How the sun shines

Ernesto Solis
Ernesto Solis
Joined: 11 Jun 05
Posts: 57
Credit: 49,513
RAC: 0

RE: Nice article about

Quote:

Nice article about research at Gran Sasso National laboratory where researchers are detecting, for the first time, the low-energy neutrinos coming from the heart of the sun, pretty much confirming that physicists understand the nuclear activity that makes sunshine...

Underground experiment sheds light on sun

Chipper Q,
You are an endless source of learning sunshine.
Thanks for the article!!!
Ernie Solis
P.S Go to www.soliswinery.com and buy yourself a bottle of wine on me. I'll owe ya!!! Catch me on tour!!!! :-)

Michael Mozina
Michael Mozina
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0

RE: I should probably read

Message 71634 in response to message 71627

Quote:

I should probably read the guy's site more thoroughly, but from what I gathered he doesn't adress any of the following:

1. How does he propose the Sun generates its energy? (3.9e26 W is not a trivial affair - aside from nuclear reactions I really can't see any way)

The sun does not generate the bulk of it's energy, though it does generate some energy locally. The bulk of the energy comes from the electrical current that flows through the sun.

Quote:
2. Where does he propose all the iron came from - in other words, how does he propose our Sun was born?

Our sun comes from a supernova remnant. It is a recycled star IMO.

Quote:
(if you say Sun is made of iron you basically say that all models of galaxy and star formation are incorrect - you also invalidate any Big Bang scenario)

Well, technically it wouldn't necessarily invalidate a BB model, just an inflation/speed of light defying one.

Quote:
3. A follow up question, does he acknowledge the existance of red giants,

Sure, they have a mostly helium atmosphere.

Quote:
neutron stars,

I personally allow for the possibility of neutron stars. Not every EU advocate shares that viewpoint however.

Quote:
pulsars,

Sure, see my answer on Neutron Stars.

Quote:
black holes,

No, I share Einstein's opinion on that particular topic.

Quote:
supernovae,

Sure, I just think they occur for a different reason.

Quote:
...? How does he explain those came into existance?

I don't necessarily attempt to explain how anything in the universe came into existence, just as you can't explain how a singularity came into existence. I tend to focus on the things that we might explain with EU theories (like coronal loops), rather than "big picture" mythologies I could never hope to demonstrate.

Quote:
4. And finally, how does he explain the measured neutrino emissions (specifically the ones OP mentioned)?!

I explain them as being created in fusion processes in the solar atmosphere, and from the breakdown of cosmic rays in the solar atmosphere.

Quote:
Faliure to answer any one of this questions means a BIG hole in his theory (especially with respect to current theories), but I suspect he can't answer not even one. Gas based star formation is really a great unifying notion - if you abandon it I'll be impressed if you can explain anything.

Well, keep in mind that every theory has "holes" in it. For instance standard solar theory can't explain the million degree coronal loops, the x-ray jets or those magnetic current carrying ropes we find between the sun and the Earth. Lambda-CMD theorists can't produce a single gram of "dark matter" or a controlled test that demonstrate that it exists. Inflation? Can you demonstrate that it exists in reality empirically in a controlled scientific test? Every theory has "problems", my our solar theories have the benefit of observational support.

If you're interested in a lengthy discussion on this topic, you might checkout this thread on Livescience. I've kept learning and growing in my understanding of the evidence that supports this model over the past few years.

http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=468660&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&fpart=1

This particular thread is still active and it's been a highly productive conversation, both in terms of critique, and also in terms of helping me grow and become better at explaining my ideas to different types of people.

Chipper Q
Chipper Q
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1,540
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0

Hi Michael, Good to see

Hi Michael,

Good to see you here again!

Quote:
Quote:
4. And finally, how does he explain the measured neutrino emissions (specifically the ones OP mentioned)?!

I explain them as being created in fusion processes in the solar atmosphere, and from the breakdown of cosmic rays in the solar atmosphere.


Seems to me that we would observe quite different measurements in the flux of neutrinos if they originated in the solar atmosphere instead of from deeper within the sun. I think the temperature's plenty high enough in the corona to thoroughly ionize everything (is it hot enough for fission?), but the environment lacks the pressure required to achieve a matter density sufficient for fusion. I'm guessing it's possible that some neutrinos do originate in reactions above the photosphere, in the corona, where 'magnetic flux tubes' (IIRC) undergo 'reconnection' and release torrents of stored energy, but it is this stored energy that wouldn't otherwise be there if it weren't for the immense gravitational pressure deeper within the star that's really responsible for concentrating matter to sufficient density for nuclear fusion to proceed, i.e., there doesn't appear to be much hydrogen fusion occurring above the photosphere (solar wind is only 8% alpha particles)...

Nature is replete in having simultaneously a grand diversity and remarkable similarity, and so I think that more than observation of a phenomena with comparison to something similar is required to have a full understanding, which is to say that comparing the electromagnetic activity of the sun to that of a metal sphere may be useful, but far from complete.

So I still think your model needs the maths to back it up, because then you would be able to do something really impressive (as was done), like predict a specific neutrino flux, measure the flux and find it deficient, and then subsequently discover that it wasn't the measured quantity that was deficient, but rather it was the detectors and theory/model that were deficient, and hence make a wonderful discovery that the heavier neutrinos change their flavor! There's a good Wikipedia page on it - Neutrino oscillation.

Nice thread at the Livescience forum, and I do look forward to seeing how the model eventually adds up. I thought your remarks about maths were a little disparaging (and it's not so hard to quantify awareness: for a simple machine it's the sum total of the inputs (sensors, etc.) and the predicted behavior then is easily derived, and would be the sum total of the outputs). But you also said as profound a thing as I've ever heard when you stated that “the physics is universal�. I think that's exactly the reason maths is so important, because abstract though it may seem, mathematics is also a universal entity, so much so that with a great deal of confidence I can make the following statement about how many dimensions there are to the reality of what we observe: if your model doesn't have an odd number of space dimensions, it's wrong; it cannot have an even number of space dimensions and still produce what is observed... (see this MathPages article, �Huygens' Principle�)

And as for the 'EU' (electromagnetic universe?) and gravity, well it doesn't seem that an EM field has the same affect on whatever is the mathematical equivalent of the 'fabric of spacetime' (the Metric tensor of General Relativity, IINM): only something with mass changes the shape of the fabric, yet it's gotta be the toughest thing around since even the most massive of the supermassive black holes are all caught up in it...

Hopefully the things I've stated are correct, anyone feel free to point out any mistakes, cheers
- - -

@ Ernie: thanks, may take you up on that wine for sure, keep on jammin'! :)

Michael Mozina
Michael Mozina
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0

RE: Hi Michael, Good to

Message 71636 in response to message 71635

Quote:

Hi Michael,

Good to see you here again!

Thanks. :)

Quote:
Seems to me that we would observe quite different measurements in the flux of neutrinos if they originated in the solar atmosphere instead of from deeper within the sun.

Hmm. Well, we don't really seem to have required technology to study the sun neutrino emissions at resolutions rivaling the Hinode equipment, or even the SOHO or Yohkoh equipment, so it's hard to say what we might find in higher resolution neutrino images. I do recall seeing one composite neutrino image at one point in time that appeared to show activity all around the sun and in the solar atmosphere. It was of course a very low resolution image, something like 64 x 64 pixels, so it's hard to make a lot of assumptions based on such a low resolution image. My "prediction" is that we will see the bulk of the electron neutrinos coming out of coronal loops in the solar atmosphere and other types of neutrino emissions all throughout the solar atmosphere. We'll have to wait and see how that prediction works out once we get higher resolution neutrino images to work with.

Quote:
I think the temperature's plenty high enough in the corona to thoroughly ionize everything (is it hot enough for fission?), but the environment lacks the pressure required to achieve a matter density sufficient for fusion.

Inside the light plasma that makes up the bulk of the corona, that is true, but inside the coronal loops, that is not the case IMO. I believe that the areas inside the coronal loops are hot enough and dense enough (due to Bennett pinching effects) to support both P-P fusion processes as well as CNO fusion processes.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633

Those Rhessi/Trace composite images show a direct correlation between the coronal loops seen in the Trace images and the neutron capture signatures observed by Rhessi. It also shows a correlation between the base of the coronal loops and the gamma rays observed by Rhessi.

Quote:
I'm guessing it's possible that some neutrinos do originate in reactions above the photosphere, in the corona, where 'magnetic flux tubes' (IIRC) undergo 'reconnection' and release torrents of stored energy,

IMO there is no "stored energy" in the coronal loops, that are just "magnet ropes" full of electrical current flows just as Alfven predicted. How would the very light plasma in the corona even "store" magnetic energy? A simple north-south alignment of plasma atoms isn't going to result in any large magnetic field. To generate fields as powerful as we find in coronal loops requires current flow within the plasma. You could never achieve the magnetic field strengths we see in coronal loops with magnetic alignment of atoms alone.

Quote:
but it is this stored energy that wouldn't otherwise be there if it weren't for the immense gravitational pressure deeper within the star that's really responsible for concentrating matter to sufficient density for nuclear fusion to proceed, i.e., there doesn't appear to be much hydrogen fusion occurring above the photosphere (solar wind is only 8% alpha particles)...

The z-pinch effect inside the coronal loops concentrates the plasma and adds an enormous amount of kinetic energy to the process. The current flow inside the coronal loops creates a Bennett pinch effect inside the coronal loops. Due to the these current flows, coronal loops reach into the tens of millions of degrees, and they release free neutrons as we have observed in Rhessi/Trace composite images.

Quote:
Nature is replete in having simultaneously a grand diversity and remarkable similarity, and so I think that more than observation of a phenomena with comparison to something similar is required to have a full understanding, which is to say that comparing the electromagnetic activity of the sun to that of a metal sphere may be useful, but far from complete.

Well, I have to agree, but then I doubt that EU theory will ever be "complete" from a mathematical perspective, at least not in my lifetime. Birkeland did however go a long way toward demonstrating that electron flows through plasma could generate most if not all of the same observations we see in satellite images today. In his experiments, he simulated auroras, planetary rings, ring currents, coronal loops and CME type events. That alone should peak our interest in his work IMO. All the satellite evidence supports an electric universe interpretation IMO. These observations, both in the lab, and from space "qualify" EU theory, something that has never been done for standard theory.

Quote:
So I still think your model needs the maths to back it up, because then you would be able to do something really impressive (as was done), like predict a specific neutrino flux, measure the flux and find it deficient, and then subsequently discover that it wasn't the measured quantity that was deficient, but rather it was the detectors and theory/model that were deficient, and hence make a wonderful discovery that the heavier neutrinos change their flavor! There's a good Wikipedia page on it - Neutrino oscillation.

I agree, EU theory (and my model) require additional maths over time to back it up. It does however have some maths associated with it already due to work of Charles Bruce, Hannes Alfven, and Anthony Perett. It has experimental support due to the work of Kristian Birkeland. Sustained (a couple hours) hydrogen fusion reactions have never been duplicated in a lab, and most standard solar models have no substantive laboratory support. For instance what exactly is "magnetic reconnection"? How does one "store" magnetic fields in light plasma? Can you explain the exact energy release mechanism at an atomic level that leads to "magnetic reconnection"? What kind of controlled test might we create that would distinguish 'magnetic reconnection' from ordinary electrical reconnection and ordinary electrical effects in plasma?

If mainstream astronomers can't explain the physics of the energy release of "magnetic reconnection", how can we be sure it's not just a misperceived idea that actually relates to electrical activity in plasma? Alfven certainly believed that magnetic reconnection theory was invalid and incaccurate, and he wrote the book on MDH theory. Coincidently he also wrote the book on plasma cosmology theory/EU theory from a mathematical perspective. The book "Cosmic Plasma" pretty much defines the basis of modern plasma cosmology theory.

Quote:
Nice thread at the Livescience forum, and I do look forward to seeing how the model eventually adds up.

I think that particular thread has been very productive, and it's progressed at a very high level of professionalism. I think you'll enjoy it.

Quote:
I thought your remarks about maths were a little disparaging

Let me address this point specifically. I love math, but only when it is applied to real physics and controlled empirical evidence. I don't appreciate mathematical mythologies that rely upon unqualified concepts like elves, inflation, dark energy or dark matter. There is a significant difference between the mathematically modeling done by Hannes Alfven, where each mathematical model was studied in relationship to the actual behaviors of real plasma in controlled laboratory conditions, and mathematical mythologies that are based on something unqualified like inflation. Whereas Alfven made every effort to make sure his models matched physical properties of plasma in a lab, Guth made no attempt to demonstrate that inflation really existed, or that it solved any missing "monopole problems". No one has ever demonstrated that inflation exists, or has any effect on matter. Therefore stuffing inflation into a mathematical model is pointless IMO, just as you might find it pointless for me to create mathematical models related to magical forces. The standard models have never been "qualified", just as magnetic reconnection theory has never been qualified or defined in terms of real physics. That's the difference in a nutshell. I have no problem with math, in fact I believe that math is necessary to fully understand (quantify) what we observe. Math alone however cannot ever "qualify" a theory. "Qualifying" a theory takes real scientific tests in controlled scientific conditions. Without qualification, I have no faith that the quantification process is useful or valid.

Quote:
(and it's not so hard to quantify awareness: for a simple machine it's the sum total of the inputs (sensors, etc.) and the predicted behavior then is easily derived, and would be the sum total of the outputs).

So how would you use that definition of awareness to "quantify" my awareness? How much awareness do I possess compared to say a Dolphin?

Quote:
But you also said as profound a thing as I've ever heard when you stated that “the physics is universal�. I think that's exactly the reason maths is so important, because abstract though it may seem, mathematics is also a universal entity, so much so that with a great deal of confidence I can make the following statement about how many dimensions there are to the reality of what we observe:

I agree with everything that you said in this part of your statement. Math is important, but only if it is based on *qualified* ideas. A math formulate related to how many elves fit on the head of a pin might contain a perfect mathematical model, and contain nothing useful at all as it relates to things that actually exist in reality. Math alone cannot be all that science is about. Science also requires qualification, not simply quantification.

Quote:
if your model doesn't have an odd number of space dimensions, it's wrong; it cannot have an even number of space dimensions and still produce what is observed... (see this MathPages article, �Huygens' Principle�)

EU theory assumes only 3 spacial dimensions, so I guess I'm ok on that score. :)

Quote:
And as for the 'EU' (electromagnetic universe?) and gravity, well it doesn't seem that an EM field has the same affect on whatever is the mathematical equivalent of the 'fabric of spacetime' (the Metric tensor of General Relativity, IINM): only something with mass changes the shape of the fabric, yet it's gotta be the toughest thing around since even the most massive of the supermassive black holes are all caught up in it...

First let me point out that Einstein did not believe that "black holes" existed in nature, and it's not clear to me personally that "black holes" are not simply "MECO"s. EU theory would attempt to do what Einstein attempted to do, namely find the connection between gravity and electromagnetic fields. That would be the holy grail of EU theory just as any "GUT" (grand unified theory) is holy grail of any theory. The current flows within spacetime would be "threaded". In other words it is unlikely that all objects arranged in spacetime are treated alike by the current flows within spacetime. It is much harder to quantify the electric universe because it is more dynamic that standard models, and because it cannot make the same type of "assumptions" about the universe. That does not mean that we cannot quantify the energy releases inside spacetime, but it will take longer to quantify these current flows since we have very little idea about the voltages involved.

Here's a recent "quantification" of EU theory:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm

Quote:
Hopefully the things I've stated are correct, anyone feel free to point out any mistakes, cheers

I don't really see any mistakes in your points. I agree with you that more mathematically modeling needs to take place in EU circles and in EU theories. On the other hand, I don't think that standard model can be exempt from "qualifying" the tenets of it's mathematical modeling. It's one thing to note/claim that there is "missing mass" in distant observations, but it's quite another thing to claim that this missing mass is contained in "non-baryonic" forms of mass. These are two distinct ideas. MOND theorists would tend to disagree with the first assumption (there is missing mass at all), and EU theorists would tend to disagree with both assumptions. There might be missing mass, but there is no evidence that any missing mass is contained in non-baryonic forms of "dark matter" rather than being found in electrons and iron suns.

Michael Mozina
Michael Mozina
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0

http://cosmicvariance.com/200

Message 71637 in response to message 71635

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/10/13/sun-shots/

I think this was the image I was referring to. If you notice, the whole sun is bright (not just the core) and the neutrino emissions seem to occur in the solar atmosphere as well. These observations seem to be consistent with an EU oriented solar theory. I'm not altogether clear how this image is consistent with a theory that predicts all neutrino emissions to occur predominantly in the core. I would think it would produce less "smudging" in this kind of image and look more like a point source rather than a whole atmospheric experience.

Chipper Q
Chipper Q
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 1,540
Credit: 708,571
RAC: 0

RE: RE: (and it's not so

Quote:
Quote:
(and it's not so hard to quantify awareness: for a simple machine it's the sum total of the inputs (sensors, etc.) and the predicted behavior then is easily derived, and would be the sum total of the outputs).

So how would you use that definition of awareness to "quantify" my awareness? How much awareness do I possess compared to say a Dolphin?


I'd use that definition exactly the same way to quantify the awareness of a human, incorporating provisions for a knowledge base and self-modifying algorithms between the input and output stages. Off hand I'd say that, just using the sun as an example, you are aware of far more than a dolphin.

Quote:
Quote:
So I still think your model needs the maths to back it up, because then you would be able to do something really impressive (as was done), like predict a specific neutrino flux, measure the flux and find it deficient, and then subsequently discover that it wasn't the measured quantity that was deficient, but rather it was the detectors and theory/model that were deficient, and hence make a wonderful discovery that the heavier neutrinos change their flavor! There's a good Wikipedia page on it - Neutrino oscillation.

I agree, EU theory (and my model) require additional maths over time to back it up. It does however have some maths associated with it already due to work of Charles Bruce, Hannes Alfven, and Anthony Perett. It has experimental support due to the work of Kristian Birkeland. Sustained (a couple hours) hydrogen fusion reactions have never been duplicated in a lab, and most standard solar models have no substantive laboratory support. For instance what exactly is "magnetic reconnection"? How does one "store" magnetic fields in light plasma? Can you explain the exact energy release mechanism at an atomic level that leads to "magnetic reconnection"? What kind of controlled test might we create that would distinguish 'magnetic reconnection' from ordinary electrical reconnection and ordinary electrical effects in plasma?

If mainstream astronomers can't explain the physics of the energy release of "magnetic reconnection", how can we be sure it's not just a misperceived idea that actually relates to electrical activity in plasma? Alfven certainly believed that magnetic reconnection theory was invalid and incaccurate, and he wrote the book on MDH theory. Coincidently he also wrote the book on plasma cosmology theory/EU theory from a mathematical perspective. The book "Cosmic Plasma" pretty much defines the basis of modern plasma cosmology theory.


Perhaps I should have used the word “collimated� instead of “stored�. See Dynamic and Stagnating Plasma Flow Leading to Magnetic-Flux-Tube Collimation

Quote:
Quote:
And as for the 'EU' (electromagnetic universe?) and gravity, well it doesn't seem that an EM field has the same affect on whatever is the mathematical equivalent of the 'fabric of spacetime' (the Metric tensor of General Relativity, IINM): only something with mass changes the shape of the fabric, yet it's gotta be the toughest thing around since even the most massive of the supermassive black holes are all caught up in it...

First let me point out that Einstein did not believe that "black holes" existed in nature, and it's not clear to me personally that "black holes" are not simply "MECO"s. EU theory would attempt to do what Einstein attempted to do, namely find the connection between gravity and electromagnetic fields. That would be the holy grail of EU theory just as any "GUT" (grand unified theory) is holy grail of any theory. The current flows within spacetime would be "threaded". In other words it is unlikely that all objects arranged in spacetime are treated alike by the current flows within spacetime. It is much harder to quantify the electric universe because it is more dynamic that standard models, and because it cannot make the same type of "assumptions" about the universe. That does not mean that we cannot quantify the energy releases inside spacetime, but it will take longer to quantify these current flows since we have very little idea about the voltages involved.

