Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:19 pm

Lloyd wrote:Photosphere 3% Ionized
The photosphere is not fully ionized—the extent of ionization is about 3%, leaving almost all of the hydrogen in atomic form.[78]
78. ^Rast, M.; Nordlund, Å.; Stein, R.; Toomre, J. (1993). "Ionization Effects in Three-Dimensional Solar Granulation Simulations". The Astrophysical Journal Letters 408 (1): L53–L56. Bibcode:1993ApJ...408L..53R. doi:10.1086/186829.

I took a look at that -- it's a "numerical simulation", which means that they just played around with numbers until they got the results they wanted. Their estimate of ionization is only meaningful within their mathematical model, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the principles of physics. Elsewhere also I've found only model estimates, which is surprising, since I'd think that this could be directly measured.

BTW, I quote a more recent paper by some of the same authors, concerning the near-surface density gradient, in my page on the Surface:

Stein, R. F.; Nordlund, A. (1998): Simulations of Solar Granulation. I. General Properties. The Astrophysical Journal, 499: 914-946

In it, they found that it took a steep fall-off in density at the surface in order to simulate the behavior of solar granules, similar to the fall-off in your earlier image. But as I said previously, they didn't bother to consider the implications of their research -- that the density gradient is non-ideal, proving the presence of other forces. They just modified the equations of state to make it so, and began work on their next grant proposal. ;)

Lloyd wrote:CC's CME Paper
I then checked out the Potentials paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7909.html, but I didn't find any mention there of CMEs. You must have edited that out, or forgot to add it.

Oops, I moved that material to the next section, named Conversions.

Lloyd wrote:Anyway, I guess you're saying that solar flares produce CMEs and then the lighter +ions are accelerated outward by the positive charge of the photosphere...

No, the +ions are accelerated outward by the explosive power of the solar flares, against the electric field.

Lloyd wrote:Do you say then that the +ions eventually fall back into the Sun, or that they somehow join the +ions in the heliopause? Or do just the electrons move on out to the heliopause?

It looks like the +ions rain back down to the Sun. Roughly 60% of the matter in the entire heliosphere is within 0.2 AU of the Sun.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/13423_wbg.png

So if CMEs (or solar wind for that matter) were fillng up the heliosphere with matter, where is it all going? I think that the only conclusion is that it is raining back down to the Sun.

Lloyd wrote:Where does the positive charge of the heliopause come from?

That appears to come from interstellar matter impinging on the heliosphere. The particles are zipping in at 25 km/s, and electrons get stripped off in particle collisions, while the +ions continue on, due to their greater mass.

May, H. D. (2008): A Pervasive Electric Field in the Heliosphere. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 36 (5): 2876-2879
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:18 am

Photosphere Density
CC said: they found that it took a steep fall-off in density at the surface in order to simulate the behavior of solar granules, similar to the fall-off in your earlier image.

The earlier image on the previous page here shows a steep fall-off in density in the Transition Region and a slight fall-off at the top of the Photosphere. Do you mean they found one, i.e. a steep drop-off in density, at the top of the Photosphere similar to that at the Transition Region?

CME Trajectory
So CMEs shoot up to about .2 solar radii above the photosphere, then most of the +ions fall back down, though some go a little beyond Earth's orbit. I think I remember that the HCS ends at about 10 AU, just before Saturn's orbit. So the negative charge below the photosphere is what pulls the +ions back to the Sun, despite the positive photosphere being closer. Can you show mathematically how much greater the negative charge below the photosphere must be than the positive charge in the photosphere in order to pull +ions above the Sun back to the surface? Or can you diagram that? Is that kind of like how transistors work?

Do Stars Evolve Into Planets?
Are you thinking now that the Sun and similar stars don't lose mass over time? That would mean that such stars don't shrink and become planets. Right? Or would the decay process just be much longer than you previously guessed? I guess most planets would form during gas cloud filament collapse, when stars also form. But a percentage would form from collisions, or both. Can you tell which planets and stars have never been involved in significant collisions?

Back to Photosphere Density
By the way, since you cited Robitaille in your paper, do you agree with him that the photosphere must be very dense?
A High Temperature Liquid Plasma Model of the Sun*
Pierre-Marie Robitaille
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-08-12.PDF
-4.5 Surface gravity waves and helioseismology
A liquid plasma model of the Sun is also best suited to the study of helioseismology (e.g., [15]). This is because terrestrial observations of this nature are exclusively limited to the oceans and continents, materials with high densities. It would be incongruent to advance such studies for the terrestrial atmosphere. Yet, the density of the terrestrial atmosphere at sea level is ~1,000 times greater than the density proposed by the gaseous models for the solar surface. A solar seismic wave [55] was produced in association with a flare on the surface of the Sun on 9 July 1996 [40]. Such a Sun quake demonstrates that the solar surface is fully able to sustain a surface gravity (or transverse) wave extending over millions of meters. These are described as “resembling ripples from a pebble thrown on a pond” [40, 55]. The ability to sustain such a wave requires the presence of very dense materials. Indeed, sparse gases are completely unable to sustain surface gravity waves as these require the presence of condensed matter. Such Sun quakes provide powerful evidence that the solar surface is comprised of a material attaining a very high density. While a gaseous model can easily deal with longitudinal acoustic waves within the solar interior, the same cannot be said for its ability to deal with the presence of a surface gravity (or transverse) seismic wave on the surface.


Did his paper mention what the minimum density would be for those gravity waves?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:57 am

Lloyd wrote:Photosphere Density
Do you mean they found one, i.e. a steep drop-off in density, at the top of the Photosphere similar to that at the Transition Region?

Yes, they had to use a steep drop-off in density at the top of the granules, to get the granules to stop their upward motion abruptly, and to begin splaying outward. So this is what they found, which is similar to the drop-off in and just above the surface in the image that you posted:

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/C ... nt_wbg.png

They were just concerned with the granules, so they're not showing the transition region, which also had a drop-off in your image.

Lloyd wrote:Can you show mathematically how much greater the negative charge below the photosphere must be than the positive charge in the photosphere in order to pull +ions above the Sun back to the surface?

The electrostatic potential between the Sun and the heliosphere is 1.7 GV. So that's the electromotive force that keeps the positive layer organized at the surface, and which will slowly pull +ions above the surface back down. Highly charged +ions, such as Fe XV, can get accelerated to relativistic velocities on their way back down, but weakly charged ions move slowly in that field. See page 6 in:

Alfvén, H. (1941): Remarks on the Rotation of a Magnetized Sphere with Application to Solar Radiation. Arkiv för Matematik, Astronomi och Fysik, 28A (6): 1-9

Also, neutrally charged particles can rain back down to the Sun just because of gravity.

Lloyd wrote:Is that kind of like how transistors work?

Transistors are variable resistors, but there isn't much in the way of resistance in 6000 K plasma, so I'm working entirely with a pressure-driven charge separation deeper inside the Sun, and an induced opposite charge in the surface layer.

Lloyd wrote:Do Stars Evolve Into Planets?
Are you thinking now that the Sun and similar stars don't lose mass over time?

Yes -- I'm not finding any actual evidence of solar mass loss in the heliosphere, so the heliosphere is looking more like a stable bubble around the Sun, like a Debye sheath around a dust grain. The solar energy release is associated with temporary mass loss in CMEs, but coronal rain restores the mass over a much longer period of time. So mass loss is an integral part of the solar energy budget, even if the mass is getting replenished at the same time.

Lloyd wrote:That would mean that such stars don't shrink and become planets.

I'm not sure that planets are shrunken stars -- I think that they're the heavy element cores of stars. The Earth's gravity field isn't sufficient to hold onto light elements such as hydrogen and helium, so those drifted off, populating the heliosphere and/or falling into the Sun.

Lloyd wrote:I guess most planets would form during gas cloud filament collapse, when stars also form. But a percentage would form from collisions, or both. Can you tell which planets and stars have never been involved in significant collisions?

I'm thinking that the Sun and the planets (as mini-stars) all formed at the same time, though the very small stars (a.k.a., planets) burned out much faster, because they had a lot less fuel. So now they're dark brown dwarf stars. But yes, some of them might be the products of collisions. I subscribe to the theory that Ceres was once a respectable sized planet, but that something impacted it, shattering it into pieces. Most of the pieces were responsible for the Late Heavy Bombardment, while a very small percentage of them linger in their original orbit, forming the Asteroid Belt. I think that the Earth got a big chunk of material out of that deal, in the form of the granite that comprises the continents. But yes, there could have been other collisions.

Lloyd wrote:Back to Photosphere Density
By the way, since you cited Robitaille in your paper, do you agree with him that the photosphere must be very dense?

Absolutely -- Robitaille has thoroughly proven that the solar surface has liquid-like behaviors, and that's important support for the work that I'm doing.

Lloyd wrote:Did his paper mention what the minimum density would be for those gravity waves?

He didn't approach it that way, nor is there going to be a Newtonian calculation for that. The waves from sunquakes start out moving at supersonic speeds, and then they accelerate as they go. Newtonian mechanics can't touch that. So I consider this to be one of the proofs that the top layer is positively charged. In fluid dynamics, the fastest that waves can travel through a medium is the speed of sound, because particles actually have to collide with each other, to transfer the momentum. So the average particle speed defines the speed of sound. But in plasma physics, waves can travel much faster than that. If there is an electrostatic repulsion between two like-charged particles, and one of them moves, it starts exerting force on the other, long before a collision would have occurred. So the upper speed limit is the speed of light, not the speed of sound.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Oct 28, 2015 12:05 pm

Photosphere Density
Lloyd wrote: Do you mean they found one, i.e. a steep drop-off in density, at the top of the Photosphere similar to that at the Transition Region?
CC said: Yes, they had to use a steep drop-off in density at the top of the granules, to get the granules to stop their upward motion abruptly, and to begin splaying outward.

Oh, I see that's one of the graphs you show in your "Surface" paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/8469.html. Here I'll repost it along with some red arrows to show the density plot more clearly. I see the density scale on the left is logarithmic. The density plot does look like it makes a fairly steep drop-off at "0", the top of the photosphere, but the log scale is a distortion, so on a normal scale it seems like the curve would be much less sharp. Would it be worth your bother to translate the log scale there into a normal geometric scale?
Image
By the way, I see now that this graph also includes H ionization. Can you tell what it measures there at the photosphere? Is it .0011? It's shown to go up steeply above the photosphere. Since they were doing simulations, I wonder if a higher H ionization input would have given a better result for the density gradient. And do you know what the graph means regarding entropy?

CC said: The electrostatic potential between the Sun and the heliosphere is 1.7 GV. So that's the electromotive force that keeps the positive layer organized at the surface, and which will slowly pull +ions above the surface back down.

Can you determine then what the negative charge of the Sun is and what the positive charge of the heliopause is? Also what the positive charge of the photosphere is and what the negative charge of the layer below it is?

LK said: By the way, since you cited Robitaille in your paper, do you agree with him that the photosphere must be very dense?
CC said: Absolutely -- Robitaille has thoroughly proven that the solar surface has liquid-like behaviors

One of your diagrams shows the core being positive liquid, the zone above it being negative plasma, the next zone being positive liquid, the zone under the photosphere being negative plasma and the photosphere being positive, but you don't say plasma or liquid. Above you said the surface, or photosphere, has liquid-like behavior, but is it actually liquid, or liquid-like plasma? Robitaille seems to think the whole Sun is a supercritical fluid, but I don't know if that means plasma or liquid. Your model has both.

LK said: Is that kind of like how transistors work [referring to the N & P layers under the Sun's surface]?
CC said: Transistors are variable resistors, but there isn't much in the way of resistance in 6000 K plasma

I'm not very knowledgeable about electronics, but I thought transistors used NPN layers in place of resistance. Is that what Scott says?

Star Formation
CC said: the Sun and the planets (as mini-stars) all formed at the same time

Why couldn't galactic filament implosions produce planets and moons too?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Oct 28, 2015 1:32 pm

PS, here's a plot of H ionization vs Temperature. I don't know what effect pressure has though. It looks like the Sun may be a bit too cool for much ionization of hydrogen.
Image
It's from this site: http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~townsend/resource/teaching/astro-310-F09/hydrogen-ionization.pdf
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:12 pm

Lloyd wrote:Photosphere Density
Would it be worth your bother to translate the log scale there into a normal geometric scale?

No. :) I don't study numeric models in detail if I think that their fundamental assumptions are unrealistic. They're playing around with the equations of state to produce an energy release right at the very surface of the Sun (in the topmost 700 km), per the standard model. But those aren't data worth studying in detail -- they're assumptions manifested in numeric modeling. Only if you buy into the assumptions will the modeling be worth something. I just thought that it was telling that they had to force a non-ideal density gradient in order to get the hydrodynamic behaviors of granules.

Lloyd wrote:And do you know what the graph means regarding entropy?

That's a measure of the unavailability of energy. I guess in this context it means the inability of photons to escape.

Lloyd wrote:Can you determine then what the negative charge of the Sun is and what the positive charge of the heliopause is? Also what the positive charge of the photosphere is and what the negative charge of the layer below it is?

I'm still trying to figure out how to constrain such calcs.

Lloyd wrote:Above you said the surface, or photosphere, has liquid-like behavior, but is it actually liquid, or liquid-like plasma? Robitaille seems to think the whole Sun is a supercritical fluid, but I don't know if that means plasma or liquid. Your model has both.

In my model, the topmost layer is 5000 km thick, which is the layer in which the granules occur, and which is plasma that is responsible for the absorption lines in the solar spectrum. From 5,000 km down to 20,000 km below the surface is the supercritical fluid that is responsible for the black-body radiation. This is hydrogen plasma that has been compressed to the density of a liquid, so it has liquid-like behaviors, even if, all other factors being the same, it's too hot to still be a liquid.

Lloyd wrote:I'm not very knowledgeable about electronics, but I thought transistors used NPN layers in place of resistance.

It takes insulation to keep the NPN (or PNP) layers from discharging.

Lloyd wrote:Star Formation
Why couldn't galactic filament implosions produce planets and moons too?

Do you mean planets/moons instead of mini-stars? If so, you have to define the difference between a star and a planet and a moon.

Lloyd wrote:It looks like the Sun may be a bit too cool for much ionization of hydrogen.

At what depth, in what model? I'm looking for at least 10% of the plasma in CMEs to be ionized. This is achieved at 7500 K in that diagram.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:42 pm

Photosphere
CC said: In my model, the topmost layer is 5000 km thick, which is the layer in which the granules occur, and which is plasma that is responsible for the absorption lines in the solar spectrum. From 5,000 km down to 20,000 km below the surface is the supercritical fluid that is responsible for the black-body radiation. This is hydrogen plasma that has been compressed to the density of a liquid, so it has liquid-like behaviors

You have images of gravity waves on the Sun at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/Charles/Sun/1996-07-09_FlareWaves.png. Do you consider those to be at the top of the photosphere or 5,000 km below the top?

Star Formation
CC said: you have to define the difference between a star and a planet and a moon.

Planets and moons would be anything with a molecular solid or liquid surface, but with CFDLs inside. So would you include those as ministars? And do you think all such bodies, when first formed, would have atmospheres?

Thanks for taking the time to answer questions. I hope they're helpful. The answers are helpful for me at least.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Oct 28, 2015 7:29 pm

Lloyd wrote:Photosphere
You have images of gravity waves on the Sun at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/Charles/Sun/1996-07-09_FlareWaves.png. Do you consider those to be at the top of the photosphere or 5,000 km below the top?

Those aren't gravity waves, which would move a lot slower. IMO, they can't even be correctly classified as s-waves, which move faster, or even p-waves, which are the fastest of all -- at the speed of sound in that medium. They are supersonic waves, that accelerate as they go. So they have to be p-waves in a charged medium, whose upper limit is the speed of light, not the speed of sound. Anyway, I think that these are in the supercritical fluid beginning 5,000 km below the surface. The topmost 5,000 km is just the granular layer, which is very thin and highly turbulent, which isn't a good medium for wave transmission.

Lloyd wrote:Star Formation
Planets and moons would be anything with a molecular solid or liquid surface, but with CFDLs inside. So would you include those as ministars? And do you think all such bodies, when first formed, would have atmospheres?

I "think" so. ;) I'm still working through exactly what happens during the implosion of a filament, if it doesn't resolve into a "natural tokamak". I think that it's just a bunch of matter slammed together, and the pressure is sufficient to expel electrons, per the Pauli Exclusion Principle. This creates a positively charged core, with a negatively charged sheath. That will go on to induce a positive charge in the surrounding plasma. And the electric field between these layers then further compacts the matter, which increases the density of the gravity field, which further compacts the matter, and increases the degree of ionization. Thus it's a positive feedback loop, and this is what latches onto the plasma and won't let go. So the minimum number of charged layers is 3 (2 positive and 1 negative). So what's the minimum size? That I don't know, but my current thinking is that anything that has achieved a spherical form could only do so with the help of such forces. Gravity just isn't powerful enough to crush mountains down into plains, considering the strength of the crystal lattices in the solids. So the random aggregation of matter isn't going to force a spherical form, and as we discussed some time ago on one of these threads, there is a threshold above which all celestial bodies in our solar system are spherical, and below which all bodies are irregular. So that's the limit. But yes, all of them would have had atmospheres, which have since drifted off, but which were adding to the gravity field while they were still electrostatically bound to the planets and moons. So what was the threshold for the minimum sized mini-star? I don't know. ;) Ask Jeffrey. :) But I think that all of these things were sporting electrically active atmospheres, and thus they were all issuing EM radiation, and thus they would have looked like stars.

Lloyd wrote:Thanks for taking the time to answer questions. I hope they're helpful. The answers are helpful for me at least.

Yes, it's good for me to answer questions. I don't understand it myself if I can't explain it. ;)
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Oct 29, 2015 9:48 am

Star Formation: Red Stars/Planets
CC said: But I think that all of these things [planets & moons] were sporting electrically active atmospheres, and thus they were all issuing EM radiation, and thus they would have looked like stars.

Do you mean they would have looked like Venus? Gary Gilligan said there was so much dust in the inner solar system a few thousand years ago that all of the planets looked reddish. Even the Sun did, as he says the Egyptians always portrayed it as red. Your theory about Ceres as a former planet is interesting too.

Electric Potential
I just reread portions of our later Electric Sun Discussions from a few years back and got a different impression from one of your statements about potential than what I've had lately. So let's revisit part of our recent discussion here.
CC said: The electrostatic potential between the Sun and the heliosphere is 1.7 GV. So that's the electromotive force that keeps the positive layer organized at the surface, and which will slowly pull +ions above the surface back down.
LK said: Can you determine then what the negative charge of the Sun is and what the positive charge of the heliopause is? Also what the positive charge of the photosphere is and what the negative charge of the layer below it is?

I had asked about the charge on the heliopause, because I was assuming that, when you said heliosphere, you meant the outer surface of it. But now I'm thinking you may have meant the inner heliosphere close to the Sun. So what distance are you talking about regarding the 1.7 GV potential between the Sun and the heliosphere? Do you mean just beyond the ends of the helmet streamers of the corona? That would make more sense than measuring to the heliopause, because the charge way out there shouldn't have much attractive force over such a great distance. But if you mean to the distance just beyond the corona, I can see that there would be a significant attraction for electrons from the Sun and a significant repulsion of +ions from there. Do you think there's a steep gradient of potential or positive charge from the inner to the outer heliosphere?

I decided to see if there's anything online about this and I found a paper by Henry May at http://vixra.org/pdf/1005.0090v3.pdf. His email gives his name as Hank, so I think this is the Hank May I've read sometimes in EU circles. Here's the heading:
A Pervasive Electric Field in the Heliosphere (Part II)
(Part I is at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4674687. Oh, I see you already referenced that at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/9289.html)
Abstract––In Part I of this paper [1] it was proposed that a static electric potential of about +800 MV is
present in the heliosphere, sustained by the continual inflow of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) protons. Charge
neutralization cannot occur because the solar wind and magnetic fields allow more protons than electrons to
pass through the termination shock (TS) deeply into the heliosphere. The result is a quasi-static electric field,
at dynamic equilibrium, inside the heliosphere. This paper adds some important details that were not
included in Part I, and makes some clarifications. The presence of the heliospheric electric field opens up the
possibility of accounting for the Pioneer Anomaly, and also the anomalous cosmic rays, as caused by electric
fields.
... Assumptions : The distribution of excess protons is exactly homogeneous throughout the heliosphere, on average, and the heliosphere is exactly spherical with radius 90 AU.3 For this case the electric field would be E = 2kr inside the heliosphere (3), increasing linearly from 0 to 120 mV/km at r ≈ 90 AU, and the electric potential would be V = 800 – kr2, decreasing from 800 MV at r = 0 to 0 MV at r ≈ 90 AU, as shown in Figure 1.


Charles, does that seem reasonable, i.e. voltage increasing to 120 mV/km at 90 AU? And what about the following paragraph?

As to the thermal electrons already present in the outer heliosphere, it was recognized at the outset that all of the 10^46 thermal electrons would have to be accelerated by the field together, rather than just one or a few at a time. And since each electron experiences a force qE (where q is the electric charge and E is the field) the force vector on each of the electrons acts in the direction of the center of the heliosphere. The electrons cannot all compress and move together toward the central point, leaving the protons behind, so the thermal electrons are effectively confined by the heliospheric electric field. For each electron there is one very nearby proton which feels almost exactly the same force qE, except in the opposite direction. Naively, one might expect that the thermal protons, having a clear path to expand outwards through the TS and flow into the heliosheath, would respond to the qE force on them and accelerate radially outwards. But since the thermal protons are coupled by their electric fields to the thermal electrons, the protons are also confined by the field. The situation is very much the same as it would be with 10^46 atoms of neutral hydrogen, instead of plasma, dispersed throughout the electric field. The field does not accelerate any of the thermal electrons or protons, whether in a plasma or bound state, the major difference being that the free protons and electrons move independently in a plasma instead of in bound pairs, as in neutral atoms. The electric field offers no resistance to neutral plasma flows, such as the solar wind, so the solar wind protons are not prevented from flowing freely away from the Sun, as long as they carry their loosely coupled electrons along with them. When high energy charged particles such as GCRs enter the heliosphere, they are accelerated by the electric field because the particles are not thermalized and therefore do not participate actively in the equilibrium process.

Do you have time to read the whole paper and comment on it? I mean does it seem to have anything useful to say?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Thu Oct 29, 2015 5:11 pm

Lloyd wrote:Star Formation: Red Stars/Planets
CC said: But I think that all of these things [planets & moons] were sporting electrically active atmospheres, and thus they were all issuing EM radiation, and thus they would have looked like stars.

Do you mean they would have looked like Venus?

Yes, the mini-stars would be somewhere between red and dark red, but that would have been a long time ago.

Lloyd wrote:Gary Gilligan said there was so much dust in the inner solar system a few thousand years ago that all of the planets looked reddish. Even the Sun did, as he says the Egyptians always portrayed it as red.

Does that dust show up in the Greenland ice cores?

Lloyd wrote:
Electric Potential
I had asked about the charge on the heliopause, because I was assuming that, when you said heliosphere, you meant the outer surface of it. But now I'm thinking you may have meant the inner heliosphere close to the Sun. So what distance are you talking about regarding the 1.7 GV potential between the Sun and the heliosphere?

Yes, I'm saying that the bulk of the electric field is in the inner heliosphere, very close to the Sun. Roughly 60% of the matter in the entire heliosphere is within 0.2 AU of the Sun.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/13423_wbg.png

It took me a while to really get my mind around the true significance of that graph. We all have this notion, courtesy of the mainstream literature, of the heliosphere being a high-pressure bubble being blown in the interstellar medium, complete with a termination shock at the heliopause. The reality is that the heliosphere surrounding the Sun is like the atmosphere surrounding the Earth -- nearby it's very dense, but moving away, it thins out dramatically. At the heliopause, it's almost a pure vacuum. So no, there isn't any termination shock at the heliopause, and the heliosphere isn't under any pressure. It really looks a whole lot more like the solar wind is actually just in the heliospheric current sheet, which is wafer-thin. Outside of the HCS, the wind stops, and I'm saying that there is likely a net drift of +ions and neutrals back to the Sun. So the heliosphere is more like a Debye sheath, which is an electrostatic bubble, not a hydrostatic one, with the greatest density nearest the nucleus (i.e., the Sun), and just about nothing going on at the outer boundary (i.e., the heliopause).

Lloyd wrote:Do you think there's a steep gradient of potential or positive charge from the inner to the outer heliosphere?

The bulk of the electric field is going to be between the Sun and the inner heliosphere. So I think that May's estimate of the field, assuming that the charging mechanism is the interstellar wind, isn't correct. I think that there are two charging mechanisms -- one between the Sun and the inner heliosphere, and the other at the heliopause. May's work helps explain the inversion of the field at the heliopause. Since the heliosphere is net positive, we'd expect for there to be an induced negative charge around the outside. But it's stronger than expected, so May's charging mechanism is an important piece there. But due to the extremely low density of particles, it just isn't a very strong field, and it isn't significant if the topic is the solar discharge, which is a long ways away, and which occurs in a much thicker atmosphere.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby moses » Thu Oct 29, 2015 5:40 pm

<Does that dust show up in the Greenland ice cores? Charles>
Dust in ice cores:
http://www.iceandclimate.nbi.ku.dk/rese ... ice_cores/

This shows that during cold times there was a lot of dust deposited and the dust may have come from Mongolia/China however analysis of dust from other planets may show a better match. If we disregard their time scale then a very dusty Solar System may have produced cold conditions on Earth and deposited much dust in Greenland.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:33 pm

GREENLAND ICE CORES
CC said: Does that dust [from collisions in the inner solar system] show up in the Greenland ice cores?

The following is from http://beforeus.com or a related site.
-In 1942, during World War II, some war planes landed in Greenland. In 1990, they were found covered by 263 feet of ice in 48 years! 263 feet divided by 48 years is ice growth of about 5.5 feet per year. Divide 10,000 feet by 5.5 and it's 1,824 years for ALL of the ice to build up.
-Note: those planes did not sink into the ice, due to pressure on the ice. The ice had grown OVER them. (http://www.thelostsquadron.com). Cardin saw Many hundreds of layers of ice… dark – light – dark – light, above the airplane. That’s not summer and winter. It’s warm – cold – warm – cold. You can get ten of those in one day. Yet, the scientific elite was still calling them annual rings in 1998 (Scientific American, February 1998, p.82).


Shock Dynamics & Frozen Mammoths etc
I think the dust from asteroid collisions occurred about 5,000 years ago, including the Shock Dynamics event/s, and that the "ice age" followed just after that, with warming increasing ever since. So the dust would be at the bottom of the glaciers, if it didn't wash away first with the heavy rains and flooding. There's a lot of dust, or loess, in the Arctic, where the mammoths etc choked to death on it, sometimes while still standing in place and buried in it. Mike Fisher now puts the SD event at a little over 10,000 years ago, I think, but I'm more confident in the 5,000 year age at this point. I think Walter Brown's site had/has an article on mammoths, which mentioned that micrometeorites were found in some of the bones and tusks. I just found this at the link below.
- Figure 150: Peppered Mammoth Tusk. Scientists are finding, over wide geographical areas, mammoth tusks embedded on one side with millimeter-size particles rich in iron and nickel. This has led some to wonder if meteorites exploding high in the atmosphere punctured those tusks.32 The British Broadcasting Corporation stated, “Startling evidence has been found which shows mammoth and other great beasts from the last ice age were blasted with material that came from space.”33

I think the following is from Brown's article about Mammoths.
- PREDICTION 19: High concentrations of loess particles will be found in the bottom several hundred feet of most ice cores drilled in Antarctica and Greenland.
- The bottom layers of ice sheets in Greenland, Canada, and Antarctica contain up to 50 times more microparticles than the glacial ice above.136 Ice crystals containing these microparticles are much smaller than normal glacial ice crystals. This suggests that the hail that buried and froze the mammoths was smaller than normal hail. Another study found that the lower portion of the Greenland ice sheet contains abnormally high amounts of dust, sea salt, and other chemicals.137


http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FrozenMammoths3.html
... Second, the well-preserved mammoths and rhinoceroses must have been completely frozen soon after death or their soft internal parts would have quickly decomposed. Guthrie has written that an unopened animal continues to decompose long after a fresh kill, even in very cold temperatures, because its internal heat can sustain microbial and enzyme activity as long as the carcass is completely covered with an insulating pelt.48 Because mammoths had such large reservoirs of body heat, the freezing temperatures must have been extremely low. [Someone estimated it was -150 F.]
- Finally, their bodies were buried and protected from predators, including birds and insects. Such burials could not have occurred if the ground were perpetually frozen as it is today. Again, this implies a major climate change, but now we can see that it must have changed dramatically and suddenly. How were these huge animals quickly frozen and buried—almost exclusively in muck, a dark soil containing decomposed animal and vegetable matter?
- Muck. Muck is a major geological mystery. It covers one-seventh of the earth’s land surface—all surrounding the Arctic Ocean. Muck occupies treeless, generally flat terrain, with no surrounding mountains from which the muck could have eroded. Russian geologists have drilled through 4,000 feet of this muck without hitting solid rock. Where did so much eroded material come from? What eroded it?

- Oil prospectors, drilling through Alaskan muck, have “brought up an 18-inch-long chunk of tree trunk from almost 1,000 feet below the surface. It wasn’t petrified—just frozen.”49 The nearest forests are hundreds of miles away. Williams describes similar discoveries in Alaska:
- Though the ground is frozen for 1,900 feet down from the surface at Prudhoe Bay, everywhere the oil companies drilled around this area they discovered an ancient tropical forest. It was in frozen state, not in petrified state. It is between 1,100 and 1,700 feet down. There are palm trees, pine trees, and tropical foliage in great profusion. In fact, they found them lapped all over each other, just as though they had fallen in that position.50
- How were trees buried under a thousand feet of hard, frozen ground? We are faced with the same series of questions we first saw with the frozen mammoths. Again, it seems there was a sudden and dramatic freezing accompanied by rapid burial in muck, now frozen solid.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Thu Oct 29, 2015 9:38 pm

Interesting stuff! I haven't studied those topics in detail, so I don't have anything to offer. :cry:
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Oct 30, 2015 2:56 pm

Solar Electric Potential and the Saturn System Arrival
CC said: At the heliopause, [the heliosphere] almost a pure vacuum. So no, there isn't any termination shock at the heliopause, and the heliosphere isn't under any pressure. It really looks a whole lot more like the solar wind is actually just in the heliospheric current sheet, which is wafer-thin. Outside of the HCS, the wind stops, and I'm saying that there is likely a net drift of +ions and neutrals back to the Sun. So the heliosphere is more like a Debye sheath, which is an electrostatic bubble, not a hydrostatic one, with the greatest density nearest the nucleus (i.e., the Sun), and just about nothing going on at the outer boundary (i.e., the heliopause).
... So I think that May's estimate of the field, assuming that the charging mechanism is the interstellar wind, isn't correct. I think that there are two charging mechanisms -- one between the Sun and the inner heliosphere, and the other at the heliopause. May's work helps explain the inversion of the field at the heliopause. Since the heliosphere is net positive, we'd expect for there to be an induced negative charge around the outside. But it's stronger than expected, so May's charging mechanism is an important piece there. But due to the extremely low density of particles, it just isn't a very strong field, and it isn't significant if the topic is the solar discharge, which is a long ways away, and which occurs in a much thicker atmosphere.

Do you know what evidence the idea of the heliopause termination shock is based on? Is it just the Pioneer data? Did those data show no significant change at the heliopause? Is the heliopause too thin to affect large objects from outside entering the solar system? You had previously stated that, if the Saturn system had entered the solar system from outside, it would have flared up when it hit the heliopause. Have you changed your mind about that? Is here enough IPM out there to produce at least a little flaring etc?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4386
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Oct 30, 2015 6:53 pm

Lloyd wrote:Solar Electric Potential and the Saturn System Arrival
Do you know what evidence the idea of the heliopause termination shock is based on?

I don't think that there was ever any evidence -- I think that it was just an ancient assumption that was never challenged. People observed cometary tails that pointed away from the Sun, irrespective of the velocity of the comet. The ancient explanation was that there must be an interplanetary wind blowing dust off of the comet, that is moving much faster than the comet itself. But I first suspected that something was wrong with that when I calculated how long it would take the solar wind to reach the heliopause. It's just under a year, at 450 km/s (i.e., the slow wind). If the Sun has been burning for at least a couple million years, if not far longer than that, it should have blown a far bigger bubble by now -- it should take a couple million years for the solar wind to get to the heliopause. Or there should be an accumulation of matter at the heliopause that was halted on its journey. Ah but that's not how it is -- the heliosphere just keeps getting thinner and thinner with distance from the Sun. So where does all of the matter go? It doesn't keep blowing a bigger and bigger bubble, and there is no accumulation at the heliopause. I "think" that the only conclusion is that the matter rains back down to the Sun.

Lloyd wrote:Is it just the Pioneer data? Did those data show no significant change at the heliopause?

There are definitely changes at the heliopause, but whether or not they're significant, considering the thinness of the matter, is debatable.

Lloyd wrote:Is the heliopause too thin to affect large objects from outside entering the solar system? You had previously stated that, if the Saturn system had entered the solar system from outside, it would have flared up when it hit the heliopause. Have you changed your mind about that?

I'm not sure. ;) I'd have to look at the charge densities in the Pioneer data. Also, hypersonic objects build up halos around them, which insulate them from their environments, as my work on bolides demonstrated. To get a discharge, the potential has to exceed that insulating capacity. Actually predicting when a bolide is going to flare up is beyond our ability, so I should refrain from saying for sure that Saturn would have flared up crossing the heliopause. ;)
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest