Magnetic lines of force

"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.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:15:35 GMT, "Dennis Taylor" wrote:

"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.


So according to you ther could be a weak magnet with just one discrete line of
force. How would you detect it?

--

Boris Mohar

"Boris Mohar" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:15:35 GMT, "Dennis Taylor"
wrote:

So according to you ther could be a weak magnet with just one discrete
line of
force. How would you detect it?


That's one (albeit unlikely) possibility. Another is that since magnetic
fields fall off as the cube of the distance (I'm not positive of this - it's
been a long time), there will be several/many lines, but they'll get weaker
and weaker until you have to go to extraordinary lengths to detect them.
Also, I don't believe that magnetic lines are 'discrete'; I think they're
simply local maximums - in other words, there's still a magnetic effect
between the lines, but it's strongest along the lines. Whether it follows a
sine wave if you graph it, I don't know.

"Dennis Taylor" wrote in message
. ca...
"Boris Mohar" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:15:35 GMT, "Dennis Taylor"
wrote:

So according to you ther could be a weak magnet with just one discrete
line of
force. How would you detect it?


That's one (albeit unlikely) possibility. Another is that since magnetic
fields fall off as the cube of the distance (I'm not positive of this -
it's
been a long time), there will be several/many lines, but they'll get
weaker
and weaker until you have to go to extraordinary lengths to detect them.
Also, I don't believe that magnetic lines are 'discrete'; I think they're
simply local maximums - in other words, there's still a magnetic effect
between the lines, but it's strongest along the lines. Whether it follows
a
sine wave if you graph it, I don't know.

If you take a look at Maxwell's equations, you'll find
that the magnetic field is smooth, not lumpy. You won't
find your ridges there.

In article , George Dishman
writes

"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


This thread is about the question of the physical reality of magnetic
lines of force which many solar astronomers regard as similar to rubber
bands which twist and stretch to breaking point, releasing vast amounts
of energy. An illuminating point was made that in a very weak magnetic
field could there be just one line? This exposes the theory as nonsense,
quite apart from other arguments. The idea that there is a very powerful
magnetic dynamo somewhere below the solar 'surface' which releases
stupendous magnetic force, causing CMEs etc. does not make sense..

The theory that there is a constant stream of electrons emerging from
the solar core from an almost infinite supply, causing a steady
accumulation of positive charge until the core periodically explodes at
about 11 year intervals accords with accepted physics. The growing
discovery of electrical discharge filaments in the atmospheres of stars
confirms this. George criticises this claim, but can he offer an
alternative theory other than the present absurd magnetic ideas? If so I
suggest he opens another thread for discussion in these newsgroups,
including comments made by Kortvelyessy.
--
Eric Crew

"Eric Crew" wrote in message
...
In article , George Dishman
writes

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?

This thread is about the question of the physical reality of magnetic
lines of force which many solar astronomers regard as similar to rubber
bands which twist and stretch to breaking point, releasing vast amounts
of energy.

It was, until you cited your web page review and started
promoting Kortvelyessy's book. It is only reasonable
that I give an alternative review in return since he
supplied me with a copy.

An illuminating point was made that in a very weak magnetic
field could there be just one line? This exposes the theory as nonsense,
quite apart from other arguments. The idea that there is a very powerful
magnetic dynamo somewhere below the solar 'surface' which releases
stupendous magnetic force, causing CMEs etc. does not make sense..

There are spacecraft measuring the field so we know it
is there. Whether we have a model for the cause or not
is not relevant to the feasibility of any alternative.
If Kortvelyessy cannot find a way to balance the current
lost from the Sun, then it is untenable. As you know I
have suggested a number of ways this might be done but
he has rejected those ideas and insists the current is
unbalanced.

The theory that there is a constant stream of electrons emerging from
the solar core from an almost infinite supply, causing a steady
accumulation of positive charge until the core periodically explodes at
about 11 year intervals accords with accepted physics. The growing
discovery of electrical discharge filaments in the atmospheres of stars
confirms this. George criticises this claim,

No, you are again trying the same mis-representation of
what I said as you did in the email conversation. Read
what I wrote above again, I was _very_ careful to make
it clear that I was talking of the _surface_ of the
Sun and the current flow _external_ to that. That is
where the obvious flaw in the ideas lies and it is that
aspect that you and Kortvelyessy consistently refuse
to discuss.

If you want to criticise my comments, please restrict
yourself to discussing what I actually said.

George

In article , George Dishman
writes

"Eric Crew" wrote in message
...
In article , George Dishman
writes

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.


I "alluded" to Kortvelyessy because he seems to me to offer a far more
rational explanation of solar characteristics than the magnetic rubber
band ideas. I asked you if you accepted the conventional theory or some
other, but you have not answered this question. My brief comment on your
criticism is that the accumulation of negative charges (electrons) on
and near the surface zone of the Sun exerts a much more powerful force
on electrons in the upper regions (causing them to be ejected as the
steady solar wind) than the force of the positive charge in the core at
a distance of many thousands of km from the surface. The Sun is largely
gaseous, unlike a metal sphere or shell, so the behaviour is not the
same. You state that the outer layer is conductive, but this has no
effect on the outward passage of negative electrons in a negative
atmosphere. Positive protons entering this region would be discharged
rapidly unless there are large numbers from a periodic explosion in the
core, when only a fraction would be discharged and the remainder would
continue the outward travel as a flare or CME.

I remind you again that I started this thread hoping to encourage a
discussion about "magnetic lines of force". Are they real, like rubber
bands, or just a mathematical concept as Faraday intended? As far as I
know, no-one has suggested there are lines of electrical force between
opposite charges acting like rubber bands. If this is correct, I wonder
what is the reason for the difference between magnetic and electrical
"lines of force"?
--
Eric Crew

In article , Dennis
Taylor writes
"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.




If you are not willing to learn, you will remain ignorant.
--
Eric Crew

If you are not willing to learn, you will remain ignorant

In a case like this it's far better to be ignorant than to join all the
crackpots who SPAM the newsgroups.


--
"In this universe the night was falling,the shadows were lengthening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the stars were still young and the light of morning
lingered: and along the path he once had followed, man would one day go
again."

Arthur C. Clarke, The City & The Stars

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Freelance Writers Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03