Inner Core of our sun

[Nereid]

How do Birkeland's and Bruce's (quantitative) models relate to MHD?

Birkeland currents demonstrate an electrical interaction between the sun and the earth. Bruce documented a quantitative connection between the movements in the solar atmosphere and the movements propagation speed of electrical discharges in earth's atmosphere. All you have to do is connect the dots, but no one can force you to do so.

This page is as good an introductory definition of MHD as any: "The set of equations which describe MHD are a combination of the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics and Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. These differential equations have to be solved simultaneously, either analytically or numerically. Because MHD is a fluid theory, it cannot treat kinetic phenomena, i.e., those in which the existence of discrete particles, or of a non-thermal distribution of their velocities, is important."

To what extent did Birkeland's and Bruce's (quantitative) models incorporate the Navier-Stokes equations of fluid dynamics? Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism?

[Nereid]

MM: Evidently it will take a while longer to demonstrate that electricity plays a crucial role in high energy solar discharges even though Bruce documented that there were electrical discharges occurring in the solar atmosphere over 4 decades ago.

N: By analogy with how Birkeland's models were tested - successfully it turned out - what would be the tests of Bruce's models (I assume his work was quantitative)?

MM: I'm sure as you peruse Bruce's material, you'll find something to complain about, but there is a scientific connection between the speed of the movements in the solar atmosphere and electrical discharges. You'll have to apply your numbers to "speed", but their is in fact a mathematical connection and Bruce did document it over 4 decades ago. I'm a mere messenger frankly.

- - - - - - - - - (my bold) - - - - - - -
"a mere messenger"? What you wrote seems - to me at least - to convey a great deal of conviction and certainty, and little of the neutrality and distance that I would have expected of a mere messenger.

I also note that you did not answer the question - if it took "nearly 70 years to prove that Birkeland currents exist", and if Bruce was as prescient as Birkeland (and his modelling and testing as thorough), how hard can it be to state what the tests of Bruce's models will be (that will prove that Bruce {insert key term here} exist?)

[harry]

Hello All

Just reading both comments by N and MM.

I'm just learning from both of you.

Very intersesting.

[harry]

Hello Michael

I agree with your post.

Imagine if you were not hear. I would have given up on them by now.

Cosmology has funny people with different mind sets and emotional connections to their models.

When it come to the basics. I just want to know that the information that we are using today is not gone out of the window the following day.

The models that we are looking at today will change in the future with better observations.

[Nereid]

MM: It took nearly 70 years to prove that Birkeland currents exist.

N: So Birkeland was really lucky then? He did some work which, at the time, was not able to be tested; later, when tests were possible, his models came home winners.

MM: Luck had nothing to do with it Nereid. He took the time to stomp around the northern polar regions and take measurements on his relatively "primitive" equipment and deduced from that data that there was an electrical connection between the sun and the earth. He then assembled what must have been one of the most sophisticated labs of the day, and tested all kinds of models and different voltages and different EM field strengths. He took pictures, and made drawings of his work. Nothing was left to "chance".

- - - - - - - - - -

If so, then what took "nearly 70 years"?

"Acceptance by the mainstream" took nearly 70 years Nereid.

Just so that I don't misunderstand...

- - - - - - - -
MM: It took nearly 70 years to prove that Birkeland currents exist.
N: what took "nearly 70 years"?
MM: "[a]cceptance by the mainstream" took nearly 70 years
- - - - - - - -

Are you saying that the 'proof' (that Birkeland currents exist) had nothing (or very little) to do with observations made after 1917?

Rather it had (nearly) everything to do with "Acceptance by the mainstream"?

Even to this day astronomers continue to downplay the importance and significance of electrical currents in the universe. If currents flow between the sun and the earth, and between planets and moons, then its highly likely that they flow between the sun and the galaxy and between galaxies too.

And it is this sort of word salad, muddle-headed approach that exemplifies the difference between "Michael Mozina science" and modern astrophysics.

Specifically, the "currents" - in the IPM (inter-planetary medium) - can be measured by in situ probes (such as Ulysses, and in the near-Earth environment by probes such as Cluster), and modelled using Alfvén's MHD (and more up-to-date plasma theories) - quantitatively.

These (in situ) observational results and models can be extended to the ISM (interstellar medium), again, quantitatively.

However, in "Michael Mozina science", such modelling and quantitative matching of theory to observation is replaced by handwaving and unfalsifiable assertions, based on who knows what.

Michael, it's entirely possible that there are currents in the ISM (and even the IGM), but one doesn't 'do astronomy' by asserting that they exist and not testing this assertion through quantitative modelling and detailed, quantitative, observations.

It would seem that every time I - or others - have asked you for the step beyond a qualitative assertion, you choose to not reply.*

How long will it take LMSAL to figure out that electrical current is what is heating the coronal loops to millions of degrees, and that these loops are the heat source for the corona?

Birkeland figured that one out over 100 years ago by the way. 100 years later, even with million dollar satellite images, LMSAL can't "see" the obvious.

He did?

And you can cite papers, by Birkeland, in which he gave a quantitative account of coronal loops, including sufficient quantitative detail (in his models) to allow anyone to estimate how well - quantitatively - the photon flux detected by "LMSAL" instruments, in all wavebands, matches those models?

*I'd be happy to go through this, chapter and verse, if you like. Perhaps starting with "perfect example of MDH [sic] theory in action, and it's a perfect example of electricity flowing through "thin" plasmas"

[Nereid]

[snip]

I also note that you did not answer the question - if it took "nearly 70 years to prove that Birkeland currents exist", and if Bruce was as prescient as Birkeland (and his modelling and testing as thorough), how hard can it be to state what the tests of Bruce's models will be (that will prove that Bruce {insert key term here} exist?)

You've utterly lost me I'm afraid. You seem to have the cart before the horse as it relates to "models".

Birkeland didn't have access to enough *observational* evidence to be able to fully demonstrate that his laboratory simulated "solar model" actually applied to "reality", though he did very thoroughly document the results of his experiments.

Bruce simply had "better" access to information. He was able to establish a connection between the speed of propagation of some observed solar atmospheric discharges and the speed of propagation of electrical discharges here on earth. Bruce simply documented additional "observational" evidence to support Birkeland's solar model. Today's modern satellites also add *observational evidence* to support Birkeland's model. Bruce did not propose a solar model, but did propose the existence of non ionized material in the solar atmosphere.

So let's review what you said, shall we?

It took nearly 70 years to prove that Birkeland currents exist. Evidently it will take a while longer to demonstrate that electricity plays a crucial role in high energy solar discharges even though Bruce documented that there were electrical discharges occurring in the solar atmosphere over 4 decades ago.

What, in your view, is needed "to demonstrate that electricity plays a crucial role in high energy solar discharges"?

What, in your view, would constitute "a crucial role in high energy solar discharges"?

What part, in any such demonstration (of the crucial role of electricity in high energy solar discharges), would Bruce's four decades' old documentation play?

What is the energy of the "electrical discharges occurring in the solar atmosphere", which "Bruce documented [...] over 4 decades ago"?

How does this energy (which Bruce documented) relate to the energy of the "high energy solar discharges"?

[harry]

Hello All

Neried why do't you read up on the subject. Rather than being a critic without info.

[Nereid]

Hello All

Neried why do't you read up on the subject. Rather than being a critic without info.

harry, what is it that leads you to conclude that I haven't, in fact, "read up on the subject"?

As I understand it, Michael Mozina is presenting a fringe (or pseudo-) science case, very similar to the one he presented, in many threads, in BAUT*.

The claims he is making are, it seems, quite strong (like the one about astronomers, in general, not really understanding MHD), yet when pressed, he seems curiously unable to substantiate those claims (like the "perfect example of [MHD] theory in action").

You may have a different opinion, but I think one of the most powerful ways to debunk pseudo-science (if that's what Michael is presenting) is to allow the person making the (strong) claims to defend them, by the rules of science.

In another thread here, just a few days ago, I said:

It seems to me that there is a huge gulf between how the astronomers of today go about doing science and what you, Michael Mozina (and also, very likely, harry) consider to be legitimate, in terms of how the science of astronomy should be done.

I see no point in going through yet another dozen specific examples - such as this paper [on computer simulations of galaxy formation] - unless this (apparent) fundamental mismatch in what constitutes astronomy, as a science, is resolved.

[...]

Let's have Michael Mozina describe for us what he sees as the nature and role of hypothesis formation, hypothesis testing, modelling, and theory formation and testing, in modern astronomy. When he's done that, and after we have asked him questions about his understanding of modern astronomy as a science, we can then see where it aligns with, and where it differs from, what astronomers today actually do.

Fair enough?

I note that neither you, harry, nor Michael Mozina has replied to this yet.

*As BAUT is entirely free, for anyone with an internet connection, to read, you may peruse those threads yourself harry, and form your own, independent, conclusion on just how familiar I am with the work of Birkeland, Bruce, Alfvén, Perratt, Mozina, Thornhill, Tresman, Scott, Jürgens, .... If, after you've done that reading, you still feel that I am "a critic without info", then come back and repeat the assertion. I would be happy for you to show your superior grasp of plasma theory and how it has been applied to the Sun and the IPM.

[harry]

Hello All

Again Michael you have brought out discussions to their true meaning.
I will just have to keep learning from you and others.
Thank you.

Cosmology is more complicated than just looking at the stars.

The more we get to learn about the puzzel parts, one day we will be able to put as many parts together to form a theory that is based on science through observation and scientific info.

How good are you on the so called black holes and their jets?.

[harry]

Hello All

Hello Michael

Unable to open
http://solar-b.nao.ac.jp/news_e/20061127_press_e/

Must be my computer.

Thank for the link
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... unami.html

I'm at this stage reading as much as I can during the free time I have from my building project.

Michael you are right electricity and plasma is the way to go

[cosmo_uk]

micheal

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061213.html

just interested to know if this has any implications for your theory or not.

cosmo

[cosmo_uk]

Thanks Michael


from your website:
"This visible neon plasma layer, as well as a thicker, deeper plasma layer of silicon, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun. "

I presume this would be easily proved with spectroscopy - do you have any supporting spectroscopy?

cosmo

[cosmo_uk]

from your website:
"This visible neon plasma layer, as well as a thicker, deeper plasma layer of silicon, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun. "

I'm confused, are you saying that the photosphere is made of neon plasma (ie the surface we see is neon)? if so you should see it in the X-ray data to calculate the abundance.

these guys calculated it from X-ray spectra and i don't think they found a surface of neon

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/neon/

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0506/0506182.pdf