The Electric sun, energy, and alternative models

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The effect of the magnetosphere on charged particles is well known.&nbsp; But what does that have to do with shielding Earth&nbsp;from the enormous magnetic field that would result from an equally enormous current powering the sun?</DIV></p><p>I don't follow your logic here at all.&nbsp; We observe that the sun has a very large magnetic field.&nbsp; We observe huge discharges in it's atmosphere.&nbsp; We observe that the solar wind process selectively favors He2+ or He+ by significant margins just as we would expect.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>EVERYTHING about EU relies on a mystical current flow through the universe,</DIV></p><p>I don't think you're quite fully grasping the implications of what I'm suggesting here, so let me back up and try again.&nbsp; There is nothing&nbsp; "mystical" about the current flow.&nbsp; It is a cumulative effect of the normal physical process called "induction", where mechanical momentum is ultimately turned into electrical energy.&nbsp; An example of this process is found in those Saturn ring currents.&nbsp;&nbsp; Induction is a well known, well understood, and well tested part of physics.&nbsp; All that is necessary now is a means to conduct the current between stars, and it is possible to combine the induction currents of individual stars into a whole electromagnetic field.&nbsp; The plasmas between the stars provide the current threads that are necessary to wire them all together.&nbsp;&nbsp; That same induction process turns the spin momentum of the heavy mass of the galaxy into induction currents in the spiral arms of the galaxy.&nbsp; It's a simple physics principle called induction.&nbsp; The spin momentum is ultimately being turned into electrical current.&nbsp; It's not mystical.&nbsp; It's pure physics.&nbsp; The combined total current could simply be the combined total amount of mechanical momentum being converted into electrical energy by every star and planet in every galaxy.&nbsp; To call a simple indcution prcess "mystical" is again an injustice to the theory. &nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that has not been detected</DIV></p><p>It *has* been detected.&nbsp; We see all sorts of gamma ray burst coming from all kinds of discharges in the solar atmosphere and in the atmosphere of planets.&nbsp; We detect a charge separation effect in the solar wind processes. We see solar wind "jets" in the northern and southern hempsheres as the induction theory predicts.&nbsp;&nbsp; So far at least *every* detected observation we see fits the theory.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and that would more obvious than an elephant in the strawberry patch if it did. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Those multi-million degree elephant trunk coronal loops in the solar atmsophere stick out like sore thumb in x-ray images too.&nbsp;&nbsp;&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>

 

[derekmcd]

You are side stepping the point of contention.&nbsp; That contention being that the enormous amount of energy to keep the sun doing what it does, according to you, is coming from an outside source.&nbsp; This influx of energy should be easily detectable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[Saiph]

<p>but if your outside current source is true then we should be seeing:</p><p>A net flow of charge&nbsp; (positive into the system, positive out, like a wire)</p><p>If it's at all like a line of charge comming in, as opposed to converging from all directions, we should see a cylindrical solar magnetosphere, or at least in addition to the solar magnetosphere, just as we do for a wire.&nbsp; However, we see a only a roughly spherical solar magnetosphere, indiciative of a single magnetic source.</p><p>This energy flux into the system has to be AT LEAST as intense as the sun's energy output...and we don't see that much energy comming into the system.</p> <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'>but if your outside current source is true then we should be seeing:A net flow of charge&nbsp; (positive into the system, positive out, like a wire)If it's at all like a line of charge comming in, as opposed to converging from all directions, we should see a cylindrical solar magnetosphere, or at least in addition to the solar magnetosphere, just as we do for a wire.&nbsp; However, we see a only a roughly spherical solar magnetosphere, indiciative of a single magnetic source.This energy flux into the system has to be AT LEAST as intense as the sun's energy output...and we don't see that much energy comming into the system. <br /> Posted by Saiph</DIV></p><p>According to Alfven's unipolar induction model, what we should observe is a net positive flow/charge around the equator (indeed we massive outfluxes of positively charged particles), and a net negative charge flowing out of the poles that would probably tend to be in the form of cathode beams.&nbsp; I'm going to have to sift through the ACE and Ullyses data sets again today to see what kind of information I can find from these programs that might be helpful. &nbsp;</p><p>In the mean time however, I find the notion that we don't observe any evidence of these massive electrical flows to be absurd. &nbsp; We certainly see plenty of evidence of this external current flow, starting with those million degree dishcarges in the solar atmosphere that emit gamma and x-rays and neutron capture signatures.&nbsp; An internally core driven process would result in a chromosphere that is cooler than the photosphere, and the corona would be cooler than both of those layers.&nbsp; The further out we go from the core, and the further we get from the photosphere, the cooler things should get. &nbsp;&nbsp; There is *obviously* some other energy release mechanism involved and the heat is concentrated in the *outside* layers of the sun, not the photosphere.