Magnetic lines of force

Jim Greenfield asked:

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

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

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

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

..

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

In article , Dennis
Taylor writes


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

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


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

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

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

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




--
Eric Crew

In article , Dennis
Taylor writes


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

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


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

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

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

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




--
Eric Crew

"Eric Crew" wrote in message
news

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

Hello Eric,

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

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

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

best regards
George

"Eric Crew" wrote in message
news

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

Hello Eric,

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

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

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

best regards
George

"Eric Crew" wrote in message
...
In article , Dennis
Taylor writes

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


I see no explanations for anything. What I see is a very common tactic used
by nutcakes promoting their nutcake theories (I'm obviously in a far fouler
mood than I was this morning), which is to use individual quotes from
workers in the field which would indicate that there is less than complete
unity and conviction in all details; to extend that to mean the particular
theory is therefore useless and/or obsolete; to then propose one's own
theory with complete conviction (but not a lot of details), thereby showing
that one is correct because there's no controversy (not surprising with a
fan club of 1).

I also don't see any discussion of any of the other examples of magnetic
lines of force that I brought up - or even acknowledgement of the
requirement to consider them. There is however the usual overblown claim
that this theory explains *everything*.

I am certainly not going to waste my time ordering or reading the book.

"Eric Crew" wrote in message
...
In article , Dennis
Taylor writes

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


I see no explanations for anything. What I see is a very common tactic used
by nutcakes promoting their nutcake theories (I'm obviously in a far fouler
mood than I was this morning), which is to use individual quotes from
workers in the field which would indicate that there is less than complete
unity and conviction in all details; to extend that to mean the particular
theory is therefore useless and/or obsolete; to then propose one's own
theory with complete conviction (but not a lot of details), thereby showing
that one is correct because there's no controversy (not surprising with a
fan club of 1).

I also don't see any discussion of any of the other examples of magnetic
lines of force that I brought up - or even acknowledgement of the
requirement to consider them. There is however the usual overblown claim
that this theory explains *everything*.

I am certainly not going to waste my time ordering or reading the book.

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

There is unless you can come up with an alternative explanation for the
behaviour of classical experiments involving lines of force, and
observations in nature of things like the behaviour of charged particles in
the Earth's magnetic field, the behaviour of conductive superconductors in a
magnetic field, the pattern of the filings, etc etc. All of these things are
most easily explained by the presence of discrete lines of force. In order
to "bump" the prevailing theory, you have to explain everything at least as
well, *and* you have to explain some other stuff that the current theory
can't.