Sparky wrote:Until we can demonstrate that electricity is, in its simplest state, a phenomenon that requires a connection to aether energy, by cascade of charges and magnetic configurations, we will continue the mantra, current causes magnetic fields, and miss the actual mechanism. We may have understanding of effects, but.....
Yes, for me, a "force" is a quantification of a set of related effects. There might be forces more fundamental than the ones we know, and I applaud the efforts of those in search of a unified theory, which would things so much easier. But I "think" that higher-level work will still stand, if it sticks closely to observable properties of matter. The explanation of it will change, and all of the terminology will be different. For example, to Newton, the Earth orbits the Sun, while to Einstein, the Sun's gravitational field warps space-time such that the Earth, traveling in a straight line from its perspective, is actually orbiting the Sun from the solar perspective. But anything based on the Earth's orbit, such as parallax measurements to determine the distance of nearby stars, still stands. So I'm comfortable proceeding, even knowing that the foundation might get knocked out from under me.
Chromium6 wrote:This is older research but what do you make of the "oscillations" Charles?
I think that the existing "understanding" of waves inside the Sun is quite immature. It is all predicated on the assumption that the plasma is obeying simple fluid dynamic laws. This makes for many surprises.
Kevin L O'Brien wrote:It is in fact one of the great success stories of modern astronomy, because each of the thousands of known oscillations has been matched to the standard model with an accuracy of between four and five decimal places.
This is mis-representative. He's trying to make it sound like the standard model predicted the helioseismic data, which is ridiculous. Rather, the standard model has been meticulously hand-tweaked to accommodate the data.
Furthermore, the "standard model" isn't a singular model. The Dalsgaard model of the density, pressure, temperature, and wave transmission speeds in the Sun has a smooth gradient, from surface to core. The "standard model" also asserts that the composition of the Sun is 75% hydrogen and 25% helium throughout. Well, with an homogenous mix in a smooth density gradient, why are there distinct helioseismic boundaries at .27 and .70 of the solar radius, which separate the Sun into 3 layers (i.e., the core, radiative zone, and convective zone)? This question is answered by ad hoc amendments to Eddington's internal furnace model. So now we have fusion in the core generating photons, which propagate through the "radiative" zone, and then are thermalized in the "convective" zone. So the layers found by helioseismology are assigned roles in the fusion furnace model. And knowing the power output from the Sun, we can calculate how much fusion has to be occurring. This dictates the temperatures and pressures in the core. Knowing the surface temperature, and the core temperature, the Dalsgaard model then applies the ideal gas laws, and finds all of the densities, pressures, temperatures, etc. But the ideal gas laws yield a smooth density gradient, and the fusion furnace model is just an energy budget -- it doesn't say why there would be helioseismic boundaries at .27 and .70 of the solar radius. In other words, one hand of the "standard model" doesn't know what the other hand is doing. That's a "great success story"? It is, if you have become quite accustomed to dismal failure, and a broken model is better than no model at all.
In my model, hydrogen & helium only exist in the "convective" zone (which BTW doesn't actually convect much anymore). The "radiative" zone is iron & nickel, and doesn't radiate anything, because there aren't any plausible energy sources at that depth. And the core is platinum & osmium, which aren't going to fuse into anything heavier, no matter the temperature and pressure. This gets the average density right, and provides physical reasons for helioseismic boundaries at .27 and .70 of the solar radius. These layers are bound tightly together by electric forces between charged double-layers. Calculating wave transmission speeds through charged double-layers, such that we could understand solar oscillation modes, pretty much requires starting over from the beginning. I'm working on a finite element analysis engine that, when finished, will integrate the temperatures, pressures, and charges into an exact solution, to find the actual gravitational, electric, and hydrostatic forces present. I'm currently researching supercritical fluids, trying to find definitive methods of estimating the Coulomb barrier at extreme pressures, so I can assign accurate charge densities to the double-layers. Here, the predictions of quantum mechanics are unreliable, and the laboratory data are sparse. I'm starting to think that I'll have to just guess at it, and let future generations come back and fill in the real numbers when they become available. Anyway, when all of that is done, THEN we can see what that does to our understanding of wave transmission speeds inside the Sun.
Chromium6 wrote:Also older is the Solar Dynamo...
The "solar dynamo" is another crashingly naive framework that needs to be totally re-conceived in fully physical terms. The Sun in its quiet phase
does have an overall magnetic field, in a solenoidal configuration, with lines of force exiting at the poles. In the active phase, the field is much more complex. And every 11 years, the polarity of the quiet field inverts.
In my model, there are charged double-layers. The total charges are roughly equal, so as the Sun rotates, the fields generated by positive and negative layers cancel each other out, leaving an extremely weak overall field (~1 Gauss). The fact that there is any field at all means that either the charges are not evenly matched, or the layers are not traveling at the same speeds, and the faster one generates the dominant field. The latter "appears" to be the case. Helioseismology has found torsional oscillations, wherein layers speed up and slow down with respect to each other through the solar cycle. In my model, those layers are charged, and are generating magnetic fields. So whichever layer is traveling faster is generating the dominant magnetic field. After 11 years of that, they switch. But IMO, it isn't torsional oscillations that drive the magnetic fields, but rather, it's the other way around. Magnetic pressure from the competing fields enables the layer that agrees with the overall field to rotate faster. Then, during the active phase, when differential rotation breaks up the overall magnetic field, and it reforms in the opposite polarity, the other layer gets to rotate faster. See
Cycles for more info.
Here I'll just touch on the way my model treats the various unsolved mysteries that you cite:
the existence of the solar wind (the surface should be 24 MK hot to emit this wind thermally)
Positively charged plasma is ejected by CMEs, and thereafter, electron drag from an outward electric current keeps the solar wind streaming.
the million Kelvin hot corona which does not radiate heat and cannot be heated by the solar surface of only 6000K
Collisions with relativistic electrons flowing outward produce the degree of ionization that is interpreted as high temperatures. This also accounts for Dr. Körtvélyessy's observation that thermal ionization would produce all species of ions (i.e., Fe I, Fe II, Fe III, ..., Fe IX), while what we actually see is just one or a couple highly ionized species. So the ionization isn't thermal. Rather, it's from electron drag, and from the 1.7 GV electric field.
the quick release and the almost light-velocity of the proton-flares
Arc discharges can produce nuclear fusion in the stepped leaders, which can accelerate ejecta to relativistic velocities.
the ejected solar masses which never return
Electron drag keeps the solar wind streaming.
many other old observations as the solar cycle and change of the solar poloid field
See above.
the strongest magnetic field of the sunspots is never source of a filament or eruption
Indeed, CMEs are not caused directly by the magnetic force. Rather, the electric current through sunspots generates the powerful magnetic fields. Such fields introduce an ExB force that discourages positive ions from recombining with the electrons in the sunspot current. Hence the magnetic force helps keep the charges separated. If the current relaxes, so will the magnetic fields, enabling charge recombination. Hence the magnetic fields weaken, and
then there is a solar flare, but not because of "magnetic reconnection" below the surface. Rather, it is charge recombination below the surface because the magnetic field went away.