Magnetic lines of force

A recent statement in these newsgroups is that:

The twisting and snapping of magnetic field lines on the Sun, called
magnetic reconnection, seem to cause CMEs and solar flares. When
these fields snap from the build-up of magnetic energy, plasma is
heated and particles are accelerated, resulting in massive explosions
and emitting radiation ranging from radio waves to X-rays.

The phrase "seem to cause CMEs and solar flares" is not the positive
expression most solar astronomers and physicists generally use, and the
indication of doubt in this instance is certainly fully justified.
Magnetic lines of force are not physical identities like rubber bands.
They are purely imaginary and were proposed by Faraday to show the
direction of the magnetic field and their spacing shows the intensity of
the field. The only excuse for continuing to treat magnetic lines of
force as if they are real would be if there were no better theory to
explain CMEs and solar flares.
In fact a more rational theory was published in 1998 in the book 'The
Electric Universe' by Laszlo Kortvelyessy which I reviewed for the
Observatory Magazine, Cambridge, UK. A copy of the review is included in
website: http://www..brox1.demon.co.uk/Sun2.htm

Dr Kortvelyessy made the following comments concerning this thread:

1. Nobody saw these twisted rubber bands in solar function. However, it
should be a daily theat spacecraft as Yohkoh, SOHO, TRACE and HESSI
made and make continually movies about the Sun. All filaments are seen.
When a flare erupts, [it would be possible for] the movie to be seen
backwards from the minutes of the eruption to find [look for] the
twisted filaments just before the eruption. But no twisted filaments
were ever seen, even during two maxima. NASA states this clearly in:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/06feb_hessi.htm

2. Since Carrington, flares were found always near to sunspots, never in
them. But should not the strongest eruptions come out from the strongest
magnetic fields? Therefore, the magnetic fields cannot be the cause of
the eruptions, neither twisted nor untwisted. The cause is positively
charged matter emerging from the positive core and releasing by the
transformation in the photosphere from charged plasma (which does not
explode) to charged gas (which electrostatically explodes).

3. Filaments of the Sun are no filaments of plasma filled in magnetic
tubes. If they would be, the magnetic field should be parallel to the
filament axis. But in this case, the filaments could not transport
matter, because the Lorenz-force is zero parallel to the magnetic field.
But these filaments clearly transport matter. The solar filaments (also
the flares and coronal mass ejections) are electrically ejected
positively charged matter formed by the pinch effect.

--
Eric Crew

In article , Eric Crew
writes
A recent statement in these newsgroups is that:

The twisting and snapping of magnetic field lines on the Sun, called
magnetic reconnection, seem to cause CMEs and solar flares. When
these fields snap from the build-up of magnetic energy, plasma is
heated and particles are accelerated, resulting in massive explosions
and emitting radiation ranging from radio waves to X-rays.

The phrase "seem to cause CMEs and solar flares" is not the positive
expression most solar astronomers and physicists generally use, and the
indication of doubt in this instance is certainly fully justified.
Magnetic lines of force are not physical identities like rubber bands.
They are purely imaginary and were proposed by Faraday to show the
direction of the magnetic field and their spacing shows the intensity
of the field. The only excuse for continuing to treat magnetic lines of
force as if they are real would be if there were no better theory to
explain CMEs and solar flares.
In fact a more rational theory was published in 1998 in the book 'The
Electric Universe' by Laszlo Kortvelyessy which I reviewed for the
Observatory Magazine, Cambridge, UK. A copy of the review is included
in website: http://www..brox1.demon.co.uk/Sun2.htm
Sorry, 'S' should not be upper case. It should be:
http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/sun2.htm
A copy of the review only is in website
http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/review1.htm


Dr Kortvelyessy made the following comments concerning this thread:

1. Nobody saw these twisted rubber bands in solar function. However, it
should be a daily theat spacecraft as Yohkoh, SOHO, TRACE and HESSI
made and make continually movies about the Sun. All filaments are seen.
When a flare erupts, [it would be possible for] the movie to be seen
backwards from the minutes of the eruption to find [look for] the
twisted filaments just before the eruption. But no twisted filaments
were ever seen, even during two maxima. NASA states this clearly in:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2002/06feb_hessi.htm

2. Since Carrington, flares were found always near to sunspots, never
in them. But should not the strongest eruptions come out from the
strongest magnetic fields? Therefore, the magnetic fields cannot be the
cause of the eruptions, neither twisted nor untwisted. The cause is
positively charged matter emerging from the positive core and releasing
by the transformation in the photosphere from charged plasma (which
does not explode) to charged gas (which electrostatically explodes).