Here's a recent "quantification" of EU theory:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/blog.htm

Quote:
Hopefully the things I've stated are correct, anyone feel free to point out any mistakes, cheers

I don't really see any mistakes in your points. I agree with you that more mathematically modeling needs to take place in EU circles and in EU theories. On the other hand, I don't think that standard model can be exempt from "qualifying" the tenets of it's mathematical modeling. It's one thing to note/claim that there is "missing mass" in distant observations, but it's quite another thing to claim that this missing mass is contained in "non-baryonic" forms of mass. These are two distinct ideas. MOND theorists would tend to disagree with the first assumption (there is missing mass at all), and EU theorists would tend to disagree with both assumptions. There might be missing mass, but there is no evidence that any missing mass is contained in non-baryonic forms of "dark matter" rather than being found in electrons and iron suns.


Please have a look at these articles, because like I said, we wouldn't otherwise know the stuff (dark matter) was there in the first place, whatever it turns out to be, if it weren't for the way it deforms the fabric of spacetime, and all the EM fields and cosmic rays in the universe pass right through it like nothing's there at all, so there you have it. The observations mentioned in the articles pretty much rule out MOND and other alternative theories on gravity:
Cosmic train wreck defies dark matter theories
This quote is from the following article: “The separation occurred because dark matter does not experience the same drag that stripped the gas from the galaxy clusters. That is because drag is caused by electromagnetic forces between atoms, and dark matter interacts with other matter only through the force of gravity.�
Cosmic smashup provides proof of dark matter

Quote:

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/10/13/sun-shots/

I think this was the image I was referring to. If you notice, the whole sun is bright (not just the core) and the neutrino emissions seem to occur in the solar atmosphere as well. These observations seem to be consistent with an EU oriented solar theory. I'm not altogether clear how this image is consistent with a theory that predicts all neutrino emissions to occur predominantly in the core. I would think it would produce less "smudging" in this kind of image and look more like a point source rather than a whole atmospheric experience.



Now that's a remarkable image! The central region translates to a much smaller volume of space than the surrounding region, yet it is by far brighter in neutrino flux, so most of the neutrinos are coming from inside the sun. If most of the neutrinos originated further out in the solar atmosphere then I think you would see a blurry ring of white pixels mostly where you now see the green ones, and the central region wouldn't be as white, but would fade more from white to yellow as you progressed from the ring towards the center. But don't take my word for it, run your own simulations: easy enough to write a routine that uses a random number generator to simulate neutrinos emanating predominantly from regions of your choosing, bearing in mind that they can come from the far side of the sun and pass through both the sun and the earth before reaching the detector, and then see which result more closely resembles the actual observation. Nice thing about the maths here is that you don't have to wait over 500 days to get a much higher resolution image... :)

And the beauty of maths when you're trying to discover something is that you don't need to know precisely what something is in order to assign it to a variable that gets plugged into your model. In fact, you can do this for something that's not even there, just because you have some notion about symmetry or balance or equivalence, as in the way Einstein did with his 'cosmological constant'...

Michael Mozina
Michael Mozina
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0

RE: I'd use that definition

Message 71639 in response to message 71638

Quote:
I'd use that definition exactly the same way to quantify the awareness of a human, incorporating provisions for a knowledge base and self-modifying algorithms between the input and output stages. Off hand I'd say that, just using the sun as an example, you are aware of far more than a dolphin.

Personally I think you would have a very difficult time demonstrating that idea in a tangible (physical) way based on synaptic activity in the two different brains. We're drifting a bit off topic however.

Quote:
Perhaps I should have used the word “collimated� instead of “stored�. See Dynamic and Stagnating Plasma Flow Leading to Magnetic-Flux-Tube Collimation

That looks like a great paper by the way.

Let's look at how Alfven defined a "magnetic rope". From his book "Cosmic Plasma":

Quote:
However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities.

From your cited paper:

Quote:
We propose that the collimation of any, initially flared,
current-carrying magnetic-flux tube is due to the following
process [16]: a magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) force resulting
from the flared current profile drives axial plasma flows
along the flux tube; the flows convect frozen-in magnetic
flux from strong magnetic field regions to weak magnetic
field regions; flow stagnation then piles up this embedded
magnetic flux, increasing the local magnetic field and
collimating the flux tube via the pinch effect.

The "culminated" energy would appear to be electrical and kinetic in nature. The "pinch" effect that the authors of the paper and Hannes Alfven refer to is due to (caused by), the electrical currents that flow through the plasma. These statements seem to describe powerful "discharges" through plasma.

Based on only a brief skim through of this paper, I would say it's a very good presentation of the discharge effect that we observe in the solar atmosphere. This does however lead us back to the question as to whether the sun is "internally" responsible for these electrical discharges, or it electrically interacts with the heliosphere. Based on the observation of acceleration of solar wind particles, the x-ray jets recently observed by Hinode, and these powerful electrical discharges in the corona, and the teardrop shape of the heliosphere, it would appear that there is a strong electrical interaction between the photosphere and the heliosphere.

I appreciate the link by the way. I will definitely go through it more thoroughly as I get time today.

Quote:
Please have a look at these articles, because like I said, we wouldn't otherwise know the stuff (dark matter) was there in the first place, whatever it turns out to be, if it weren't for the way it deforms the fabric of spacetime, and all the EM fields and cosmic rays in the universe pass right through it like nothing's there at all, so there you have it.

Well, a MACHO oriented definition of "dark matter" is actually fine by me. It's really only when one suggests that "dark matter" is made of non-baryonic mass that I get "uptight". Such a statement would be an extraordinary claim, and as such, it requires extraordinary evidence to support it. I actually do entertain MOND type theories, but I personally tend to suspect that the "missing mass" is located inside mostly Iron and Nickel suns.

Quote:
The observations mentioned in the articles pretty much rule out MOND and other alternative theories on gravity:
Cosmic train wreck defies dark matter theories
This quote is from the following article: “The separation occurred because dark matter does not experience the same drag that stripped the gas from the galaxy clusters. That is because drag is caused by electromagnetic forces between atoms, and dark matter interacts with other matter only through the force of gravity.�
Cosmic smashup provides proof of dark matter

IMO the "infrastructure" (solar systems) of the galaxies contain the bulk of the "missing mass". Due to the distances between stars in a galaxy, I would expect that any random "collision" of galaxies would result in few if any direct physical impacts between stars, and that the bulk of the mass would pass right though each other.

As I said, I personally believe that suns are composed of mostly heavy elements which have mass separated in the solar environment. It is therefore likely IMO that astronomers grossly underestimate the mass of solar systems in distant galaxies. I personally tend to favor "MACHO" oriented "dark matter" explanations for these observations, but IMO it is premature to rule out MOND theory at this time. Some of these observations are quite new and require some time to work though when it comes to explaining these events from a modified gravity perspective.

Quote:
Now that's a remarkable image!

I thought so too.

Quote:
The central region translates to a much smaller volume of space than the surrounding region, yet it is by far brighter in neutrino flux, so most of the neutrinos are coming from inside the sun.

Hmmm. If I'm not mistaken, this is a 64x64 pixel image so it not exactly a "high" resolution image, but based on this image, IMO it's very premature to claim that the neutrino flux comes from 'inside' the sun. It "appears" to come from pretty much the whole exterior of the sun. Now of course there are scattering possibilities to consider, and this image is a very low resolution image, but this distribution pattern isn't really the kind of image I'd expect to see if the primary source of weakly interacting neutrinos was a small core in the middle of the sun. I would expect to see a much brighter central core, that dimmed dramatically with distance, and I would expect to observe little if any neutrino emissions from the solar atmosphere. In this case however we do seem to observe neutrino emissions from outside of the core, with the greatest concentration of neutrinos tracking to the surface of the photosphere rather than a small core in the center of the sun. Again, it's tough to get carried away here because we're working with such a limited resolution image, and we don't really understand much about scattering effects of neutrinos in plasmas.

Quote:
If most of the neutrinos originated further out in the solar atmosphere then I think you would see a blurry ring of white pixels mostly where you now see the green ones, and the central region wouldn't be as white, but would fade more from white to yellow as you progressed from the ring towards the center.

Actually I would expect the surface of the photosphere to be a significant point of density change, and therefore it would react more frequently with cosmic rays. I would expect the entire surface of the photosphere to be 'lit up' in a relatively uniform matter. I would *not* expect to see a very small core, and no activity above the photosphere. If the bulk of these emissions occur near or in the photosphere, I would not expect to see a ring, but rather I would expect to see a complete sphere and emissions from the entire surface.

Quote:

But don't take my word for it, run your own simulations: easy enough to write a routine that uses a random number generator to simulate neutrinos emanating predominantly from regions of your choosing, bearing in mind that they can come from the far side of the sun and pass through both the sun and the earth before reaching the detector, and then see which result more closely resembles the actual observation. Nice thing about the maths here is that you don't have to wait over 500 days to get a much higher resolution image... :)

And the beauty of maths when you're trying to discover something is that you don't need to know precisely what something is in order to assign it to a variable that gets plugged into your model. In fact, you can do this for something that's not even there, just because you have some notion about symmetry or balance or equivalence, as in the way Einstein did with his 'cosmological constant'...

Of course he called the addition of that constant his greatest blunder. History can be rather ironic. :)

GR as it was taught to me in school (quite a while ago) is a truly elegant theory that describes the gravitational force of attraction between objects made of matter. I think that is why Einstein regretted ever trying to fundamentally change GR to attempt to explain a static universe. He never defined the nature of that constant by the way, and there was no guarantee in his presentation of this constant that any "repulsive" force would have anything at all to do "gravity".

Based on what GR has turned into in Lambda-CDM theory, it's not altogether clear to me that Einstein would appreciate these recent changes to GR theory, or whether he would be even more convinced that it was a giant mistake to ever try to make GR theory do repulsive tricks that it was never intended to do.

