Strengths and weaknesses of various EU solar models.

[orrery]

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. wtf are you smoking?

[Reality Check]

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. wtf are you smoking?

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 expain the lack of gamma radiation.
wtf are you smoking that 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_oscillation#Observations) 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.

[Sparky]

Lloyd,

--the solar wind may leave room for electrons to drift in toward the Sun's higher latitudes and the poles, especially since it varies quite a bit. Sometimes it turns off completely. And it's uneven even when it's being emitted normally. --

Good points to consider...thanks


************
***********
**********

Michael Mozina ,

--- I would presume if that was the case that the charge separation between the sun and the heliosphere would setup a two way current system with electrons by using (flowing through) ions like a conductor on their inbound path. Would the current then be concentrated in the Parker Spiral, or somewhere near the poles?

If that is possible, then that would explain the drift...Thanks

[Reality Check]

Lloyd,

--the solar wind may leave room for electrons to drift in toward the Sun's higher latitudes and the poles, especially since it varies quite a bit. Sometimes it turns off completely. And it's uneven even when it's being emitted normally. --

...

Hi Sparky - you may want to ask Lloyd for a citation to support the asserton that the solar wind sometimes turns off completely.
There have been a few occurences when the solar wind has been measured to reduce dramatically in small regions, e.g. near Earth in May 1999. AFAIK there have been no observations of the entire solar wind turning off completely.

Ditto for Michael Mozina's assertion about a "charge separation between the sun and the heliosphere", e.g. when was this measured and how big is it?
The solar wind is neutral so such a charge separation cannot be caused by the solar wind.

[Lloyd]

* Here's one site that says the solar wind stopped from May 10-12, 1999, possibly due to a GRB that was detected that day also: http://www.handpen.com/Bio/comes.htm.
* Here are lots more sites that seem to refer to the same solar wind stopping event from May 10-12, 1999:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=p ... 43&bih=494
* Where's your citation that the solar wind is neutral? I doubt if enough of it has been sampled to know if it's neutral overall, or what directions the electrons flow. The solar wind does not consist mainly of neutral atoms, but mainly of protons, alphas and electrons etc. They can't combine because of conflicting magnetic fields. Above the Sun's photosphere we detect electrons lazing around, not eager to rush out into space, like the positive ions do.

[Reality Check]

* Here's one site that says the solar wind stopped from May 10-12, 1999, possibly due to a GRB that was detected that day also: http://www.handpen.com/Bio/comes.htm.

A GRB seems unlikely as the cause (105 seconds of GRB to deflect the solar wind for over a day?) but there ar plenty of other explanations for the events from 1999 to 2002:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JGRA..11001106U
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005JGRA..11008101J
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008JGRA..11303102J
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008A%26A...488L...1J

* Where's your citation that the solar wind is neutral?

Where's your citation to the solar wind being measured to be not neutral?
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mccanney/solarwind.html says otherwise.

The Sun formed from netural H and He and this neutral material was ionized to form its plasma. The Sun remains neutral necause te solar wind samples were observed to be neutral. Also see "On the global electrostatic charge of stars" (there is a limit of ~77 Coulombs before the Sun explodes).

I suggest that you look up the Advanced Composition Explorer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Composition_Explorer)

Above the Sun's photosphere we detect electrons lazing around, not eager to rush out into space, like the positive ions do.

Citaion to the detection of electrons remaining above the photosphere and positive ions rushing out?

[Michael Mozina]

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.

While I am the first to embrace the idea that SOME surface fusion occurs in the solar atmosphere, I simply don't see enough gamma radiation to justify the idea that all the fusion occurs on the exterior.

wtf are you smoking?

FYI, it's not quite as simple as you seem to think. If you allow for neutrino oscillation, the standard model (and Alfven's solar theories) also explain the neutrino count very nicely. IMO you can't rule out any internally powered fusion model based on the neutrino count. IMO there is evidence that neutrinos oscillate at this point in time. I was skeptical myself for awhile, but the evidence seems to have improved IMO.

