Magnetic lines of force

Hi Eric oc,and Painius. We seem to talk very easy about "magnetic lines
of force" Do we really know what we are talking about? What is the
structure(particle,or wave) that creates these force lines? How fast do
they travel? Earth's magnetic field changes polarity (why) Why does the
Earth's magnetic field move(say about 100 miles? I have thought about
this for many moons,and in my minds eye have answers to these hard
questions. Some I even like. All are better than no answer. Bert

Question for Eric Crew:

It can be assumed that you and LK ascribe to the void-space premise,
right?

oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

Question for Eric Crew:

It can be assumed that you and LK ascribe to the void-space premise,
right?

oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

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

A recent statement in these newsgroups is that:

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

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

--
Eric Crew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A recent statement in these newsgroups is that:

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

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

--
Eric Crew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A recent statement in these newsgroups is that:

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

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

--
Eric Crew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A recent statement in these newsgroups is that:

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

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

--
Eric Crew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Panius,and Eric Crew We could add still another reason why there
is life on Earth. The radiation leaving the sun's core takes 100,000
years before it reaches the sun's surface. Instead of being all gamma
photons hitting the Earth we have a mixture of photons(white light)
PBS NOVA did a nice job last night explaining how harmful gamma rays
are. Bert

Hi Panius,and Eric Crew We could add still another reason why there
is life on Earth. The radiation leaving the sun's core takes 100,000
years before it reaches the sun's surface. Instead of being all gamma
photons hitting the Earth we have a mixture of photons(white light)
PBS NOVA did a nice job last night explaining how harmful gamma rays
are. Bert

Jim Greenfield asked:

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

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

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

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

..