Nereid
Nereid
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 79
Credit: 925,034
RAC: 0

I was wondering when you'd

I was wondering when you'd get around to posting here Michael!

Did I read your earlier post correctly? You (with others?) have developed a quantitative model of the Sun, fully consistent with the relevant observations, based on the assumptions that a) the Sun is (primarily) powered by a giant ISM (inter-stellar medium) current, and that b) its elemental composition (outside any neutron star at its core) is predominantly iron (or iron-group elements)?

Would you mind correcting my summary, by stating as clearly as you can just what the scope of any quantitative model is that you (with, or without, others) have developed re the Sun?

On a somewhat unrelated (to the Sun) topic: what does 'EU Theory' predict that LIGO (etc) will detect? Quantitatively.

Directly related question: what specific signatures (templates) - beyond those already incorporated in the various search algorithms - does 'EU Theory' suggest/recommend/hint at should also be added/incorporated/looked for?

Michael Mozina
Michael Mozina
Joined: 15 Nov 05
Posts: 51
Credit: 8,270
RAC: 0

RE: I was wondering when

Message 71641 in response to message 71640

Quote:
I was wondering when you'd get around to posting here Michael!

Well, that was over two years ago at this point. :) Howdy Nereid. Did you miss me, or are you just working on your next virtual lynching? :)

Quote:
Did I read your earlier post correctly?

Which of my posts were you referring to specifically? Could you quote me?

Quote:
You (with others?) have developed a quantitative model of the Sun, fully consistent with the relevant observations, based on the assumptions that a) the Sun is (primarily) powered by a giant ISM (inter-stellar medium) current,

When you say "others", did you mean NASA?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

Let's clearly define the term "magnetic rope" according to MHD theory from the lips of Hannes Alfven.

Quote:
"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . [/b]A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934)[/b], and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."

Did you ever get around to reading Cosmic Plasma yet Nereid? Anyway, based on how Alfven defined a "magnetic rope" we can now thank NASA for shedding some light on how much power is flowing inside that current carrying thread between the sun and the Earth.

Maybe you meant John Hopkins University was helping me?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070822_skewed_saturn.html

"Ring currents" around planets? Where have I seen this before? Oh yes, Birkeland created rings and ring currents around objects in his EU terella experiments. Pure coincidence in your opinion that Birkeland's theories and experiments predicted these types of observations too Nereid?

Quote:
and that b) its elemental composition (outside any neutron star at its core) is predominantly iron (or iron-group elements)?

100 years ago, Birkeland actually built a working lab model of his theories based on EU principles. The neutron core (it could be a heavy iron core too) would act as the focal point (z-pinch point) for the electromagnetic core in Birkeland's laboratory model.

Did you personally ever get around to qualifying hydrogen fusion theory by demonstrating a sustained hydrogen fusion reaction in plasma in controlled laboratory conditions? If so, did the fusion process involve Bennett pinch forces in plasma by any chance?

Quote:
Would you mind correcting my summary, by stating as clearly as you can just what the scope of any quantitative model is that you (with, or without, others) have developed re the Sun?

You know I looked back at every one of my posts here and I never made any statement even remotely resembling what you just stated, or anything close to that statement. In fact I openly noted to Chipper Q that EU theory requires more work on the "quantitative" side of scientific life. That would be exactly the opposite of standard theory which has lots of quantitative presentations of ideas, but utterly lacks justification on the "qualitative" (controlled test) side of scientific life. All theories have their strengths and weaknesses. EU theory is no different in that respect.

Quote:
On a somewhat unrelated (to the Sun) topic: what does 'EU Theory' predict that LIGO (etc) will detect? Quantitatively.

Quantitatively? Hmm. I hadn't really spent a lot of time even thinking about that issue frankly, I've certainly never tried to quantify it in any way. Most recently I've been on vacation with my family at the coast and working on solar models. I "hope" and believe that we will eventually find conclusive evidence of gravitational waves. I suspect that those waves will be indirectly related to EM fields in space and will likely follow and flow with the current carrying threads of spacetime. That's my guess anyway. I'm not sure I'm prepared to quantify anything at this point in time (or anytime). It's not really my personal field of expertise or interest.

Quote:
Directly related question: what specific signatures (templates) - beyond those already incorporated in the various search algorithms - does 'EU Theory' suggest/recommend/hint at should also be added/incorporated/looked for?

Well, I suppose that EU theorists in general would assume that any GUT would probably describe mass objects that are expanding inside an all pervading EM field the "pushes" (z-pinches) objects together, and may accelerate them over time. An EU GUT would probably be based on the notion of mass acting as a focal point of the energy releases (electron flows) within the universe. Such a theory would probably suggest that the bulk of the large scale mass movements travel through the plasma filaments of space time, rather than as simple "spheres" of attraction/gravitational movement. The overall electron flows of the universe would tend to push (z-pinch) plasmas (particularly heavy plasmas) together over time. We'd probably expect to observe mass movements in jets around the largest gravity wells in spacetime, and we would expect to see mass movements following the overall current flows within the threads of spacetime. I don't of course speak for all EU theorists on this particular topic, but I think most EU theorists would be expecting to observe "rivers" of mass flow movement at a larger scale and more even "waves" of energy closest to the surface of the mass object.

Nereid
Nereid
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 79
Credit: 925,034
RAC: 0

RE: RE: I was wondering

Message 71642 in response to message 71641

Quote:
Quote:
I was wondering when you'd get around to posting here Michael!

Well, that was over two years ago at this point. :) Howdy Nereid. Did you miss me, or are you just working on your next virtual lynching? :)

Quote:
Did I read your earlier post correctly?

Which of my posts were you referring to specifically? Could you quote me?

Quote:
You (with others?) have developed a quantitative model of the Sun, fully consistent with the relevant observations, based on the assumptions that a) the Sun is (primarily) powered by a giant ISM (inter-stellar medium) current,

When you say "others", did you mean NASA?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

Let's clearly define the term "magnetic rope" according to MHD theory from the lips of Hannes Alfven.

Quote:
"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . [/b]A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934)[/b], and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."

Did you ever get around to reading Cosmic Plasma yet Nereid? Anyway, based on how Alfven defined a "magnetic rope" we can now thank NASA for shedding some light on how much power is flowing inside that current carrying thread between the sun and the Earth.

Maybe you meant John Hopkins University was helping me?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070822_skewed_saturn.html

"Ring currents" around planets? Where have I seen this before? Oh yes, Birkeland created rings and ring currents around objects in his EU terella experiments. Pure coincidence in your opinion that Birkeland's theories and experiments predicted these types of observations too Nereid?

Quote:
and that b) its elemental composition (outside any neutron star at its core) is predominantly iron (or iron-group elements)?

100 years ago, Birkeland actually built a working lab model of his theories based on EU principles. The neutron core (it could be a heavy iron core too) would act as the focal point (z-pinch point) for the electromagnetic core in Birkeland's laboratory model.

Did you personally ever get around to qualifying hydrogen fusion theory by demonstrating a sustained hydrogen fusion reaction in plasma in controlled laboratory conditions? If so, did the fusion process involve Bennett pinch forces in plasma by any chance?

Quote:
Would you mind correcting my summary, by stating as clearly as you can just what the scope of any quantitative model is that you (with, or without, others) have developed re the Sun?

You know I looked back at every one of my posts here and I never made any statement even remotely resembling what you just stated, or anything close to that statement. In fact I openly noted to Chipper Q that EU theory requires more work on the "quantitative" side of scientific life. That would be exactly the opposite of standard theory which has lots of quantitative presentations of ideas, but utterly lacks justification on the "qualitative" (controlled test) side of scientific life. All theories have their strengths and weaknesses. EU theory is no different in that respect.

Quote:
On a somewhat unrelated (to the Sun) topic: what does 'EU Theory' predict that LIGO (etc) will detect? Quantitatively.

Quantitatively? Hmm. I hadn't really spent a lot of time even thinking about that issue frankly, I've certainly never tried to quantify it in any way. Most recently I've been on vacation with my family at the coast and working on solar models. I "hope" and believe that we will eventually find conclusive evidence of gravitational waves. I suspect that those waves will be indirectly related to EM fields in space and will likely follow and flow with the current carrying threads of spacetime. That's my guess anyway. I'm not sure I'm prepared to quantify anything at this point in time (or anytime). It's not really my personal field of expertise or interest.

Quote:
Directly related question: what specific signatures (templates) - beyond those already incorporated in the various search algorithms - does 'EU Theory' suggest/recommend/hint at should also be added/incorporated/looked for?

Well, I suppose that EU theorists in general would assume that any GUT would probably describe mass objects that are expanding inside an all pervading EM field the "pushes" (z-pinches) objects together, and may accelerate them over time. An EU GUT would probably be based on the notion of mass acting as a focal point of the energy releases (electron flows) within the universe. Such a theory would probably suggest that the bulk of the large scale mass movements travel through the plasma filaments of space time, rather than as simple "spheres" of attraction/gravitational movement. The overall electron flows of the universe would tend to push (z-pinch) plasmas (particularly heavy plasmas) together over time. We'd probably expect to observe mass movements in jets around the largest gravity wells in spacetime, and we would expect to see mass movements following the overall current flows within the threads of spacetime. I don't of course speak for all EU theorists on this particular topic, but I think most EU theorists would be expecting to observe "rivers" of mass flow movement at a larger scale and more even "waves" of energy closest to the surface of the mass object.


Thanks for the swift reply.

I now see that I did, indeed, misunderstand what you wrote.

Further, it would seem that there's nothing in 'EU theory' (or is it 'EU Theory'?, I'm not quite sure which form is preferred by its adherents) - as far as you know - that has direct, *quantitative*, relevance to the science behind Einstein@Home, and the intended observational goals of LIGO (and other GW detectors) in particular.

I had prepared a lengthy response to one of your posts in this thread, but as I'm not in my normal environment, it got swallowed by the great Birkeland current in the sky :-(

I'll see if I can re-create the essence of it, later.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.