New views of Sun: Two missions will go closer to our star than ever before

May 16, 2018 by Micheala Sosby, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
The NASA/ESA Solar Orbiter will capture the very first images of the Sun's polar regions, where magnetic tension builds up and releases in a lively dance. Launching in 2020, Solar Orbiter's study of the Sun will shed light on its magnetic structure and the many forces that shape solar activity. Credit: Spacecraft: ESA/ATG medialab; Sun: NASA/SDO/P. Testa (CfA)

As we develop more and more powerful tools to peer beyond our solar system, we learn more about the seemingly endless sea of faraway stars and their curious casts of orbiting planets. But there's only one star we can travel to directly and observe up close—and that's our own: the Sun.

Two upcoming missions will soon take us closer to the Sun than we've ever been before, providing our best chance yet at uncovering the complexities of solar activity in our own solar system and shedding light on the very nature of space and stars throughout the universe.

Together, NASA's Parker Solar Probe and ESA's (the European Space Agency) Solar Orbiter may resolve decades-old questions about the inner workings of our nearest star. Their comprehensive, up-close study of the Sun has important implications for how we live and explore: Energy from the Sun powers life on Earth, but it also triggers space weather events that can pose hazard to technology we increasingly depend upon. Such space weather can disrupt radio communications, affect satellites and human spaceflight, and—at its worst—interfere with power grids. A better understanding of the fundamental processes at the Sun driving these events could improve predictions of when they'll occur and how their effects may be felt on Earth.

"Our goal is to understand how the Sun works and how it affects the space environment to the point of predictability," said Chris St. Cyr, Solar Orbiter project scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. "This is really a curiosity-driven science."

Parker Solar Probe is slated to launch in the summer of 2018, and Solar Orbiter is scheduled to follow in 2020. These missions were developed independently, but their coordinated science objectives are no coincidence: Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter are natural teammates.

Parker Solar Probe will swoop to within 4 million miles of the Sun's surface, facing heat and radiation like no spacecraft before it. Launching in 2018, Parker Solar Probe will provide new data on solar activity and may make critical contributions to our ability to forecast major space-weather events that affect life on Earth. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins APL

Studying the solar corona

Both missions will take a closer look at the Sun's dynamic outer atmosphere, called the corona. From Earth, the corona is visible only during total solar eclipses, when the Moon blocks the Sun's most intense light and reveals the outer atmosphere's wispy, pearly-white structure. But the corona isn't as delicate as it looks during a total solar eclipse—much of the corona's behavior is unpredictable and not well understood.

The corona's charged gases are driven by a set of laws of physics that are rarely involved with our normal experience on Earth. Teasing out the details of what causes the charged particles and magnetic fields to dance and twist as they do can help us understand two outstanding mysteries: what makes the corona so much hotter than the solar surface, and what drives the constant outpouring of solar material, the , to such high speeds.

We can see that corona from afar, and even measure what the solar looks like as it passes by Earth—but that's like measuring a calm river miles downstream from a waterfall and trying to understand the current's source. Only recently have we had the technology capable of withstanding the heat and radiation near the Sun, so for the first time, we're going close to the source.

"Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter employ different sorts of technology, but—as missions—they'll be complementary," said Eric Christian, a research scientist on the Parker Solar Probe mission at NASA Goddard. "They'll be taking pictures of the Sun's corona at the same time, and they'll be seeing some of the same structures—what's happening at the poles of the Sun and what those same structures look like at the equator."

Parker Solar Probe (formerly Solar Probe Plus) will move in a highly elliptical orbit, using seven gravity assists from Venus to move it closer to the Sun with each pass. Solar Orbiter will use Earth and Venus gravity assists to move into a relatively circular orbit and climb up and out of the ecliptic plane to capture the first images of the Sun’s poles. Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center’s Scientific Visualization Studio; Tom Bridgman, lead animator; Scott Wiessinger, producer

Parker Solar Probe will traverse entirely new territory as it gets closer to the Sun than any spacecraft has come before—as close as 3.8 million miles from the solar surface. If Earth were scaled down to sit at one end of a football field, and the Sun at the other, the mission would make it to the four-yard line. The current record holder, Helios B, a solar mission of the late 1970s, made it only to the 29-yard line.

From that vantage point, Parker Solar Probe's four suites of scientific instruments are designed to image the solar wind and study magnetic fields, plasma and energetic particles—clarifying the true anatomy of the Sun's outer atmosphere. This information will shed light on the so-called coronal heating problem. This refers to the counterintuitive reality that, while temperatures in the corona can spike upwards of a few million degrees Fahrenheit, the underlying , the photosphere, hovers around just 10,000 degrees. To fully appreciate the oddity of this temperature difference, imagine walking away from a campfire and feeling the air around you get much, much hotter.

Solar Orbiter will come within 26 million miles of the Sun—that would put it within the 27-yard line on that metaphorical football field. It will be in a highly tilted orbit that can provide our first-ever direct images of the Sun's poles—parts of the Sun that we don't yet understand well, and which may hold the key to understanding what drives our star's constant activity and eruptions.

Both Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter will study the Sun's most pervasive influence on the solar system: the solar wind. The Sun constantly exhales a stream of magnetized gas that fills the inner solar system, called solar wind. This solar wind interacts with magnetic fields, atmospheres, or even surfaces of worlds throughout the solar system. On Earth, this interaction can spark auroras and sometimes disrupt communications systems and power grids.

Data from previous missions have led scientists to believe the corona contributes to the processes that accelerate particles, driving the solar wind's incredible speeds—which triple as it leaves the Sun and passes through the corona. Right now, the solar wind travels some 92 million miles by the time it reaches the spacecraft that measure it—plenty of time for this stream of charged gases to intermix with other particles traveling through space and lose some of its defining features. Parker Solar Probe will catch the solar wind just as it forms and leaves the corona, sending back to Earth some of the most pristine measurements of solar wind ever recorded. Solar Orbiter's perspective, which will provide a good look at the Sun's poles, will complement Parker Solar Probe's study of the solar wind, because it allows scientists to see how the structure and behavior of the solar wind varies at different latitudes.

Illustration of the Parker Solar Probe spacecraft approaching the Sun. Credit: Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory

Solar Orbiter will also make use of its unique orbit to better understand the Sun's magnetic fields; some of the Sun's most interesting magnetic activity is concentrated at the poles. But because Earth orbits on a plane more or less in line with the solar equator, we don't typically get a good view of the poles from afar. It's a bit like trying to see the summit of Mount Everest from the base of the mountain.

That view of the poles will also go a long way toward understanding the overall nature of the Sun's , which is lively and extensive, stretching far beyond the orbit of Neptune. The Sun's magnetic field is so far-reaching largely because of the solar wind: As the solar wind streams outward, it carries the Sun's magnetic field with it, creating a vast bubble, called the heliosphere. Within the heliosphere, the solar wind determines the very nature of planetary atmospheres. The heliosphere's boundaries are shaped by how the Sun interacts with interstellar space. Since Voyager 1's passage through the heliopause in 2012, we know these boundaries dramatically protect the inner solar system from incoming galactic radiation.

It's not yet clear how exactly the Sun's magnetic field is generated or structured deep inside the Sun—though we do know intense magnetic fields around the poles drives variability on the Sun, causing solar flares and coronal mass ejections. Solar Orbiter will hover over roughly the same region of the solar atmosphere for several days at a time while scientists watch tension build up and release around the poles. Those observations may lead to better awareness of the physical processes that ultimately generate the Sun's magnetic field.

Together, Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter will refine our knowledge of the Sun and heliosphere. Along the way, it's likely these missions will pose even more questions than they answer—a problem scientists are very much looking forward to.

"There are questions that have been bugging us for a long time," said Adam Szabo, mission scientist for Parker Solar Probe at NASA Goddard. "We are trying to decipher what happens near the Sun, and the obvious solution is to just go there. We cannot wait—not just me, but the whole community."

Explore further: Send your name to the sun aboard NASA's Parker Solar Probe

Related Stories

Parker Solar Probe comes to NASA Goddard for testing

November 9, 2017

On Monday, Nov. 6, 2017, NASA's Parker Solar Probe spacecraft arrived at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, for environmental tests. During the spacecraft's stay at Goddard, engineers and technicians ...

ESA To Collaborate with NASA on Solar Science Mission

October 6, 2011

On October 4, 2011, the European Space Agency announced it's two next science missions, including Solar Orbiter, a spacecraft geared to study the powerful influence of the sun. Solar Orbiter will be an ESA-led mission, with ...

Recommended for you

Dwarf companion to EPIC 206011496 detected by astronomers

September 20, 2018

Using ESO's Very Large Telescope (VLT), European astronomers have uncovered the presence of an M-dwarf around the star EPIC 206011496. The newly found object is more than 60 percent less massive than our sun and is bounded ...

Video: Net successfully snares space debris

September 19, 2018

The RemoveDEBRIS satellite has successfully used its on-board net technology in orbit – the first demonstration in human history of active debris removal (ADR) technology.

249 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

691Boat
5 / 5 (8) May 16, 2018
Well, when it flies around the poles and gets zapped by those huge incoming electric currents, I will eat my shoes.

@CD85: Make your predictions, man!
jonesdave
4.1 / 5 (9) May 16, 2018
Well, when it flies around the poles and gets zapped by those huge incoming electric currents, I will eat my shoes.


Yep, in the same way that Ulysses didn't get zapped! :) These electric currents are about to become even more invisible and undetectable.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 16, 2018
The Heliospheric Current Sheet;

http://aanda.u-st...814.html

Note, they discuss the required polar Birkeland currents to complete the circuit. It will look something like this;

https://smd-prod....ield.jpg

That schematic was drawn based on Ulysses in situ measurements, note the spiraling magnetic fields at the pole. The only way to achieve magnetic fields such as that is with electric currents flowing into the poles.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (11) May 16, 2018
That schematic was drawn based on Ulysses in situ measurements, note the spiraling magnetic fields at the pole. The only way to achieve magnetic fields such as that is with electric currents flowing into the poles.


Ahhh, so now the Sun isn't powered by an external current according to EU 'theory'! The Sun powers itself! The oppositely directed magnetic fields in each hemisphere create a current sheet that then heads into the poles to carry on powering it!! Fantastic. And what would the current per second need to be to account for the known energy output of the Sun (3.8 x 10^26 W)?

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (10) May 16, 2018
That schematic was drawn based on Ulysses in situ measurements, note the spiraling magnetic fields at the pole. The only way to achieve magnetic fields such as that is with electric currents flowing into the poles.


Errrrmm, those spiralling magnetic fields are heading out. If the current were heading in, then the field would also be heading in, as it moves helically around the incoming current in the direction of travel.

jonesdave
4.3 / 5 (6) May 17, 2018
Errrrmm, those spiralling magnetic fields are heading out. If the current were heading in, then the field would also be heading in, as it moves helically around the incoming current in the direction of travel.


Actually, I guess that depends on which hemisphere is shown, and on which pass of the spacecraft. Here is a more comprehensive view of what Ulysses detected:
http://www.sp.ph....eversal/

Hard to see how anybody can invoke a constant incoming external current from that mess.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2018
Ahhh, so now the Sun isn't powered by an external current according to EU 'theory'!

Me being the official spokesman of the EU is only in your brain cell, that's all. And regarding the solar circuit I have posted this link numerous times;
https://www.plasm..._circuit
Obviously willful ignorance is jonesdumb's M.O.
those spiralling magnetic fields are heading out.

Carefully building a strawman so you can tear it down, jonesdumb proudly displays his unending use of logical fallacy.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) May 17, 2018
^^^^^^Alfven knew well enough about the heliospheric current circuit. Nowhere did he ever say that it had anything to do with powering the Sun. He never espoused any nonsense about Juergens' dumb idea. He knew it was powered by fusion. Even the remaining few PC proponents don't believe in this electric sun rubbish. It is only the Velikovskian EU loons.

Carefully building a strawman so you can tear it down,....


No, dumbo, just stating the bleeding obvious. That is, that your claim was complete bobbins.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2018
Even the remaining few PC proponents don't believe in this electric sun rubbish.

Anthony Peratt, author of 'The Physics of the Plasma Universe' said this about Dr. Don Scott's book 'The Electric Sky' (about the electric Sun);
"It is gratifying to see the work of my mentor, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén enumerated with such clarity. I am also pleased to see that Dr. Scott has given general readers such a lucid and understandable summary of my own work."
Sounds like an endorsement, and clearly Dr. Scott understands the physics of the Plasma Universe. Unlike yourself, but you are a pro with your knowledge of faerie dust and dirty snowballs.
Nik_2213
not rated yet May 17, 2018
Will the BeppiColumbo Mercury mission carry solar monitoring instruments, too ??
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 17, 2018
Anthony Peratt, author of 'The Physics of the Plasma Universe' said this about Dr. Don Scott's book 'The Electric Sky' (about the electric Sun);
"It is gratifying to see the work of my mentor, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén enumerated with such clarity. I am also pleased to see that Dr. Scott has given general readers such a lucid and understandable summary of my own work."
Sounds like an endorsement, and clearly Dr. Scott understands the physics of the Plasma Universe. Unlike yourself, but you are a pro with your knowledge of faerie dust and dirty snowballs.


I understand schoolboy errors when I see them. If Peratt can't see them, then he is obviously as ignorant of astrophysics as is Scott. And nowhere has Peratt ever said he believes in electric sun nonsense. It is a possibly out of context review of a non-peer reviewed book, that has had zero scientific impact.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2018
People who work with nuclear weapons at Los Alamos don't typically make "schoolboy errors" in their primary field of study, otherwise it would be dangerous for all of us. As incompetent as the gov't is, even I don't think they would be so foolish. The Electric Sun/Electric Sky and the EU is a natural extension of the foundation laid by Birkeland, Alfvén, Peratt, et al. as the same physics are relevant.
Clearly, the schoolboy error is due to your own utter ignorance of real plasma physics, hell you still believe in Chapman's auroral circuit model which was debunked 50-years ago.
Solon
1 / 5 (3) May 17, 2018
Why do the artists insist on showing an orange Sun when we are told that from space the Sun will be white?

Nik_2213
"Will the BeppiColumbo Mercury mission carry solar monitoring instruments, too ??"

One instrument it will not have is a camera with a Neutral Density solar filter so we can actually see what the Sun looks like from space.

691Boat
"Well, when it flies around the poles and gets zapped by those huge incoming electric currents, I will eat my shoes."

Spacecraft charging has always been taken into account in their designs, it won't get zapped.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 17, 2018
The Electric Sun/Electric Sky and the EU is a natural extension of the foundation laid by Birkeland, Alfvén, Peratt, et al. as the same physics are relevant.


No, it isn't. It is an extension of Velikovsky's crap. PC might claim to be based on the aforementioned, but is irrelevant these days, as a huge amount has been learned since Alfven last contributed anything worthwhile. As for Birkeland! Nuclear fusion hadn't even been discovered when he was around, and the Wright brothers were still fresh in the memory! Peratt cxouldn't explain how stars and gas all rotated at the same speed in his fantasy, and is now seeing plasma woo in rock art.
As for schoolboy errors, how about the idiot Scott trying to explain the acceleration of the fast solar wind by an electric field? Which way do the ions go? And the electrons? See what I mean? And what about nuclear fusion in the chromosphere? Death by gamma rays for all of us. He should stick to rewiring kitchens, or whatever he did.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 17, 2018
.......hell you still believe in Chapman's auroral circuit model which was debunked 50-years ago.


Really? Where did I say that? Frankly, I'm not that arsed about plasma physics. I just know enough to know BS when I see it. And I know enough to know that nobody in the EU cult has got the foggiest clue about it. If they knew anything about it, they wouldn't have to rely on Scott, who makes horrendous errors, as noted. All they do is memorise, by rote, quotes from Alfven, many out of context, but then ditch Alfven whenever he disagrees with them. Such as how the Sun is powered. Same goes for Peratt.
No, the core ideas of EU woo, which separate it from PC, is crap like the electric sun, electric comets, electric craters, Saturnism, et boring cetera. All that rubbish comes via the idiots Thornhill and Talbott's unshakeable belief in the uber-loon Velikovsky.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) May 17, 2018
"Well, when it flies around the poles and gets zapped by those huge incoming electric currents, I will eat my shoes."

Oldboat relies on his ignorance so he can be safely tucked away in his neutralized cocoon. Here is an article which describes an electric discharge which occurred between the Saturnian moon Hyperion and Cassini;
http://sci.esa.in...on-beam/
If you think the Sun couldn't do the same at a much higher current density then you are clearly deluded. Bon appetit!
BTW, there are many other examples of spacecraft being zapped and put into safe mode. However, I would like to think these spacecraft would be much more resilient.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) May 17, 2018
If you think the Sun couldn't do the same at a much higher current density then you are clearly deluded.


And the electrostatic charge of an airless body, due to plasma and UV, has what relationship to the Sun? Charging of airless bodies has been theorised for many decades.

691Boat
5 / 5 (5) May 17, 2018
@CD85:
If the Sun is a part of an electric circuit as you claim, there must be at least 385 yottaWatts of power flowing into it, unless your electric Sun isn't actually electric. Since the outgoing portion of your circuit is around the equator, coming out as the solar winds to power the planets in our solar system, the incoming current is in to the poles, as you have stated many times before. Am I wrong? If so, explain why!
691Boat
5 / 5 (5) May 17, 2018
Further, looking at your EU "literature", your buddy Alfven says the total current in the equitorial current sheet eminating from the Sun is 3x10^9 Amperes. We know the power output of the Sun is around 385x10^26 W. Simple Algebra (P=IV) says that is a voltage differential of 128PV (128x10^17 V). You'd think that is something we could measure as a simple test if the Solar System was actually electric, no??
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) May 17, 2018
We know the power output of the Sun is around 385x10^26 W....


I think you missed a decimal point there. ~3.8 x 10^26 W. So about 1.3 x 10^17 V.
691Boat
5 / 5 (5) May 17, 2018
We know the power output of the Sun is around 385x10^26 W....


I think you missed a decimal point there. ~3.8 x 10^26 W. So about 1.3 x 10^17 V.

Yup. Error carried forward. Still, I am pretty sure we could measure that level, even at 2 orders of magnitude lower than my incorrect first post. hahaha!
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2018
Since the outgoing portion of your circuit is around the equator, coming out as the solar winds to power the planets in our solar system, the incoming current is in to the poles, as you have stated many times before. Am I wrong? If so, explain why!


Well, that would depend which electric sun model they are using. There are a number. The only things they have in common are a) the Sun is electric, and b) they fail trivially to be scientifically valid. Obviously they cannot have the incoming current in the ecliptic. It would be striking the nightside of every planet. The crude representations I've seen show a current entering at both poles. Which is obviously bobbins, as the solar magnetic fields measured by Ulysses show. I've also heard of the current being 'drift' electrons entering omni-directionally. Also bobbins, as we would detect them. So, with the poles and the ecliptic ruled out, I think they have come to a halt, theoretically.

TrollBane
5 / 5 (3) May 17, 2018
"So, with the poles and the ecliptic ruled out, I think they have come to a halt, theoretically." Next they will claim the electric currents reach the sun through a network of wormholes via Bajor and a giant capacitor somewhere in the Delta quadrant.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) May 17, 2018
Why do the artists insist on showing an orange Sun when we are told that from space the Sun will be white?

Because it would then just be an image of a white blot.

And no: the image of the sun is not an 'artists rendition'. it's an actual image taken - with a filter - by the solar dynamic observatory (SDO) launched in 2011. The probe is stock image of the ESA Solar orbiter photoshopped in the foreground.
Solon
1 / 5 (3) May 17, 2018
'And no: the image of the sun is not an 'artists rendition'. it's an actual image taken - with a filter - by the solar dynamic observatory.."

SDO does not see at visible wavelengths. There are no photos of the Sun from space that use a regular camera and ND filter.

jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) May 17, 2018
SDO does not see at visible wavelengths


Wrong. Then again, we've been here before. Unless NASA agree to take your box brownie into space and photograph the Sun, then you can carry on claiming that it is invisible! Despite the fact that it produces light at visible wavelengths. Which are somehow invisible to astronauts. Despite them saying otherwise. So let's no drag up this lunacy again, huh?

https://www.nasa...._CMR.pdf
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 17, 2018
Where did I say that? Frankly, I'm not that arsed about plasma physics.

Clearly, why would you be, considering the Universe is 99.999% plasma. Couldn't be relevant...
how about the idiot Scott trying to explain the acceleration of the fast solar wind by an electric field?

You are truly incapable of a response that doesn't include a logical fallacy, or a response one would expect from an adult. Anyways, let me show your own schoolboy ignorance. From Dr. Scott comments on its electric field;
"The Sun is not an isolated point charge within a vacuum. It is a body that exists surrounded by a sea of plasma. So the application of classical (free-space) electrostatic analyses to the solar environment is inappropriate."
http://electric-c...2013.pdf
In short, jonesdumb continuously applies the incorrect pith ball electrostatics. Your beliefs are irrelevant jonesdumb, your admitted ignorance of plasma physics is what blinds you.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 17, 2018
quotes from Alfven, many out of context

This from a guy who still thinks Alfvén was opposed to MRx because it violated "his" MHD equations. You live in opposite world jonesdumb. An Alfvén quote from one on his papers;

"A dualism between the field and the particle approach exists also in plasma physics. A number of phenomena, such as the formation of double layers and the energy transport from one region to another, can be understood only by the particle (electric current) description. Hence a translation of the traditional field description into a particle (electric current) description is essential."
He says it is essential to move on from MHD field models and instead use particle/circuit models. Like I said, you reside in opposite world.
And the electrostatic charge of an airless body, due to plasma

So according to you, electrostatic charging is possible, but discharge is woo? Clearly ignorance blinds you.
Solon
1 / 5 (4) May 17, 2018
"Which are somehow invisible to astronauts. Despite them saying otherwise."
What did the Apollo astronauts say about the appearance of the Sun while on the way to the Moon and back? Nothing. Did they photograph it? Where are the photos?

SDO does not see at visible wavelengths, do you have comprehension problems?

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2018

http://electric-c...2013.pdf
In short, jonesdumb continuously applies the incorrect pith ball electrostatics. Your beliefs are irrelevant jonesdumb, your admitted ignorance of plasma physics is what blinds you.


Idiot. What is a collisionless plasma again? You know less than I do about plasma, I think that is obvious. In an electric field do the electrons and ions travel at the same speed in the same direction? Yes or no? Go on, prove in three letters or less that you are as big an idiot as Scott. Or not.

This is the effect of the Sun being at a higher voltage level than is distant space just beyond the heliopause. The outward force on positive ions due to this E-field causes the observed acceleration of +ions in the solar wind.

http://electric-c.../sun.htm
So, who wrote the above quoted crap, if not Scott? Where are the electrons? In reality they are travelling along with the ions at the same speed. According to Scott? Who knows?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 17, 2018
This from a guy who still thinks Alfvén was opposed to MRx because it violated "his" MHD equations. You live in opposite world jonesdumb. An Alfvén quote from one on his papers;


Alfven was wrong. End of story. I'm sure Falthammar told him that numerous times. What he thought 30 or 40 years ago is irrelevant. PPPL didn't exist then. In-situ observation didn't exist then.
And C-G F was a PI on one of those missions. He was obviously a friend and fan of Alfven, but he was sensible enough not to follow him down a dead end of his own making.

jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) May 17, 2018
"Which are somehow invisible to astronauts. Despite them saying otherwise."
What did the Apollo astronauts say about the appearance of the Sun while on the way to the Moon and back? Nothing. Did they photograph it? Where are the photos?

SDO does not see at visible wavelengths, do you have comprehension problems?



Have you got reading problems, dummy? I even linked you to the instrument description. Tell me what this means in the world of invisible stars:

AIA will produce a high-definition image of the Sun in eight selected wavelengths out of the ten available every 10 seconds. The ten wavelength bands include nine ultraviolet and extreme ultraviolet bands and ***one visible light band*** to reveal key aspects of solar activity.


Or is it only visible light if it shows up on your box brownie? Christ, this place is crawling with cranks.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) May 17, 2018
Here is a 'paper' by the aforementioned loon Don Scott:
http://electric-c...Wind.pdf

Never published, of course. Have a look at how many times he tells us the ions are accelerated. Then have a look at any mention of the electrons, and where they are going. Take this, for example:

It is important to note that the required charge density as shown in figure 6 is everywhere greater than zero. Thus, only positive charges (+ions) are involved in the acceleration mechanism. No participation of electrons in the required charge distribution is indicated.


So why the hell are the electrons also accelerating outward? What sort of electric field has this loon invented? Are the protons holding their hands and saying, "come with us, dears"?

I wrote a somewhat longer post on this elsewhere:
https://www.chris...72444566
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 17, 2018
And no: the image of the sun is not an 'artists rendition'. it's an actual image taken - with a filter - by the solar dynamic observatory (SDO) launched in 2011.
The Sun is very interesting through dedicated solar telescopes with built-in filters, for example those manufactured by Coronado (taken over by Meade). You can easily see faculae, spicules, and sunspots, with a choice of filter wavelengths for various optical bands giving access to various phenomena.

There is a warning every person should be aware of about never using anything but a fully filtered telescope that has the filter in front of the telescope (filter closest to the Sun) for solar viewing. It says you can go instantly permanently blind otherwise. This is not a joke or hyperbole. If you don't know optics please buy a solar telescope from a reputable dealer. The best known solar scopes are built by Coronado, which has been acquired by Meade. Please read all cautions and follow instructions carefully.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
In an electric field do the electrons and ions travel at the same speed in the same direction?

"The Sun is not an isolated point charge within a vacuum. It is a body that exists surrounded by a sea of plasma. So the application of classical (free-space) electrostatic analyses to the solar environment is inappropriate."
So why the hell are the electrons also accelerating outward?

First of all, the solar wind is not at all as simple as you'd like to think.
https://ipfs.io/i...ind.html
https://science.n...oct_ftes
https://agupubs.o...JA012684
http://iopscience...83/1/L19

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
We obviously know something you don't, @cantthink69: the solar wind is going out, not coming in. And this is super duh ummm.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
Let's review the evidence: comet plasma tails all point away from the Sun. All the electrons, protons, alpha particles, and all the particles we see are flowing away from the Sun, in both Earth and Mars orbits including at Lagrange points. The magnetic field of the Sun and the solar wind all points outward to the interstellar medium. Bear in mind that we have already sent a spacecraft to look at the Sun's polar regions: Ulysses. https://en.wikipe..._the_Sun

None of your evidence, @cantthink69, says anything about particles moving toward the Sun. Which is everything we need to know about your false claims.
Solon
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018


Have you got reading problems, dummy? I even linked you to the instrument description. Tell me what this means in the world of invisible stars:

AIA will produce a high-definition image of the Sun in eight selected wavelengths out of the ten available every 10 seconds. The ten wavelength bands include nine ultraviolet and extreme ultraviolet bands and ***one visible light band*** to reveal key aspects of solar activity.


According to this page, there is a filter at 4500 Å
https://www.nasa....-the-sun

So the Sun is blue but they show yellow? Then there is the HMI image which matches the visible light photosphere in orange. But the Sun is white I'm told. NASA is F.O.S.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
None of your evidence says anything about particles moving toward the Sun.

Well, you obviously didn't read this paper;
https://agupubs.o...JA012684

"In his investigation of the flow properties of the solar wind plasma, Borovsky [2006] found that large‐scale flow patterns are often broken up into individually moving parcels of magnetized plasma. The parcels are separated by sharp interfaces characterized by strong jumps in the flow velocity, magnetic field orientation, plasma properties, and energetic‐electron flux."

Given the complexity, structure, changing magnetic field direction, and energetic electrons there is no way one can say with absolute certainty that 1-in-20,000 of the electrons is not drifting toward the Sun.
The last feather in the cap of the solar electric field is the acceleration of iron ions and other heavy +ions. Only e-fields can explain this fact.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
Magnetic field direction changing isn't magnetic field reversing, and 1:20000 is nowhere near enough. You're lying again, @cantthink69.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) May 18, 2018
SDO does not see at visible wavelengths, do you have comprehension problems?

Even if it is a filtered UV image: How exactly does this prevent anyone using a filter to transfer the image gathered in UV to one in visible light?
Have you ever used night sights before? How exactly do you think you can suddenly see something in them even though infrared is invisible to your eyes?

It's called 'mapping'.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
So the Sun is blue but they show yellow? Then there is the HMI image which matches the visible light photosphere in orange. But the Sun is white I'm told. NASA is F.O.S.


No, you are full of shit. You are too thick to realise what 'visible wavelengths' mean. You think the Sun is invisible in space! Lol. You are a class A wazzock. Just another deluded crank, who thinks they know enough to criticise real science, whilst being totally incapable of understanding the science. That is why you hang out with the Velikovskian idiots of EU. A sure sign of scientific illiteracy.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
In an electric field do the electrons and ions travel at the same speed in the same direction?

"The Sun is not an isolated point charge within a vacuum. It is a body that exists surrounded by a sea of plasma. So the application of classical (free-space) electrostatic analyses to the solar environment is inappropriate."
So why the hell are the electrons also accelerating outward?

First of all, the solar wind is not at all as simple as you'd like to think.
https://ipfs.io/i...ind.html



Non-answer dumbo. If the Sun is positively charged, and an electric field is accelerating the solar wind, why is the bulk flow of electrons and ions in the same direction at the same speed? You cannot answer, because there isn't an answer, other than Scott is thick, and either doesn't understand electric fields, or doesn't understand the solar wind. Which is it?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
The last feather in the cap of the solar electric field is the acceleration of iron ions and other heavy +ions. Only e-fields can explain this fact.


And what is explaining the co-moving electrons that are also accelerating at the same rate? You do know what happens when you put oppositely charged particles in an electric field, don't you? I'll tell you what the idiot Scott's problem is, shall I? He doesn't understand that the solar wind is composed of + and - particles. Of equal number. Moving in the same direction. At the same speed.
What is his obsession with + ions? Where does he explain the acceleration of the electrons? He doesn't, because he is too stupid to be able understand what the solar wind is. Just as he didn't realise that nuclear fusion creates gamma rays, so you can't have it in the chromosphere. The bloke is astrophysically illiterate. He should stick to rewiring kitchens.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
Given the complexity, structure, changing magnetic field direction, and energetic electrons there is no way one can say with absolute certainty that 1-in-20,000 of the electrons is not drifting toward the Sun.


And the idiot Scott has already told us what happens to the electrons. They float back down to some imaginary double layer. They are not involved in this acceleration process. He made it quite clear. And yet every measurement ever made, says they are. That is why nobody with half a brain has ever suggested this lunacy as a method of accelerating the solar wind. Other than a dipstick like him. He's clueless.

jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) May 18, 2018
[
Given the complexity, structure, changing magnetic field direction, and energetic electrons there is no way one can say with absolute certainty that 1-in-20,000 of the electrons is not drifting toward the Sun.


Who came up with this 1:20 000 bobbins? Where is the calculation? So, are we now saying that, despite the electrons produced by the Sun failing to escape (according to Scott's own words), that somehow a tiny fraction of them re-enter the Sun to power it? So, it's powering itself? Sounds like woo to me. As usual. Surely there is another free energy scam waiting to be pounced upon here!

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
Who came up with this 1:20 000 bobbins?


Never mind - I've found it now. Suffice to say it is wrong.
http://electric-c...2013.pdf

I shall explain why shortly, once I've got the relevant data.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
If the Sun is positively charged, and an electric field is accelerating the solar wind, why is the bulk flow of electrons and ions in the same direction at the same speed?

If you had read the papers I linked you could clearly see the SW is nothing like you believe it to be. Per ACE observations the SW is a network of "spaghetti" like structures, i.e. Birkeland currents. As we know from the quantified structure of Birkeland currents they are counter rotating coaxial tubes of plasma and electric and magnetic fields with clearly delineated boundaries. Your erroneous beliefs of the SW are dated nonsense.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
jonesdave> If the Sun is positively charged, and an electric field is accelerating the solar wind, why is the bulk flow of electrons and ions in the same direction at the same speed

The question is: - what is accelerating electrons and ions? Which should always follow the statement and physics-world always prefaced the comments quoted with the commenter's nickname or as many nicknames as comments on the quote, so everyone knew exactly who you were referring to, where each comment was numbered and dated so you could instantly scroll up an find the commentator in the 100s of comments.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
If the Sun is positively charged, and an electric field is accelerating the solar wind, why is the bulk flow of electrons and ions in the same direction at the same speed?

If you had read the papers I linked you could clearly see the SW is nothing like you believe it to be. Per ACE observations the SW is a network of "spaghetti" like structures, i.e. Birkeland currents.


Still a non-answer. What happens when + and - particles are subject to an electric field? Why are the electrons and ions heading in the same direction at the same speed? Why is ACE not reporting a shed load of incoming electrons? Sorry, you can avoid the question all you like - Scott is clueless, and gives no explanation for the contemporaneous acceleration of the electrons. As observed. He thinks the solar wind is made of protons only.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
As we know from the quantified structure of Birkeland currents they are counter rotating coaxial tubes of plasma and electric and magnetic fields with clearly delineated boundaries. Your erroneous beliefs of the SW are dated nonsense.


So show me a paper that observes Birkeland currents in the solar wind. And measures that current. Not in the Earth's magnetosphere. Out in the solar wind.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 18, 2018
What happens when + and - particles are subject to an electric field?

Here is the answer for jonesdumb's misapplication of the incorrect physics once again;

"The Sun is not an isolated point charge within a vacuum. It is a body that exists surrounded by a sea of plasma. So the application of classical (free-space) electrostatic analyses to the solar environment is inappropriate."

You see that jonesdumb, the physics you keep harping about are not appropriate for this condition.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
So show me a paper that observes Birkeland currents in the solar wind.

This is the third time this paper has been linked in this thread alone.
https://agupubs.o...JA012684
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
So, back to the loon Scott's paper: http://electric-c...2013.pdf

First off, he just uses energetic electron detections at the heliopause, and then scales this to all electron energies, WRT to the loon Juergens' original calculation, and gets 10^7 electrons per m^3/s. First question - why don't we see these incoming electrons where they need to be, closer to the Sun?

Then he comes up with a figure of 1:20 000 needed, and therefore the required flux at the heliopause is be 10^7/ 20 000, = 500 m^3/s. So, let's shrink that down from a sphere with radius 122 AU to one of 1 AU. That gives us ~ 16 000 x 500 electrons m^3/s heading in. = 8m m^3/s. = ~ 8 cm^3/s. Precisely matching the outgoing rate! Yet they are invisible. And what would be the energy of these electrons? Across a potential drop of 500 000 V? Let's hope nobody is currently residing on the nightside of the Earth. In short, it is complete crap, and is so wrong it's not even wrong.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
This is the third time this paper has been linked in this thread alone.
https://agupubs.o...JA012684


Nope. Read it years ago. No Birkeland currents mentioned, nor measured. Even the abstract spells it out for the hard of understanding:

....the flux tubes are fossil structures that originate at the solar surface........


So, we have the Sun powering itself again. Neat trick.

The tubes are on‐average aligned with the **Parker spiral**,....


Guess which way that goes?

The flux tube texture impacts the flow properties of the solar wind, turbulence in the solar wind, energetic‐particle propagation in the inner heliosphere, and the driving of the Earth's magnetosphere.


For the hard of thinking, guess which side of the magnetosphere is impacted? Dayside or nightside? What does that tell you?

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
And, back to Scott's woo, again:

So, a potential drop of ~ 500 000 V. What does that mean for the energy of the electrons? Well, unless I've cocked it up, that would mean ~ 500 KeV. And there will be as many of them hitting the nightside of the planet(s) as there are the dayside coming from the solar wind. Difference is, that the ones hitting the dayside are nowhere near as energetic as this. At those energies? Interacting with our atmosphere? Looks to me like Scott is not only trying to kill us all with gamma rays from nuclear fusion in the chromosphere, but also from nasty, high energy electrons. Nobody is safe.
Solon
1 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
jonesdave
"You think the Sun is invisible in space! Lol."

Until PROVEN otherwise, yes. How to do that? Ask someone who has been out into space (not just low earth orbit), which means just the Apollo astronauts. But they said nothing about the Sun and took no photos of it, and experiments to photograph the stars showed nothing. It is totally black out there, just as they said. Maybe once the private sector sends someone out there we'll get the truth.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
Some basic maths that Scott didn't bother to do:

Electron;
Q (charge) = 1.6 x 10^-19 C.
M (mass) = 9.11 x 10^-31 kg.
Potential difference = 500 000 V.
Ek = QV, so kinetic energy gained = 8.0 x 10^-14 J(oules).

Final speed = Ek = 1/2 mv^2, rearranges to v = SQRT (2Ek/m).
Therefore v = SQRT (2 X 8.0 X 10^-14 J)/ (9.11 X 10^-31 kg).
= SQRT 1.8 X 10^17 m/s, = 4.2 x 10^8 m/s.

Ergo, the electrons will be relativistic. And we still can't detect them. Or be killed by them! Weird sh*t this EU stuff, isn't it!
What Scott has done here, is not realise that he is predicting relativistic electrons. So, he claims they are drift electrons. However, they cannot drift at that potential. I'm assuming the Velikovskian crank, Juergens, used the electron energy in his initial calculations. Therefore, if we want drift electrons, we need to cut the potential hugely, and exponentially increase the number of required electrons. To about the density of lead! Mad stuff.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
jonesdave
"You think the Sun is invisible in space! Lol."

Until PROVEN otherwise, yes. How to do that? Ask someone who has been out into space (not just low earth orbit), which means just the Apollo astronauts. But they said nothing about the Sun and took no photos of it, and experiments to photograph the stars showed nothing. It is totally black out there, just as they said. Maybe once the private sector sends someone out there we'll get the truth.


That is lies, as has been pointed out to you numerous times. However, I am not in the mood for resurrecting a ridiculous argument with a loon that thinks visible wavelengths are invisible. Go away.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
What did the Apollo astronauts say about the appearance of the Sun while on the way to the Moon and back? Nothing.


Funnily enough, Neil Armstrong (you know, the first man on the moon) has a ton to say how the sun looked during flight and also while on the moon in this interview:
https://www.youtu...cdxvNI1o
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
...and also the notion that all astronauts have talked about starry skies (and since stars are suns in their own right they should have been - by your 'logic' - be as invisible as our sun from space)
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
...and also the notion that all astronauts have talked about starry skies (and since stars are suns in their own right they should have been - by your 'logic' - be as invisible as our sun from space)


Ah, you see, by Solon's 'logic' (lol), they only saw these things because of dust on the moon making the visible light visible. Or it was due to the material of the spacecraft windows making the visible light visible. Which is all very risible.
Solon
1 / 5 (3) May 18, 2018

Transcript from A16 during cislunar EVA
219 37 05 Mattingly (EVA): I'm really surprised I don't see any stars.

219 37 07 Young (onboard): Charlie's only said 25 times it's black out there.

219 37 11 Duke (onboard): What?

219 37 12 Young (onboard): You've only said that 25 times. (Laughter)

219 37 14 Duke (onboard): (Garble) see (garble) (laughter).

219 37 15 Young (onboard): It really must be black out there! (Laughter)

219 37 17 Duke (onboard): It's really black! (Laughter)"

The first professional British astronaut [Tim Peake] said the most unexpected thing was "the blackness of space".
"We always talk about seeing the view of planet Earth and how beautiful it is and you come to expect that.
"But what people don't mention that much is when you look in the opposite direction and you see how dark space is.
"It is just the blackest black and that was a real surprise to me."

Solon
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
from A17:

"CC Question 12 for each of you: What do you hope to tell your grandchildren as your most memorable moment of your trip to the Moon?"

"Well, I'll start with that one, Hank. I had two impressions. The-the first is the dazzling beauty of Descartes -the surface. It was just one of the most awe-inspiring sights I've ever seen. And, secondly, on the EVA, when you look away from the Earth -or the Moon - it's Just the utter blackness of space. It really is black out there."
691Boat
5 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
Some basic maths that Scott didn't bother to do:

Electron;
Q (charge) = 1.6 x 10^-19 C.
M (mass) = 9.11 x 10^-31 kg.
Potential difference = 500 000 V.
Ek = QV, so kinetic energy gained = 8.0 x 10^-14 J(oules).

Final speed = Ek = 1/2 mv^2, rearranges to v = SQRT (2Ek/m).
Therefore v = SQRT (2 X 8.0 X 10^-14 J)/ (9.11 X 10^-31 kg).
= SQRT 1.8 X 10^17 m/s, = 4.2 x 10^8 m/s.

Ergo, the electrons will be relativistic. And we still can't detect them. Or be killed by them! Weird sh*t this EU stuff, isn't it!
What Scott has done here, is not realise that he is predicting relativistic electrons.

At >3x10^8 m/s, they would be violating all kinds of neat science that has been proven time and time again. If the EU guys would simply grab a calculator, they could find a lot of these flaws and realize how wrong they are.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
from A17:

"CC Question 12 for each of you: What do you hope to tell your grandchildren as your most memorable moment of your trip to the Moon?"

"Well, I'll start with that one, Hank. I had two impressions. The-the first is the dazzling beauty of Descartes -the surface. It was just one of the most awe-inspiring sights I've ever seen. And, secondly, on the EVA, when you look away from the Earth -or the Moon - it's Just the utter blackness of space. It really is black out there."


Yep, can't see a bloody thing with a Nikon D4:
https://www.nasa....-station
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
If the EU guys would simply grab a calculator, they could find a lot of these flaws and realize how wrong they are.


Why on Earth would they own a calculator? Those things are for doing maths! They are allergic to maths. Mainly because it has a habit of showing how idiotic their ideas are.
Solon
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
"Yep, can't see a bloody thing with a Nikon D4:"

Looking towards Earth, through the atmosphere. Just what I have been saying. Try the D4 looking AWAY from Earth, why don't they?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
Righty ho, let us now suppose that Scott's 'drift' electrons exist. What velocity does he want? No idea, but for BOTE purposes, let's assume 1 m/s. Now, the equation for the velocity across a potential drop was introduced above:
v = SQRT (2Ek/m).

We know m, so we need a value that, when multiplied by 2, gives the same value as m, and we'll have SQRT (x/x) = 1 m/s. Easily done. As m = 9.11 x 10^-31 kg (let's call it 1 x 10^-30), then Ek has to be 5 x 10^-31 J.
So, how to get Ek = to 5 x 10^-31? Well, we also know from above that Ek = QV. So, rearranging, to get the voltage, gives V = Ek/Q.. So V = (5 x 10^-31 J)/(1.6 x 10^-19 C) = ~ 3 x 10^-12 V.
That is, 3 trillionths of a volt is required as a potential drop for an electron to be cruising at 1 m/s in the vicinity of Earth. Not a very electric universe, is it?
Then, of course, those electrons will have very little energy compared to relativistic ones, so how many do we need? Back to the calculator!
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
"Yep, can't see a bloody thing with a Nikon D4:"

Looking towards Earth, through the atmosphere. Just what I have been saying. Try the D4 looking AWAY from Earth, why don't they?


Stop being a prat. You can see that the bloody stars are hardest to discern where they are shining through the bulk of the atmosphere. Less atmosphere = easier to see. Just like the Apollo astronauts saw on the dark side of the moon.
And, no, nobody knows what you're saying. It is idiotic nonsense. What is your equation, formula, whatever, that turns invisible visible light at, say, 450 nm, into visible visible light at, say, 450 nm?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
Try the D4 looking AWAY from Earth, why don't they?


Why would they? Assuming they haven't. They are probably unaware of loons like you who think visible light is invisible. These are scientists. They likely can't imagine such ignorance.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
Electron;
Q (charge) = 1.6 x 10^-19 C.
M (mass) = 9.11 x 10^-31 kg.
Potential difference = 500 000 V.
Ek = QV, so kinetic energy gained = 8.0 x 10^-14 J(oules).
Blah, blah


Your maths are meaningless tripe, has no basis in what is proposed.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
Electron;
Q (charge) = 1.6 x 10^-19 C.
M (mass) = 9.11 x 10^-31 kg.
Potential difference = 500 000 V.
Ek = QV, so kinetic energy gained = 8.0 x 10^-14 J(oules).
Blah, blah


Your maths are meaningless tripe, has no basis in what is proposed.


Really? From somebody who is mathematically illiterate, that is interesting. Do please explain. Where are you getting your charge from? Electrons? I just worked that out, and it is a non-starter. So, what are you proposing? Preferably with the requisite maths. For a helping hand, I'll let you simplify the Sun's output as 4 x 10^26 W. Watts are Joules per second. Shouldn't be difficult. Let's see it.

More word salad coming in 3,2,.................................................................
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
Your maths are meaningless tripe, has no basis in what is proposed.


Only meaningless to mathematical illiterates such as yourself. Show the error. Hint: Juergens used the same formula. I've just been reading his crap. Let's hear it. Come on, woo boy, do some science.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
Maths isn't science, it's maths.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
Maths isn't science, it's maths.


Hahahaha. Woo boy cops out.
Are you saying that Juergens was wrong to use maths to calculate the energy of his electrons? Or that electrons aren't providing the power of the Sun? Show me where the mass, charge and velocity of the electron are either wrong, or irrelevant. You can't. We all know that. Your beliefs come from scientific nonsense spouted by idiots like Scott, who is merely parroting the cornucopia of crap that Juergens wrote. Neither of them amount to anything within the world of real science. Both are/ were clueless. As are you.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
Maths isn't science, it's maths.


If you can't do maths, you can't do science. Certainly physics, And also electrical engineering. If I arm you with equations and ask you to work out the charge in a circuit, what are you going to do? Lick your finger and stick it on the wire? No wonder you have fallen for the Velikoskian tripe of EU.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
The corona is only ioniclly hotter
phys.org> The corona's charged gases. What causes the charged particles and magnetic fields to dance and twist? What makes the corona so much hotter than the solar surface, and what drives the constant outpouring of solar material, the solar wind, to such high speeds.

The corona at 400 times hotter than the photosphere and 10−12 times as dense as the photosphere, produces about one-millionth as much visible light so technically the corona is not as hot as the photosphere. It is only hotter in the temperature of ions in the plasma heated by electromagnetic radiation which is the temperature of the radiation energising the ion.
Electromagnetism can almost theoretically be any temperature depending on its frequency.
But this does not mean the corona has the same heating capacity as the photosphere due to the density invariance.
691Boat
5 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
Well, it makes sense that EU would ignore math. Any of their literature is purely quotes and random conjecture and thoughts on paper. Never any supporting math, never any theoretical work. Plus when you actually do the math for them, it is obviously never in their favor.
Kind of silly to claim it is an electrical circuit, but you aren't allowed to perform circuitry calculations on it.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 18, 2018
Well, it makes sense that EU would ignore math

The strawman brigade keeps 'em coming, seems as if that's all they got.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 18, 2018
Well, it makes sense that EU would ignore math

The strawman brigade keeps 'em coming, seems as if that's all they got.


No, I've shown you 'what we've got'. You are the one who can't deal with it, because you can't do maths. You have nothing. No evidence, no viable scientific hypothesis, and an inability to produce one, due to a maths deficit, and an inability to respond to valid criticism of the woo, due to the same lack of maths ability. How is what you believe different from religion?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 18, 2018
Don't give the Thunderdolts cred, @691; there's no math because they can't do it.
691Boat
5 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
Well, it makes sense that EU would ignore math

The strawman brigade keeps 'em coming, seems as if that's all they got.


Show some actual science and use real math to back your bogus claims. You don't even need to use calculus in the beginning. start with simple algebra, use some simple circuitry equations and show why your theory works as you claim.
Solon
1 / 5 (3) May 18, 2018
jonesdave
"Less atmosphere = easier to see."

Empirical science would show that is untrue in space, you and NASA are both frightened of science by experiment and observation.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 18, 2018
No Birkeland currents mentioned, nor measured.

jonesdumb would prefer to bury his utter ignorance of plasma physics under his steady stream of logical fallacy and childish commentary. The fact of the matter is that the "magnetic flux tube" is more or less synonymous with the Birkeland currents, the biggest difference being that MFT require the pseudoscientific pipe dream of frozen-in fields whereas the BC's require a physical mechanism such as electric currents in plasma.
And you're right jonesdumb, they didn't mention BC's because the authors are plasma ignoramuses that don't even understand basic plasma physics.

"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century."
Alfvén

Such as Birkeland currents...
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
jonesdave
"Less atmosphere = easier to see."

Empirical science would show that is untrue in space, you and NASA are both frightened of science by experiment and observation.


What on Earth are you babbling about? Do you think anyone is mentally deranged enough to even dream up having to do an experiment to prove that visible wavelengths are visible? Nobody is frightened of anything. It is you whose mental imbalance causes you to see things in such a way. Nobody on the planet, other than you, thinks visible wavelengths are invisible. If there are such people, then they need culling from the gene pool.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
No Birkeland currents mentioned, nor measured.

jonesdumb would prefer to bury his utter ignorance of plasma physics under his steady stream of logical fallacy and childish commentary. The fact of the matter is that the "magnetic flux tube" is more or less synonymous with the Birkeland currents, the biggest difference being that MFT require the pseudoscientific pipe dream of frozen-in fields whereas the BC's require a physical mechanism such as electric currents in plasma.
And you're right jonesdumb, they didn't mention BC's because the authors are plasma ignoramuses that don't even understand basic plasma physics.

"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century."
Alfvén

Such as Birkeland currents...


Wrong. You don't know crap about plasma, and neither does anyone in your silly cult. As shown. What was the current?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 18, 2018
Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century."
Alfvén


And of what relevance are the whinings of a long dead scientist, made even longer ago? You seem to forget, woo boy, that the solar wind is constantly monitored. Spacecraft that would detect such currents don't, generally. When they do, you'll hear about it. Ergo, these are not Birkeland currents.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 18, 2018
All any of these Thunderdolts have to do is bring math, but of course once they do that it can be checked and they'll be ripped apart.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
What was the current?

8.4. Alfvenic Motions of the Flux Tubes
"The flux tubes in the solar wind are distinct magnetic entities that move coherently with distinct velocities relative to one another. When crossing from one flux tube to another, there is a change in the vector magnetic field (owed mostly to the orientation of one tube relative to its neighbor) and there is a change in the vector velocity (owing to a bulk motion of one tube relative to its neighbor)."

The Alfvénic waves are the electromagnetic energy being created by the electric currents in the flux tubes which supports the notion these are BC's.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2018
You seem to forget that the solar wind is constantly monitored. Spacecraft that would detect such currents don't, generally. When they do, you'll hear about it.

The author of the paper disagrees with your assertion;
8.5. Future Work
"[67] To fully understand the nature of the solar wind in light of the network of flux tubes, six science tasks must be accomplished: (1) determine the properties of discontinuities in the solar wind, (2) determine the properties of the individual flux tubes, (3) determine the properties of the flux tube network and determine its evolution, (4) learn the origin of the flux tube texture, (5) reanalyze the solar wind turbulence excluding flux tube walls, and (6) assess the impacts of this flux tube texture for heliospheric physics."

They also state;
"The cellularization of the solar wind into distinct magnetized tubes of plasma will have several impacts on solar wind and heliospheric physics."
Sadly this is lost on the plasma ignoramuses.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
Here is a simple visualization of the solar wind flux tubes;
http://bestanimat...NVA.link
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
The Alfvénic waves are the electromagnetic energy being created by the electric currents in the flux tubes which supports the notion these are BC's.


Nope, you just made that up.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 19, 2018

The author of the paper disagrees with your assertion;

"[67] ...... six science tasks must be accomplished: (1) determine the properties of discontinuities in the solar wind, (2) determine the properties of the individual flux tubes, (3) determine the properties of the flux tube network and determine its evolution, (4) learn the origin of the flux tube texture, (5) reanalyze the solar wind turbulence excluding flux tube walls, and (6) assess the impacts of this flux tube texture for heliospheric physics."
They also state;
"The cellularization of the solar wind into distinct magnetized tubes of plasma will have several impacts on solar wind and heliospheric physics.".


And they got their data from ACE. Guess what ACE sees? A quasi-neutral solar wind. It's public access have a look. Pick any mission you like with the capability of monitoring the solar wind. And it is all coming from the Sun. No help for the ES. And the only plasma ignoramus around here is you. As shown.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 19, 2018
Here is a simple visualization of the solar wind flux tubes;
http://bestanimat...NVA.link


Nope, you made that up too. That is a plasma ball, you loon. Here is the simple visualization, from the paper (Fig. 1): https://wol-prod-...0001.png
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
jonesdave
"Less atmosphere = easier to see."

Empirical science would show that is untrue in space, you and NASA are both frightened of science by experiment and observation.


Well here are some 'observations' just from Apollo astronauts
http://onebigmonk...tes.html
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2018
And they got their data from ACE. Guess what ACE sees?

From the paper jonesdumb claimed to have read but clearly doesn't understand;

"Since the solar wind plasma is filled with magnetic flux tubes from the Sun, it is not a large, homogeneous plasmas."
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2018
The Alfvénic waves are the electromagnetic energy being created by the electric currents in the flux tubes which supports the notion these are BC's.

Nope, you just made that up.

And obviously jonesdumb doesn't know what an Alfven wave is, this from the guy who originally proposed them;
"It is of some interest that the hydromagnetic waves can be considered
as an extreme case of electromagnetic waves...The electric field E of the waves causes a displacement current....When matter is present this current
is supplemented by a current in the matter."

There must be currents, the observed flux tubes are in fact Birkeland currents.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 19, 2018
Electromagnetic energy doesn't get created anywhere but in particle reactions, mostly nuclear reactions. No energy is created by Alfven waves. Yep, @cantthink69 just made that up.

What's really amusing is that @cantthink69 seems to have confused magnetospheric and heliospheric phenomena. Apparently it thinks there's no difference between the Sun and Earth.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2018
Here is a simple visualization of the solar wind flux tubes;
http://bestanimat...NVA.link


Nope, you made that up too. That is a plasma ball, you loon. Here is the simple visualization, from the paper...


The Sun is a ball of plasma, and their diagram shows pretty much the same exact thing as the plasma ball animation shows.

It is these very same flux tubes (Birkeland currents) that connect to the Earth and every other planet, comet, possibly every object in the solar system as well.

The sharply defined tube walls indicate double layers/sheaths are pervasive. This in turn requires the plasmas be treated with circuit models and renders MHD inappropriate for these regions as well. It also shows astrophysicists models of solar energy transfer are completely wrong which in turn shows beyond reasonable doubt AGW also completely wrong.

The fact that the SW is a network of BC's is profound on many levels and shows the EU offers a far better explanation.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2018
No energy is created by Alfven waves.

The Strawman Brigade stikes again! Reinterpret what was said so we can show he's wrong. Good job da schnied.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 19, 2018
The fact that the SW is a network of BC's is profound on many levels and shows the EU offers a far better explanation.


Hahahahahaha. You don't have anyone even capable of interpreting plasma physics! Sorry, no Birkeland currents. The clue, you loon, is in the word 'current'. There weren't any. You can't even get your story straight on what is powering the Sun.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 19, 2018
The Sun is a ball of plasma, and their diagram shows pretty much the same exact thing as the plasma ball animation shows.


No, it doesn't. Lol. Talk about scientifically illiterate!

It is these very same flux tubes (Birkeland currents) that connect to the Earth and every other planet, comet, possibly every object in the solar system as well.


No, it isn't. Link please. No Birkeland currents at comets. We might have noticed that. Look up the phrases 'quasi-neutral', and 'Debye length'. No currents.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 19, 2018
The sharply defined tube walls indicate double layers/sheaths are pervasive.


Nope. No double layers in the solar wind. Certainly none seen by any spacecraft that have flown through it. Show me who is saying that there is.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2018
Look up the phrases 'quasi-neutral', and 'Debye length'.

jonesdumb obviously missed this again;

"Since the solar wind plasma is filled with magnetic flux tubes from the Sun, it is not a large, homogeneous plasmas."

jonesdumb is like a four-year-old, hands on his ears, no, no, no,!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
Look up the phrases 'quasi-neutral', and 'Debye length'.

jonesdumb obviously missed this again;

"Since the solar wind plasma is filled with magnetic flux tubes from the Sun, it is not a large, homogeneous plasmas."

jonesdumb is like a four-year-old, hands on his ears, no, no, no,!


Where are these currents, dumbass? Link, now, or shut up with your ignorant, uneducated crap.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2018
Where are these currents, dumbass?

Already shown above, your response was hands on ears screaming, no, no, no!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
Since the solar wind plasma is filled with magnetic flux tubes from the Sun, it is not a large, homogeneous plasmas


So, thicko, go look up the same ACE data that they used and show us the currents, and double layers. Should stick out like a thumb. Do some science, instead of parroting crap that you don't understand.

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 19, 2018
Where are these currents, dumbass?

Already shown above, your response was hands on ears screaming, no, no, no!


No, idiot, you haven't. Show me where this current is measured. Understand? The data is from ACE. Look at the bloody data, you burke. The authors aren't seeing it, I'm not seeing it, nobody has replied to the paper saying they see it. Only you can see it. And you're an idiot. So show us.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2018
From the paper jonesdumb doesn't understand;
8.1. Misconceptions in the Literature About the MHD Turbulence of the Solar Wind
[42] If the flux tube texture of the solar wind is ignored, there are a number of mistakes that can be made about the turbulence of the solar wind. These are the following.
1. It is likely that we have overestimated the amplitude of the turbulence in the solar wind.
2. The measurements that are interpreted as the correlation length of the MHD turbulence of the solar wind may in fact be measurements of the flux tube sizes in the solar wind plasma.
3. Because our estimates of the turbulence amplitudes (point 1) and turbulence correlation lengths (point 2) may be wrong, our estimates of the scattering and transport coefficients for solar wind turbulence may be wrong.

TBC
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 19, 2018
Gish Gallop detected. Birkeland currents come from the magnetosphere down into the ionosphere and back out. These Thunderdolts have been making magic connections to the heliosphere and the solar wind for decades without any confirming evidence. That's why they're Thunderdolts.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 19, 2018
From the paper jonesdumb doesn't understand;


Yes, I do understand it loon. No Birkeland currents seen or mentioned. No currents of any kind. No double layers detected or mentioned. So what are you prattling on about?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2018
Con't
4. Magnetic field‐line wandering calculations might need to be rethought, not only because the coefficients of diffusion may be smaller than thought, but also because field‐line wandering is confined to within the flux tubes.
5. Because our values of the turbulence amplitudes may be overestimated, our calculations of the solar wind heating by the dissipation of the turbulence cascade may also be overestimated.
6. The measures we have of the intermittency of solar wind measurements may not be measurements of the intermittency of the turbulence.
7. In wave number anisotropy measurements of the solar wind turbulence, the perpendicular‐to‐B spectrum of fluctuations may be produced by the walls of flux tubes, not by turbulence with predominantly perpendicular wave numbers.
8. The interpretation of the very‐low‐frequency fluctuations as a spectrum of Alfven waves may be inadequate.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
That's why they're Thunderdolts.


Yep, and not a plasma physicist amongst them. That is why it is always so amusing to see them prattle on about stuff they haven't got a clue about.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2018
And the cherry on the pie, number nine;

9. The assumption that the turbulence of the solar wind is a homogeneous turbulence may be wrong.

Shhh! jonesdumb doesn't get it.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
Con't
4. Magnetic field‐line wandering calculations might need to be rethought, not only because the coefficients of diffusion may be smaller than thought, but also because field‐line wandering is confined to within the flux tubes.
5. Because our values of the turbulence amplitudes may be overestimated, our calculations of the solar wind heating by the dissipation of the turbulence cascade may also be overestimated.
6. The measures we have of the intermittency of solar wind measurements may not be measurements of the intermittency of the turbulence.
7. In wave number anisotropy measurements of the solar wind turbulence, the perpendicular‐to‐B


Yada, yada, yada. And not a mention of currents or double layers. So, go get the data.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
Birkeland currents come from the magnetosphere down into the ionosphere and back out.

da schnied preaching his ignorance once again;
From Alfven;
"This means that it was Dessler who discovered the electric currents which Birkeland had predicted. Dessler called them "Birkeland currents", a term which is now ***generally accepted and sometimes generalized to mean all currents parallel to the magnetic fields***."
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 19, 2018
The assumption that the turbulence of the solar wind is a homogeneous turbulence may be wrong.


WTF are you on about now? What has that got to do with currents and frigging double layers? They aren't there. The paper is based on ***real*** data. Whatever you think it means is irrelevant. You don't even know what a collisionless plasma is. Show us these currents and DLs from MEASURED data.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 19, 2018
Birkeland currents come from the magnetosphere down into the ionosphere and back out.

da schnied preaching his ignorance once again;
From Alfven;
"This means that it was Dessler who discovered the electric currents which Birkeland had predicted. Dessler called them "Birkeland currents", a term which is now ***generally accepted and sometimes generalized to mean all currents parallel to the magnetic fields***."


And there are no currents. Next.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2018
So, go get the data.

The author of the paper has indicated it is yet to be collected;
8.5. Future Work
"[67] To fully understand the nature of the solar wind in light of the network of flux tubes, six science tasks must be accomplished:
(2) determine the properties of the individual flux tubes;
The following properties of the solar wind flux tubes must be discerned: (1) flux tube diameters, (2) flux tube total magnetic flux, (3) the magnetic twist within the flux tubes, (4) the currents carried in the flux tube interiors and within the flux tube walls, (5) the axial plasma flows within the flux tubes, and (6) the flow vorticity within the flux tubes."

Hands on ears, screaming no, no, no!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2018
Let's repeat that;
(4)the currents carried in the flux tube interiors and within the flux tube walls,
(5) the axial plasma flows within the flux tubes, and
(6) the flow vorticity within the flux tubes.

Unlike yourself, this guy understands there must be currents there. There is a confined vortex flow of plasma with and across magnetic fields which will induce EMF. there is no denying these are electric Birkeland currents. They share all the morphology and characteristics of Birkeland current, because the author chose to call them flux tubes doesn't change the facts.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
^^^^And that was 10 years ago. So what has been found? Anything? Still no incoming currents, no? Still no relativistic electrons slamming into the nightside of the planet, no? Or do you want an absolute soup of drift electrons that defy detection? What exactly are you prattling on about? None of this helps the scientifically illiterate nonsense that is the laughable electric sun. Does it? All this is coming **from** the sun. You need a huge current incoming, and not only is it not there, it is impossible.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 19, 2018
Let's repeat that;
(4)the currents carried in the flux tube interiors and within the flux tube walls,
(5) the axial plasma flows within the flux tubes, and
(6) the flow vorticity within the flux tubes.

Unlike yourself, this guy understands there must be currents there. There is a confined vortex flow of plasma with and across magnetic fields which will induce EMF. there is no denying these are electric Birkeland currents. They share all the morphology and characteristics of Birkeland current, because the author chose to call them flux tubes doesn't change the facts.


Nope, not a mention of Birkeland currents in the solar wind before or since.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 19, 2018
Since @cantthink69 lies, there is no point in doing anything but pointing out the lies.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2018
not a mention of Birkeland currents in the solar wind

You're right, they didn't call them Birkeland currents but, as you pointed out the flux tubes are aligned with the Parker spiral. Consequently, these are field aligned tubes. And as it is also pointed out that there is a flow of plasma coursing through the tubes. When these tubes interact with the magnetosphere they impart energy, so they must be electric currents.

So, they are field-aligned electric currents, in other words Birkeland currents. There is no way around it jonesdumb, you are wrong.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 19, 2018
So, cantthink needs to make his mind up about Borovsky and his paper;

And you're right jonesdumb, they didn't mention BC's because the **authors are plasma ignoramuses that don't even understand basic plasma physics.***


Which is a bit rich coming from somebody who hasn't got a clue about it. Followed by:

Unlike yourself, this guy understands there must be currents there.


A bit like the stuff they parrott from Alfven - he cannot be contradicted when it seems he's saying something they agree with, but is dumped like a hot potato for not believing in their electric sun lunacy.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 19, 2018
not a mention of Birkeland currents in the solar wind

You're right, they didn't call them Birkeland currents but, as you pointed out the flux tubes are aligned with the Parker spiral. Consequently, these are field aligned tubes. And as it is also pointed out that there is a flow of plasma coursing through the tubes. When these tubes interact with the magnetosphere they impart energy, so they must be electric currents.

So, they are field-aligned electric currents, in other words Birkeland currents. There is no way around it jonesdumb, you are wrong.


Nope. Please show where these have been described as Birkeland currents by anybody with a degree in plasma physics. Your assessment isn't worth shit, given your lack of knowledge in the area, and the other crap you believe. Simply stating something doesn't make it so. Particularly in a place like this. Get it written up and published. Then you might have something worth discussing. Otherwise it's all just noise.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 19, 2018
Still waiting for the math, @cantthink69.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 19, 2018
And in the meantime, we still haven't been able to figure out how Scott and Juergens are getting the massive light bulb in the sky powered. At least now I know, having read Juergens, where Scott gets his misconception of the make up of the solar wind from - Juergens. He thought it was all + ions. Deary me. No excuses, as it was well known not to be even in 1979. So why is Scott still parroting this loon? Makes you wonder.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2018
Simply stating something doesn't make it so.

I'm not "simply stating" anything, just using the appropriate terminology.
Oddly, when one looks up "flux tube" on wikistupidia it says;
"See Also"-
Birkeland Current
https://en.wikipe...lux_tube

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
At least now I know, having read Juergens, where Scott gets his misconception of the make up of the solar wind from - Juergens. He thought it was all + ions.

The Strawman Brigade strikes again. The logical fallacy is literally all they have.
Well save, hands on ears, screaming no, no, no!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
Still waiting for the math, @cantthink69.

How about your mathematical derivation of your "open field lines"? You show me that magnetic monopole math you have worked out and I will respond in kind.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
Simultaneous acceleration of electrons and ions in solar flares
granville583762> The question is: - what is accelerating electrons and ions

Gamma-rays, neutron and ions and accelerating electrons.
The simultaneous starting times of X rays and γ-ray emission show that electrons and ions accelerated within seconds of each other. The near simultaneous peaking, together with the observation of >400-MeV neutrons, show that the solar flare acceleration process can produce the full intensity and spectrum of electrons (>1 MeV) and ions (>102 MeV) in a time scale of <5 s. These results are in direct contradiction to the widely accepted concept of solar flare particle acceleration https://www.natur...305291a0
Slightly closer as to why electrons and protons travel in the same direction
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 19, 2018
Simultaneous acceleration of electrons and ions in solar flares

'On the acceleration of electrons and positive ions in the same direction along magnetic field lines by parallel electric fields'

https://agupubs.o...09p09777

Note the aforementioned parallel magnetic fields due to the field-aligned Birkeland currents.
jonesdumb's response will be hands over ears, screaming no, no, no!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 19, 2018
I have a strange feeling this last comment will be conveniently ignored. It will be very uncomfortable for jonesdumb to have acknowledged an peer-reviewed rebuttal to his number one claim at Dr. Scott not knowing EM theory. Just goes to show the skewed physics astronomers and astrophysicists learn.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) May 20, 2018
Still no math, @cantthink69. No ticket no laundry.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
Slightly closer as to why electrons and protons travel in the same direction
granville583762> The question is: - what is accelerating electrons and ions

cantdrive85> On the acceleration of electrons and positive ions in the same direction along magnetic field lines by parallel electric fields

When relativistic neutrons depart the plasma they make a beeline out your reactor, centrally as fast as their little legs can carry them.

Electrons in an electric field are directionally and oppositely accelerated to protons but as they are emerging from the Suns plasma from the same centrally located point they are all moving outwards in opposite directions but collectively they are all moving out from the sun from the same central point.

Consequently the end result, results in the electrons and protons all travelling in the same direction!
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 20, 2018
Note the aforementioned parallel magnetic fields due to the field-aligned Birkeland currents.
jonesdumb's response will be hands over ears, screaming no, no, no!


Huh? What am I supposed to comment on? The paper is nothing to do with Birkeland currents. I would suggest reading it. It is to do with turbulence within the magnetosphere. And is 30 years old. I would further suggest looking up 'magnetosphere'. By definition, this cannot be a current, nor does the author claim it to be so, as the ions and electrons are heading in the same direction.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 20, 2018
......claim at Dr. Scott not knowing EM theory.


Scott doesn't. Either that or he doesn't understand the solar wind. Take your pick. Scott quite plainly says, that in his electric field acceleration 'mechanism' for the acceleration of the solar wind, that the electrons do not participate. They drift off down to some imaginary double layer. It is only the + ions that get accelerated. Which is not what is seen, is it? So, which is it that he doesn't understand? EM theory, or the solar wind? Having read Juergens woo, then I suggest it is likely the latter, as he didn't understand it either.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 20, 2018
So, what we have here is Scott writing non-peer reviewed bobbins, about a non-peer reviewed bunch of bobbins from another EE. Neither of whom seem to have the slightest clue about what they're talking about. And one parroting the errors of the other.
Taken the scientific world by storm, has that! Not.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 20, 2018
Simultaneous acceleration of electrons and ions in solar flares
granville583762> The question is: - what is accelerating electrons and ions

Gamma-rays, neutron and ions and accelerating electrons.
The simultaneous starting times of X rays and γ-ray emission show that electrons and ions accelerated within seconds of each other. The near simultaneous peaking, together with the observation of >400-MeV neutrons, show that the solar flare acceleration process can produce the full intensity and spectrum of electrons (>1 MeV) and ions (>102 MeV) in a time scale of <5 s. These results are in direct contradiction to the widely accepted concept of solar flare particle acceleration https://www.natur...305291a0
Slightly closer as to why electrons and protons travel in the same direction


Maybe, maybe not. That paper is from 1983. If you really want to know, check out the citations to the paper, and concentrate on more recent ones.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 20, 2018
The question is: - what is accelerating electrons and ions


Well, that would almost certainly be magnetic reconnection. In which case, why would there be any significant delay between detection of electrons and protons?
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 20, 2018
So, let's get back to Scott's bizarre misunderstandings of the solar wind, and why he would be stupid enough to suggest an electric field as the mechanism for accelerating the solar wind. Well, as mentioned, it all comes down to Juergens' equally bizarre misinterpretation. Both of the scientific nobodys make the same schoolboy error. To quote from Juergens woo:

At the center of this electrical "flaw" is a rather ordinary star, which is induced to absorb great quantities of electrons and spew forth in all directions protons, positive ions, and electromagnetic radiations of every kind.


See, there we go again. Thinks the solar wind is protons and + ions. Nutjob.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) May 20, 2018
And more from the loon Juergens:

Instruments carried into space have shown that there is a "solar wind" of protons and other positive ions blowing outward continuously from the Sun. Thus we must assume that the total discharge current is carried by particles of opposite charge moving in opposite directions — electrons toward the Sun, and protons away from the Sun.


This idiotic misunderstanding is what the core beliefs of the non-science 'electric universe' is built upon! Some dolt of an EE who wouldn't know the difference between the solar wind and the Sirocco! And hasn't even taken the time to find out. Has just sat down, and started scribbling his nonsense, from whence it ended up in a Velikovskian rag after his death.
The intellectual abilities of EU 'science' summed up precisely. Fail to understand, make a mistake, and then spend decades lying and obfuscating trying to cover up that mistake. Sad thing is, some people believe this crap.
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
What is velocity of an electron in the same electric field as a proton?
The force on the electron and proton is proportional to the field and their mass. Is this borne out in the accelerating forces on the two masses in their relative velocities in the solar wind?
Electric fields are not the only forces on the electron and proton as there appears to be neutrons and gamma-rays involved.
The most consistant of accelerative forces is the electric field, where the magnetic fields appear to turn linear momentum into angular momentum, not having any impact on velocity.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
It is to do with turbulence within the magnetosphere. And is 30 years old. I would further suggest looking up 'magnetosphere'.

As it states, it's parallel electric fields accelerating the particles. No pseudoscientific claptrap of MRx or whatever other faerie tales you'd like to believe. Given the observations of the flux tubes (not Birkeland currents according to jonesdumb regardless of the fact) the presence of the field-aligned electric fields can be expected.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 20, 2018
It is to do with turbulence within the magnetosphere. And is 30 years old. I would further suggest looking up 'magnetosphere'.

As it states, it's parallel electric fields accelerating the particles. No pseudoscientific claptrap of MRx or whatever other faerie tales you'd like to believe. Given the observations of the flux tubes (not Birkeland currents according to jonesdumb regardless of the fact) the presence of the field-aligned electric fields can be expected.


No, they can't and nobody has said they could. Only you. And you don't count. And MRx is observed both in the lab and in-situ. It is a slam dunk. And I would seriously suggest reading that 1988 Hultqvist paper. It isn't saying what you think it's saying. Whatever that is.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 20, 2018
The force on the electron and proton is proportional to the field and their mass. Is this borne out in the accelerating forces on the two masses in their relative velocities in the solar wind?


Nope. As you rightly say, acceleration is inversely related to mass. Therefore the electron will have a higher acceleration. And will go in the opposite direction. Neither of which scenarios remotely resemble the solar wind. You are asking the very questions that Scott and Juergens failed to ask back in the day, which has led us to this 'electric sun' idiocy.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
And I would seriously suggest reading that 1988 Hultqvist paper. It isn't saying what you think it's saying. Whatever that is.

Right, so this paper that is titled;

'On the acceleration of electrons and positive ions in the same direction along magnetic field lines by parallel electric fields'

Is about unicorns and leprechauns? Of course it is. It's isn't about;

'On the acceleration of electrons and positive ions in the same direction along magnetic field lines by parallel electric fields'

My prediction of jonesdumb response of hands on ears, screaming no, no, no! is obviously correct.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
And MRx is observed both in the lab and in-situ. It is a slam dunk.

The explosive events the plasma ignoramuses call MRx most certainly does occur, but the pseudoscientific claptrap they believe obviously cannot happen due to the fact it is pseudoscientific claptrap. Not surprisingly you believe the faerie tales religiously.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 20, 2018
And I would seriously suggest reading that 1988 Hultqvist paper. It isn't saying what you think it's saying. Whatever that is.

Right, so this paper that is titled;
yada, yada, yada.......


And..................what the hell does it have to do with the price of fish? I fail to see the relevance. And it is a little cited paper from 30 years ago. I would suggest looking for something a bit more recent, if you want to understand what is happening in the magnetosphere (not the solar wind).
Try getting your head around the abstract of another old (but more recent) paper, here:

Field-aligned electron beams observed simultaneously with upflowing ion beams in the auroral acceleration region
Yoshioka, R. et al. (2000)
https://agupubs.o...JA900486
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 20, 2018
And MRx is observed both in the lab and in-situ. It is a slam dunk.

The explosive events the plasma ignoramuses call MRx most certainly does occur, but the pseudoscientific claptrap they believe obviously cannot happen due to the fact it is pseudoscientific claptrap. Not surprisingly you believe the faerie tales religiously.


Oh, very scientific. Says who? You? Lol. Scott? Wouldn't know astrophysical plasma from blood plasma. Write it up woo boys. Are you surprised everybody treats you with contempt? All talk, no trousers. Hiding behind comments sections like this, woo sites like Dunderdolts, etc, to criticise real scientists. Haven't got the cojones (nor the qualifications) to actually go into print (or attend a conference) and confront them head on. Know why? Because they bloody well know that they are peddling fantasies to idiots like you. They have no interest in being judged scientifically. In fact, it is the last thing they want.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
Field-aligned electron beams observed simultaneously with upflowing ion beams in the auroral acceleration region
Yoshioka, R. et al. (2000)

LOL, jonesdumb points to a paper that supports the contention that electrons and ions accelerated upward while a different population of electrons are directed downward. So there are known physics that describe what jonesdumb says is impossible, and he linked the paper! Yet he still responds;
Hands on ears, screaming no, no, no!
ROTFLMAO!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
Field-aligned electron beams observed simultaneously with upflowing ion beams in the auroral acceleration region
Yoshioka, R. et al. (2000)

LOL, jonesdumb points to a paper that supports the contention that electrons and ions accelerated upward while a different population of electrons are directed downward. So there are known physics that describe what jonesdumb says is impossible, and he linked the paper! Yet he still responds;
Hands on ears, screaming no, no, no!
ROTFLMAO!


And.....................? What is your point, you loon? What is the relevance of this? It has nothing to do with frigging Birkeland currents. This is the magnetosphere. Between the ionosphere and the auroral region. Yoshioka et al point out what is likely happening. What about it don't you understand? (rhetorical).
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 20, 2018
^^^^^If your point is that this saves Scott in some way, then spell out how the Hultqvist and Yoshioka papers relate what is happening in the Earth's magnetosphere to what is happening in the close regions of the Sun. If that isn't your point, then I'm buggered if I can figure out what you are prattling on about.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
If your point is that this saves Scott in some way,

Per the papers, your simplistic POV that electrons and ions cannot be accelerated similarly is false. Known physics accepted by the mainstream shows this to be possible. And ironically you posted the paper that proved you wrong.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 20, 2018
If your point is that this saves Scott in some way,

Per the papers, your simplistic POV that electrons and ions cannot be accelerated similarly is false. And ironically you posted the paper that proved you wrong.


No, I didn't, you loon. If you read the paper, you would know that. I realise it's a bit complicated, but you'll find that the mechanisms for the accelerations are not something as naive and simplistic as you want to believe (or is within your capability to understand). The beams are accelerated by different mechanisms. It's plain enough. Read it. And this is a situation that is peculiar to the magnetosphere region in which it is seen. This is not the same as trying to explain the fast solar wind by sticking a bunch of + ions into an electric field. Scott tells us what happens to the electrons in that scenario - they don't participate. Ergo, he's stupid. As shown.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) May 20, 2018
As shown, electrons and ions accelerated similarly, but jonesdumb thinks this is only applicable to Earth. Once again the Earth is the center of the Universe and experiences "special" physics not possible elsewhere in the Universe. Never mind the fact that parallel electric fields are pervasive in plasmas, especially current carrying plasmas.
And predictably, jonesdumb responds with hands on ears, screaming no, no, no!
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
As shown, electrons and ions accelerated similarly, but jonesdumb thinks this is only applicable to Earth. Once again the Earth is the center of the Universe and experiences "special" physics not possible elsewhere in the Universe. Never mind the fact that parallel electric fields are pervasive in plasmas, especially current carrying plasmas.
And predictably, jonesdumb responds with hands on ears, screaming no, no, no!


Non-answer, dumbo. Scott has told us his mechanism. And what happens to the electrons. This is not what he is suggesting. He doesn't appear to realise that there are equal numbers of electrons (or, indeed, any) in the solar wind. Neither did the loon Juergens. I can copy/ paste their drivel again, if you'd like.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
As shown, electrons and ions accelerated similarly, but jonesdumb thinks this is only applicable to Earth


So show us a situation at the Sun where this would occur. Don't forget, Scott has no electrons in the solar wind at the Sun. Lol.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
I realise it's a bit complicated, but you'll find that the mechanisms for the accelerations are not something as naive and simplistic as you want to believe


"The difference in potential drop above is responsible for dividing upflowing electron beams into upgoing and counterstreaming electron beams. Since the counterstreaming electron beams result from reflection on the same field line by the potential drop above, the upward and downward components are alike..."

Hmmmm, definitely too complex for your brain cell and the other plasma ignoramuses but a potential drop is pretty much what should be expected being we are discussing electric particles/plasma processes.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
Don't forget, Scott has no electrons in the solar wind at the Sun. Lol.

Another attempt at diversion by the Strawman Brigade. jonesdumb need resort to lies to "prove" his point.

So show us a situation at the Sun where this would occur.

Parallel electric fields, just as with the Earth.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 20, 2018
Another attempt at diversion by the Strawman Brigade. jonesdumb need resort to lies to "prove" his point.


Really? Want me to quote the loon?

Parallel electric fields, just as with the Earth.


What parallel electric fields? And where does Scott mention them, and use them to suggest that is how electrons are also accelerated? Don't forget, he's already told us what happens to the electrons - there aren't any - 'they don't participate'. Go.

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
What parallel electric fields? And where does Scott mention them, and use them to suggest that is how electrons are also accelerated?

He is describing the Sun and the primary circuit, not every aspect possible. Clearly the observed Birkeland currents (flux tubes) fits nicely in the model as one of the foundational elements of the theory is the scalability of plasma processes and these phenomena will be present at all scales. Including emanating from the solar surface as is described above.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) May 20, 2018
@pseudoscience idiot eu acolyte
The explosive events the plasma ignoramuses call MRx most certainly does occur, but the pseudoscientific claptrap they believe obviously cannot happen due to the fact it is pseudoscientific claptrap. Not surprisingly you believe the faerie tales religiously.
the problem with your comment is:
science can back up it's claims with evidence

you cannot

you have no explanation for the MRx that can be replicated, validated and replaces the current MRx evidence

more importantly, you have absolutely nothing testable that can be validated by any reputable source (linking to youtube or similar idiot thunderdolty sites is not validation - see: https://en.wikipe...c_method )

so when you make a claim that [x] is true because you interpret the data as [y], then you have just demonstrated why pseudoscience is not the same thing as science
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2018
At the center of this electrical "flaw" is a rather ordinary star, which is induced to absorb great quantities of electrons and spew forth in all directions protons, positive ions, and electromagnetic radiations of every kind.
See, there we go again. Thinks the solar wind is protons and + ions. Nutjob.
Worse yet, if that sentence is correct they have no understanding of electric charges. How can you put a bunch of electrons in and get a bunch of protons and positively charged ions out? #physicscrankscantcount. I don't guess any of these woo merchants ever heard of conservation of electric charge.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2018
Let's look this over. Electric fields can be net positive, or net negative. No matter which they are, they will accelerate electrons and protons in opposite directions. The ions are positive, so they'll go in the same direction as the protons. That being the case, if the protons and ions are all moving away from the Sun, if it's due to an electrical field, then the electrons are all moving *toward* the Sun. Only problem is they're not, according to satellite measurements; the electrons are moving the same direction as the protons and ions.

Therefore what's moving them is not an electrical field. Q.E.D.

Next up is gravity. Gravity will attract all of the ions and protons and electrons toward the Sun. They're all moving away. So it's not gravity. Q.E.D.

Color force? No. Color charges are confined. It's not the color force. Q.E.D.
[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2018
[contd]
Weak force? No. It's not strong enough. It scales between 10^-4 and 10^-7 between the quark and nucleon distance scales compared to the electromagnetic force. It's not the weak force. Q.E.D.

Only one thing left: heat. Heat will move the electrons and protons in the same direction; it doesn't respond to their electric charges. Can heat move them? Of course it can; P = nRT/V, so the pressure varies directly as the number of particles times the temperature, and inversely as the volume. It is the pressure created by the heat that moves them all. Q.E.D.

Various other details get involved; the Sun is huge, so there's lots of room for EM effects over wide areas. Sunspots, for example, come in both positive and negative varieties:
Sunspots usually appear in pairs of opposite magnetic polarity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot

So what now, Thunderdolts?
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2018
And still no math, @cantcount86.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
@da schnied
No matter which they are, they will accelerate electrons and protons in opposite directions.

Obviously da schnied missed the paper I linked a few posts back;

'On the acceleration of electrons and positive ions in the same direction along magnetic field lines by parallel electric fields'

Which kinda flies in the face of this comment;
No matter which they are, they will accelerate electrons and protons in opposite directions

Yes and no. Except in the case of the field-aligned electric fields as linked above. QED XYZ PDQ
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
Obviously @cantcount86 doesn't understand there's no magic paper that claims electrons and protons get accelerated the same direction by the same electric field. Or that the combination of electric fields in opposite directions is the superposition of the fields.

Basic EE. @cantcount86 #basicphysicsfail.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 20, 2018
The superposition theorem is basic to the proofs of Thevenin's and Norton's Theorems, and to Kirchoff's Voltage and Current Laws. These are basic principles of EE that are ultimately based on conservation of charge. As implied by their names, these are mathematical principles of EE that are never observed to be violated in any experiment.

These theorems and laws are used in circuit analysis taught in first-year EE curricula everywhere in the world. If you don't know them and their proofs you are no EE of any kind.

This is why they never show math.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
Obviously @cantcount86 doesn't understand there's no magic paper that claims electrons and protons get accelerated the same direction by the same electric field.

Amusing, da schnied is incapable of clicking on a link to see the actual paper;

'On the acceleration of electrons and positive ions in the same direction along magnetic field lines by parallel electric fields'
https://agupubs.o...09p09777

These are mainstream papers which contradict your willfully ignorant rant. Neither is describing magic, just observed phenomena.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
Maybe something a little more recent than 1988.

You know, considering as how we've had a lot of satellite missions since then.

On Earth.

And of course there's also that inconvenient paper by Yoshioka et al.

And the inconvenient fact you've confused the magnetosphere with the solar wind.

Idiot.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
Maybe something a little more recent than 1988.

You know, considering as how we've had a lot of satellite missions since then.

On Earth.

And of course there's also that inconvenient paper by Yoshioka et al.

And the inconvenient fact you've confused the magnetosphere with the solar wind.

Idiot.

@da schnied says;
Obviously @cantcount86 doesn't understand there's no magic paper that claims electrons and protons get accelerated the same direction by the same electric field.

I point to papers that show otherwise and he changes the subject again.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 20, 2018
Your paper doesn't claim that electrons and protons are accelerated in the same direction by the same electric field.

You're lying again, @cantcount86.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 20, 2018
It's another hit by the Strawman Brigade with a side of red-herring. All that was ever mentioned was there were electrons and ions being accelerated from the same region at about the same energies.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2018
Then it doesn't support your claim that electrons and protons can be accelerated in the same direction at the same time by the same field. And therefore by presenting it in your claim you are lying, just as I said.

@cantcount86 is a liar. Either way.
Captain Stumpy
3.4 / 5 (5) May 21, 2018
I point to papers that show otherwise and he changes the subject again.
@pseudoscience eu acolyte idiot
so... where, exactly, does it state in your "linked paper" that "electrons and protons get accelerated the same direction by the same electric field."

you quoted that above, but you claim your paper explains it

Where?

more to the point, you state
Neither is describing magic, just observed phenomena
so you can copy and paste the specific data that shows observed "electrons and protons ...accelerated the same direction by the same electric field"

it shouldn't be hard if you know what the f*ck you're talking about - h*ll, even if you don't know anything you should still be able to find that data in the linked paper!

.

so... post it and copy/paste the requisite data so we can validate the claim you made

or be proven a liar

again
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) May 21, 2018
Together but femto distances apart
granville583762> What is velocity of an electron in the same electric field as a proton?
The force on the electron and proton is proportional to the field and their mass. Is this borne out in the accelerating forces on the two masses in their relative velocities in the solar wind?
Electric fields are not the only forces on the electron and proton as there appears to be neutrons and gamma-rays involved.
The most consistent of accelerative forces is the electric field, where the magnetic fields appear to turn linear momentum into angular momentum, not having any impact on velocity.

In the solar wind magnetic fields impart angular momentum to the electron in opposition to its counterpart the proton, two counter rotating particles at differing velocities in the same linear direction. As well as their velocities keeping them apart, there opposite centrifugal spriraling forces are also keeping them apart.
jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (7) May 21, 2018
What parallel electric fields? And where does Scott mention them, and use them to suggest that is how electrons are also accelerated?

He is describing the Sun and the primary circuit, not every aspect possible. Clearly the observed Birkeland currents (flux tubes) fits nicely in the model as one of the foundational elements of the theory is the scalability of plasma processes and these phenomena will be present at all scales. Including emanating from the solar surface as is described above.


Wrong. He doesn't realise that the solar wind is a quasi-neutral mix of + ions and electrons heading in the same direction at the same speed. It is trivial to quote both him and the loon Juergens both making this mistake. It is from this fundamental error (schoolboy mistake) upon which the whole of the 'electric sun' crap is based. Two EEs who don't understand the very basics of the solar wind. And nutters like you have fallen for this garbage.
jonesdave
3.5 / 5 (8) May 21, 2018
At the center of this electrical "flaw" is a rather ordinary star, which is induced to absorb great quantities of electrons and spew forth in all directions protons, positive ions, and electromagnetic radiations of every kind.
See, there we go again. Thinks the solar wind is protons and + ions. Nutjob.
Worse yet, if that sentence is correct they have no understanding of electric charges. How can you put a bunch of electrons in and get a bunch of protons and positively charged ions out? #physicscrankscantcount. I don't guess any of these woo merchants ever heard of conservation of electric charge.


Worse still, I've seen an actual physicist do a calculation for this, and it indicates that under this scenario the Sun would build up such a negative charge that it would blow up in next to no time. The whole thing is pure woo, dreamed up by people who seriously haven't got a clue.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 21, 2018
He doesn't realise that the solar wind is a quasi-neutral mix of + ions and electrons heading in the same direction at the same speed

The Strawman Brigade strikes again!
I've seen an actual physicist do a calculation for this, and it indicates that under this scenario the Sun would build up such a negative charge that it would blow up in next to no time.

That's what you get when a plasma ignoramus starts playing with maths that are irrelevant to the phenomena.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 21, 2018
The Strawman Brigade strikes again!


Really? Want me to quote Juergens and Scott. Again? How many times before you realise that they're clueless?

That's what you get when a plasma ignoramus starts playing with maths that are irrelevant to the phenomena.


Nope, it's what you get when people actually understand the laws that apply to EM. As opposed to unqualified ignoramuses such as the EU cult. None of whom appear to have a clue about either plasma physics or astrophysics. That is why their idiotic woo only exists on crank websites and youtube. And that is why the only people that are taken in by this con are those at least as ignorant as those selling it.

jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 21, 2018
Some more pearls of wisdom from Juergens, which Scott bought into hook, line and sinker:

Instruments carried into space have shown that there is a "solar wind" of protons and other positive ions blowing outward continuously from the Sun. Thus we must assume that the total discharge current is carried by particles of opposite charge moving in opposite directions — electrons toward the Sun, and protons away from the Sun.


Seems pretty explicit to me.

https://www.krono...ic-i.htm
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 21, 2018
And further from the non-event EE that was Juergens:

As already indicated, an implicit assumption of the solar-discharge hypothesis is that galactic electrons flow toward the Sun in a stream moving counter to that of the solar protons. This is clearly incompatible with Parker's hypothesis (20) — the source of the term "solar wind". In his view, which is widely accepted, solar plasma comprising both protons and electrons moves outward in an unending stream from the Sun. Up to now, however, with Parker's assumption implicit in their design, most deep-space probes have sampled only the proton flux, and the drift of electrons has been assumed to correspond to the drift of positive ions.


This is the lunacy repeated by Scott. In Juergens day (1972) he may not have had access to the mountains of data we now have. Scott cannot make the same excuse. Still a dumb idea, though, even in 1972.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 21, 2018
A quick google of "solar wind electron measurements" shows that they've been made. It's not a hypothesis; it's a measured fact. Pioneer made them in the bow shock of Venus, Giotto made them while investigating Halley's Comet, Mariner and Viking measured them around Mars, and SOHO's made them in solar orbit.

So when people start claiming "it's never been measured," the only question is whether they're insane, incredibly ignorant, or lying.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (4) May 21, 2018
The Strawman Brigade strikes again!
@lyingPOS can'tprovehisargumentwhithhisownlink

so... that's a no then?

you can't produce the quote or the observations in your own linked paper that proves "electrons and protons get accelerated the same direction by the same electric field."???

*well then. that settles you on that score: you're a liar and pseudoscientific idiot troll

That's what you get when an eu plasma ignoramus starts playing with observations and scientific papers that are proving they're irrelevant to the conversation and ignorant of physics phenomena.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 21, 2018
A quick google of "solar wind electron measurements" shows that they've been made. It's not a hypothesis; it's a measured fact. Pioneer made them in the bow shock of Venus, Giotto made them while investigating Halley's Comet, Mariner and Viking measured them around Mars, and SOHO's made them in solar orbit.

So when people start claiming "it's never been measured," the only question is whether they're insane, incredibly ignorant, or lying.


There was pretty conclusive evidence, even in Juergens day. Unfortunately this paper is paywalled, from 1968, but includes a figure showing proton and electron density measured by the Vela-4 satellite:
https://agupubs.o...15p04999

The figure is here:
http://www.imageb...69520814

Hopefully I won't get done for copyright infringement for posting a figure from a 50 year old paper!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) May 21, 2018
Per the solar electrons (solar wind) vs the galactic electrons (return current);

"The phenomenon known as the 'plasma frequency' is caused by the free electrons' tendency to lurk and oscillate around the neighborhood of positive ions. The fact that many electrons hover around the vicinity of these accelerating ions is not a contradiction of the ES hypothesis. Only a meager fraction of these electrons are needed to power (to drift toward) the Sun. The accelerating ions are (one of many) currents that are part of a circuit. The electrons are also part of that circuit (driven by circuit potentials, not a 'central pith ball' electrostatic potential). These currents will be 'pinched' into filaments, sheets and heterogeneous paths."
Note, the 'pinched' filaments have been detected as flux tubes. The field-aligned electric fields are known to be present.
Once again it needs to be pointed out, your assumptions are meaningless tripe as you are applying the incorrect physics.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) May 21, 2018
Note, the 'pinched' filaments have been detected as flux tubes. The field-aligned electric fields are known to be present.
Once again it needs to be pointed out, your assumptions are meaningless tripe as you are applying the incorrect physics.

There are no 'pinched filaments', idiot. There are electron and ions heading FROM the Sun, outward. There are no electrons from galactic frigging space heading inward. As measured. What you wrote is total word salad, and would never have been written by anybody with a clue what they're talking about.
Take this crap, for instance:
The fact that many electrons hover around the vicinity of these accelerating ions is not a contradiction of the ES hypothesis. Only a meager fraction of these electrons are needed to power (to drift toward) the Sun.


No, one electron is present for every proton. There will be slightly more electrons, as there are some multiply ionised ions. And what 'meager fraction'? Do some maths.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 21, 2018
@cantthink

Come on Wal we know it's you!


It is scientifically illiterate enough to be him! Or Scott. The idiots still cannot tell us how these electrons are getting from who knows the **** where, to the Sun. Battling against an outgoing flow of electrons and ions, not to mention an outflowing magnetic field. Only loons would suggest such nonsense. And only loons would believe it.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 21, 2018
........driven by circuit potentials, not a 'central pith ball' electrostatic potential....


More idiotic nonsense. What 'potential'? Where has it been measured? The EU loons believe the Sun is positively charged. So, which way should the electrons go? Not difficult.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 21, 2018
And then, of course, we have the loon Scott, in an attempt to explain the neutrino flux, putting nuclear fusion in the bloody chromosphere! Death to all from gamma rays! More incredible ignorance.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 21, 2018
And what 'meager fraction'? Do some maths.

1 in 20,000, as already stated.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) May 21, 2018
And what 'meager fraction'? Do some maths.


Ok, expecting an answer to this was obviously a forlorn hope.
We can work out their 'meagre fraction' with some simple assumptions; the Sun outputs 3.8 x 10^26 J/s. Therefore, there must be at least this amount of energy incoming. Further up, I worked out the energy of an electron if it were 'drifting' at 1 m/s. This was ~ 5.0 x 10^-31 J. So, some simple maths tells us that the Sun requires ~ 6 x 10^7 J/m^2/s. How many electrons at the above energy needed? About 10^38 m^2. What would this mean at 1 AU? Well, a sphere of 1 AU radius is ~ 45 000 times the surface area of the Sun. So we can divide our answer by that. Which gives ~ 2.5 x 10^33 electrons per m^2/s. As they are moving at 1 m/s, this means the density is also that number. That is ~ 27 kg of electrons per m^3! What is the measured density of the solar wind? ~ 5 x 10^6 electrons per m^3. The flux, at 400 km/s = 2 x 10^12 electrons m^2/s.
What's not to believe! :)
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 21, 2018
And what 'meager fraction'? Do some maths.

1 in 20,000, as already stated.


Rubbish. 1/20 000th of what, exactly? Let's see the maths as to how this provides the requisite energy for the Sun.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 21, 2018
1:20000 is so far short of this it's like a sand grain on a beach. #physicscrankscantcount.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 21, 2018
Rubbish. 1/20 000th of what, exactly? Let's see the maths as to how this provides the requisite energy for the Sun.


Never mind. Found it. This is Scott's complete cock-up in understanding Voyager data from the heliopause. I think Tom Bridgman dealt with it more than adequately here:

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/electric-universe-fantasies-heliopause.html

In short, Scott makes ridiculous assumptions. The biggest problem he has is that these electrons (still nowhere near enough to power a star) are getting nowhere near the Sun. If we measure them out there, why don't we measure them where they need to be? He says they're drift electrons! Why? We'd still detect them. Despite wanting drift electrons (presumably in stealth mode), he reduces Juergens' potential drop to a mere 500 000 V! Which would not make the electrons drift. They would be damn near relativistic. Nonsense from start to finish.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) May 21, 2018
@jonesdave and @cantdrive85.

Neither of you have the full grasp of all that is happening re the solar products/charge etc status/dynamics.

This situation is obvious from the fact neither of you have considered/treated the particle-pair production (of BOTH Electrons and Positrons) due to high-energy gamma-ray 'flux' effects in/on sun EM processes!

Eg: the sun's 'charge' is NOT a 'static' Positive OR Negative, but a dynamically/regionally fluxing situation depending on how many POSITRONS are 'retained/redirected back' by the sun's magnetic fields.

Anyway, you both have 'one-eyed' SIMPLISTIC view of it all, and hence are BOTH 'partially wrong/right' in one particular ASPECT or another, but not in ALL aspects involved overall.

Try to drop your personal 'one-eyed' FEUDING; and apply your time and energy towards learning the fuller picture; then recognizing/connecting the MANY 'dots' involved in all complex/hybrid plasma phenomena at all scales.

Good luck to you both. :)
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 21, 2018
1:20000 is so far short of this it's like a sand grain on a beach.

Forgot the addendum on the last page, 1:40000 of observed extra-solar electrons detected at the heliopause is adequate.

http://electric-c...2013.pdf
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 21, 2018
@jonesdave and @cantdrive85.

Neither of you have the full grasp of all that is happening re the solar products/charge etc status/dynamics.

This situation is obvious from the fact neither of you have considered/treated the particle-pair production (of BOTH Electrons and Positrons) due to high-energy gamma-ray 'flux' effects in/on sun EM processes!

Eg: the sun's 'charge' is NOT a 'static' Positive OR Negative, but a dynamically/regionally fluxing situation depending on how many POSITRONS are 'retained/redirected back' by the sun's magnetic fields.

Anyway, you both have 'one-eyed' SIMPLISTIC view of it all, and hence are BOTH 'partially wrong/right' in one particular ASPECT or another, but not in ALL aspects involved overall.

Try to drop your personal 'one-eyed' FEUDING; and apply your time and energy towards learning the fuller picture; then recognizing/connecting the MANY 'dots' involved in all complex/hybrid plasma phenomena at all scales.


Total crap.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 21, 2018
1:20000 is so far short of this it's like a sand grain on a beach.

Forgot the addendum on the last page, 1:40000 of observed extra-solar electrons detected at the heliopause is adequate.

http://electric-c...2013.pdf


Nope. Nowhere near enough, and they aren't powering anything out there, are they? You need them flowing in towards the Sun at, say, 1 AU, where the SW is monitored continuously. They ain't there. And Scott's maths is crap. There is a very simple way of working out how many electrons you need. I did it for you. If you don't like 1 m/s, substitute another number. It is irrelevant. There are no incoming electrons.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 21, 2018
By the way, the required number of drift electrons I calculated (2 x 10^33 m^3) is about 8 orders of magnitude more electrons per cubic metre that there are air molecules in a cubic metre at sea level! Lol.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 21, 2018
Here is EU obfuscation and scientific illiteracy at its most obvious:
From the Scott woo that cantthink just linked to:

Voyager has detected a 100-fold increase in the intensity of high-energy electrons entering our solar system from elsewhere in the galaxy. The original estimate was 100,000 free electrons per cubic m. Thus the updated figure is ~10^-7 /m^3.


So, where does this initial estimate come from? Juergens. So Scott idiotically sees a 100 fold increase in high energy electrons (which are travelling omni-directionally) and uses this to multiply Juergens figure by!
There was a 2013 paper that gave the interstellar electron density:
'In Situ Observations of Interstellar Plasma with Voyager 1'
http://science.sc...153/1489

It was 0.08 per cm^3. Which is 80 000 per m^3. Not 10 frigging million, as Scott claims. And they aren't reaching the Sun.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 21, 2018
BTW, here are those drifting electrons jonesdumb cannot find. Note the three populations of electrons, two populations outward, one population sunward.
https://www.googl...THGPGoEq
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 21, 2018
And to expand a little on the previous; this is the interstellar value. So what is the density in the outer heliopause? About 2000 m^3. This is the area that Scott claims was 10^7 m^3! Which shows that the interstellar electrons aren't making much headway into the solar system. As expected. Only the highest energy ones will. Scott also cocks up by assigning a speed of 10^5 m/s for interstellar electrons. Well, the electrons in the outer heliosphere are practically stationary. He really doesn't understand this stuff, and suffers from the same fault as Thornhill - he never reads papers, only press releases.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 21, 2018
BTW, here are those drifting electrons jonesdumb cannot find. Note the three populations of electrons, two populations outward, one population sunward.
https://www.googl...THGPGoEq


I don't even need to read that to know that it is irrelevant. They will not find 2.5 x 10^33 electrons m^3! Lol.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 21, 2018
By the way, the required number of drift electrons I calculated

Whoa sport, that's your problem right there.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 21, 2018
By the way, the required number of drift electrons I calculated

Whoa sport, that's your problem right there.


What is? Check the maths dumbo.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 21, 2018
I don't even need to read that to know that it is irrelevant.

The Clairvoyant 'Scientist'. A modern soothsayer.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 21, 2018
I don't even need to read that to know that it is irrelevant.

The Clairvoyant 'Scientist'. A modern soothsayer.


Because the electron density you need isn't there. Not rocket science. And you've totally misunderstood the paper, anyway. You just Googled 'electron drift' or some such, and linked to the paper. Yet again, it isn't saying what you think it's saying.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 22, 2018
BTW, here are those drifting electrons jonesdumb cannot find. Note the three populations of electrons, two populations outward, one population sunward.
https://www.googl...THGPGoEq


Just to explain this drifting business - the drift is taken from the solar wind's frame of reference. That is based upon the ion flow. In respect to that, the core electrons are drifting sunward as seen from the protons' point of view. That does not men they are heading back to the Sun, from whence they came! It is the equivalent of taking a frame of reference from a motor vehicle leading a race on a long straight road, and observing the car behind dropping back as it goes at 30 km/h slower. From the point of view of the lead car it is drifting away from it in the direction of the start line. It is still heading away from the start line, however.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) May 22, 2018
Because the electron density you need isn't there.

Your calculations are meaningless and irrelevant. The electrons in question are the "core" electrons;

"Significant field aligned electron HF arises from the anisotropy in the electron velocity distribution function (eVDF), which is often modeled as a superposition of three gyrotropic populations: a cool dense 'core', a hotter tenuous 'halo' [17], and a beam-like field-aligned 'strahl' [18]. In the solar wind frame the core electrons drift sunward along the background magnetic field line, whereas the suprathermal (halo and strahl) electrons drift anti-sunward."

And there are your electrons you said didn't exist. Your argument is falling apart in front of your eyes.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 22, 2018
And there are your electrons you said didn't exist. Your argument is falling apart in front of your eyes.


Wrong idiot. Your inability to understand even basic science is what gives you that illusion. How many electrons needed to power the Sun. Come on, woo boy, tell us. Do the maths. How many observed coming in? None. Not difficult, is it?

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 22, 2018
Your calculations are meaningless and irrelevant.


Translation: "I don't understand maths, and I don't understand physics. Therefore it may well be right (it is), but how the hell would I know? I just believe stuff that loons like Scott tell me."
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 22, 2018
.......the core electrons drift sunward along the background magnetic field line,.....


And which bloody way do you think the magnetic field line is going? Hint: the IMF is dragged along by the solar wind. And that is heading outwards.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 22, 2018
@jonesdumb
Just to explain this drifting business - the drift is taken from the solar wind's frame of reference. That is based upon the ion flow. In respect to that, the core electrons are drifting sunward as seen from the protons' point of view.

LOL! These are plasma circuits, based on real EE concepts that we rely upon in our modern society. Your Einsteinian pretendaphysics don't belong here.
BTW, how exactly do the ions "perceive" the electrons are doing this drifting business when the are "leaving the Sun in the same direction at the same speed"?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 22, 2018
LOL! These are plasma circuits, based on real EE concepts that we rely upon in our modern society.


Plasma circuits? WTF are you on about? Astrophysics has nothing to do with EE! And WTF has Einstein got to do with it? I explained it simply enough that even an idiot could understand it. Not my fault that it is beyond you. And the BULK electron flow and velocity is the same as the ion flow and velocity. Jesus. Have any of you idiots ever picked up a grad level textbook on physics?
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 22, 2018
..the core electrons drift sunward along the background magnetic field line,.....

