Magnetic lines of force

"Eric Crew" wrote in message
...
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.

His solution is not rational if it violates conservation
of charge though he claims it does not. There are simple
ways to resolve the problem of the electrostatic analysis
that I have high highlighted yet he says they do not apply
and insists the current is unbalanced. If that is true,
his theory is not rational.

I asked you if you accepted the conventional theory or some
other, but you have not answered this question.

As I understand our current level of knowledge, we do not
yet have a full explanation. I accept that conventional
view.

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 influence on a charge leaving the surface is the sum
of the charges remaining hence will always be attractive.
The effect of charge separation would be to produce an
internal field that would act to oppose further separation,
stopping the process. Your description is equivalent to a
concentric spherical capacitor with the outer "plate"
acting as a Faraday cage.

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

Discharged to where? Laszlo claimed his theory did not
violate conservation of charge, that is the problem.

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.

This is one solution I suggested, that the problem could be
resolved simply by stating that an excess of protons in CMEs
balanced the nett current but Laszlo rejected that.

I remind you again that I started this thread ...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Root wrote in message
om...
snip
Could you apply this same kind of wonderfully clear exegesis to
the term "magnetic lines of force"? I keep seeing intimations
that they have some kind of reality. Thank you!
-----------------------------------------------------------------

So Eric, "Jeff Root" is just a nom-de-plume? You are exposed!
(I should have guessed, all the names are four letters.)

... 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.

On the contrary, put the back of your hand near the screen of a
TV and you should be able to feel the electrostatic [lines of]
force lifting the hairs.

If this is correct, I wonder
what is the reason for the difference between magnetic and electrical
"lines of force"?

George

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 05:34:05 GMT, "Dennis Taylor" wrote:

"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.


In you previous post you say:

" All of these things are
most easily explained by the presence of discrete lines of force. "

Now you say that they are lumpy.

--

Regards,

Boris Mohar

Got Knock? - see:
Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs http://www3.sympatico.ca/borism/
Aurora, Ontario

"Boris Mohar" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 05:34:05 GMT, "Dennis Taylor"
wrote:



In you previous post you say:

" All of these things are
most easily explained by the presence of discrete lines of force. "

Now you say that they are lumpy.


This doesn't strike me as especially contradictory, especially since I've
specifically said that I'm not sure of the details (I am not a practicing
physicist or teacher). There may be no detectable field effect between the
lines, or the lines may just be local maximums in a field whose strength
fluctuates over the affected volume, but either way it's different from the
competing theory where the field is continuous and uniform. My point is that
observations and experiment are inconsistent with a continuous uniform field
description.

In article , George Dishman
writes

"Eric Crew" wrote in message
...
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.

His solution is not rational if it violates conservation
of charge though he claims it does not. There are simple
ways to resolve the problem of the electrostatic analysis
that I have high highlighted yet he says they do not apply
and insists the current is unbalanced. If that is true,
his theory is not rational.

I asked you if you accepted the conventional theory or some
other, but you have not answered this question.

As I understand our current level of knowledge, we do not
yet have a full explanation. I accept that conventional
view.

This seems to be the answer to my question about the reality or
otherwise of magnetic lines of force. You "accept that conventional
view". This makes any further discussion not worthwhile. I'm surprised -
I thought you had more sense!

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 influence on a charge leaving the surface is the sum
of the charges remaining hence will always be attractive.

You think that the positive charge of the core has more influence on an
electron leaving the Sun than a layer of electrons on the surface? This
is just a simplistic mathematical delusion. It might apply at a distance
about equal to the radius of the Sun, but even there you overlook the
force of repulsion due to the significant radiation from the Sun.

The mathematics is complicated and since the "electric theory" of C E R
Bruce, L Kortvelyessy and E W Crew answers so many problems discussed by
solar physicists, your simplistic view cannot be right. This is straying
from the subject of the thread and as it has previously been discussed
at some length by email so I do not intend to continue.

Jeff Root wrote in message
. com...
snip
Could you apply this same kind of wonderfully clear exegesis to
the term "magnetic lines of force"? I keep seeing intimations
that they have some kind of reality. Thank you!
-----------------------------------------------------------------

So Eric, "Jeff Root" is just a nom-de-plume? You are exposed!
(I should have guessed, all the names are four letters.)

A bright idea, but I am not guilty. It is a coincidence that "all the
names" (two only!) each have four letters. I had to look up the word
"exegesis". It means an explanation, esp. of Scripture. I suspect 'Jeff
Root' is a vicar or priest. Not me!

I was
... 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.

On the contrary, put the back of your hand near the screen of a
TV and you should be able to feel the electrostatic [lines of]
force lifting the hairs.

Of course there is an electrostatic force, but it is not [lines of] like
rubber bands. Neither is magnetic force.

George



--
Eric Crew

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

I asked you if you accepted the conventional theory or some
other, but you have not answered this question.

As I understand our current level of knowledge, we do not
yet have a full explanation. I accept that conventional
view.

This seems to be the answer to my question about the reality or
otherwise of magnetic lines of force. You "accept that conventional
view". This makes any further discussion not worthwhile. I'm surprised -
I thought you had more sense!

You misread my reply. I mean I accept that we do not fully
understand the mechanism by which the Sun's overall magnetic
field is produced, or to put it another way, there are some
areas where there isn't a "conventional theory" to accept.
However, our understanding is moving forward all the time
so perhaps my comments are out of date.

If you want to talk about the magnetic field of the Sun,
this would be a good place to start:

http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/Ulysses/Plots/mag.html

http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/Ulysses/Plots/sphere.html

http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/news/newsjul01.html

"On 10th May 2001 the Imperial College magnetometer onboard
the Ulysses spacecraft measured, at 35 nT, the strongest
interplanetary magnetic field it has encountered during its
10 years plus mission so far. This is about seven times the
typical interplanetary field strength in the vicinity of the
Earth. The cause of this extreme event was quickly identified
as a coronal mass ejection (CME) which had left the Sun three
days earlier on 7th May."

As for its effect on the surface, look at the two photographs
at the bottom right of this page. The page is intended for
teachers but the photographs demonstrate the field quite nicely.

http://www.thursdaysclassroom.com/12jun01/teach7.html

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 influence on a charge leaving the surface is the sum
of the charges remaining hence will always be attractive.

You think that the positive charge of the core has more influence on an
electron leaving the Sun than a layer of electrons on the surface? This
is just a simplistic mathematical delusion.

It is a well known result of basic laws. If you want to
discard that then you can prove anything, but Kortvelyessy
claims that his theory does _not_ violate those laws. It is
only that claim that causes the problem.

It might apply at a distance
about equal to the radius of the Sun, but even there you overlook the
force of repulsion due to the significant radiation from the Sun.

Radiation pressure is constant, the attraction of the positive
charge grows linearly with time if the current is unbalanced.

The mathematics is complicated and since the "electric theory" of C E R
Bruce, L Kortvelyessy and E W Crew answers so many problems discussed by
solar physicists, your simplistic view cannot be right.

The end justifies the means eh? No Eric, it cannot be right
if it violates the laws on which it is based regardless of
how many features it might explain.

This is straying
from the subject of the thread and as it has previously been discussed
at some length by email so I do not intend to continue.

Jeff Root wrote in message
. com...
snip
Could you apply this same kind of wonderfully clear exegesis to
the term "magnetic lines of force"? I keep seeing intimations
that they have some kind of reality. Thank you!
-----------------------------------------------------------------

So Eric, "Jeff Root" is just a nom-de-plume? You are exposed!
(I should have guessed, all the names are four letters.)

A bright idea, but I am not guilty. It is a coincidence that "all the
names" (two only!) each have four letters.

Jeff, Root, Eric and Crew - all four letters ;-)

I had to look up the word
"exegesis". It means an explanation, esp. of Scripture. I suspect 'Jeff
Root' is a vicar or priest. Not me!

I note you also crossposted to alt.sci.planetary and
alt.astronomy. Perhaps it was a coincidence that you
chose to post a similar question with the identical
subject line so that it appeared as a reply to Jeff
in sci.astro where the thread had been running for
a few weeks.


I was
... 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.

On the contrary, put the back of your hand near the screen of a
TV and you should be able to feel the electrostatic [lines of]
force lifting the hairs.

Of course there is an electrostatic force, but it is not [lines of] like
rubber bands. Neither is magnetic force.

I agree there are no intrinsic lines, but the rubber band
analogy works quite well because it encapsulates the
behaviour that results from conservation of energy in
the field.

George

George Dishman replied to Eric Crew:

Jeff Root wrote in message
om...
snip
Could you apply this same kind of wonderfully clear exegesis to
the term "magnetic lines of force"? I keep seeing intimations
that they have some kind of reality. Thank you!
-----------------------------------------------------------------

So Eric, "Jeff Root" is just a nom-de-plume? You are exposed!
(I should have guessed, all the names are four letters.)

A bright idea, but I am not guilty. It is a coincidence that "all the
names" (two only!) each have four letters.

Jeff, Root, Eric and Crew - all four letters ;-)

I had to look up the word "exegesis". It means an explanation,
esp. of Scripture. I suspect 'Jeff Root' is a vicar or priest.
Not me!

I note you also crossposted to alt.sci.planetary and
alt.astronomy. Perhaps it was a coincidence that you
chose to post a similar question with the identical
subject line so that it appeared as a reply to Jeff
in sci.astro where the thread had been running for
a few weeks.

Since he used the identical subject line, I'm sure he meant it
to be part of the thread I started, though not a reply. I have
done that a few times. In this case, though, something went
wrong. Maybe the combination of the thread not being a reply
and adding more newsgroups caused it. The thread I started and
the thread Eric started are linked together, but Google is not
able to list all the posts from both threads in chronological
order. Not a fatal flaw, but a real nuisance.

The first I recall coming across the word "exegesis" was in a
story I read while in high school. When I wanted to use it in
a post here, I looked it up to be sure it meant what I thought
it meant.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

..

In article
, Painius
writes
"Dennis Taylor" wrote in message...
.ca...

Eric wrote...

Painius wrote...

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?

Sounds like you need to take a pill, Dennis!

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.

Woops! Sorry, Dennis, my mistake... you *are* a pill.

Iron filings, until introduced into a magnetic field, may or may
not possess their own individual magnetic fields. Once they
are laid out on the sheet of paper, and a magnet is placed
underneath the paper, they become "magnetized." They are
themselves each little tiny interacting magnets, and each with
their own individual magnetic field. The way they "line up" in
a 2-dimensional pattern on the sheet of paper is a direct
result of the interaction among their fields and also between
their fields and the field of the magnet under the paper.

Do you also believe that these imaginary lines just go from
north to south in the plane of the paper? The field strength
of a magnet is 3-dimensional, you know. So at the very
least, your "lines" have to become "shells," concentrically
layered much like an onion?

Nahht!

Oh yes, and how do you picture in your mind these "lines"
of magnetic force rolling around a current-carrying wire?

Don't feel badly, Dennis... for many years scientists kept
this same view of magnetism (some still may); however,
field measurements, as well as other considerations, make
it clear that such lines only exist as a schematic tool to give
us a basic picture of how field strength differs at varying
distances from the poles. In diagrams, the farther apart
the lines are shown to be, the lower the field strength.

While it's unfortunate that phrases like "magnetic lines of
flux" and "lines of force" continue to be a part of the
knowledge base when studying magnetism, the confusing
nature of this practice becomes clearer the deeper you go
into the study. No lines, no shells, no lumpiness... just a
smooth decrease in field strength outward from the magnet,
and another amazing example of action at a distance!

Our own beloved "onion," the Sun, has a magnetic field
that extends out beyond the orbit of Pluto!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

Thank you Painius for this clear explanation (and the poem). I expect
there will be a few years more of astronomers getting entangled in
magnetic fields of twisted and stretched rubber bands. I wonder what Ron
Baalke thinks about this when he transmits comments about mythical
rubber bands? He must be tempted to go on strike. Or add a few thoughts
of his own. Are you there Ron?
--
Eric Crew

"Painius" wrote in message
...

Sounds like you need to take a pill, Dennis!

Yessiree, and since you said this, you don't have to deal with any of the
questions I raised. Good work!

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.

Woops! Sorry, Dennis, my mistake... you *are* a pill.

Yessiree, and since you said this, my points are less valid! Good work!


Iron filings, until introduced into a magnetic field, may or may
not possess their own individual magnetic fields. Once they
are laid out on the sheet of paper, and a magnet is placed
underneath the paper, they become "magnetized." They are
themselves each little tiny interacting magnets, and each with
their own individual magnetic field. The way they "line up" in
a 2-dimensional pattern on the sheet of paper is a direct
result of the interaction among their fields and also between
their fields and the field of the magnet under the paper.


True. After all, you can magnetize a nail, so you can magnetize an iron
filing.
However, the tone of your reply implies that you think you are rebutting me
in some way. Which is a little confusing, since you haven't said anything
that would tend to prove your pov or cast doubt on standard interpretations.

Do you also believe that these imaginary lines just go from
north to south in the plane of the paper? The field strength
of a magnet is 3-dimensional, you know. So at the very
least, your "lines" have to become "shells," concentrically
layered much like an onion?

This is so trivially obvious that it's not even worth mentioning. Again, you
are acting as if you've scored a point by bringing this up.

Oh yes, and how do you picture in your mind these "lines"
of magnetic force rolling around a current-carrying wire?

Perhaps if you explained how this is a problem, I could help you out.

Don't feel badly, Dennis... for many years scientists kept
this same view of magnetism (some still may); however,
field measurements, as well as other considerations, make
it clear that such lines only exist as a schematic tool to give
us a basic picture of how field strength differs at varying
distances from the poles. In diagrams, the farther apart
the lines are shown to be, the lower the field strength.

Why should I feel badly? You've just put a fair amount of effort into
writing a post that does absolutely nothing to further your pov. A little
bit of ad hominem, a little bit of argument by misdirection, and you think
you've done something. And you *still* haven't explained the observation at
the base of all this -- that iron filings *do* line up in lines. If there
was no reality to the lines, filings would line up their long axes along a
"magnetic shell" shape, but they would be randomly distributed within that
shape. Since they don't line up randomly, and they do line up along lines,
you have *absolutely nothing* until you come up with an adequate explanation
for this.


Our own beloved "onion," the Sun, has a magnetic field
that extends out beyond the orbit of Pluto!

I should really paste this farther up in the post, but my comment is the
same -- so what? Your point is?

"Eric Crew" wrote in message
...
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.

"Eric Crew" replied
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.
Snip
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 this case the thread seems to have deviated from a reasonable question on
the nature of 'magentic lines of force'.

However it'll be interesting to explore the question a bit more. It seems
that you think that magnetic fields don't exist on the sun. Is that right?

In article YpFdb.27759$O85.21798@pd7tw1no, says...

Why should I feel badly? You've just put a fair amount of effort into
writing a post that does absolutely nothing to further your pov. A little
bit of ad hominem, a little bit of argument by misdirection, and you think
you've done something. And you *still* haven't explained the observation at
the base of all this -- that iron filings *do* line up in lines. If there
was no reality to the lines, filings would line up their long axes along a
"magnetic shell" shape, but they would be randomly distributed within that
shape. Since they don't line up randomly, and they do line up along lines,
you have *absolutely nothing* until you come up with an adequate explanation
for this.

That they line up is just a simple bit of self organization. Poured onto
the paper, and thus exposed to a magnetic field, each individual iron
filing becomes a bar magnet. Magnets do of course attract each other.
The initial distribution of filings is not random, some places on the
paper will inevitably have more filings than others. Where there are
clumps of filings you get a localized concentration of magnetic field.
As you vibrate the paper the filings in sparser areas of the paper
migrate naturally to areas of higher concentration, clearing some areas
of the paper and clumping them in others. So now you've got clumps, what
about lines?

Bar magnets prefer to line up end to end, N to S, because the poles are
where the field is most concentrated. The vibration of the paper
provides the kinetic energy for the filings to assume their preferred
positions. The ambient magnetic field of the "mother" bar magnet bends
these lines into nice curves. The formation of lines in the iron filings
is inevitable, even if "magnetic field lines" happen to be nothing but a
handy fiction.

None of the above disproves the existence of magnetic field lines, but
it does show that iron filings are unsuitable for proving that they do.

Proving that they do exist I'll leave as an exercise to the previous
poster.

Marc