seasmith wrote:If your waves are between the chromosphere and photosphere, then they are Not traveling on the surface, (as the NASA images depict). In your model they would be traveling >between< the two layers. You may have just chosen the wrong terms...
I misspoke myself. There is nothing
between the photosphere and the chromosphere. I'm talking about surface waves
in the photosphere, but at the boundary, due to the difference in density "between" the photosphere and chromosphere. Anyway...
seasmith wrote:imho, neither the NASA model above, nor yours, fully consider all the possible Drivers of the observed oscillations.
I agree. I haven't really studied the waves, and my only interest in them is in what they tell us about the density gradient. But even a casual inspection of the data reveals major problems with the interpretation. Here's a quote from a
SOHO webpage:
NASA wrote:Unlike water ripples that travel outward at a constant velocity, the solar waves accelerated from an initial speed of 10 km/s to a maximum of 100 km/s before disappearing. [...] The solar seismic waves appear to be compression waves like the "P" waves generated by an earthquake.
So p-waves can start out traveling faster than the speed of sound in the relevant medium, and then
accelerate... to relativistic speeds??? Here is evidence of "p-waves" traveling at 250 km/s (1/1000 the speed of light).
http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibr ... _strip.gif
If I was a scientist, I wouldn't call these sound waves, because then they'd probably travel at the speed of sound, or something would be wrong. So I'd call them hypersound waves, which are kinda like sound waves, but which travel much faster, or something. Then I'd change the subject really fast...
I actually consider this to be evidence of a net positive charge in the photosphere, where particle motion starts accelerating the next particle before they would have collided, due to the electrostatic repulsion between like-charged atoms. This gets the waves well above the speed of sound, but still below the speed of light. They act like p-waves, but the "pressure" is electric instead of hydrostatic.
Lloyd wrote:Would the neutral atoms that become the solar wind come from the core? And would they become re-ionized in the radiative zone? If so, can you explain how?
Here I agree with the mainstream in saying that what happens in the core stays in the core. The helioseismic data show the core to behave as a solid body, without any convection, and without any layered laminar shearing as we find in the radiative and convective zones. But I depart from the mainstream, and agree with the EU camp, in questioning whether any nuclear fusion occurs in the core. The pressure isn't sufficient, and the theoretical temperatures are not possible, as these would reduce the density, given the pressure, making fusion even less likely, and eliminating the heat source. So I'm thinking that the solar wind comes straight out of the granules. That's certainly what it looks like in the coronagraphs. Steady streams of particles fly out from areas much broader than the active sunspot regions, so we have to look at the normal photospheric conditions for the source of these particles. I'm thinking that the particles gained their initial velocity (2 km/s) as part of a thermal bubble, but which were accelerated beyond the gravitational escape velocity (600 km/s) by the burst in temperature in the photosphere, while not being sucked back into the Sun because of their neutral charge. The photospheric temperatures, and the electrodynamics invoked by particles traveling at 1/500 the speed of light, will re-ionize the particles. But overall, the stream is neutrally charged, and moving fast enough to escape the Sun's gravity, so off it goes.
Lloyd wrote:Would an arc welder be an example of Marklund Convection? Does it involve a flow of ions?
In arc welding, only electrons are moving. In plasma torches, ions are involved, but that's just because the plasma is forced out of the nozzle by hydrostatic pressure. Then, as the positive ions travel toward the work, a flow of electrons from the (grounded) work recombines with the positive ions, resulting in an electric arc. So you've got high velocity ions, rotating because of the Lorentz force, in the middle of an arc discharge, which makes a nice torch because the rotation of the plasma helps evacuate slag, making the cutting go even faster (but making for a very rough cut). By contrast, EDM simply vaporizes anything in the way of the arc, leaving a very clean cut, but going slower. But in all cases, the electric current is the flow of electrons, and any ion movement is slow, and occurring for its own reasons, which have nothing to do with the voltages.
Lloyd wrote:Have you heard of positive lightning? That's said to be a flow of ions and it's much more powerful than negative lightning.
The term "positive lightning" actually just means that it was from a positive charge in the cloud down to an induced negative charge in the ground, as opposed to the 90% of all lightning that is from a negative cloud to positive ground. But either way, it's just electrons flowing. Positive strikes are more powerful because they arc through 10 km of air (from the anvil down to the ground), requiring upwards of 100 Mv, whereas negative strikes typically come from 5 km above ground, and can happen in 20 Mv of potential.
Lloyd wrote:So why could not the layering of positive and negative layers that your theory says forms planets and stars be supplied by ion flows? If positive and negative megalightning can form planets and stars, that would be Marklund Convection, I presume, which could contain iron etc toward the center of the flow.
I agree that Marklund convection can concentrate neutrally charged matter inside a plasma jet, and even cool it to the point that it might become liquid or even solid. But starting with a cooled thread of solid matter along the axis of a plasma jet moving at the required relativistic speeds, how do you convert that to a spherical clump of matter moving slowly through space? The answer sometimes given is toroidal knots in a pinched charge stream, but that's a category error. The toroidal knots are just electrons -- inertia precludes such behaviors in positive ions. So there's a "magic happens here" in the "Marklund convection forms astronomical orbs" construct.
Lloyd wrote:Could the core of the Sun then be solid iron, just below the photosphere, as conceived in some Iron Sun models? Or could there not be solids in the Sun? The Earth is solid. So why could the Sun not be?
While I think that we all agree that the interpretation of the helioseismic data is contentious (because waves are propagating at non-hydrodynamic velocities), they at least guide us toward some hunches and away from others. At the very least, we're not seeing any distinct density shifts inside the Sun, the way we do in the Earth, delineating the difference between the mantle and the core. So whatever it is, it's well-mixed.
What is it?
Due to the updrafts and downdrafts in the convective zone, we can suspect that it's well-mixed. This means that what we know about the elemental composition of the photosphere (74% hydrogen and 25% helium) is probably true for the entire convective zone.
Since we're not seeing helioseismic waves bouncing off of the boundary between the convective and radiative zones, the density fares smoothly from the one to the other. This means that if you assert a different elemental composition in the radiative zone, you raise the question of how it doesn't create a density difference that would be detectable. Not an impossible question to answer -- just a question. It's all neat and clean to just say that it's all hydrogen and helium as we observe at the surface, but the reality is that we just don't know.
My model actually wouldn't really be bothered by that, as I'm assuming that it's all hot enough to be plasma, even if it gets compacted to the density of a solid in the core, and the electrodynamic effects that I'm asserting would happen regardless of the species of ion. Semi-relativistic speeds will accomplish partial charge concentrations and separations, resulting in an electrostatic attraction between the stratified layers. They could be hydrogen atoms, or iron, or whatever.
Then the remaining issue with the Iron Sun model is the question of the density/mass ratio. If we know the mass of the Sun, and if you go in there with heavier elements, you need higher temperatures to create greater pressures to reduce the density, so that you get the right overall mass. But then the density is all wrong, meaning that the helioseismic data need to be reinterpreted.
If I apply my thoughts concerning fast waves in the photosphere to estimates of the density inside the Sun, interesting things happen. If the core is positively charged, waves will flow faster through it, as electric pressure acts faster than hydrostatic pressure in transferring inertia from one particle to another. If that's true, the density inside the core is grossly over-estimated, and it might even be
less dense than the radiative zone (which I have as a negatively charged layer that would not accelerate waves with electric pressure). If the core is less dense, then the elements have to be heavier, in order to get the mass of the Sun right. Also, if the density is less, the temperature has to be greater than what the ideal gas laws predict. It might not be the 15 MK that the standard model asserts, but it would be greater than the surrounding layers. That would suggest that there is an energy source in the core (otherwise its heat should have equalized by now). This brings us back to the mainstream possibility that there is
some nuclear fusion going on in the core. (At least we got there by following the data instead of with quick-n-dirty rationalizations.) But this wouldn't be the sole energy source, as the mainstream asserts. It might just be the energy that keeps the convective zone boiling, while the primary energy source in the photosphere is more probably electric arcing. I'm saying that the arcing is due to a charge separation within the Sun, while the Electric Sun model has it as a separation between the Sun and the rest of the solar system. Either way, photospheric arcing it is. Yet either way,
some fusion is occurring in the Sun. I think that CMEs are the result of nuclear explosions due to arcing in or below the photosphere. Would that account for the neutrino flux? Or do we need a small nuclear furnance in the core to make up the difference? Interesting questions. Anybody?
But here are my thoughts...
