Starship Asterisk*

Hello BMAONE23

Maybe your right

Hello All

Thank you Michael,,,,,,,,have to run,,,,,,,I'll be back.

Time to pick up the kids,,,,,,,,,,,,everytime I get on the net,,,,,,,I get a call.

See ya soon.

Hello All

The atmospheric region where solids form must be less than 4000K. That is the minimum temperature for carbon solids to form. Each atmospheric layer has it's own unique heat signature, and the outer layers are progressively less dense, and progressively hotter than the layers underneath them.

Sounds logical.


Have we got readings on 4000K?

The only "liquid" that might exist on the sun is liquid carbon. In other words, I've "considered" the possibility that the sun's solid surface is covered in liquid carbon, but that is the only liquid I've ever personally considered. I did not actually put that idea on my website, only because I'm not certain of it.

If there is some form solid, you would expect someform of liquid in the transition zone.

Sounds all very exciting.

Its just a guess, Untill we have something that can actually withstand the suns energy, Its all just a estimated guess. Kinda like the earths core... I think we need to concentrate on more on issues like Global Warming, and the trash along the highways..

Step # 1, Think,
Step # 2, React,
Step # 3, Repair,
Step # 4, Save,
Step # 5, Its all about the children!

Hello paynesmar

That is a cop out attitude.

Do you want to understand Global warming?

Than try to understand what is causing it. The sun is the prime cause.

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

Hello Michael

Reading more through your site and the posted link I tend to see your information much clearer.

Good on ya mate. From the land of ozzzzzzzzzz down under.

Hello All


Michael you are right. CO2, glass house effect.

There are other points effecting global warming. One that many people don't look at is that the atmosphere is actually getting cleaner and allowing sun rays to enter change the wave length and warming the atmosphere. Its been many years since I did climatology so I'm a bit rusty.

When volcanoes erupt, particularly large once, we get an increse in the reflection of sunlight and therfore a reduction in temperature and in some cases an ice age.

We know that the sun goes through its cycles and this effects global warming. We have been told of the short cycles: What about the large and larger cycles?

Michael Mozina wrote:http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/07-04-12-05.all.html

The results found no appearance of electron neutrinos as predicted by a simple two-neutrino oscillation scenario ruling out the simple LSND oscillation interpretation.

FYI harry, the newest neutrino experiments have ruled out LSND's oscillation interpretation. This means that the "neutrino problem" is back.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, Michael - not only is it not true, even the material in that link explains that the miniBooNE early results are consistent with all other results ... except for the LSND ones (these latter have been seen as anomalous from day one).

http://space.newscientist.com/article.n ... news_rss20

We also seem to have a crashing loop problem in standard theory.

Another surprise sighting is that of giant magnetic field loops crashing down onto the Sun's surface as if they were collapsing from exhaustion, a finding that Golub describes as "impossible". Previously, scientists thought they should emerge from the Sun and continue blowing out into space.

In an electrical solar theory, such observations are not "impossible", they are predicted and they are to be be expected. If the current flow inside the loop is disrupted, the twisting plasma loops begin to dissipate, the magnetic field collapses, and the any heavy material inside the coronal loops collapses, and it falls back to the surface. It's certainly "possible" to explain this in an electrical context, whereas it conflicts with all theories related to "magnetic reconnection".

Presumably, your use of the word 'theory' here means a scientific theory, not 'speculative idea', or 'guess'.

If so, please present references to papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals that present any such 'electrical solar theory'.

Please also present references to published papers which predicted the observed behaviour, and which present quantitative explanations of them.

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:

Michael Mozina wrote:http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/07-04-12-05.all.html

It also demonstrates that the "oscillation" experiments are certainly questionable, and thus far there is no conclusive evidence that neutrinos actually oscillate at all. It would be a violation of the lepton conservation laws to begin with, and previous claims of oscillation have been proven to be less than reliable.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, Michael - not only is it not true, even the material in that link explains that the miniBooNE early results are consistent with all other results ... except for the LSND ones (these latter have been seen as anomalous from day one).

To have any consistency with the other experiments you would have to see some sort of an actual oscillation occuring. In all that time, not one single muon neutrino converted itself to an electron neutrino, so how you figure that supports oscillation is completely beyond me. Most neutrino "oscillation" claims are based on the notion that "missing" must equate with "oscillation".

It seems that we must be reading completely different documents, or that we have a very fundamental problem with communication Michael - shall we review the relevant technical literature on neutrino oscillations?

Of course, that means the actual papers, not press releases or popsci articles ...

Presumably, your use of the word 'theory' here means a scientific theory, not 'speculative idea', or 'guess'.

Ya. MHD theory is well understood in terms of the physics of current carrying plasma.

If so, please present references to papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals that present any such 'electrical solar theory'.

