• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Micheal's solar model

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by RealityCheck01, Oct 16, 2012.

  1. [serious]

    [serious] 'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA Supporter

    +1,651
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Ok, a lot to get to here and I'm on a phone, so please be understanding if I miss something.
    ok, first stop. Could be just a typo, but spectral analysis of the chromosphere shows primarily hydrogen emission.
    Did you mean to say the corona is fully ionized hydrogen and the chromosphere is partially ionized hydrogen?
    isn't the relatively continuous emission due to it radiating as a black body?
    why would the layers furthest from the energy source receive the most energy?
    well, the mainstream model indicates that these spots are where convection currents from the interior are impeded by the magnetic fields. Am I to understand you are proposing the opposite and suggesting that sunspots are areas of sufficiently LARGE turnover such that an underlying cooler region is exposed?
    One addition question to clarify, do you accept that nuclear fusion occurs in stars? if so, what layer or layers of your model does this occur in?
     
  2. [serious]

    [serious] 'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA Supporter

    +1,651
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Well, according to mainstream physics, iron can fuse in some stars, though only when things are going very badly.
     
  3. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    No. As with the standard model, the sun's energy comes from the fusion of various lighter elements*until* we get to Iron. Fusion of Iron (and up) requires more energy than it generates.

    I'm not actually certain of what the "core" might be composed of, but even if the core is iron, the fusion energy the sun generates is mostly hydrogen to helium fusion, and the fusion of lighter elements which occurs in discharges throughout the sun, not *just* in the core. In fact I would expect to see a small amount of fusion occurring in the solar atmosphere inside coronal loop discharge events.

    Birkeland's solar model was entirely internally powered by a "transmutation of elements" according to Birkeland.
     
  4. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    No problem. I'm very pleased that you're taking the time to understand the cathode solar model in the first place. :)

    Keep in mind that hydrogen flows through all the various double layers as it's the primary component of solar wind, and hydrogen plasma has the highest charge/mass ratio. The solar wind composition is arranged by it's charge/mass ratio which is why we see an abundance of H+, He+2 and He+1 in that specific order.

    If you look at SDO 304A images, you'll see that the HeII ions that the 304 filter is tuned to are primarily lit up in the region of the chromosphere. That double layer is mostly made of Helium IMO, but as I noted, all the double layers have many elements running through them, and the chromosphere is certainly no exception. Since solar wind is mostly composed of hydrogen, I would also expect to observe a strong hydrogen emission from the chromosphere too, but the bulk of that double layer is composed of Helium IMO.

    Only in the standard model. It's somewhat more complicated in a mass separated solar model in terms of emission patterns and where they originate. I'm ok with an "average atmospheric temperature" of 6000 degrees, and even a 6000 degree photosphere surface. I don't think the "white light" emission pattern of the photosphere is directly linked to the surface temperature however. I also seriously doubt that sunspots are all composed of uniformly "cooler" plasma than the surrounding material. I'm of the opinion that the material inside the umbra of sunspots is mostly composed of upwelling Silicon plasma that's been superheated by (typically volcanic) events near the surface which also generates all sorts of electrical discharge events directly above the volcanic emission of non ionized material into the ionized solar atmosphere.

    Well, for starters, due to their lower density, they conduct current less efficiently than more dense plasma layers and they therefore experience more "resistance" to the steady flow of current from the solid surface toward the heliosphere.

    That's a nice concept, but then we're stuck with trying to explain "magic" magnetic field events where all the plasma is cooled to nearly exactly the same surface temperature four *thousands* of miles. Nice trick for a bunch of thin magnetic lines.

    IMO the "darkness" of the umbra is related to the material composition at the surface (Silicon rather than Neon), not *necessarily* the temperature. I have no doubt however that the material in the umbra is somewhat cooler than the average temperature of the surface of the photossphere. I don't believe that the temperature is the primary cause of it being "darker" however, and I don't believe the sun is a pure "black body" in terms of it's spectral output.

    Keep in mind that sunspots typically form directly around *active* regions which contain plasma that is in the millions of degrees. The mainstream has magnetic fields doing heating and cooling tricks over the very same regions. Nifty trick, but it sounds rather implausible.

    Yes, but it's related to the composition of the elements that are dominant in that region. The umbra of a sunspot is an area where the superheated silicon plasma below is upwelling up and through the surface of the neon photosphere. The "dark" factor isn't just temperature related, it's composition related. That's also why we observe penumbral filaments of a very limited distance. The neon isn't that "thick", and we ultimately peer into the silicon plasma below at the bottom of those penumbral filaments.

    Unlike Juergen's solar model, Birkeland's cathode model was entirely internally powered. The fusion in his model occurs all throughout the sun, in discharge processes that occur all throughout the solar interior and exterior of the sun. I doubt that much fusion occurs in the solar atmosphere compared to the amount of fusion occurring near the core.

    Since it's internally powered, I would expect Birkeland's cathode sun to emit the exact same number of neutrinos as the standard solar model, but I would expect to see at least some of that fusion occurring in the solar atmosphere, and all throughout the sun not just in the core as is the case with the standard model. If we had the ability to observe solar neutrinos with a high enough resolution, we could in theory distinguish between the emission *patterns* of both solar model, if not the emission totals. The mainstream's model should produce a tight "core" emission pattern, whereas Birkeland's neutrino emissions would be more widespread throughout the sun's interior, and even it's exterior. Any fusion occurring *under* the surface of the photosphere is unlikely to produce gamma rays that can escape the solar atmosphere, but occasionally coronal loops that are rising higher in the solar atmosphere, and rise through the surface of the photosphere also produce fusion. We would observe gamma rays from fusion that occurs outside of the surface of the neon photosphere, but probably not from underneath of that surface. We would however observe the neutrino emissions that occur above the solid surface if we have enough resolution. In terms of the *location* of the neutrino emissions, there is a distinct difference between the standard solar model and all electric solar models. Birkeland's cathode model would produce fusion from a much larger region in and around the sun and it's atmosphere, whereas the standard model would emit the bulk of it's neutrinos in and around the core only.
     
  5. [serious]

    [serious] 'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA Supporter

    +1,651
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I find alternate models interesting even if I don't agree with them.
    are we talking currents or fields? The corona effect you posted the video of is caused by the field ionizing and accelerating particles. Adding layers that can carry a current supresses those fields and is used to prevent coronas (coronae?).
    why not? It's observed temperature is in line with its observed spectra.
    this last part gets back to my original question. If the energy release is happening throughout the sun, what cooling mechanism could keep the interior in check? I understand what can make the outer layers hot, but what cools the inside?

    As an example, if you evenly and uniformly heat a solid spheres, the center will naturally be hotter since the edges can radiate heat away, but the center is insulated
     
  6. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    Me too. It makes life interesting. :)

    We're talking about both of them ultimately, but the cathode ray (and other types of) current is providing the additional kinetic energy to heat the various particles in the atmosphere. The electric field is ultimately driving the parade mind you, but the steady stream of current is providing the kinetic energy to "heat" the plasma atmosphere.

    Indeed. The electrons in the cathode rays slam into particles in the atmosphere around both (all) spheres and ionize them on the spot. They also provide kinetic energy that "pushes" such collided particles away from the cathode surface of the sun and out toward "space".

    I'd assume that the primary heat emission point is the surface of the photosphere where the density change is significant.

    How so? Adding more plasma layers around the sphere isn't going to change the charge separation that exists between the solid sphere and "space" in Birkeland's experiments. All they will end up doing is forming various double layers where the current "flows through" them, but the cathode rays will still flow right through them, and also interact with the atmosphere of course. Adding additional elements in the atmosphere will also make it "glow" in different color ranges that have a lot to do with the materials, not *just* the temperature.

    Sure, but the sun isn't a perfect "black body". It has EUV spectra that are entirely inconsistent with a pure "black body" at 6000 degrees Kelvin. That's mostly due to the charge separation between the solid surface and the heliosphere, or what Birkeland called "space". The resulting cathode rays flow constantly outward from the sun, and push/pull various particles in their wake.

    It may indeed be that the surface of the photosphere is 6000K, but as the chromosphere demonstrates, that doesn't mean that all layers below the surface of the photopshere must radiate at a *higher* temperature. In fact they can be radiating at a lower temperature, as we find them arranged in the solar atmosphere.

    Ultimately I'd assume it's the same cooling process that allows for the planets to form a crust. The outside temp of space is ultimately lower than the core of the body, and materials of various temperatures exist inside the crust until the material cools enough for form solids. The silicon plasma layer is close to 3000 kilometers thick, and its *below* the surface of the photosphere.

    Ultimately the atmosphere below the surface of the photosphere is *cooler* than the surface of the photosphere for the same reasons that the photosphere is cooler than the chromosphere, and both of those layers are cooler than the corona.

    The atmosphere closest to the surface is cool enough for solids to form IMO, and thick enough to help magma cool back down into a solid.

    I'd assume that the silicon plasma layer provides a "cool" enough and thick enough atmosphere around the crust to allow solids to form beneath it.

    Other layers higher in the atmosphere might be "hotter", but they are relatively "thin" as well compared to the layers closest to the surface. There may also be a calcium plasma double layer that is closest to the surface, but frankly I"m hedging my bets on that idea at the moment.

    Ultimately it's the average temperature of space that keeps the outside cool.

    The same concept applies to both a planet and a sun as well. I'm sure the core is much hotter than the crust where the crust meets up with "space", and heat can radiate *away* from the material.
     
  7. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    FYI, keep in mind that I would estimate that the neon 'photosphere' double layer is only about 7000KM thick based on penumbral filament studies, meaning that the silicon layer must be almost six times as thick as the neon layer. Even though the surface of the Neon photosphere might be 6000K, that doesn't mean the base of the neon layer is still at 6000K. Likewise even if the surface of the silicon layer is 4000K where it meets up with the Neon layer, the Silicon atmosphere could be quite a bit "cooler" 3000KM deeper into that layer. There's an inverse heat process taking place in the solar atmosphere as we can observe from the multi-million degree corona down to the 6000 degree photosphere. The heat distribution works exactly the same way for the next 3000 miles (4800KM) into the solar atmosphere.

    The solar atmosphere closest to the solid surface is also the coolest layer in the solar atmosphere, and it's about the same temperature at the solid surface as the solid surface beneath it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2016
  8. [serious]

    [serious] 'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA Supporter

    +1,651
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Hold on, you seem to be switching between several different ideas without being clear about it:
    Cathode: a negatively charged terminal
    Cathode ray: a stream of electrons moving through an evacuated chamber from a cathode to an anode.
    EM Current: the flow of electrons
    EM field: the force from charged objects, carried by virtual photons

    It seems like you are conflating the corona effect with a cathode ray in a partially evacuated chamber. visually the two effects appear similar as they both cause a gas to fluoresce, but the cathode ray involves a beam of electrons, while the corona effect does not.

    I'm not sure if you are claiming that the Sun's corona is an electron eam instead of a proper corona, that coronas somehow are electron beams and we've just missed the electrons every time we've checked, or if you are just failing to describe what effects are related to each. could you clarify for me?
     
  9. [serious]

    [serious] 'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA Supporter

    +1,651
    Non-Denom
    Married
    But I'm not talking about the outside, I'm talking about the inside. with radiation of heat, the outside is the mean optical depth. for the sun, this means the photosphere. How does the interior get cooled in not by transferring heat to the exterior?
     
  10. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    I'm sorry. I'm trying to respond to your questions as I get time, and sometimes I'm a bit cryptic in my responses.

    I'm not making any claims about the sun's corona that you cannot already observe in that video of Birkeland's experiments. The corona is visible in blue, as are the aurora around the poles of their model of Earth. It's directly related to an ionization process that transfers the kinetic energy of fast moving electrons into various ions.

    As I said, the working model that I started with is your best resource to explain my basic beliefs about the corona. It's nothing magical or mystical about the heat source of those ions. It's purely a physical kinetic energy process involving fast moving electrons that slam into particles and ionize various elements in the atmosphere.
     
  11. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    It works just like a planet IMO. The Earth's core transfers heat to the mantle and ultimately to the crust through a series of heat exchanges between various parts of the Earth's interior. I'd assume that the same is true for any sun. Ultimately the outside of the sphere meets up with a relatively "cold" space, allowing for solids to form on the exterior.

    In the case of the sun, it's got a relatively cool atmosphere of silicon plasma around the outside that allows the solids to form a crust. The heat generated by the circuit is selectively moved away from the sun's inner layers by kinetic energy interactions between fast moving outward bound electrons, and slower moving ions in the atmosphere.

    The outside plasma layers of the sun are progressively thinner and hotter as we move away from the surface.
     
  12. mzungu

    mzungu INVICTUS

    +183
    Atheist
    Married
    I'm done here.
    Neutrino Dreaming: The Electric Universe Theory Debunked
     
  13. [serious]

    [serious] 'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA Supporter

    +1,651
    Non-Denom
    Married
    But the trouble is your solid surface DOESN'T meet up with cold space, it meets up with hot plasma.
     
  14. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    It doesn't bother me that the crust on Venus doesn't meet up with "cold space", but rather it meets up with an 864 degree atmosphere around the planet. It's still cool enough for solids to form. Why would it bother me that the sun has a similar scenario happening near it's surface?

    What "bothered" me the most at first was how the heat from the lowest part of the atmosphere could me selectively moved away from the crust. Once I found Birkeland's work however, I began to understand the implications of a constant and directional particle flow away from the surface, and the kinetic energy implications of that particle flow pattern.

    If I actually believed that the solar crust met up with the neon photosphere at 6000K, yes I'd be "bothered". As it stands however, not so much. :)
     
  15. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
  16. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    For the record, I have no idea who wrote that "hit piece" on Juergen's solar model, but their criticisms are almost entirely invalid. Jeurgen's solar model is indeed more "flexible" with respect to total neutrino output, but simply by "tweaking" the external/internal fusion numbers, his model can accommodate almost any neutrino output, including the observed numbers. The primary difference between any EU/PC solar model and the mainstream model is that EU/PC models allow for/predict fusion to occur inside coronal loop activity near the surface, and throughout the sun, meaning the *location* of neutrinos would be different in various EU/PC models compared to the standard solar model. The total number doesn't have to vary in the least however.

    Whatever the writer's concern about Juergen's solar model with respect to convection at the surface of the photosphere, it *pales* in comparison the *two order of magnitude* problem in the mainstream model.

    Weak solar convection – approximately 100 times slower than scientists had previously projected

    If you're going to whine about Jeurgen's predictions with respect to convection, you should also be whining about the mainstream model after SDO revelations about convection. You folks missed the speed of convection by *two whole orders of magnitude*. That also creates all sorts of problems with respect to your modeling of the solar atmosphere. Your magnetic power source is two orders of magnitude *less than* you originally estimated it to be. You're just going to ignore that problem in the mainstream model, aren't you?
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2016
  17. [serious]

    [serious] 'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA Supporter

    +1,651
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Venus is a great comparison. Is the average temperature of Venus's atmosphere cooler or hotter than Venus's crust?

    From wiki
    Height (km) Temp. (°C) Atmospheric pressure (atm)
    0 462 92.10
    5 424 66.65
    10 385 47.39
    15 348 33.04
    20 306 22.52
    25 264 14.93
    30 222 9.851
    35 180 5.917
    40 143 3.501
    45 110 1.979
    50 75 1.066
    55 27 0.5314
    60 −10 0.2357
    65 −30 0.09765
    70 −43 0.03690
    80 −76 0.004760
    90 −104 0.0003736
    100 −112 0.00002660

    Much like Venus cools it's crust by radiating through it's atmosphere, so too would we expect the sun to. Your model seems to remove this as a possibility without actually replacing it with anything. Without some other method of cooling, I see no reason to hypothesize about an interior cooler than the photosphere.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  18. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,677
    Christian
    From the standpoint of the actual layering process we observe in the solar atmosphere, I have no reason to believe that the surface of the photosphere is necessarily the "coolest" plasma layer of the solar atmosphere in a Birkeland (electrically active) model.

    Your argument about not having an obvious way to replace the layered cooling system of planets with something else does not fall on deaf ears however. I do recognize that there most likely does have to be some type of "cooling effect" that is associated with the constant high speed electron flow from the surface. That mass flow process has to help the crust shed heat and push/move it out into space.

    Keep in mind that I also entertain the possibility that I'm simply seeing a more "dense/cool/rigid" layer of plasma under the surface of the photosphere, rather than a solid surface.

    Either way, the heat flow argument cannot falsify a Birkeland cathode model, but it's valid concern and a valid argument as it relates to whether the cathode surface is a solid or a plasma.

    I also stick by my claim that you have zero evidence that the surface of the photosphere *must be* the coolest atmospheric layer of the solar atmosphere. In fact, cooler plasma is routinely observed in sunspot activity.

    FYI, for these and other reasons, the published papers that I've been involved in used the term "rigid" rather than solid. :)
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2016
  19. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    +787
    Atheist
    The really amazing thing is ignorance about solar physics and the Sun hidden in that single word "layered" :eek:!
    It is chromosphere surrounded by transition region surrounded by corona. These are not distinct layers. They merge with each other.
     
  20. RealityCheck01

    RealityCheck01 Newbie

    +787
    Atheist
    The inanity of citing a climate change denial web site instead of the scientific literature, Michael.
    This is the paper: Anomalously weak solar convection by Hanasoge et. al. and published in 2012.

    What is scientific progress is finding a probable flaw in the computer modeling of convection in the Sun by measurements of convection in the Sun.
    What is ignorant is claiming that there are layers in the Sun and then citing the measurement of convection in the Sun that should go through those "layers".

    What is maybe 11 years of ignorance of solar physics is making the claim back in 2005 when a glance of an astrophysics textbook will tell your that the convection zone of the Sun makes that impossible.
     
Loading...