FYI, I purchased, read and enjoyed Scott's book on solar physics. I'm of the impression that he's describing a Juergen's type solar model, but I was unclear how much internal energy he seemed to thing the sun generated and how much was purely external. I was quite a few years back since I read his book.

[Michael Mozina]

Ditto for Michael Mozina's assertion about a "charge separation between the sun and the heliosphere", e.g. when was this measured and how big is it?

It's approximately 600 million volts according to Birkeland. He CALCULATED the voltage of the sun based on EXPERIMENTATION with his terella in the lab, and he correctly predicted the existence of both types of charged particles in high speed solar wind, ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES in the solar atmosphere, jets, etc.

The solar wind is neutral so such a charge separation cannot be caused by the solar wind.

It's not NEUTRAL at all. It's composed of moving charged particles, AKA CURRENT. Even an equal number of protons and electrons slamming into the Earth's magnetosphere at a million miles an hour will separate into CURRENT and generate aurora. Alfven explained all this YEARS ago RC.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfve ... sphere.pdf

[Michael Mozina]

I actually personally "prefer" a simple fission model,

A "simple fission model" is ruled out by the fact that it produces antineutrinos as opposed to fusion which produces neutrinos. Neutrino detectors can tell the difference.

It's not that simple.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ysics.html

When physicists measured a specific parameter related to neutrino oscillations, it was about 40 per cent greater for anti-neutrinos than for neutrinos. They say this is tentative evidence of a greater deficit in the anti-neutrino beam than in the neutrino beam.

If they don't oscillate equally, anything is possible. It's too early to tell IMO. Then again you snipped out the part when I said I personally favor an internal z-pinch fusion process as the power source.

There are so many flaws in Oliver Manuels's theory that you calling it an idea is a bit charitable. I will mention one: the lower limit for the formation of a neutron star is 1.38 solar masses (the Chandrasekhar limit). Any lighter and generally you have a white dwarf.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0201434

You're talking about the minimum mass necessary for them to FORM in the first place, not their minimum size AFTER formation RC. They can be stable down to .1 Solar mass.

So his theory predicts the mass of the Sun to be of the order of 2 solar masses

The only shocking part is how little you really understand of his his model after all these years.

[Michael Mozina]

* Here are lots more sites that seem to refer to the same solar wind stopping event from May 10-12, 1999:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=p ... 43&bih=494

http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg ... 511_c3.mpg

FYI Lloyd, I don't personally see much evidence in the lasco images during the timeline in question that the sun solar wind actually "stopped". The image above is from the 11th, but the 10th and 12th look just as active as the 11th, perhaps more so. It looks like there was CME on the 12th in fact. While it may be true that protons stopped flowing in our specific area/region of space for awhile, it wasn't a full sphere experience to be sure, and I doubt electrons stopped flowing in our area even if the protons did.

[Michael Mozina]

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.

FYI, I thought a little bit more about your comment. It technically doesn't matter where the z-pinch causes the fusion process to occur (above or below the surface of the photosphere), the fusion from the z-pinch is still going to release neutrinos. If there are fusion reactions in the atmosphere (as I believe there are at times), then it's likely that there are MANY MORE z-pinch processes occurring UNDER the surface of the photosphere. Even if the z-pinch is the mechanism that generates the fusion process (and I agree with you on that point), the LOCATION of that fusion (above or below the surface of the photosphere) is irrelevant in terms of explaining the neutrinos.

Where your argument actually get's "weak" IMO is the fact that gamma rays from the atmosphere are present, but in far too small quantities to explain all the fusion necessary to power a whole sun.

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 either a Juergens solar model (I would think).

[David Talbott]

* RC, the dominant model of star formation is based on scientific theory and observational evidence, e.g. we see protostars (see NGC 7538) and young stars in interstellar clouds.
The nuclear furnace model predicts the number of neutrinos that have been detected (your knowledge is a decade out of date). It can account for many features of the Sun including solar granules, the photosphere, the chromosphere, the corona, the solar wind, solar flares, the sunspot cycle, the densities of the layers, spicules, prominences, CMEs, surface waves etc. The major outstanding issue is the corona heating problem which has serveral explanations (Alfven wave heating, magnetic reconnection).

Well now Reality Check, this is quite ironic. Are you prepared to defend these sweeping pronouncements? I would suggest starting with the simplest issue, such as the layering of distinctly different energetic emissions of the photosphere, chromosphere, and corona. How does that follow logically from an electrically neutral Sun?

In preparing for a debate with Nereid last year, I asked myself whether I could find an integral line of reasoning—no retrofitting allowed—from conjectured fusion at the core of the Sun to any observed attributes of the Sun. I could find none. (As you may know, Nereid lost her interest in the debate proposal.) It would be fun to explore your own defense of the statement above.

[Reality Check]

Ditto for Michael Mozina's assertion about a "charge separation between the sun and the heliosphere", e.g. when was this measured and how big is it?

It's approximately 600 million volts according to Birkeland. He CALCULATED the voltage of the sun based on EXPERIMENTATION with his terella in the lab, and he correctly predicted the existence of both types of charged particles in high speed solar wind, ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES in the solar atmosphere, jets, etc.

Quote where Birkeland CALCULATED the charge separation between the sun and the heliosphere (your assertion).
Birkeland correctly predicted the existence of both types of charged particles in a solar wind (and then got the speed of that solar wind wrong (almost the speed of light).
He got many things wrong based on EXPERIMENTATION with his terella in the lab, e.g. Saturn's rings and galaxies being the same as the discharges he saw.
We now know that Birkeland's ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES in the solar atmosphere are physically impossible because plasma conducts and ELECTRICAL DISCHARGES require the breakdown of a dielectric meduim (as in lightning).

A real citaion for your assertion of a "charge separation between the sun and the heliosphere" would be to peer-reviewed papers listing the many mesurements of this charge separation.

[quote="Michael Mozina"]
It's not NEUTRAL at all. It's composed of moving charged particles, AKA CURRENT.
[/quote\
It is neutral. It's composed of moving equal amounts of positively and neagtively charged particles, AKA MASS FLOW.

Michael Mozina, is a rock moving in space a current? Are you a current when you move?

[Reality Check]

* RC, the dominant model of star formation is based on scientific theory and observational evidence, e.g. we see protostars (see NGC 7538) and young stars in interstellar clouds.
The nuclear furnace model predicts the number of neutrinos that have been detected (your knowledge is a decade out of date). It can account for many features of the Sun including solar granules, the photosphere, the chromosphere, the corona, the solar wind, solar flares, the sunspot cycle, the densities of the layers, spicules, prominences, CMEs, surface waves etc. The major outstanding issue is the corona heating problem which has serveral explanations (Alfven wave heating, magnetic reconnection).

Well now Reality Check, this is quite ironic. Are you prepared to defend these sweeping pronouncements? I would suggest starting with the simplest issue, such as the layering of distinctly different energetic emissions of the photosphere, chromosphere, and corona. How does that follow logically from an electrically neutral Sun?

What "layering"?
If you are talking about the fact that the photosphere, chromosphere, and corona are at different temperatures and so emit different wavelengths then that is trivial (plasma at different temperatures emits light at different wavelengths!). This follows logically from a Sun made of overall neutral (quasi-neutral') plasma.

I assume that you know that as far as EM effects are concerned, a plasma acts as neutral on scales much bigger than the Debye length. For the solar wind the Debye length is 10 m and should be lower for the photosphere (10^-11 for the solar core).

How about a question for you and the externally powered Sun models: How do they explain the observed neutrino flux (from presumably fusion on the surface of the Sun) and the lack of gamma rays?

[Reality Check]

(As you may know, Nereid lost her interest in the debate proposal.)

As an aside: As I have been told by Nereid, she never lost her interest in the debate proposal. She was banned by Dave Smith. This makes any debate here impractical to say the least