Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby querious » Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:21 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
querious wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:
Solar wrote:There are so very many docs like these in the literature that its possible to get bored reading them. Where is the "stubborn" part???


They're stubborn In the lab, that's where. They stubbornly refuse to experiment with any of these models, and apply an electric field to a terrella in a vacuum chamber.


What scientist in his right mind would think a terrella is at all useful for modeling the extremely complex processes in the sun? Your desire for a return to simplistic Victorian-era physics is just sad. Get over it and learn about the real world.


... mainstream astronomers still can't explain something as *obvious* as a sustained full sphere hot solar corona. Meanwhile Birkeland not only explained it, he simulated it in his lab.


Really!?! Just because he was able to make A corona, doesn't mean he simulated the multi-million degree corona of the real sun. Do you have a source to back up this dubious claim?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:52 pm

querious wrote:Really!?! Just because he was able to make A corona, doesn't mean he simulated the multi-million degree corona of the real sun. Do you have a source to back up this dubious claim?


Strawman. I said Birkeland and PPPL simulated *a* full sphere hot corona. It would have of course have to be scaled to produce multi-million degree temperatures, which has also been demonstrated by z-machine experiments.

This is exactly what I mean by willful ignorance.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Solar » Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:40 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
querious wrote:Really!?! Just because he was able to make A corona, doesn't mean he simulated the multi-million degree corona of the real sun. Do you have a source to back up this dubious claim?


Strawman. I said Birkeland and PPPL simulated *a* full sphere hot corona. It would have of course have to be scaled to produce multi-million degree temperatures, which has also been demonstrated by z-machine experiments.

This is exactly what I mean by willful ignorance.


Member Querious' contributions need to be considered objectively. When I gave them that quality of consideration it induced thoughts and questions. Sharing them:

To me, the crux of the questions surround Ionization. What is the source of the electrons 'entrained' in various configurations within a Birkeland terella? Why, according to terrella designer Jean Lilensten et al below, are there "no protons"?

In Birkeland’s original experiment there was a simple piece of metal for the electron source which
also exists in the Planeterrella in order to re-create Birkeland’s observations. - (Reference Below)


Is that all Ionization involves?? Or is it just enough just to demonstrate a fundamental principle? What about the other charged species in the real world?

Michael Mozina wrote:The third link you mentioned does indeed discuss a solar corona simulation, which they produced by making the surface of the small terrella negative, just as Birkeland did. Based on their images, it clearly worked.

If they "know" that electric fields work in the lab to generate a full sphere corona, why aren't they discussing 
"electric* fields…


They do; as exemplified via several linked references posted earlier in this thread. No doubt thousands more could be cited. Is the actual question more so something like (paraphrasing) : 'Why aren't *some* investigators prioritizing their Internet queries specifically towards electric fields in space plasmas?' - as per:

Michael Mozina wrote:... there is plenty of supporting literature out there to be found and read if one is looking for it.


I'm honestly just asking. Also, note:

The limitation of the Planeterrella


Image


6. The limitation of the Planeterrella

The Planeterrella has its origins in Birkeland’s work. It must first and foremost be considered as an outreach experiment and a simulator. No simulation – numerical or experimental – is the truth. Several of the phenomena that are shown more resemble analogies than the reality of the planetary space environments. For example, there are only electrons and no protons in the wind produced, there is no magnetosphere, no magnetospheric currents or particle acceleration. There is no atmospheric density gradient either. Therefore, it is very important that experimenters do not confuse the public but clearly state that some of the simulated phenomena do not accurately reflect the reality of space. Other features are closer to reality, such as the making of the radiation belt, of the auroral ovals, of the cusps, and the physics behind the auroral emissions. - J. Space Weather Space Clim. 3 (2013) A07: The Planeterrella experiment: from individual initiative to networking - Jean Lilensten et al


Approximately 89%-90% of Cosmic Rays observed ionizing Earth's atmosphere are highly energetic protons.

Concerning the appearance of spherical corona' via terrella experiments perhaps the question *is not* whether resemblance to corona is present; that's obvious.

Perhaps the question is 'What is the actual nature of corona in Birkeland terrella compared to actual atmospheric coronal ionization exemplified (for example) by cosmic rays ionizing Earth's atmosphere and/or, per previous reference, cosmic rays "absorbed" by the Sun?

Since proton dominant cosmic rays are said to be "absorbed" by the Sun how may a Birkeland terella within which there are "no protons" be said simulate the Sun?

Are the answers to these Ionization questions irrelevant? Or: Are the 'structural' plasma configurations, 'a corona' for example, that charged species may adopt due to varying the presence electric and magnetic fields in a terrella actually the more important thing to consider?
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby jacmac » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:03 am

MM said:
willful ignorance.

Indeed.
When I look at astronomy books published around 2000, or after, I check the index
for the word Plasma. If it is not there I know the author does not know much about
recent astrophysics; mainstream or otherwise.
Birkeland will eventually be fully recognized for the great pioneer he was.
Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Solar » Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:48 am

Scientific papers

This page contains scientific articles dealing with the physics of Planeterrella. These are essentially articles in English, published in scientific journals with referees. - Planeterrela Resources


Reference contains a small treasure trove of information regarding terrellia experiments. In fact, the very interesting 1967, Quinn et Fiorito, Investigation of Laboratory Plasma Instabilities in a Dipole Magnetic Field is one of the available papers. FREE!

What are the differences, if any, between Birkeland's Terrella based experiments and SAFIRE? (Scroll down for interesting comparison videos)
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby querious » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:43 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
querious wrote:Really!?! Just because he was able to make A corona, doesn't mean he simulated the multi-million degree corona of the real sun. Do you have a source to back up this dubious claim?


Strawman. I said Birkeland and PPPL simulated *a* full sphere hot corona. It would have of course have to be scaled to produce multi-million degree temperatures, which has also been demonstrated by z-machine experiments.

This is exactly what I mean by willful ignorance.


I fully realize a simulation wouldn't reach the full multi-million-degree temperatures. My question for you is: Were they able to demonstrate an anomolous corona, away from the sphere, that was ~34 times hotter than the corona at the sphere? I highly doubt it, because the complex mechanisms present in the sun are absent in a terrella.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:42 am

querious wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:
querious wrote:Really!?! Just because he was able to make A corona, doesn't mean he simulated the multi-million degree corona of the real sun. Do you have a source to back up this dubious claim?


Strawman. I said Birkeland and PPPL simulated *a* full sphere hot corona. It would have of course have to be scaled to produce multi-million degree temperatures, which has also been demonstrated by z-machine experiments.

This is exactly what I mean by willful ignorance.


I fully realize a simulation wouldn't reach the full multi-million-degree temperatures. My question for you is: Were they able to demonstrate an anomolous corona, away from the sphere, that was ~34 times hotter than the corona at the sphere? I highly doubt it, because the complex mechanisms present in the sun are absent in a terrella.


How would we know the answers to such questions unless we spend the money and run the necessary experiments?

As long as the whole invisible matter snipe hunt experiments keeps sucking the scientific funding dry, that won't happen. We need another Xenon/WIMP experiment like we need another hole in the head.

There are certainly enough observations in the lab that are consistent enough with real world observations to make recreating Birkeland's experimental work with upgraded equipment an actual priority in astronomy research. The electrophobia problem in astrophysics is getting really old.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:15 pm

querious wrote: ~34 times hotter

Temperature is overrated in solar physics, especially when the
mainstream astronomers break the laws of thermodynamics in their models.
(See Sky Scholar)

In electrical sense, temperature is just the energy of an electric field.

The observed spectra that "correspond" with temperature are likely not related to
temperature at all. For example, the cold led-lights that we use today, produce a visible
spectra similar to that of a very hot glowing object. So if we see a spectrum that is
close to the spectrum of a very hot (condensed) object, it is also possible that this
spectrum is caused by electrical means.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Jan 11, 2018 1:37 pm


It reads like science fiction.. hard to translate to the real world.. brrr.

With my EM logic based on Maxwell's laws,
I see that magnetic field B is a result of current (J),
and that is clearly visible in the graph.

The E might be -dB/dt + R*J
as Maxwell states, but there seem to be a difference.
This means that there is charged plasma, not magical twisted magnetic field lines.

In some cases it also seems that the electrical charges discharge causing spikes.

Case solved. Maxwell wins again.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby querious » Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:25 pm

Michael Mozina wrote:
querious wrote:Really!?! Just because he was able to make A corona, doesn't mean he simulated the multi-million degree corona of the real sun. Do you have a source to back up this dubious claim?


Strawman. I said Birkeland and PPPL simulated *a* full sphere hot corona.


So, what did you mean by "full sphere hot corona"? I hope you're not talking about the ordinary corona you'd get from having a charged sphere in a partial vacuum.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:09 pm

querious wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:
querious wrote:Really!?! Just because he was able to make A corona, doesn't mean he simulated the multi-million degree corona of the real sun. Do you have a source to back up this dubious claim?


Strawman. I said Birkeland and PPPL simulated *a* full sphere hot corona.


So, what did you mean by "full sphere hot corona"? I hope you're not talking about the ordinary corona you'd get from having a charged sphere in a partial vacuum.


Oh yes, that's *exactly* what I mean. The basic problem with your 'magnetic reconnection' nonsense is that it's a purely *localized* process, limited mostly to individual or pairs of coronal loops and the areas around those individual loops.

The sun's corona however is *not* a "localized' process, it's a "large area" electrical process that electrically connects the electrode surface of the sun to the rest of the universe. It exists there constantly, and though it changes over time, it essentially covers the whole sphere of the sun and it's sustained indefinitely.

I want to see an experiment with 'magnetic reconnection" where you pull of that kind of a *sustained* (indefinitely) full sphere "ordinary" corona around a cooler object/electrode.

You cant do it, you won't do it and you never will be able to do that in you lifetime in a lab based on MRx theory as Birkeland and his team did their his lab over a century ago based on circuit theory.