&nbsp; We see contant acceleration occuring in solar wind activity.&nbsp; We see x-ray jets streaming off the sun, just as Birkeland predicted them.&nbsp; We see massive electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. &nbsp; We observe induction process in ring activity. We observe a selection process in solar wind activity that favors positively charged ions with the most positive charge.&nbsp; The ratio of He2+ to He1+ is something like 20 to one.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>It seems to me we are ignoring a lot of physical evidence here and insisting on only one specific type of evidence.&nbsp;&nbsp; The rub is that ACE and Ulysses are really the only two satellite systems that might help us confirm this idea and only Ulysses have been directly over the poles. &nbsp; That's going to make any full and complete analysis of solar wind activity very difficult. </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'>The effect of the magnetosphere on charged particles is well known.&nbsp; But what does that have to do with shielding Earth&nbsp;from the enormous magnetic field that would result from an equally enormous current powering the sun.</DIV></p><p>I've come to respect your way of reasoning a great deal during our conversations,&nbsp; This question however made no logical sense to me, and I couldn't understand what you meant at first.&nbsp; I think I've finally figured out what you meant, and I think I've come to understand the nature of the mainstream's problem as a result.&nbsp;</p><p>I think I can explain the problem from the perspective of the mainstream, so I think I'll begin there and then tie it back to EU theory.&nbsp; Keep in mind that I personally believe that there is both an internal and external energy process going on here, and EU theory is also predictated on the assumption in the final analysis as well.</p><p>We will begin with the hydrogen fusion powered model of the sun and we will assume that the flow of charged particles we see streaming from the sun are somehow being released as a byproduct of the hydrogen fustion processes in the core of the sun, and the kinetic energy processes that occur as a result.&nbsp; The flow of thees charged particles is so great that some of them flow out of the photosphere and form moving waves of charged particles that we call "solar wind".</p><p>There is a kinetic flow pattern of charged particles that create the *electromagnetic* field around the sun.&nbsp; In other words, the electrons flowing from the photosphere and into the solar wind move into patterns around the sun that are controlled by the electromagnetic field around the sun. They move with the flow so to speak, like driving down various freeway lanes of traffic.&nbsp; The protons and helium ions do the same thing.&nbsp; They flow around the sun's magnetic field.&nbsp; There is a kinetic energy flow pattern being created inside the "magnetic field" as you are calling it.&nbsp; It is not however just a "magnetic field", it is a moving and flowing mass of charged particles made of electrons and protons that are following a specific pattern that is following the magnetic field lines around the sun.&nbsp; There is kinetic energy in that process, and that charged particle flow pattern is what is creating the heliosphere around our solar system.&nbsp; It *shields* us from any other charged particles that might be striking it from the outside.</p><p>I think I finally understand the theoretical problem behind "magnetic reconnection" in this discussion too.&nbsp; I think the mainstream is failing to recognize the flow pattern going on, and the electrical nature of that flow pattern.&nbsp; Even if you looked at it from an entirely *internal* energy source perspective, this would still form a highly *electricallly charged* flow pattern.&nbsp; In other words, you've turned the sun itself into the creation center point of the flow pattern, but the flow pattern is by it's very nature a charged field of flowing particles around the sun.</p><p>The only real difference between this conceptual viewpoint and EU theory is that EU theory presumes that at least some of the that field movement is being interacted with by charged particle movements flowing into that that flow pattern from the outside of the heliosphere. The fact that the hellisphere is not round, but rather forms a teardrop shape like the Earth's magnetosphere, suggests that EU theory is correct, but I'll save that discussion for another day.</p><p>The epiphany I had here was that the mainstream is ignoring the electrical nature of the solar wind.&nbsp; It does not realize this is a kinetic energy process and a flow pattern process.&nbsp; That is the basic misconception behind "magnetic reconnection" too.&nbsp; It's not a "magnetic reconnection" process, it's a particle reconnection process at it's most basic level.</p><p>I think your perplexi9ng question has finally explained a lot of what the mainstream misconception is all about, and it made me realize that the charged solar wind particle process could also involve an entirely internal process, but that is ultimately beside the point, because the process itself would necessarily be a fundamentally "electrically active" process.&nbsp; it would not matter whether you see the sun as the source of all the energy or just some of the energy, it's still a fundamentally flowing, moving, kinetic energy, electrically active process.</p><p>Alfven's model is not any different as it relates to flow patterns. His model begins with simple induction which releases free protons and electrons into the circuit.&nbsp; It creates a flow pattern around the sun which the charged particles follow.&nbsp; The only real question, and the only fundamental difference between an internal model and an external (at lesast partically external) energy source model would be that Alfven's model presumes that charged particles waves flow into and through the flow patterns created *either internally or externally* around the sun.&nbsp; His model would presume that most of the flow pattern of charged particles originate outside the heliosheath, whereas standard theory would presume that all the proton and electron flow around the sun would be internally driven.&nbsp; Other than this one issue, there is fundamentally no difference between standard theory and EU theory in the final analsys.&nbsp; You can claim that all the charged particle flow oriiginates with the sun, but even still, it's a fundamentally electrically active flow pattern, and it would electrically interact with anything it bumps into, and well as "magnetically" interact with anything it ran into.&nbsp; The only real questions is where those protons and electrons originate.&nbsp; There is still a kinetic flow pattern of charged particles going on here that which the mainstream is failing to reconginze.</p><p>I'll take a shot showing evidence of cathode rays from the sun using Hinode images.&nbsp; I will also look for evidence of more positive charges flowing near the equator to validate the induction idea. &nbsp; In the final analysis however, you could in fact look at that flow pattern and then claim that it is all driven internally rather than externally, but I guarantee you that the flow pattern is there.&nbsp; In the final analysis it wouldn't matter whether it's induction driven (it logically must be if there are charged particles flowing past the heliosphere), or whether it's internally driven. The charge separation is there in the flow patterns either way you look at it.</p><p>There must be more positively charged particles flowing out the equator no matter how you look at it.&nbsp; I think I finally realized however that it's the charge separated, kinetic energy nature of this process that astronomers are failing to recognize.&nbsp; There is no 'magnetic reconnection' occuring in these interactions, there are only charged particles interacting with other charged particles that are following a different flow pattern. It's sitll a fundamentally *electrical reconnection* process and *particle reconnection* process.&nbsp; &nbsp; There is no such things as "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Those folks that posit that theory are failing to recognize the rivers of charged particles that make up the "lines".</p><p>&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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've come to respect your way of reasoning a great deal during our conversations,&nbsp; This question however made no logical sense to me, and I couldn't understand what you meant at first.&nbsp; I think I've finally figured out what you meant, and I think I've come to understand the nature of the mainstream's problem as a result.&nbsp;...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No, the problem is much simpler than that.&nbsp; If there is a large current supplying power to the sun, then that will create a large magnetic field.&nbsp; Given the power seen to radiate from the sun and the low resistance of a plasma, the current involved would be enormous.&nbsp; The resulting magnetic field would also be enormous.&nbsp; That field would add vectorially to the Earth's magnetic field, but would be so large as to overwhelm it.&nbsp; We would see a magnetic field at the Earth's surface millions of times greater than what is obsrved.&nbsp; I did a simple order of magnitude calculation on the original thread.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but if your outside current source is true then we should be seeing:A net flow of charge&nbsp; (positive into the system, positive out,</DIV></p><p>Well, we should see protons and electrons entering the flow patterns around the sun, yes, but it's shape and orientation would dead give aways that there is some kind of external "wind" hitting the flow patterns of the sun's heliosphere.</p><p>If you look that some of the ACE movies, you'll notice that the earth's magnetic field acts to direct the flow of charged particles through the aurora at either end of the planet, forming a teadrop shape in it's wake.&nbsp; Occassionally the flux of charged particles around the Earth increases and the aurora light up like a Christmas tree.&nbsp; If EU theory is correct, we should see some interaction between the flow of charged particles coming from the photosphere and the heliosphere.&nbsp; The heliosphere would necessarily need to be shaped like a teardrop if galactic winds blow against it.&nbsp; The two primary "predictions" of EU theory would be helisphere interactivity, and the teardrop shape of the heliosphere.&nbsp; Both of these "predictions" can be verified by in situ measurements.</p><p>A fundamentally internal energy source would still create charged particle movements around the sun.&nbsp; If there are no charged particles striking the boundaries of this flow pattern around the sun, then the heliosphere should be round, which it is not, and it change *dramatically* with the magnetic field orientation of the sun, which it does not. </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'>No, the problem is much simpler than that.</DIV></p><p>I think the problem here is that you are trying to "oversimply" the issue.&nbsp; What you are calling "magnetic fields" are rivers of flowing particles, that flow strongest at the poles and form "bubble" around the equator where the flow patterns are much weaker than at the poles. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If there is a large current supplying power to the sun, then that will create a large magnetic field. </DIV></p><p>Are you assuming that all the current flow goes directly through the sun, or are you spreading out the flow throughout corona, chromosphere and photosphere?&nbsp; If we're looking at Birkeland solar model, most of the flow would be through the plasma in the atmosphere, not through the crust.&nbsp; Current always follows the path of least resistence.&nbsp; While plasma is a near perfect conductor of current, it's not a perfect conductor of current.&nbsp; That is why we see gamma and x-ray emissions from electrical discharges in the corona. </p><p>Solar wind flow will certainly create rivers of flowing charged particles around the sun, most of which won't get anywhere near the earth.&nbsp; Look at a magnetic field sometime and notice the patterns.&nbsp; The patterns of flow of charged particles make up these lines" and ultimately dictate the field strength at various locations.&nbsp; The flow pattern is not uniform as you seem to imagine.&nbsp; The Earth's magnetosphere acts to direct the bulk of these currents around the Earth as well.&nbsp; There isn't a uniform distrubution of such "magnetic lines", particularly since most of them are directed through the aurora.&nbsp; I don't think you're taking any of that into account.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Given the power seen to radiate from the sun and the low resistance of a plasma, the current involved would be enormous. </DIV></p><p>It all depends on how many of the electrons and protons come from outside the heliopshere, but the flow pattern of particles around the sun is certainly "enormous" by anyone's standards.&nbsp; It also depends entirely on where you assume those electrons are "reconnecting" with plasma and choose how you choose to distrubute that current flow. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The resulting magnetic field would also be enormous.</DIV></p><p>Along some points the particle flow and field strength is enormous.&nbsp; Along the equator however, not so much because of the particle flow patterns are less, and the magnetic field lines around that flow are less. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That field would add vectorially to the Earth's magnetic field, but would be so large as to overwhelm it. &nbsp; We would see a magnetic field at the Earth's surface millions of times greater than what is obsrved.&nbsp; I did a simple order of magnitude calculation on the original thread. </p><p>Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I'll have to try to take a look at your calculations to see if it took any of the factors I mentioned into account.&nbsp; I still think this all comes back to the model you use and what assumptions you make about the power distrubution.&nbsp; Standard model presumes that most of the energy release occurs at the level of the photosphere yet in a Birkeland solar model, it would be the other way around.&nbsp; The outer layers would emit the most heat and the inner layers would carry less current and they would be cooler as a result.&nbsp; Birkeland's solar model jives with direct observation in that respect, whereas in an internally energy driven solar model, there is no obvious reason for a hot corona. </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think the problem here is that you are trying to "oversimply" the issue.&nbsp; What you are calling "magnetic fields" are rivers of flowing particles, that flow strongest at the poles and form "bubble" around the equator where the flow patterns are much weaker than at the poles. Are you assuming that all the current flow goes directly through the sun, or are you spreading out the flow throughout corona, chromosphere and photosphere?&nbsp; If we're looking at Birkeland solar model, most of the flow would be through the plasma in the atmosphere, not through the crust.&nbsp; Current always follows the path of least resistence.&nbsp; While plasma is a near perfect conductor of current, it's not a perfect conductor of current.&nbsp; That is why we see gamma and x-ray emissions from electrical discharges in the corona. Solar wind flow will certainly create rivers of flowing charged particles around the sun, most of which won't get anywhere near the earth.&nbsp; Look at a magnetic field sometime and notice the patterns.&nbsp; The patterns of flow of charged particles make up these lines" and ultimately dictate the field strength at various locations.&nbsp; The flow pattern is not uniform as you seem to imagine.&nbsp; The Earth's magnetosphere acts to direct the bulk of these currents around the Earth as well.&nbsp; There isn't a uniform distrubution of such "magnetic lines", particularly since most of them are directed through the aurora.&nbsp; I don't think you're taking any of that into account.It all depends on how many of the electrons and protons come from outside the heliopshere, but the flow pattern of particles around the sun is certainly "enormous" by anyone's standards.&nbsp; It also depends entirely on where you assume those electrons are "reconnecting" with plasma and choose how you choose to distrubute that current flow. Along some points the particle flow and field strength is enormous.&nbsp; Along the equator however, not so much because of the particle flow patterns are less, and the magnetic field lines around that flow are less. I'll have to try to take a look at your calculations to see if it took any of the factors I mentioned into account.&nbsp; I still think this all comes back to the model you use and what assumptions you make about the power distrubution.&nbsp; Standard model presumes that most of the energy release occurs at the level of the photosphere yet in a Birkeland solar model, it would be the other way around.&nbsp; The outer layers would emit the most heat and the inner layers would carry less current and they would be cooler as a result.&nbsp; Birkeland's solar model jives with direct observation in that respect, whereas in an internally energy driven solar model, there is no obvious reason for a hot corona. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>We are far enough from the sun that those details will not materially affect the calculation of the field at the surface of the Earth.&nbsp; </p><p>They would make a big difference at the surface of the sun but not far away.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>