Standard solar theory vs the Birkeland solar model.

[chode]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why do we need inflation and dark energy again? What did they ever "predict" that was physically useful or that proved to be true? &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>How about Omega equals one. Do you have a better explanation of that?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Regards</p>

 

[damskov]

<p>Where is the proposed current flow into the sun? Polar? What physical, observational evidence exists of such a flow? I see no auroras on the Sun. Please elaborate on the amount of energy proposed and the calculated ohmic resistance of the plasma that should allow the observed heat/radiation to be produced while still distributing the charge evenly throughout the surface. </p><p>Additionally, if the Sun is similar to the rocky planets orbiting it, why isn't Mercury shining at all?</p>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Where is the proposed current flow into the sun? Polar?</DIV></p><p>According to Hannes Alfven, every sun is a unipolar inductor, meaning the current flows primariy in along the equatorial plane, and primarily out the poles.&nbsp; He actually "predicted" that the solar wind speeds would be higher in the polar regions.&nbsp; It wasn't until after his death that the Ullyses program verified that prediction. </p><p>&nbsp;http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Unipolar_inductor</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What physical, observational evidence exists of such a flow?</DIV></p><p>You find observation evidence of this model in polar wind speeds, coronal loop activity, CME events, constantly accelerating solar wind particles, selective acceleration of He2+ over HE+.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I see no auroras on the Sun.</DIV></p><p>In a unipolar inductor scenario, you wouldn't.&nbsp; In fact since the sun's atmosphere is made of plasma, even if the energy flow pattern was similar to Earth's, you probably still wouldn't "see" anything like an aurora around the sun. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please elaborate on the amount of energy proposed and the calculated ohmic resistance of the plasma that should allow the observed heat/radiation to be produced while still distributing the charge evenly throughout the surface.</DIV></p><p>Birkeland did some rough calculations, but most of these numbers would require further study.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Additionally, if the Sun is similar to the rocky planets orbiting it, why isn't Mercury shining at all? <br /> Posted by damskov</DIV></p><p>Since the sun is the largest mass body in the solar system, it also carries the bulk of the electrical current.&nbsp; Mercury isn't carrying anywhere near the kind of current load as the sun.&nbsp; Jupiter however is a net emitter of energy.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;How about Omega equals one. Do you have a better explanation of that?&nbsp;Regards <br /> Posted by chode</DIV></p><p>I personally tend to prefer an infinite and eternal universe theory rather than BB theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; FYI, the notion that the universe would implode was "popular" about 15 years ago, whereas today it is assumed that the universe is accelerating.&nbsp;&nbsp; That continued acceleration doesn't actually imply an Omega of exactly 1.&nbsp; It would suggest that something is causing the mostly plasma universe to continue to accelerate.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[damskov]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>According to Hannes Alfven, every sun is a unipolar inductor, meaning the current flows primariy in along the equatorial plane, and primarily out the poles.&nbsp; He actually "predicted" that the solar wind speeds would be higher in the polar regions.&nbsp; It wasn't until after his death that the Ullyses program verified that prediction.</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Does EU theory provide the calculations that model exactly how many electrons per cubic meter that one should be able to detect in the equatorial regions? Do these match up with observations made by probes in this plane?</p><p>How much plasma per volume (density) is needed to carry a specific current? I know too little of plasma physics, but there should be a straight forward relationship here. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Unipolar_inductorYou find observation evidence of this model in polar wind speeds, coronal loop activity, CME events, constantly accelerating solar wind particles, selective acceleration of He2+ over HE+.&nbsp; In a unipolar inductor scenario, you wouldn't.</p><p></DIV></p><p>Actually, if there was a strong inflow of electrons in the equatorial plane (particularly at the intensity needed to power the Sun, it would bind to the outflowing HE/H ions, would it not? Would we not see evidence of this binding? (numbers please, not just "hints" ) </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In fact since the sun's atmosphere is made of plasma, even if the energy flow pattern was similar to Earth's, you probably still wouldn't "see" anything like an aurora around the sun.</p><p></DIV></p><p>So EU theory predicts no observational evidence of the incoming electrons "arriving" and connecting to the plasma of the Sun?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland did some rough calculations, but most of these numbers would require further study.Since the sun is the largest mass body in the solar system, it also carries the bulk of the electrical current.&nbsp; Mercury isn't carrying anywhere near the kind of current load as the sun.&nbsp; Jupiter however is a net emitter of energy. <br /></DIV></p><p>Okay, so the most important part of EU theory is not backed by the numbers and the models which could provide the straightforward avenue to verification or falsifications by direct measurements?</p><p>I would love for someone to do rough back-on-tisse calculations on this one. Even if Mercury is a fraction of the size of the Sun, it seems highly unlikely that it should emit *no* light whatsoever particularly considering it's intersecting the main flow of electrons, and it's near the Sun!</p><p>Looking forward to more answers, even though I know you're doing your best in several threads (nice effort by the way )&nbsp;</p>

