That is what "I thought I remembered".The report was for x-rays, that is proven,
I am not privy to test parameters.
That is what "I thought I remembered".The report was for x-rays, that is proven,
First of all, I'm not an expert on ball lightning, so I'm not sure about the distinct surface. Recent research has shown that clumps of silicon vapor, liberated by a lightning strike to the ground, can sustain re-oxidization for several seconds in the air, and can display fancy behaviors like bouncing off the ground, and crackling/spitting, in a way that "seems" quite similar to the reports of ball lightning. (See Paiva, G. S. et al., 2010: Energy density calculations for ball-lightning-like luminous silicon balls. Physics-Uspekhi, 53 (2): 209.) So ball lightning might not be an EM phenomenon per se, but rather, just another form of fire. Its roughly spherical shape might be an artifact of how the fuel is temporarily kept consolidated by the reaction going on at its periphery.Lloyd wrote:You reasoned that the distinct spherical surface of the Sun can only be due to a cathode PNP triple layer in the Sun. What is the cause of the similar distinct surface of ball lightning and in plasmoids? Do you think ball lightning is a plasmoid? Can plasmoids be light-weight like ball lightning and float in air? Is it the magnetic field that makes a plasmoid a smooth sphere? Does ball lightning vary from spherical to ovoid? And, if so, would that be due to fluctuation of the B-field or something else? And would the shapes of plasmoid stars etc be able to vary in the same way? Or would plasmoid stars be high density instead of light-weight like ball lightning?
I think that the so-called "convective" zone (which actually doesn't convect as much as scientists once thought) is mainly supercritical hydrogen & helium, except the topmost 4800 km (which Michael calls the solar atmosphere, and which I call the granular layer), which is still dense enough to display hydrodynamic behaviors, but is not supercritical. As such, the granular layer does not emit black-body radiation (which can only come from solids or supercritical fluids), but rather, is responsible for the absorption lines in the solar spectrum. So Michael & I agree on the general characteristics of the topmost 4800 km as being much thinner, and we disagree with Brant that there is anything special about the topmost 700 km. But I disagree with both of them that there are solids in the convective zone. I think that the temperature is too high for solids (i.e., > 6000 K). So I think that the convective zone has all of the properties of a supercritical fluid, and none of the properties of a solid. I also disagree that there is that much iron, that close to the surface, though Michael's study of the running-difference imagery, and Brant's study of coronal moss, certainly prove that there are irregular concentrations of iron at and near the surface. But the spectroscopy tells us that iron averages only 1 part in 30,000 compared to hydrogen.Lloyd wrote:Do your arguments disprove Brant's and Michael's iron sun models? I think Brant says the solid iron crust is 600 or 700 km below the top of the photosphere, while Michael says it's 4800 km below.
There certainly isn't any resistance at the atomic or molecular scale, so those charge separations can only be because of electric and/or magnetic fields. Above that scale, charges can be separated by electric, magnetic, or inertial forces, and then the separation can be maintained by the same electric or magnetic forces, or by electrical resistance. In the Sun, I don't see any evidence of counter-streaming jets that would produce charge separations by inertial forces. (This is what some people roughly attribute to triboelectric charging, but which is actually more akin to electron temperature ionization. Regardless, I don't see it in the Sun.) And at 6000 K, I don't see any electrical resistance. That leaves electric and/or magnetic forces. And with velocities that average 2 km/s, there will definitely be magnetic fields, but they're poorly organized, and therefore, cannot account for the near-perfect spherical shape of the Sun. That leaves the electric force. And in the absence of resistance, CFDLs can only be caused by compressive ionization.Lloyd wrote:Is there resistance in galactic nebulae or in atoms and molecules, where electrons and protons or ions are separated? If not, which force maintains the separation in such cases?
Yes. In the Earth, the solid crust overlies what I consider to be an ionized mantle & core, which I believe got that way due to pressure.Lloyd wrote:Would it be possible for a solid iron layer to overlie a compressively ionized layer...
No. The phase diagram of iron is complex, but I have never seen one where they had solid iron at 4000 K, regardless of pressure.Lloyd wrote:...say if the temperature were 4000 K?
Yes, solids only tolerate a little bit of ionization before the crystal lattice fails, even at absolute zero, and then you get the properties of a liquid (or gas, or plasma), regardless of temperature. And the iron that we see in the Sun is highly ionized (i.e., IX, X, XII, and XV). Those ain't solids.Lloyd wrote:Or would the iron have to be ionized? And would ionization make it non-solid? I think you said compressively ionized matter could only be dense liquid plasma. Is that right?