3. Filaments of the Sun are no filaments of plasma filled in magnetic
tubes. If they would be, the magnetic field should be parallel to the
filament axis. But in this case, the filaments could not transport
matter, because the Lorenz-force is zero parallel to the magnetic
field. But these filaments clearly transport matter. The solar
filaments (also the flares and coronal mass ejections) are electrically
ejected positively charged matter formed by the pinch effect.


--
Eric Crew

"Eric Crew" wrote...
in message ...

A recent statement in these newsgroups is that:

The twisting and snapping of magnetic field lines on the Sun, called
magnetic reconnection, seem to cause CMEs and solar flares. . . .

. . . A copy of the review is included in
website: http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/sun2.htm . . .

--
Eric Crew

As you know, Eric, i've believed for a long time now that
magnetic lines of force are constructs derived from the
iron filings "illusion" that teachers love so well. They fail
to note that the filings also have their own individual fields
that interact with the larger magnet's field. So while the
lines of force may be a useful math construct, i agree that
they don't exist as rubbery, snappy lines.

I was thinking... since the temperature issue seems to be
crucial to mainstream acceptance of LKs ideas, can it not
be shown that temperatures of the Sun, both coronal and
surface, must be lower than believed or else Mercury
would be long since vaporized, while Venus, Earth and
such would be so much hotter than they are?

IOW, can we not use the surface temperatures of Earth,
Venus, Mars and Mercury to infer a maximum possible
temperature at the source that is being radiated toward
them?

I could be wrong, but it just seems to me that the
temperatures which scientists attribute to the Sun would
still be quite high even after traveling millions of miles...
much higher than they actually are.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
a Secret of the Universe...
so please don't breathe a word of this--
the Moon above will smile perverse
whene'er it sees two lovers kiss;
(breathe not a single word of this!)

Paine Ellsworth

In article
, Painius
writes
"Eric Crew" wrote...
in message ...

A recent statement in these newsgroups is that:

The twisting and snapping of magnetic field lines on the Sun, called
magnetic reconnection, seem to cause CMEs and solar flares. . . .

. . . A copy of the review is included in
website: http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/sun2.htm . . .

--
Eric Crew

As you know, Eric, i've believed for a long time now that
magnetic lines of force are constructs derived from the
iron filings "illusion" that teachers love so well. They fail
to note that the filings also have their own individual fields
that interact with the larger magnet's field. So while the
lines of force may be a useful math construct, i agree that
they don't exist as rubbery, snappy lines.

At last someone has stated their agreement with me and LK about this!
Congratulations!

I was thinking... since the temperature issue seems to be
crucial to mainstream acceptance of LKs ideas, can it not
be shown that temperatures of the Sun, both coronal and
surface, must be lower than believed or else Mercury
would be long since vaporized, while Venus, Earth and
such would be so much hotter than they are?

The 'conventional' idea is that although the temperature of the corona
is supposed to be millions of degrees the atmosphere is so rarefied that
the amount of heat (proportional to mass density times temperature) is
relatively small and the heat received at Mercury for example is not
nearly enough to cause it to melt. The flow of heat from the corona
would soon cool it to a much lower temperature after a few hundred
miles.

The theories claiming these multi-million degree temperatures are not
convincing and LK's claim that the nuclear reactions of recombination of
protons and electrons cause the indications of very high temperatures
conforms more to accepted physics.
Incidentally the streams of electrons inside a television tube only
cause a small rise in temperature of the tube.

LK's ideas mainly concern the effect of temperature on the velocity of
the particles in the solar interior as a result of the heating effect of
the nuclear reactions. This causes electrons to travel at about 40 times
the velocity of the much more massive protons, causing electrical charge
separation and explains the many processes in the Sun and the
surrounding atmosphere. There is no need to assume a dynamo producing
powerful magnetic fields, etc.

IOW, can we not use the surface temperatures of Earth,
Venus, Mars and Mercury to infer a maximum possible
temperature at the source that is being radiated toward
them?

I could be wrong, but it just seems to me that the
temperatures which scientists attribute to the Sun would
still be quite high even after traveling millions of miles...
much higher than they actually are.

No point in discussing this when LK's ideas give a rational scientific
solution to the "high temperature question". The discovery of the large
number of filamentary discharges show that these are electrical and
their magnetic field is the cause of the small diameter of the filaments
Heated plasma streams do not have these characteristics.

--
Eric Crew

Eric Crew wrote in message ...
In article
, Painius
writes
"Eric Crew" wrote...
in message ...

A recent statement in these newsgroups is that:

The twisting and snapping of magnetic field lines on the Sun, called
magnetic reconnection, seem to cause CMEs and solar flares. . . .

. . . A copy of the review is included in
website: http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/sun2.htm . . .

--
Eric Crew

As you know, Eric, i've believed for a long time now that
magnetic lines of force are constructs derived from the
iron filings "illusion" that teachers love so well. They fail
to note that the filings also have their own individual fields
that interact with the larger magnet's field. So while the
lines of force may be a useful math construct, i agree that
they don't exist as rubbery, snappy lines.

At last someone has stated their agreement with me and LK about this!
Congratulations!

I was thinking... since the temperature issue seems to be
crucial to mainstream acceptance of LKs ideas, can it not
be shown that temperatures of the Sun, both coronal and
surface, must be lower than believed or else Mercury
would be long since vaporized, while Venus, Earth and
such would be so much hotter than they are?

The 'conventional' idea is that although the temperature of the corona
is supposed to be millions of degrees the atmosphere is so rarefied that
the amount of heat (proportional to mass density times temperature) is
relatively small and the heat received at Mercury for example is not
nearly enough to cause it to melt. The flow of heat from the corona
would soon cool it to a much lower temperature after a few hundred
miles.

The theories claiming these multi-million degree temperatures are not
convincing and LK's claim that the nuclear reactions of recombination of
protons and electrons cause the indications of very high temperatures
conforms more to accepted physics.
Incidentally the streams of electrons inside a television tube only
cause a small rise in temperature of the tube.

LK's ideas mainly concern the effect of temperature on the velocity of
the particles in the solar interior as a result of the heating effect of
the nuclear reactions. This causes electrons to travel at about 40 times
the velocity of the much more massive protons, causing electrical charge
separation and explains the many processes in the Sun and the
surrounding atmosphere. There is no need to assume a dynamo producing
powerful magnetic fields, etc.

IOW, can we not use the surface temperatures of Earth,
Venus, Mars and Mercury to infer a maximum possible
temperature at the source that is being radiated toward
them?

I could be wrong, but it just seems to me that the
temperatures which scientists attribute to the Sun would
still be quite high even after traveling millions of miles...
much higher than they actually are.

No point in discussing this when LK's ideas give a rational scientific
solution to the "high temperature question". The discovery of the large
number of filamentary discharges show that these are electrical and
their magnetic field is the cause of the small diameter of the filaments
Heated plasma streams do not have these characteristics.

Quick question (excuse me)
Can you briefly explain how such a strong gravitational field as the
sun produces a rarified atmosphere. I always assumed that the sun's
atmosphere was very dense.
Jim G

In article , Jim
Greenfield writes
Eric Crew wrote in message
...
In article
, Painius
writes
"Eric Crew" wrote...
in message ...

A recent statement in these newsgroups is that:

The twisting and snapping of magnetic field lines on the Sun, called
magnetic reconnection, seem to cause CMEs and solar flares. . . .

. . . A copy of the review is included in
website: http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/sun2.htm . . .

--
Eric Crew

As you know, Eric, i've believed for a long time now that
magnetic lines of force are constructs derived from the
iron filings "illusion" that teachers love so well. They fail
to note that the filings also have their own individual fields
that interact with the larger magnet's field. So while the
lines of force may be a useful math construct, i agree that
they don't exist as rubbery, snappy lines.

At last someone has stated their agreement with me and LK about this!
Congratulations!

I was thinking... since the temperature issue seems to be
crucial to mainstream acceptance of LKs ideas, can it not
be shown that temperatures of the Sun, both coronal and
surface, must be lower than believed or else Mercury
would be long since vaporized, while Venus, Earth and
such would be so much hotter than they are?

The 'conventional' idea is that although the temperature of the corona
is supposed to be millions of degrees the atmosphere is so rarefied that
the amount of heat (proportional to mass density times temperature) is
relatively small and the heat received at Mercury for example is not
nearly enough to cause it to melt. The flow of heat from the corona
would soon cool it to a much lower temperature after a few hundred
miles.

The theories claiming these multi-million degree temperatures are not
convincing and LK's claim that the nuclear reactions of recombination of
protons and electrons cause the indications of very high temperatures
conforms more to accepted physics.
Incidentally the streams of electrons inside a television tube only
cause a small rise in temperature of the tube.

LK's ideas mainly concern the effect of temperature on the velocity of
the particles in the solar interior as a result of the heating effect of
the nuclear reactions. This causes electrons to travel at about 40 times
the velocity of the much more massive protons, causing electrical charge
separation and explains the many processes in the Sun and the
surrounding atmosphere. There is no need to assume a dynamo producing
powerful magnetic fields, etc.

IOW, can we not use the surface temperatures of Earth,
Venus, Mars and Mercury to infer a maximum possible
temperature at the source that is being radiated toward
them?

I could be wrong, but it just seems to me that the
temperatures which scientists attribute to the Sun would
still be quite high even after traveling millions of miles...
much higher than they actually are.

No point in discussing this when LK's ideas give a rational scientific
solution to the "high temperature question". The discovery of the large
number of filamentary discharges show that these are electrical and
their magnetic field is the cause of the small diameter of the filaments
Heated plasma streams do not have these characteristics.

Quick question (excuse me)
Can you briefly explain how such a strong gravitational field as the
sun produces a rarified atmosphere. I always assumed that the sun's
atmosphere was very dense.
Jim G

A quick reply (thanks for the question)
It takes two to tango. The force of gravity on an object radius r is
proportional to r^3 (the mass). The force of radiation pressure is
proportional to r^2 (the projected area).
In the case of the Sun, particles below a certain size are expelled away
from the Sun by radiation pressure, apart from any electrical discharge
effects. Also heat causes expansion of gas. I think most writers about
the Sun state that its outer atmosphere is rarefied,. e.g. Kenneth Lang
in 'Sun, Earth and Sky' (1997) refers to the "tenuous outer material" of
the Sun (page 253)
Iain Nicolson's 'Astronomy' dictionary (1977) states under 'Corona,
Solar' (page 55) "but even close to the solar surface its density is
very low, less than one million millionth of the density of the Earth's
atmosphere at ground level.
--
Eric Crew

Jim Greenfield asked:

Can you briefly explain how such a strong gravitational field
as the sun produces a rarified atmosphere. I always assumed that
the sun's atmosphere was very dense.

The Sun consists entirely of hot gas. The density of the gas
decreases smoothly from the center outward. Because the gas is
hot and ionized it is only semi-transparent. What we call the
"surface" of the Sun is actually just the depth into the gas
from which light is able to get through all the semi-transparent
gas above it to reach our eyes and cameras.

Deep down it is extremely dense. Far out it is extremely
rarified. There is no discontinuity between the two, as there
is on the Earth, where the gaseous atmosphere is sitting on top
of a solid and liquid surface.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

..

As you know, Eric, i've believed for a long time now that
magnetic lines of force are constructs derived from the
iron filings "illusion" that teachers love so well. They fail
to note that the filings also have their own individual fields
that interact with the larger magnet's field. So while the
lines of force may be a useful math construct, i agree that
they don't exist as rubbery, snappy lines.

At last someone has stated their agreement with me and LK about this!
Congratulations!


Do you have any experimental or observed phenomena that can't be explained
by magnetic lines? Do you have an alternate theory that explains things
*better* ? Have you tried it out against *all* the phenomena that depend on
the existance of lines of force, such as solar prominences, the aurora
borealis, interaction of magnets and superconductors, electrical motors and
generators, and probably a million other things that I'll think of once I've
had enough coffee?

And BTW, filings do *not* have their own individual fields, unless they've
been deliberately magnetized. Individual atoms may have their own fields,
but in a non-magnetic filing the atoms' fields are all pointing in random
directions, resulting in no net magnetic field.

In article , Dennis
Taylor writes


As you know, Eric, i've believed for a long time now that
magnetic lines of force are constructs derived from the
iron filings "illusion" that teachers love so well. They fail
to note that the filings also have their own individual fields
that interact with the larger magnet's field. So while the
lines of force may be a useful math construct, i agree that
they don't exist as rubbery, snappy lines.

At last someone has stated their agreement with me and LK about this!
Congratulations!


Do you have any experimental or observed phenomena that can't be explained
by magnetic lines? Do you have an alternate theory that explains things
*better* ? Have you tried it out against *all* the phenomena that depend on
the existance of lines of force, such as solar prominences, the aurora
borealis, interaction of magnets and superconductors, electrical motors and
generators, and probably a million other things that I'll think of once I've
had enough coffee?

The answer to all your questions is briefly "yes". See the review in
website
http://www.brox1.demon.co.uk/sun2.htm
Read the book.

And BTW, filings do *not* have their own individual fields, unless they've
been deliberately magnetized. Individual atoms may have their own fields,
but in a non-magnetic filing the atoms' fields are all pointing in random
directions, resulting in no net magnetic field.

Iron filings are like bars of iron. If they are placed in a magnetic
field they will have magnetism induced in them corresponding to the
direction of the field and if they are free to turn (e.g. by shaking on
a flat surface) each will act like a compass. There is no need to assume
"real" magnetic "lines of force".




--
Eric Crew

"Eric Crew" wrote in message
news

LK's ideas mainly concern the effect of temperature on the velocity of
the particles in the solar interior as a result of the heating effect of
the nuclear reactions. This causes electrons to travel at about 40 times
the velocity of the much more massive protons, causing electrical charge
separation and explains the many processes in the Sun and the
surrounding atmosphere. There is no need to assume a dynamo producing
powerful magnetic fields, etc.
....
No point in discussing this when LK's ideas give a rational scientific
solution to the "high temperature question". The discovery of the large
number of filamentary discharges show that these are electrical and
their magnetic field is the cause of the small diameter of the filaments
Heated plasma streams do not have these characteristics.

Hello Eric,

As you allude to above, Kortvelyessy's ideas require that there
be a constant current flowing from the Sun into space of 10^14A
(see page 21 of the book). The outer surface of the Sun is
undoubdetedly conductive and despite Kortvelyessy's claim that
the inner layers are non-conducting, it can be modelled as an
isolated conductive sphere. The capaciatance is 7.8*10^-2 Farad.
The supposed unbalanced current would result in the potential of
the surface of the Sun rising linearly at over 10^15 V/s.

Clearly such an imbalance cannot be sustained since the kinetic
energy of electrons in the solar wind is only of the order of 1eV.
As you know I asked many times how Kortvelyessy explains why the
electrons are not accelerated back towards the Sun by this rising
potential but it remains unanswered.

Does Kortvelyessy still maintain that the current is unbalanced
or can you now explain why the potential does not rise at this
incredible rate?

best regards
George