Inner Core of our sun

[harry]

Hello All

Hello Michael

In the last 10 years I have been looking at Cosmology with Plasma being the line of thought to resolve many if not all issues.

Like I said before, Plasma Cosmology is the way to go. I have read many papers by Hans Alfven, smart cookie.

I do not understand the reason why many cosmologist do not crasp Hans Alfen logic.

Smile, I was just reading through the list of links given to me. I fogot who gave them to me.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html

http://www.matter-antimatter.com/plasma_cosmology.htm

http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/


Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/redshift.htm

THE PLASMA UNIVERSE—THEORY AND BACKGROUND
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/plasm ... intro.html

Extragalactic Astronomy
http://www.cips.mpg.de/cips_home.html


Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object ... ctid=39706

30 June 2006
The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology and Extreme Ball Lightning
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=88edua1k

This slide, shown at the IEEE ICOPS 2006 conference, refers to a "Z-pinch," which is the compression of an electric discharge in plasma by its own induced magnetic field. The canister in the center of the slide has a number of fine tungsten wires stretched between the top metal cap and the lower cap. An intense current pulse is sent through the wires causing them to vaporize and form plasma. The current generates a powerful cylindrical magnetic field that squeezes the plasma inwards toward the vertical axis of the canister. The fact that the plasma is "pinched" along the z-axis gives rise to the term "Z-pinch."

The slide is important because it reveals the peculiar fact that although plasma physicists can see the obvious application of their high-energy laboratory Z-pinches to cosmic phenomena, most seem to assume the electrical Z-pinch is transitory, like their experiments. So they go on to apply incorrect magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) concepts – such as "flows," "jets" and "shocks" to the cosmic phenomena. Magnetohydrodynamics ignores electricity and relies on magnetic fields being "trapped" in plasma. The "father" of plasma physics, the late Hannes Alfvén, showed decades ago that the concept of "frozen in" magnetic fields in space plasma is an invalid concept. He called for primary consideration of the electric circuits, which must be present to sustain the magnetic fields.

It is the contention of the Electric Universe model that all stars are the focus of a continuous Z-pinch effect. Where the discharge becomes sufficiently violent, the familiar Z-pinch morphology becomes apparent in glowing bipolar planetary nebulae (such as the one in the lower left image). And, for example, at bottom center the beaded rings of supernova 1987a are a manifestation of an ongoing Z-pinch and have nothing to do with shocks.

A few IEEE plasma cosmologists do get the picture. With a continuous source of current into a Z-pinch it is possible to mimic the formation and movement of spiral galaxies and the unexpected bipolar shapes of planetary nebulae. No weird science is called for. The crucial requirement is that an uninterrupted cosmic source of electrical power be available. Yet no textbook on astronomy or astrophysics dares to mention electricity. Magnetic fields are mysteriously conjured up without electricity.

The most disturbing thing is that science has become so specialized and insular that astrophysicists do not attend meetings of the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society. They would be shocked if they did. The freewheeling exchange of ideas at ICOPS was quite an eye opener for someone who also attends the monoculture of "big bang" astrophysics/astronomy meetings.

A notable presentation at the conference was by a well-known radio astronomer who gave an invited paper to the Space Plasmas audience. He was moved to depart from his prepared talk by an exciting discovery he had made in consultation with others at the conference. Radio astronomy enables plasma scientists to map the "cosmic power lines" that thread the universe. The difference between the Electric Universe and the "shorted out" universe of astrophysics could not be starker. The discovery, which I hope to report on soon, puts the lid firmly on unscientific big bang cosmology.

oops there I go again, giving out links.

I do that, not because I agree with the writer. But! to allow others to read into the subject.

[Nereid]

[snip]

In the last 10 years I have been looking at Cosmology with Plasma being the line of thought to resolve many if not all issues.

Like I said before, Plasma Cosmology is the way to go. I have read many papers by Hans Alfven, smart cookie.

I do not understand the reason why many cosmologist do not crasp Hans Alfen logic.

[snip]

Perhaps you would be good enough to give us, in your own words, a summary of what you understand the logic of Hans Alfen [sic] to be, with regard to cosmology?

I mean, you write "I do not understand the reason why many cosmologist do not crasp Hans Alfen logic", so I presume you do, in fact, yourself, understand this logic (otherwise, what can this sentence of yours possibly mean?)

[ckam]

Perhaps you would be good enough to give us, in your own words, a summary of what you understand the logic of Hans Alfen [sic] to be, with regard to cosmology?

why his own words? looky here:

Schematic illustration of the suggested redshift mechanism due to the electric field of free charges in the intergalactic plasma.

[Nereid]

Perhaps you would be good enough to give us, in your own words, a summary of what you understand the logic of Hans Alfen [sic] to be, with regard to cosmology?

why his own words? looky here:

Schematic illustration of the suggested redshift mechanism due to the electric field of free charges in the intergalactic plasma.

(my bold)

Because harry has been prolific in posting links (etc) to fringe science/pseudo-science/crackpot/etc webpages and websites.

He has also stated, many times, that he finds the 'logic' of the 'science' presented in those pages to be powerful/compelling/etc.

However, when asked to explain what's on those pages, harry has been strangely silent.

So I'm curious to understand better just how well harry does, in fact, understand the claims he makes (or copies).

One way to do that is to take an unambiguous statement, by harry, and ask that he elaborate, in his own words.

After all, it's easy to simply cut and paste from any such site; it's quite another thing to show that you actually understand what's written there.

[Nereid]

**magnetohydrodynamics - "The field of MHD was initiated by Hannes Alfvén[1], for which he received the Nobel Prize in 1970"
[1] Alfven, H., "Existence of electromagnetic-hydrodynamic waves" (1942) Nature, Vol. 150, pp. 405

And you might note harry that Hans Alfven was a plasma cosmologist. Most astronomers never got past the concept of "frozen" magnetic fields that Alfven demonstrated could and exist in *dense* plasma. When you read papers about "frozen" magnetic fields in space plasmas, you can attribute that misconception to a very poor understanding of Alfven's *complete* MHD theory. Alfven explained that kinetic energy and electricity had a large role to play in the movement of magnetic fields in *light* plasma, but astronomers didn't seem to want to hear that part. Alfven quite literally wrote the book on plasma cosmology. His work, and the work of Birkeland pretty much reveal how the universe works at the solar system and universe level. It all involves the flow of electricity through *light* plasma as Alfven suggested. Much of his ideas came from the earlier work of Birkeland, and what Alfven himself learned in a lab by actually *studying* the behavior of different densities of plasmas in a lab. He realized that plasma was an excellent conductor of electricity and he studied the kinetic energy "structures" that formed in moving plasmas. Alfven was one of plasma cosmology's greatest proponents. Most of his work is still very poorly understood by astronomy as a whole, particularly his work with light plasmas and electricity.

(my bold)

And you are confident in stating this because .... ?

And you can say, with what degree of certaintly, that the ~thousand+ authors of those >12,000 'MHD' papers in ADS "very poorly understood" Alfvén's work?

[ckam]

[snip]...just how well harry does, in fact, understand the claims he makes (or copies)...[snip]...to show that you [i.e. harry - ckam] actually understand what's written there.

Let me guess where you are heading it: was harry to "in fact, understand the claims he makes (or copies)", he would see that "fringe science/pseudo-science/crackpot/etc webpages and websites" he posts links to are all wrong. Is that your point you are trying to make? Am I right or am I right?

EDIT: I just saw that this post made it to next page obscuring Nereid's two other posts. So either he will merge his posts, or you people go read them at previous page, please

[harry]

Hello All

If I say that I understand all or most is a mistake on my behalf.

Neried has important input to these post and without that I think we would be heading in the wrong direction.

Most cosmologists do not understand most ongoings about the universe.

There are many theories and many are in dispute.

Again we are so lucky also to have Michael Mozina to add info to the posts.

[Nereid]

Hello All

If I say that I understand all or most is a mistake on my behalf.

Neried has important input to these post and without that I think we would be heading in the wrong direction.

Most cosmologists do not understand most ongoings about the universe.

There are many theories and many are in dispute.

Again we are so lucky also to have Michael Mozina to add info to the posts.

So harry, when you wrote "I do not understand the reason why many cosmologist do not crasp Hans Alfen logic", what did you mean?

I'm curious, especially as this is what you wrote immediately before (my bold):

"In the last 10 years I have been looking at Cosmology with Plasma being the line of thought to resolve many if not all issues.

Like I said before, Plasma Cosmology is the way to go. I have read many papers by Hans Alfven, smart cookie."

[harry]

Hello Nereid

Plasma science is a relatively new science to many people. Their lack of that info stops them from understanding the many issues in cosmology.

The depth of this discussion needs some time. I will come back to it. I thank you for your time and interest. I highly respect your input. You remind me of the stone that sharpens the steel blade.

My focus at the present time is the project at hand in the land of ozzzzzzzz. That is why my discussion have been on the light side for several weeks.

[Nereid]

And you are confident in stating this because .... ?

And you can say, with what degree of certaintly, that the ~thousand+ authors of those >12,000 'MHD' papers in ADS "very poorly understood" Alfvén's work?

I'm confident in stating this because astronomers seem to have an extremely difficult time explaining the heat source of the corona, even though Birkeland created electrical discharges across his sphere over 100 years ago, and Bruce documented the electrical nature of the solar discharges over 40 years ago. Instead of noting the role of electricity as it relates to these coronal loops, astronomers continue to discuss "magnetic reconnection" in absence of electricity.

You've lost me ... your (sole?) criterion for assessing the degree to which ~1,000 professional astronomers understand the theoretical work of Alfvén, as published in peer-reviewed journals, is the inability (in your view) of "astronomers" (whether they include any of the ~1,000 authors of these papers or not) to account for certain solar phenomena (whether they have been studying these phenomena or not)?

I'm sure that's wrong - could you please clarify?

[Nereid]

You've lost me ... your (sole?) criterion for assessing the degree to which ~1,000 professional astronomers understand the theoretical work of Alfvén, as published in peer-reviewed journals, is the inability (in your view) of "astronomers" (whether they include any of the ~1,000 authors of these papers or not) to account for certain solar phenomena (whether they have been studying these phenomena or not)?

I'm sure that's wrong - could you please clarify?

Well, let's try it this way:

I've lost count now of how many papers I've read concerning astronomy that describe "frozen" magnetic fields in light (space) plasmas. No such thing exists according to Alfven. According to Alfven's *total body* of work, particularly his later work, magnetic fields, electricity and kinetic energy all go hand in hand in light plasma. There is no such thing as "frozen" magnetic fields in light plasma. Nowhere is that relationship between electricity, kinetic energy and magnetism more obvious and more evident than what we observe inside of coronal loops. They are the million degree exception to an otherwise cool atmosphere. These loops create *powerful* magnetic fields at the surface, and yet when astronomers describe the energy source of these loops, they talk only in terms of "magnetic reconnection" as though there is no electrical current involved, or that magnetism is the "driving" force. That is simply false. The driving "force" is electricity and kinetic energy. Anytime you have flowing current, you'll also find magnetic fields. The magnetic fields are not the "cause" of these loops, they are the "affect" of the flow of current through the loop.

If astronomers today understood Alfven's later work, there would be no confusion about the nature of these coronal loops. They would simply recognize and accept the role of electricity and kinetic energy as it relates to such loops. Instead the heat source of the corona seems to be quite the "mystery". The nature of these solar discharge events was no "mystery" to Birkeland, Bruce or Alfven.

Thanks for the clarification.

How does any of this - assuming it has legs - relate to whether astronomers doing (MHD) work in areas other than coronal loops not understanding Alfvén's work?

And why is it that you think Alfvén's later work (re "magnetic fields, electricity and kinetic energy all go[ing] hand in hand in light plasma") hasn't since been extended, corrected, superceded, ...? After all, this is a normal part of science, and has happened to all the 'greats', from Newton through Maxwell, to Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, ...

[harry]

Hello All

Hello Michael

Just a simple question for those reading the notes.

Can you define electricity?

Other than that, I love reading your comments. Learning so much from you and everybody else.

=============================

The issue with most energy question is.

What is the main driver?

I know we have convectional currents with in the solar envelope. But! what is actually driving Miss Daisy.

[Nereid]

[image deleted]

That is perfect example of MDH theory in action, and it's a perfect example of electricity flowing through "thin" plasmas.

It is? Because you've analysed this quantitatively, and can show a quantitative match with an MHD-based model?

Does your use of "perfect" reflect a quantitative measure of how good the match between observation and model is?

If these types of "high profile" images can't be explained by current theory, then maybe it's time contemporary theorists started entertaining the idea of current (flow).

Indeed, maybe it is.

And you've done the quantitative modelling, based on MHD, to show that the idea has legs?

If you want to get to "first base", you have recognize it when you see it.

And, as astronomy is a very thoroughly quantitative science, such 'recognition' no doubt derives from 'seeing' the numbers.

[Nereid]

[image deleted]

Here is a Yohkoh x-ray image sitting next to a black and white image created by Birkeland in his lab over 100 years ago using electrical current. Birkeland was well aware of the vital role of electricity in solar activity. It took nearly 70 years to prove that Birkeland currents exist.

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.

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.

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)?

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

[Nereid]

Thanks for the clarification.

How does any of this - assuming it has legs - relate to whether astronomers doing (MHD) work in areas other than coronal loops not understanding Alfvén's work?

It would be impossible to mess up the heat signature of the coronal loops in comparison to the rest of the solar atmosphere if astronomers spent anytime at all studying plasma physics, ala MDH theory. If astronomy can't be trusted to recognize the most obvious examples of electrical flow observable in satellite images, what hope is there that they will recognize electricity flowing through plasma in *any* satellite images?

Let's see if I understand this ... astronomers studying phenomena other than (the Sun's) coronal loops do not understand MHD (despite what they write in their published papers) because Michael Mozina thinks other astronomers, who do study coronal loops, do not apply MHD correctly?

And why is it that you think Alfvén's later work (re "magnetic fields, electricity and kinetic energy all go[ing] hand in hand in light plasma") hasn't since been extended, corrected, superceded, ...? After all, this is a normal part of science, and has happened to all the 'greats', from Newton through Maxwell, to Einstein, Bohr, Dirac, ...

What evidence can you present to show that any of his work in MHD theory as it relates to electrical flow or kinetic energy has been superseded by anyone? Superseded in what way?

An example: Alfvén's MHD was non-relativistic; one extension is thus the incorporation of (special) relativity.

Another example: MHD assumes gravity is unimportant; one extension is thus the incorporation of gravity.

A third example: MHD is difficult to work with, analytically; one extension is thus numerical modelling and computer simulation.

I'm sure you can find plenty of examples of each of these among the ~12k "MHD" papers in the ADS link I provided earlier.

[Nereid]

MM: That is perfect example of MDH theory in action, and it's a perfect example of electricity flowing through "thin" plasmas.

N: It is?

MM: Yes, it is.

N: Because you've analysed this quantitatively, and can show a quantitative match with an MHD-based model?

MM: How exactly did you jump from my previous statement to that particular strawman?

- - - - - -

From the standpoint of this forum (astronomy as a science), can you explain how it is a "perfect example of MDH theory in action", without the use of a quantitative, MHD model?

[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"?