 

[Saiph]

you know, as this is a thread about solar theory (whichever model you prefer), perhaps we should transfer discussion of the merits of BB, dark matter and dark energy into a different thread?&nbsp; They don't really belong here and just confuse the issue. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>---------------------Okay, back to the older questions about that surface image.Coronal Loops at millions of degrees kelvin, agreed.&nbsp; No problem there.&nbsp; I'll point out that there isn't much in those loops, so the actual energy requirements (i.e. the real HEAT involved) are relatively low.&nbsp; I strenously object to you saying that this MIGHT release xrays and gamma rays, and if thats the case, the only explanation is plasma discharges.&nbsp; You are assuming information that isn't present (though might be a good lead to follow and FIND), and preposing a single, unequivocable solution. </DIV></p><p>There is emprical data to demonstrate that electrical discharges:</p><p>A) produce x-rays</p><p>B) produce gamma rays</p><p>C) Pinch free neutrons from plasma (z-pinches)</p><p>D) form current carrying threads that "light up".</p><p>Now we haev observed in Rhessi images that Earth's discharges emit gamma rays.&nbsp; We point the same instrument toward the solar atmosphere and see gamma rays.&nbsp; We point Hinode at the solar atmosphere and we find x-rays galore, mostly concentrated inside huge "coronal loops" from which we observe neutron catpure signatures as well.&nbsp; Wouldn't the natural scientific tendency be to suspect electrical discharges are responsible for these behaviors?&nbsp;</p><p>What other logical and empricially demonstrateble force of nature might do that in those conditions?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is one of the tactics used in defense of alternate theories I really dislike.&nbsp; You make a few assumptions, provide a possible solution, and then deny that mainstream defenders can do anything similar.</DIV></p><p>Given the conditions we're talking about, how many viable options can there be?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Take my claims (even an assumption) that convection in the envelope of a hydrogen/helium star can explain why there is no real stratification of heavy isotopes...and you don't even grant the possibility other than to say it doesn't convect.</DIV></p><p>When you "assume" that a whispy thin atmosphere of hydrogen an helium is likely to stay mixed with iron and nickel and lead, I can't help but be suspicious.&nbsp; It's just not overly logical, particularly when I see a bunch of "coronal rain" flying around during CME events.&nbsp; It's one of the least credible claims of standard theory IMO.&nbsp; That is even before we look at the heliosiesmology data.&nbsp; When we factor in the findings of a "stratfication subsurface" where your open convection lane is supposed to be, I become more than just suspicious, I'm down right skeptical of the concept.&nbsp; Iron and hydrogen aren't likely to stay mixed within the light atmosphere of the photosphere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Anyway, to continue...&nbsp; Now, this might be a plasma interaction, but even if it is...it doesn't mean the sun is powered this way.</DIV></p><p>For purposes of our analysis of the images, it doesn't really matter if you assume an internal or external power source, so long as we both agree that it's likely to be the discharges inside the coronal loops that provide the photons that create the LMSAL RD images in 171A and 195A.&nbsp; The discharges in the solar atmosphere aren't the only clue here as it relates to whether or not this is an internal or external power process.&nbsp; One thing is very clear however.&nbsp; These high energy discharges are far too distant from the core to have anything to do with what you are proposing as the suns' primary energy source.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>IMO the interaction with the heliosheath, and the way the CME's occur is more convincing information about the external nature of the power source. Birkeland's experiments also involve an external power source.&nbsp; With his external power source Birkeland did create high energy discharge events that look almost identical to coronal loop activity.&nbsp; IMO that cannot be a coincidence.</p><p>If you believe there is a "simpler" (Occum's razor arguements will apply here) explanation for these high enery discharge phenomenon than an electrical discharge in the solar atmosphere, put the idea on the table.&nbsp; If you can't think of a better explanation, why not go with the one explanation we *know* will work from emprical testing?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Only that the sun is energetic enough to power plasma interactions.</DIV></p><p>I don't really know how to respond to that.&nbsp; Even in a Birkeland solar model the sun is the most energetic part of any solar system.&nbsp;&nbsp; IMO hydrogen fusion is the only logical choice for an internal power source.&nbsp; The only question left then is whether a sun is powered internally or externally.&nbsp; If it's an externally driven process, the only logical force based on the behaviors we observe from the sun woudl be electrical current.&nbsp;&nbsp; We both agree the sun is the focal point of energy, it's only a matter of how it gets/uses that energy we're ultimately debating. (that and the solar model itself of course) </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll also point out that due to the high temperatures any heliuma and hydrogen there are basically invisible as they're nearly completely ionized at temperatures above 20,000 kelvin.&nbsp; So all you'll see are the metals.</DIV></p><p>Keep in mind that I do not believe that spectral data alone could ever hope to tells us the actual composition of the Birkeland model sun in a mass separate and heat separated environment.&nbsp; It is therefore not a "big deal" from my perspective that hydrogen and helium atoms are hard to observe at high temperatures.&nbsp; In a layered model like this one, I would expect that is still the case.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The key here IMO is whether or not elements would really stay mixed together at the level of the photosphere. It's a very light layer, and while I grant you that convection occurs in the photosphere, it is not clear that any convection process is going on between .995R and .985R, at least not based on the heliosiesmology findings.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, as for the sun being unique or not:&nbsp; In all ways that we have categorized G2 V stars, like our sun, our sun is completely typical in all respects.&nbsp; It fits into the middle of the pack, and is one of the most common star types (F and G are very common).&nbsp; As they fit in all spectroscopic, compositional, rotational, and mass parameters...it'd be really hard to say it's unique.&nbsp; So any mechanism you posit for the sun, shouldn't be to hard to stretch to the millions of other G2 stars.&nbsp;Okay, I might buy this part, no reason why the standard model can't accomidate this.&nbsp; Actually, I believe it does have a rapidly rotating core producing the magnetic fields...&nbsp; Btw, how big is the core in Birklands model?</DIV></p><p>I'm very encourage to see you believe it has a rapidly spinning core.&nbsp; That will help explain a number of observed phenomenon, including the sun's 22 year magnetic field rotation cycle.&nbsp; I agree that our sun is not unique.&nbsp; Whatever principles make it operate most likely apply to all stars in it's category, and apply across the board.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>-----------------------------------Onto the surfaceofthesun.com image:I actually won't agree that the photons are originating in coronal loops.&nbsp; It looks like they are from the photosphere.</DIV></p><p>We are going to have to agree upon the light source of the images for us to agree on anthing else related to our analysis of these images.&nbsp; We won't get far if we don't agree on the light source.&nbsp; Keep in mind that this is a "runnng difference" image, meaning they subtract one image from the other.&nbsp; It is not a standard image.&nbsp; Here is a movie composed of the original images from that sequence without any special processing applied to the images:</p><p>http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/goldraw.avi</p><p>The vast majority of the original FITS files are dark.&nbsp; Only the coronal loops are brightly lit in the original images. The "surface" effect is something we'll have to discuss *after* we agree that the majority of the original photons come from the coronal loop activity. </p><p>Let me also point out that the photosphere is only 6K degrees, and these images require plasma temperatures that are orders of magnitude greater than 6k.