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_q-bio,grp_cs, ... /0/all/0/1

Thanks.

It seems that only the first is actually a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, or did I miss something?

Also, none of these seem to have anything to do with "current flow inside the loop", dissipation of twisting plasma loops, collapsing magnetic fields, much less predicting the observed behaviour or quantitative explanations of them (not to mention the lack of any MHD in any of them).

For the record, here's the full context:

http://space.newscientist.com/article.n ... news_rss20

We also seem to have a crashing loop problem in standard theory.

Another surprise sighting is that of giant magnetic field loops crashing down onto the Sun's surface as if they were collapsing from exhaustion, a finding that Golub describes as "impossible". Previously, scientists thought they should emerge from the Sun and continue blowing out into space.

In an electrical solar theory, such observations are not "impossible", they are predicted and they are to be be expected. If the current flow inside the loop is disrupted, the twisting plasma loops begin to dissipate, the magnetic field collapses, and the any heavy material inside the coronal loops collapses, and it falls back to the surface. It's certainly "possible" to explain this in an electrical context, whereas it conflicts with all theories related to "magnetic reconnection".

Presumably, your use of the word 'theory' here means a scientific theory, not 'speculative idea', or 'guess'.

If so, please present references to papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals that present any such 'electrical solar theory'.

Please also present references to published papers which predicted the observed behaviour, and which present quantitative explanations of them.

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:It seems that we must be reading completely different documents, or that we have a very fundamental problem with communication Michael - shall we review the relevant technical literature on neutrino oscillations?

Sure, if you like.

Of course, that means the actual papers, not press releases or popsci articles ...

Fine, let's talk about them. Lets also keep in mind that such claims have also been shown false under closer scrutiny, and something that is found to be "missing" hasn't automatically "oscillated".

Actually, I think we need to start at a much more fundamental level ... it seems that your implicit conception of how science works is quite at odds with the reality.

Perhaps we need to address the nature of observation, the role of theory, and the interplay between them, in astronomy?

It seems that only the first is actually a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, or did I miss something?

Evidently so:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/906760626772561u/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/e57 ... a23ff&pi=0
http://www.springerlink.com/content/m15 ... a23ff&pi=2

So did you forget to tell the folks at arXiv that the second and third have, in fact, been published?

Also, none of these seem to have anything to do with "current flow inside the loop",

That fusion we see in the solar atmosphere most certainly has a lot to do with current flow through the loop.

dissipation of twisting plasma loops, collapsing magnetic fields, much less predicting the observed behaviour or quantitative explanations of them (not to mention the lack of any MHD in any of them).

Well, I'm working on a new paper to rectify that for you Nereid. I will need full access to the Hinode data before I can complete it and that paper will provide current flow numbers that are based on the magnetic field strength data from Hinode. It will also be based on magnetic field arrangements of the loops themselves assuming that the Hinode data shows what I believe it will show. I'd also like to tie those numbers back to the Rhessi data from the fusion paper.

I expect the Hinode data to show powerful spiraling tornado-like magnetic "ropes" where the current flow and the magnetic fields flow in parallel with one another as Alfven predicted. As soon as the Hinode data is available I'll be able to use Alfven's formulas to give you some real current flow numbers based on his MHD theories.

OK, so just to be clear ...

I asked "If so, please present references to papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals that present any such 'electrical solar theory'."

You provided a list of three published papers, none of which presents any 'electrical solar theory'.

Or did I miss something?

I asked "Please also present references to published papers which predicted the observed behaviour, and which present quantitative explanations of them."

You have provided no such papers.

Or did I miss something?

Michael Mozina wrote:[snip]

You provided a list of three published papers, none of which presents any 'electrical solar theory'.

No, I provided you with five "published" (as in conferences and publications) papers that all deal with an electric sun.

Here, again, is my request (I have added some bolding): "please present references to papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals that present any such 'electrical solar theory'."

Three of the papers you cited have been published in peer-reviewed journals; none of them are relevant.

I asked "Please also present references to published papers which predicted the observed behaviour, and which present quantitative explanations of them."

I can only point you to Alven's work on current carrying plasmas at this point and note that his theories necessitate current flow to sustain magnetic fields in light plasma and heat that same plasma to millions of degrees.

Which is, as I'm sure you'll be the first to admit, not an answer to the question asked.

I am however working on a new paper to show the correlation between Alfven's MHD theories and coronal loop behaviors. You'll have to be a bit patient however since I don't have full access yet to all the Hinode data, and I've been having to educate myself on MHD theory to be able to mathematically model what occurs in the solar atmosphere.

When you've got the paper published, or even up on the preprint server, be sure to let us know, OK?

You have provided no such papers.

Every single paper I've ever been involved with has involved electric solar theories Nereid.

In which peer-reviewed paper(s), published in a relevant journal(s), may one read:

a) the foundations of any such 'electric solar theory' (or is it 'electrical solar theory'? Please clarify)

b) a review of all (most) such theories

c) the exposition of any such theory, showing consistency with relevant observational results?

Or did I miss something?

Evidently quite a bit I would say.

I look forward to your detailed clarifications.

Michael Mozina wrote:

Nereid wrote:Three of the papers you cited have been published in peer-reviewed journals; none of them are relevant.

The are not irrelevant. That is simply your "spin". Everything I've written has been written from the context of plasma cosmology. You can't take what I've written out of context because you don't like the implications of electrical solar theory. The papers we have published are all perfectly in alignment with electric solar theory. That fusion paper in particular is all directly related to the amount of current that traverses the loop. In fact the easiest and simplest way to explain a million degree corona on top of a 6K photosphere is to accept that electrical currents heat the plasma. I don't know of any other way to heat light coronal plasma in these locations other than to use electrical current in fact. You are distorting the whole meaning of our work to suit yourself at this point.

Physics of Atomic Nuclei (my bold):

SCOPE
Physics of Atomic Nuclei (Yadernaya fizika) was founded in 1965 as the leading Russian journal on elementary particles and nuclei. The topics covered are the experimental and theoretical studies of nuclear physics: nuclear structure, spectra, and properties; radiation, fission, and nuclear reactions induced by photons, leptons, hadrons, and nuclei; fundamental interactions and symmetries; hadrons (with light, strange, charm, and bottom quarks); particle collisions at high and superhigh energies; gauge and unified quantum field theories, quark models, supersymmetry and supergravity, astrophysics and cosmology. The journal is intended for researches, nuclear engineers, and universities.

A paper chosen at random: "Transition Radiation from an Ultrarelativistic Particle in an External Field at Grazing Emission Angles"

Not a word about plasmas, currents, coronae, electrical solar theory, ...

Further, not a single paper in that journal by Alfvén or Peratt. Nor, apparently, very many papers in that journal on the Sun at all.

But maybe I missed them - would you be kind enough to give references to one or two papers in that journal, other than your own or Manuel's, which present, or relate to, 'electrical solar theory'?

Or perhaps it's the Journal of Fusion Energy:

Journal of Fusion Energy features contributions and review papers pertinent to the development of thermonuclear fusion as a useful power source. Intended to serve as a journal of record for publication of research results, the journal also provides a forum for discussion of the broader policy and planning issues that have played, and will continue to play, a crucial role in the fusion program. To this end, the journal presents articles on important matters of policy and program direction.

So, as above - would you be kind enough to give references to one or two papers in that journal, other than your own or Manuel's, which present, or relate to, 'electrical solar theory'?

When you've got the paper published, or even up on the preprint server, be sure to let us know, OK?

I'll be sure to do so.

a) the foundations of any such 'electric solar theory' (or is it
'electrical solar theory'? Please clarify)

I would suggest you start with the book Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven. It explains the basics behind electric solar theory and plasma cosmology on a larger scale. There are any number of papers published on plasma cosmology theory by Peratt that also talk about the currents that run through space and their implication on solar theory.

Those listed on the Plasma Universe page?

In the section "SOLAR, SOLAR SYSTEM, INTERSTELLAR, GALACTIC PLASMA, PLASMA SPACE, ELECTRIC SPACE", there are seven papers listed, four of which have Peratt as an author.

None of those papers (four or seven) seem to have anything to do with the Sun.

Which specific papers by Alfvén or Peratt present the electric/electrical solar/sun theory?

Let me know when you've read the book and I'll be happy to discuss the next few items on your list. If you don't understand the basics of the electric sun theory after reading that book and Peratt's papers, you might find my website useful. It explains how electrical currents cause double layers to form in the solar atmosphere and talks about the electrical nature of the coronal loops.

If none of that floats your boat, you'll just have to cool your jets and wait for the Hinode data just like everyone else.

Papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals first please.

If there are none, then let's call this thread a day, and wait until some such are published.

Hello All

I see Neried still lacks the understanding of current science.

One needs to take Neried step by step through it.

I will be back in about 2 weeks.

Plasma cosmology is the future in cosmology.

harry wrote:Hello All

I see Neried still lacks the understanding of current science.

One needs to take Neried step by step through it.

I will be back in about 2 weeks.

Plasma cosmology is the future in cosmology.

I'm looking forward to you taking me - and the thousands of modern professional astronomers, astrophysicists, etc - step by step through the nature of modern science.

When you return, please make sure that your first (or second) post answers this question:

Which specific papers by Alfvén or Peratt present the electric/electrical solar/sun theory?

Note that it's papers, published in relevant peer-reviewed journals (not books, or webpages).

Until you return, or until someone can cite such published, pertinent papers, this thread's done.