Who do you think you're fooling? Only yourself. Nobody here at Thunderbolts buys your MRx nonsense.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1431
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:06 pm


I forgot to add:
The fact that they measure an electrical field, means that the whole
theoretical basis of magnetic reconnection is invalid.

Besides all other bullshit, the fundamental theoretical requirement of MRx
is: no electrical field in plasma.

Something that is not even mentioned in the paper, because they forgot about
the fundamental theories behind magnetic reconnection. Probably because they
are bullshit and rather ignored.

So the Satellites that were designed to find magnetic reconnection, actually proof that
its theoretical basis is false.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Solar » Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:34 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:

I forgot to add:
The fact that they measure an electrical field, means that the whole
theoretical basis of magnetic reconnection is invalid.

Besides all other bullshit, the fundamental theoretical requirement of MRx
is: no electrical field in plasma.

Something that is not even mentioned in the paper, because they forgot about
the fundamental theories behind magnetic reconnection. Probably because they
are bullshit and rather ignored.

So the Satellites that were designed to find magnetic reconnection, actually proof that
its theoretical basis is false.


Which was the entire point of the April 09, 2017 thread entitled "MMS Detects: “Gigantic spike in Parallel Electric Field” and all associated video links, commentary, and references. That the MMS Mission has the spatial resolution to detect plasma instabilities ("turbulence") that lead to the disruption of double-layer "current sheets" with resulting filamentary propagation ("a possible twist in the Bx and By components at the time of the E|| event.") a bit further away from the "EDR" ("electron diffusion region"). EDR is of course the naming convention for the location within which rise of electric field acceleration of charged particles after "decoupling" from magnetic field occurs - which then totally destroys ("violates") the "frozen in" concept that Alfven initially used but later rejected and cautioned towards the use thereof.

Those are direct detections of Alfven's CME and/or filamentary astrophysical "jet" inducing "exploding double-layers" and associated instabilities. Again; that was the point of the thread in it's entirety. All the way down to asymmetric Alfven speeds.

Is this better?

After the theory of dynamic double layers in laser-produced plasmas arrived at several significant results in agreement with measurement, including particle acceleration, a clarification was given to the paper by Bryant et al. (1992) negating such acceleration. The discrepancy seems to be in the definition of static double layers in contradiction with dynamic double layers that are created in laser-induced plasma. We present here new results
on the acceleration of electrons in a laser-irradiated plasma by double layer mechanisms. A simple analytical example is given. - How double layers accelerate charged particles By S. ELIEZER


DL's in laser irradiated plasma with argument against the idealized "static" DL's of Bryant et al as opposed to "dynamic" DL's (their "turbulence" again see). The foundations of lab work has to extended to space plasmas (as known). Which is all that was being contrasted and compared with MMS Mission detections which specifically cites double-layer in the abstract. The physics of Plasma Electrodynamics. There is nothing wrong with dismantling the the information. Its quite an enjoyable hobby.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1306
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:33 pm

Solar wrote:Is this better?



Paper Page 443:
.. laser radiation of 10^17 W/cm² intensity..

That 10^17 is really huge.
The only place where this number might be realistic is in a nuclear explosion.
The sun's surface has an average of 6000 W/cm², if wikipedia and my calculation is right.
With such intensity, the double-layer does not really matter any more.

My hypothesis:
There are nuclear reactions near/on the surface of the sun,
and these produce accelerated particles.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Cosmic Rays and their implications to solar physics.

Unread postby querious » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:44 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
querious wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:
querious wrote:Really!?! Just because he was able to make A corona, doesn't mean he simulated the multi-million degree corona of the real sun. Do you have a source to back up this dubious claim?


Strawman. I said Birkeland and PPPL simulated *a* full sphere hot corona.


So, what did you mean by "full sphere hot corona"? I hope you're not talking about the ordinary corona you'd get from having a charged sphere in a partial vacuum.


Oh yes, that's *exactly* what I mean. The basic problem with your 'magnetic reconnection' nonsense is that it's a purely *localized* process, limited mostly to individual or pairs of coronal loops and the areas around those individual loops.

The sun's corona however is *not* a "localized' process, it's a "large area" electrical process that electrically connects the electrode surface of the sun to the rest of the universe. It exists there constantly, and though it changes over time, it essentially covers the whole sphere of the sun and it's sustained indefinitely.

I want to see an experiment with 'magnetic reconnection" where you pull of that kind of a *sustained* (indefinitely) full sphere "ordinary" corona around a cooler object/electrode.

You cant do it, you won't do it and you never will be able to do that in you lifetime in a lab based on MRx theory as Birkeland and his team did their his lab over a century ago based on circuit theory.

Who do you think you're fooling? Only yourself. Nobody here at Thunderbolts buys your MRx nonsense.


First of all, where have I ever mentioned Magnetic Reconnection?

Second of all, the mere fact you think that's the only proposed explanation of the 3-million-degree coronal plasma once again shows your abject ignorance of the subjects you so passionately opine on.

Third of all, it appears that your claim of anybody "simulating" the nature of the hot corona was full-on BS. It was just an ordinary plasma glow, wasn't it? In your mind, that probably suffices for a simulation. Lame.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests