Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
As best as I can tell from satellites and heliosciesmology, the electrode surface is located about 4800Km under the surface of the photosphere and only a *tiny fraction* of the coronal loops (plasma pinches) ever rise above the surface of the photosphere.
Another irrelevance.
How is plugging a metallic sphere into the mains telling us anything about the Sun?
Where is the solar system equivalent of that mains power?
Does this experiment produce a quasi-neutral solar wind?
Does it produce an equivalent of the IMF?
Frankly, what is the point of it?
It'll prove nothing, and, if it's published at all, will be in some crank or irrelevant journal, where it will be rightly ignored.
There is no electrode surface. You made that up. Independent verification please.
I don't know how much current to expect in Thornhills'/Scott's model because I've never seen them try to estimate it, but I would tend to agree that cosmic rays have the opposite charge of what they tend to predict and electrons are flowing *from* the sun, not really toward it very much. That is probably your one and only really valid (and strong) criticism of all possible anode solar model configurations.
The sun is a net *generator* of electrical current in two of the three models, and even in the third model some of the energy is produced locally. Cosmic rays are the solar system equivalent of the small amount of energy Birkeland's model requires.
Cosmic rays demonstrate conclusively that there *is* current flowing into the sun, so that claim is provably false.
And you don't have any lab support. And don't point me to irrelevant metallic spheres plugged into the mains. Nothing like a star.
Except the standard solar model does *not* explain the heat source of the corona, and it's two orders of magnitude *broken* when comes to convection. The precious mainstream solar model needs an upgrade.
Your biases have blinded you to *working models* for crying out loud.
The standard solar model fails too, and there is evidence of electrical features in the hot solar atmosphere.
I'll finish by acknowledging your point about particle flow problems with all anode models. I do personally think that is a *very serious* problem with all anode solar models as well.
Nope. There are many. As outlined here and elsewhere.
Their looney tunes models
don't get over the starting line on many counts.
And electron and ions are flowing from the Sun.
And carrying a magnetic field with them.
What would this do to any incoming current, be it composed of ions or electrons?
It was a dumb idea, and Juergen's should have stopped once he realised this. Assuming he ever figured it out. Which is doubtful. You'd think Scott might have realised, though. What was his degree in?
No, it doesn't.
You already agreed that the neutrino flux was predicted long before its confirmation. So we know the Sun is powered by fusion.
Ooooh, electrical features? And you want me to dig through the literature for 'sun; electric'? I think you'll find most of this is already explained, and is certainly no reason to turn to pseudoscience.
Virtually all of your criticisms are simply "made up" because nobody in the EU/PC community ever "predicted" any of that nonsense in the first place. You either just made it up, or parroted it from someone else who made it up.
Err, you don't think heavy element fusion in the chromosphere is much of a problem then? And the lack of gamma therefrom? Deary me.
That's funny considering that the standard solar model doesn't even produce a working corona in a lab.
Short memory again, huh? No current.
No fusion in the chromosphere.
No gamma rays therefrom.
No neutrino signal therefrom.
Cannot explain the solar wind........
need I go on?
Why do you think this rubbish only exists in woo-woo land?
Neither have you. Just heated up a metal ball.
The Sun isn't metal,
and has no incoming current,
so irrelevant. It proves nothing,
as I think you'll find when this turns up in 'Concrete Today', or some crank journal or other.
How funny since "magnetic reconnection" *is* pseudoscience according to the Nobel prize winning author of MHD theory.
RECONNECTION
A special kind of violation of the frozen field condition is the process of reconnection. In the classic review article by Vasyliunas (1975) reconnection was defined as “the process whereby plasma flows across a surface separating regions containing topologically different magnetic field lines” (cf. also Priest and Forbes, 2000). But change of connectivity between plasma elements is possible without a separator. Independently of topology, two elements of plasma that are at one instant of time on a common magnetic field line can be on different magnetic field line at another instant, if the condition given above is satisfied somewhere between the plasma elements. This more general definition of reconnection was proposed by Schindler et al. (1988) and Hesse and Schindler (1988) and further elaborated by Birn et al. (1997), but the term reconnection is commonly used for reconnection at a separatrix.
Reconnection is considered to be one of the most important phenomena in cosmic plasma, as a means of topology change and energy release. In the Earth’s magnetosphere, reconnection takes place both at the magnetopause and in the tail current sheet. In addition, local reconnection of limited strands of magnetic flux, so-called flux transfer events, are also common (Le et al. 2008). The reconnection events in the geomagnetic tail that are associated with magnetospheric substorms have many similarities to the fast energy release that takes place in solar flares (Lin et al., 2008). In the magnetosphere, the phenomenon can be studied empirically in great detail by means of in situ
measurements (Paschmann, 2008). The value of this for understanding solar flares and other kinds of energy release in cosmic plasmas can hardly be exaggerated. Reconnection is an extremely complicated phenomenon, and this makes it even more important to have actual measurements to guide theoretical work. One reason for complexity is that reconnection involves coupling between widely different spatial scales, from system-scale structure through ion scales and down to electron scales. Therefore, multipoint measurements are essential. Multipoint measurements are at present being made with the still operational Cluster satellites and the more recent five satellites of the THEMIS project. For example, Cluster observations showed that the extent of the electron disffusion region can far exceed what is expected from simulations (Phan et al., 2007) Substantial further progress can be expected from another four-spacecraft mission, Magnetospheric Multiprobes, which has recently been approved by NASA. Due to the widely different spatial scales involved in reconnection, a major advance would be simultaneous multipoint measurements on each of the three spatial scales. Such a project, called Cross Scale, is part of ESA’s long term plan Cosmic Vision. It involves 10 or 12 satellites forming tetrahedrons on each scale.
For the Cross scale mission, reconnection studies is only one of its purposes. It will, if it realized, be a formidable tool for studying many other space plasma phenomena. This is in particular true for two phenomena, namely collisionless shocks and turbulence. Both of these are of fundamental importance in cosmic plasmas and both are prominent in the magnetosphere and in accessible regions of the solar wind.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?