And which bloody way do you think the magnetic field line is going? Hint: the IMF is dragged along by the solar wind. And that is heading outwards.

ROTFLMAO! I can't keep up with all the stupid crap you spew. You'd be better off just shutting up and not let me make you look so foolish.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) May 22, 2018
I'll try again for the hard of thinking. Let's go back to the car race analogy. Lead car is ions. From its frams of reference, the core electrons in the following car are drifting back in the direction of the start line (Sun). Other types of electrons in different cars are either keeping pace, or going quicker.
From the frame of reference of the start line (Sun), they are all bleeding heading away from it.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (8) May 22, 2018
..the core electrons drift sunward along the background magnetic field line,.....

And which bloody way do you think the magnetic field line is going? Hint: the IMF is dragged along by the solar wind. And that is heading outwards.

ROTFLMAO! I can't keep up with all the stupid crap you spew. You'd be better off just shutting up and not let me make you look so foolish.


Hahahahaha. Who is making who look foolish? You are clueless about astrophysical plasma. And every other kind. This whole thread proves that. And the way you keep dodging the question of how many electrons you need in this schoolboy fantasy of yours to power the Sun. It is a very easy calculation. And you can't do it. So off you go on another gish gallop, hoping we'll forget about your mathematical illiteracy. Well, I'll tell you this dumbo,; you have never studied either plasma physics or EE. You need maths skills for that, and you plainly don't have any.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 22, 2018
And which bloody way do you think the magnetic field line is going? Hint: the IMF is dragged along by the solar wind. And that is heading outwards.


So, dumbo, what is your problem with the above? Care to explain your latest pseudoscientific fantasy?

jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 22, 2018
You'd be better off just shutting up and not let me make you look so foolish.


Says the idiot who thinks the Sun is powered by an invisible current, that comets are electric rocks, that Earth used to orbit Saturn, and that Venus was spat out of Jupiter, amongst other weird crap. Shall we take a vote on who is the idiot here?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) May 22, 2018
Let's go back to the car race analogy.

Nope, no reason to. It's physically meaningless. There is a sunward drift (business) of electrons. Period.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 22, 2018
Let's go back to the car race analogy.

Nope, no reason to. It's physically meaningless. There is a sunward drift (business) of electrons. Period.


Jesus, what an idiot. Ever looked at the ACE data, woo boy? Or data from any other spacecraft that has sampled the solar wind? Tell you what, why don't you back up your crap, and email the author? It's a recent paper (I've read older ones, which is why I know I'm right), and then link to the reply here? Or would you rather I did it?
Get your money on now folks; I'll give you 100/1 on the woo boy.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 22, 2018
You have to wonder how these idiots can balance their checkbooks. You got 20000 coming out and 1 going in. For 4.5 billion years. Teh stupid, it burnz. #physicscrankscantcount.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 22, 2018
You have to wonder how these idiots can balance their checkbooks. You got 20000 coming out and 1 going in. For 4.5 billion years. Teh stupid, it burnz. #physicscrankscantcount.


Yep, and that 1:20 000 is a fantasy figure that Scott conjured up from reading a press release. The energetic electron count went up by 2 OOM, so he just multiplied his guess at how many electrons were available (based on Juergens) by 100. Dumb. 2 OOM magnitude compared to what? This tells us nothing about density, per se. As it happens, the electron density in the outer heliosphere is 0.002 cm^3, or 2000 m^3. Which is actually 50 x lower than Juergens had calculated.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) May 22, 2018
@jonesdave.

Mate, you're letting your 'emotional war' with @cantdrive85 get the better of your otherwise objective calm consideration of the implications (for solar dynamics) of the KNOWN science I just pointed out for you to consider; to wit:
...neither of you have considered/treated the particle-pair production (of BOTH Electrons and Positrons) due to high-energy gamma-ray 'flux' effects in/on sun EM processes!

Eg: the sun's 'charge' is NOT a 'static' Positive OR Negative, but a dynamically/regionally fluxing situation depending on how many POSITRONS are 'retained/redirected back' by the sun's magnetic fields.
Please do not emotionally kneejerk to saying "Total crap" where KNOWN science is involved...else you'll be no better than @cantdrive; actually even worse, because you claim to be 'defending' known science 'against' the @cantdrive "crank" (as you label him).

Now, I trust you are NOT disputing the innumerable pair-production (positrons-electrons) there? :)
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 22, 2018
^^^^^It is irrelevant to what is being discussed. I do not see how a mathematical treatment of the energy budget of a 1 m/s drift of electrons to the Sun, needs to consider anything like that. At relativistic speeds there will be pair production, and, indeed, subsequent gamma ray production on the nightside of any planet that is unfortunate enough to be in the way of such a stream. At 1 m/s, it hardly seems likely, nor relevant.This exercise is merely to show that the EU claim of drift electrons powering the Sun is a total fantasy, due to the ludicrous densities required. How the kinetic energy of these electrons is converted into photos at the Sun, is just another unexplained mystery of this madness. The whole silly idea doesn't get past first base.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) May 22, 2018
Let's go back to the car race analogy.

Nope, no reason to. It's physically meaningless. There is a sunward drift (business) of electrons. Period.


You're partially right. It is a crap analogy. There is a much better one. An observer is on a bus travelling away from the depot at 50 km/h. One of the passengers sidles down the aisle at 1 km/s, as measured by the observer, in the direction of the depot. What is the passenger's overall speed away from the depot as observed by a pedestrian outside of the bus? Now, if you can't understand that, I give up.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 22, 2018
It is a crap analogy. There is a much better one. An observer is on a bus travelling away from the depot at 50 km/h

Another crap analogy jonesdumb, to explain away this "drift business". LOL!
There is an accurate analogy, it is the circuit analogy and it explains it accurately. There is a drift of electrons sunward as the paper states. No bus trips or train rides are necessary to explain this away. Plasmas operate in circuits, and EE are best equipped to explain plasma processes.
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) May 22, 2018
Ever looked at the ACE data

Yep, linked to a paper in this thread which described the solar wind to be laced with Birkeland currents, not the homogeneous plasma you believe it to be. Birkeland currents are known to be coaxial and counter-rotating, which implies simultaneous counter flows of ions and electrons. You know, like in electric circuits.
691Boat
5 / 5 (5) May 22, 2018
[q......which implies simultaneous counter flows of ions and electrons. You know, like in electric circuits.

Neato! Now the universe is powered by AC instead of DC? That is a new revelation!
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) May 22, 2018
Ever looked at the ACE data

Yep, linked to a paper in this thread which described the solar wind to be laced with Birkeland currents, not the homogeneous plasma you believe it to be. Birkeland currents are known to be coaxial and counter-rotating, which implies simultaneous counter flows of ions and electrons. You know, like in electric circuits.


Nope. Never mentioned Birkeland currents, and nobody believes them to be so. And they come from the Sun. And head on out. Not what you need, is it? You need a soup of electrons, 100 million times denser than Earth's atmosphere coming in. It isn't there. Unsurprisingly.
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 22, 2018
It is a crap analogy. There is a much better one. An observer is on a bus travelling away from the depot at 50 km/h

Another crap analogy jonesdumb, to explain away this "drift business". LOL!
There is an accurate analogy, it is the circuit analogy and it explains it accurately. There is a drift of electrons sunward as the paper states. No bus trips or train rides are necessary to explain this away. Plasmas operate in circuits, and EE are best equipped to explain plasma processes.


Wrong, and I've just emailed the author. I'll take a screenshot of the reply, and post it on imagebam. Want to put your money where your mouth is? Bear in mind that I've read other papers to make damn sure that I'm right on this. And I am.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) May 22, 2018
It is a crap analogy. There is a much better one. An observer is on a bus travelling away from the depot at 50 km/h

Another crap analogy jonesdumb, to explain away this "drift business". LOL!
There is an accurate analogy, it is the circuit analogy and it explains it accurately. There is a drift of electrons sunward as the paper states. No bus trips or train rides are necessary to explain this away. Plasmas operate in circuits, and EE are best equipped to explain plasma processes.


If EEs are so good, why are Juergens and Scott so totally clueless, and have never managed to get anything right. Ever. Go have a look at the ACE data, deary. Which way is the solar wind going? Also look up the definition of 'rest frame' before you put your foot further into your mouth.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) May 22, 2018
In the hope of saving cantthink's blushes, I'll quote from an old paper which is oft quoted when talking about these core drift electrons:

The ***bulk velocity*** as determined from the measured electron distribution also agrees with that of the protons, as was demonstrated previously. However, velocities of the core and halo components are not, in general, equal but satisfy the zero-current relation NeV0e + NHV0• = NV0 as is necessary to provide zero current. ****Furthermore, the velocities of the core and halo *RELATIVE* to the bulk velocity****, AVe = V0e - V0 and AV• = V0• - V0, are oppositely directed along Qe, with..........


Relative to the bulk velocity. In the solar wind rest frame. Surely even a 12 year old would have grasped this by now.

Solar wind electrons
Feldman, W. C. et al.
https://agupubs.o...31p04181 (paywalled, sorry)
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 22, 2018
A nice overview of the SWEPAM instrument on the ACE mission is available here: https://swepam.la...per.html It is open access. This instrument is the crucial one for electron measurements in the solar wind, and also can measure protons and alpha particles, and differentiate them from electrons. It doesn't just measure "electron (or alpha or proton) seen here," it also measures the direction they came from, and other instruments (magnetometers) measure the magnetic field. ACE orbits in a Lissajous orbit around the Earth-Sun Lagrange point between the Sun and Earth about 1.5 million km from Earth, meaning it analyzes the solar wind before it hits the Earth's magnetosphere. The spacecraft is operational, has been since 1997, and is projected to have enough fuel to maintain orbit until 2024. It is one of the most important spacecraft for projecting solar storms.

So that's ACE.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) May 22, 2018
Now, considering ACE's SWEPAM instrument, which can not only detect electrons but also their incidence direction, how likely does anyone think it is that we could fail to detect an electron inflow in the solar wind? I'd say there's about zero chance. Combined with SOHO, whose COSTEP and ERNE instruments also detect electrons and ions and their incidence angles, and which also carries a magnetometer (MDI), and MAVEN at Mars, as well as several near-Earth spacecraft exploring the Earth's magnetosphere, it looks like there is a wealth of data regarding electrons in the solar wind. If there were electrons streaming into the Sun, we'd know it. There aren't.
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (3) May 22, 2018
They'll just lie about it some more, @Hat. ACE and SOHO are enough to blow these guys out of the water; they're feebly grasping at Pioneer 10 and 11 data from the heliopause and helioshock without appearing to understanding that space exploration has continued as has instrument development since those missions, and that the outer reaches of the Solar System are different, both qualitatively and quantitatively from the inner system.

After all, planes, pictures, satellites, and Moon missions don't convince the Flat Earthers. Obsessives are like that.
Da Schneib
4.8 / 5 (4) May 22, 2018
And not to miss your waving flag, @Hat, if you'd like to discuss these new missions I'm your huckleberry, as Doc Holliday is reputed to have said. It would be a welcome relief from playing Whack-a-Troll.
jonesdave
4 / 5 (4) May 22, 2018
I wonder how the EU'ers will misinterpret the date from the two probes in the article when they become operational. Anyone remember the article?


Misinterpret data? Surely not! Are you calling Thornhill a liar? Fair play. So am I. The bloke is an unbelievable liar. Either that, or he is thick as pigsh*t. Probably both. The trouble is, is that loons like cantthink have fallen for this unqualified eejit's beliefs. Ditto with the loon Scott. Who is merely parroting the loon Juergens. And so it goes on. Unqualified eejits, who don't understand a single thing about the subject upon which they are pronouncing, dragging in eejits like cantthink. And others. Who all failed maths and science at school, and now have a chip on their shoulder about it. Tough. The IQ scores of the general population wouldn't be a Bell curve without dumbasses with the IQ of a brain damaged trilobite, now would they? Eh Wal? Don? Cantthink?
jonesdave
3.4 / 5 (5) May 22, 2018
It would be a welcome relief from playing Whack-a-Troll.


Yes, but it is soooo easy, and soooo much fun! Let cantthink troll out. Just as I've seen what was almost certainly the idiot Thornhill do the same, elsewhere. Ask them to quantify anything, and they disappear. The only things they understand are lies and obfuscation, to keep their idiotic Velikovskian woo going. Believe Velikovsky, and you automatically put yourself in the lower few percent of the IQ Bell curve I previously mentioned.
Bloody loons, the lot of 'em. Not a serious scientist amongst them, either.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) May 22, 2018
Forty or fifty years ago Velikovsky was still barely plausible. It's not any more, certainly not since the later Pioneer missions. It's not even a good conspiracy theory any more. Only the really compulsive nutjobs bother with it any more; most of them nowadays are Trumpulists.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 23, 2018
@Da Schneib

Just the area that the probes are going into should go a long way toward explaining most of the solar wind issues, such as how the heliosphere protects the inner planets and allows what we call life to exist. Is this what we can expect from these two missions? Are we fairly certain that most similar class stars have similar structures?


TBF, Hat, we pretty much know how we are protected - the magnetosphere, due to our planet having a liquid metallic core. Mars gets far less protection, but still has some due to having an atmosphere of sorts. Just like at a comet, the interface between the solar wind, IMF and the atmosphere will create a magnetic field. Nowhere near enough to make living on the surface of the planet a good idea.
jonesdave
3 / 5 (4) May 23, 2018
^^^^^I should have added that our thickish atmosphere also protects against some nasty stuff. Some UV, gamma etc.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (3) May 24, 2018
@jonesdave

Thanks for the response. When they talk about, "Alphas" what exactly are those if you don't mind. Also the magnetosphere is within the heliosphere, have we figured out whether that increases/decreases the effectiveness of a magnetosphere. Thanks in advance. I appreciate what you and DS, Cap'n and others do to refute so of the blatantly wrong statements made by some.


Strictly speaking, alpha particles are ionised He atoms, with 2 protons and 2 neutrons., so they can be either He+ or He++. There are also heavier ions in the solar wind (such as O6+). The bulk of it is protons, i.e. H+.
TBH any planetary magnetosphere is within the heliosphere, as the heliosphere extends to about 120 AU. Our (and any other) magnetosphere will respond to changes in the solar wind, as it compresses or relaxes, depending on conditions.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) May 30, 2018
@jonesdave.
^^^^^It is irrelevant to what is being discussed. I do not see how a mathematical treatment of the energy budget of a 1 m/s drift of electrons to the Sun, needs to consider anything like that. At relativistic speeds there will be pair production, and, indeed, subsequent gamma ray production on the nightside of any planet that is unfortunate enough to be in the way of such a stream. At 1 m/s, it hardly seems likely, nor relevant.This exercise is merely to show that the EU claim of drift electrons powering the Sun is a total fantasy, due to the ludicrous densities required. How the kinetic energy of these electrons is converted into photos at the Sun, is just another unexplained mystery of this madness. The whole silly idea doesn't get past first base.
Mate, calm down. I was addressing the 'charged body' aspect you two argue about; so it is relevant.mAnd as for the rest, I have long pointed out you're both right/wrong in your respective 'oned-eyed' way. Chill.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.