&nbsp; More importantly, when we look at the sun in the metal lines, some areas of significantly darker than other, and some amount of Thompson scattering *must* occur in a plasma environment.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And your claim that such structures on the photosphere last only 12 minutes is...well, wrong. Sunspots last for days, </DIV></p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosphere</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The Sun's photosphere is composed of convection cells called granules&mdash;cells of gas each approximately 1000 kilometers in diameter<sup class="reference">[5]</sup> with hot rising gas in the center and cooler gas falling in the narrow spaces between them. E<strong>ach granule has a lifespan of only about eight minutes,</strong> resulting in a continually shifting "boiling" pattern.</DIV></p><p>Emphasis mine.</p><p>That evidently depends entirely on which structures we're discussing. That convection process we see at the surface of the photosphere creates rapid movement the surface structures (granules) in the photosophere, which come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sunspots can last a longer time as you suggest, but their edges change and there are clear movement patterns that can be observed in sunspot images over time.&nbsp; There are typically clear signs of differential rotation patterns to be seen for instance.&nbsp;&nbsp; Plasma is very "fluid like" in it's movement. A sunspot is a bit analagous to looking at a hole in the eye of a tornado.&nbsp; The hole might persist in the cloud cover for a long time, but the movements in the clouds are noticable over time.&nbsp; The structures we see in these images can last for days in exactly the same relationships to one another.&nbsp; Images of plasma layers don't show rigid consistency of all the structures. There are obbious signs of movment.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>plumes and loops can easily last for hours (evena day or so).&nbsp; They also show up quite nicely in the hydrogen alpha wavelengths, which is how I've observed them.As for how such regions can reach, say, 10,000 degrees: Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p>Plumes tend to be *very* mobile.&nbsp; We'd see lots of changes in plumes over say an hour.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Back to my convection answer.&nbsp; Such regions occur under two general conditions, that of where a convection cell is rising, bringing hotter material up from beneath, </DIV></p><p>That's a nice explanation except we have a stratification subsurface sitting in your supposedly open convection lane. When did anyone "predict" that a stratification subsurface would be found sitting at .995R in standard solar theory?&nbsp; What's that doing there in what is supposed to be an open convection channel? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and where magnetic fields influence and channel the ionized plasma that is the surface of the sun.&nbsp; Magnetic fields have a wonderful property of selecting high energy, high velocity particles and constraining the TIGHTER than the cool, lower energy, slow atoms that just meander out of the magnetic fields.So having a turbulant surface, capable of warping and shifting local magnetic fields can select, filter, and direct the high energy atoms into regions of messy, complicated, magnetic fields. </DIV></p><p>I'll be honest here about the fact that I'm a little leary of all the "explanations" I've heard attributed to "magnetism", from "magnetic reconnection", to cooling sunspots, to creating all sorts of odd phenomenon.&nbsp; I'm also highly uncomfrortable with the notion that a "magnetic field" can form in light plasma without "current flow" to create that magnetic field.&nbsp; If we looked at thunderstorms in the Earth's atmosphere with magnetic field strength equipment, I'm sure that dischrages&nbsp; would like like a "messy" and "complicated" magnet fields, but they are more than simply "magnetic fields". &nbsp;&nbsp; The field strengths are directly related to the current that flows in the plasma.</p><p>I'll come back to the rest of your post after I get some sleep.&nbsp; I'm sorry it took me awhile to respond to your post, but your responses and your answers were thoughful and on target.&nbsp; I just wanted to make sure I responded appropriately to the key points when I was not distracted at work. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>