MGMirkinHowever, convection from a hot core has never been proven... And there seems to be a question of turbulence versus laminar flow...
dict.Transverse: a direction that is at right angles to the long axis.
and the connection of faculae with sunspots:2.4) Facula
The existence of the arc to glow transition boundary at the surface of the photosphere, and the decrease of pressure with height generally, acts as a valve on the rate of neutralization; for, while the outward passage of the atmosphere forming particles is thereby facilitated, the rate of neutralization is greatly retarded, since, relative to the electric arc, the glow and dark discharges carry only a very small current. The result is that space charges and electric fields are gradually built up above the surfaces of the photosphere and chromosphere during the solar cycle, until they are sufficient to lead to a sudden discharge or facula.
nick c(2.5) Sunspots
An important result of these huge discharges is the draining away of the current from the neighbouring photospheric arc channels, and the extinguishing of these arcs. The result is a sunspot, if the facular discharge is sufficiently intense, though the latter can occur without the former, as they do near the poles. However, as required by the theory, sunspots are always accompanied by faculae, and are in fact preceded by them.
And just in case there was still any doubt that common wisdom holds sunspot innards are cooler than their surrounds...A bright cloud-like feature located a few hundred km above the photosphere near sunspot groups, seen in white light. Facula are seldom visible except near the solar limb, although they occur all across the Sun. Facula are clouds of emission that occur where a strong magnetic field creates extra heat (about 300 degrees K above surrounding areas).
Best,An area seen as a dark spot on the photosphere of the Sun. Sunspots are concentrations of magnetic flux, typically occurring in bipolar (i.e. two-part with positive and negative poles like a magnet) clusters or groups. They appear dark because they are cooler than the surrounding photosphere.
solrey wrote:SOHO. Good stuff.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/rea ... mages.html
Is that what you're looking for?
I think Dr. Bruce would agree with that:seasmith wrote:Just a lay opinion here, but there seems to be sort of a 'transverse' current relation between spots/faculae (parts of a single kind of phenomena, really);
and tufting'turbulence.
A crude anology might be a whirlpool
penetrating the waves of the ocean.
Okay, I have a few questions:(2.4.3) Sunspot Magnetic Fields
One of the outstanding difficulties faced by the discharge theory during its whole life, has been the divergence between it and. observations on the magnetic fields of sunspots during the last 50 years or so at Mount Wilson and other observatories and the resulting "classical picture" of sunspot magnetic fields illustrated in every text book on astronomy. For it will be obvious from Fig.1 that the magnctie fields, being at right angles to the photospheric arcs, must be transverse through-out the umbra, and that only over the surrounding rim, or penumbra, of the spot should there be a vertical or longitudinal component. Much effort had been expended by the writer during the last twenty-five years in an endeavour to make the theoretical transverse fields longitudinal but to no avail, and the effort turns out to have been entirely wasted, as observations made by Evershed(20.2) in 1941 would have demonstrated had the writer but known of their existence.
It was gratifying and surprising(2.28) to read in Bray and Loughhead's recent book on "sunspots" at the end of a long section describing the "classical picture", "that the observations of Evershed and Severny(21.2) thus suggest a field of configuration very different from the classical picture. On the new view a predominantly transverse field in the umbra is surrounded by a large vertical field in the penumbra". Severny finds zero vertical field in some spots, in which the field is entirely transverse, and that vertical fields are observed only over the penumbra of spots, all exactly in accord with the predictions of the electrical discharge theory since its initiation in 1941.
http://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
Well, I don't know if I have a specific answer just yet... Though I did come up with at least a couple papers that might give a potential clue... Here's one, though only the abstract is available for free.nick c wrote:Okay, I have a few questions:
-Are the faculae, electric arc discharges that can be powerful enough to 'punch' holes in the photosphere, creating sunspots? giviing us a look into the cooler (compared to the photosphere) region below the photosphere?
-Would this imply, from ES theory, that the present lull in sunspot activity is the result of a lessening of the electric current coming into the Sun?
nick c
Best,A solar facula model is considered describing the facula as a magnetic tube with radius of 100 - 200 km magnetic field strengths of 1500 - 2000 Gauss and solenoid-type configuration of the magnetic field. The circle electric currents related to the magnetic field are located at the boundary of the tube in a thin transition layer. The heating of a facula is due to Joule dissipation. The corresponding thermal conductivity equation is solved. It is shown that the Ohmic heating is significant, and may essentially contribute to the increase of the facula effective temperature when the magnetic field gradient in a transition layer is dB/dr ≡ (3 - 7)Gauss/cm.
Depends on which model you place your bets on.Harry Costas wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
I have just started reading the past posts.
Thank you for the information.
I'm trying to fond if there is a relationship between the core and the sun spots.
(The Cosmic Power Grid)Wal Thornhill wrote:The idea of what goes on inside a star stems from the work of Sir Arthur Eddington in his famous 1926 work, The Internal Constitution of Stars. He made a serious error of judgement when he applied mechanical ideal gas laws to the Sun’s interior. On that basis he calculated that there would be “no appreciable separation of the [electrical] charges.” It was a convenient conclusion because it simplifies the standard solar model so that it is “do-able.” It seems not to have been questioned since.
In fact, atoms in the Sun’s strong gravitational field will distort to form small electric dipoles, with the positive nucleus offset within each atom toward the center of the Sun. The aligned dipoles will create a radial electric field that will tend to separate charge - free electrons moving toward the surface and positive ions toward the core. Gravitational compression inside the Sun is therefore offset by electrical expansion because like charges repel. Stars do not require a central furnace to maintain their size. The result is that the Sun is much the same density throughout. This was discovered decades ago by pioneering helioseismologists but not announced because it was believed that eventually a more acceptable explanation would be found in terms of the standard model! The enigma remains to this day. To accept the obvious conclusion would destroy the elaborate story of the evolution and death of stars. And another source of stellar energy would be required because nuclear fusion would be impossible in the core of an isodense star. Ah well, that's the price of progress.
(Electric Sun Skeptics; THOTH -- A Catastrophics Newsletter, VOL IV, No 5, March 15, 2000)James P. Hogan wrote:According to the [standard] model, the hydrogen gas gravitates into layers of ever increasing density and temperature inward from the Sun's surface to its center. The 1970s brought the first reports of the entire solar surface being observed to expand and contract rhythmically through an amplitude of about 10 km, with a period of 2 hours, 40 minutes. On the basis of the simplest interpretation that this represented a purely radial pulsation, this periodicity is almost precisely what would be expected if the Sun were a homogeneous sphere having equal density ("isodense") throughout--like the air in a balloon. The conventional model predicts a natural period of about an hour, corresponding to a steep density rise in the interior. The difference may sound trivial to some, but the short answer is that an such an isodense Sun is incompatible with a thermonuclear engine at the center--the core would be too cool. Suggestions followed that perhaps the pulsations were not pure radial motions but higher harmonics of some more fundamental gravity wave, but they were not enthusiastically received. That this was pure fudging to preserve the theory was obvious, and it seemed strange that a high harmonic should be dominant. The other response from the mainstream school was to ignore it.
(Stars: Nuclear Versus Electric; THOTH -- A Catastrophics Newsletter, VOL IV, No 15, Oct 15, 2000)Eddington's argument is too simplistic. Thermal ionization of hydrogen only becomes significant at a temperature of about 100,000K. So for most of the volume of a star where the gravity is strongest, atoms and molecules will predominate. (In the electric model that applies to the entire star). The nucleus of each atom, which is thousands of times heavier than the electrons, will be gravitationally offset from the centre of the atom. The result is that each atom becomes a small electric dipole. Those dipoles align to form a radial electric field that causes electrons to diffuse outwards in enormously greater numbers than simple gravitational sorting allows. That leaves positively charged ions behind which repel one another. That electrical repulsion balances the compressive force of gravity without the need for a central heat source in the star. An electric star will be roughly the same density throughout, or isodense. (An important corollary for the electric star model is that stars cannot be compressed to form neutron stars. The stronger the gravity the more powerful is the electrical repulsion to balance it. Since neutron stars are the theoretical pre-cursor of a black hole, both can be clearly seen to be a mathematical fiction).
Do we have any evidence that our Sun is essentially isodense? Some early work in helioseismology by Severney, Kotov and others found dominant pulsations of the Sun which fitted the homogeneous sphere model. They wrote in 1976, "The simplest interpretation is that we observed purely radial pulsations. The most striking fact is that the observed period [160 minutes] is almost precisely... the value if the Sun were to be an homogeneous sphere. ... We have investigated two possible solutions to this dilemma. The first alternative is that nuclear... reactions are not responsible for energy generation in the Sun. Such a conclusion, although rather extravagant, is quite consistent with the observed absence of appreciable neutrino flux from the Sun, and with the observed abundance of Li and Be in the solar atmosphere." The second alternative involved force fitting the data to the standard solar model by assuming that the oscillations were not simply radial but of a more complicated form. However, the implications were so disturbing for theorists that the work was repeated in various locations and all sources of error looked for. The result in 1981 was that the original oscillation was found to be the highest peak in the power spectrum, and "one may conclude that 160-min oscillation shows mostly radial motion." In reporting the status of solar oscillation observations in 1991 in "Solar Interior and Atmosphere", F. Hill et al report on the 160-minute oscillation without any reference to the implied homogeneous Sun. Rather, they spend half a page casting suspicion on the extensive observations and attempting to minimize its significance. The reason is only thinly veiled; "Additional doubt comes from the difficulty of theoretically describing the nature of the oscillation. ...". In other words, we won't accept the data if it doesn't fit the standard model!
Don Scott wrote:5. Periodic Fluctuations in the Sun's Output and Size
There is experimental evidence that the Sun vibrates in a way that throws doubt on both the assumed convection process for heat transportation and the thermonuclear reaction itself. There is a fluctuation with a 27 day 43 minute period observed in the stream of particles emanating from the sun.
In the 1970's the Sun was observed to be oscillating in brightness with variable cycles lasting from a few minutes to nearly one hour.
The sun actually expands and contracts in size (diameter) with a periodicity of 2 hours and 40 minutes. Russian investigators found a periodic rise and fall of the entire solar surface, the amplitude of which was 10 kilometers in height. Then another observer recorded a regular expansion and contraction of the Sun with a period of two hours and forty minutes.
These pulsations are much more consistent with a homogeneous model of the Sun - like a balloon whose gases are of uniform density throughout its body. In Nature (Jan 15, 1976) two British theorists, J.Christensen-Dalsgaard and D.O. Gough emphasized the unlikelihood that any model can be devised for the Sun to accommodate both the observed radial oscillations and the thermonuclear theory. They are also consistent with a model wherein the Sun is an isodense sphere of gas that supports, on its outer surface, an electric arc discharge powered externally, electrically.
So, really, the EU / ES model take a wholly different stance on the issue. Granted the Electric Sun is one of the more controversial / hypothetical parts. But, even still, makes for some interesting theory to contrast with the existing model.Don Scott wrote:THE ELECTRIC SUN HYPOTHESIS
Juergens, Milton, Thornhill (and others) propose an electrical mechanism for the energy release of the Sun. The major properties of this Electric Sun model are as follows:
Most of the space within our galaxy is occupied by plasma (rarefied ionized gas) containing electrons (negative charges) and ionized atoms (positive charges). Every point in the plasma has a measurable (electric) potential energy (or voltage).
The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of 10 billion volts.
The Sun is powered, not from within itself, but from outside, by the electric (Birkeland) currents that flow in our arm of our galaxy as they do in all galaxies. In the Plasma Universe model these currents create the galaxies and the stars within them. It is a small additional step to propose that these currents also power those stars. Galactic currents are of low current density, but, because the size of the Sun is large, the total current (Amperage) is high. The Sun's radiated power at any instant is due to the energy imparted by incoming cosmic electrons. As the Sun moves around the galactic center it may come into regions of higher or lower total current and so its output may vary (both periodically and over time).
Positive ions leave the Sun and cosmic electrons enter the Sun. Both of these flows add to form a net positive current leaving the Sun. This constitutes a plasma discharge analogous in every way (except size) to those that have been observed in electrical laboratories for decades.
The Sun's radiative lifetime will extend only until the solar charge (and therefore, its electrical potential [voltage]) equals that of its galactic surroundings. Incoming cosmic ray protons, which bombard the Earth and Sun from every direction, represent currents (solar "winds") from higher voltage stars which liberate positive ions with sufficient energy to overcome the Sun's repelling voltage and impinge on its surface. (Is this mechanism, by which the Sun is able to regain some + charge, significant in extending its ultimate lifetime? No one knows at this point.)
Because of the Sun's positive charge (voltage), it acts as the anode in a plasma discharge. As such, it exhibits many of the phenomena observed in earthbound plasma laboratories, such as anode tufting. The granules observed on the surface of the photosphere are anode tufts.
To be continued...
This is from, as far as I can tell, a completely independent source (granted they seem to be trying to in some ways "augment" the standard model but remain firmly entrenched within it).As was discovered in the nineteen-twenties, a significant electric field exists in the solar corona as well as in the solar interior. This field is a consequence of the tendency of light electrons to segregate from heavier protons in the solar gravitational field. Since the principle is valid for a plasma in every star, the result can be generalized. The presented paper is intended to rehighlight this significant physical property of stars ... The external electric field has to cause an occurence of electric current and appropriate magnetic field in a highly conductive plasma, when, e.g., the plasma is in a turbulent motion or spirals onto a star in a hot accretion disc.
The nucleus of each atom, which is thousands of times heavier than the electrons, will be gravitationally offset from the centre of the atom. The result is that each atom becomes a small electric dipole. Those dipoles align to form a radial electric field that causes electrons to diffuse outwards in enormously greater numbers than simple gravitational sorting allows. That leaves positively charged ions behind
This also dovetails quite nicely with and seems in line with Thornhill's statements on Electric Gravity. In particular some of his statements about planets and stellar bodies being charge polarized, having an internal radial electric field and acting something like an electret...In fact, atoms in the Sun’s strong gravitational field will distort to form small electric dipoles, with the positive nucleus offset within each atom toward the center of the Sun. The aligned dipoles will create a radial electric field that will tend to separate charge - free electrons moving toward the surface and positive ions toward the core.
The question is does the core harbour Neutrons?Abstract: The finding of an unexpectedly large source of energy from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the 2,850 known nuclides has challenged the assumption that H-fusion is the main source of energy that powers the Sun and other stars. Neutron repulsion in compact objects produced by the collapse of stars and collisions between galaxies may power more energetic cosmological events (quasars, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic centers) that had been attributed to black holes before neutron repulsion was recognized. On a cosmological scale, nuclear matter cycles between fusion, gravitational collapse, and dissociation (including neutron emission) rather than evolve in one direction by fusion. The similarity Bohr noted between atomic and planetary structures may extend to a similarity nuclear and stellar structures.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests
