar photosphere by the Helioseismic and Magnetic
Imager (background image). We cross correlate wave field records of temporal length T at points on opposing quadrants (blue with blue or red with red).
From New York University: Researchers create ‘MRI’ of the sun’s interior motions
A team of scientists has created an “MRI” of the Sun’s interior plasma motions, shedding light on how it transfers heat from its deep interior to its surface. The result, which appears in the journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, upends our understanding of how heat is transported outwards by the Sun and challenges existing explanations of the formation of sunspots and magnetic field generation.
The Sun’s heat, generated by nuclear fusion in its core, is transported to the surface by convection in the outer third. However, our understanding of this process is largely theoretical—the Sun is opaque, so convection cannot be directly observed. As a result, theories largely rest on what we know about fluid flow and then applying them to the Sun, which is primarily composed of hydrogen, helium, and plasma.
Developing a more precise grasp of convection is vital to comprehending a range of phenomena, including the formation of sunspots, which have a lower temperature than the rest of the Sun’s surface, and the Sun’s magnetic field, which is created by its interior plasma motions.
In order to develop their “MRI” of the Sun’s plasma flows, the researchers examined high-resolution images of the Sun’s surface taken by the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI) onboard NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory. Using a 16-million pixel camera, HMI measures motions on the Sun’s surface caused by convection.
Once the scientists captured the precise movement waves on the Sun’s surface, they were able to calculate its unseen plasma motions. This procedure is not unlike measuring the strength and direction of an ocean’s current by monitoring the time it takes a swimmer to move across the water—currents moving against the swimmer will result in slower times while those going in the same direction will produce faster times, with stronger and weaker currents enhancing or diminishing the impact on the swimmer.
What they found significantly departed from existing theory–specifically, the speed of the Sun’s plasma motions were approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected.
“Our current theoretical understanding of magnetic field generation in the Sun relies on these motions being of a certain magnitude,” explained Shravan Hanasoge, an associate research scholar in geosciences at Princeton University and a visiting scholar at NYU’s Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. “These convective motions are currently believed to prop up large-scale circulations in the outer third of the Sun that generate magnetic fields.”
“However, our results suggest that convective motions in the Sun are nearly 100 times smaller than these current theoretical expectations,” continued Hanasoge, also a postdoctoral fellow at the Max Plank Institute in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany. “If these motions are indeed that slow in the Sun, then the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field is broken, leaving us with no compelling theory to explain its generation of magnetic fields and the need to overhaul our understanding of the physics of the Sun’s interior.”
The study’s other co-authors were Thomas Duvall, an astrophysicist at NASA, and Katepalli Sreenivasan, University Professor in NYU’s Department of Physics and Courant Institute. Sreenivasan is also Senior Vice Provost for Science and Technology for the Global Network University at NYU and Provost of Polytechnic Institute of NYU.
===========================================================
ANOMALOUSLY WEAK SOLAR CONVECTION
Shravan M. Hanasoge y and Thomas L. Duvall, Jr. z and Katepalli R. Sreenivasan
Convection in the solar interior is thought to comprise structures on a spectrum of scales. This conclusion emerges from phenomenological studies and numerical simulations, though neither covers the proper range of dynamical parameters of solar convection. Here, we analyze observations of the wavefield in the solar photosphere using techniques of time-distance helioseismology to image flows in the solar interior. We downsample and synthesize 900 billion wave-feld observations to produce 3 billion cross-correlations, which we average and fit, measuring 5 million wave travel times. Using these travel times, we deduce the underlying flow systems and study their statistics to bound convective velocity magnitudes in the solar interior, as a function of depth and spherical-harmonic degree l. Within the wavenumber band l < 60, Convective velocities are 20-100 times weaker than current theoretical estimates. This suggests the prevalence of a different paradigm of turbulence from that predicted by existing models, prompting the question: what mechanism transports the heat ux of a solar luminosity outwards? Advection is dominated by Coriolis forces for wavenumbers l< 60, with Rossby numbers smaller than ~10-2 at r/Rθ= 0.96, suggesting that the Sun may be a much faster rotator than previously thought, and that large-scale convection may be quasi-geostrophic. The fact that iso-rotation contours in the Sun are not co-aligned with the axis of rotation suggests the presence of a latitudinal entropy gradient.
paper here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1206.3173.pdf
Well now. That looks like the fox just achieved entry to the henhouse. Will the farmer knock him off expeditiously? Or will a bunch of new hens have to be acquired quickly?
Models 0
Observations 1
Wow! Exciting times for solar science.
I suppose the ‘electric universe’ nutcases might have a coherent explanation, but nobody takes these deniers of conventional cosmology seriously. Best to stick with what we know (doesn’t work).
Our theory doesn’t match observation, therefore our theory is wrong. There is still real science being done.
“…using techniques of time-distance helioseismology to image ows in the solar interior…”
“Using these travel times, we deduce the underlying ow systems and study …”
These bolded words should be ‘flows’ and ‘flow.’
A pdf, will sometimes use a ligature character for ff, ffi, fl, and fi. Cutting and pasting won’t pick up these non-standard pdf characters.
I assume this means that the writers of the press releases think that science journos that are the target of the release are too technically incompetent to write their own dumbed-down versions for public consumption.
We fluids and water guys most often avoid turbulence areas in any calculation. Chaos rules in these areas. There is MUCH we don’t know. Butterfly wings etc….
How do you model and analyse chaotic system with accuracy…….. ya don’t !!
Stochastic and statistical analysis can help, but as you can see from the number of “suggests” in the above, any implied accuracy is a daydream.
Oh wait… the Earth’s atmosphere and climate is a chaotic system.. I guess the computer modellers know best.. LOL !!!
Queue Oliver K Manuel.
“The Sun’s heat, generated by nuclear fusion in its core, is transported to the surface by convection in the outer third. However, our understanding of this process is largely theoretical…”
Anthony, our understanding of the heat being generated by nuclear fusion in the core is also theoretical, and entirely so.
“Convective velocities are 20-100 times weaker than current theoretical estimates”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oops, back to the drawing board for basic assumptions? . EU anybody?
Interesting article. I was reading it looking for evidence of insinuations of periodic behavior on the 11 year period scale. I believe the data is limited to a 27 day cycle (the period of the sun’s rotation). I didn’t see anything there, but the granularity is something.
… a couple of references to spherical harmonics but nothing that I could see that spoke to the 2022 anticipated near cessation of circulation activity. I wonder, there was a NASA guy in the paper but not sure if he was involved in the so the NASA prediction of the low flow of 2022 predicted in 2006.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange/
Is solar convection always so weak or do we have a ‘weak’ sun because of slower convection ?
Just a thought.. and question…
Has there been any suggestion of a semisolid nugget or highly pressurized core in the sun? Something that acts like a slow moving stir stick, sort of a circulation memory that paces the slower cycles?
Uh-oh! More encouragement for the “Iron Sun” and EU heretics. This study must be suppressed immediately. Else faith in the opening credo will be weakened: “The Sun’s heat, generated by nuclear fusion in its core, ….”
Interesting. So our base understanding of the fundamental principles which power our sun are incomplete or wrong, so I guess we can assume that counting on a nearly invariant sun in climate models is also wrong or incomplete.
If I understand correctly, this study is roughly equivalent to trying to figure out the large scale circulation of the Eath’s atmosphere , given detailed samples of radiation escaping at the top. Since the Sun’s atmosphere (“photosphere”) is opaque at all observing frequencies, this would be more like figuring out the circulation of Venus’ atmosphere.
Sceptical lefty says:
July 9, 2012 at 1:07 am
I suppose the ‘electric universe’ nutcases might have a coherent explanation, but nobody takes these deniers of conventional cosmology seriously. Best to stick with what we know (doesn’t work).
===========
Lol. Might as well pay more attention to them. Liberal-complex academia is doing poorly these days… It’s hard to get anything going when they are in the way controlling everything from their Ivory Tower. We progress so slowly… That’s for sure.
Explain why we have sun scare but we depend on the sun for health? Why are they saying to avoid the sun to prevent skin cancer but we need the sun to cut down all kinds of cancer? 🙂
Anthony didn’t write that. He is posting a press release from New York University.
Readers constantly mistake quoted material for Anthony’s (and guest authors’) own words. Are there no formatting options in WordPress that will more clearly delineate quoted from original text? The simple Blockquote command (as above) should suffice, but large blocks of italics are daunting to some. Perhaps using indenting and a different Roman font would work, along with dividing borders.
/Mr Lynn
The first step on the way to a new theory is to discard the “words” that link your thoughts to the old theory. For example:
“The Sun’s heat, generated by nuclear fusion in its core, is transported to the surface by convection in the outer third. However, our understanding of this process is largely theoretical…”; the “words” ‘nuclear fusion in its core’ predispose one to the old theory.
The core is composed of 75% Helium [a waste product of Hydrogen fusion – Wiki]. Helium does not fuse at the lower temperatures and pressures that Hydrogen fuses. Helium fusion starts when gravity compresses the older star’s core after the Hydrogen is no longer available.
I would propose that Hydrogen fusion must take place on the surface of the core, and that the interior of the core is the waste dump for Helium. This would put the Hydrogen fusion at the inner edge of the radiative zone. In addition, the fusion locations would be highly non-uniformly distributed. This would produce hot locations and cooler locations producing convection just due to temperature, pressure differences.
Can i safely assume that, as this isn’t climate sience, the data and modles will be avalabe?
Will there be a circling of the wagons by the ‘old guard’ to destroy the careers of those who have observed something that hasn’t been observed or contradicts the theories of the current models and force the resignation of the editors of PNAS for publishing it?
Oh wait, that only happens in so-called ‘climate science’.
Nature has its reasons.
Some 30-40 years ago our own Dr. S (and his colleague) found out that the sun ‘has preferable’ longitude of activity, which drifts around very, very slowly. Joan Feynman referred to it as ‘magnetic memory’; I made an effort to depict it graphically from more recent data
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC7.htm
even our own earth is magnetically lumpy (to the east latitudes) http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMFd.gif possibly due to extra liquid at the east of the core http://phys.org/news191053615.html#nRlv
And surprise, surprise even the earth’s magnetic field oscillates, but fortunately for its inhabitants very weakly, barely noticeable.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2420
Solar science is fine but more investigation of our own planet is needed too.
So many theories are just that-theories. Dark energy,dark matter, sunspots, why the corona is hotter than the sun’s surface, lack of neutron density coming from the sun,black holes, the warped ring at the center of our galaxy,star formation, and on and on. Science always seems to have to be kicked and dragged before accepting new ideas. Sometimes this is best but it can also keep us from advancing as quickly as we could. Maybe it was meant to be.
Gene says:
July 9, 2012 at 2:42 am
Anthony, our understanding of the heat being generated by nuclear fusion in the core is also theoretical, and entirely so.
No. We observe just the neutrino flux we should based on fusion in the core. So there is direct observational evidence.
The issue of where the dynamo is located is important. With a shallow dynamo [ http://www.leif.org/research/Percolation%20and%20the%20Solar%20Dynamo.pdf ] there are fewer problems with slower convection.
I do hope we’re not trying to design fusion reactors based on physical constants derived from assuming the sun is a pure nuclear fusion reaction.
This problem can be easily solved. Sack the astrophysicists, hire a few climatologists and with a handful of adjustments the existing theory will still be fine. No problem.
sarc off
Steve T
Nerd says:
July 9, 2012 at 4:47 am
Explain why we have sun scare but we depend on the sun for health? Why are they saying to avoid the sun to prevent skin cancer but we need the sun to cut down all kinds of cancer? 🙂
==============
Because false positives are widespread in science. The culprit is a subtle corruption of the scientific method that has gained widespread acceptance in the scientific community. Many scientists would strongly dispute they are breaking the scientific method, because the practice is widespread and “peer accepted”.
This has led to a rash of false positives throughout many fields that is self evident in large numbers of contradictory studies, all claiming to be correct.
The problem is that the scientific method requires that the methodology be independent of the data. If you feed back the result into your experimental design you greatly increase the odds of finding something significant to announce to the press (and your sponsors/employers) and you greatly increase the odds that the significance of these results is false.
However, the problem is so widespread that in many fields it is not even recognized as a problem. It is accepted science and routinely passes peer review. The consensus opinion is that that feedback is valid experimental design. So long as you call it something other than what it really is. Cherry picking with a new “scientific” name.
son of mulder says:
July 9, 2012 at 6:46 am
I do hope we’re not trying to design fusion reactors based on physical constants derived from assuming the sun is a pure nuclear fusion reaction.
It is actually the other way around: we use the accurately known physical ‘constants’ [reaction rates and cross sections] to derive that the sun is fueled by nuclear reactions. These reactions are directly observable via their emission of neutrinos with just the right flux calculated from the reactions.
Scientists wrong? Really?
I am very disappointed in some of my fellow WUWT-ers for posting inane, snarky remarks about this research. What is the motivation for these digs? I bet these posters have never engaged in scientific research nor do they have much knowledge of science. Stop insulting people who are making honest attempts at furthering our understanding of a very complicated process. I have seen similar remarks in many WUWT threads and am embarrassed to read them.
Ah, the wonderous discovery of new things to keep us on our toes. Theories are sometimes best guesses waiting for observational verification. As the methods of observation are improved, so may the guesses be improved.
Reblogged this on evilincandescentbulb and commented:
This shakes us Earthlings to our core…literally. Whether or not we fully understand all of the reasons for it there is one thing about which reasonable people can all be certain: we know the independent variable that is the cause of global warming and cooling. Nominally, it’s the Sun, stupid.
Hmmm, maybe electric Birkeland currents since there is no known way to produce magnetic fields without electrical currents? Maybe when mainstream scientists actually figure out that the Sun is plasma and plasma is electrically charged, not nuclear, they may not be surprised so often. Take those blinders off people.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100519corona.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110105magnitude.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090707fusion.htm
True scientific research is observation, hypothesis, and hypothesis testing that tries to disprove the hypothesis .. then start the cycle again. Too many scientists are doing it wrong by trying to prove their hypothesis to be true, then building dogmas and non-working models that have to be propped up with more and more “tweaks”. If the observations disprove the hypothesis here, then the first step should be to confirm the observations by further research, or corollary research.
Ian
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 9, 2012 at 7:16 am
It is actually the other way around: we use the accurately known physical ‘constants’ [reaction rates and cross sections] to derive that the sun is fueled by nuclear reactions.
That said, there is a case where the existence of a physical nuclear property was made from the assumption of a stellar fusion process:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple-alpha_process
“Ordinarily, the probability of the triple alpha process would be extremely small. However, the beryllium-8 ground state has almost exactly the energy of two alpha particles. In the second step, 8Be + 4He has almost exactly the energy of an excited state of 12C. These resonances greatly increase the probability that an incoming alpha particle will combine with beryllium-8 to form carbon. The existence of this resonance was predicted by Fred Hoyle before its actual observation, based on the physical necessity for it to exist, in order for carbon to be formed in stars”
Has anyone ever tried to correlate the solar cycle with Jupiter’s perihelion date? They are the two largest bodies and certainly have some relationship.
If just one of you that believe magnetic forces can be created by any other means than electrical forces, please provide the paper???? Heat destroys magnets, so please do not try to tell me a permanent iron magnet is spinning at its core.
http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4926450_heat-affect-magnets.html
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae472.cfm
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99472.htm
You want the core to be hotter than the surface, yet the surface temperature would destroy a magnet in mili-seconds. So tell me, how does this magnetic field continually regenerate when electricity is the only known means of producing magnetic fields????? Could it be from ummm, electrical currents, the only known way to create magnetism? Nahhh, the couldn’t be it.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 7:40 am
Hmmm, maybe electric Birkeland currents since there is no known way to produce magnetic fields without electrical currents?
How do you produce electric currents? Moving a conductor in a magnetic field, perhaps. That leads to the question: how do you produce the very first magnetic fields? The Biermann Battery Effect is the most promising answer: http://www.as.utexas.edu/~lindner/random/final.pdf
Why are we wasting time and money studying the sun? Everyone knows its CO2, not the sun, that warms the earth. sarc off
Jay Davis
The press release reports:
“The result, . . . upends our understanding of . . . ~~ . . . our understanding of this process is largely theoretical . . .”
Later:
“. . .the most widely accepted theory concerning the generation of solar magnetic field is broken, leaving us with no compelling theory . . .”
From these statements, it seems they were not sure what was going on before this study and they are now more sure that they do not know. How that “upends” anything is not clear.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mr Lynn says:
July 9, 2012 at 5:11 am
RE: “Readers”
Alternatively they could learn to read.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jack mosevich says:
July 9, 2012 at 7:22 am
RE: “disappointed”
People embarrass themselves. Others sometimes point it out. Often the latter are criticized by the former. In this instance, I agree with you. Still, my understanding of the subject has not been materially advanced by this press release. The comments are helping. Leif, others – Thanks.
Lief: Magnetic fields are created when particles in plasma (an electrically charged gas) move in opposition to one another and electric fields are created. The universe is 99.999% plasma, suggesting that learning how plasma behaves could be a good idea if you want to understand how the universe works. The theory you cite presupposes that the BB started it all. No evidence supports such finding, especially when you consider that plasma red-shift has now been directly observed in the laboratory. Of course being 99.999% plasma, it is inconceivable how the universe would behave in a plasma way, isn’t it?
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
Leif,
Thanks for the link to the Bierman Battery article. I had never thought about where magnetic fields had originated before. But wouldn’t a stream of electrons produce a magnetic field?
Also your answers to the many people with views opposed to the nuclear fusion model of stars are informative without being nasty or condescending. That’s the way scientific discussions should proceed.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 8:52 am
Leif: Magnetic fields are created when particles in plasma (an electrically charged gas) move in opposition to one another and electric fields are created.
1: plasma is not electrically charged, but neutral. It consists of electrically charged particles, but so does all matter [think of an atom as a positively charged nucleus surrounded by negatively charged electrons]. What makes a plasma a plasma is that its temperature is so high that the electrons are torn away from the nuclei, so that we now have a mixture of negative charges and an equal amount of positive charges, but no longer bound to each other as in cold atoms.
2: how do you “move [the charges] in opposition to one another”. They oppositely charged particles attract each other, so some force must be applied to separate them. That is provided by a magnetic field. See e.g. here http://lpc1.clpccd.cc.ca.us/lpc/harpell/p4lec/Bfields/Bfields.html
So, magnetic fields are required to generate the current.
Lancifer says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:09 am
But wouldn’t a stream of electrons produce a magnetic field?
yes, but how do you produce a ‘stream of electrons’? It is done with a magnetic field that can separate positive and negative charges.
Leif, I seem to remember a comment of yours at least a couple years ago about you thinking convection was slower than thought and that you based your predictions on your slower convection calculations. If my recollection is close, well played Dr. S.
The same force is used to both attract and repell. It is called [electric] current and magnetism.
http://techtv.mit.edu/tags/441-physics/videos/813-mit-physics-demo—-forces-on-a-current-carrying-wire
It [does] both depending of if the Birkeland currents are moving the same direction or in opposite direction. No mysterious Dark matter or dark Energy is needed.http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/wp-admin/edit-comments.php?comment_status=all#comments-form
Pamela Gray says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:17 am
Leif, I seem to remember a comment of yours at least a couple years ago about you thinking convection was slower than thought and that you based your predictions on your slower convection calculations.
Well, there is some confusion [brought about by a poorly worded press release – what else is new]. What the researchers found [BTW Tom Duvall is a colleague of mine, see e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/The%20Strength%20of%20the%20Sun's%20Polar%20Fields.pdf ] is that there seems to be fewer or slower ‘low-order’ movements [that is what is meant by the l < 60] than thought. These low-order things are large-scale: basically the “l” value says how large the waves are, how many will fit along the circumference. One such large-scale movement is the so-called ‘meridional circulation’ which plays a role in some dynamo models and it has been hard to find evidence for a deep-seated part of that circulation [its ‘return flow’]. A recent talk by David Hathaway has more on that: http://www.leif.org/EOS/20111212_NSO-Hathaway.pdf
These large-scale flows should not be called ‘convection’ per se. Convection is small-scale [and can be seen at the surface as granulation]. The issue in the research was to what extent large-scale organized flows exist.
Leif,
Good point. But isn’t it possible that Baryon asymmetry of the early universe, which is posited by some theories to explain the disparity between surviving matter and antimatter, could also provide a mechanism by which positive and negative charged particles could have been dispersed and produced magnetic fields?
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:29 am
It [does] both depending of if the Birkeland currents are moving the same direction or in opposite direction.
What makes the Birkeland currents move?
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 8:32 am
“If just one of you that believe magnetic forces can be created by any other means than electrical forces, please provide the paper????”
Steven, moving elementary particles create magnetic fields, each particle has a mass and charge and each has a magnetic moment. In the scale of things, moving elementary particles in the sun do not produce an electrical current if that’s what you mean?
Mass -> Charge (spin) -> Magnetic force
Do the low order waves create the sunspot “butterfly” pattern that develops from the beginning to the peak of each solar cycle?
lancifer666 says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:40 am
Good point. But isn’t it possible that Baryon asymmetry of the early universe, which is posited by some theories to explain the disparity between surviving matter and antimatter, could also provide a mechanism by which positive and negative charged particles could have been dispersed and produced magnetic fields?
It is hard to ‘disperse’ oppositely charged particles as they attract each other. Another point, 377,000 years after the Big Bang, the temperature had fallen so much that the positive and negative charges recombined to form neutral atoms. From that point on, the Universe was no longer a plasma. This persisted some 500 million years, until the atoms were re-ionized by the first stars, and plasma was once again found in the universe [outside of stars].
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:38 am
…. These large-scale flows should not be called ‘convection’ per se. Convection is small-scale [and can be seen at the surface as granulation]. The issue in the research was to what extent large-scale organized flows exist.
_________________________
Thanks for the clarification. It is a different beast than ‘convection’
Granulation is also caused by plasma instabilities. All observations of the Sun have been confirmed in laboratory testing of plasma, and none of these tests confirm the standard model of nuclear fussion at it’s core. The power comes from outside, this is why the corona is millions of degrees hotter than the surface, and sunspots even cooler as you view even deeper into the Sun. The surface of the Sun experiences tufting and granulation, i.e. electric arcs. Thermodynamics states heat will migrate from the source to the coolest area, not the other way around. the deeper one peers into the Sun, the cooler the temperatures become. The further one goes from its surface up to the corona, the hotter it becomes. last I checked when I turned my heater on it was hottest at the source, to 3 ft away.
It is simple as:
Both the electron’s spin and its orbiting of the atom’s nucleus produces a magnetic field.
Hence the magnetic moment of an atom is the result of its electrons spinning.
Similarly naked nuclei spin and produce magnetic field. The Biermann Battery Effect is a spurious hypothesis.
Pamela Gray says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:51 am
Do the low order waves create the sunspot “butterfly” pattern that develops from the beginning to the peak of each solar cycle?
In a sense, but not directly. Movements of the solar material in magnetic fields left over from the previous cycle creates the next.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:57 am
Granulation is also caused by plasma instabilities.
No, no more than the roiling of boiling water is. Granulation is just ordinary convection as you’ll see in fluids heated from below.
the deeper one peers into the Sun, the cooler the temperatures become.
At one time some people believed that the cool solar interior was inhabited…Maybe you do too?
Steven, you really should not be taken in by the E.U. nonsense. It shows how gullible you are, unless, of course you are guided by ideology [which supersedes rationality] or some such. It is a waste of WUWT bandwidth and reader patience to try to convince you otherwise, but you could go here: http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/p/challenges-for-electric-universe.html
What would David Whitehouse say on this item ?
vukcevic says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:59 am
Similarly naked nuclei spin and produce magnetic field. The Biermann Battery Effect is a spurious hypothesis.
You are at it again. Pontificating on things you do not understand.
Okay. So far, I get that the current butterfly pattern of the appearance of sunspots is related to the previous cycle. But does the process that coils up the magnetic field lines beneath the surface that then bursts as sunspots onto the surface, ride these large scale waves?
Pamela Gray says:
July 9, 2012 at 10:23 am
But does the process that coils up the magnetic field lines beneath the surface that then bursts as sunspots onto the surface, ride these large scale waves?
If those large-scale waves are shown to be absent of slow, perhaps they have little to do with the cycle. This is a point argued between people supporting the deep dynamo and those who prefer the shallow dynamo. In my view, the fact that the strength of the polar fields has turned out [so far] to be a good predictor of the next cycle argues against a deep dynamo, as there is simply not enough time for the circulation to work. One of things SDO will do for us is to help resolve this issue.
Vukcevic: Both the electron’s spin and its orbiting of the atom’s nucleus produces a magnetic field.
Dr. Svalgaard : You are at it again. Pontificating on things you do not understand.
Wikipedia: A spin magnetic moment is induced by all charged particles. The electron is an example of one such charged particle. A spin magnetic moment is created because a particle has physical properties known as spin and electric charge….
Paul Dirac provided a rigorous theoretical foundation for the concept with his relativistic equation of motion for the wavefunction of the electron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_magnetic_moment
Vukcevic: I have no further comment
vukcevic says:
July 9, 2012 at 10:42 am
Paul Dirac provided a rigorous theoretical foundation for the concept with his relativistic equation of motion for the wavefunction of the electron.
Very true, but has no bearing on where the initial larger-scale magnetic field in the Universe came from. The dynamo process that amplifies the initial seed-field does not work on nuclear/electron spins.
Vukcevic: I have no further comment
Let us see if you are truthful about that.
Lief: One might surmise you are the gullible one. The very idea that an ionized gas (plasma) is nuetral defies the very meaning of the term. If it was neutral it would not be a plasma, but would instead be a neutral gas. Contradictory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
One might also wonder what you define as electricity, since every definition of it contradicts the one before.
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/miscon/whatis.html
Shall we discuss the aurora, the filiments connecting Sun and Earth, Jupiter and it’s moons or galaxy to galaxy?
Plasma produces sychroton radiation (x-rays, gamma rays) when electrons spiral in the magnetic fields. All these phenomenon have been reproduced in the laboratory with plasma, an ionized gas, not an electrally neutral gas, i.e. non-plasma.
It is your misconceptions and others that allow the current cosmology to keep science from preceeding forward.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/06/10/getting-sloshed-2/
An example on how a poorly written abstract can be misleading and confusing:
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 07:05:27 -0700
From: Leif Svalgaard <lsvalgaard@gmail.com
To: Tom Duvall <duvall@sun.stanford.edu
Tom, in the paper you et al. write [in the abstract]:
"suggesting that the Sun may be a much faster rotator than previously thought"
I find no reference to that in the text, and I find the statement puzzling. 'Much faster rotator' means what? Literally read, it might mean that the sun rotates much faster than thought. How much is 'much'? does the sun rotate twice as fast as 25 days or ten times as fast or what.
Tom Duvall duvall@sun.stanford.edu
to: lsvalgaard@gmail.com
date: Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Leif,
My mistake. The statement should have been worded differently. See Shravan's answer below.
Tom
Tom Duvall <duvall@sun.stanford.edu
> wrote:
Shravan,
Do you have an answer to the question? I would enjoy seeing it also.
Tom
Date:Mon, 9 Jul 2012 13:18:54 -0400
From:Shravan Hanasoge
To: Tom Duvall
Certainly – I now realize it’s a bit of a confusing statement because it’s a slightly technical concept. The “rapidity” of solar rotation is defined in our context through the Rossby number: the ratio of convective velocity to the speed of rotation. It is largely thought that the Sun, in the context of Rossby number, is a slow rotator, i.e. that Coriolis forces play a very weak role in influencing convective motions. (which is actually true in the case of granulation; see also Miesch 2005, living reviews).
However our results show that the convective motions are substantially weaker than previously thought, which means the Rossby number is very low and convection therefore is strongly influenced by rotation and Coriolis forces (much more so than previously thought).
In that sense, the Sun is “fast rotator”.
Shravan
Does anyone here actually know what an ionized gas is (i.e. plasma)? A gas carrying no charge is just that, a gas and may be termed nuetral. The very idea that a plasma is neutral flies in the very face of what makes it a plasma. it is a charged gas, not a neutral gas. If it was neutral it would not be a plasma. You contradict yourself at every statement. You know plasma is ionized, yet then state it is neutral. A neutral gas is not a plasma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionization
This is why your ideas are stuck in the gravocentric world, because you insist a charged gas is neutral defying the very term of charge.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/06/10/getting-sloshed-2/
Open your eyes and view the true universe.
Dr Svalgaard,
If it’s not considered cheeky to ask, is it possible for you to give us a rough estimate of the impact of this paper free from press release hype?
Heliological equivalent of the UV catastrophe? Settles the hash between rival hypotheses? Or “nice to have a better estimate of that number”
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 11:17 am
The very idea that a plasma is neutral flies in the very face of what makes it a plasma
Just shows that YOU do not know what a plasma is. Here you can learn more about plasmas: http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/ph136/yr2004/0419.1.K.pdf
The size of the region where deviations from strict neutrality can happen is called the Debye length. It is usually very small:
Gas discharge tube 0.0001 meter
Tokamak 0.0001 m
Ionosphere 0.001 m
Magnetosphere 100 m
Solar core 0.000,000,000,01 m
Solar wind 10 m
Interstellar medium 10 m
Intergalactic medium 10 km
I have no further comment on the spurious interpretations of the origins of magnetic fields, since science has resolved the matter nearly 100 years ago, theoretically and in more recent decades many of WUWT readers may have experienced benefits of the theory via the reality of the magnetic resonance scanning, based on the magnetic moment created by the spin of charged particles.
When a person is inside the powerful magnetic field of the scanner, the average magnetic moment of many protons becomes aligned with the direction of the field. A radio frequency current is briefly turned on, producing a varying electromagnetic field. This electromagnetic field has just the right frequency, known as the resonance frequency, to be absorbed and flip the spin of the protons in the magnetic field. After the electromagnetic field is turned off, the spins of the protons return to thermodynamic equilibrium and the bulk magnetization becomes re-aligned with the static magnetic field.
Paul Lauterbur of the University of Illinois and Sir Peter Mansfield of the University of Nottingham were awarded the 2003 Nobel Prize in Medicine for their “discoveries concerning magnetic resonance imaging”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_resonance_imaging
Electrons and protons were spinning and creating magnetic fields from the moment the Universe was created and will do that till its end.
No further comment on any spurious non-factual alternatives.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 9, 2012 at 6:45 am
Gene says:
July 9, 2012 at 2:42 am
Anthony, our understanding of the heat being generated by nuclear fusion in the core is also theoretical, and entirely so.
No. We observe just the neutrino flux we should based on fusion in the core. So there is direct observational evidence.
————
Not forgetting that it makes things warm, and shines brightly – just the sort of things you’d expect from nuclear fusion and a misapplication of propositional logic.
Not only does that observation falsify mainstream field generation theories, it falsifies their claims about heavy elements like Iron and Nickel staying mixed with light elements like hydrogen and helium. It also pretty much undermines every mainstream energy release mechanism propsed by the mainstream to explain high coronal temperature.
As Birkeland predicted over 100 years ago from experiments in the lab, the sun is electric and its a cathode with respect to interstellar space.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 11:07 am
The very idea that an ionized gas (plasma) is neutral defies the very meaning of the term.
You are confusing ionized gas and neutral gas. Ionized gases are neutral, otherwise the short them selves out very quickly. That they are ionized means simply that there are lot of easily moved electrons. These very quickly move to neutralize any charge separation, but study the link I gave you. now, I have no illusion that you’ll learn, but one can always hope.
vukcevic says:
July 9, 2012 at 11:44 am
I have no further comment on the spurious interpretations of the origins of magnetic fields
Again you are displaying ignorance. The question is not about the origin of magnetic moments of atomic particles, but about the origin of the large-scale initial magnetic fields in the Universe.
Exactly vukcevic. You have electrons spinning at near the speed of light in the magnetic field of the atom, and what happens when you spin things in magnetic fields, anyone? Why do you think all atomic structures have charge, because the EM force is the primary source of energy in the universe. It is what makes your thoughts possible, what makes you able to walk and talk. Without electrical signals your muscles would be useless and you would posess no thoughts. We should all be glad that the universe doesn’t conform to the theory of neutrality, or we would not be here to discuss this. Day by day, data set by data set, the EU is confirmed as current cosmology slides into its death throes. The problem is no one actually knows what electricity is.
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/miscon/whatis.html
michaelozanne says:
July 9, 2012 at 11:26 am
is it possible for you to give us a rough estimate of the impact of this paper free from press release hype? Heliological equivalent of the UV catastrophe? Settles the hash between rival hypotheses? Or “nice to have a better estimate of that number”
The last one is closer to the mark, with a bit of the penultimate too. The issue has to do with creation and maintenance of the turbulence thought to be important for generation of solar activity, especially at what length scale the turbulence is organized.
Luther Bl’t says:
July 9, 2012 at 11:46 am
“No. We observe just the neutrino flux we should based on fusion in the core. So there is direct observational evidence.”
Not forgetting that it makes things warm, and shines brightly – just the sort of things you’d expect from nuclear fusion and a misapplication of propositional logic.
propositional logic [I wonder if you know what it is…] has nothing to do with this.
Leif: You are confusing ionized gas and neutral gas. Ionized gases are neutral, otherwise the short them selves out very quickly. That they are ionized means simply that there are lot of easily moved electrons. These very quickly move to neutralize any charge separation, but study the link I gave you. now, I have no illusion that you’ll learn, but one can always hope.
Again you misrepresent. Ionized gasses, i.e. plasma seperates the positive and negative charges with Double Layers. There is no short beacuse charges are sperated. You only want to believe this means neutral so you do not have to deal with the fact that the charges are sperated, and driving currents between them, and generating the corresponding magnetic fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)
“A double layer is a structure in a plasma and consists of two parallel layers with opposite electrical charge. The sheets of charge cause a strong electric field and a correspondingly sharp change in voltage (electrical potential) across the double layer. Ions and electrons which enter the double layer are accelerated, decelerated, or reflected by the electric field. In general, double layers (which may be curved rather than flat) separate regions of plasma with quite different characteristics. Double layers are found in a wide variety of plasmas, from discharge tubes to space plasmas to the Birkeland currents supplying the Earth’s aurora, and are especially common in current-carrying plasmas. Compared to the sizes of the plasmas which contain them, double layers are very thin (typically ten Debye lengths), with widths ranging from a few millimeters for laboratory plasmas to thousands of kilometres for astrophysical plasmas.”
So lets discuss Debye lengths that can extend to thousands of kilomoters, when you make it sound as if it must be small.
I hope this will finally end the idiotic notion of sunspot-recycling “conveyor belts”. Always got my gander up, that one.
I am sorry, but could someone please define “100 times slower”.
Does that mean 1/100th the speed? If so, say so.
I am old school and have just about had it with stupid terminology used to give the impression that things are”big” or important.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 9, 2012 at 11:51 am
………
There is no large scale universe without elementary particles. Perhaps you should read your own reference, it starts with electron movement, without understanding what electrons are about.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 12:05 pm
There is no short beacuse charges are sperated. You only want to believe this means neutral so you do not have to deal with the fact that the charges are sperated, and driving currents between them,
A current is a transport of charges, so a current between two plasma regimes means that the excess charge in one moves into the other to make the two plasma have the same charge density, namely zero.
Gary Plyler says:
July 9, 2012 at 12:10 pm
I am sorry, but could someone please define “100 times slower”.
It means that the velocities of motions on large scales [greater than about 100,000 km or 1/7 of the solar radius] is much slower than often assumed. This does not affect the ordinary convection of much smaller size. In a sense it means that the motions are more random.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 12:05 pm
So lets discuss Debye lengths that can extend to thousands of kilomoters, when you make it sound as if it must be small.
Why should we? there are none in our neck of the woods:
Gas discharge tube 0.0001 meter
Tokamak 0.0001 m
Ionosphere 0.001 m
Magnetosphere 100 m
Solar core 0.000,000,000,01 m
Solar wind 10 m
Interstellar medium 10 m
Intergalactic medium 10 km
vukcevic says:
July 9, 2012 at 12:16 pm
There is no large scale universe without elementary particles
Trivial, irrelevant comment.
it starts with electron movement, without understanding what electrons are about
But now, the great Vuk shall teach them.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.
Leif: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 11:07 am
One might surmise you are the gullible one. The very idea that an ionized gas (plasma) is nuetral defies the very meaning of the term
From http://www.plasma-universe.com/Quasi-neutrality#_note-3
“Since electrons are very mobile, plasmas are excellent conductors of electricity, and any charges that develop are readily neutralized, and in many cases, plasmas can be treated as being electrically neutral. ”
“The distance over which quasi-neutrality becomes apparent depends on factors such as the density and temperature of a plasma. For example, the higher the density of a plasma, the smaller the region of quasi-neutrality because it will contain nearly equal numbers of negative and positively charged particle.”
“plasmas are electrically neutral and breaking of this condition is rarely found in laboratories and space.”
Luther Bl’t says:
July 9, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Leif: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
If it looks like a duck, quacks as a duck, etc…
A few days ago I watched a 4th of July fireworks from several miles away. How do I know there was a fireworks: I observed the light emitted from it, heard the sound emitted from it, therefore concluded there was a fireworks. How do we know there is nuclear fusion: we observe the right amount of energy emitted from it, we observe the predicted flux of neutrinos emitted. Hardly misuse of propositional logic. Rather, observation is the method we use to ascertain the existence of everything.
Leif: It is very difficult to accept the observations of neutrinos (if they exist) as direct evidence. The observations of what is interpreted as a neutrino are so rare that there is not much of a flux to speak of; we do not know for sure where they come from (the direction of incidence is inferred), and we hear all sorts of dodgy theories proposing the change of “flavours” to account for failed detection. Not really convincing. Photons do come from the sun; so do neutrons and other material things; I could buy evidence of that as a direct observation, but presenting neutrinos as evidence seems desperate. It would be so much nicer if we always tried to explain things without magic first.
Poor Leif
The patience of Job I tell ya!
A very interesting finding. I wish that Dr. Horowitz was still around to see it.
Leif, what are the downsides of the shallow dynamo theory? Does that mean that the sun is older in terms of burned mass than we currently think?
And yet everything that exists is emitting charge. Spaceships become negatively charged, yet space is neutral according to you. The Sun is undergoing nuclear fussion, but it occurs on its surface, not deep within.
Photospheric Granulation
One puzzle of the Sun is the “rice grain” appearance of its photosphere which gave rise to the phrase “photospheric granulation.” Scientists now believe that each granule is the top of a “convection cell” because the opaque gases of the Sun, in the nuclear fusion model, need a mechanism for slowly transferring internal heat to the surface. The “granulation” must therefore be the “boiling gases” forced upward by million degree temperatures beneath the surface.
Immediately, problems arise with this interpretation. The gas density in the photosphere diminishes rapidly with height so that convection there should be completely turbulent. Instead, the granules seem to quietly appear, grow brighter for some minutes, then fade. As one proponent of standard theory concedes, “Convection remains the outstanding unsolved problem in photospheric physics.”
The statement confirms what Ralph Juergens wrote years earlier: “…Photospheric granulation is explainable in terms of convection only if we disregard what we know about convection. Surely the cellular structure is not to be expected.” Juergens proposed instead that “a [photospheric] granule may be viewed as a relatively dense, highly luminous, secondary plasma that springs into being in the embrace of a thinner, less luminous, primary plasma. …We are led directly to ask whether the granules might not be akin to certain highly luminous tufts of discharge plasma variously described in the literature as anode glows, anode tufts, and anode arcs.”
Anode tufts appear as bright spots above an anode surface and increase in number as the voltage and current are increased.
Sunspot Enigmas
Sunspots underscore the profound enigmas for the thermonuclear model. Their darkness, structure, and behavior have required great ingenuity in attempts to explain them. As seen in the Sunspot images, the margins of its dark regions reveal that the granules are the tops of rope-like structures rising to the photospheric surface. The thermonuclear model identifies these structures as the “convection currents” that the model requires.
Unexpectedly, the dark umbra of the sunspot itself, a window to subsurface conditions, is cooler, at around 4000 K, compared to the photosphere temperature around 5700 K. The absence of the temperatures claimed to lurk beneath the surface is said to be due to the strong magnetic field of the sunspot hiding the heat below. The explanation requires that magnetic fields do something that magnetic fields are not known to do. (Magnetic fields do not “conceal” extreme temperatures.) Even if magnetism could perform such a feat, it is surely quite remarkable that solar physicists have yet to find, by peering into a sunspot, even the slightest hint of the supposed extreme temperatures creeping into view.
Your thermonuclear fussion model fails on every level. the Sun is an electric anode in space. The fussion occurs on the surface due to electrical arcs, tufting. The main current enters the coronal region, which is why it is millions of degrees hotter than the surface itself.
Try some real physics supported by the laboratory, not theory based upon theory, based upon theory. The world was once flat, then round, then the center of the universe, then a planet in the milky way which was the only galaxy, then it too became one of billions. Cosmology changes as science advances. Every new theory is resisted until the data leaves one with no choice but acceptance, just as the EU viewpoint is resisted even though every new data set astrophysicists are “surprised” Why? because their theory is based upon the wrong premise, so the data never matches actual observation. EU theory conforms to all visible and testable aspects of the Sun and galactic environment. While you are constantly surprised we find nothing but what one would expect from an electrical anode. While you need unfalsifiable Black Holes, Dark Matter and Dark energy to prop up existing theory, the EU only needs what currently exists in the universe, plasma and EM interractions. It is funny how the amount of plasma in the universe exactly matches what is needed by Dark matter and Dark Energy to prop up a failing theory. observations are everything as you say, so let me know when you observe that Dark Matter, Dark Energy or that Black Hole will you? Also please keep me informed as to the temperature at the core of the Sun as our technology advances. Every advancement only shows the flaws in the current model, I eagerly await the next discovery and will not be surprised by the results, will you be surprised like the rest of current cosmology at every discovery? Go read the news, 8 out of 10 articles on astronomy use the words surprised, unexpected, etc on an almost daily basis now. Does your theory not predict anything correctly?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/08/23/preface/
I’m surprised that no one a suggested a dual solar core for the sun!
It appears to me that Steven is promoting the idea that the sun is a large ball of electricity and not matter compressed under it’s own gravity and mass radiating energy in the electromagnetic spectrum as a result of fusion. Forces on a Larger scale behave differently than how they behave on the quantum level, and now we know that on the Sun’s convection zone those forces have been observed to move 100 times slower than mathematical calculations have suggested.
Honestly, I can’t find where this is supposed to redefine the known laws of physics.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 9, 2012 at 12:54 pm
…………
Insults are written in sand, science is carved in stone.
“Oft have I digg’d up dead men from their graves,
And set them upright at their dear friends’ doors,
Tut, I have done a thousand dreadful things
And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
But that I cannot do ten thousand more.”
Gene says:
July 9, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Leif: It is very difficult to accept the observations of neutrinos (if they exist) as direct evidence. The observations of what is interpreted as a neutrino are so rare that there is not much of a flux to speak of
No, the neutrino flux is easily measured today with several different types of detectors.
we do not know for sure where they come from (the direction of incidence is inferred)
No, we can directly see where they come from because their detection is directional.
and we hear all sorts of dodgy theories proposing the change of “flavours” to account for failed detection.
The change of flavors are directly observed by looking at neutrinos from nearby nuclear reactors. And by modern detectors being sensitive to all three flavors [which add up to what is detected].
I could buy evidence of that as a direct observation, but presenting neutrinos as evidence seems desperate
You are about ten years behind the science here. No desperation here. Instead, absolutely solid verification of solar fusion. This paper may set you straight: http://www.leif.org/EOS/0034-4885Neutrinos.pdf
vukcevic says:
July 9, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Insults are written in sand, science is carved in stone.
What you peddle is not science. Not this time, not last time, nor the time before last, etc.
So lets us observe the universe. Do i observe any Dark Matter? No. Do i observe any Dark Energy? No. Do I observe any Black Holes? No. Do i observe filimentary plasma stretching from galaxy to galaxy? Yes. Coincidence that all the DM and DE required to make your theory work is almost exactly equal to the estimated amount of plasma in the universe? Todays science discoveries the most common phrase is “we were surprised”, “unexpected results”, etc. Does your theory not predict anything correctly? Seems to be a poor theory when every prediction made has been refuted by the data in the last 10 years. You got the Sun wrong because the theory is based upon faulty premises and will never match up. All aspects of the sun have been confirmed by the EU model. I’ll be awaitng the next article where “they are surprised”. I eagerly await the next data set and won’t be surprised by the results, will you be?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/08/23/preface/
The mothers of all gas giants are stars.
denniswingo says:
July 9, 2012 at 1:47 pm
The patience of Job I tell ya!
The depth of willful ignorance on WUWT is indeed sad. Some counterweight to that is needed. You might help in this regard, BTW.
Leif, what are the downsides of the shallow dynamo theory? Does that mean that the sun is older in terms of burned mass than we currently think?
None as far I can see. The fusion takes place in the deep core and it not related to where the dynamo is.
Sparks says:
July 9, 2012 at 1:50 pm
It appears to me that Steven is promoting the idea that the sun is a large ball of electricity …
Honestly, I can’t find where this is supposed to redefine the known laws of physics.
Right there is the first violation
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Does your theory not predict anything correctly?
Certainly, in particular the neutrino flux resulting from nuclear fusion.
Yet you are also missing half those required, don’t bring things up you know are flawed. You measure the neutrinos at earth, and since you detect more of the wrong kind than needed, then you deduce that they must have changed flavor in route. Why did they change flavor in route? Because you could not detect the numbers needed by your theory.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9606180.pdf
“After a short survey of the physics of solar neutrinos, giving an overview of
hydrogen burning reactions, predictions of standard solar models and results
of solar neutrino experiments, we discuss the solar-model-independent indications
in favour of non-standard neutrino properties. The experimental results
look to be in contradiction with each other, even disregarding some experiment:
unless electron neutrinos disappear in their trip from the sun to the
earth, the fluxes of intermediate energy neutrinos (those from 7Be electron
capture and from the CNO cycle) result to be unphysically negative, or anyway
extremely reduced with respect to standard solar model predictions. Next
we review extensively non-standard solar models built as attempts to solve
the solar neutrino puzzle. The dependence of the central solar temperature
on chemical composition, opacity, age and on the values of the astrophysical
S-factors for hydrogen-burning reactions is carefully investigated. Also, possible
modifications of the branching among the various pp-chains in view of
nuclear physics uncertainties are examined. Assuming standard neutrinos,
all solar models examined fail in reconciling theory with experiments, even
when the physical and chemical inputs are radically changed with respect to
present knowledge and even if some of the experimental results are discarded.”
Why does your thermonuclear fussion theory not predict the corona, or the solar wind? Why are sunspots which allow us to see deeper into the sun cooler?
Leif: The link you posted is broken. There is no file name containing “neutrino” in http://www.leif.org/EOS/
[SNIP: Myrrh, Anthony already laid out the conditions for you to continue commenting here. If there is a valid reason why you must remain anonymous, e-mail Anthony using the link here. If he agrees, he will inform his moderators. -REP]
Gene says:
July 9, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Leif: The link you posted is broken. There is no file name containing “neutrino” in
http://www.leif.org/EOS/0034-4885Neutrinos.pdf
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Yet you are also missing half those required, don’t bring things up you know are flawed.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9606180.pdf
You are about 16 years behind the science. Try http://www.leif.org/EOS/0034-4885Neutrinos.pdf
Why does your thermonuclear fussion theory not predict the corona, or the solar wind?
Neither of those have anything to do with the fusion. There are many explanations of why the corona is hot. In fact, too many. The problem is that have not settled on which one(s). The solar wind was predicted in the 1950s by Gene Parker.
Why are sunspots which allow us to see deeper into the sun cooler?
Because their strong magnetic field interferes with the convection bringing up the heat from the interior. The magnetic field works as a refrigerator. This is all well-known and well-understood.
Poor Leif
The patience of Job I tell ya!
######
Over the years I cannot fathom how leif has put up with the willful ignorance displayed by some. usually, like steven, they are anonymous. others like tallbloke do the right thing and set up their own shop.
vuk? steven? I’ll suggest that you follow tallblokes path. Set up your own blogs and if you have something interesting to say, you’ll get readers.
[SNIP: I tried to send you an e-mail. It bounced back. If you want to continue to comment here you really need to contact Anthony…. and supply a valid e-mail address. -REP
And yet your own papers require these neutrinos to change flavor in route from the Sun, when the qty and type of neutrinos leaving the vicinity of the sun has never been verified. You assume they do this because that is what you need them to do. The problem is that the ones that have been shown to change flavors in the laboratory are the ones you need more of. that is the ones in excess have been shown to change to the ones in short supply, but NEVER the reverse. Twist the data, maybe it will finally fit when you tweak the numbers enough statistically. You may ignore the fact that neutrinos have never been verified to change flavor to the type in short supply, but those in excess add to those missing, so in reality you are missing even more than your theory says should be emitted, as some are changing to the ones you need. Flawed theory = flawed data interpretation.
Steven
“The statement confirms what Ralph Juergens wrote years earlier: “…Photospheric granulation is explainable in terms of convection only if we disregard what we know about convection. ”
Juergens thought that convection was influenced by the reynolds number. rayleigh, reynolds.. hey they both start with the letter R
S. Mosher:
“The statement confirms what Ralph Juergens wrote years earlier: “…Photospheric granulation is explainable in terms of convection only if we disregard what we know about convection. ”
Yah, what I am trying to get these people to understand. Thermodynamics REQUIRES heat to migrate from the source to cooler regions, not the reverse as the sun does. To believe the sun is a nuclear furnace requires one to disregard everything known about thermodynamics and about fusion itself.
Let me ask all of you a question then. How do we accelerate sub-atomic particles? If you understand CERN, then you know the only answer available and the only known way. Now ask yourself how does the sun accelerate sub-atomic particles at a velocity that continues to increase out to the orbit of Jupiter (minimum distance to our current knowledge)?
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 3:29 pm
And yet your own papers require these neutrinos to change flavor in route from the Sun, when the qty and type of neutrinos leaving the vicinity of the sun has never been verified. You assume they do this because that is what you need them to do.
Again you are a decade behind the science. Why don’t you read the review paper I directed you to?
The change of flavors is an observed fact, from both using neutrinos produced in nuclear reactors [where WE know what we produce], and from using detectors that are sensitive to all flavors. There is no neutrino ‘problem’. There is a beautiful agreement between theory and direct detection.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Now ask yourself how does the sun accelerate sub-atomic particles at a velocity that continues to increase out to the orbit of Jupiter
Same way as the exhaust velocity is accelerated in a de Laval nozzle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Laval_nozzle
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Yah, what I am trying to get these people to understand. Thermodynamics REQUIRES heat to migrate from the source to cooler regions, not the reverse as the sun does. To believe the sun is a nuclear furnace requires one to disregard everything known about thermodynamics and about fusion itself.
Well, it is very hot in the core where fusion takes place and that heat does migrate from the source to cooler regions [such as the surface] so that is in perfect agreement with thermodynamics. Now, how is the corona heated? Perhaps by electric currents from below. What do you think of that idea?
Why so they can tell me that of course its undetectable, unverifiable Dark Matter that somehow allows this neutrino change?
Despite the great success of the solar physics story, the central
solar core below 0.10R, containing about a quarter of the
solar mass, is still not completely understood. Most of the
acoustic modes have been detected but they do not allow us
to properly describe the thermodynamics of this region of
the Sun through the sound speed. Consequently, the central
temperature deduced from the seismic model is obtained by
assuming that the temperature and density profiles follow the
classical equations of stellar evolution. This hypothesis leads
to good agreement between prediction and detected boron
Rep. Prog. Phys. 74 (2011) 086901 S Turck-Chi`eze and S Couvidat
neutrino fluxes but it has been known for 20 years (Giraud-
Heraud et al 1990, Dearborn et al 1990, Kaplan et al 1991)
that these profiles could be modified by the presence of dark
matter.
And the magical dust is brought out for confirming the theory.
Leif: “The EU Nonsense” as you call it actually provides hearty explanations for many more phenomena or the sun than the conventional model to which you hold blind adherence. A little more humility seems called for. Referring to another hypothesis in a derogatory tone, is not a valid means of presenting a scientific argument, and severely undermines your credibility. The fact that you cannot present your observations with reference to the implications of more than one model, also undermines your credibility.
I have an engineering background and I see science as valid when it provides explanatory power. Thus not only does the theory with the most explanatory power win, but also the one with the best laboratory reproductions of phenomena. Right now the EU model has you beat.
Keith
So when did a De Laval nozzle or any chemical reaction ever continue to accelerate particles beyond its compression boundary or initial escape velocity?
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 4:06 pm
“Despite the great success of the solar physics story, the central solar core below 0.10R, containing about a quarter of the solar mass, is still not completely understood.”
Which does not cast doubts on the neutrino results. on the contrary, we can use the well-established neutrino data as a ‘telescope’ to probe the core of the Sun. You are completely missing that the neutrino flavors have been verified using known neutrino fluxes on the Earth. From nuclear reactors where we know precisely what is going on and how many neutrinos we produce. We don’t need the sun for that. Neutrino flavor changing has been established in the laboratory [something you a priori should like].
keith says:
July 9, 2012 at 4:13 pm
I have an engineering background and I see science as valid when it provides explanatory power. Thus not only does the theory with the most explanatory power win, but also the one with the best laboratory reproductions of phenomena. Right now the EU model has you beat.
EU has no predictive power at all [show me some, with calculated numbers]. For several reasons. An important reason is that we cannot in the laboratory reproduce the conditions of emptiness and length-scales that prevail in space. No need for me to be humble and I consequently am not.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 4:13 pm
So when did a De Laval nozzle or any chemical reaction ever continue to accelerate particles beyond its compression boundary or initial escape velocity?
In a De Laval nozzle the acceleration comes from the slow removal of the constricting boundary. In the solar wind, the corresponding constriction is gravity. As gravity decreases with distance, the constriction is slowly removed all the way out.
To be a troll, or not to be a troll, that is the question.
The answer is 42, with a decent helping of “don’t feed the trolls”.
The real truth is that energy is teleported from the interior of the sun to the surface via quantum entanglement. The high energy of the corona is easily explained by the collapsing of the entanglement field plus the teleported energy. Warp drive will be an extension of this effect applied to objects with mass. No electricity needed.
That is MY theory. 🙂 🙂 🙂 heh…
And yet I have no problem with nuclear fusion going on on the surface of the sun, neutrinos do not hurt my theory. My theory explains the solar winds, yours must violate all known ballistic and chemical and even nuclear knowledge to conform, and the explanations of the solar wind in current stellar theories is sadly lacking. Your model of a star born of fusion never predicted the corona, yet it is an essential part of the EU theory, as are all observable phenomenon of the sun.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/06/04/solar-stagnation-2/
So why is the pioneer spacecraft not accelerating? Why do not comets not accelerate as they move away from the sun? Why does it only happen to one particle, the one particle your theory says should not be accelerating as acceleration in a gravity driven model is always towards the source of gravitation, never away? Have you changed the law of gravitation lately?
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 4:27 pm
And yet I have no problem with nuclear fusion going on on the surface of the sun, neutrinos do not hurt my theory.
After having ‘argued’ that the neutrinos were all fakery, now you have at last conceded that the observations are correct. But I have a problem with fusion going on on the surface: the temperature is much too low to overcome the mutual repulsion of protons.
My theory explains the solar winds, yours must violate all known ballistic and chemical and even nuclear knowledge to conform, and the explanations of the solar wind in current stellar theories is sadly lacking.
The solar wind as predicted by Parker in the 1950s is well explained and does not violate anything. But let’s turn to ;’your theory’. What is the predicted solar wind flux according to that? Numbers please, otherwise you have predicted nothing.
Your model of a star born of fusion never predicted the corona
Fusion has nothing to do with the solar corona. The corona is heated from below by effects from electric currents.
All that needs siad:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-sun-verified/?article=74fgmwne
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 4:33 pm
acceleration in a gravity driven model is always towards the source of gravitation, never away?
And it is the slow lifting of that acceleration with distance that produces the De Laval effect. There is also another thing that helps: the very high heat conductivity of the corona. As this is well-understood. Now tell us what your ‘theory’ predicts the increase of solar wind speed with distance to be? Numbers please.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 4:40 pm
All that needs said
Is indeed very telling. The difference between science and EU is that science can put numbers to the predicted and modeled phenomena. I still have to see ANY numbers come out of EU. Perhaps you could provide some?
For some reason, this seems like batting practice for Leif.
Sean Peake says:
July 9, 2012 at 5:02 pm
For some reason, this seems like batting practice for Leif.
It is easy as this is well-trodden ground, that we have been over again and again. It is a bit sad that general science literacy is so low that some WUWT-threads degrades into stuff like this.
Here read all the numbers you want:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Sun_and_stars
That’s because Lief, like most, no longer practice science, but a quasi religion. Science is to question at all times, to look at all possibilities. You may ignore the data as it comes in to uphold your religion, you may ignore all data that does not fit your model, but like every cosmology before they were positive they were correct until they could no longer ignore the data. The EU is rarely surprised, even predicted what IBEX and pioneer has found, current theory predicted nothing and was shocked when voyager sent back its data.
“Charged particles have apparently become bunched along the ribbon near the boundary, says McComas, but how they got there “is still a big mystery. Our previous ideas about the outer heliosphere are going to have to be revised.” “I’m blown away completely,” says space physicist Neil Murphy of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. “It’s amazing, it’s opened up a new kind of astronomy.”
It hasn’t opened up a new kind of astronomy, just a force in the universe that has been ignored in astronomy in the 100 years since it was discovered. PLASMA
By the way, when the solar wind actually stops, which it does at periods, does this mean the suns gravity is no longer strong enough to cause a De Laval tube? Or is it that it has become so strong they can’t escape? The gravity of mass fluctuates this much yet we are unaware of it?
So nothing in the paper, the article, OR the comments suggest how the convection manifests as an 11 year cycle? Hmm?
Here is a brilliant attempt to improve science literacy in the area we are discussing: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/jim.html
We are told that neutrinos were invented to uphold the conservation of angular momentum. Very nice. So now, a very long time and billions of dollars later, what we are “directly observing” are the fudges to misconstrued angular momenta arriving from the sun.
I am not ten years behind; I am a century behind. I stopped following when they began assigning fractional quantum numbers to particles, apparently to resolve the consternation caused by Stern-Gerlach. But never matter. Let’s forget for a moment which theory is better and take a look at the raw data, which is basically a huge stream of scintillation patterns. In it, if we are lucky, we can find a few that can be spatially resolved to point at the sun (give or take a couple degrees). Furthermore, similar patterns are observed near nuclear reactors. It quacks like a duck, and we immediately connect in our minds our underground detector with a reactor-like process inside the sun’s core. But where is the evidence that the process responsible for these scintillations is housed inside the sun’s core? There are so many things on the path from the sun’s core to to the underground detector. Why not the solar corona? Why not the earth’s atmosphere?
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Here read all the numbers you want:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Sun_and_stars
None of these number are calculated from EU theory. They are either observed or calculated from standard theories, or at times wrong. If you disagree, show me which numbers are calculated from EU theory, and how.
By the way, when the solar wind actually stops, which it does at periods
The solar wind never stops. Its density may at times be very small, but the speed is never less than about 250 km/s, see e.g. http://www.solen.info/solar/images/swind.png
Gene says:
July 9, 2012 at 7:08 pm
We are told that neutrinos were invented to uphold the conservation of angular momentum.
No, to uphold the law of conservation of energy.
But where is the evidence that the process responsible for these scintillations is housed inside the sun’s core? There are so many things on the path from the sun’s core to to the underground detector. Why not the solar corona? Why not the earth’s atmosphere?
It has to do with the energy of the neutrinos. The corona and the Earth’s atmosphere are not hot enough and do not sustain the processes that give rise to neutrinos of the energy we observe. In the core we know the temperature and the nuclear reaction rates and can from those calculate how many neutrinos we should see, and we do see precisely those. In fact for every solar neutrino there are trillions more neutrinos going through our detectors [and you]. These neutrinos were produced in the Big Bang but have by now too low energy to be detected.
The Ampère Angular Force
In 1826, André-Marie Ampère published a groundbreaking study, summarizing the work of five years of research into the laws of the new science that he had named electrodynamics. The results showed, that in the case of the pairwise interaction of two infinitesimally small elements of direct current electricity within conductors, the force between the elements was not simply dependent on the inverse square of their distance of separation, but also depended on the angles which these infinitesimal, directional elements made with the line connecting their centers, and with each other. (Included among the effects of the angular force was the result that successive elements of current within the same conductor would tend to repel one another—the longitudinal force.)
André-Marie Ampère, “Memoire sur la théorie mathématique des phénomenes électrodynamiques uniquement déduite de l’experience,” in A.M. Ampère, Electrodynamiques, uniquement déduite de l’experience,” (Paris: A. Hermann, 1883). A partial English translation appears in R.A.R. Tricker,5Early Electrodynamics: The First Law of Circulation (New York: Pergamon, 1965) pp. 155-200. ”A review of the Ampère-Gauss-Weber electrodynamics appears in Laurence Hecht, “The Atomic Science Textbooks Don’t Teach,” 21st Century, Fall 1996, pp. 21-43.
Why would angular momentum be difficult to describe, the answer has been known for close to 100 years, the electrical principle describes the angular force just fine. Now I have no problems with neutrinos being produced by electrical emissions, after all E=mc^2, but you refuse to believe that mc^2=E is also correct. A nuclear bomb creates a tremendous Electromagnetic Pulse, and electrically charges the atmosphere itself. I am not the one that has problems with avoiding electricity when even the photon is an electromagnetic phenomenon. The stuff of the universe is electrons and protons, all charged particles in their own right. My biggest confusion, that the most basic building blocks of the universe are charged particles, yet you try so hard to deny this very charge that makes things what they are!
Read below when you are ready to begin to understand.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 7:32 pm
The stuff of the universe is electrons and protons, all charged particles in their own right.
with an admixture of helium and a smattering of heavier stuf.
My biggest confusion, that the most basic building blocks of the universe are charged particles, yet you try so hard to deny this very charge that makes things what they are!
The basic building blocks of you are charged particles, in equal measure so you are electrically neutral as is the rest of the [plasma] universe. In rare cases a change in magnetic field configurations induce electrical currents, which when they short circuit often have explosive results [like all shorts].
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 7:32 pm
The stuff of the universe is electrons and protons, all charged particles in their own right.
with an admixture of helium and a smattering of heavier stuff.
That is if you restrict yourself to the 4% that are baryons [with matching electrons]. But for every proton there are a billion photons and another billion neutrinos around.
And within 10 years when they tell you gravity is an EM phenomenon discovered 100 years ago I am sure you will still hold to your nuclear furnace theory of the sun too. I actually expect current theory to fade away by then. They are already turning that way with magnetic reconnection theory and one day soon they will catch up. Because the truth of the matter is where you find magnetic fields you must first have an electric field. And since plasma is an almost ideal transmitter of electric currents and 99.99% of the universe is plasma, you might want to touch up on what you actually think you know about electricity and the famous E=mc^2 or was that mc^2=E?
And within 10 years when they tell you gravity is an EM phenomenon discovered 100 years ago I am sure you will still hold to your nuclear furnace theory of the sun too
You are very wrong on both counts. The nuclear fusion in the sun and the stars is an observed fact. Apart for the hydrogen, every atom in your body was created inside a star once by nuclear fusion or other nuclear reactions.
They are already turning that way with magnetic reconnection theory and one day soon they will catch up.
Magnetic reconnection is studied in the laboratory and confirmed in space by spacecraft measurements:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/yamada10rmp.pdf
Because the truth of the matter is where you find magnetic fields you must first have an electric field.
electric fields are generated in response to electrically neutral conductors moving across a magnetic field.
And since plasma is an almost ideal transmitter of electric currents and 99.99% of the universe is plasma
Only about 4% is plasma and there was a time lasting hundreds of millions of years when there was no plasma in the universe.
you might want to touch up on what you actually think you know about electricity and the famous E=mc^2 or was that mc^2=E?
Electricity and mc^2 = E have nothing to do with each other. BTW, what Einstein actually deduced in 1905 was that ‘the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the energy changes by L, the mass changes by L/c^2’ i.e. m=E/c^2.
The big bang has been shown to be impossible, so those who hold to that failed theory are using the wrong foundation to explain anything to do with the sun. An imprecise and incomplete list of problems with the big bang would be; 1. Missing magnets … monopoles (north or south only). Particle physicists say they should have been created in the high temperatures of the ‘big bang’, and, being stable, should still exist, but none have been found. 2. The problem of flatness, or ‘infinitely fine tuning’. The rate of expansion of the universe is very finely balanced with universal density of matter, such that the universe neither collapses, nor rapidly flys apart. As time goes by, any deviation from ‘flatness’ greatly increases, so it had to be even more finely ‘flat’ at the time of creation. There is no restriction of the initial value of either factor, so this is an impossible co-incidence. 2a. The invention of ‘inflation’. Because flatness is a problem, the story of ‘inflation’ was developed, wherein the universe went through a temporary period of accelerated expansion. This is accepted without evidence, but there is no information on how it started, and how it ended smoothly. 3. Missing antimatter. Big bang conditions must produce an exact amount of antimatter as there is matter. However, only trace amounts of antimatter exist. 4. Missing Pop III stars. Big Bang accounts for only H, He and Li but can’t account for the heavier elements which are assumed to have been produced by stars via nuclear fusion “in the core”, then supernovas would “re-distribute” the heavier elements into space. Second and third generation stars (PopII, PopI) would be ‘contaminated’ with small amts of these heavier elements. If so, then the ‘first’ formed stars would only contain the original 3 elements. Although searched for, only PopI and PopII stars have been found.
So, physicists and astronomers are now realizing that the big bang model isn’t a realistic explanation of how the universe began. In the May 22, 2004, issue of New Scientist, there appeared an open letter to the scientific community written primarily by scientists who challenge the big bang. These scientists pointed out that the copious arbitrary assumptions and the lack of successful big-bang predictions challenge the legitimacy of the model. Among other things, they state:
“The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed—inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.”
ian cairns says:
July 9, 2012 at 8:32 pm
The big bang has been shown to be impossible, so those who hold to that failed theory are using the wrong foundation to explain anything to do with the sun
First, the Big Bang is spectacularly verified by the cosmic microwave background and the correct prediction of helium and deuterium content.
Second, the issues with the sun do not depend on the Big Bang.
As to the missing antimatter: it is not missing at all. In the Big Bang almost equal amounts of matter and antimatter were produced. The matter and antimatter annihilated each other generating gamma rays and neutrinos. There is a small difference between the two amounts created: one in a billion more matter was made. So that is why we are still here. All the gamma rays [and neutrinos] are still here. Because of the expansion of space [which we observe directly] the gamma rays have their wavelengths stretched and are now observed as microwaves. On monopoles: it is only necessary that there be one [uno, 1] in all of the Universe, no wonder it has not been found. On pop III stars: they are not observed because they probably no longer exist: http://www2.astro.psu.edu/users/rbc/a534/redman.pdf
No, every atom in my body was in a star once because a star is a plasma z-pinch and z-pinches just happen to pull in surrounding plasma and compress it. When a plasma instability, or short as you like to term it, occurs the double layer formed in the plasma can explode and said compressed plasma can be ejected as what we term matter, or in severe electrical stress overload what you term a supernova.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/05/21/new-ideas-for-new-stars-2/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/05/28/crumpled-space-and-canceled-time-2/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/06/19/stars-that-will-not-explode/
You say its from compression and heat, I say its from the very thing that all stars are made of, Plasma, and the fact that all laboratory experiments with plasma verify every observable aspect of the filamentary aspect of the universe and the electric currents passing through them with its attendant magnetic fields. By the way, just how does the sun and earth produce a magnetic field from their cores when it is so dang hot in there?
http://www.mceproducts.com/knowledge-base/article/article-dtl.asp?id=23
4%??? Oh that’s right, you do need what 73% Dark Energy and another 23% Dark Matter to make your theory work. So much fairey dust you need to put in just the right places to make that thing work right.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/davesmith_au08/021108_hot_gas.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/davesmith_au08/022708_neverending.htm
You have already discovered this DM and DE a hundred years ago, it is called electrical currents in plasma, which contrary to you does indeed make up 99% of the known universe.
http://www.plasma-universe.com/99.999%25_plasma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:02 pm
No, every atom in my body was in a star once because a star is a plasma z-pinch and z-pinches just happen to pull in surrounding plasma and compress it. When a plasma instability, or short as you like to term it, occurs the double layer formed in the plasma can explode and said compressed plasma can be ejected as what we term matter, or in severe electrical stress overload what you term a supernova.
I think you live in your own private Universe [or perhaps it is Thornhill’s]
By the way, just how does the sun and earth produce a magnetic field from their cores when it is so dang hot in there?
1: the magnetic field is not produced in the solar core, but much further out [where it is still dang-hot].
2: any conductor moving through an existing magnetic field creates an electric current which amplifies the magnetic field. It is called a dynamo.
The hot conditions are required to [for the sun] create the conducting plasma in the first place, and to [for the earth] have a liquid core, so the conductor [iron in this case] can circulate.
Now, let us return to this [which you have ducked and evaded]
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Here read all the numbers you want:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Sun_and_stars
None of these number are calculated from EU theory. They are either observed or calculated from standard theories, or at times wrong. If you disagree, show me which numbers are calculated from EU theory, and how.
Here is your chance to be brilliant, go for it.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:02 pm
No, every atom in my body was in a star once because a star is a plasma z-pinch
This could be quite entertaining were it not for the sad fact that people like you exist [let’s call them population IV people]. Humanity’s greatest feat is modern science and the modern understanding of the Universe. You are willfully putting yourself outside of that magnificent achievement.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:22 pm
plasma, which contrary to you does indeed make up 99% of the known universe.
What a delightful little word ‘known’ universe. What is meant is 99% of the baryons in the visible universe, quite another matter. In your last link it says: “In the universe, plasma is the most common state of matter for ordinary matter”. now, clicking on ‘ordinary matter’ gets us to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryonic_matter#Baryonic_matter so plasma makes up [according to you] 99% of baryonic matter, which in turn makes up 4.4% of the mass-energy in the Universe. A fraction very well-determined by modern precision-cosmology.
Leif, it’s been a great learning experience reading your explanations. Hats of to you and thanks for the free classes.
There are several magnificant discoveries that were made based on astute calculations that “it” should be there, we just have to find it. For example, several discoveries that added to the chemical table of elements were first theorized to be in existance before they were actually “observed”. There is no magic behind extrapolating that something exists based on the trail it leaves behind. That’s just good science.
Where scientists (card carrying and arm-chair varieties) get into trouble is when they use too many fudge factors in their zeal to prove their theory.
We are still waiting with bated breath:
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Here read all the numbers you want:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Sun_and_stars
None of these number are calculated from EU theory. They are either observed or calculated from standard theories, or at times wrong. If you disagree, show me which numbers are calculated from EU theory, and how.
Here is your chance to be brilliant, go for it.
I would say that if you don’t or can’t, the discussion is brought to a deserved end.
How many papers do you need? The cite is full of published papers, textbook references and actual experiments.
“Lief: 1: the magnetic field is not produced in the solar core, but much further out [where it is still dang-hot].”
So the sun produces magnetic fields unlike every other known magnet? Even the surface of the sun is too hot for any magnet to form without continuous regeneration. And please explain to me what creates this magnetic field, because we both know magnetic fields only form from electric currents. And please since you want numbers show me this paper where it is deduced that the magnetic field forms outside the sun or earth?????????
“2: any conductor moving through an existing magnetic field creates an electric current which amplifies the magnetic field. It is called a dynamo.”
And this magnetic field is formed how? Do we need to paste the explanation of how magnetic fields are formed? An electric current forms which creates the magnetic field which then confines the electrical fild into filaments or Birkeland Currents. Without an electric current first forming you have no magnetic field.
2: any conductor moving through an existing magnetic field creates an electric current which amplifies the magnetic field. It is called a dynamo.”
And by the way you are only proving my point. An electric universe.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:54 pm
So the sun produces magnetic fields unlike every other known magnet? Even the surface of the sun is too hot for any magnet to form without continuous regeneration.
The sun is not a magnet in your sense of ‘known magnet’. You apparently only know about magnets that a sitting on your refrigerator door. Those do indeed loose the magnetism if heating above 730 degrees, but that is because the heat randomize the individual little ‘domains’ Now, you may know about an electromagnet where the magnetic field is generated by a current through a coiled wire. That type of magnet works no matter how hot the wire is. The sun is like that.
And please explain to me what creates this magnetic field, because we both know magnetic fields only form from electric currents.
Not quite correct as we saw with the Biermann battery effect, but apart from that creation of the very first magnetic fields, magnetic fields are generated by currents that in turn are generated by moving conductors [e.g. plasma or liquid iron in case of the earth] through a magnetic field. No magnetic field, no current
And please since you want numbers show me this paper where it is deduced that the magnetic field forms outside the sun or earth?????????
Indeed the ????s are needed. First because you were requested to produce numbers [should be easy as EU explains everything], second we are talking about magnetic fields generated inside the sun and the earth. Perhaps you are thinking of the magnetic field in the solar wind? That is another story.
“2: any conductor moving through an existing magnetic field creates an electric current which amplifies the magnetic field. It is called a dynamo.”
And this magnetic field is formed how?
The magnetic field was there already to begin with all the way back to almost the beginning of time, except for the very first magnetic fields, that were likely formed [as I have explained] by the Biermann battery effect [see link somewhere upthread]. Here it is important to know that from when the Universe was 377,000 years old there was no plasma in space until several hundred million years later when the gas was ionized by UV light from the first stars.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:56 pm
And by the way you are only proving my point. An electric universe.
There is an important difference: in a plasma a magnetic field lives ‘forever’. An electric field is instantly shorted out because [as you realized] the plasma is a ‘perfect transmitter of electric current’. So there are no electric fields if you are moving with the plasma [as the plasma itself is]. All this is elementary and known to every plasma physicist on this planet [and beyond if there be any].
Now get back to your task:
“Here read all the numbers you want:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Sun_and_stars”
None of these number are calculated from EU theory. They are either observed or calculated from standard theories, or at times wrong. If you disagree, show me which numbers are calculated from EU theory, and how.
Here is your chance to be brilliant, go for it.
I would say that if you don’t or can’t, the discussion is brought to a deserved end.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 9:54 pm
An electric current forms which creates the magnetic field
How do you create an electric current in neutral medium consisting of oppositely electrically charged particles? And more importantly, since a current moves charges from one place where there are too many to another place where there are too few, thus very efficiently equalizing the charges, how do you maintain the current? materializing new charges out of whole cloth?
GOING TO EARTH’S CORE FOR CLIMATE INSIGHTS by JPL/NASA
Steven Mosher says:
July 9, 2012 at 3:18 pm
….
Magnetic momentum of charged particles (electrons and protons) is well documented and used in magnetic resonance scanners.
If you are referring to my posts for using the Earth’s magnetic field change as a proxy for global temperature changes I wrote in 2009 about
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/41/83/04/PDF/NATA.pdf
and soon after showing strong correlation between Arctic temperature and average of the magnetic field in the area
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NFC1.htm
here is quote from top NASA’ s scientist year or two later :
So what mechanism is driving these correlations? Dickey said scientists aren’t sure yet, but she offered some hypotheses.
Since scientists know air temperature can’t affect movements of Earth’s core or Earth’s length of day to the extent observed, one possibility is the movements of Earth’s core might disturb Earth’s magnetic shielding of charged-particle (i.e., cosmic ray) fluxes that have been hypothesized to affect the formation of clouds. This could affect how much of the sun’s energy is reflected back to space and how much is absorbed by our planet. Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.
Of a particular note
Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.
http://phys.org/news/2011-03-earth-core-climate-insights.html
I was told only the other day I should be ashamed bysuggesting the same.
Science is not advanced by throwing mud covered boomerangs that consistently miss the target.
And it is the slow lifting of that acceleration with distance that produces the De Laval effect.
Leif, perhaps a little help here…
In the propulsion world these are called gravity losses. As you move out from the center of a gravity well, the attraction of gravity decreases, no one argues with this premise.
Look up the rocket equation and solve for the gravity loss. You will find that the further you get away from the center of the gravity well, the higher the velocity increment for the same input of acceleration.
Leif, as for my question, let me put it another way. If the convective zone starts at a farther distance from the center of the sun than current theory allows for, what does that say about the volume of the radiative zone, which then by definition has to be larger in diameter than what we think of today.
denniswingo says:
July 9, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Leif, as for my question, let me put it another way. If the convective zone starts at a farther distance from the center of the sun than current theory allows for, what does that say about the volume of the radiative zone, which then by definition has to be larger in diameter than what we think of today.
The position of the convective zone is not determined by theory, but by observation of an abrupt change in the sound speed at a certain radius. The observations reported in the paper do not change the well-constrained location of the bottom of the convection zone, but have to do with the absence of large-scale structures within the convection zone.
I found myself pondering the sun, trying to understand how the lightest elements known to us could be gathered together in one place, in such quantity and under such pressure that it could spontaneously fuse and burn for billions of years. Which came first the sun or the black hole?
Dave
in sacramento
[SNIP: Stop the sniveling. Discuss this off-line with Anthony or you’re done here. -REP]
vukcevic says:
July 9, 2012 at 10:53 pm
Other possibilities are that some other core process could be having a more indirect effect on climate, or that an external (e.g. solar) process affects the core and climate simultaneously.
I was told only the other day I should be ashamed by suggesting the same.
She mentions it as a possibility [and I would say a very remote one]. You claim it as a discovery that should make other researchers sit up and take notice. That is what you should be ashamed of: the constant self-promotion on the flimsiest grounds. And you didn’t actually suggest the same. You claimed that the sun’s magnetic field changes the core, which in turns changes the climate. Dickey may be thinking of tides instead. you could try to ask her if changes the interplanetary magnetic field induce changes in the core.
Dave Trimble says:
July 9, 2012 at 11:29 pm
I found myself pondering the sun, trying to understand how the lightest elements known to us could be gathered together in one place, in such quantity and under such pressure that it could spontaneously fuse and burn for billions of years. Which came first the sun or the black hole?
There is no black hole in our solar system. And gravity [assisted by shock waves from supernovae] is what pulls interstellar gas together and creates the tremendous pressure and temperatures needed to ignite fusion. The fusion process is actually very gentle. The heat generation is so gentle that it would take several weeks to bring a kettle of water to a boil [assuming the kettle is not vaporized, etc]. No exploding hydrogen bombs at work.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 9, 2012 at 11:48 pm
L.S: She mentions it as a possibility [and I would say a very remote one]. You claim it as a discovery that should make other researchers sit up and take notice. That is what you should be ashamed of: the constant self-promotion on the flimsiest grounds.
And still can’t help yourself misinterpreting what you said and what I said, see quotes below
A reminder:
Vukcevic:
– the sun controls the Earth or
– the sun and the Earth are controlled by another unknown cause. .
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/05/doppler-radar-for-solar-storm-detection/#comment-1025231
L.S. : Again, you have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.
L.S.:What you peddle is not science. Not this time, not last time, nor the time before last, etc.
L.S.:None of this even comes close to your ideas.
You should be ashamed of yourself trying to put these good folks in your box. .
etc. etc.
and thousands more of the kind:
Tut, I have said a thousand dreadful things
And nothing grieves me heartily indeed
But that I cannot do ten thousand more.
to paraphrase Shakespeare
Insults I do not mind, since what I do is based on the solid data.
It is sad to see insults relentlessly coming from someone whose past achievements in solar science I greatly respect and admire.
Time to stop throwing mud covered boomerangs that consistently miss the target.
I shall never return in kind.
Anthony’s the one snivelling – I was insulted on line and in the open – this is where it should be discussed and all my exchanges on it have been censored making it appear that I am in the wrong.
I call BS on that. As Anthony likes to say..
Steven Mosher says:
July 9, 2012 at 3:18 pm
……….
My posts by some are considered to be too tedious. To some regretfully even worse, ‘nonsense that brakes laws of physics’, but now apparently accepted to be based ‘on the flimsiest grounds’.
I consider that as a great advance.
Self promotion?
Not self, but of an idea that you yourself Steven Mosher called ‘lone voice in wilderness’ (I like that) but as you can see not lone any more, the mighty NASA is turning to it.
It is a ‘micro-attempt’ to the alternative ‘Mega CO2 science’.
Not a professional scientists, but even if I were, still there are no outlets for wider audience opened to people who do a bit of ‘pedestrian but important’ research, so if the WUWT did not exist it should have been invented.
‘Samizdat’ (self publish) eventually brought down mighty Soviet Union Empire, so one day WUWT will be given similar accolade for bringing down phony empire built on the ‘CO2 madness’ that promises nothing more than unemployment in countless millions and return of untold poverty to many in third world countries.
My posts may be tedious, but they are based on the good data.
WUWT has been magnificent conduit for my alternative , my graphs ‘stats counter’ to this date shows 141,297 hits, among them many hundreds from the NASA, important US government departments, dozen or more US universities starting with MIT and many scientific institutions from all around the world.
My thanks to Anthony Watts and the WUWT, the publishing phenomenon of the 21st century, long they may live and flourish.
Nuclear fusion in the sun is just a theory. Dark matter is just a theory. Intelligent life is just a theory – we should sack all the people, hire only lowlifes.
/sarc
Come one people.
Regarding fusion in the sun: There is really strong evidence, as Leif mentioned in passing. We might not have the full picture yet, but fusion is happening.
Regarding dark matter: We know something is there, we know that that something interacts by gravitation with “normal” matter and we know that that something is not normal (“visible” or to be more precise baryonic) matter, but we don’t know (yet) what it actually is – so we call that something “dark matter”, so we can measure its effects and talk about these measurements. It might be some modification of gravity on long scales (which looks doubtful), it might be something we don’t understand yet. But dark matter is there, the measurements show that something is there.
And rainbows. Explain that. You can’t.
SCNR.
Thanks for all the time you take in commenting here, Leif. It’s much appreciated.
What I see above is a bunch of guys who seem to be a bit short of being able to do analysis. You are stubborn about your pet theories and then not being able to examine other data to adjust the theory. We see it in Evolution V Creation, CAGW V normal climate variability, Electric Universe V Gravitational Universe, and numerous other debates.
A theory is only an opinion which is formed from the available data. The theory is a variable, data is a constant. When more data becomes available then the theory will change. You can’t change the data. However one major problem is when data is mixed. Researchers gather data then make the mistake that they are examining data that is related when it may have nothing to do with what they are examining.
Just to give an example of analysis. Take a look at the artists representations of the Sauropods. All these beasts look fairly similar even though they are a different size. When I look at these pictures what comes to my mind is, “Why can’t most of these beasts actually be the same species”. We need to think about this. How many years did it take for a Sauropod to grow from leaving the egg to old age? Why can’t most of these things be the same species at a different age. Baby, teenager, mature and old age. Not all of the fossils found could be old age dinos, surely. My analysis would be that most of those Sauropods are the same species. However that is just a pet theory and would be quite willing to change it.
Proper analysis is really not that difficult. It means not stubbornly holding on to some theory but evolving it as new information comes to hand and that info could come from somebody you don’t particularly like.
Gary Plyler says:
July 9, 2012 at 12:10 pm
I was going to gripe about that, but figured it would get lost in the noise.
For a velocity V, “100 times slower” means V – 100V = -99V. “Obviously” that wasn’t the intent, but colloquially, “X times faster” negates “X times slower”. No wonder people have trouble with algebra word problems….
One place that I have never, ever seen this sort of misleading comment is in retail stores. I’ll see signs like “Clearance: 80% off” but never “Clearance: 5X lower” or “4X lower”, i.e. going from 20% back to 100% is 4X more (they mean 5X the amount, but say 4X the amount).
Hang on to your wallet.
Actually, the plot is thickening on the existence of dark matter. It being the Solar Standard Model’s ‘fudge factor’ to account for the expansion of the Universe and the speed of outlying stars of Galaxies which the SSM cannot do without this fudge factor is waning. The hunt for Dark Matter is starting to yield results. Dr. Dobler presents at KITP this free ‘black board’ lecture on the state of the art of the hunt for Dark Matter. The Quicktime one works best for me. Dismissing dark matter with an arm wave is no longer legitimate.
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/friends/dobler/
Myrrh says:
July 10, 2012 at 1:28 am
> Anthony’s the one snivelling – I was insulted on line and in the open .
I missed it, I’ll go back and check. Don’t take it personally – from my point of view, some anonymous coward was insulted. There are some valid reasons to be an anonymous coward, but it seems to me that one benefit is that only your persona, not you, gets insulted.
Of course, if you don’t like how Anthony runs his blog, you can just go start your own.
vukcevic says:
July 10, 2012 at 12:33 am
Insults I do not mind, since what I do is based on the solid data.
It is sad to see insults relentlessly coming from someone whose past achievements in solar science I greatly respect and admire.
Regardless of solid data and your admiration, you have to realise that you open yourself up for criticism by relentless pursuit of ideas that are not tenable or of the ‘not even wrong’ kind. You may find it insulting to be called out on that, but that does not change the fact that they are not science, are not pursued according to any resemblance of the scientific method, and are diminishing this forum.
Ric Werme says:
July 10, 2012 at 5:52 am
For a velocity V, “100 times slower” means V – 100V = -99V.
Obviously it means that V/100 is a 100 times slower than V.
@Vukcevic: Solar science is fine but more investigation of our own planet is needed too.
It seems to me that “sprites” and “elves” are the earthly version of such a plasma “convection”:
http://www.google.com.pe/search?q=sprites+elves&hl=es&biw=1270&bih=590&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Dyn8T8PINofd6wHqm83qBg&sqi=2&ved=0CE4QsAQ
More on 100X faster.
Perhaps the thing to ask math-challenged folks who use the form is “What’s the difference between 2X faster and 200% faster?” If they insist that 200% faster is twice as fast, then ask “What does 20% faster mean?”
Heck, ask people who aren’t math-challenged….
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 10, 2012 at 6:08 am
> Ric Werme says:
> July 10, 2012 at 5:52 am
>> For a velocity V, “100 times slower” means V – 100V = -99V.
> Obviously it means that V/100 is a 100 times slower than V.
“Obviously.” It’s just the pedant in me that balks at seeing “times” meaning “division”. “99% slower” works for this pedant and it sounds better than “one hundredth the velocity” or “0.99 times slower” which would just confuse everyone.
If it were only 2X slower, I could call it Orwellian doublespeak. 🙂
“Thanks for all the time you take in commenting here, Leif. It’s much appreciated.”
I heartily second this statement. Your comments are the main reason I read the solar posts.
****
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 9, 2012 at 11:55 pm
The fusion process is actually very gentle. The heat generation is so gentle that it would take several weeks to bring a kettle of water to a boil [assuming the kettle is not vaporized, etc]. No exploding hydrogen bombs at work.
****
Well that’s quite interesting & changes my perception. I assume you mean the heat generated in the fusing core on a per-volume basis.
Prb’ly a dang good thing ’cause it extends the lifetime of our G2 star. M-dwarfs are fascinating to me ’cause they can burn for a trillion yrs.
I just got the big bang “1 in a billion more” matter survived money-quote from Leif. Yeh, I’m a bit slow Leif. It explains why we are still here. The explosion created and then nearly destroyed matter. Cool. Math at its violent best. I tell a story to explain the number line to intermediate grade students, including what happens when positive and negative numbers meet in battle. I’ve even dressed kids up with aluminum swords and sheilds, dividing the class up in positive and negative “clans” to show what happens. They also learn how to use multiplication and division “magic” to build up their own and reduce the opposite clan population. Till of course I was told to stop using violence to explain math. But I got around that by adding a chapter to the story about the 4 quadrants and how positive and negative ordered pairs live in harmony and work together to create cool graphics. Dr. Suess would be proud of my take on buttered bread.
beng says:
July 10, 2012 at 7:07 am
Well that’s quite interesting & changes my perception. I assume you mean the heat generated in the fusing core on a per-volume basis.
I mean what you get by placing a ‘standard’ kettle with water there. So, I consider 1 liter of water with a mass of 1 kilo in a cube 10 cm on the side. Try to see if you can duplicate [and improve] my calculation. Hint: consider the outward heat flux through a 10cm*10cm area.
beng says:
July 10, 2012 at 7:07 am
Well that’s quite interesting & changes my perception. I assume you mean the heat generated in the fusing core on a per-volume basis.
The excellent article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun puts it this way:
“The power production by fusion in the core varies with distance from the solar center. At the center of the Sun, theoretical models estimate it to be approximately 276.5 watts/m3,[49] a power production density that more nearly approximates reptile metabolism than a thermonuclear bomb. Peak power production in the Sun has been compared to the volumetric heats generated in an active compost heap. The tremendous power output of the Sun is not due to its high power per volume, but instead due to its large size.”
Quoted from Leif Svalgaard:-“You are pontificating on things you don`t understand—–”
Given that humanity is a recent arrival in an old universe, don`t you think that sums up cosmology in general. Our scientific status is largely determined by our engineering ability, which has a habit of making use of real science,so when can we expect a dark matter reactor powered by a black hole, with or without inflation, producing copious amounts of dark energy to power our economy? Not any time soon I suspect. We`ll just have to make do with electricity meanwhile, just maybe the universe is having to do the same.
@Vukcevic: My thanks to Anthony Watts and the WUWT, the publishing phenomenon of the 21st century, long they may live and flourish.
You should thank also your egregious contender….
My guess is that some “double layers”, some ultra-equilibrated, will burst out soon.
Steven says:
July 9, 2012 at 1:49 pm
“… While you need unfalsifiable Black Holes …”
How can you falsify something you can observe?
http://youtu.be/m0X0VHrXK88
Sixteen years of observations of stars around the galactic centre are assembled in this video.
Mind you, that evidence is old.
So tell me, how can your “EU” theory explain that? Or can I just say that with a 12 second video I falsified your “EU” theory, that you wrote about in a long rambling comment?
(BTW, there is evidence for dark matter and dark energy, you just choose to ignore it same as the black hole evidence)
@Peter Willey: Our scientific status is largely determined by our engineering ability, which has a habit of making use of real science
Simply great!. We should look around and see how many gadgets this engineering has produced out of real science?. BTW they ALL work on electricity….
It seems that we should start learning about such an art.
@ Steve B
Bunch of guys who seem to have lost their ‘compasses’.
@ adolfogiurfa
Atmosphere here is highly ‘charged’.
@ Peter Willey
Thanks.
@Tony Match: All suns connected (Andromeda seen under IRL, while the center it is NOT a black hole):
http://www.giurfa.com/andromeda.jpg
@Tony Milky way in IRR:
http://members.nova.org/~sol/solcom/x-objects/milky2w.jpg
Can´t see any holes there.
Can´t find that black hole and can´t google it:
http://wise.ssl.berkeley.edu/gallery_images/near_ir_lg.jpg
It seems that there is a central Sun, instead.
It seems that there is a positive emission galaxy center: See it at all wavelengths:
http://mwmw.gsfc.nasa.gov/mwpics/mwmw_8x10.jpg
All I need to prove the EU is the very data you misinterpret to your gravocentric theory, which by the way can you tell me what causes gravity? if you can you will certainly get the Nobel prize since its never been done. Data is data and belongs to no one theory. Which if you bothered to read the books you would find most of relativity is based upon electromagnetic calculations that Einstein borrowed from Maxwell. This is why his theory was titled: “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” Yet you can not even conceive that charge exists in every element, and even atoms are calculated using the electric force, not gravitational. Yet the very things that make up the universe you then ignore and decide gravity is some mysterious entity instead of the very thing that governs the atom and the universe. Your refusal to accept the electric force is why flat rotation curves of galaxies requires you to invent some mysterious undetectable force called Dark matter. But that then destroys your precious expansion theory, so then you have to invent another mysterious undetectable force called Dark Energy. Then you have to put them in just the right places that defies your very gravitational theory just to make things kinda fit. So you then declare that DM isn’t affected by mass (although it somehow affects mass) so you can place it in just the spots you need. Wake up, your DM and DE is nothing more than the attractive and repulsive aspect of electric currents in space. The electric force is 10^39 powers stronger than gravity (For the lay folk out there, that’s one thousand billion, billion, billion, billion, times, stronger than gravity.) And you wonder why you need DM and DE to make things work.
As for frozen magnetic fields you are quite wrong, there exists no such thing. Magnetism causes things to circle perpendicular to the electric force, a well known fact of science. How does a frozen thing cause movement? It is misguided beliefs like this that cause you to come to the wrong conclusions. To believe that in an expanding universe that anything could be static. There is nothing in the entire universe from galactic scale to sub-atomic that is not in constant motion and spinning. Yet somehow (you have no idea how) magnetic fields suddenly become frozen. Why? because if you accept the truth your theory falls. But a magnetic field must be composed of smaller moving particles, there exists no such thing as a magnetic field line or points in space.
As for all “dark matter” and “black holes”, they seem a psychological projection of Melancholic minds:
Melancholia (from Greek μελαγχολία – melancholia, “sadness”, literally black bile),… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bile
Black holes now? Please, its already up to the top of my boots listening to this drivel. Hmm, BH’s emit x-rays don;t they? Let us see how we generate x-rays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray
“X-rays can be generated by an X-ray tube, a vacuum tube that uses a high voltage to accelerate the electrons released by a hot cathode to a high velocity.”
So we find that once again only electric forces accelerate particles to the high speeds required. There exists no other known way to accelerate particles, contrary to fantastical ideas of De Laval tubes and other extremely desperate attempts to explain this in a gravocentric way.
The thing is that it is a plasma torus that is located at the heart of our galaxy and every other.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/07/08/a-kinked-link-2/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100622twist.htm
Black Holes do not exist.
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-05-10.PDF
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Unicorns.pdf
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-01-10.PDF
Just something back to the point of the sun.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/07/09/alpha-and-omega/
Steven says:
July 10, 2012 at 11:32 am
“X-rays can be generated by an X-ray tube, a vacuum tube that uses a high voltage to accelerate the electrons released by a hot cathode to a high velocity.” So we find that once again only electric forces accelerate particles to the high speeds required. There exists no other known way to accelerate particles,
This was just one way of generating X-rays. Ordinary heating [friction, gravitational contraction, anything that imparts energy] will if the temperature reaches high enough generate X-rays.
Steven says:
July 10, 2012 at 11:14 am
All I need to prove the EU is the very data …
what you need to do is to calculate from EU ‘theory’ any of the numbers you have linked to [or if you are so sure that EU explains everythingall of them].
Steven says:
July 10, 2012 at 11:14 am
All I need to prove the EU is the very data …
To drag in black holes, dark matter etc are handy ways of obscuring the issue. Let us concentrate on one simple question: the generation of solar energy. This would also get us back closer to the topic of this post. So, show us a calculation of the solar output [in Watt] from EU.
Steven says:
July 10, 2012 at 11:32 am
There exists no other known way to accelerate particles
Gravity does a pretty good job. Try to jump off the Eiffel Tower. The implosion of a supernova is another good example.
Lot of electrical talk here.
But can some of the climate constituents be modeled by basic electric components?
Here is an initial approach, by all means no perfect or completed, but the start looks promising:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAO-SST-ea.htm
“Lief: This was just one way of generating X-rays. Ordinary heating [friction, gravitational contraction, anything that imparts energy] will if the temperature reaches high enough generate X-rays.”
.And tell me, what happens when you rub two things together? You get static electricity, it is the energy released, the electrical potential of all matter E=mc^2 that causes the excitation of particles and the release of x-rays, which by the way are an Electromagnetic phenomenon.
Gravity is only capable of accelerating particles falling into the gravitational source, and then up to a mathematical limit based upon its radius. Gravity does not accelerate particles away from the mass, the solar wind and all EM phenomenon ALWAYS accelerate away from the mass. Because EM phenomenon are 10^39 powers stronger and capable of accelerating particles at high velocity. All the while the particles falling into the sun do so relatively slowly compared to those moving outwards. Direct contradiction of your gravitational model.
Vukcevic: as for climate conditions here is a start.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090909polarity.htm
It is one of the things the EU is currently studying. For example Earth’s weather is supposed to be mainly driven by heat from the Sun, yet the further one recedes from the Sun, the higher the wind velocity is on the outer planets. Less energy from the Sun should mean less weather patterns in the atmosphere if that theory is correct. So what is driving the higher sustained weather on the outer planets? It is postulated the Birkeland currents connecting planets to the Sun and moons to planets, and galaxy to galaxy may be the cause.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/121707electricsun.htm
The amount of current passing thru each object determines its weather, while the heat from the Sun only adds turbulence which keeps the weather patterns from continuing into weather bands as is seen on all the outer planets.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/05/09/poseidon-aegaeus-2/
Steven says:
July 10, 2012 at 1:15 pm
.And tell me, what happens when you rub two things together? You get static electricity, it is the energy released, the electrical potential of all matter E=mc^2
I think you dig your hole deeper and deeper.
All the while the particles falling into the sun do so relatively slowly compared to those moving outwards.
Actually not, comets on hyperbolic orbits fall into the sun faster than the solar wind flies out, but that was not the issue: which was generation of X-rays and energetic particles in accretion disks around black holes and in supernova implosions.
Vukcevic: as for climate conditions here is a start.
It is postulated the Birkeland currents connecting planets to the Sun and moons to planets, and galaxy to galaxy may be the cause [of the weather]
The farce has gone on for long enough, although what you say may be something Vuk might fall for too.
Yes Dr. No
As for solar energy NASA knows quite well how much charge exists in space,
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690022628_1969022628.pdf
The solar wind is still accelerating out to the orbit of Jupiter traveling at 400 km/s and still accelerating. Your fastest comet (no known subatomic particles do so) accelerates towards the sun at 444 km/s from beyond the orbit of Jupiter and then slows as it moves away from the sun. Now suddenly, you want gravity to accelerate particles away from the sun, which is against all direct observational results of the gravitational force. Face it, you have no explanation for the solar wind because it is an EM caused event, as if electricity only occurs here on earth, but never anywhere else. You are so indoctrinated you ignore more reasonable explanations and instead doggedly stick to theory that is contradicted with each new observation and always surprises the astronomers and theorists and it is back to the drawing board to see how we can use DM to explain it all. Superglue the theory to make it stand another day. Yet every new discovery only strengthens the EU cosmology and we have 100 years of errors to correct. Could take awhile.
Oh by the way, over coronal holes the solar wind gets up to 800km/s, just in case you want to retract your wrong statement above. The general averaged flow of the solar wind is 400 km/s.
Here is your electrical connection you cant seem to grasp:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2000/38/image/a/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/02/08/joves-glowing-mantle/
Steven says:
July 10, 2012 at 1:44 pm
As for solar energy NASA knows quite well how much charge exists in space
that charge does not exist is space, but is created on the spacecraft when in sunlight by the same process a solar cell uses and by being hit by the solar wind. In the report you link to NASA also informs us [page 1] that a plasma has an equal amount of positive and negative charges…
Steven says:
July 10, 2012 at 1:59 pm
The solar wind is still accelerating out to the orbit of Jupiter traveling at 400 km/s and still accelerating.
You forget that Parker predicted the solar wind and its acceleration back in the 1950s. Go back and read the comment by Dennis Wingo.
Let us concentrate on one simple question: the generation of solar energy. This would also get us back closer to the topic of this post. So, show us a calculation of the solar output [in Watt] from EU.
Steven says:
July 10, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Here is your electrical connection you cant seem to grasp
and here is explanation how that works http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf given by me at a NASA conference back in 1973.
Leif Svalgaard:
Thank you for the triple alpha reaction and explanation above.
If not here, where is the most appropriate site/discussion group to ask (highly technical) questions about the required fusion and fusion-supernova-fusion-supernova chains for the creation of the other isotopes….. Or at least the 25/50/100 most common ones we see in our solar system today?
(I would obviously assume the level of such a fusion event/binding energy/probability/resonance level discussion would have to be at the physics graduate level or above to be thorough.) .
It appears to me that there simply isn’t enough time between the assumed Big Bang at 13.5 billion years ago to the isolation of the solar system dust cloud at 8 billion years ago for all of the reactions needed by the conventional theory to take place — unless one rewrites the observed “rules” of current stellar life so supernova’s are occurring much more than once per second in a slowly expanding but very compact universe where dust actually only needs to travel a few light minutes between short-lived supernova’s before being absorbed into the next supernova pre-cursor cloud.
If so, we are either in a continuous-creation environment (of “new” particles coming out of the black holes in mid-space continuously from Hawking’s Radiation of entropy/fully-developed heavy particles from the black holes), or the Big Bang was considerably older than assumed now, or the Big Bang cycle of isolated fusion events did not take place.
Until you correct your faulty thinking about field lines existing as physical entities, its useless. Magnetic field lines no more exist than go geographic field lines, electrical path field lines, gravitational field lines. You would never say the gravitational field line, but the gravitational force, nor electric field line but electric field. Then suddenly, because you want to omit the electrical force, the cause of all magnetic fields, you talk only of magnetic field lines, not magnetic fields as exist for every known field.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/mgmirkin08/080919_cluster.htm
“”Magnetic reconnection” deals with the apparent topology changes of magnetic field lines (a visualization tool denoting the direction and strength of a magnetic field). Astronomers claim that magnetic fields themselves play the dominant role in physical interactions and in the release of associated energetic outbursts of x-rays, etc. However, they appear to forget that the strength of a magnetic field (and thus the topology of its field lines) is directly dependent upon the strength of the electric current generating it.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet
“Fields of a magnet
Far away from a magnet, the magnetic field created by that magnet is almost always described (to a good approximation) by a dipole field characterized by its total magnetic moment. This is true regardless of the shape of the magnet, so long as the magnetic moment is non-zero. One characteristic of a dipole field is that the strength of the field falls off inversely with the cube of the distance from the magnet’s center.
Closer to the magnet, the magnetic field becomes more complicated and more dependent on the detailed shape and magnetization of the magnet. Formally, the field can be expressed as a multipole expansion: A dipole field, plus a quadrupole field, plus an octupole field, etc.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole
“A magnetic dipole is a closed circulation of electric current. A simple example of this is a single loop of wire with some constant current flowing through it.”
Without flowing electric current you can produce no magnetic field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
“Magnetic fields are produced by moving electric charges and the intrinsic magnetic moments of elementary particles associated with a fundamental quantum property, their spin. In special relativity, electric and magnetic fields are two interrelated aspects of a single object, called the electromagnetic tensor; the split of this tensor into electric and magnetic fields depends on the relative velocity of the observer and charge. In quantum physics, the electromagnetic field is quantized and electromagnetic interactions result from the exchange of photons.”
Your whole physics is based upon electric charges, yet suddenly magnetic field lines are the cause of power outbursts, not the electric current that is the true cause of both the outburst AND the magnetic field. Physics tells you one thing and then you redefine it to suit your theory, even though your own theory says it is the other way around…
@Steven
Your problem is that you don’t read what you’re posting. Do you know what a ‘tensor’ is? Electricity and magnetism are two-sides of the same coin. Here’s what you quoted above:
“In special relativity, electric and magnetic fields are two interrelated aspects of a single object, called the electromagnetic tensor; the split of this tensor into electric and magnetic fields depends on the relative velocity of the observer and charge. ”
Also, I can’t believe you spout all this knowledge, but don’t seem to understand even what E=mc² means.
I’m beginning to think you’re just trolling us for fun. (But it’s not working because most of us enjoy reading and learning from Leif’s riposts anyway)
😐
@vukcevic says:
July 10, 2012 at 12:33 pm : Awesome! Thanks Vuk.
As I said before, if you push too hard, some double layers will burst out….
I know exactly what a tensor is, do you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor
“Significance
This equation represents a unification of Maxwell’s equations. Electrostatics and electrodynamics”
“Magnetostatics and magnetodynamics
The same happens for magnetism. (Gauss’s law for magnetism and Maxwell–Faraday equation)”
“Maxwell’s laws above can be generalised to curved spacetime by simply replacing partial derivatives with covariant derivatives:”
Relativity is but a generalization of the equations derived from the electric force. So learn what your theory really boils down to. ELECTRICAL FORCES!
Thanks Steven and others for bringing some open-mindedness. Leif, I am surprised by several of the things you wrote in your rapid-fire entanglements. And you are telling other people they are 10 years behind.
Something Leif you were not challenged on (there are so many I can’t take the time to tackle all Standard Model shibboleths) is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation you asserted so confidently was living proof of the validity of the Standard Model. Surely it has been 10 years now since it was shown that the distribution of CBR is completely wrong for the Standard Model. It was ‘predicted’ yes, and they ‘found something’ and it is distributed wrongly You left out that last bit. So, is that a valid prediction or are you just leaving in the bits you like and leaving out the inconvenient truths? Good heavens. Steven sounds much more up to date.
And the Neutrinos a converting faster than the tribes of Africa. It is bunk, Leif. We read the papers too, but we are not clinging to any one particular model. Unlax a bit! Crikey. There are only 1/3 of the neutrinos that there should be. That is not 10 years behind, that was just extremely inconvenient 10 years ago and remains so in spite of a fishy experiment extrapolated to an outrageous (desperately needed) conclusio – that in certain convenient cases neutrinos change flavour just enough to support the model but not at other times and under other conditions where the changes are needed not to happen. That hand is indeed faster than the eye I guess.
Observations now suggest that there is only about 1/3 of the necessary/needed fusion taking place to explain the sun’s output. There must be some fusion – detectable from the number of neutrinos of course. There is not enough convection by the conventional explanation to generate the magnetic fields observed which fields you handily needed as a possible explanation for the acceleration of the solar particles and heating of the corona. Well, you are relying on a magnetic field that can’t exist to explain something that does, driven by nuclear reactions so weak only 1/3 of the required neutrinos emerge. The Standard Solar Model is starting to look more than a little Heath-Robinson-esque, no?
And then there is the Lithium problem, the age of the universe, self-accelerating matter that needs no energy to do so, stars older than the universe, that 400,000 miles Voyager is off-course. It is a standard model, but it is still of a low standard. The direct challenge posed by the article above is a robust one.
Further, that stuff about electric currents! Crikey again! Heat an iron wire – it gives off electrons. No magnetic field required. As soon as the electrons move (by definition, an electric current) a magnetic field is created. A current is not the consequence, it is the progenitor, after which complex continuances can occur.
When the reality of the fact sinks in that the convection is 2 orders of magnitude too small to generate the magnetic fields observed, perhaps a little more attention will be paid to the Earth and its magnetic oscillations.
Shall we next discuss what an energy momentum tensor is? How in your derivation for black holes you set the energy momentum tensor to 0, which means there is no other mass in the universe but the black hole? And that no solution exists for the fact of two or more masses? Oh, you must have forgot to mention that while you were discussing black holes. Not to mention that you call it Swartzchild’s solution when in fact you use a corrupted version by David Hilbert in its place. Because the original solution forbids any other mass but that of the black hole for the equation to work. So yes, let us discuss tensors.
No, relativity combines them into one force because where you have electricity a magnetic field will form. But a magnetic field will never form without an electrical current present. This is what you are failing to understand, or willfully ignoring. It is not opinion, it is demonstrated laboratory result. The very fact that Maxwell’s equations (equations on the electric force) can be generalized (dumbed down) to fit curved space time should give you some clue. General Relativity is not precise enough to fit Maxwell’s equations. Just as you claim it is not as precise as Special Relativity, and Special Relativity describes space time, which in order to fit, Maxwell’s equations must be generalized or made less precise. Ignore the electrical force if you want, but even Einstein was smart enough to base all his equations on it.
@Steven
> So yes, let us discuss tensors.
Apparently you don’t know what the electro-magnetic tensor is. If you did then you would know that it permits a magnetic force observed in one frame of reference to be observed as an electric force in another depending on the relative motion between the two frames. Thus demolishing your ‘electricity is always on top’ theory.
But that doesn’t really make any difference because it is now clear that you’re a troll, trying to get under everyones’ skin. You’ve succeeded.
I think the discussion is finished.
Steven, regarding refrigerator magnets: Is that a “real” magnetic field, or something else? I don’t understand what the source of electricity is, that apparently creates the magnetic field as you have been describing. Fridge magnets are not plugged into the wall. There is no battery required. They are simply stuck to my refrigerator, without any apparent charging mechanism. What drives the electric currents that causes the magnetic force in that case?
That is because if you understood relativity you would know that one cannot observe the same frame from different vantage points in the same frame of time. Only from first observing the electric frame and then switching to the magnetic frame, after the electric frame has had time to move (its relative motion between the two frames, can you observe the magnetic frame. Please show me where the reverse is true?
Crispin in Waterloo says:
July 10, 2012 at 7:09 pm
With apology to readers who have already seen and absorbed my comments below. But some people will just not learn:
And you are telling other people they are 10 years behind.
and I’ll tell you too.
CBR is completely wrong for the Standard Model.
Again you are many years behind. There is nothing ‘wrong’ with the CBR as seen from the Standard Model. On the contrary, the various bumps and irregularities are well-understood [and predicted too]. E.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf
There are only 1/3 of the neutrinos that there should be.
Again, 10 years behind, e.g. http://www.leif.org/EOS/0034-4885Neutrinos.pdf
When the reality of the fact sinks in that the convection is 2 orders of magnitude too small to generate the magnetic fields observed, perhaps a little more attention will be paid to the Earth and its magnetic oscillations.
No, it just means that the dynamo is shallow, rather than deep, which I have supported for some time: http://www.leif.org/EOS/Percolation.pdf or http://www.leif.org/EOS/20111212_NSO-Hathaway.pdf
John Day says:
July 10, 2012 at 5:13 pm
I’m beginning to think you’re just trolling us for fun. (But it’s not working because most of us enjoy reading and learning from Leif’s riposts anyway)
Unfortunately, I don’t think so. Steven simply does not know enough other than what he can cut-n-paste from the EU web pages, and probably deeply believes that nonsense [which indeed is sad, but symptomatic of the generally low level of science literacy found in America today].
What Steven does not understand is that you need a magnetic field to separately charges to create an electric field that can drive a current [which gives rise to the problem where the first magnetic field came from – addressed by the Biermann Battery Effect]. It is also of note that he completely ignores the challenge of calculating even a single number from EU ‘theory’. Likely because EU has never been able to do that, so Steven cannot find something to cut-n-paste.
It is ,of course, impossible to teach him [and similarly off-the-rail people] anything, to wit this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations_in_curved_spacetime
“In physics, Maxwell’s equations in curved spacetime govern the dynamics of the electromagnetic field in curved spacetime (where the metric may not be the Minkowski metric) or where one uses an arbitrary (not necessarily Cartesian) coordinate system. These equations can be viewed as a generalization of the vacuum Maxwell’s equations which are normally formulated in the local coordinates of flat spacetime. But because general relativity dictates that the presence of electromagnetic fields (or energy/matter in general) induce curvature in spacetime,[1] Maxwell’s equations in flat spacetime should be viewed as a convenient approximation.
When working in the presence of bulk matter, it is preferable to distinguish between free and bound electric charges. Without that distinction, the vacuum Maxwell’s equations are called the “microscopic” Maxwell’s equations. When the distinction is made, they are called the macroscopic Maxwell’s equations.
The reader is assumed to be familiar with the four dimensional form of electromagnetism in flat space-time and basic mathematics of curved spacetime.
The electromagnetic field also admits a coordinate-independent geometric description, and Maxwell’s equations expressed in terms of these geometric objects are the same in any spacetime, curved or not. Also, the same modifications are made to the equations of flat Minkowski space when using local coordinates that are not Cartesian. For example, the equations in this article can be used to write Maxwell’s equations in spherical coordinates. For these reasons, it may be useful to think of Maxwell’s equations in Minkowski space as a special case, rather than Maxwell’s equations in curved spacetimes as a generalization.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariant_formulation_of_classical_electromagnetism
“Lorentz force
Main article: Lorentz force
Fields are detected by their effect on the motion of matter. Electromagnetic fields affect the motion of particles through the Lorentz force. Using the Lorentz force, Newton’s law of motion for the particle can be written in relativistic form using the field strength tensor”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
“In physics, particularly electromagnetism, the Lorentz force is the force on a point charge due to electromagnetic fields.
The first derivation of the Lorentz force is commonly attributed to Oliver Heaviside in 1889,[1] although other historians suggest an earlier origin in an 1865 paper by James Clerk Maxwell.[2] Lorentz derived it a few years after Heaviside.”
“One charged particle
The force F acting on a particle of electric charge q with instantaneous velocity v, due to an external electric field E and magnetic field B, is given by:”
All the laws of physics boils down to the electric charge. Open your eyes please so that science can advance.
Steven says:
July 10, 2012 at 8:49 pm
All the laws of physics boils down to the electric charge. Open your eyes please so that science can advance.
A misconception worthy of Vuk. There are other forces, not involving electric force: gravity, the strong nuclear force, the weak force, …
REPLY: I agree, the farce is strong with this one. Steven should take a 48 hour time out to learn some basics of the physical forces – Anthony
Steven says:
July 10, 2012 at 8:27 pm
That is because if you understood relativity you would know that one cannot observe the same frame from different vantage points in the same frame of time….
As my good friend, the late Hannes Alfven was at pains to point out: “talking about an electric field without specifying a reference frame is meaningless. If there is an electric field in one frame, you can always find another frame where that field vanishes”. Magnetic fields on the other hand are the same in all frames [to first order]. A good example is the solar wind: there is no electric field in the frame of the moving plasma, but seen by the stationary Earth the solar wind has an electric field given by the cross-product of its velocity and its magnetic field. The magnetic field in the solar wind is, however, the same in both frames and does not vanish.
A misconception worthy of Vuk.
Misconception of an apparent ‘misconception’. Earth’s magnetic field is by far too week to do anything by itself, it is a perceptible rumble of the geo-tectonic engine, but it is an excellent proxy with lots of data. It is the engine that moves things not its noise.
Wow I never thought I would see WUWT squash a debate in favor of settled science and consensus. Dark Matter is GIGO to make a theory work, there are quite a few of us who think so. Big bang is a relatively new theory which cannot be proven without the fudge factor like “the gamma rays have their wavelengths stretched and are now observed as microwaves…. Well wouldn’t that disprove the constant of the speed of light ultimately?? and no one ever explains how that black hole, supposed to be sucking everything in, creates and releases gamma rays from solid matter, much like a recycle plant.
Shame on you Anthony. I suppose if Lief says the world is flat we should just believe whatever he says huh? Settled science is the death of real science. How many times have we all heard the consensus about what is, only to find out ooops we were wrong when actual observations were made. Every time we send out a long range space craft bits of “accepted theory” fall. It is a sad day when WUWT won’t host an honest debate.
REPLY: Be as upset as you wish, but the discussion has gone off topic and I want to get back to the convection issue. – Anthony
Keep up the good work Leif,
This electric universe theory is right up there along side the Jedi force that binds all things in the universe together, well in terms of a scientific theory at least, people have their beliefs and if you believe in something…
All the best 🙂
pkatt says:
July 11, 2012 at 1:30 am
Wow I never thought I would see WUWT squash a debate in favor of settled science and consensus. Dark Matter is GIGO to make a theory work, there are quite a few of us who think so
Before Dark Matter was discovered, settled science and consensus said there was no Dark Matter. New observations eventually forced an overthrow of that settled science. You may wish to update your ‘thinking’ on this.
“the gamma rays have their wavelengths stretched and are now observed as microwaves…. Well wouldn’t that disprove the constant of the speed of light ultimately??
No, the expansion of space does not have the speed limit of light speed. That would be effective for movements through space. But space itself can [and does, as observed] expand without speed limit. The galaxies are not rushing away from us through space. They are not moving through space at all, but are basically sitting still while space is stretching around them.
and no one ever explains how that black hole, supposed to be sucking everything in, creates and releases gamma rays from solid matter, much like a recycle plant.
This has been explained many times: the strong gravity of the black hole attracts matter which forms an ‘accretion’ disk around the hole. The matter is compressed and heated to high temperatures. Hot enough bodies shines in all wavelengths, X-rays, gamma rays, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disc
http://www.tgdaily.com/space-features/59481-hubble-directly-observes-a-black-hole-accretion-disk
Everything is relative to parameters. If I am walking on a planet I perceive it like a solid relative to my size (dimension), but if relative to the milky way it has smaller size (dimension) than a photon. If I could observe it with such metrics (para: side, meter: measure) I should consider it a moving charge.
MDR: A magnet is caused from alignment of electrons in the atoms of the magnet. This creates a dipole movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet
“A magnet’s magnetic moment (also called magnetic dipole moment and usually denoted μ) is a vector that characterizes the magnet’s overall magnetic properties. For a bar magnet, the direction of the magnetic moment points from the magnet’s south pole to its north pole,[7] and the magnitude relates to how strong and how far apart these poles are. In SI units, the magnetic moment is specified in terms of A•m2.”
So let us find out what a magnetic dipole is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_dipole
“A magnetic dipole is the limit of either a closed loop of electric current or a pair of poles as the dimensions of the source are reduced to zero while keeping the magnetic moment constant. It is a magnetic analogue of the electric dipole, but the analogy is not complete. In particular, a magnetic monopole, the magnetic analogue of an electric charge, has never been observed. Moreover, one form of magnetic dipole moment is associated with a fundamental quantum property, the spin of elementary particles.”
It is the analog of an electric dipole:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_dipole
“In physics, the electric dipole moment is a measure of the separation of positive and negative electrical charges in a system of charges, that is, a measure of the charge system’s overall polarity. The SI units are Coulomb-meter (C m). This article is limited to static phenomena, and does not describe time-dependent or dynamic polarization.”
So contrary to what the others here may be telling you without being able to show any proof, it is an electrical caused event. Don’t believe me, read the books and see what ALL the experts say.
Here is your strong force:
“Before the 1970s, physicists were uncertain about the binding mechanism of the atomic nucleus. It was known that the nucleus was composed of protons and neutrons and that protons possessed positive electric charge while neutrons were electrically neutral. However, these facts seemed to contradict one another. By physical understanding at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the nucleus should therefore fly apart. However, this was never observed. New physics was needed to explain this phenomenon.
A stronger attractive force was postulated to explain how the atomic nucleus was bound together despite the protons’ mutual electromagnetic repulsion. This hypothesized force was called the strong force, which was believed to be a fundamental force that acted on the nucleons (the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus). Experiments suggested that this force bound protons and neutrons together with equal strength.[citation needed]
It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks. The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together in the protons and neutrons. The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge, although it has no relation to visible color.[3] Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, which is mediated by particles called gluons.”
So, we actually find the binding of quarks is due to charge, not some other mysterious force we term Strong Force. Another name for the electrical force. Call it Color Charge if you want, but by any name it is still electric charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_force
Weak isospin (T3) is a property (quantum number) of all particles, which governs how particles interact in the weak interaction.[citation needed] Weak isospin is to the weak interaction what electric charge is to the electromagnetism, and what color charge is to strong interaction.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isospin
“Observation of the light baryons (those made of up, down and strange quarks) lead us to believe that some of these particles are so similar in terms of their strong interactions that they can be treated as different states of the same particle. In the modern understanding of quantum chromodynamics, this is because up and down quarks are very similar in mass, and have the same strong interactions. Particles made of the same numbers of up and down quarks have similar masses and are grouped together. For examples, the particles known as the Delta baryons—baryons of spin 3⁄2 made of a mix of three up and down quarks—are grouped together because they all have nearly the same mass (approximately 1,232 MeV/c2), and interact in nearly the same way.
However, because the up and down quarks have different charges (2⁄3 e and −1⁄3 e respectively), the four Deltas also have different charges (Δ++ (uuu), Δ+ (uud), Δ0 (udd), Δ− (ddd)). These Deltas could be treated as the same particle and the difference in charge being due to the particle being in different states. Isospin was devised as a parallel to spin to associate an isospin projection (denoted I3) to each charged state. Since there were four Deltas, four projections were needed.”
You see, they throw out concepts they really do not understand. In the end as you can see all these things boil down to charge. The electric force. Yes, they try very hard to hide this fact, but every mathmatical formula they use to describe space time or the behavior of objects within space time was derived from electrodynamics.
Gravity is the only force they dont use the word charge in describing how it works, but then again they have no idea how gravity works or what causes it. But we do know that Einstein based his entire theory of space time on the electromagnetic force, hence his theory “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.” Today they like to use words that imply non-electrical events, but if you actually read the descriptions of all these forces you see that it all boils down to charge and the difference in charge between two objects. They no longer even know what their own theory was based upon because they have confused the issue over the years to suppress any mention of the electric force, the very thing that is the basis of their theory. Of course they are unable to take out the words charge in their scientific descriptions because charge is what makes the math work, but they don’t mind leaving it out when they try to tell you that earth seems to be the only place electricity occurrs, as if we live on a very special planet. Personally I believe physics works the same everywhere in the universe, not just here and the electrical force is everywhere.
Dark Matter has been observed? Or is it that you can’t explain gravity so you use the term DM to wash it over? The magic dust once again makes an appearance. You say I am unscientific? Hmmm, a massless particle that somehow affects things gravitationally, but we can neither see it or detect it in any way. Convienent. A theory must be falsifiable for it to be a theory.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/davesmith_au08/022708_neverending.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080723darkcurrents.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090827margins.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090313recreations.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090318recreations2.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090415darkpower.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/110218doubt.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100618illuminate.htm
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/solar08/021608_dark_inertia_1.htm
@Steven: This issue makes us think, revisit, what the traditional knowledge teach us, and how those traditional “symbols” transmitted by tradition are not just representations but the actual description of how nature works. Its simplicity surprises us and defy us, showing us we are lost in an inextricable entanglement of words powered and sustained by self conceit: A real Babel tower.
Charge spearation is caused by magnetism, are you that far gone?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/lightning1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin%E2%80%93charge_separation
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111024101450.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6074/1340.abstract
I can seem to find magnetism mentioned nowhere in any of the articles on charge seperation. Perhaps you can help clarify your position with references?
Lief:the gamma rays have their wavelengths stretched and are now observed as microwaves…. Well wouldn’t that disprove the constant of the speed of light ultimately??
No, the expansion of space does not have the speed limit of light speed. That would be effective for movements through space. But space itself can [and does, as observed] expand without speed limit. The galaxies are not rushing away from us through space. They are not moving through space at all, but are basically sitting still while space is stretching around them.
Can you please explain to me what this expanding space is made up of? If it is expanding it is moving, if it is moving it is made up of something similar to particles. SR forbids any particles from traveling faster than c. Are you suggesting that NOTHING expands faster than c and it is this NOTHING that is stretching around us? Of course it must be nothing expanding faster than c, it couldn’t possibly be because your theory has errors in it which require you to postilate that space time is not an aether so is composed of nothing and this nothing expands faster than c and tells mass how to move. Well now, that certainly sounds logical to me, it’s got to be right.
Steven says:
July 11, 2012 at 7:11 am
The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge, although it has no relation to visible color.[3] Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, which is mediated by particles called gluons.”
So, we actually find the binding of quarks is due to charge, not some other mysterious force we term Strong Force. Another name for the electrical force. Call it Color Charge if you want, but by any name it is still electric charge.
You should have taken Anthony’s advice and learned some basic physics. The color charge and isospin have nothing to do with electric charge, that is way they have different names.
Can you please explain to me what this expanding space is made up of? If it is expanding it is moving, if it is moving it is made up of something similar to particles. SR forbids any particles from traveling faster than c.
Space is not made of particles. You are so fond of Wikipedia, so study this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
@Steven:
What triggered my earlier comment was that you stated upthread that “Without flowing electric current you can produce no magnetic field.” But in the case of a fridge magnet, you quoted Wikipedia and indicated that it “is caused from alignment of electrons in the atoms of the magnet.” which sounds more like a particular arrangement of matter than moving current. The dipole moment associated with this the arrangement, while being *described* as “closed loop of electric current or a pair of poles as the dimensions of the source are reduced to zero”, sounds to me more like a mathematical abstraction than an indication of any real currents flowing. Rather, it sounds to me more like a property of the otherwise inert matter comprising the magnet [atoms aligned in a preferred direction].
So may I challenge further your statement earlier that “Without flowing electric current you can produce no magnetic field.” – In the case of a fridge magnet, let’s assume there are tiny currents flowing, and so with all atoms aligned, and therefore all currents aligned, shouldn’t one be able to detect these electric currents [which I am attempting to picture as a stream of electrons moving throughout the magnet] with a multimeter or something? They do, after all, collectively create a strong enough force to attach the magnet to the fridge.
@pkatt
Leif says (and he is citing others, he did not make this up) “The galaxies are not rushing away from us through space. They are not moving through space at all, but are basically sitting still while space is stretching around them.”
Now imagine having to invent such a fairy tale to explain observations! If space is expanding, then the galaxies are going to expand with them and everything in it, which means everything would look the same, relatively speaking. The alternative is that gravity keeps space-time pulled in around the galaxies preventing nearby space from expanding. In order to overcome this obvious problem, the galaxies are supposed to be ‘not expanding’ while the space between them does. Think about this: if the distance between galaxies is literally increasing, and the speed of light through space is constant, then there must be some additional ‘space’ being inserted between one galaxy and the next.
But they want it both ways: the stretching of light waves is supposed to be taking place in a fixed ‘quantity of space’ that has been stretched ‘longer’. If I stretch a rubber band to be longer, the wave written on it with a pen stretches too. OK, that is the analogy of the stretched space. Introduce a new light wave into that stretched space. Does it have to travel through more total space than before? No. If the analogy is stretched rubber, there is the same amount of rubber as before, just deformed like stretched space-time. But the argument is made that both the space was and continues to stretch, and there there is also literally more space (distance) between the galaxies. Where did that space come from? I thought it was supposed to be the same amount of space ‘stretched’.
The key to popping this ‘inflation’ balloon is the speed of light. When space-time is curved around an object, light travels in a curve, as observed from outside. The speed is constant with reference to the space-time forming that curve. If space-time is compressed by the curve, light slows a little as observed from ‘outside’. If the curvature was expansive not compressive, light still passes through that amount of space time in the same number of clock ticks even though it has been stretched a bit.
Consider: If the distance between two galaxies is increased by inserting ‘more space time’ between them, then a photon would be unaffected. It would just have more distance to travel from one to the next. If space time was stretched, it would take no longer than before because the amount of space time to travel through remained constant as shown by light passing around a curve. In fact you can’t prove from within the universe if the entire thing is not bouncing in an out like an inflating and deflating balloon if space-time itself is being stretched and compressed. We would not notice.
The ‘out’ created by the Standard Modellers is to say that the galaxies are not expanding but space is. This is basically in support of two things: that there is no aether (which is the fundamental point that Einstein was trying to systematically, conclusively show) and that red-shift is caused by movement away from a Big Bang.
Things that will be inexplicable by the Standard Model include
– stars that are older then the big bang (already found when I was young: 15bn years)
– starlight from extremely distant galaxies where the sum of the light-years to get to us plus the age of the stars in that galaxy exceed the big bang’s supposed age (we are probably on the cusp of getting that now)
– conclusive proof that the age of the universe is less than 9 billion years instead of about 13
– a Hubble Constant of about 75 instead of >100 (causes a number of problems)
– The CMB does not reasonably match its expected distribution (already shown to be a problem after much ballyhoo that it was ‘about right’)
Leif’s notes that the convection depth is shallower that previously thought, something he supported. Well the paper above talks about the slow speed of that convection being the foundation of their statement that the observed magnetic field can’t be created by it. I don’t see how that supports any Standard Models of the Sun. The blistering speed at which one deduces the convection depth was over-estimated does not create magnetic fields either.
Steven says:
July 11, 2012 at 7:11 am
So, we actually find the binding of quarks is due to charge, not some other mysterious force we term Strong Force. Another name for the electrical force. Call it Color Charge if you want, but by any name it is still electric charge.
Here is an accessible explanation of color charge http://www.leif.org/EOS/StrongForce.pdf
To prove to us that you at least looked at the text, report back here what the last letter on the last page is.
Lief: “You should have taken Anthony’s advice and learned some basic physics. The color charge and isospin have nothing to do with electric charge, that is way they have different names.”
Did you not read the definitions, shall we go back and highlight the word charge in all the definitions?
It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks. But you refused to do away with the outdated notion of Strong Force, even though that idea was based on the notion that they were funamental particles. Another error stacked upon another. “However, because the up and down quarks have different charges…” which is why you have different color charges. Now unless you are implying that charge really doesn’t mean charge, you are only contradicting yourself at every turn.
Your example uses the surface of a bollon as an explanation. The surface of a boloon is a material object capable of expansion, of movement. I know what wiki says, i know what SR says, but nowhere does any of these explanation tell me what space time is composed of that enables this stretching or expansion. Certainly it must be composed of something if it can affect light and cause red-shift, and cause galaxies to move with it at a speed greater than c. Yet in no explanation of space time is there any explanation of how this occurs????? It just magically happens without any substance. So somethings (matter) affect nothing (space time) by causing it to curve. Yet space time is composed of nothing which is somehow curved by somethings and then this nothing tells somethings how to move. This nothing is also expanding faster than c, but since it is composed of nothing that is ok, after all, nothing can travel faster than c. Does that about sum up the theory???
Your definitions of Strong Force do not carry any weight. As the history books show:
Before the 1970s, physicists were uncertain about the binding mechanism of the atomic nucleus. It was known that the nucleus was composed of protons and neutrons and that protons possessed positive electric charge while neutrons were electrically neutral. However, these facts seemed to contradict one another. By physical understanding at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the nucleus should therefore fly apart. However, this was never observed. New physics was needed to explain this phenomenon.
A stronger attractive force was postulated to explain how the atomic nucleus was bound together despite the protons’ mutual electromagnetic repulsion. This hypothesized force was called the strong force, which was believed to be a fundamental force that acted on the nucleons (the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus). Experiments suggested that this force bound protons and neutrons together with equal strength.
It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks.
But you refused to do away with the outdated notion of Strong Force, even though that idea was based on the notion that they were funamental particles. The Strong Force was invented to show how two fundemental particles could stay together because their charges were different. Then when you discover that they are NOT fundemental particles do you disgard the hypothesis that requires them to be fundemental particles to work? No, instead you still insist the Strong Force is at work. You are applying a force “hypothesised on incorrect assumptions” to a situation it was never meant to convey. So please do not try to tell me that a hypothesis founded on an incorrect assumption is a valid hypothosis. My god Lief, you must think people are idiots to belief that drivel. Only someone unable to think for themselves would swallow that hook, line and sinker. A theory based upon an untrue set of facts that still remains the accepted theory. And you wonder why I find fault with it.
@Steven 9:59AM
From Lawrence Berkley Labs:
A. You’re wrong.
B. It is getting off topic, we are talking about solar convection.
C. You are becoming annoying with this argument.
D. You can’t even spell Leif’s name correctly. I’m not going to correct it for you anymore.
So, take a 48 hour time out. This is not a suggestion this time. – Anthony
Steven says:
July 11, 2012 at 9:15 am
Now unless you are implying that charge really doesn’t mean charge, you are only contradicting yourself at every turn.
It does not always mean ‘electric’ charge, just like in http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/dutch-news/prosecution-to-appeal-karadzic-genocide-charge-decision_237346.html ‘charge’ does not mean electric charge.
Certainly it must be composed of something if it can affect light and cause red-shift, and cause galaxies to move with it at a speed greater than c.
It is not composed of anything material. The red shift comes about because the distance a light wave will have to travel to reach us increases with the expansion. The galaxies do not move at all through space.
composed of nothing that is ok, after all, nothing can travel faster than c. Does that about sum up the theory
It may sum up your meager understanding, but is not reality. From your favorite cut-n-paste place [with the exception of the EU universe] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
Crispin in Waterloo says:
July 11, 2012 at 8:49 am
Now imagine having to invent such a fairy tale to explain observations! If space is expanding, then the galaxies are going to expand with them and everything in it, which means everything would look the same, relatively speaking.
The galaxies themselves and stars and planets are kept together by gravity and do not expand. Only when the distances become large enough [gravity diminishes with distance] does the expansion begin to overpower gravity.
if the distance between galaxies is literally increasing, and the speed of light through space is constant, then there must be some additional ‘space’ being inserted between one galaxy and the next.
The basic idea is correct, except it has nothing to do with the speed of light and you should replace ‘galaxy’ by ‘galaxy cluster’.
Consider: If the distance between two galaxies is increased by inserting ‘more space time’ between them, then a photon would be unaffected. It would just have more distance to travel from one to the next.
The number of light waves would not change as you note, but remember that the wavelength is the distance travelled divided by the number of waves, so if the distance increases, so does the wavelength, hence the red shift.
Things that will be inexplicable by the Standard Model include
– stars that are older then the big bang (already found when I was young: 15bn years)
No such stars exist. As I say you are decades behind.
– The CMB does not reasonably match its expected distribution (already shown to be a problem after much ballyhoo that it was ‘about right’)
I have already shown you that the CMB matches very closely what we expect [and actually predict].
Leif’s notes that the convection depth is shallower that previously thought, something he supported.
It would help if you could read. I supported the dynamo to be located shallower. The depth of the convection zone is a well-observed quantity [even by one of the authors] and has not been challenged by the paper. The paper is worded poorly/wrongly [see my email exchange with one of the authors upthread]. What the paper showed was the lack of large-scale structure. That does not prevent a shallow dynamo.
I almost forgot to add:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
“The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together in the protons and neutrons.”
Yet you still to this day want to tell me that the Strong Force is a fundamental force, even though it is nothing more than a side-effect of a fundamental force. A side-effect of Color charge, which we have discovered is nothing more than the interaction of charged particles in a 4 dipole configuration.
But oh yes, now we will define charge in a non-science way so we can avoid having to come to the correct interpretation, even though the definition includes positive and negative charges. So are they positively or negatively charging the guy with genocide? No, I am not even going to go there, that line of argument is ridiculous even for you.
Your problem with FTL is based upon your misconception of it. The theory only says that matter (mass) cannot be accelerated to the speed of c. You then claim the photon has no mass, which is an Electromagnetic force by the way. How many other EM forces travel at c or faster than c, perhaps gravity???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
“A tachyon (play /ˈtæki.ɒn/) or tachyonic particle is a hypothetical particle that always moves faster than light. The word comes from the Greek: ταχύς or tachys, meaning “swift, quick, fast, rapid”, and was coined by Gerald Feinberg in a 1967 paper.[1] Feinberg proposed that tachyonic particles could be quanta of a quantum field with negative squared mass. However, it was soon realized that excitations of such imaginary mass fields do not in fact propagate faster than light[2], but instead represent an instability known as tachyon condensation. Nevertheless, they are still commonly known as “tachyons”[3], and have come to play an important role in modern physics.[4]
Most physicists think that faster-than-light particles cannot exist because they are not consistent with the known laws of physics.[4][5] If such particles did exist, they could be used to build a tachyonic antitelephone and send signals faster than light, which (according to special relativity) would lead to violations of causality.[5] Potentially consistent theories that allow faster-than-light particles include those that break Lorentz invariance, the symmetry underlying special relativity, so that the speed of light is not a barrier.
Despite theoretical arguments against the existence of faster-than-light particles, experiments have been conducted to search for them. No compelling evidence for their existence had been found.”
So you are going to use a hypothetical particle to prove a hypothetical theory? Nothing new in your world I know. In your world theory is fact and data is meant to be twisted to fit the theory.
Let us discuss red-shift.
The universe is 99% plasma and plasma has been shown in the laboratory to produce red-shift. Your theory is becoming unraveled. Laboratory proof versus pure speculation, hmm, which to believe?
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
[snip – come back in 48 hours]
As for spelling his name incorrectly i appologize, it was not intentional, just habit to put i before e.
@Leif
” The paper is worded poorly/wrongly [see my email exchange with one of the authors upthread]. What the paper showed was the lack of large-scale structure. That does not prevent a shallow dynamo.”
Do you agree with the authors that the convection speed is too slow to be able to generate the magnetic profile we see at the surface of the sun and beyond?
Steven says:
July 11, 2012 at 11:09 am
I have no problem at all with the Standard measurement of luminosity:
So once again we find that it is the electrical aspect which you are measuring.
I did not ask for your lack of problem. You have repeatedly [and now again] claimed that EU ‘theory’ explains the luminosity, and that EU ‘calculates all the numbers I need’, so I ask for the umpteenth time to explain how that calculation goes.
Crispin in Waterloo says:
July 11, 2012 at 11:46 am
Do you agree with the authors that the convection speed is too slow to be able to generate the magnetic profile we see at the surface of the sun and beyond?
You still quote is wrong [possibly because the authors expressed it clumsily]. What they found [and I don’t disagree with that] was that the supposed large-scale circulation cells [e.g. the infamous ‘conveyor’ belt] move much too slowly to power the solar cycle. This is what several people [Schatten, Brandenburg, Hathaway, myself, and others] have been suggesting for several years now [I have given links to some of those] and has been somewhat verified by the failure of the deep conveyor belt models to correctly predict the low cycle 24. There are no such problems with a shallow dynamo.
Much earlier in this thread Lief Svalgaard posted a comment including the phrase:-” –you are pontificating on things you don`t understand” in reply to another poster. Even earlier,(8:58 july 9th responding to Ian Cairns) he himself provided a classic example of this very activity when describing in some detail events that were neither observed or measured that supposedly occurred at the Big Bang. Unless he has inside information (from God ?), or was there to witness the event he is pontificating. Should we not try to understand more fully our own solar system before trying to account for the Universe? Good science observes a phenomenom carefully and then tries to understand it, the explanation surely comes only after the phenomenom has been observed. Nobody could have witnessed the BB,IT IS SPECULATIVE IN THE EXTREME. Many very intelligent people believe the BB to be as nearly as possible proven, it isn`t, it is simply a possibilty if you interpret red shift, CMB etc as the majority of academia do today. Intellectual honesty should make this abundantly clear.
Nonetheless this thread was originally about convection in the sun and its supposed effect on the generation of its magnetic field. Engineering,via satelites such as SOHO, TRACE, SDO etc using solid science, have given us some outstanding views of the solar surface activity, much of which is difficult to explain without invoking electrical activity. Michael Mozina for one has put in a tremendous amount of work as a private individual in producing his website:- http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com, and draws some very interesting conclusions. The SDO online photo galleries from NASA are stunning. Surely these provide more interesting material, namely real results and geniune observations,for meaningful scientific discussion rather than pontificating about some imaginary Big Bang?
FYI, plasma redshift, a “prediction” of many Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe models has now been confirmed in the lab.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402608000089
These results do fit with a number of “tired light” proposals including one by Lyndon Ashmore who cites that Chen paper and explains how it relates to his ‘New Tired Light’ theory and cosmology.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
Herman Holushko has published C# code using these plasma redshift/tired light models to explain why light of various wavelengths is broadened and why they arrive at different times.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1203.0062v1.pdf
The ‘prediction’ that wavelengths travel at different speeds though the plasmas of spacetime have also been confirmed in recent years.
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=8364
Peter Willey says:
Michael Mozina for one has put in a tremendous amount of work as a private individual in producing his website:- http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com, and draws some very interesting conclusions. The SDO online photo galleries from NASA are stunning. Surely these provide more interesting material, namely real results and geniune observations,for meaningful scientific discussion rather than pontificating about some imaginary Big Bang?
Interesting material. It is quite feasible as every other known object in the solar system has a semi-solid or solid mantle surrounding it’s core and the Sun is cooler the deeper one peers into the sunspots. Sounds to me like he needs to obtain images for the same area over repeated flares to see if the same structure is observed, not just within minutes, but over months. A body of plasma responds more slowly than the charge equalization within it, so a two minute formation is interesting, but not overwhelming. But it is definitely worth following up on.
Michael Mozina says:
July 12, 2012 at 8:19 am
These results do fit with a number of “tired light” proposals including one by Lyndon Ashmore who cites that Chen paper and explains how it relates to his ‘New Tired Light’ theory and cosmology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light :
“tired light has not been supported by observational tests and has lately been consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics.”
Steven says:
July 14, 2012 at 6:18 pm
It is quite feasible as every other known object in the solar system has a semi-solid or solid mantle surrounding it’s core and the Sun is cooler the deeper one peers into the sunspots.
Assuming that be ‘every other known object’ you mean ‘every object’ including the Sun, your statement is overwhelming falsified by observations of sound waves inside the Sun. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/Helioseismology.shtml
And now, although by now i mean close to what, 5 years ago, there is direct laboratory evidence that plasma causes red-shifts, but that’s irrelevant because it opposes standard interpretation of red-shift right?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402608000089
Steven says:
July 14, 2012 at 9:15 pm
And now, although by now i mean close to what, 5 years ago, there is direct laboratory evidence that plasma causes red-shifts, but that’s irrelevant because it opposes standard interpretation of red-shift right?
Many things produce a red-shift, all it takes is some movement away from the observer. In case of the plasma red-shift that the paper is about, the creation of the plasma by the laser pulse expands the plasma [it is hot] and the expansion creates the small red-shift. This is just a small Doppler effect. The cosmological red-shift is not a Doppler effect. The cosmic microwave red-shift has its wavelength red-shifted by a factor of some 1100. Which is huge. The farthest red-shifted galaxies are red-shift about 10 times.
No, that is where you are incorrect, Please, show me one single paper about red-shift that was not performed in a medium???? The Doppler effect only occurs because of a medium. Light IS Doppler shifted because it occurs in a medium, the plasma of relatively newly ejected quasars. Your entire premise of velocity = red-shift only supports this since it is a Doppler effect.
Leif Svalgaard, I am curious about your earlier references and seeming belief that magnetic fields can be or have been created without a moving charge(current). The Biermann battery paper you refer to mentions and uses assumed conditions in the early universe whilst deriving its result. You refer to magnetic fields already there at the begining of time, and to the situation that there was no plasma for several million years after the BB. For the sake of total disbelievers in the BB, like myself, who take all talk of conditions at this time as being totally speculative and unlikely, how would you explain the origins of the magnetic fields found pretty much everywhere we look, if not by electric currents in some form, in particular the origins of the fields so apparent in those wonderful SDO images of the solar surface?
Steven says:
July 15, 2012 at 7:37 am
No, that is where you are incorrect, Please, show me one single paper about red-shift that was not performed in a medium???? The Doppler effect only occurs because of a medium.
The cosmological red-shift is not a Doppler shift and has nothing to do with any medium. And, in any case, a Doppler shift does not require a medium as light propagation does not require a medium. Here is an accessible explanation of the difference http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=278/
Coolest paper and thread. So if there may be no deeper dynamic process, what would the deeper layers be doing instead?
Or rather, what other effects would a slower deep dynamic process have that could be seen on the surface, if anything? And does it change speeds?
Peter Willey says:
July 15, 2012 at 7:57 am
For the sake of total disbelievers in the BB, like myself, who take all talk of conditions at this time as being totally speculative and unlikely, how would you explain the origins of the magnetic fields found pretty much everywhere we look, if not by electric currents in some form, in particular the origins of the fields so apparent in those wonderful SDO images of the solar surface?
An important word here is ‘disbeliever’. Scientists are not ‘believers’, but go by the observed evidence [there is a small elements of belied though: that the laws of physics back then were the same as today. We see no evidence to the contrary, and the use of ‘believe’ is restricted to mean ‘think’, so ‘I believe so’ just means ‘I think so’].
Magnetic fields on macroscopic scale are caused by currents, but currents are generated and maintained using magnetic fields. That raises the problem where the very first magnetic fields came from. A plausible answer is the Biermann Battery Effect.
People often say ‘yes but in the laboratory we observe currents in plasma’, but that current is externally produced. Turn of the power to the laboratory and try to see how much current comes out of the plasma [if you find a lot, then let me in on the deal as I would no longer buy electricity from PG&E, but simply hook up to your laboratory]. So, where does the external power come from? Perhaps from steam or water turning a large conductor [cobber windings] in a strong magnetic field, like here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation :
” electricity is generated by the movement of a loop of wire, or disc of copper between the poles of a magnet”
The wonderful SDO images show what magnetism can do.
“If the Sun did not have a magnetic field, it would be as uninteresting a star as most astronomers believe it to be.” from http://www.leif.org/EOS/solarinterior.pdf
Pamela Gray says:
July 15, 2012 at 9:19 am
Or rather, what other effects would a slower deep dynamic process have that could be seen on the surface, if anything? And does it change speeds?
Be careful with that word ‘dynamic’. The convection that moves heat from the deep to the surface is ‘dynamic’. The creation of magnetic fields is done by the ‘dynamo’. Although the first five letters are the same, the physics is very different. What the observations probably mean is that the dynamo is not deep, but shallow. The data supporting this are, of course, taken at the surface, so there is ‘some’ effect, but very hard to see. Requires, the paper says, “900 billion wave-field observations”.
Since I see alot of discussion about it, here is an interesting article of the subject of Relativity and the Doppler effect. It should induce some interesting thought’s for those interested. Modern science is by no means the absolute truth, and there is a distinct possibility that premise behind General and Special Relativity is incorrect. It wouldn’t be the first time in humanities history that we have made a faulty inference.
http://www.gestaltreality.com/energy-synthesis/eric-dollard/the-theory-of-anti-relativity-by-e-p-dollard/
Leif Svalgaard, thank you for your reply, to which my response is :-Currents are generated and maintained by magnetic fields, which are themselves generated and maintained by those same currents,surely. Classic chicken and egg situation, which came first? The coin in my hand has two faces, one didn`t cause or precede the other,they are two aspects of the same thing. If the laws of physics change over time we have many problems in understanding anything, so in the absence of contrary evidence we assume that they remain constant. So if magnetic fields on a macroscopic scale are caused by currents today then they have always been so caused. It is when we talk about a begining of time that we cause ourselves all sorts of unneccesary problems. I do not “believe” in a BB because there is no compelling observational evidence for such an occurence. The Gemini deep deep survey for example, using text book scientific methods for increasing the signal relative to background noise, obtained spectral features from the so called redshift dessert, a red shift of approx 2,that greatly resemble the spectra of galaxies such as our own today. At that redshift, on current understanding, the universe was around 10 billion years old, so that observation alone casts great doubt on any BB theory that claims the universe is 14 billion years old. The “shadows” of more recent galaxies have not been seen in the CMB as they should have been if the radiation is what it is claimed to be.Two examples of why I don`t “believe” in BB. So back to the original question, is there any observation that today indicates magnetic fields are caused by other than electric currents? There may well be, but if so I`m not aware of them.
Peter Willey says:
July 15, 2012 at 3:07 pm
So back to the original question, is there any observation that today indicates magnetic fields are caused by other than electric currents? There may well be, but if so I`m not aware of them.
The issue is what causes the electric currents? The answer is moving a conductor in a magnetic field, giving rise the the Chicken and Egg question. The answer to that is the Biermann Battery Effect.
Peter Willey says:
July 15, 2012 at 3:07 pm
The Gemini deep deep survey for example, using text book scientific methods for increasing the signal relative to background noise, obtained spectral features from the so called redshift dessert, a red shift of approx 2,that greatly resemble the spectra of galaxies such as our own today
As you can see from the latest Gemini conclusions: http://www.gemini.edu/images/pio/newsletters/pdf/GF0612/GDDS.pdf
There are no discrepancies with BB. The issue is with understanding the formation of galaxies, not with BB. Tell me where in that overview [exact words, please] doubt is cast upon BB.
The “shadows” of more recent galaxies have not been seen in the CMB as they should have been if the radiation is what it is claimed to be.
Links please. The resolution of the CMB isn’t fine enough to show any “shadows” anyway.
These two ‘examples’ are very flimsy grounds to throw away all the strong evidence of BB. At best they have to do with interpretation of difficult to obtain data.
Our theory is good enough to be taught at NASA now. Even they can no longer deny the facts so bring in the experts.
Steven says:
July 16, 2012 at 11:51 am
Our theory is good enough to be taught at NASA now.
“taught” ?? NASA [as any other scientific institution] occasional invites people [sometimes even cranks – I myself has given presentations there] to give a presentation of their ideas. This does not mean that they ‘bring in the experts’.
But you are still evading the issue:
Why would you ever think I would get a different answer?
As far as I am concerned you have no answer at all. You did not show the derivation of the formulae, did not show the formulae, did not show the calculation.
So provide these things. I think that you have not so, simply because you cannot. Prove me wrong.
Steven says:
July 16, 2012 at 11:51 am
Our theory is good enough to be taught at NASA now.
an example of Scott’s ignorance: in his presentation he says that Langmuir hijacked the term plasma from biology because it shares a characteristic with space plasma “they are both cellular”. But the blood plasma is also not cellular, it is what is between the blood cells http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_plasma “Blood plasma is the straw-colored/pale-yellow liquid component of blood that normally holds the blood cells in whole blood in suspension”
I told you 3 times already Leif, I use the exact same formula as you because those formulas are derived from Maxwell’s equations, as is almost all of relativity.
And dont try to misdirect the plasma and blood issue, good try though. It was termed as similar to blood plasma because like blood, at the knowledge available at that time foreign invaders would be sheathed and separated, like white blood cells surround and isolate foreign invaders, Differing electrical charges in plasma are separated from one another by double layers. Since the atom consists of gluons as force carriers I could just as easily say they or other smaller particles are these particles that hold the cells in suspension.
Do you believe in action at a distance?
i assume not as its not considered valid in standard cosmology, so since the electron neither recedes from, nor crashes into the nucleus, then smaller particles transferring charge, carrying it along between nucleus and electron exist. These act in the same manner, so your comments are nothing more than an attempt to distract from the issue, or else you would of deffinately realized the error of your comment.
REPLY: OK that’s it for me, mixing blood plasma and electrical plasma arguments are so far off the deep end it doesn’t deserve any further waste of bytes and my time. Thread closed, now take your [unprintable] commentary elsewhere. All further posts from you go immediately to the bit bucket, so don’t try to thread bomb other threads like you did yesterday – Anthony