Magnetic lines of force

A recent statement in these newsgroups is that:

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

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

Dr Kortvelyessy made the following comments concerning this thread:

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

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

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

--
Eric Crew

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

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

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


Dr Kortvelyessy made the following comments concerning this thread:

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

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

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


--
Eric Crew

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

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

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


Dr Kortvelyessy made the following comments concerning this thread:

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

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

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


--
Eric Crew

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

A recent statement in these newsgroups is that:

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

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

--
Eric Crew

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

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

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

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

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

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

Paine Ellsworth

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

A recent statement in these newsgroups is that:

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

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

--
Eric Crew

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

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

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

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

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

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

Paine Ellsworth

Painius wrote,

So while the lines of force may be a
useful math construct, i agree that they
don't exist as rubbery, snappy lines.

How then woud you explain the great looping prominences on the sun,
which appear as coherent, spinning flux tubes? Magnetism itself, in say
a bar magnet (under the CBB model) is due to the spin component of the
strong nuclear force organizing into spinning flux tubes, like 'mini
wormholes'. Their polarity or 'sign' is determined by spin direction as
they enter the magnet. They are more than mere math constructs.
But the question arises.. they are spinning flux tubes
and 'mini wormholes' in.....'What'? Not (gasp) the spatial medium or VED
itself.

...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....

Think in terms of 'thermal capacity' and an object's ability (or
inability) to re-radiate the IR energy it absorbs. If its 'thermal bulk'
is too small, it cannot re-radiate fast enough, so its temperature keeps
climbing higher and higher, _irrespective_ of the temperature of the
radiating source.
The filament in a light bulb has a very small 'thermal
capacity', which is why it heats up to white incandesence.
The puzzlement over the solar corona being "hotter than
it should be" oughta be addressed in terms of thermal capacity of the
coronal material.
oc

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

Painius wrote,

So while the lines of force may be a
useful math construct, i agree that they
don't exist as rubbery, snappy lines.

How then woud you explain the great looping prominences on the sun,
which appear as coherent, spinning flux tubes? Magnetism itself, in say
a bar magnet (under the CBB model) is due to the spin component of the
strong nuclear force organizing into spinning flux tubes, like 'mini
wormholes'. Their polarity or 'sign' is determined by spin direction as
they enter the magnet. They are more than mere math constructs.
But the question arises.. they are spinning flux tubes
and 'mini wormholes' in.....'What'? Not (gasp) the spatial medium or VED
itself.

...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....

Think in terms of 'thermal capacity' and an object's ability (or
inability) to re-radiate the IR energy it absorbs. If its 'thermal bulk'
is too small, it cannot re-radiate fast enough, so its temperature keeps
climbing higher and higher, _irrespective_ of the temperature of the
radiating source.
The filament in a light bulb has a very small 'thermal
capacity', which is why it heats up to white incandesence.
The puzzlement over the solar corona being "hotter than
it should be" oughta be addressed in terms of thermal capacity of the
coronal material.
oc

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

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

A recent statement in these newsgroups is that:

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

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

--
Eric Crew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Eric Crew

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

A recent statement in these newsgroups is that:

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

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

--
Eric Crew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Eric Crew

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