Yes, in my model, the entire so-called "radiative zone" (which doesn't radiate anything in my model) is iron & nickel. But as mentioned above, there are also important concentrations of iron in the so-called convective zone. For example, CMEs appear to have a very high amount of iron, which I believe congregates around sunspot shafts. BTW, Robitaille believes that the liquid crystal hydrogen forms an impermeable lattice that prevents gravitational settling of heavy elements. I'm not sure about his graphite-like crystal lattice (I think the electrons are unbound, and there isn't any lattice), but there might still be something to that idea. My model naively assumes perfect mass separation, but the truth might be a lot more complex than that.Lloyd wrote:It looks like you may have your proof against the iron Sun models, although your model is actually considerably iron too, but your iron is much deeper and not solid.
You're right -- in the Fatio/LeSage model of gravity, pressure is exerted from the outside by the impacts of the unseen corpuscles zipping through the Universe in all directions. This would mean that there would be no increase in pressure inside a solid object, and that would blow up my compressive ionization model, which relies on the internal pressure increasing with proximity to the center. I haven't studied the Fatio/LeSage model in detail, but here's what Feynman had to say about it.Lloyd wrote:Well, there is a potential obstacle to proof for you here, i.e. the theory that gravity is only a surface phenomenon, which Brant subscribes to. I think he favors the theory of Fatio and LeSage, but I don't remember what evidence they may have mentioned for that theory. If the theory is false, I'd like to see a disproof of it somewhere.
In other words, the premise of the Fatio/LeSage model is that a fixed amount of inertia is exerted from all directions by the corpuscles. This implies fixed velocities of the corpuscles from a universal reference point. And that means that any object moving with respect to that reference point would encounter more pressure on its windward side. Eventually, all relative motion would cease, and all matter in the Universe would be pressed into a singular clump. For Feynman, that was the end of it. But here we have to remember that gravity is the weakest of the forces. A near infinitesimal electric force could override the "gravitational drag" force. So I don't think it's a closed issue.Richard Feynman wrote:In 1965 Richard Feynman examined the Fatio/Lesage mechanism, primarily as an example of an attempt to explain a "complicated" physical law (in this case, Newton's inverse-square law of gravity) in terms of simpler primitive operations without the use of complex mathematics, and also as an example of a failed theory. He notes that the mechanism of "bouncing particles" reproduces the inverse-square force law and that "the strangeness of the mathematical relation will be very much reduced", but then remarks that the scheme "does not work", because of the drag it predicts would be experienced by moving bodies, "so that is the end of that theory".
3.9km is not very deep. Even the moon has gravity that makes things fall down.CharlesChandler wrote:Now that I got to thinking about the Fatio/LeSage theory of gravity, I have a question. According to Wikipedia, the TauTona Mine is a gold mine in South Africa. At some 3.9 kilometers (2.4 mi) deep it is currently home to the world's deepest mining operations. That's pretty far from the surface. Are the miners weightless when they get down to the bottom, since they aren't being bombarded with the gravity corpuscles that only act on the surface? Or do the gravity corpuscles penetrate the surface, and continue to impart inertial forces? We know that the pressure in the ocean increases steadily with depth, so gravity cannot possibly be a "simple" surface effect. The reason for the question is that if the gravity corpuscles penetrate the surface, then increasing pressure with depth still holds, and the compressive ionization lives to fight another day.
In the Fatio/LeSage model, tiny unseen particles bombard everything, imparting inertial forces. They called these particles "corpuscles".D_Archer wrote:What are gravity corpuscles?
I'm not saying that ionization compresses -- I'm saying that compression ionizes.D_Archer wrote:Compressive ionization is not an actual physical process, i think you made that up yourself. Ionization of matter by definition does not compress anything it can only expand since bonds loosen.
MJV called these corpuscles the "gravity aether", I think... Unless there is a gravity shadow, the aether penetrates everywhere. Therefore, at the center of a body the force would be equal from all directions, and as I understand it, no gravity.Or do the gravity corpuscles penetrate the surface, and continue to impart inertial forces?
Gravity.D_Archer wrote:And what causes compression?
Most of the literature refers to the Pannekoek-Rosseland field, first identified in the 1920s, and which results from protons being 1836 times heavier than electrons. Thus we would expect more positive charge at the core of a star, and more negative charge above. I actually consider this to be a trivial force, and I'm looking at other stuff. Specifically, under extreme pressure, atoms are forced together closer than their electron shells allow, resulting in the expulsion of the electrons, leaving positive ions behind. This is a much more powerful force. The Pannekoek-Rosseland field comes from the action of gravity on each individual particle (proton or electron), affecting mass separation, but pressure is the cumulative force from all of the particles above, and thus compressive ionization is much more powerful.D_Archer wrote:Is there any literature about gravity as a cause for ionizing matter?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests