Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model

[CharlesChandler]

Re your internal rotating toroidal layers, does any of this tie in?

Intercalation and Lattice Exclusion Versus Gravitational Settling and Their Consequences Relative to Internal Structure, Surface Activity, and Solar Winds in the Sun. Progr. Phys., 2013, v. 2, in press)

...provides the ability to add structure to the solar interior.

I've been following Robitaille's work closely, but I'm not sure that I agree with his conclusions concerning lattices.

He's saying that supercritical hydrogen forms a graphite-like crystal, with a hexagonal molecular structure. He favors this mainly because of its ability to generate black-body radiation. In the laboratory (until very recently), the only substance known to emit BB radiation was graphite. Stars (including the Sun) definitely emit BB radiation, but they seem to be too hot for graphite, and they seem to not have enough carbon anyway. So Robitaille is going with the hexagonal molecule of supercritical hydrogen as the BB source. Since supercritical hydrogen has recently been demonstrated to be capable of emitting BB radiation, this seems to be a reasonable strategy.

But then he says that all of the hydrogen molecules have formed a whole- or part-Sun crystal, and that large scale features, such as sunspots, or even coronal holes, are evidence of this crystal structure. This looks to me like somebody who is sold on a model, and who is trying to see how many things it can explain, but who isn't looking carefully to see if the model actually predicts the observations. Sheets of hexagonal lattices are definitely impermeable, and foreign particles between the sheets can definitely be exfoliated. But does that explain sunspots and coronal holes? Not really. If the particles getting "expelled" from the Sun were simply being squished out of a sheet-like material, their ballistics would be purely Newtonian, having picked up momentum in the expulsion. Yet particles expelled from the Sun actually accelerate away, which is non-Newtonian.

As concerns the structure of the solar interior, I don't see where the Robitaille actually specifies what structure the graphite-like hydrogen would prefer. So that's a heckuva leap, from "wow, there's a molecular structure in there that we didn't know about" all of the way to "that explains (without elaboration) why the solar interior is structured". At first blush, to whatever extent the crystal lattice was adding strength, the Sun should be very different, without things like differential rotation, torsional oscillation etc.

What did you mean by "internal rotating toroidal layers"? In my model of the Sun, the layers are all concentric. Bob Johnson was talking about a toroidal plasmoid inside the Sun, but he didn't elaborate on that.

[kiwi]

Hiya Charles

Recently on this thread (i.e., in & after this post), we briefly discussed supernova and red giants. The basic idea is that if it is compressive ionization that is holding a star together, and if, over time, mass loss reduces the pressure, and thus the ionization, ...

Isnt that a reverse way of looking at it? ... isnt "mass" the servant of EM force's? .. so a change in the EM value's must preceed any effect that manifests as a change in an objects Mass? ...

Thornhill regards electro-static's..

However, in a footnote Eddington reveals the fundamental limitation of his theory of stars: “The difficulty is to account for the escape of positively charged particles; unless charges of both signs are leaving the escape is immediately stopped by an electrostatic field.” This statement will reverberate down the years as one of the gravest mistakes in science. It is an ELECTROSTATIC model of an isolated, self-contained star. But stellar magnetism is an ELECTRODYNAMIC phenomenon, requiring electric currents flowing in circuits beyond the star.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/twinkle-t ... tric-star/

And your comment here mate

...So I'm going with electrostatics, because that looks like it's going to work, and because it appears to be the only remaining possibility..

Any comments on this Charles? ... There is of course the possibillty Im confusing 2 seperate issue's

Thanks

[CharlesChandler]

Recently on this thread (i.e., in & after this post), we briefly discussed supernova and red giants. The basic idea is that if it is compressive ionization that is holding a star together, and if, over time, mass loss reduces the pressure, and thus the ionization, ...

Isn't that a reverse way of looking at it? ... isn't "mass" the servant of EM forces? .. so a change in the EM values must precede any effect that manifests as a change in an object's Mass? ...

Hey Kiwi! I'm not sure that I fully understand your question. Are you considering EM and mass to be coupled properties, as in some of the unified field theories (e.g., Mathis' charge fields)? I don't subscribe to that. EM is certainly far more powerful than gravity, so EM definitely "rules"! But they're still distinctly different properties.

Note that despite its relative weakness, gravity might have a significance in stellar formation far beyond its face value. In the compressive ionization model, the compression comes from a force feedback loop involving gravitational and electrostatic forces. Gravity is certainly weaker, but it is singly responsible for the greater pressure in the center, which gets ionized first, and which sets up the first set of charged double-layers. The electric force between the charged double-layers is far more powerful than gravity, so the matter is further compressed, which increases the ionization. It also increases the density of the gravitational field, which increases the degree of ionization, hence the force feedback loop. Now, since some of the force necessary to ionize the matter is coming from gravity, mass loss will result in de-ionization. And since it's a force feedback loop, de-ionization will reduce the effectiveness of the electrostatic forces, which allows the further expansion of the matter, and which further reduces the density of the gravitational field. So a little bit of mass loss results in way more pressure loss than it otherwise should. Likewise, when the star first formed, way more pressure emerged than can be attributed to gravity alone. That's where the force feedback loop comes in.

However, in a footnote Eddington reveals the fundamental limitation of his theory of stars: “The difficulty is to account for the escape of positively charged particles; unless charges of both signs are leaving the escape is immediately stopped by an electrostatic field.” This statement will reverberate down the years as one of the gravest mistakes in science. It is an ELECTROSTATIC model of an isolated, self-contained star. But stellar magnetism is an ELECTRODYNAMIC phenomenon, requiring electric currents flowing in circuits beyond the star.

Eddington was wondering how charged particles could flow, when the electric field should stop them. Thornhill answers with electrodynamics? That assumes the conclusion. What is electrodynamics? It's electric currents, where charged particles respond to electric fields (or time-varying magnetic fields). Eddington wanted to know what electric field could motivate the charged particles, and on not finding one, he concluded that the particles either don't flow, or they're not charged. He didn't ask to be told that the charged particles flow because of the electric currents (which is a tautology).

[Goldminer]

"Gravity is certainly weaker, but it is singly responsible for the greater pressure in the center . . . "

Here is where the old question comes in: Assuming each particle constituting the volume of the Earth (or Sun) contributes its share of gravity to the attraction creating the density of said volume; and said attraction emanates in an isotropically spherical pattern from each particle, (Or does each particle of matter cause the aether to isotropically push it into a sphere? I du'no) wouldn't the density reach some maximum about half way to the center, and then remain at about that density the rest of the way down? Hypothetically, does the gravitational attraction at each end of a column of granite, or iron, 6000 miles long equal the same acceleration we find at the surface of the Earth? Is the density at the center of the column more dense than the density towards the ends? Liquids and solids are pretty much non-compressible. Does diamond become something else at some very high pressure? Does it liquify? Heat reduces density; the hotter the matter, the less dense it becomes. Seems to me this "gravitational pull" (the pull of the surface particles on the deeper particles) precludes the formation of "black holes" in the center of any massive object. The center of the Earth is an unknown, let alone the center of the Sun!

[seasmith]

Charles wrote:

What did you mean by "internal rotating toroidal layers"? In my model of the Sun, the layers are all concentric. Bob Johnson was talking about a toroidal plasmoid inside the Sun, but he didn't elaborate on that.

Well i had kind of spedread through the 12 pages, and remembered the phrase "toroidal plasmoids". On reread, it looks like you were comparing centers of quasars and tokamaks


I wpuld be more inclined to see toroidal form associated with solar external ESM 'fields', of which the ecliptical "Ballarina's Skirt" would be an artifact.


btw, some of the quantum-newtonian-phase transition confusion over the your use of "hypercritical hydrogen" ,
might be alleviated with the term "metallic hydrogen", long said to occupy the interior of Jupiter.

s
Metallic conveys the requisite electrical properties, as when so-called "topological insulators"
become conductive.

[seasmith]

Moderator,

Please delete above duplicate post. It seems to happen when i try to submit a 'saved draft' and it times out ?
and i didn't catch it this time.


also

Charles,

That toroidal bit was on page 5, Nov 12

s

[CharlesChandler]

"Gravity is certainly weaker, but it is singly responsible for the greater pressure in the center . . . "

Assuming each particle constituting the volume of the Earth (or Sun) contributes its share of gravity to the attraction creating the density of said volume; and said attraction emanates in an isotropically spherical pattern from each particle, (Or does each particle of matter cause the aether to isotropically push it into a sphere? I du'no) wouldn't the density reach some maximum about half way to the center, and then remain at about that density the rest of the way down?

Yes, the gravitational field from a particle is spherical (and it obeys the inverse square law). At the surface, all of the attraction is toward the center, because that is the sum of the vectors of all of the forces. At the center, the forces are all outward, and they cancel each other out, for no net force. In-between, the force goes from maximum at the surface to nothing at the center. (See this for a graph of the forces inside the Earth.) But note that while the gravity decreases to zero at the center, the pressure continues to increase. Pressure is the sum of the gravitational forces acting on all of the particles above it. Nearing the center, the gravity approaches zero, but the pressure still increases, because there is still some gravity adding to the overlying forces.

Seems to me this "gravitational pull" (the pull of the surface particles on the deeper particles) precludes the formation of "black holes" in the center of any massive object.

I don't believe that "black holes" are spherical objects -- I think that they're toroidal plasmoids. But even if they were spheres, I agree that matter wouldn't crushed into a singularity by gravity, IMO because thermonuclear explosions would prevent it.

I would be more inclined to see toroidal form associated with solar external ESM 'fields', of which the ecliptical "Ballerina's Skirt" would be an artifact.

The "Ballerina's Skirt" is the heliospheric current sheet, which is actually just the particles focused into helmet streamers. Because of the irregularity of the helmet streamers, the rotation of the Sun produces a wavering current sheet (if you could actually call it a sheet anyway). But that doesn't seem to form a toroidal pattern, as Alfven supposed, since polar and equatorial particles all seem to be leaving the Sun, and there is no evidence of a return current.

[kiwi]

Hey Kiwi! I'm not sure that I fully understand your question. Are you considering EM and mass to be coupled properties

Thanks Charles

Yes I was under the impression that a particles mass will increase with its velocity'? ... and that acceleration is achieved by increasing the electrical input?

Eddington was wondering how charged particles could flow, when the electric field should stop them. Thornhill answers with electrodynamics? That assumes the conclusion. What is electrodynamics? It's electric currents, where charged particles respond to electric fields (or time-varying magnetic fields). Eddington wanted to know what electric field could motivate the charged particles, and on not finding one, he concluded that the particles either don't flow, or they're not charged. He didn't ask to be told that the charged particles flow because of the electric currents (which is a tautology).

Interpretations are a bugger no? .... cannot quite see the problem here, If Eddington WAS aware of the Electro-Dynamic nature of Plasma then he would not of had to field his enquiry in the first place?

aah well .... onward

Cheers

[CharlesChandler]

Interpretations are a bugger no? .... cannot quite see the problem here, If Eddington WAS aware of the Electro-Dynamic nature of Plasma then he would not of had to field his inquiry in the first place?

Yes, but electrodynamics presumes either electrostatics or magnetodynamics. It's actually a tough question -- there shouldn't be any way to create a charge separation in the excellent conductivity of 6000 K plasma, which would seem to preclude electric currents. And yet the Sun is explicable only in EM terms. These seem to be mutually exclusive constraints, and surely this is why the problem wasn't solved a long time ago. IMO, CMEs are the prime mover. If they are ejecting positive charges (because the layer in which they occur is positive), that's the critical charge separation. Then there will be an electric current to neutralize it -- what I call a "catch-up current". So CMEs eject positive ions, and then there is a drift of electrons through the positive layer, attracted to the net positive charge in the heliosphere. Ohmic heating from that electron drift produces the heat & light that we get from the Sun. So it all seems to make sense if CMEs are the charge separator, and nothing seems to make sense without it.

[Daniel]

Then there will be an electric current to neutralize it -- what I call a "catch-up current". So CMEs eject positive ions, and then there is a drift of electrons through the positive layer, attracted to the net positive charge in the heliosphere. Ohmic heating from that electron drift produces the heat & light that we get from the Sun. So it all seems to make sense if CMEs are the charge separator, and nothing seems to make sense without it.

Attention Charles.

You seem to have ignored my earlier question regarding polarity of charge. Why is it....Exactly.....that negative electrons can migrate through a positive region, without being cancelled...???

[CharlesChandler]

Why is it....Exactly.....that negative electrons can migrate through a positive region, without being cancelled...???

I'm not sure that we're using the same definitions of EM, but I'll answer in conventional terms, if that helps.

Near a negative electrode, any available positive charges will congregate. If they happen to match the total charge in the negative electrode, all of the electric field will be contained fully between the negative electrode and the positive double-layer. But if there aren't enough positive charges to fully neutralize the negative electrode, the positive charges will still be attracted to the negative electrode, somewhat more vigorously, while the entire thing will have a net negative charge, and thus electrons will be drifting out of the electrode, and through the positive double-layer.

If there is a distant positive electrode, such electrons will be pulled toward it, as well as pushed out of the negative electrode by electrostatic repulsion. And that's the configuration I'm using to explain solar electric currents. CMEs expel positive ions, creating a net negative charge in the Sun, and an electric field between the negative Sun and the positive CME ejecta in the heliosphere.

[leo vuyk]

Hallo Charles,

A little late I found your essay on a new solar system at the thunderbolt forum, which is why I
I am mailing to the forum and directly to you.
I agree with your idea that the sun is indeed electric (including sunspots) .
However according to my Quantum FFF theory Birkeland currents originated by what I call dual NEW paradigm Stellar black holes located far away at pole positions seem to do the job.

See my essay on Vixra: called
“Birkeland Currents, Sunspots, Comets and Ball Lightning Originated by New Paradigm Dark Matter Black Holes”.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1209.0061v2.pdf
perhaps see also:
http://vixra.org/author/leo_vuyk

Abstract:
According to Quantum FFF Theory, the FORM and MICROSTRUCTURE of elementary
particles, is supposed to be the origin of FUNCTIONAL differences between Higgs-
Graviton- Photon- and Fermion particles.
As a result, a NEW splitting, accelerating and pairing MASSLESS dual Black Hole system
seems to be able to convert vacuum energy (ZPE) efficiently into real electric energy by
entropy decrease (nuclear electric potential) and is responsible for all dark matter in the
universe.
The electric energy production of Stellar Anchor Black Holes (SABHs), seem to be able to
explain quick Star- and Galaxy formation, Birkeland Currents, Alfven Circuits and Herbig
Haro Objects. However, smaller Black holes (created by magnetic interference) are supposed
to be responsible for Sunspots, micro-Comets and even Ball Lightning.

I hope you like the idea.

Best regards,

Leo Vuyk.

[CharlesChandler]

Hi Leo,

As concerns any re-conception of fundamental forces and/or particles, it's easy to postulate something new to explain observations. But you're not done until you've looked at it the other way around. Instead of starting with observations, and attributing them to the proposed mechanisms, start from the mechanisms, and derive the expectations. If what you say about dark matter is true, would the Universe really look the way it does? And wouldn't we be able to detect it here on Earth, if it is most of the matter?

Frankly, I think that scientists are too eager these days to invent new forces and/or particles. We have a good understanding (IMO) of inertial, gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces, and it has been over 75 years since a new fundamental force has been discovered that can be demonstrated in the laboratory. That doesn't preclude the possibility of new forces/particles yet to be discovered out there. But what I find intriguing is that with all of the emphasis on inventing new stuff, nobody is considering the implications of what we already know. There are many paradigms in science that solidified before we had a complete atomic theory. Einstein and Eddington weren't convinced that matter is atomic, and yet GR, QM, and the "fusion furnace" model of the Sun have all become widely accepted, without substantial reconsideration since the early 1900s. So I'm taking a simplistic atomic model, which incorporates the known forces and the stablest of particles, and I'm re-opening some of the most basic questions in astrophysics. No GR, QM, QED, dark matter, dark energy, black holes (as conventionally described), neutronium, or anything else like that. Just laboratory-proven atomic theory, and its macroscopic implications. And what I'm finding is that intractable problems in the existing frameworks might have straight-forward solutions, not by adding more forces/particles of an even more mysterious nature, but by getting rid of all of that stuff, and re-building the model with proven physics.

I'll grant you that my "conventional" approach lacks the glamor of new inventions. But it's really, really cool when the picture comes into clear focus, even if you didn't have to invent anything new. So that's what I'm doing.

Cheers!