A massive "current of fire" on the sun has started running at highspeed

On Mar 14, 2:38*am, Mike Jr wrote:
On Mar 13, 1:30*pm, oriel36 wrote:



On Mar 13, 7:00*pm, Mike Jr wrote:

On Mar 13, 12:12*pm, oriel36 wrote:

On Mar 12, 9:04*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:

NASA Science News for March 12, 2010

A massive "current of fire" on the sun has started running at high
speed, surprising researchers and challenging some models of the solar
cycle.

Determining the interior of the Sun,like that of the Earth is a
speculative endeavor *hence such an assertive pseudo-authoritative
'surprise' does nothing,at least not today.Unlike others here,I was
working with two large external rings surrounding a star with a
smaller intersecting ring back in 1990 or 4 years before they were
observationally discovered -

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astron...es/sn1987a.jpg

While it is the only copyright I ever took out *and really means
nothing other than I was working on the stellar geometry in terms of
natural efficiencies in 1990,it is now a private work ,something I
take a pride in working on when nobody else was and perhaps never will
even though it has been observed.

All rotating celestial bodies with viscous compositions display
latitudinal differential rotation or what amounts to the same thing -
an uneven rotational gradient between the maximum equatorial speed
down to polar latitudes as opposed to something like the Earth's
fractured crust which has an even rotational gradient with a maximum
equatorial speed of 1037.5 miles per hour.There is no reason to
believe that the Earth's viscous interior is exempt from differential
rotation,after all,it displays the expected spherical deviation of 40
km due to that uneven rotational gradient,stars of the same mass but
with different maximum rotational speeds display variations in
spherical deviation,the faster it spins the greater the spherical
deviation due to more differential rotation shear bands on a faster
spinning star .

In short,in order to investigate the consequences of differential
rotation,on a star or on the fractured surface crust of the
Earth,speculative notions of 'convection cells' as described in that
article have to be set aside, but with the global geographical feature
of the Mid Atlantic ridge requiring a global mechanism,the only
suitable candidate is the lag/advance mechanism inherent in
differential rotational shear bands and its tendency to generate
symmetrical crust either side of the Mid Atlantic ridge with special
note of the 'S' shape,the fracture zones running parallel with the
Earth rotational characteristics and other great clues linking
planetary dynamics to evolutionary geology.

FULL STORY at

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...elt.htm?list13...

Also see:
* *http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/latest_events/
* *http://umbra.nascom.nasa.gov/images/latest.html

Why set aside *'convection cells' in the earth? *Can't differential
rotation and convection cells be happening in the earth's interior at
the same time?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_plume

--Mike Jr.

* If you ever find a study which links the Earth's spherical
deviation
* with the motion and evolution of the surface crust,particularly
using
* differential rotation as the bridge between the uneven rotational
* gradient of the viscous interior with the even rotational gradient
of
* the fractured surface crust then let me know.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.1303

"Global coupling at 660 km is proposed to explain plate tectonics and
the
generation of the earth’s magnetic field

Jozsef Garai
Department of Earth Sciences, Florida International University, Miami,
FL 33199, USA
E mail:

The presence of low viscosity layers in the mantle is supported by
line of geological and geophysical
observations. Recent high pressure and temperature investigations
indicated that partial carbonate melt
should exist at the bottom of the lithosphere and at 660 km. The
presence of few percent carbonate melt
reduces the viscosity by several order of magnitude. The globally
existing 660 km very low viscosity layer
allows the development of differential rotation between the upper and
lower mantle. This differential
rotation between the 660 km outer shell and the rest of the earth
offers a plausible explanation for plate
tectonics and for the generation of the earth’s magnetic field. Simple
dynamo model is proposed, which
able to reproduce all of the features of the contemporary and, within
reasonable uncertainty, the
paleomagnetic field. The model is also consistent with geological and
geophysical observations."

--Mike Jr.


Nice try but unsatisfactory insofar as the link between the planet's
40 km spherical deviation and crustal motion/evolution share a common
mechanism - differential rotation in the viscous material directly in
contact with the crust just as all rotating viscous compositions are
observed to display differential rotation as a general rule and the
Earth is no exception..It may be that men are so accustomed to think
of the interior in terms of viscosity organised around 'convection
cells' that they simply cannot turn their attention to the role of
planetary rotational dynamics on the surface crust and a viscosity
suited to explaining planetary features such as spherical deviation
and the global feature of the Mid Atlantic Ridge .

The uneven rotational gradient from equator to poles,as per
differential rotation,satisfies both features on all accounts so I
disregard 'convection cells' as a stationary Earth mechanism with no
link to rotation or planetary shape and if the symmetrical generation
of crust off the Mid Atlantic Ridge and especially its rotational
orientation is not big enough of a clue as to the internal rotational
mechanism then I would not know what is.

http://www.oceans.logo4you.co.uk/gra...lantic_map.jpg

Of course,a rotational gradient,between equator and pole,be it the
uneven rotational gradient of the interior as opposed to the even
gradient of the surface crust depends on knowing what the maximum
equatorial speed is and unfortunately this is the reason why
rotational dynamics is absent from geological evolution as people
absolutely detest the actual value where the Earth rotates 15 degrees/
1037.5 miles per hour at the equator and a full rotation of the
equatorial circumference in 24 hours hence the dithering around with a
stationary Earth mechanism of convection cells.

I have never known so many people to absolutely hate astronomy and
especially the astronomy of planetary dynamics and terrestrial
effects ,it shows in the dullness and inability to link rotational
dynamics with crustal geodynamics even when astronomical observations
determine general rules for rotating celestial objects with exposed
compositions in a viscous state and I certainly do not want to hear
stationary Earth arguments for 'convection cells' and the viscosity
organised around that notion,not that I disagree but like a flat or
stationary Earth conception,it is meaningless to me regardless of how
much you may put stake in that mechanism.

On Mar 13, 11:47*pm, oriel36 wrote:
On Mar 14, 2:38*am, Mike Jr wrote:

[snip]

Um, did you read the paper? It offers proof that convection cannot be
responsible for continental drift and therefore rotation is the only
other option with enough force to do the deed. Read "Geological
evidences supporting low viscosity".

I was agreeing with you. :-)

--Mike Jr.

On Mar 14, 11:21*am, Mike Jr wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:47*pm, oriel36 wrote: On Mar 14, 2:38*am, Mike Jr wrote:

[snip]

Um, did you read the paper? *It offers proof that convection cannot be
responsible for continental drift and therefore rotation is the only
other option with enough force to do the deed. *Read "Geological
evidences supporting low viscosity".

I was agreeing with you. *:-)

--Mike Jr.

They treat differential rotation between 'cores' which is something
entirely different and emerged after I was working on the conception
of differential rotation in the Earth's interior or as Sam would put
it 'streams of liquid fire' rotating in an uneven rotational gradient
between equator and poles.The main point is not differential rotation
itself insofar as that exists as a general rule in rotating celestial
bodies that are not solid therefore the main point is planetary
spherical deviation linked with plate tectonics using a common
mechanism based on the dynamics of rotation and fluid dynamics.


Modern imaging allows things like planetary comparisons to extract
details which aid interpretation rather than just blind speculation
that gives rise to the abysmal stationary Earth 'convection cells' for
crustal evolution/motion so that Venus has no equatorial bulge due to
its rotational characteristics or that stars of the same size but
different equatorial speeds display variations in spherical deviation
and the number of differential rotation bands but this is just moving
information around for the purpose of interpreting the Earth's
geological dimensions and features in a more productive way.

You were not agreeing with me although I respect now why you believe
'convection cells' and differential rotation fit into the same picture
however,that interpretation is based on a speculative structure and
viscosity for the Earth's interior whereas I take it no further than
the rotating fluid in contact with the surface crust and the
conception that an uneven rotational gradient generates a spherical
deviation organised around the Earth rotational characteristics
thereby linking planetary shape with geological evolution through
planetary dynamics.To be clear,I was working on differential rotation
in the Earth's interior before they proposed the misinterpretation of
it but the merit system and the institutions being what they are,the
correct interpretation based on astronomical observations is ignored
while the speculative misinterpretation of differential rotation
between 'cores' becomes dominant.

I really believe that it is time to use modern imaging effectively and
apply it to terrestrial sciences by modifying or adapting ideas which
would not have been possible 50 years ago and for whatever
reasons,despite the usual hostility and the few nuisances,people
genuinely realize that there is something better than 'convection
cells' going on and the possibilities of the planet's rotation
affecting the Earth's shape along with crustal motion which manifests
itself as Earthquakes and eruptions.There may be a slight difficulty
with the lag/advance mechanism for crustal evolution which explains
the Mid Atlantic Ridge but nothing too difficult.

I suspect that investigators will eventually pick up rotational
dynamics of the interior as the mechanism for crustal geodynamics but
it is always nice to work on these things when they are fresh,
exciting and are not burdened by doctrine.

On Mar 14, 3:21*am, Mike Jr wrote:
On Mar 13, 11:47*pm, oriel36 wrote: On Mar 14, 2:38*am, Mike Jr wrote:

[snip]

Um, did you read the paper? *It offers proof that convection cannot be
responsible for continental drift and therefore rotation is the only
other option with enough force to do the deed. *Read "Geological
evidences supporting low viscosity".

I was agreeing with you. *:-)

--Mike Jr.

Err, Mike, agreeing with Oriel is never productive. The guy doesn't
really know anything at all about science in general and astronomy in
particular. Everything he proposes is the result of his interpretation
of pictures, he knows nothing about math and he rejects all aspects of
the scientific method. He will willingly tell you that ALL the answers
can be found through 'modern imaging'.

In a nutshell, Gerald is totally incapable of actually learning
anything from anyone here, or from any source that might be referenced
by anyone here. He will constantly offer quotes of centuries-old
scientists, and then proceed to mis-interpret what they have said.

Arguing with him is futile, many have tried and all have failed, and
you are NOT going to be an exception.

\Paul A

On Mar 13, 12:00*pm, Mike Jr wrote:

Why set aside *'convection cells' in the earth? *Can't differential
rotation and convection cells be happening in the earth's interior at
the same time?

It's worse than that.

It is true that what he terms "differential rotation" is observed on
Jupiter or on the Sun. But this phenomenon is _caused_ by convection
cells, and is analogous to the trade winds on Earth.

Since the convection bands on the Sun aren't driven by differences in
solar radiation at the equator and the poles - the Sun is just about
equally bright all over - I suppose one can't discount Coriolis forces
producing convection bands in the Earth's interior. However, what with
the rigid crust being in contact with the mantle on the outside, and
the rather high viscosity of the mantle, I don't think that anyone
expects recognizable convection banding in the interior of the Earth.

Oriel36, though, doesn't let little things like the lack of a physical
mechanism stop him. Since differential rotation is seen on Jupiter and
on the Sun, he deduces it in the Earth's mantle simply by analogy.
According to him, analogy and intuition - with some conscientious
authority constraining it - is the path to knowledge. Instead, science
today works by attempting to find direct physical causes for things
whenever possible - it is reductionistic - and the only authority it
uses is Nature itself to keep it in line with reality - it is
empirical. Oriel36 is very unhappy with this, and he thinks that
science today is very much on the wrong track.

It would take a whole textbook on the history of science to explain
why he is wrong, and why science the way it is now is following the
only path of those that have been tried (and Oriel36 is advocating the
return to a path that _has_ been tried, and found wanting, the path
that ultimately led to the persecution of Galileo) that provides a
route to sure progress.

It is only one path, and we may well be missing things that will have
to be explained and discovered in some other way, but abandoning it
for a failed path isn't the way to address the limitations fo science.

John Savard

On Mar 14, 4:21*am, Mike Jr wrote:

Um, did you read the paper? *It offers proof that convection cannot be
responsible for continental drift and therefore rotation is the only
other option with enough force to do the deed. *Read "Geological
evidences supporting low viscosity".

This isn't the kind of differential rotation he is talking about. The
paper refers to a difference in rotational velocity of two shells in
the mantle at different _depths_. Oriel is concerned with differences
in rotational speed at different _latitudes_.

John Savard

On Mar 16, 9:26*am, palsing wrote:
....
Arguing with him is futile, many have tried and all have failed, and
you are NOT going to be an exception.

\Paul A


Damn. Just for the briefest of moments, there was a shiny bit of
hope...


berk