Electric Sun Discussions

[Lloyd]

First Discussion
* Last Thursday, Charles Chandler, Michael Mozina and I, Lloyd Kinder, had a good discussion of their Electric Sun models at this Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_wU ... GS2fQ/edit.
Next Discussion
We plan to have another one this coming Thursday at 8 PM Eastern time. I may start a new Document for the next discussion. Anyone with the link was able to watch our discussion last time and I plan to provide that option again. If anyone would like to participate in the discussion, you can either make comments in the chat box in the lower right during the discussion, or you can request to be a direct participant, if you're knowledgeable on solar features.
Points of Discussion
* Below is Michael Mozina's Electric Iron Neutron Core Sun Model from our last discussion. In the next message, I'll post Charles Chandler's Model from that discussion. They each divided their models into separate points before the discussion started and I added == before each of their points. Then, after the discussion was finished, I divided the comments into further separate points under the initial points. I'm using this mark, >, to show which points I want to discuss in the next discussion.
MM's Model:
See http://thesurfaceofthesun.com.
==M1. Sun’s Core: Oliver Manuel’s model is most probable:
==M2. the Sun’s core is a small neutron star
_M2.1. which rotates rapidly on its axis
_M2.2.1. and rotates slowly on the Z axis every 22 years, or every 2 solar cycles.
>_M2.2.2. The rotation of the core is what creates the N/S solar cycle changes IMO.
>_M2.3. the neutron material is the basis for all heavy objects in space, including so called ‘black holes’. See: On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars
_M2.4. the neutron core provides a neutrino source,
_M2.5. The gravitational forces at/near the core, along with strong pressures prevent the core from becoming unstable IMO.
>_M2.6. The core is ultimately the source of all hydrogen that flows from the sun,
>_M2.7. and it helps sustain a fusion process near the core IMO.
==M3. Supernova: the current sun formed from a former supernova remnant.
>_L. EU theorists say supernovae are electrical double layer explosions, that are not symmetrical and can’t compress matter into neutron stars. Do you disagree? If so, why?
_M 3.1. Neutronium: IMO neutron material is “primordial”.
_M 3.2. It decays to produce protons and electrons
_M 3.3. and fusion and fission produce heavier elements over time.
_M 3.4. It doesn’t have to be “compressed”. It’s always existed.
>_M 3.5. It eventually decays to the point that the core becomes unstable
>_M 3.6. and that can produce a supernova event.
>_M 3.7. There may be a remnant of the core left after the supernova event, or the core may be so small that it explodes completely.
_M 3.8. IMO only the very largest supernova events can actually “compress” material near the core.
_M 3.9. Perhaps in such events the core can gain mass, but typically it doesn’t IMO.
_L. How is neutronium primordial, if it comes from supernovae?
_M 3.10. _MM It is simply the most “ancient” of large/stable “structures”.
It can “form” in larger events, but it’s the base material of all heavier elements.
>_M 3.11. The heavier elements are simply created from the hydrogen in fusion processes
>_M 3.12. that are occurring in pinched, current carrying threads near the core, and also in the solar atmosphere.
>_M 3.13. That pinch process also releases free neutrons from the plasma.
_L. Where do you detect neutronium in the universe?
_M 3.14. _MM Probably the greatest “weakness” of this model is the fact that stable neutron material has never been created in a lab. I’m actually a big fan of empirical physics.
_M 3.15. There are however many observations of “heavy” objects in space, most notably in and around the core of galaxies.
_M 3.16. IMO gravity does take over at some point
_M 3.17. and does have the capacity to cause matter to become “crushed” by enough pressure to create a neutron core.
>_M 3.18. The neutrons act to repulse one another due to the layered structure, with an external negative shell.
_L. What do you think it will take to prove your model, or that neutronium exists?
>==M4. Density Gradient: Above the small neutron core is superheated, pressurized plasma up to just under the rigid crust, approximately 4800KM under the surface of the photosphere.
_L. The rigid surface under the photosphere is the most believable part of your model, which is also consistent with Brant’s. That’s the part that’s based on those satellite running difference images.
>_M 4.1. The “rigid” surface part of the theory can be demonstrated IMO,
_M 4.2. but it will require a very specific type of solar flare, specifically one that spews matter in a roughly horizontal direction rather than up and away from the sun.
I’ve seen several such events in SOHO images of the last cycle.
So far I haven’t seen an IDEAL flare, but I’ve seen at least one event near the horizon that did show the mass deflections from rigid features that I am looking for.
>_M 4.3. The “core” of this model can probably only be verified via helioseismology.
The rapid rotation of the core should be something that can eventually be validated by helioseismology techniques,
but I don’t think the models are advanced enough yet, and the core is far too difficult to image at the moment.
_M 4.4. that RD gold image on my website spans a timeline of an hour and a half
_M 4.5. and includes a CME event.
>_M 4.6. There is virtually NO plasma drift seen in the rigid features of that image.
_M 4.7. the structures of the photosphere tend to come and go in 8 minute intervals.
_M 4.8. Most of the loop activity takes place under the photosphere and the heated plasma rises.
_M 4.9. The loops and the discharge process itself provide a lot of the heat that you’re looking for.
_M 4.10. The surface in Birkeland’s solar model is charged negative compared to the heliosphere.
_L. Isn’t _CC’s Density Gradient illustration below correct,
which shows major density changes at about .27R and .7R?
And doesn’t that mean that the iron layer tops out at about .7R?
>_M 4.11. There does seem to be a density change at approximately .995R according to the data.
FYI, I used Kosovichev’s work to determine the location of the surface in relationship to the photosphere based on this paper and several other studies of his.
_M 4.12. It just so happens that the SDO first light images show exactly that same 4800KM figure between the photosphere and the surface. SDO first light images http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111
_L. You don’t agree with _CC’s Rs at .27 and .7?
>==M5. the atmosphere above the rigid crust is mass separated plasma arranged in various layers based upon their atomic weight.
_M 5.1. The corona is mostly composed of Hydrogen,
_M 5.2. the chromosphere is primarily composed of Helium
_M 5.3. and the photosphere is composed of mostly Neon.
==M6. Under the visible Neon photosphere of approximately 500KM sits a much thicker Silicon plasma layer
_M 6.a. that meets up with the photosphere that is approximately 4000KM thick.
==M7. There “may be” a relatively thin calcium plasma layer between the surface and the silicon plasma layer of approximately 300KM.
I’m currently debating that point based on SDO images.
_M 7.1. The Silicon layer may simply meet up with the rigid surface and may simply be 300KM thicker than originally estimated.
_M 7.2. The Calcium emissions seem to be primarily related to photospheric emissions IMO.
==M8. The neutron star core emits neutrons
==M9. which decay into electrons and protons,
==M10. which produce hydrogen plasma close to the core
_M10.1. which interacts with the rotating core producing fusion.
_M10.2. Circuits: There are at least three key parts of this model, each requiring verification/falsification.
The first “objection” I ran into in cyberspace was not even “controversial” from my perspective, namely that
_M10.3. electrical discharges were occurring in the solar atmosphere in and around active regions.
IMO the “circuit” orientation to coronal loop modeling has progressed a lot over the past decade. Mann and Onel have a GREAT paper on this by the way. This aspect of solar physics HAS actually been demonstrated IMO. I’ve posted relevant links on Thunderbolts (and JREF).
_M10.4. the charge separation mechanism is occurring in the plasma pinch process that is associated with coronal loops.
>_M10.5. The pinch process triggers a number of hydrogen and CNO fusion reactions inside the pinch.
_M10.6. The z-machine has generated neutron capture signatures from high energy electrical discharges as well as very high temperatures (greater than the core of the sun). http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512633
_M10.7. the charge separation mechanism is the plasma pinch http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
_M10.8. According to Alfven the rotation of plasma in the photosphere creates areas of positive and negative charges in and around sunspots.
_M10.9. The magnetogram images confirm that model
_M10.10. they show a distinct set of polarity islands around sunspot activity.
_M10.11. That’s caused by the direction of the current through the loops as they traverse the surface.
>_M10.12. I suppose convection is the driving mechanism.
>_M10.13. the energy release in granules is by Birkeland’s cathode
_M10.14. constantly discharging itself to the heliosphere (space in his words).
_M10.15. That produces heat in the plasma and generates heat throughout the atmosphere.
_M10.16. The coronal loops are typically much smaller than the large ones we observe in flare events.
_M10.17. They occur all along the surface and usually cover only a few kilometers at most.
_M10.18. Only the largest ones ever break through the photosphere.
_M10.19. Most of the heat produced in those loops are transferred to the silicon plasma layer
_M10.20. and that heat convects up to and through the photosphere.
_M10.21. There are at least two primary heat sources between the surface of the sun/rigid surface and the top of the photosphere IMO.
_M10.22. The convection process is simply an electrically driven process IMO.
_M10.23. I agree about the electrons.
>_M10.24. Protons tend to be pulled along in the wake of the electron flow in Birkeland’s model.
Birkeland discusses his solar model
You might take a look at that article from the New York times in the link above.
_M10.25. Birkeland explains that the solar wind is related to charge separation between the sun and space.
I’ll do some reading on your model this week and I’m sure I’ll have some additional questions at that point.
You might as well post links to both models on this page since we both have websites on our models.
_L. Michael just said: FYI CC,
_M10.26. the convection process is related to heat released in the coronal loops.
_CC: How does heat in the coronal loops cause convection down to 200,000 km below the photosphere?
_MM: It doesn’t.
>_M10.27. The only heat released at the surface of the photosphere is the heat produced in the bulk of the loops below the surface of the photosphere IMO.
_M10.28. It’s also heat produced by the current flowing between the solid/rigid surface and the heliosphere.
>_M10.29. That current traverses all the atmospheric layers of plasma IMO.
>_M10.30. The light in iron ion wavelength images is produced inside the coronal loops.
_M10.31. The loops range in size from the very small, less than a kilometre (less than a single pixel) to very large, much larger than the Earth.
_M10.32. Most of the small loops follow the surface contours, and remain FAR below the photosphere. _M10.33. Only the largest ones rise up and through the surface of the photopshere.
_M10.34. Most of the smaller ones simply produce heat that must “convect” toward the surface.

[Lloyd]

* Below is Charles Chandler's Electric Layered Sun Model. Again, I use the mark, >, to show which of his points I hope to discuss on Thursday.
CC's Model
See http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/?top=6031.
See “_CC Figure 1” (below) for a graphical summary.
==C1. Density: The Sun’s average density is 1408 kg/m3.
==C2. The liquid densities of hydrogen & helium are 68 & 145 kg/m3 respectively.
==C3. The greater average density of the Sun proves the presence of heavier elements.
==C4. Bulk abundances can be estimated from photospheric abundances, correcting for mass separation.
_C4.1. _L. You said the photospheric abundances could be from meteors from above, rather than from upwelling of elements from below. How would
_C4.2. the elements from below arrive at the top of the photosphere and in proper proportions
>_C4.3. They would be stirred up and subsequently held in suspension, similar to the way water aerosols are held in suspension in the Earth’s atmosphere by updrafts.
_C4.4. The “stirring” mechanisms would be energy releases of some sort, that would create thermal bubbles.
_C 4.5. The primary mechanism under consideration is s-waves at the tops of the liquid layers (nickel in the lower radiative zone, and hydrogen in the convective zone.)
==C5. This model is based on abundances found by Anders & Grevesse (1989).
==C6. A simple, nearly straight bezier curve was used to correct for mass separation.
==C7. This produced 3 distinct densities within the Sun, due to the dominance of 6th, 4th, & 1st period elements.
==C8. The dimensions of these groups match those of the core, radiative, & convective zones.
>_MM. What causes the solar cycle in your opinion?
==C9. Stratification: Core: osmium & platinum (6th period elements)
_C 9.1. Osmium and Platinum may form either already in existence when the Sun condensed
_C 9.2. Or the heavier elements were manufactured in a bigger star that exploded.
_C 9.3. Or the Sun was once a much bigger star, capable of fusing such elements
>_C 9.4. Mass loss due to solar wind has whittled the Sun down to what it is now.
_C 9.5 So the Sun could have been a Blue Giant, fusing heavy elements in its core
_C 9.6. Now it’s a Yellow Dwarf with a core that it could not have possibly fused at its current mass.
==C10. Radiative Zone: nickel & iron (4th period elements)
10.a. The Nickel and Iron for the Radiative Zone would form the same as above.
==C11. Convective Zone: helium & hydrogen (1st period elements)
>==C12. All of the osmium, platinum, and ⅓ of the nickel, is compressed into a liquid.
_C 12.1. It would be dense enough, and cold enough to be solid.
>_C 12.2. But being highly ionized, it would lack the electrons necessary for there to be a crystal lattice.
_C 12.3. So it would be a supercooled liquid.
==C13. The rest of the nickel, and all of the iron above it, is plasma.
==C14. The helium & some of the hydrogen is liquid.
==C15. The rest of the hydrogen at the top is plasma.
==C16. The convective zone especially, but the entire Sun in general, is at least partially mixed.
==C17. So the stratification is not absolute, especially in the lightest elements at the top.
_C 17. 1. There’s No Rigid Surface
>_C 17.2. The THEMIS, TRACE and SDO Running Difference images might show persistent structures.
>_C 17.3. Hurricanes on Earth are persistent, but that doesn’t mean that they’re solid.
_C 17.4. The RD data are definitely screaming at us, but what are they saying?
_C 17.5. They definitely indicate higher concentrations of iron.
_C 17.6. They also indicate forces capable of creating persistent “structures”, maybe magnetic field lines.
_C 17.7. MM’s team agreed that it could be a more dense plasma.
_C.17.8. I mentioned persistent structures in the Earth’s atmosphere.
_C.17.9. There are persistent structures in Jupiter’s atmosphere that we know to be gaseous.
_C.17.10. I think we have spectral data on the Great Red Spot (can’t remember what it is),
_C.17.11. which indicates that those are gases.
>_L. Thornhill thinks the Big Red Spot is caused by something on Jupiter’s surface, a mountain or something.
_C.17.12. Anyway, my whole objection to the contention that there is a solid surface beginning at the bottom of the photosphere is just that there are plenty of data to indicate that there is convection in the convective zone. I know that it’s contentious, but there is a lot of it.
>_C.17.13. Saying that the Sun is solid below 4800 km tosses all of those data.
_L. Ok, so we’ll have to get your references on some of all that convection data.
==C18. Charge Separation:
>_C.18.1. electrical arcing (at this scale at least) provides a neutrino source.
>_C.18.2. particles accelerated to near the speed of light by electric fields will engage in extremely high energy collisions, which can release neutrinos.
>_C.18.3. So it’s not the arcing that does it, but the particle collisions that result.
_C.18.4. There’s charge recombination in the crests of s-waves at the liquid line.
_C.18.5. Then there is recombination in the photosphere,
_C.18.6. which is just due to the drop in pressure,
_C.18.7. which lowers the temperature, enabling electron uptake
_C.18.8. (which re-heats the plasma, and then causes thermionic emissions).
_C.18.9. I agree with MM’s basic approach for sunspots.
_CC: You’ve got a mixed metaphor there, I think.
I actually came full-circle, and am now of the opinion that
>_C.18.10. the photosphere is constantly expelling electrons, being released as thermionic emissions,
_C.18.11. but also being repelled by an underlying body of negative charge.
_C.18.12. The electrons are also attracted to the positive plasma in the interplanetary medium.
_C.18.13. The liquids are positively charged, while the plasma is negatively charged.
_L. I suppose others will want to know how the charge separation occurs.
>_C.18.14. The primary charge separation mechanism is ionization by compression.
>_C.18.15. Electrons can only exist as free particles, or in specific shells around nucleons.
>_C.18.16. If atoms are forced too close together, the shells fail, and the electrons are expelled, leaving only positive ions behind.
_C.18.17. The charge separation persists until the pressure is released, allowing more space between the atoms, and providing room for the electrons to move back in.
==C19. The exception is a layer of positively charged hydrogen plasma comprising the top 20,000 km.
==C20. This is positively charged due to a loss of electrons in thermionic emissions in the photosphere.
==C21. The photosphere is the uppermost 3,000 to 5,000 km.
==C22. Granules in the photosphere are thermal bubbles heated by charge recombination in the photosphere itself.
==C23. Supergranules are created by charge recombination at the liquid hydrogen line (115,000 km below the surface).
==C24. Convection: The charge recombination is made possible by s-waves at the liquid-plasma boundary.
_L. Would the S-waves be the same size as the Supergranules? What would be the altitude of each S-wave? Would the difference in altitude between top and bottom of each wave cause enough difference in pressure to lead to Convection?
_L. Did you answer my question about the size of supergranules compared to the s-waves?
_C24.1. Nope. I might be able to develop a guess at the wave heights, on the basis of the wave speeds, which then tell us the wave lengths.
>_C24.2. Put all of that together, and we’d know how much liquid is getting elevated above the liquid line, and then we’d know how much plasma is involved in the charge recombination.
_C24.3. Then we could calculate the temperature, the size of the bubble that gets created, etc.
_C24.4. If that matches the dimensions of the supergranules, it will constitute confirmation.
_C24.5. If the waves crest above the liquid line, they experience less pressure, and therefore can expand beyond their liquid densities into plasma.
_C24.6. When it does, there is now room for electrons to flow in.
_C24.7. This means charge recombination, which releases heat, which causes a thermal bubble.
_L. How many km in altitude does it take to get that significant a change in pressure?
_C24.8. In the Earth’s atmosphere, elevating air just a couple hundred meters can cause the condensation of water vapor.
_C24.9. Waves in the atmosphere at temperature/pressure boundaries can sometimes trigger precipitation. _C24.10. So it’s a small scale.
_L.. Sounds plausible then.
_C24.11. the primary energy conversion is s-waves cresting above the liquid line.
_C24.12. If that’s the case, the heat generated will push back down on the next trough, accentuating the wave.
_C24.13. So this conversion will accelerate the waves, and this constitutes a positive feedback mechanism.
_C24.14. This “should” make bigger and bigger waves.
_C24.15. But bigger waves travel faster, with longer wavelengths.
_C24.16. If the accentuation pushes the wavelengths outside of the harmonic frequencies of the Sun, destructive interference will start to attenuate the wave heights.
_C24.17. So this is overlapping positive and negative feedback mechanisms. Such systems frequently oscillate.
==C25. There could be a similar charge recombination at the liquid nickel line at the bottom of the radiative zone.
==C26. If so, there is convection in the radiative zone.
>==C27. Core Temperature: The core is at absolute zero, as the Coulomb force has removed all of the degrees of freedom.
_MM How does the core remain cool with all that pressure? Does it rotate?
_C27.1. Compression normally increases temperature, but past the point of ionization,
_C27.2. the thermal energy is converted to electrostatic potential.
_C27.3. So it doesn’t have to rotate, being held together by magnetic pressure or anything like that.
>_L. You said initially that the core would rotate as the star forms from oppositely charged plasma.
And what do you think of MM making rotation account for the Solar Cycle?
_C27.4. It’s just the force of gravity, where the gravitational field has been further accentuated by electric fields pulling stuff together after the ionization has begun.
>==C28. Fusion: There is no fusion in the core, as the pressure is not sufficient to overcome the Coulomb boundary for osmium.
>==C29. All of the fusion is due to relativistic speeds developed by particles in charge recombination processes.
==C30. Solar Wind: Solar wind begins with thermionic emissions in the photosphere (i.e., just electrons).
==C31. In the corona, electrons recombine with inflowing positive ions.
==C32. The heat so produced creates hydrostatic pressure that drives the “winds” away from the Sun.
>_MM Birkeland used charge separation between the surface and “space” (heliosphere today) to drive the solar wind process. How does the heat accelerate the plasma to a million miles an hour?

CC Figure 1. Summary of proposed properties per solar radius.https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/jL3dS ... zAHcGwOH-8

[Lloyd]

Second Discussion Coming
I've invited Michael and Charles to discuss at a new Google Document Thursday at 8 PM Eastern time at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1prP ... HHZG0/edit. Again, anyone can look in and should be able to comment or ask questions in the Chat box at the lower right on the Document.

[Lloyd]

* It's just about time for Discussion #2, presumably at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1prP ... HHZG0/edit, but there may be another Doc to go to too, which we'll presumably reference.

[Lloyd]

* Before I post our second discussion, I'll post some background info on Michael's model.
* I copied the statements below from one of the online papers Micheal recommended. And I link farther below to statements from a Google book that I put on my site. Charles and I and others discussed pulsars, quasars, redshift etc back in February and after that. Here are some of our posts on that:
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =90#p62898
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 105#p62919
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 105#p62943.
* Here's the link Michael suggested, http://www.radiochemistry.org/documents ... rCycle.pdf, which is the source of the statements below. Charles had discussed the possibility of superdense matter, possibly in one of the posts above. This paper below says neutron objects are produced in galaxy collisions and pieces of them form stars (or star cores), sometimes for more than one generation or incarnation. It mentions neutron clouds in denser isotopes of light elements. I think we concluded in one of the later posts in the thread linked above, based on energy requirements, that it's quite possible that pulsar pulses are not confined beams, but spherical waves, that pulse because of capacitor-like effects, rather than rotational beam effects.

II. THE ENERGY SOURCE FOR AN IRON-RICH, STRATIFIED SUN
On the mass scale of ordinary nuclear matter, i.e., for A !!300 amu, the interplay of repulsive and attractive interactions between nucleons [3] results in the following observations: [Skip all but d.]
d.) A halo cloud of neutrons extending beyond the charge radius in light, neutron-rich nuclei, e.g., the two-neutron cloud at the surface of 11Li outside the core nucleus of 9Li [29];
[* There's some more from an online book that I posted to my site at: http://sci2.lefora.com/2010/09/06/3-3/#post1]

III. THE NUCLEAR CYCLE THAT POWERS THE COSMOS
Galaxy Collisions Produce Neutron Stars
Thus, the occurrence of a neutron star in the core of the Sun, in its precursor, and in other ordinary stars [3-9] implies that:
a.) Stellar explosions may expose, but do not necessarily produce, the neutron stars that are seen in stellar debris; and
b.) Neutron stars at the centers of ordinary stars were not made one-at-a-time in SN explosions but were more abundantly made in higher energy fragmentation events that produced our galaxy, probably in a high density region associated with active galactic nuclei (AGN), quasars, or massive neutron stars.
- The origin of these high-density, energetic regions of space is not well known, e.g. [15, 33], but the link between high density and high cosmic activity suggests that gravitational collapse generates massive cosmic objects that are powered by repulsive interactions between neutrons.

[Frequent Galaxy Interactions]
A recent review on galactic collisions notes that “transient galaxy dynamics”, the recurrent collisions and mergers of galaxies, has replaced the classical view that galactic structures formed early in the universe and were followed by slow stellar evolution and the steady build-up of heavy elements [33].
- Collisions or mergers of galaxies are highly prevalent, with ~1 in 10 of known galaxies engaged in some stage of physical interaction with another galaxy, and nearly all cohesively-formed galaxies, especially spirals, having experienced at least one collision in their lifetime.
- “Galactic collisions involve a tremendous amount of energy. . . . . the collision energy is of order 1053 J. This is equivalent to about 108-9 supernovae, . . .” [reference 33, p. 6]. (Harutyunian [15] notes that the compact nuclear objects produced by such high-energy events display many of the properties seen in ordinary nuclear matter, including the more rapid decay (shorter half-lives) of the more energetic nuclei [15].)
- Collisions are highly disruptive to all components of the galaxies, including the nucleus, and astronomers observe the collisional energy in many puzzling forms - quasars, gamma ray bursts, and active galactic centers (AGN).

[Supermassive Objects Formation]
The extreme turbulence of active galactic nuclei (AGN) suggests the interactive presence of massive gravitational concentrations, possibly black holes [34] or super-massive neutron stars that fragment [10-15] into the multiple neutron stars that then serve as formation sites of new stars.
- Struck notes in the abstract of his review paper that “Galactic collisions may trigger the formation of a large fraction of all the stars ever formed, and play a key role in fueling active galactic nuclei” [reference 33, p. 1]. Matter is ejected from the massive object in the galaxy core in the form of jets, perhaps caused by an ultra-dense form of baryonic matter [35] in neutron stars or Bose-Einstein condensation of iron-rich, zero-spin material into a super-fluid, superconductor [24, 36] surrounding the galaxy core.
- Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observations confirmed the hierarchical link suggested by Arp [37] between collisional systems and quasi-stellar objects - quasars. Quasars are frequently seen grouped, in pairs or more, across active galaxies, and are physically linked to the central galaxy by matter bridges. Isophote patterns indicate that the direction of motion of the quasars is away from their host galaxy, thereby stretching and weakening the matter bridge until the quasar separates completely. The implication is certain—quasars are physical ejecta from AGN, and become nuclei of nascent galaxies. The HST sightings “. . . provide direct evidence that some, and the implication that most, of the quasar hosts are collisional systems” [reference 33, p. 105].
- AGN, quasars, and neutron stars are highly prevalent, observable phenomena in all parts of the known universe. They have two significant properties in common: Exceptionally high specific gravity and the generation of copious amounts of “surplus” energy. In view of the repulsive forces recently identified between neutrons [3-5] and the frequency and products of galactic collisions [33], we conclude that neutron repulsion is the main energy source for the products of gravitational collapse.

IV. CONCLUSION
Neutron-rich stellar objects produced by gravitational collapse exhibit many of the features that are observed in ordinary nuclei:
a.) Spontaneous neutron-emission from a central neutron star sustains luminosity and the outflow of hydrogen from the Sun and other ordinary stars;
b.) As a neutron star ages and loses mass, changes in the potential energy per neutron may cause instabilities due to geometric changes in the packing of neutrons (See the cyclic changes in values of M/A vs. A on the right side of Fig. 3 at Z/A = 0);
c.) Spontaneous fission may fragment super-heavy neutron stars into binaries or multiple neutron stars, analogous to the spontaneous fission of super-heavy elements; and
d.) Sequential fragmentation of massive neutron stars by emission of smaller neutron stars may resemble the sequential chain of alpha-emissions in the decay of U and Th nuclei into nuclei of Pb and He.
- The nuclear cycle that powers the cosmos may not require the production of matter in an initial “Big Bang” or the disappearance of matter into black holes. The similarity Bohr noted in 1913 [30] between atomic and planetary structures extends to the similarity Harutyunian recently found [15] between nuclear and stellar structures.

[Evidence]
The recent finding [38] of a massive neutron star (CXO J164710.2-455216) in the Westerlund 1 star cluster where a black hole was expected observationally reinforces our doubts about the collapse of neutron stars into black holes. Finally it should be noted that the elevated levels of 136Xe, an r-product of nucleosynthesis seen by the Gaileo probe into Jupiter [22], lend credence to Herndon’s suggestion [39] that natural fission reactors [40] may be a source of heat in the giant outer planets.

[Lloyd]

* Here's the second Electric Sun discussion from last Thursday between Charles and Michael, with me making a few interruptions. Charles' statements are in blue, Michael's in black, and mine in red.

Start with E.D. on the Sun
LK: Charles, on the TB forum MM suggested that he and you “need to begin from the corona and work [your] way inwards. … That should start with a discussion on coronal loops and electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere.”

MM: I’d like to see if we can agree on the nature of “coronal loops/magnetic ropes”, and then discuss the chromosphere. The photosphere is where things start to get interesting.
Heavy Core
- It seems to me that you have a “heavy core” model as well, albeit not necessarily as heavy as neutron material. We seem to agree that there is “some” amount of mass separation, however I tend to believe it’s literally layered by the atomic weight of the plasma.

CC: I’m going by the liquid density, which isn’t always the same as the atomic mass. If it was plasma, atomic mass would be OK.

Convection
MM: The primary difference AFAIK relates to the mass separation process. You seem to support a relatively “standard” solar model in terms of the convection process, including its composition, is that correct?

CC: In the “convective” zone, I guess I am. There seems to be fair reason to believe that there are updrafts, downdrafts, and meridional flows that clearly define the “convective” zone.
- Where I depart from the standard model is that I don’t think that the energy from the “fusion furnace” is radiating outward, only to become convective in the uppermost layer. And I don’t think that it’s some sort of abstract magnetic reconnection in the tachocline. I think that the energy is released as charge recombination, and I think that this is occurring at the liquid hydrogen line.

MM: Why there, specifically, rather than further out in the atmosphere?

CC: Granules and supergranules appear to represent energy sources from below, and from the size of the bubbles, if we estimate that the source of the energy is roughly 4 times deeper than the bubbles are wide, we get an energy source for the granules at 4000 km below the limb, and for the supergranules, 4 * 30,000 km = 120,000 km below the limb, which is the liquid hydrogen line.

Sunspots
MM: Would it be accurate to suggest that you follow a standard model in terms of sunspots, their cooler temps, etc?

CC: I agree that the interior of sunspots are cooler, but I don’t think that they are primarily a convective process. I think that they’re electric currents, from an underlying negative charge to the positively charged photosphere. The electric fields cool the plasma. The rising electrons experience a Lorentz force in the presence of the Sun’s overall magnetic field, which sends them into a helical spin. This generates a solenoidal magnetic field (> 4000 gauss).

Coronal Loops
MM: A magnetogram image shows the currents must rise up and through the photosphere inside coronal loops. They leave a distinct positive/negative pattern arrangement on the surface of the photosphere. While Birkeland’s terella was a cathode, it did redirect currents back toward the magnetized sphere in pretty much the same patterns we observe with coronal loops. Alfven’s basic +/- orientation to loop behavior looks to be “spot on” in terms of the behaviors observed in the satellite images. LMSAL has a problem in this area because they keep trying to claim that the corona and/or the transition region provide heat to the loops. That is just nonsense because the loops are “current carrying” instruments. They already contain their own heat source (current) and the loops are millions of degrees hot before exiting the photosphere. One of the main advances in SDO is the inclusion of 1600A and 1700A wavelengths that allow the surface of the photosphere to be clearly observed. These images of the surface of the photosphere show a clear pattern of “hot spots” in the same places we observe black/white orientations in magnetogram images where the loops traverse the surface of the photosphere. That’s another clear indicator that the loops are a heat source to the corona, they are not heated IN the corona.

CC: Are you thinking that coronal loops are primary heat sources in the photosphere? The reason for the question is that the evidence associates them with sunspots, and not with granules in the quiet Sun.

MM: I believe that coronal loops flow all through the solar atmosphere, mostly near the solid surface, but sometimes WAY up into the high atmosphere, above the photosphere, above the chromosphere and well into the corona. These loops are radiating at a million plus degrees and stick out ‘brightly’ against the background of the sun itself. I would have to say however that the current from cathode solid surface to the heliosphere is also a primary heat source of the corona. The one thing the mainstream ASSUMES is that any light seen in 171A or 195A is indicative of “high temp plasma”. That’s “usually true”, but “scattering happens” in the solar atmosphere. We should not assume the ENTIRE corona is millions of degrees only because we see a few scattered photons. The loops are ALWAYS brighter than anything else in the image in higher energy wavelengths and Thomson scattering is a given in the light plasma atmosphere of the sun.[/COLOR]

MM: IMO the coronal loops are the primary “heat source” that we observe in convection. They radiate heat in all directions into the plasma atmosphere. That heat is carried up and away from the surface of the sun by the current flowing from the cathode surface toward the heliosphere. The heat generated around “active regions” eventually will generate ‘sunspots’ as well call them, AFTER they heat the lower atmosphere up to the point that it begins to rise up through the photosphere.

CC: OK, I’m seeing a lack of evidence of “loops” outside the context of sunspots. It really amounts to hammering a square peg into a round hole to be thinking of granules as loops. (I tried a few constructs for that, and in the end, they just didn’t match the observations.) To get this nailed down, we should first ask about the charge separation mechanism. If you’ve got electric currents flowing through loops, from one footpoint to another, you have to establish that the material at the footpoints is an effective dielectric, and that the loops represent the means to get past the resistance. Yet I think that everybody agrees that the plasma in question is an excellent conductor. So I don’t see how charge separations will be maintained.

MM: The “current flow” process begins in the core, but the sun acts as a cathode with respect to space. It’s essentially releasing both protons and electrons as the neutrons decay, both neutrons from the core and neutrons from the pinch process. In terms of solar images, loops and sunspots are NOT necessarily related. Active regions form where no sunspots can be seen. In fact only the largest active regions even generate sunspots. 171 and 193A image of the sun show loops, large and small, all over the surface of the sun, not just near sunspots. Actually, the visual evidence does NOT support the concept that loops ONLY exist where sunspots exist.
- The charge separation process according to Alfven was caused by the movement of plasma near sunspots. The sunspots generate movement of the plasma and create charge separation due to rotation pattern differences. While that ‘works on paper”, it’s not really what we observe in satellite images. Large active regions can exist where no obvious sunspots exist.
Birkeland’s Terella
- Birkeland’s model generated actual discharge “loops” above his terella, but his charge separation was between the sphere and the edges of the experiment, and the core contained a large electromagnet that was CRITICAL in generating those loops in the atmosphere of his experiments.

CC: I acknowledge that there are loops in the chromosphere (and higher) even in the quiet Sun. But I think I’d like to question whether or not these are actually high-power phenomena. Yet before we get into that, we have to un-mix the metaphor here. Is the Sun a cathode interacting with the interplanetary medium, or are there loops from one footpoint to another? These are fundamentally different constructs.

MM: In terms of the effect on the 1600A images and the effect on the magnetogram images, the “footprints” of the loops (where they traverse the surface of the photosphere) have a distinct polarity, and they have the distinct effect of heating the surface in the 1600A and 1700A images as they traverse that surface. Flare events typically blow material up and AWAY in the 1600A images, meaning the flare can sometimes originate UNDER the surface of the photosphere, not always out in the corona.

CC: OK, now I’m reading your paragraph above, about “loops” above the terella. I haven’t heard of these. How do they work?

MM: Birkeland’s terella was hollow and included a powerful electromagnet inside the shell. The discharge process is between the surface of the sphere and the container walls. The discharges tended to congregate near “surface bumps” on the terella, and the currents tended to “loop” along the electromagnetic lines created by the EM field inside the shell. They often resulted in “jets” near the poles of his terella (and in the solar atmosphere) and they tended to result in large discharge loops, particularly near certain latitudes, partly influenced by the internal field.

CC: I thought that the discharges were all between the sphere and the plate above. Are those the “loops” that you mean? Or were there loops from the surface of the sphere, back to the surface of the sphere, where both anode & cathode were on the sphere itself?

MM: Try this image: http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/image ... ohmini.jpg
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/image ... ohmini.jpg
The black and white image is actually from Birkeland’s terrella experiment. The field inside the sphere causes some of the discharges to “loop back” to the sphere, particularly when he cranked up the field inside the shell.

CC: So that’s a different EM configuration than the one that produces the auroral discharges? If the E field is between the sphere and the plate, we get discharges at a specific latitude that intersect with the sphere perpendicular to it (and likewise the plate).

MM: Yes, the MAGNETIC (I should have used that term) field inside the shell is ultimately just generating a magnetic field, like the sun’s magnetic field. Birkeland also included charge separation between the sphere and the walls of the chamber. It’s technically an E field, whereas the internal field is really just generating a magnetic field in the atmosphere around the terella.

CC: Is there a schematic somewhere showing the E and B fields necessary to produce these loops?

MM: His book is probably your best bet:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/The_Norw ... %28Book%29

CC: In less time than it would take me to read a book, I can do my own diagram. If you show me the shape of the discharge, I can show you the fields that it took to produce it, as there are a finite number of possibilities, and given just a few facts, a solution can be derived. The question is whether or not that EM configuration is possible in and around the Sun.

MM: I would think that whatever process the mainstream claims is generating the sun’s magnetic field would work for Birkeland in terms of generating the magnetic field of the sun. All magnetic fields are caused by the movement of current.

CC: Agreed, but I’m not convinced that we’re not conflating fundamentally different things here. The Sun’s overall magnetic field is only 1 gauss. If that was sufficient to control such discharges, why don’t we see the same thing on Earth, with only half the magnetic field of the Sun?

MM: According to Birkeland, the charge separation between the surface of the sun and “space/heliosphere” was approximately 600 million volts. The constant flow of current is the primary ‘cause” of all discharges observed in the solar atmosphere. I think Alfven’s put the number at 1 billion.

CC: I believe 600 MV. I’d actually believe a higher number. And I agree that there is a steady current that lights up the corona. But if it was a primary energy source, I’d expect spicules all over the sun, and I’d expect to be able to trace the heat sources to those spicules. As it is, spicules are rare, and definitely are not primary heat sources. They’re hot, but they are not responsible for a full percentage point of the total amount of heat.

Streamers
MM: The thing you’re looking for are “coronal loops”. They are actually discharge currents and they appear ALL OVER THE SPHERE. If we look at the corona during an eclipse we can see streamers flowing FAR out into space where the currents flow from the sun toward the heliosphere.

CC: We still haven’t un-mixed the metaphor. Is there a difference between a loop and a spicule/streamer?

MM: If so, it’s really more of a matter of density, composition and current load through that particular filament.

LK: By coronal streamers during an eclipse, do you mean like this?
http://astrobob.areavoices.com/astrobob ... loseup.jpg

MM: Yes!

CC: Those are streamers. IMO, these are flows of electrons away from the source, plowing into positive plasma that might just be sitting there, or might even be flowing into the sun (as Brant suggests). Notice that the pinching occurs away from the sun. So these are fundamentally different from spicules, where the pinching is at the photosphere. And both of those are fundamentally different from coronal loops, with both footpoints in the photosphere (or below).

MM: IMO those are “current carrying” streamers. IMO *ALL* current carrying filaments are a result of the current flow between the surface and the heliosphere. Not all filaments are powerful enough to heat iron to millions of degrees, and not all current carrying threads are composed of exactly the same materials IMO.

CC: So coronal loops, from one footpoint in the photosphere to another, are caused by an electric field between the sun and the heliosphere?

MM: FYI, I’m inclined to believe based on neutrino counts that the sun is the primary energy source. There may be other inputs going on, but the neutrinos do seem to point us toward the sun as the power source.

LK: Are the streamers connected to things that can also be seen without an eclipse? If so, which things are they connected to?

MM: They essentially connect the cathode surface to the anode heliosphere.

CC: I think that streamers are electrons generated by thermionic emissions from the photosphere, accelerated away from the sun by electrostatic repulsion from an underlying body of negative charge, and attracted to positive plasma in the heliosphere.
- wait a second... did we just agree (at least in part) on something... Maybe!
- Maybe we should stop there then...

MM: That sounds like a plan. I have some questions to send you via email this week about your model by the way.

Neutron Star Core Theory
LK: [From earlier: Michael] How many theories did you try out before settling on the neutron star core theory?

MM: I still like Brant’s model a great deal actually, and I also “would” like a fission based core except for the lack of electron anti-neutrinos from the sun. A fusion generation process near/around the core is ‘preferable’ to any other model at the moment IMO, mostly because of neutrino studies. Fusion seems to ‘best’ explain what we observe. IMO that fusion occurs inside the pinched, current carrying plasma filaments near the core and even in the atmosphere of the sun. The suns 22 year cycle is explainable if one accepts the notion of a spinning core. That’s the point that seems to matter to me.

LK: Mathis says the Sun is powered 85% by fusion and 15% by charge. Is that plausible?
- How long have you worked with Oliver? How many papers did you write with him?

MM: I met Oliver shortly after putting up my website in 2005. We’ve done 5 papers together. I’m actually more attracted to Birkeland’s work than to anyone else. In fact that is why I still am looking for a way to explain that lack of electron anti-neutrinos. I still think fission could be an energy source of the sun, but I cannot explain why we don’t observe the appropriate neutrino counts.

LK: What convinced him of neutronium?

MM: As I understand it, his physical experiments led him to conclude that neutrons were actually repulsive, particularly in densely packed nuclei. This was what led him to conclude that neutron material will not collapse under pressure, and form the basis of all heavy objects in space. This ability to “repulse” other neutrons is actually supported by recent evidence about the “structure” of the neutron itself.
http://www.livescience.com/4601-discove ... trons.html

LK: Have you seen Thornhill’s and Mathis’ views on neutrinos or others?

MM: No, not really.

LK: I can see neutrons having a negative exterior and positive interior, I mean it’s not too hard to imagine. But maybe the others aren’t entirely different. Thornhill’s has neutrons consisting of 3 positive and 3 negative subtrons or subparticles. Mathis had neutrinos being waves in the photon field, like sound waves in air, pressure waves, whereas he sees photons as particles that move in a wave manner, i.e. having a gyroscopic like motion on two or more axes.

Aether
- Charles, may I speculate briefly? MM’s and Brant’s models are similar, but Brant favors aether as the source of electrons within the iron interior via antenna action, while Michael favors neutronium as a source of neutrons that form into hydrogen near the core and maybe farther out. Could either of those provide charge separation and recombination?

CC: My whole approach, to aether and to neutronium (and other constructs such as CDM, magnetic reconnection, black holes, etc., etc., etc.) is that physical possibilities should be exhausted before stepping off into the realm of non-physical models. Asserting the existence of yet-to-be-demonstrated particles and forces should be the last resort, not the first one. This is my main objection to mainstream astrophysics. They’d rather do pink fairy theories than look at the physical forces present.

[Lloyd]

* We should be having another discussion tonight. This time it will be at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_DL ... 375wg/edit.
* I'll try to get a copy of it posted here tonight or tomorrow.

[Lloyd]

* This is last night's very interesting discussion. My unanswered questions after the discussion are shown in brackets. Charles' comments are in Blue, Michael's in Black and mine in Red.

LK: Three topics I favor for this session are these:
1. Electric Discharges: Finish discussing the nature of electric discharges and circuits on the Sun;
2. EU Galactic Circuit Theory: Explain which of Scott’s and Thornhill’s Electric Sun ideas you agree and disagree with and why; for these first two points, I’d like to know especially what evidence there is that the Sun is part of a galactic electric circuit, or if the electrical effects are local.
3. Pulsars: Discuss the evidence that pulsars are rapidly rotating neutron stars, or rapidly pulsing capacitor discharge effects, or the like.

1. Electric Discharges: Finish discussing the nature of electric discharges and circuits on the Sun.

CC: [T]here is still some ambiguity in our positions. The last discussion ended with a partial agreement, that there is a discharge between the Sun and the heliosphere. But I think that we need to nail down the nature of this discharge.

MM: I agree.

Photosphere Charge
CC: I think that the photosphere is positively charged, and does, indeed, display the behaviors of a tufted positive double-layer. But I think that the discharge from the photosphere is actually negative. I believe that there is a far stronger negative charge not far below the photosphere. That is the charge that supports the tightly-bound tufting. But the net charge at the edge of the photosphere is negative, and the photosphere is expelling electrons. In fact, it is electrons streaming out of the underlying primary negative layer that light up the photosphere. These electrons are attracted to the positive charge in the interplanetary medium. This is consistent with the fact that plasma in “space” tends to be positive, having become photoionized by the Sun.

MM: IMO, it’s more a matter of having positive and negative locations throughout the photosphere with circuits flowing through the whole process. Solar posted some good links on Thunderbolts, including this paper:
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 1.000.html [LK: Where do you identify these positive and negative parts of the photosphere?]
- According to Alfven (I favor Birkeland’s views personally) the movement of the plasma, particularly around sunspots, creates left and right rotation processes and positive and negative “points” on the surface of the photosphere. The basic circuit depiction is found in that paper. The other paper by Mann and Onel (I think I put that in the first discussion) shows how to break up the circuits to describe a partial circuit eruption.

LK: Is this the circuit you mean?

[In this post, http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =15#p64769, you referenced numerous papers on coronal loops etc, including this paper by Mann and Onel, http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813. Is that the one you're referring to above? This is what you said about it. "If you only read one of these links, read the last one. Onel and Mann apply Alfven's circuit theories to coronal loops and use multiple circuits to describe flare events. More importantly IMO they tie it back to solar satellite imagery. IMO it's a really EXCELLENT and first rate paper on circuit disruption types of solar flares (x-ray producing) flares."]

Streamers
CC: The helmet streamers in the corona are then further evidence of a flow of electrons out of the Sun, passing through positively charged plasma attracted to the Sun’s gravitational field, and to the negative charge in the upper convective zone. The extreme speeds in the streamers (~300 km/s) are proof that they are motivated by the electric force. But here we should listen to ourselves talk. In an electric field, protons and electrons go in opposite directions. So the “wind” in the corona cannot be neutrally charged, and it isn’t protons and electrons going in the same direction. It has to be protons going one way and electrons going the other. So I’m thinking that the evidence of “wind” is actually just surges of electrons passing through what might be a relatively stable mass of positive ions. As Brant noted, there is even evidence of cooler plasma moving toward the Sun outside of the streamers. [LK: I don’t remember him mentioning plasma moving toward the Sun, but I know he mentioned neutral matter doing so.] So, while the solar wind that we have measured far away from the Sun appears to have a net neutral charge, averaging 400 km/s away from the Sun, in the lower corona I’m contending that it starts out just as electrons. Once the electrons have collided with protons, they impart Newtonian force into them, and then the pair is net neutral. Hence the “fast solar wind” (i.e., 800 km/s) of electrons streaming out of the Sun can result in a “slow solar wind” further away, of equal parts of positive and negative charge. [LK: Doesn’t the solar wind accelerate away from the Sun?]

Birkeland’s Terella
MM: Hmm. We’re going to have some fun talking about the problems with the “party line” solar model at Thunderbolts. It has a few problems that might help illuminate some of [the] preferences for Birkeland’s model over any other type of solar model. Birkeland’s terella (sphere) was hollow, and contained a strong electromagnet in the interior. The shell itself was wired as a cathode and discharged toward the chamber walls of his experiments. One thing he noticed after continued use is that “soot” would build up along the sides of the glass chamber. After a lot of experimentation, he realized that both positively charged particles as well as negatively charged particles were being ejected toward the chamber walls. Today we would call it “sputtering”.
[LK: Does this agree or disagree with CC’s last paragraph?]
- The interior of his model contained a strong magnetic field that tended to “direct” the flow of electrons into loop like paths, particularly as he cranked up the magnetic field. It created a series of discharge loops that moved electrons from one area of the surface to another. There is an image of that effect on my website. IMO some of the discharges are surface to surface discharges, while some currents flow from the surface to the heliosphere to form those streamers.

CC: So I think that the ES [Electric Sun] model is correct that the photosphere is a tufted positive double-layer. But I don’t think that it [the Sun?] is net positive, and I don’t think that the interplanetary medium is net negative -- I think it’s the other way around.
- I’m questioning the relevance of the terrella to the overall solar-heliospheric circuit. First, the magnetic fields in the Sun are actually extremely weak, unless there is a sunspot there. So looking to magnetic fields for the prime mover doesn’t seem correct. And I still think that coronal loops and the solar-heliospheric circuit are two different things.

[LK: Are you saying here that the Sun is negative? I thought you said it has numerous double-layers that are net neutral.] Have you stated what you think coronal loops are then?

CC: If we’re talking about prominences [LK: same as filaments, but also same as coronal loops?], I think that these are interconnections between two sunspots of opposite magnetic polarity. I believe that sunspots are discharges between the underlying negative charge and the top of the positive double-layer.

LK: Do you define double layer the same way Scott, Thornhill, Alfven et al do? Do you consider double layers to be positive and negative, or just relatively positive and relatively negative?

CC: I believe so. Double-layers are formed by the electric force in the presence of some sort of dielectric. So there is a charge separation, and something is keeping the charges separate. It might be a bonafide insulator, or it might be something else. I think that they’re net charges, not relative charges. So the liquid hydrogen layer is definitely positive, and the negative layer above it is definitely negative. Then the photosphere is the positive double-layer clinging to the negative layer. So they’re not just varying degrees of charge -- they’re opposite in net polarity.
[LK: It seems like you should say the photosphere is the positive half of the double-layer, if double means two-part with one part positive and one part negative.]

MM: So long as the sun is a “generator”, double layers will form around it. Birkeland even took some nice images; once he put “pressurized gas” in large amounts into the chamber, rather than trying to suck all the gas out of the chamber. The gas tended to congregate near the electrode rather than spreading itself out evenly around the chamber.

CC: This is expected in a strong electric field. Anything that is drawing electrons out of the gas will leave it positively charged, and it will thereafter be attracted to any negative electrode, producing a much higher density.
- But in what sense is the Sun a generator?

Core Rotation Electric Currents
MM: Some of its spin momentum is converted to electrical current over time. The core itself also produces free electrons and free protons.

CC: By “spin” do you mean the rotation of the Sun?

MM: Yes, ultimately some of the spin rotation of the sun is converted into current as the sun’s magnetic field induces current in the surrounding plasma. Most of the energy however is produced and released in the core IMO.

CC: This would produce a solenoidal magnetic field -- if the stuff that was spinning had a net charge. But as I’ve noted elsewhere (because it comes up in my heavily charged model), if you have alternating layers of charge, there isn’t really going to be much of an overall solenoid -- the fields of opposing charge layers will close on themselves, leaving the Sun with a weak overall field. In my model, 1 Gauss, on the scale of the Sun, isn’t enough to consider, just as the Earth’s magnetic field is trivial when compared to far larger forces such as gravity, thermal absorption & re-radiation.
- What energy is produced and released in the core?

MM: The neutrino counts favor a fusion process IMO, at least for the time being. I’m open to a fission model, but the absence of electron antineutrinos is a deal buster IMO. I don’t know how to explain that with fission. IMO the rapidly rotating neutron core induces large discharge processes in and near the core that produce fusion reactions. Some of the core material is also released over time and decays into protons and electrons.

CC: Why would a rapidly rotating neutron core induce a large discharge process?

MM: The core rotates once every 5 minutes or so, whereas the outside shell, and most of material of the sun rotates much more slowly, once every 27.3 days. The moving magnetic field around the neutron core induces currents to flow in the plasma, which form … Bennett Pinches in the plasma.

CC: Why would neutrally charged matter induce a magnetic field?

MM: I doubt it’s neutrally charged plasma. It’s more likely to be composed of a lot of very highly charged ions of all kinds, most of them not moving anywhere near as fast as the moving magnetic field.

CC: Is it a neutron core, or very highly charged ions?

MM: The core is composed of neutrons IMO, but the areas directly around the core are composed of highly charged particles mostly hydrogen and helium IMO. I’m frankly not attached to the core being composed of neutrons, but I suspect it does have a heavy core that rotates on the z axis over a 22 year time-frame. Such an interior configuration would explain the solar cycles. The only other way I can think of to explain them is based on an EXTERNAL AC [LK: AC = Alternating Current?] sort of transition process caused by a rapidly spinning pair of heavy objects near the core of the galaxy that sends out “waves” of energy. That’s where Brant’s ideas come in IMO. He could be right that there is a flow of energy from the galaxy to the sun, but IMO that would have to create a fusion process on the interior of the sun.

CC: For the rapidly rotating core to have its axis shifted 180 degrees every 11 years would take a lot of force to overcome the gyroscope effect. I don’t have a better answer to the solar cycle, but I still have a lot of questions.

Granules
LK: CC said somewhere here that coronal loops etc seem incapable of explaining granules. How do you explain granules, MM?

MM: I would say that convection is responsible for those particular structures, along with the constant flow of current through that surface. The current forms filaments that show-up/terminate as “granules” at the surface.

CC: I agree that there is a current through the photosphere, and that this creates convection. But I disagree that granules are filaments. I think that they are thermal bubbles. The current passing through the plasma generates heat. This is especially true past the density drop-off that begins at the bottom of the photosphere, where the reduction in pressure cools the plasma, enabling electron update, and energy release by charge recombination. But the granules have all of the properties of thermal bubbles, and none of the properties of z-pinched discharge channels.

Sunspots
LK: Would you say penumbra of sunspots are filaments? Penumbra and granules look a bit similar from above.

CC: I agree that penumbra are filaments.
- In the presence of the Sun’s overall magnetic field, the electrons flowing upward experience a Lorentz force that sends them into a helical flow. [LK: Is this helical flow anywhere besides in sunspots?] This helical flow then reinforces the magnetic field, and cranks it up, from 1 Gauss to 4000 Gauss. The magnetic lines of force close through the opposite polarity, and then fluctuations in current densities can get B-field-aligned currents along the magnetic field lines. But the currents are not between oppositely charged sunspots. The currents are flowing upward out of the photosphere, and the charge exchange between sunspots is trivial. I agree that there is a lot of heat in these loops, but I don’t think that this is the primary photospheric heat source, as I don’t see how the coronal loop model (in any form) generalizes to explain granules.

MM: The sunspots congregate near “active regions”, but those active regions are caused by volcanic activity IMO [LK: Do you mean volcanic activity on your theoretical rigid iron surface below the photosphere?]. The solid material coming up into the atmosphere is instantly ionized by the currents flowing through the atmosphere. That volcanic activity also releases large amounts of heat into the atmosphere that cause the silicon plasma to heat up and rise up and through the neon photosphere. The silicon simply doesn’t emit as much white light as the mostly neon layer, therefore it shows up as a “dark’ sunspot.
- FYI, I intend to start a new thread on Thunderbolts soon related to SDO images and the interpretation of SDO images. I realize that a lot of these ideas sound a bit ‘out there’ without looking at the images themselves. The sunspot images in particular show a ‘flow” of material that comes up and through the sunspot and that eventually sinks back into the photosphere. Likewise the active regions show up in 171A LONG [LK: 171A means 171 Angstrom wavelength photons, but what does LONG mean here?] (sometimes hours and days) before the sunspots ever appear (if at all).

Neon Photosphere
CC: What is the evidence that the photosphere is mostly neon? I thought that the hydrogen bands were distinctive enough to be unambiguous.
- BTW, I applied my method of re-weighting the solar abundances to get the overall density correct to the abundances that you & Oliver came up with.
http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/ ... arWind.pdf
http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/MK&M_B2FH.pdf
- In all of the cases, the core works out to be mainly osmium & platinum, and the radiative zone is mostly nickel & iron. The differences are in the composition of the convective zone. The Anders & Grevesse numbers result in roughly the same proportions of hydrogen & helium in the convective zone, and assuming that the convective zone is well-mixed, we’d expect to see these proportions in the photosphere.

MM: Very cool. You’ll have to let me chomp on your graphs for a bit.
- I think the assumption [the convective zone is] “well mixed” is the one I have trouble with. EM fields are used to mass separate elements and gravity also tends to act to mass separate elements. There are at least two reasons why it’s unlikely that the elements stay “mixed together” over time. IMO the lighter elements form the upper atmosphere of the sun. Hydrogen FLOWS through all the layers, but it ‘congregates” in the corona. Helium tends to make up the bulk of the chromosphere IMO. Each layer of the solar atmosphere is arranged by the atomic weight of the elements. What we observe as a “photosphere” is but one (relatively thin) plasma layer composed mostly of neon. Again however, hydrogen literally “flows through” all the plasma layers.[/color]

LK: Above, CC asked why neon in the photosphere? He said the spectral lines seem to show hydrogen.

MM: The “spectral” aspect is really a “guestimation” process at best, particularly since we can’t say which lines come from which parts of the solar atmosphere. It’s “simple” to suggest they all come from the same “layer”, but that’s just an OVERSIMPLIFICATION IMO. The reason I picked Neon is related to the SERTS data. When looking at that data, it’s full of large amounts of highly ionized neon photons, yet virtually NONE that are related to non ionized Neon. Why? That same thing applies to Silicon. It shows up ABUNDANTLY (I mean really abundantly) in the SERTS spectral data, but mostly at the highly ionized end of the spectrum. A surface at 6000K should produce almost NO heavily ionized neon at all. Why then are there so many highly ionized neon lines in that spectrum, and so few photons from lightly ionized Neon? There’s no logical reason for Neon to persist to remain in such highly ionized states unless current is running through that Neon. The SERTS data is ultimately where the layering aspect comes from. Once I realized there was a discharge process in play, it made a lot more sense to me that so many ionized lines of Neon appear in the SERTS data. As Scott suggested, the whole photosphere is experiencing a “glow mode discharge” process. That discharge process is what release so many Neon photons, specifically all the ones from highly ionized neon.

CC: I’ll have to look that up. But does that dismiss the presence of hydrogen & helium?

MM: Not at all. They are also there in the solar atmosphere of course, but IMO they end up flowing THROUGH the dense photosphere and rise into the layers above the photosphere. The helium is lighter than the neon photosphere which is why we see the chromosphere so well in the 305A wavelength related to Helium. There is a mass separation process in play IMO that is directly related to the atomic weight of each element. FYI, the SERTS data also contains many ionized oxygen emissions, but I believe most of that comes from the loops as surface materials are ionized by the coronal loops. [/color]

Solar Electric Discharge
LK: CC said “I think that we need to nail down the nature of this discharge.” Has that happened yet?

MM: I don’t think so because there are two primary processes in play IMO. The discharge process from the surface to the heliosphere tends to generate coronal loops as well as the streamers from the sun. The eruption of volcanic material into the ionized solar atmosphere also tends to generate large “active regions”. These are areas where solids from below the surface become ionized by the currents flowing through the solar atmosphere. Part of that “discharge’ process we observe around “active regions” is directly related to the ionizing of non-ionized material that enters the atmosphere IMO. There is also a lot of heat released in larger volcanic events which also contribute to sunspot formation/activity.

2. EU Galactic Circuit Theory: Explain which of Scott’s and Thornhill’s Electric Sun ideas you agree and disagree with and why; for these first two points, I’d like to know especially what evidence there is that the Sun is part of a galactic electric circuit, or if the electrical effects are local.

MM: I suppose I’ll start by saying that I LOVED Scott’s book on this topic. I don’t agree with all of it, but it open[ed] my eyes to many aspects of the theory that I was simply missing. I also enjoyed his writing style and I’m kinda picky.
- Having said all that, I think he has the wiring backwards by suggesting the sun acts as an anode rather than a cathode as Birkeland suggested. The biggest problem however with any solar model that attempts to use an external power source is going to be explaining the neutrino counts from the sun. Those counts match up quite nicely with a fusion process and a neutrino oscillation process. Any model that attempts to suggest that the energy is externally produced must also deal with those same neutrino measurements. Unfortunately I think Juergens was incorrect in assuming that the sun wasn’t also a power source. It’s fine to “wire together” a bunch of “generators”, but unless the suns generate the current, where is that current ultimately coming from?
- I’d personally be willing to entertain a fission based process in the core, but again those neutrino measurements just don’t favor such a model. IMO the neutrino counts will be something that has to be dealt with in any electric solar model.
- In theory at least, I would expect that the neutrino counts would be lower if Jeurgen’s solar model was correct. We wouldn’t need for the sun to “produce” energy per se, it could simply be a ‘resistor’ and release heat in such a scenario. However, in such a scenario, we’d also expect to see little or no neutrino output from the sun. That doesn’t seem to be the case at all. [LK: Thornhill has said that electric discharges produce fusion, so why wouldn't the Sun's electric discharges account for the neutrinos?]
- IMO, Alfven’s basic approach is hard to refute in terms of how well it ‘ties into’ standard theory. On the other hand I find it to [be] virtually useless, when it comes to explaining some types of solar images, particularly shock wave type images, and running difference and running average images. Were I able to better explain such image[s] with his basic solar model, I would do so. It’s actually much easier to “sell” such a concept in public. Unfortunately however, the satellite images tell a different story than “standard” solar theories would suggest. Features can remain persistent for days and even weeks in RD images. That’s rather difficult to reconcile with a “plasma” [only] solar model, particularly since the photosphere structures tend to come and go in roughly 8 minute intervals.

3. Pulsars: Discuss the evidence that pulsars are rapidly rotating neutron stars, or rapidly pulsing capacitor discharge effects, or the like.

MM: I’m fine with both options, and I suspect it’s a combo deal to begin with. I frankly find it hard to imagine that some stars [pulsars] rotate as fast as they claim. I find some of the speeds they come up with to be much more likely to be related to discharge effects rather than rotation patterns.

CC: I don’t believe in neutronium, so I’m going with rapidly pulsing nuclear fusion, in a natural tokamak (i.e., extremely rapidly rotating matter, where the magnetic fields are sufficient to compress the matter to the point of fusion).

MM: You could probably sell me on a “heavy” (and rotating) core of some sort, including a liquid core.

LK: CC, did your post on the Sun’s Density thread go into much detail on that natural tokamak? I know it had some detail, but maybe only a paragraph or two. Eh?

CC: Yes, I think that we briefly touched on it, but the “natural tokamak” thing doesn’t figure so significantly in my model of the Sun. It’s just for the exotics, like black holes, planetary nebulae, quasars, “neutron” stars [you mean pulsars], magnetars, etc.

MM: How do you explain some of the measurements of heavy objects in space if you reject both black holes AND neutron stars?

CC: My “natural tokamak” model has an indeterminate amount of mass rotating rapidly around the center, generating magnetic fields powerful enough to confine the plasma. There is no theoretical limit to the amount of matter that could be contained in such a structure. In the condensation [?] of the angular momentum of a solar system, there could be enough energy to develop ... relativistic speeds. Then the force of gravity and the magnetic confinement will create an extremely dense gravitational field.

MM: Hmm. I have some more reading (of your material) to do obviously. I don’t recall reading about your natural tokamak idea. Would it fit *INSIDE* of a sun?

CC: The main site for this is:
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031
- The discussion of the natural tokamak thing begins in the section on black holes.
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6092

MM: Thanks. I just had not checked out those pages yet. I can see I have more reading to do.

LK: CC, you said before that the Sun may have been much more massive in the past. What about having a natural tokamak in its core in the past?

CC: I’m still considering this. While the natural tokamak is necessary to explain some of the more exotic behaviors, it might still be present in proto-stars, though rotating at lesser speeds.

LK: I’ll look at your black hole and pulsar pages some more, I think. I’m getting a bit busy in other areas.

MM: It seems like this idea is worth exploring further. I do think we need a way to explain the solar cycle, and a rapidly rotating core would serve such a purpose.
- FYI, I will start a thread on Thunderbolts this week on SDO images and image analysis. I think it would help, Charles, to understand how my model ties back to satellite imagery and how it came to exist in the first place.

CC: Thanks Michael. … I’ll look for the SDO stuff on thunderbolts.

[Lloyd]

* This is from last night's Discussion at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1exv ... 7W9qk/edit. I forgot to announce it in advance.

LK QUESTIONS
LK1. Electric Discharge Granules: MM, if you say electric discharges produce the granules, how would the entire surface of the Sun have such discharges so evenly spaced, i.e. at every granule? You don’t consider granules to be the same as penumbral filaments, do you? CC's explanation of granules seems very reasonable and includes electrical effects involving ionization and charge recombination. Do you have a detailed explanation of granules?
LK2. Density Gradient Boundaries: MM, what is your evidence for major density gradient boundaries at .995R, or whatever, and what's wrong with CC's version of boundaries at .27R and .7R? [This topic didn't get discussed yet.]
LK3. Hollow Core: Do both of you consider Brant's hollow iron sphere model impossible? I think he says the solid iron shell is about 140,000 miles thick and inside I guess would be a gas, liquid, or maybe plasma. He considers gravity to be a surface effect. What about that? (See http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =15#p66671)
LK4. Stratification: CC, can your model accommodate MM's stratification of elements, esp. neon in the photosphere and silicon below it and then calcium and a thick layer of iron? MM's interpretation of the neon and silicon spectra findings etc sound reasonable to me so far.
LK5. Pulsars: CC, I read your pulsar page and black hole page. Both seem well-reasoned, but the pulsar model seems a bit shaky, because it's hard to imagine explosion-implosion cycles lasting for many years with little variation in intensity and without the pulsar beams changing direction enough to get out of range of detection from Earth. Something like an electrical capacitor model seems more likely, so far.
LK6. Future Discussions: Do you both expect that you can come to agreement on these particular questions? And would you like me to invite Brant, David Russell, Oliver Manuel, Scott, or Thornhill to join discussion soon?

LK1. Electric Discharge Granules: MM, if you say electric discharges produce the granules, how would the entire surface of the Sun have such discharges so evenly spaced? CC's version seems very reasonable and includes electrical effects involving ionization and charge recombination.

CC.1a. I believe that we are close to convergence on this issue, and that this is worth pursuing. In a sense, the Electric Sun model is the flagship of the EU paradigm. There is a great deal of interest in the Sun throughout society, for quite obvious reasons, and we can demonstrate that the conventional model is far from an accurate description. This swings the pendulum our way. Yet the ES [Electric Sun] model has the Sun as a positive electrode in a sustained discharge with the negatively charged interplanetary medium, and this is backwards. The interplanetary medium is known to be positively charged, and if the Sun was being lit up by a flow of electrons inwards, they would get pinched into discrete discharge channels, making the Sun look like a plasma lamp, which is not how it works. The ES model asserts that the photosphere is a tufted positive layer. This is correct. But what is tufting? It took me a little while to track this down, but if you have a negative electrode that is emitting electrons, you can expect a positive double-layer to build up around the negative electrode, and this positive double-layer gets lit up by the flow of electrons through it. The heat then causes convection. So tufting is a positive double-layer that is emitting electrons. It doesn’t make sense until you understand the reason for the positive double-layer. It gets its form and its energy from the underlying negative layer that is emitting electrons. In that context, the photosphere makes perfect sense as a tufted positive double-layer, but the discharge is from a negative Sun to a positive interplanetary medium.

MM: I agree with everything you just wrote in "1a". I’m not sure where that leaves us in terms of Thunderbolts concepts of an electric sun as an anode, but I tend to favor Birkeland’s cathode sun, with a plasma double layer around it. The discharge process is primarily spread homogeneously around the surface, but active regions tended to congregate near the ‘bumps” in Birkeland’s terrella experiment. I think that is true of the sun’s surface as well. It includes volcanic processes IMO. FYI, I’m sorry I didn’t get a chance yet to start a thread on SDO images. I will do that this week. I’ve been in work mode, plus my wife has been sick. It’s been a bit hectic recently. I do think we need to discuss how the SDO images tie back to coronal loops, sunspots and penumbral filaments. They aren’t at all the same processes, but they tend to be related to one another in terms of the “source” of the activity IMO, specifically the release of magma from volcanic regions.

LK: [When MM had left, I said:] I don’t think MM has explained his version of ED on the Sun thoroughly enough yet.

CC: I’m not convinced that the coronal loops are going to make a good general model for the photosphere.

LK: I asked MM if he thinks the granules are like the penumbral filaments, but I don’t think he responded. [MM said the loops are widespread below the photosphere. Would your model for granules work okay, if such loops or electric discharges were widespread throughout the layer under the photosphere?]

CC.1b. Key personnel need to be aware that the sooner this switch in polarity is done, the easier it will be to do. The more entrenched we become, and the more we stick to our existing story, because we don’t want to look stupid in changing our story, the more guilty we are of the things we’re accusing the mainstream of. We need to distinguish ourselves as being eager to pursue new advances in our model. As it is, we have developed a reputation of being fanatical about our model, and this will not help us progress. And indeed, if we have the polarity backwards, and if somebody else comes along and gets it right, and if we argue tenaciously against it because arguing tenaciously is what we do, we’ll be left behind along with the mainstream. So I think that we have a good case here. We need to bring more people in, to flesh it out, and then we need to petition Scott and Thornhill for an alteration in the core EU principles as regards the Sun.

MM: I agree, but in this case the “change” isn’t really up to me. While I think Scott nailed the glow mode discharge aspects, I just happen to prefer Birkeland’s wiring and polarity concepts.

CC: Birkeland thought that the Sun was positive, and was pulling in electrons from the environs?
Birkeland's cathode sun model:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... 5B838DF1D3
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... 5B838DF1D3

MM: No, he believed that the sun acts as a cathode with respect to ‘space’

CC: I find cathode and anode to be confusing terms, as they can be ambiguous depending on the circumstances. I’m saying that the dominant charge near the surface of the Sun is negative, and the Sun is therefore expelling electrons toward the positively charged interplanetary medium, though the photosphere is positively charged, as a tufted double layer.

MM: I agree.

CC: Am I correct that the ES model has it the other way around?

MM: Yes. Thornhill, Scott and some others tend to promote an anode type model. I’ve not even seen what that might look like in a lab, but I suspect you’re right that it would look a bit like an ordinary plasma ball. The flow of charged particles should be multi-directional as well. The electrons would always flow in, and the protons would flow out. Birkeland’s model predicts both types of charged particles flow AWAY from the sun.

CC: I agree that in an electric field, there is a bi-directional flow, with protons going one way, and electrons going the other. Yet I also agree that eventually, the solar wind measured in our neighborhood is comprised of positive ions and electrons traveling in the same direction. And I agree that it is likely that the ions got drug along, motivated primarily by the electron flow. Once impacted by enough electrons, the ions will be moving, and if they capture electrons and get neutralized, they no longer care about the electric field. So they just have the Newtonian force from the electron stream.
- Anyway, the EU stance is certainly not up to us, of course. But I’m not trying to agree or disagree with the EU any more than I am with the mainstream. I’m searching for the truth. And we are certainly well within our mandate to discuss issues pertinent to the ES model. If they won’t tolerate dissent, they’ll never command the respect of anybody. And if there are compelling reasons to believe that the polarity is wrong, we should present the reasoning to the community. Perhaps we should start a thread to discuss this particular issue.

LK: Charles, what about the acceleration of the solar wind with distance from the Sun?

CC: I’m not familiar with that. All I know is that there is the “slow wind” (i.e., 300 km/s) and the “fast wind” (i.e., 800 km/s) near the Sun, and that on the Moon, an experiment estimated 400 km/s. That’s the extent of my knowledge. Where can I find more info?
- I thought that I read that, and I don’t remember the acceleration, so I’ll have to read it again. Does it continue to accelerate, out past the planets?

LK: I don’t know how far the speed has been measured. I’ll see if Wikipedia says it there. Wikipedia seems to discuss it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
- Here’s a chart of the solar wind speed: https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/wExAn ... c5AL0--vtk
- Was the solar wind speed chart of any use? It seems to be on a logarithmic scale.

CC: I looked at that a little bit, and glanced back at the Wikipedia article. Yes, it looks like most of the acceleration is near the Sun, which doesn't put it outside of my model. But they're just quoting "models". I want to see the data. Voyager has collected solar wind data, all of the way out to the heliopause. So somewh[ere] there are hard facts.
- If most of the acceleration is within the first 10 solar radii, my interpretation of that is that it's electrons being accelerated toward the positive plasma in space. The acceleration ends when the electrons have all paired up with ions, and there is no longer a net electric force.
- I want to read that thread that MM started on solar models.

MM: FYI, I started a thread at Thunderbolts about the strengths and weaknesses of various solar models. It got shut down once RC got involved in it, most notably when the topic focused on neutrino counts. That seems to be a particular weakness of Juergen’s solar model, along with a missing MASSIVE magnetic field that would need to accompany the flow of electrons into the sun, were it actually powered externally.

CC: That’s disheartening. Here I am saying that the Universe is electric, and it seems that we’re talking in increasingly accurate terms about exactly how it works. But this puts us outside of the EU camp?
- Who else should we bring into this? MM seemed lukewarm about pursuing the polarity issue with the general EU community. I don’t know if you saw my comment, but I think I have to disagree. I think that there are a lot of open-minded people in this community, and I think that it would be ridiculous for us to think that the ES model is set in stone. We’re pioneers here!

LK: Not salesmen? I didn’t read your entire discussion above on that, but I also haven’t seen the thread on the TB forum that he was talking about. I hope I may get to see which one he was talking about.

CC: I’ll do a search. Here it is: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... f=3&t=5869
- I’ll check it out in the next couple of days.

LK3. Hollow Core: Do both of you consider Brant's hollow iron sphere model impossible? I think he says the solid iron shell is about 140,000 miles thick and inside I guess would be a gas, liquid, or maybe plasma. He considers gravity to be a surface effect. What about that? (See http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =15#p66671)

CC.3a. It looks like Brant is saying that the Sun is like the type of iron spherule that you can get as splatter from an arc discharge through molten iron. The little bubbles of iron cool into solid shells, leaving a hollow interior where the plasma used to be. This begs many questions.
i. Where was the far larger blob of iron?
ii. What was the fantastically large charge separation that produced the arc?
iii. With a photospheric temperature of 6,000 K surrounding an iron shell, we’d expect that heat to (eventually) permeate the interior of the orb. What can keep iron solid at 6,000 K?
iv. Would an iron shell with a hollow core have a distinctive seismic signature, and if so, does this match the results of helioseismic studies?

MM: I “believe” Brant’s describing something akin to this type of internal arrangement of matter, specifically with the outside heavier materials surrounding a lighter core: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Iax3wNqktA
- As understand it, he believes that energy is transferred into the core “wirelessly”, much like Tesla’s early experiments. I must admit that I find this model attractive for a few reasons, but I can’t actually do his model justice I’m afraid. I would like to see him join our discussion at some point so that he can more fully explain how his model interact[s] with the rest of the galaxy.

LK4. Stratification: CC, can your model accommodate MM's stratification of elements, esp. neon in the photosphere and silicon below it and then calcium and a thick layer of iron? MM's interpretation of the neon and silicon spectra findings etc sound reasonable to me so far.

CC.4a. I looked at the SERTS data that MM referenced. Here is the paper that I found: http://library.gsfc.nasa.gov/Databases/ ... 208640.pdf

LK: What about this?
** http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect ... ition.html
Solar Elemental Abundances
Element; Number %; Mass %
H 92.0; 73.4
He 7.8; 25.0
O 0.06; 0.8
C 0.02; 0.20
Ne 0.01; 0.16
Fe ---; 0.14
N 0.008; 0.09
Si 0.004; 0.09
Fe 0.003; ---
Mg 0.003; 0.06
S 0.002; 0.05

CC.4b. Is MM saying that the photosphere is primarily neon because of its absence in the corona, with an underlying layer of silicon, because of its weak abundance in the corona?
- The SERTS-97 paper that I read said that the temperature of the elements was over 1 MK. This means that they were looking at the corona. How does this relate to the photosphere?

LK: Brant said the coronal loops are like 1 MK or more. I think he meant from the rigid surface on outward. What about that?

MM: Please be careful about following the mainstream’s lead in terms of what temperature and area of the sun that particular temperature relates to. Yes, the CORONAL LOOPS reach millions of degrees, but they originate UNDER the surface of the photosphere and sometimes they grow large enough to actually rise into the corona. The discharge through the plasma, and the massive currents flowing through those loops is what heats those loops to millions of degrees. The loops are not limited to the corona however. They span the whole visible atmosphere, originating near the solid surface, and typically terminating below the surface never to rise out of the photosphere. Some of the LARGEST loops rise up and through the surface of the photosphere. The loops are visible both above and below that surface IMO.
- AFAIK, Brant and I are pretty much on the same page from the surface outward. I think we both agree on the basics of what’s occurring in the atmosphere (discharges), although I’m not sure if he and I see everything exactly the same way in terms of layering and where the loops become “visible”.

LK: The link above for SERTS data doesn’t seem to show Neon, except for measuring the wavelength range.
Here’s where I see Neon mentioned there. This is a quote.
"Figure 11. Calibration Chamber and Spectrometer Section.
"An electrical discharge, nominally at 1750 Volts and 700 milliamps, is passed through the He-Ne gas mixture to produce spectral lines in the EUV. The He II line at 304 Å is very strong and at the short wavelength end of the wavelength range selected for the flight. The He II and many Ne II lines provide an excellent wavelength calibration throughout this wavelength range. A list of the emission lines produced by this laboratory lamp is listed in Table 6."
I don’t think Table 6 shows any Neon.

MM: The odd thing about the SERTS spectral data is the abundance of highly ionized neon and silicon. Neon in particular is not likely to be highly (at all) ionized at 5800K. It seems extremely unusual that something that shows up negligibly in terms of low ionization states shows up so abundantly at higher ionization states.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 9.000.html
- This isn’t the paper I was looking for, but it does include some of the Neon and Oxygen spectral lines.
- There is a better paper on this subject. Bear with me and let me find it. Well, this is going to take me a bit. The links to the SERTS data are not working from my website, meaning the data has been moved. RC posted a good paper on JREF. I’ll have to locate it.
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 9.000.html
- Try that link LK.

LK: I see it says the intensity of Ne V at 359.396A is 94 to 486 x 10^-12 erg-cm^-2 s^-1 arcsec^-2; Ne VI is around 800; but Mg IX is around 17,000.
[But I guess you're right that it's curious that Neon, an inert gas, is so highly ionized.]

CC. Why didn’t SERTS-97 detect any hydrogen in the corona, and why is the H-alpha line so strong in the photosphere?

MM: Hydrogen flows through ALL the plasma layers IMO. It’s strong in the photosphere, but also in the corona. I’m not sure if it’s particularly visible as a proton.

LK: Hey CC, MM gave a link above for a paper that may support his view on Neon on the Sun. Did you see it yet?

CC: Not yet. I’ll get to it when I review the whole thread. So what do you think about the polarity issue?

[LK: Your and MM's conclusions on that above sound reasonable to me.]

LK5. Pulsars: CC, I read your pulsar page and black hole page. Both seem well-reasoned, but the pulsar model seems a bit shaky, because it's hard to imagine explosion-implosion cycles lasting for many years with little variation in intensity and without the pulsar beams changing direction enough to get out of range of detection from Earth. Something like an electrical capacitor model seems more likely, so far.

CC.5a. If the pulsar is rotating, its own angular momentum will steady the z axis (a.k.a., the gyroscope effect). So if the beacon was ever pointing in our direction, all other factors being the same, we would expect it to point in our direction forever more.

MM: It’s likely that the ‘jets” are indeed related to the spin axis. While I’m “OK” with a heavy, rapidly spinning core, that model tends to fall short in explaining the fastest pulse events. These are likely to be “two body” electrical interactions IMO.

LK: Charles doesn’t attribute the beams to spin, but to explosions/implosions.

CC: How could you account for 1,000 Hz pulses with a “two body” electrical interaction?

MM: I think it would take short charge build ups, but the mechanics isn’t my strong suit on pulsar type events.

LK: Is the Earth itself a capacitor?

MM: It would be more akin to a “conductor” with a small amount of generation in terms of heat and basic energy. The current from the sun would be constantly flowing through it.

LK: The ionosphere and the ground are like plates of a capacitor, but the wiring may not be complete. Eh?

MM: I think the circuit is completed in the Earth’s atmosphere, visually at time in terms of Auroral activity.

LK: Anyway, I thought it might not have to be a two-body problem, if it’s something like that[, i.e. like a star or object that has an atmospheric layer and a ground layer with the same charge, like capacitor plates].

CC: If it’s an electrical discharge, what is the mechanism that focuses the lighthouse beam?

MM: The “beams” we see from galaxies are simply due to the rotation of the object near the core, and the flow of electrons in filaments near the poles IMO.

CC: Why would there be filaments near the poles, and how would these create beams?

MM: The rotation of the object creates a “current flow” around the object that tends to focus the electrons near the poles.

LK: Where can we find info about that current flow?

CC: Rotating charges would generate a solenoidal magnetic field (if a neutron star was actually charged, which neutrons aren’t supposed to be).

LK: But if they decay into electrons and protons, those would be charged.

CC: To generate a net field, there has to be a net charge. In other words, neutrally charged matter rotating will not generate a net magnetic field. The protons generate one field, while the electrons generate a field that is opposite, and the two cancel each other out. So there is more to the “dynamo” thing than just rotation.

LK: The opposite charges would make separate current filaments though. Right? They wouldn’t combine, as you explained before.

CC: I’m not sure that we’re talking about the same thing.

LK: The protons would flow in a separate stream from the electrons. Right?

CC: In a thin plasma, such as the corona, I’m thinking that this is the case, though I think that the dominant flow of electrons exerts a drag force on the nucleons, and they get accelerated in the direction of the electrons, against the electric field. But if we’re talking about a dense object such as the hypothetical neutron star, wouldn’t we think of it as a solid body?

LK: Yes, but the electrons and protons would be a plasma atmosphere around it. Hmm?

CC: Yes. But then is there an electric field to accelerate them in opposite directions?

LK: Pulsar beams wouldn’t need to be focused, if I remember our discussion right; we found that some stars may have enough power to give the results we see from pulsars, I think. I don’t know how strong the pulse signals are in the first place. Do you?

CC: No. Here I guess I’m just going with the conventional idea, that if the energy that we receive is multiplied by the arc angle, the total energy would be out of range on the high side. But I don’t know what the actual numbers are, or even what the ranges are.

CC.5b. The regularity of the implosion/explosion cycle is, indeed, the hardest thing to explain. I’m saying that the natural tokamak meters its own fuel, because electrostatic repulsion of plasma inside the tokamak is in equilibrium with the magnetic pinch effect, resulting in a steady stream of new particles being brought in. This is undeniably the most exotic aspect of the entire framework, and the balance of forces resulting in “metered fuel” is more of an idea than an assertion. I’ll keep thinking about it, and don’t be surprised if this changes, but at present, this is the best that I can do.

CC.5c. The electrical capacitor model leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
i. The electrodes responsible for the electric field need to be identified.
ii. The dielectric that maintains the charge separation needs to be identified.
iii. The mechanism that mediates the dielectric breakdown that enables the discharge needs to be identified, and this needs to be capable of breakdown and reinstatement up to 1000 times per second, to enable re-charging and the next discharge extremely rapidly. If it’s sputtering, somebody needs to establish that sputtering could occur at this rate, on this kind of scale, because sputtering rates slow down as the size increases. This is because the dielectric breakdown and re-establishment takes time (i.e., heat dispersion, discharge channel collapse, etc.).

[LK: There are something like 200 lightning strikes on Earth every second. Couldn't a similar process occur on some stars, that would result in such pulses, like lightning strikes? This TPOD http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... ulsars.htm says ""The oscillations in pulsars are caused by resonant effects in electric circuits. The sudden release of stored electrical energy in a “double layer” is responsible for their energetic outbursts. Pulsars do not shine with visible light alone; sometimes X-rays and gamma rays are seen. The outbursts begin with a sudden peak of energy, and then gradually decline, like a stroke of lightning."" Emphasis is mine. I think this is a signature of lightning, or electrical discharge, rather than of a rotating beam. Would a natural tokamak beam have the same signature as lightning?]

LK6. Future Discussions: Do you both expect that you can come to agreement on these particular questions? And would you like me to invite Brant, David Russell, Oliver Manuel, Scott, or Thornhill to join discussion soon?

CC.6a. Perhaps after Discussion #4 it will be time to bring in more people. But if we do, I think that we should limit the scope. If it’s everybody’s theory about every different thing (redshift, pulsars, star formation, etc.) it will go in too many different directions. I think that the polarity of the Sun is a good candidate for a singular issue that we could debate, and keep debating, until we’ve heard all of the arguments, considered evidence from everybody’s perspectives, and determined if this can be nailed down. I think that it can be nailed down, and that it should, as mentioned above.

MM: It seems to me that pulsars are probably a bit outside of the scope of solar theory. That topic probably warrants a discussion of its own. In Oliver’s case, neutron cores are the “anchor/core” of all stars in space, as well as the material that makes up pulsars and neutrons stars. In his particular model, they are all related, pulsars would simply be “naked” (without a shell).

CC: I’d be just as happy to leave pulsars for another time. We have very little data, and the extreme ranges lend themselves to radical speculation that might have little to do with “normal” stars. The Sun is far more relevant, and we have far more data.

[Lloyd]

Solar Neutrino Count
* In my previous message here I posted our Electric Sun discussion from last night. In that discussion MM referred to another TB forum thread that previously discussed Electric Sun models recently. I noticed this message there that discussed the neutrino count from the Sun, which I'll reply to with Don Scott's TPOD from last year.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =15#p64686

Re: Strengths and weaknesses of various EU solar models.
Postby Reality Check » Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:20 pm

- Orrery wrote: The internally powered nuclear fusion model doesn't predict the correct number of observed neutrinos. Only the surface fusion z-pinch model predicts the observed neutrinos.

- The internally powered nuclear fusion model does predict the correct number of observed neutrinos.
- A surface fusion z-pinch model could match the observed neutrinos but cannot explain the lack of gamma radiation from that surface fusion. Having the fusion at the center of the Sun does explain the lack of gamma radiation.
[W]hat has made you ignore the discovery of neutrino oscillation in 2001 and the verification of it since then?
- ETA: Neutrino oscillation observations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_o ... servations) include solar neutrino oscillation, atmospheric neutrino oscillation, reactor neutrino oscillation and beam neutrino oscillation experiments.
- ETA2: FYI, the fusion process from H to 3He produces 3 gamma rays for each 3He isotope produced. Two are from a positron annihilating with an electron and have an energy of 0.511 MeV. The other is a 5.49 MeV gamma ray.

Scott on Neutrino Oscillation
* In this TPOD by Don Scott last year, http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... utrino.htm, he said muon neutrinos have been observed to change into electron neutrinos, but not the reverse, so the Solar Nuclear Furnace model's shortage of electron neutrinos observed from the Sun is in reality still not explained.
Lack of Surface Fusion Gamma Rays
* I don't know that Reality Check's other statement against the Externally Powered Electric Sun model, that surface fusion would produce many more gamma rays than observed, has yet been refuted, but my guess is that, if the theorized electric discharge fusion occurs mostly under the photosphere, the gamma rays produced would not penetrate the photosphere for the most part and thus would not be observed outside of the Sun. So that may indicate that the electric discharge fusion occurs mostly under the photosphere. I hope Michael may have evidence for that.
* I see now that Michael did make a similar statement at this post, http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =15#p64686:

He said: Keep in mind that in a BIrkeland solar model, the rigid SURFACE is actually UNDER the photosphere and most of the fusion processes created in z-pinches in the "atmosphere" of the sun would occur UNDER the surface of the photosphere, but ABOVE the rigid surface. It's possible in other words that a lot of fusion occurs near the surface of a Birkeland solar model, but gamma rays are typically absorbed by the plasma between that surface and the surface of the photosphere. In other words, you wouldn't expect to observe but a tiny fraction of a gamma rays produced in z-pinches of the solar atmosphere of a Birkeland model, whereas you WOULD expect to see them in ... a Juergens solar model (I would think).

* And I see that Dave Talbott addressed the issue in this post: http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =30#p64749:

As for gamma rays, if the Earth's atmosphere can shield us from gamma rays, I don't see why thousands of miles of solar atmosphere wouldn't absorb the radiation from solar fusion where Thornhill places it, just beneath the visible surface. (Maybe I'll ask Wal for his comments.)

[Lloyd]

* Here's a link to the next Discussion document Thursday at 8 PM Eastern time: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dS7 ... wXriQ/edit.
Sun’s Polarity
LK: Charles [CC] wanted to start this time by discussing the Sun’s polarity. See the links at top [at bottom here] for what’s already been discussed. CC said he’d try to compile evidence for bulk electrons emitting from the Sun. Also, please see the Solar Models Comparison Table at the bottom and make any needed corrections to it, if you have time before or after the discussion.

My Questions
LK1. MM & BC, what proves a rigid Fe surface under the photosphere?
LK2. MM, what proves electric discharge coronal loops under every photospheric granule?
LK3. MM & BC, what explains the apparent density gradients at .27R and .7R?
LK4. CC, what would produce rigid features under the photosphere?
LK5. CC & BC, what causes the sunspot cycles with solar polarity reversals?

LK: MY FAVORITE MODEL PARTS - I favor these:
CC’s gravitational compression ionization model as the source of solar energy;
BC’s and Mathis’ galactic center aether/photon emission model as a secondary source of solar energy;
CC’s plasma convection model for granules;
MM’s and BC’s rigid iron subsurface model;
MM’s ubiquitous subsurface fusing electric discharge coronal loops;
BC’s aether/photon electric currents;
CC’s density gradient model;
and all three of your electron emission models.

Here are links to condensed versions of previous discussion on these two topics.
Solar Dynamics: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YYx ... k_Wvc/edit
Solar Stratification: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sks ... sjrrM/edit

[Lloyd]

* Brant will hopefully be joining Charles, Michael and me in discussion shortly. We plan to start at the first link here at 8PM Eastern and the second link about 8:30 or so Eastern time.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dS7 ... wXriQ/edit
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10TZ ... 5BotU/edit
* Charles complicated matters this time by coming up with a revision of his theory that we'll have some questions about at the second link.

[Lloyd]

Discussion #5 - Part 1
BC: Brant Callahan; CC: Charles Chandler; LK: Lloyd Kinder; MM: Michael Mozina

The Sun’s Polarity -- The Sun Is an Electric Generator

LK: Charles, Michael and Brant, I think you all agree that the Sun emits bulk electrons steadily, but positive ions in bursts in CMEs. Is that right? And how does that compare with Don Scott’s ideas?

CC: I’m still looking for direct evidence of the relevant polarities. I think that part of the problem is that the photosphere is (in my model) positively charged, but it has electrons flowing through it, on their way to the corona and beyond. Hence it may be a positive layer clinging to a negative electrode, but both positive ions and free electrons will be present in the mix. So I’d like to ask MM and BC if they know of literature that explicitly states that the photons are characteristic of ionized hydrogen. I believe I’ve read this, but I can’t remember where, and spectral analysis is not my specialty anyway, so I don’t know if I’d know how to interpret the data anyway. But as I recall, the photons that are emitted by an electron zipping past a nucleon, without recombining, as would be the case in the electron flow from a cathode through a positive plasma layer, are different from the photons emitted by electron uptake. MM, is that correct?

BC: Cant say I have ever heard of proton (ionized H) emitting detectable photons, but they do have an EM field??
I agree that the photosphere is a double layer that sticks to the cathode/sphere...

MM: CC, you’re probably right about the photosphere. It’s simply a “double layer” that sticks to the cathode sphere. Keep in mind that current flows through the whole solar atmosphere, starting from the surface. That surface interacts electrically with the heliosphere/space in Birkeland’s model. Birkeland achieved the “best” results in his experiments in terms of replicating solar-type images that look like a photosphere when he used LOTS of gas (pressurized gas) rather than when he attempted to make it a “more pure” vacuum. There are a host of really good images from his experiments in his book. He shows at least one image of this pressurized experiment which looks to form as a simple double layer that sticks to the sphere. The discharges in that case come from the surface of the cathode and “sometimes” to [or] through the surface of the plasma double [layer]. [...H]owever, there are smaller surface discharges that stick closer to the surface and never rise high enough to rise out of the photosphere.
- Birkeland’s model is DEPENDENT upon the sun being its own power source. The internal release of energy keeps the sphere “charged’ in relationship to the ISM [interstellar medium].

CC: What is the charging mechanism?

MM: The release of protons and electrons in the core, the induction caused by the rotation of the core in relationship to the mostly iron surface, and the rotation of the sun itself in relationship to the heliosphere all act to generate “current” that can and will want to “flow” to something. That something is the ISM in most cases. We also see discharges that begin at the surface and terminate at another point on the solid surface, but that activity doesn’t move any electrical energy AWAY from the sun. The flow of electrons from the surface do indeed “pull” the protons in their wake as they head out toward the heliosphere. That constant flow of electrons creates a “pull” on the protons that tend to follow along. You’ll notice that solar wind is composed of H+, He2+ and He1+ in exactly that order in terms of the abundance of each ion. That is due to the charge/mass ratio. The higher the charge compared to the mass of the ion, the more readily it is attracted to that outbound flow of electrons.

CC: I don’t understand how the release of protons AND electrons would cause a current between the Sun & the heliosphere, nor how rotation would cause a current. Time-varying magnetic fields would induce a current, but just a simple magnetic dynamo isn’t going to cause any current to flow. So I’m missing something.

MM: I think the part that you’re missing is that the constant release of energy creates a sphere that has excess energy to spare and that needs to discharge itself to something. The energy state of the plasma in the core prevents the excess electrons and protons that are constantly being released from simply wanting to recombine in the core. They have A LOT of energy and they have no place to go except the heliosphere in terms of “discharging’ themselves to an “external” set of plasma.

BC: We agree that energy is flowing away from the sun.

LK: MM, that sounds similar to CC’s former statements that the photosphere is too hot for electrons to stick long to ions.

MM: It’s an “energy state” issue. The electrons and protons are loose, hot and full of kinetic energy. That high kinetic energy state prevents them from being able to recombine locally. They can however “flow” to something with a lower energy state, specifically the heliosphere, planets, etc.

CC: This sounds like an abstract, thermodynamic construct -- the 2nd Law is always obeyed, so there will be a flow. But I’m asking about the specific forces. I’m thinking that the Sun is net negative, that there is a net flow of electrons away from the Sun, and a powerful electric field that holds the positively charged plasma in the photosphere down. The net neutrality of the solar wind, from within this framework, is developed after-the-fact, by the electron stream picking up positive ions in the corona.

MM: I tend to look at the sun as a “generator” that is constantly creating and releasing electrons and protons in a high energy state. That high energy state applies to both types of particles, positive and negative. The energy state of the sun is simply “greater than” other objects in its vicinity, say for instance Earth. That energy state difference (thermal and electrical) is what maintains the flow. The sun is always releasing charged particles and always generates heat. The electrons are lighter than protons and therefore they “flow” first. That flow however is quite powerful. Once they leave the surface of the photosphere, they accelerate rapidly and they are continually attracted toward the heliosphere, until they reach it.

CC: So entropy always increases with distance from the source of the energy. But in this context, you really only have hydrostatic pressure from thermal energy to drive the solar wind, and the energy release in the photosphere.
- OK, so you basically have thermionic emissions from the photosphere. But that isn’t a complete explanation, as that isn’t going to drag any protons along with them. The reason is that the very thing that causes the mobility of the electrons (their lack of mass) is what means that a net field between them and the protons will pull them back down.

MM: That condition is called a “coronal loop”. The electrons leave the surface but they find themselves attracted to another spot of the surface. That creates a “loop” that goes from one point on the surface and terminates at another. Again however that didn’t actually get rid of a significant amount of the net charge. That bulk release of net charge can only occur if the sun electrically interacts with another object or bulk plasma in a lower energy state. There is so much energy being released that BOTH types of discharges will and must take place. There is just LOTS of electrical energy being released constantly and it needs to go somewhere.

LK: So the Sun is a generator, like an electrical generator is a generator? [And what are “both types of discharges”?]

MM: IMO, yes. The spinning core even acts to create a directional flow of the particles away from the core IMO.
- Alfven’s model of stars includes a release of energy and a generation of energy process that is caused [by?] the spin momentum of the sun being transferred to the plasmas around the sun as the sun rotates. Like an ordinary generator, the rotation of a conductor inside a relatively stable plasma body acts to induce current flow in the plasma around the sun. That induced current comes at a price of course in terms of the sun’s rotation speed. As it generates current, it also slows down the rotation speed of the sun itself. That is ONE way that a sun generates current in Alfven’s model. There is of course a hydrogen fusion process occurring in Alfven’s model as well. In Birkeland’s model there is [a] fission (or fusion) based process occurring in the core. Manuel’s model has two spinning surfaces, an inner core surface and an outer ‘rigid surface” (as in our papers). The spin rate of the core is VERY high compared to the spin rate of the outer crust. In Manuel’s model the core gives up its spin moment [or torque?] to induction, and the core decays slowly over time, producing free electrons, free protons and neutrinos.

CC: Rotating electric charges will generate magnetic fields, but that isn’t going to cause a current.

MM: The rotation of the sun itself generates a field that induces current in a relatively “stable” plasma body around the sun. I’ll try to round up a link to Alfven’s model. Essentially he has a rotating conductor and magnetic field inside of a fixed/slower moving conductor. Manuel has two such processes in play, one between the sun and the heliosphere like Alfven and one between the core and the solid surface.

CC: To induce a current in a conductor, it has to move through a changing magnetic field. So if you put some bar magnets outside of the photosphere, and spun the Sun, you’d get a current in the plasma, because of its conductivity. Likewise if the Sun has a net charge, and it is rotating, it will generate a magnetic field. Then if you had plasma flowing in that magnetic field, and generating its own magnetic fields because it’s flowing, you’d get a Lorentz force between them.

MM: The moving/rotating sun proves the changing magnetic field. The plasma around the sun acts like a fixed conductor with an inner rotating magnet.

CC: Unless the inner rotating magnet has varying field densities, it isn’t going to induce a current. If you can establish that there are variations in the depths of the layers, then you might have something. But you’ll need a force to maintain those variations, against the magnetic and/or electric forces being generated (i.e., 1st Law of Thermodynamics).

LK: MM, You said above, “there are smaller surface discharges that stick closer to the surface”; are there images of those features?

MM: In all the 171A, 193A and to a lesser extent the 131A images all show a plethora of different sized loops, ranging in size from a few pixels (500KM) to loops that are MUCH larger than our entire planet. The raw images show movements and intensity changes in these loops, both large and small that are related to the movement of current through the loops and the movement of the loops themselves. Some of the other iron ion wavelengths on SDO show more interference from the atmosphere than those three specific wavelengths. The “best” one in terms of picking out the loops is the 171A filter IMO.

[Lloyd]

Discussion #5 - Part 2

Aether-Powered Solid Iron Sun

MM: BC, I’d really like to have you explain the energy transfer process into the sun, and let you put that in your own words. You may have already done that in my absence? I guess my primary questions are how much of the sun’s total energy comes from the outside, and how we [can] account for the neutrino measurements.

BC: I like to look at the sun as an antenna. It receives energy from the outside world and converts it into an electrical current. The shape of a sphere may be special once you get above a certain size. So then we have [an] electrical field that get[s] converted into a current, which is expressed at the surface of the sun. What is an electrical field anyways? You could say it is the aether. The standard explanation is virtual photons.

MM: Do you think the interior size [of the sphere?] relates in some way to the size of “wave” the energy rides on?

BC: I think there is some optimum ratio of wall [What’s a wall?] to interior size.

MM: Are you suggesting this energy comes from the center of the galaxy? Other suns? Other sources altogether?

BC: So, if it came from the center of the galaxy, then we would say that the “black hole” in the center is the transmitter/converter, and that the sun happens to be tuned to the galactic core. But alternatively, if you were to say that the energy was coming from the fabric of space…

MM: How does that energy process take place? I’m thinking in terms of the kinetic energy transfer. Would it be fair to suggest, that the fabric of space has “waves” (photon[s]?) … the size of the sun, that essentially “vibrate” within the core?

BC: Ok. So what about an electric field causes an electron to move? What action imparts kinetic energy to the electron?

MM: Typically that would be considered the photon, since it’s the carrier particle of the EM field AFAIK.

BC: An electric field is typically considered to be made of virtual photons that pop in and out of existence. And photons are massless.

MM: The neutrino measurements done to date would suggest to me that the sun’s core is fusing elements together. Would you agree, that is the result of plasma pinches, caused by the currents flowing inside the core?

BC: My model suggests that the core is hollow. You could say that there were electrical discharges in the hollow interior. I still have not made up my mind on neutrinos. I believe they are some form of aether particle.

MM: Assuming “hollow” includes some light plasma, wouldn’t the current flow from the interior toward the exterior form pinches that might potentially generate fusion reactions?

BC: In the bulk of the metal? In the bulk of the solar shell you would get magnetostrictive effects. That would cause the shell to vibrate periodically.

MM: I was thinking in terms of … plasma filaments in and near the light core, not in the crust.

BC: YES. I dont see why not. You would get plasma from the thermionic effects on the inside of the shell.

MM: It seems to me that whatever core(s) we propose have to address the neutrino numbers, or it just won’t add up properly in terms of total energy output and in terms of total neutrinos. [Why couldn’t the rigid surface electric discharges produce all of the neutrinos?]

BC: Yes. No doubt we have to solve the neutrino problem. It is a problem for us as well.

MM: In Manuel’s model, I would assume that there would be plasma pinches on the interior as well as in the exterior atmosphere of the sun, all of which are capable of generating fusion reactions in the presence of enough current.

BC: I have not thought too much about Oliver’s model. I have tried to discuss particulars with him, but get nowhere. Thats space between the pulsar core and the shell? I don’t know what is there. But he does say that the core is shedding electrons.

MM: I’ve tried to represent his model to the best of my personal ability in previous discussions. I’m more interested in discussing your model at the moment, but I’ll be happy to answer any questions that I can. I‘m not emotionally attached to any particular interior model. The core is rotating rapidly and that movement is transferred as magnetic flux change into the surrounding plasma. That “pinches” neutrons in plasma filaments from elements around the core which then decay into protons and electrons and neutrinos. The core can also “shed” neutrons as it spins and discharges connect its surface to surrounding plasmas. Eventually the core can “decay” to the point it is no longer stable, resulting in a supernova event.

BC: OK. My question would be, what keeps it in place?

MM: It’s a heavy mass that rotates about every 5 minutes. The question IMO is what keeps the shell from collapsing into the core. IMO that’s due to the EM fields near the crust of the neutron star. That crust is typically considered to be composed of nearly pure iron and nickel that have been stripped of all their electrons. That surface has a net positive charge and pushes all positively charged plasma away from it, as the turbulent magnetic field around the core.

BC: Ok. I don't want to get to[o] far into that.

MM: Feel free to ask questions that you feel haven’t been adequately answered., but I do want to make sure that YOUR ideas are clearly expressed tonight.

BC: One idea that I “stand by” right now is that there is no dense matter. So you can see that I might already have some problem with neutron stars. Although I am open to any evidence that exists...

MM: It’s a reasonable objection based on my own empirical preferences, but I think that will ultimately fail, as we get to the “core” of galaxies and actually need heavy objects to explain the events we observe there.

BC: I am more of a “white hole” kinda guy. Where the center[s] of galaxies actually expel… matter. Which is I believe what is observed.

MM: Talk about tough sells. I’ve thought about your model in relationship to a PAIR of “black holes”, with a charge near the core of the galaxy. Their rotation around one another would generate EM fields and EM waves that might be directly transferable to the interior.

BC: The binary pair generator.

MM: Exactly! Black holes are even thought to be capable of holding a charge. That might really help if you’re looking for a source of current.

BC: Yes. It seems to me as though you could think of a blackhole as a punch through to the Aether. Where the aether spews through to regular space and using Narlikar and Arps work, forms matter.

MM: There is probably a “simpler” way to achieve that “spew” of matter, simply by considering that binary core as a moving EM field, with the surrounding plasma acting as a more “rigid/fixed” conductor. That movement of the magnetic field in the surrounding conductive plasma body induces current in [it], which starts to flow outward from the arms through the limbs of the galaxy.

BC: So are the binary cores in the center of our galaxy? I have not seen them.

MM: It wouldn’t even necessarily require two of them to achieve induction by the way. I think (not sure) that there is only one massive object in the center of this particular galaxy. One of the things that I like about Manuel’s ideas about neutron stars is that it explains all types of massive objects, including “black holes” rather nicely IMO. It’s also possible to think of neutron material as the “primordial substance” from which protons and electrons originate and form hydrogen, that fuses into heavier elements over time.

BC: Yep. Sag*A. And how do you tell its a massive object??

MM: Mostly by its EFFECT on surrounding stars. In theory we might have a tornado-like plasma thread in the middle, with suns rotating in that thread, but the images I’ve seen suggest there is a massive object there. The movement of the stars near that point do act like there is a massive object that they orbit over time. I think it was Nereid/DRD that posted a movie to the star movements near the core.

BC: I am definitely aware of the star orbits. There are several interpretations. ““The massive black hole at the center of the Galaxy, Sagittarius A*, http://www.astrophysicsspectator.com/to ... enter.html , has an unexpected feature (or perhaps a bug if you're a theorist): it is orbited by numerous young, massive stars. So inexplicable are these stars that their existence has been dubbed the “paradox of youth” by some astronomers.“” So if you look for articles that say there is something not right with the observational interpretation (of a dense object), you begin to see its not perfect.

MM: I’ll have to do a little reading about those imperfections to get a handle on your interpretation, but … feel free to drop it on me, without a lot of build-up on my account.

BC: So what if gravity was related to aether flow. The amount of aether flowing out a (white) blackhole determines the gravity. So the object in the center of our galaxy is spewing aether, which generates intense ”gravitational effects”.

MM: I’m flabbergasted that you’re kinda creating a “special” kind of gravity, but I’m also intrigued for one reason. I’ve often thought that gravity is directly (in some way I don’t yet grasp) related to the EM field. I think what you’re describing as “spewing aether” might/could be considered to be an aether composed of (virtual) photons related to the EM field “spin” of that object, we’re talking about. I can appreciate your distaste for heavy neutron cores, but they seem “simpler” to me, than a “white hole”, that is “unique” in terms of how it expresses gravity. Thanks for introducing me to the concept, however. I’ll try not to give you too much grief.

BC: I am actually introducing you to the aetherometric model of gravity. Think about if EM and gravity, as well as mass, arise from the same “thing”, the aether. Thats why one would think they are related. You affect the local aether and you, not only affect the gravity, but the EM field as well. Gravity is not electrical, per se, but arises from the same “substance”, the aether.

MM: I’ve seen some theories that suggest QM forces “push” against objects in space, and the amount of space the object displaces, and its effect on that aether-like material, is what causes gravity.

BC: Similar to Le-Sagian models of gravity.

MM: … How might we expect to “test” for the idea of the energy transfer process, you’re describing? Is it possible to “tap into” that wavelength/process?

BC: Ahhhhh. The perennial question. Can I see it? … I have thought of large hollow spheres, [t]esting them somehow. There is a page on the aetherometric model of gravity that seems to show something, that I have observed in a mechanical device.
Intro to gravity—cycloids: http://www.aetherometry.com/Aetherometr ... rav.php#g4 . [It] Explains why this works.
TWO-STAGE MECHANICAL OSCILLATOR - PENDULUM-LEVER SYSTEM - A Mechanical Amplifier of Clean Energy - Free Mechanical Energy Device - The Simplest Technology - http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/OscilacijeEng.html

MM: I think, between the two of us, we can probably explain the exterior activities of the sun pretty well to Lloyd and Charles. We’ll probably argue/disagree/question the core till the end of time.

BC: I wonder if between the bunch of us we could come up with a real model. If we come up with an agreeable test for the core, it may be solved sooner than we think.

MM: I agree with you because the technology is changing now at a very rapid pace. The resolution enhancements and the cadence enhancements on SDO compared to SOHO and STEREO are simply amazing.
- There’s one more solar feature we should probably discuss in relationship to your solar model, and that is the solar magnetic cycle. Manuals model includes a rapidly spinning core that rotates slowly on the Z axis. That Z axis movement takes 22 years to complete. That’s essentially the “cause” of the magnetic field rotation cycle of the sun in that model. I’m not sure how it works in your model, or if you’ve thought much about it yet.
- As I recall you had posted some links to a wireless transmitter/receiver setup that you felt was applicable. Do you still have that link? It would probably be a good idea for me to start posting some of the links to papers, that are related to electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere, as well. Dungey coined the term 'reconnection' and linked it to "electrical discharges" in the solar atmosphere: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 50#preview .

BC: http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=50_ ... sublevel=2 - Also I believe that Aetherometry is a very good aether theory. It you were to read select pages from that web site it would explain my views in a little more detail.

[Lloyd]

Discussion #5 - Part 3

Sun’s Rigid Surface

LK1: MM & BC, what proves a rigid Fe surface under the photosphere?

MM: There are two primary pieces of evidence to support that idea, running difference (averaged iron ion) images, which show very PERSISTENT features, even during flare events. Here's a link to a LMSAL run[n]ing difference/averaged image: http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive4.html .
- The coronal loops are typically quite small, and tend to follow the surface contours. The small ones are typically limited to activity that is very close the rigid/solid surface of the sun, and they do not reach above the photosphere. Only the largest loops actually traverse large parts of the solar atmosphere. Most of them are quite small, smaller than a single pixel in those TRACE images. The terrain of the surface creates a relatively persistent pattern in those loops, particularly when it’s put through a running difference or a running averaged routine. While the LMSAL image reports to be a “running difference” image on the LMSAL website, in all likelihood it’s actually a running averaged image. The features are actually TOO rigid to by a typical “difference’ image and the pixels are filled in over time which isn’t typically the case in standard difference images. I keep intending to start a full thread on SDO imagery at Thunderbolts.... I will explain the RD images in full at some point.
- For now I will explain that a difference image is simply two standard images with a gray scale layered on top of one of the images (usually the second one) and then the first image is subtracted from it. The “process” tends to remove [images of] a lot of the atmospheric activity, but it leaves the “pattern” of the loops in terms of their overall intensity. The net result is that [we find] the loops are affected by the solid terrain in terms of where and how they form, and those surface patterns show up in the RD image as “persistent features” in the RD image. Essentially any “persistence” in the light/dark patterns in a standard image show up as rigid feature in the RD and RA images. That effect is most noticeable in a standard RD Lasco-C2 and C3 image. The background stars in the original images show up as persistent patterns in the RD images.
- The second type of solar image that tends to support a rigid surface model are “shock wave” images that are created by flares. Some of these shockwaves send out material in a relatively horizontal direction at times. When that material hits rigid surface features it tends to redirect the shock wave at these locations. There’s a pretty good example of that process in SOHO images on my website:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/shockwave.htm .

Coronal Loops on Rigid Surface

LK6: CC & BC, what causes the sunspot cycles with solar N/S polarity reversals?

CC: I’ve got just a vague notion of some overlapping positive and negative feedback loops that throw the Sun into an oscillating output cycle. It’s kinda complex, and I’m not terribly confident in it, so for the time being, I’ll just go with “I don’t know what causes the solar cycle”.
- The polarity reversals are an interesting topic. I put these on the back burner, because the magnetic field strength is actually extremely weak (1 Gauss, which is only 2x the Earth’s magnetic field, when we’d expect it to be 333,000 times more powerful, especially considering the highly electrified nature of the Sun). So I’m basically thinking that most of the magnetic fields created by fast moving ions in the Sun cancel each other out, leaving an extremely weak overall field.
- That having been said, the magnetic fields are nevertheless quite distinctive. The overall polarity flips every 11 years. The polarity of "leading" sunspots (i.e., ahead in the direction of the rotation of the Sun) are always the same, and they match the polarity of that hemisphere's rotational pole. As the sunspot activity wanes, the overall polarity reverses, and stays that way until the next peak, 11 years later. Such consistent behaviors are telling us something very specific. I just don’t know what that is.

LK: CC, couldn’t the iron layer of the Sun have been set spinning in a different direction from the surface by a close encounter with another strongly magnetic body? Or by a huge explosion near that layer? Would the layers of opposite charge have very little friction between them, so they could spin in different directions for a long time?

CC: The helioseismic data appears to be showing solid body rotation in the radiative zone, which becomes differential rotation in the convective zone, with the equator rotating faster than the poles. In neutrally charged plasma there will be some friction, but highly ionized plasma is frictionless, because the opposing charges prevent atomic collision that instantiate friction.
- This is the differential rotation that I’m talking about: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/ghTd5 ... ve0rEEGe6M .

MM: The solid body would be located 4800KM under the surface of the photosphere in Birkeland’s/my model and the convection zone is 4800KM. There are differential rotation processes in the convection zone, but the RD image[s] show something, that is much more rigid, sits under that photosphere.

LK: That’s from:
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/ghTd5 ... ve0rEEGe6M
- MM, will you be making up a collage or something of all those RD images etc to show us everything you’re talking about?

MM: I do actually have the raw images that go with that RD image and yes, I’ll try to explain them frame by frame at some point in our discussions.
- Here's an original (raw) image/movie of the same event that is recorded in the LMSAL RD IMAGE: http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/images/goldraw.avi . LMSAL's RD image of the same flare: http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/movies/T171_000828.avi .
- If you start with the original raw 171A images, you’ll notice on the left that there are a large number of small light sources that change in an almost pixel-by-pixel basis. You’ll also see large loops of course, but most of the discharges from one point on the surface to another occur in a small area, typically much smaller than a single pixel in this image. I believe (I’ll check later) that each pixel in this image represents about 360KM of actual surface area. Most of the electrical discharges between surface points occur over a short distance, probably measured in only a few KM, much smaller than one pixel in this image, and smaller than an SDO image as well. The ones we actually ‘see’ in this image are actually more than 200KM in distance [and] are quite powerful compared to your average run-of-the-mill Bennett Pinch loops.

LK: Do these loops occur all over the rigid surface? Or just in spots?

MM: They appear all over the surface, but most of them aren’t bright enough to produce enough light to be seen in a satellite image. Only the larger loops, say 300KM or greater, produce enough light to show up in such images.

LK: What’s the evidence for the smaller ones then?

MM: Look along the left side of the original images as the movie plays out. Many of the smaller loops are visible on the left and the… brightness of the pixels change in virtually a pixel-by-pixel basis over time. They don’t function like one continuous loop, but rather they function like a lot of little light source loops that all do things differently at different times. The larger loops in the flare region form full, large continuous loops that tend to change all at once around the loops, as the loops increase … and decrease in intensity. The point sources on the left, however, tend to change intensity on much smaller scales. Keep in mind, that, to even show up as a bright point in that 171A wavelength, the plasma temperatures have to be a minimum of 160,000K and are probably well over a million degrees Kelvin. That kind of temperature increase (from photosphere temperatures) can only occur inside of a discharge process, and inside of a coronal loop/Bennett Pinch. That is the way sun produces light at these wavelengths, specifically via HUGE current flows that heat up the loops.

CC: In order to position loops centrally in a model of energy release, you have to establish a charge separation mechanism in the right place. In the high conductivity of 6,000 K plasma, I don’t see the charge separation mechanism.

Volcanoes on the Sun

MM: Alfven [suggested that charge separation occurs by] the rotation of the plasma in the photosphere, and the direction of that rotation created different charges in different areas. Birkeland achieved surface-to-surface discharges in his physical experiments by charging the shell negatively and by incorporating a powerful electromagnet on the inside of the sphere. The electromagnetic field inside the core created current channels that tended to direct the charged particles along the magnetic lines. He also needed to “rough up” the surface (create bumps) to generate images that actually look like [those seen in] solar images. Those “bumps” would be volcanic structures near the surface. Keep in mind, that, as they spew non-ionized material into the highly charged plasma atmosphere, all hell will break loose and the non-ionized material will get ionized in the atmosphere rather quickly. That is why active regions are typically concentrated near a “point” on the surface and then grow outward from the point. As the solid magma hits the plasma atmosphere and [electric?] current in the atmosphere, it too gets immediately ionized. The material can spew in various directions, but the current flow determines much of the ionization process. What gets REALLY interesting, IMO, is when two active regions form near the equator on different sides of the equator and spew material near each other. They typically have opposite polarity, in terms of the way they direct material, and they tend to interact.
- [This may be out of place.] The second important ‘structure’ is the volcanic active region. When an active region forms, it typically forms from a single point and it stays very near that point for the duration of the active region itself. In other words, it stays relatively fixed to a specific surface location. The discharge processes that occur around active regions are typically ‘hot and heavy’ compared to any other type of ‘ordinary’ discharge. They occur rapidly (few minutes to an hour) and they stay “fixed” in terms of their basic location. IMO that is related to the fact that active regions form where magma spews into the atmosphere. The rest of the atmosphere is highly ionized and there are powerful currents flowing through the whole solar atmosphere. When the sun releases that magma into the atmosphere, it is almost immediately ionized and raised up to the basic energy state of the atmosphere.

CC: For the “small” discharges (< 500 km across), are there little volcanoes separated by short distances providing ions?

MM: I don’t think that the small loops are typically related to volcanic activity. They tend to be created by the basic discharge/generation process of the sun. The largest loops however are almost ALWAYS related to volcanic events IMO. Sometimes they are the result of “dark filament” eruptions, the filament being composed of mostly carbon gas.

LK: How do these solar volcanoes compare to those on Io?

MM: They are MASSIVE.

LK: Similarly caused, electrically?

MM: I suspect that the flow of current from the core to the surface pretty much dictates when and where the volcanic event will occur. The more current, the more likelihood of an eruption.

LK: Isn’t that also true on Io, receiving currents from Jupiter?

MM: I believe so, but I’m not really all that into planetary processes, at least not until I got into THIS specific solar theory. There is still a lot that I personally have to learn about planetary processes. I do believe they apply here, but maybe not completely. The area near the core of the sun is likely to be a plasma IMO, probably not a solid.

LK: How about joining NPA and showing this on a video to interested members? Natural Philosophy Alliance.

MM: Alright, CC, if the whole volcanic stuff didn’t scare you away yet, do you have any specific issues or problems with that interpretation of images? I’d be happy to provide you with links to SDO images and discuss them if you like.

CC: I’m still looking for the handle to all of that stuff... In other words, I haven’t got it all mapped to a specific set of physical processes. So there are more what-if’s in there, than I have sorted out yet.

MM: Understandable by the way. There are two basic features/processes that you need to know to appreciate the iron ion images. The first thing you’ll need to understand about the iron ion images (171A, 193A, 131A, 211A, 335A and 94A) are that they [these wavelengths] are all most sensitive to various ions of iron. There are other elements that can show up at these wavelengths, but most of the light in these specific wavelengths relate to one or more highly ionized ions of iron. Electrical discharges have been empirically linked to ionized iron and SDO imagery: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 7.000.html .
- FYI, I am a HUGE fan of “empirical/lab-tested” physics. IMO a single empirical test is worth 100,000 expert opinions, if not more. Lee made a direct link between electrical discharges and highly ionized iron, as we might observe in SDO, SOHO, STEREO etc images. To generate these kinds of images, the plasma inside the Bennett Pinch loops has to be very high, and be sustained at a very high rate for DAYS on end in some cases. The plasma has to reach into many millions of degree[s] to even show up, in 94A for instance. Nothing EXCEPT an electrical discharge process through a current-carrying loop could generate this kind of light. There is in fact a one-to-one empirical connection between iron ion images and electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere . The “light sources” of all the original images are the coronal loops, both large and small loops. Most loops are very small, too small to generate enough light to be seen in a solar satellite image. Only the more powerful ones show up in these images, but H-Alpha images show these same loops quite clearly in BBSO images in very nice resolution. Pretty much every photon we see in SDO iron ion images is a direct result of a discharge process through a plasma filament loop.

CC: You’re assuming that the only thing that could ionize the iron to the observed degrees is temperature. How about an electric field?

MM: The field produces the current that flows through the loop, and you’re right that current ionizes the iron, and the plasma also resists that flow of current. That resistance to the flow of current is what heats up the plasma.

CC: In my model, there is a stable electrostatic potential, between compressed hydrogen and helium, that has expelled electrons, and the negative layer above it, which has all of those expelled electrons, that would love to flow back in, but they cannot, because there isn’t room between the atoms for them. Hence there is a field, in the absence of any sort of true dielectric, and without any magnetic pressure to keep the charges from recombining.

MM: Hmm. Birkeland’s sphere was simply the cathode in his experiment. The current COULD and did return to the surface at times and he was able to create “concentrated’ discharges via the inner electromagnetic field and by creating an uneven surface on the outside of the sphere. He predicted both kinds of particles would flow from the sun because they did so in his physical experiments. I’m not clear how current is able to “flow” in your model and it seems to derive much of its energy externally. Is that correct? [No.]

CC: As concerns the terrella experiments, we now know a lot more about the Sun, and the average magnetic field of 1 Gauss doesn’t seem up to the task of what Birkeland had it doing.

MM: I’ll have to go back and look at his field strengths again, but keep in mind that the field strength near the surface tended to be related to the CURRENT flow in that region, not simply the inner EM field. The discharge created a much stronger magnetic field around the loop than is created by the inside field Birkeland used to direct the particles. The inner EM field simply acted to DIRECT the flow of electrons.

CC: So then the prime mover is the electric force, which is fine to start, but then you have to establish how you could have a sustained electrostatic potential, outside of the context of a contrived apparatus.

Stars Wired Together

MM: I think anything I might come up with is liable to sound a bit “contrived”, but that is inevitable IMO. As I said, I simply conceive of a sun as a mini-generator. It’s actually not so mini, but, in comparison to a whole galaxy, it’s just one of a billion. They are “wired together”, as Alfven envisioned IMO, and they all “can” share EM energy. The release of energy starts internally and simply works its way outward IMO. The rotation of the inner core and the rotation of the outer surface, in relationship to the outside plasma, generates current as well.

CC: I don’t see the evidence of stars being wired together.

MM: That would take the form of an ordinary plasma filament, wouldn’t you agree? FYI, Brant may have some other ideas about the transfer of energy that we’re not considering yet.

CC: Would we be able to see the filament?

MM Yes. Let me find a link. Here's a standard Birkeland current filament in action in terms of the magnetic field it creates: http://www.google.com/url?q=[url]http%3 ... Opgf4HhatQ . Astronomers go to great lengths to make up weird names for an ordinary Birkeland curent: http://www.google.com/url?q=[url]http%3 ... hbnmdE3HrA .

CC: Would we be able to see the filament connecting the Sun to other stars?

MM: The current could surround whole groups of stars, or simply connect heliospheres together with smaller currents. It’s hard to say, until we start to explore the ISM with the express intent of following the circuitry. I’m pretty sure that currents flow throughout the galaxies and the galaxies themselves are wired together, most likely through their “jets” near the core[s] and poles ... of the galaxies.

CC: How much current flows into the Sun?

MM: Your guess is as good as mine. I really don’t know. I’d have to “guess” its actually a relatively small amount of energy, compared to the overall energy output of the sun. I base that statement mostly upon the neutrino counts that come from the sun.