Solving the mystery of Jupiter Great Red Spot

Hi,

Jupiter jet streams and the great red spot were puzzling scientist for
long time. Those phenomena are driven by a stellar cycle on Jupiter.
Like the solar cycle that changes the magnetic polarity of the sun
every 11 years Jupiter has a magnetic cycle that induce current around
the planet. This current is divided to electrons and positive ion that
flow in opposite direction to create the jet streams. The charge
between adjacent jets drives the great red spot. Similar process
creates the sun plasma belts and the sunspots. Comments are welcomed.
You can read the article he

http://www.philica.com/display_artic...article_id=149

http://www.scribd.com/doc/10180027/S...Great-Red-Spot

http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/rotation.pdf

This article is based on a former article that shows that the solar
cycle is applied to the sun from the galactic disc and not created
internally by a solar dynamo. The solar cycle is what heats the sun by
inducing electric currents and not fusion reaction.

http://www.philica.com/display_artic...?article_id=65

http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/sun.pdf


Regards,
Dan Bar-Zohar

On Jan 27, 2:20*pm, wrote:
Hi,

Jupiter jet streams and the great red spot were puzzling scientist for
long time. Those phenomena are driven by a stellar cycle on Jupiter.
Like the solar cycle that changes the magnetic polarity of the sun
every 11 years Jupiter has a magnetic cycle that induce current around
the planet. This current is divided to electrons and positive ion that
flow in opposite direction to create the jet streams. The charge
between adjacent jets drives the great red spot. Similar process
creates the sun plasma belts and the sunspots. Comments are welcomed.
You can read the article he

http://www.philica.com/display_artic...article_id=149

http://www.scribd.com/doc/10180027/S...of-Jupiter-Gre...

http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/rotation.pdf

This article is based on a former article that shows that the solar
cycle is applied to the sun from the galactic disc and not created
internally by a solar dynamo. The solar cycle is what heats the sun by
inducing electric currents and not fusion reaction.

http://www.philica.com/display_artic...?article_id=65

http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/sun.pdf

Regards,
Dan Bar-Zohar

I think you've nailed it. Keep up the good work.

~ BG

On Jan 27, 5:20*pm, wrote:
....
This article is based on a former article that shows that the solar
cycle is applied to the sun from the galactic disc and not created
internally by a solar dynamo. The solar cycle is what heats the sun by
inducing electric currents and not fusion reaction.

http://www.philica.com/display_artic...?article_id=65

http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/sun.pdf

Strangely, the former article appears to rely on unsubstantiated
assumptions. The author relies crucially on a claim about the
electrical resistivity of the sun, as a means to develop large
electrical currents, which appears to be incorrect.

In particular, the claimed electrical resistivity is based solely on a
conference proceedings paper published in 1987. The conference paper
itself is a theoretical paper, not an experimental one, and the
electrical properties discussed in the text refer to a theoretical
'toy model' and are not linked to measurements in any way.
Furthermore, the Zohar author incorrectly assumes that the conference
paper's units are expressed in "SI" metric units, when they quite
clearly are not. It's actually not clear what the units are, but they
are not SI, and thus, the Zohar author has made a tragic error.

Ultimately, the Zohar author relies on this conference paper to
conclude that the Sun is effectively a superconducting substrate.
This is purely ludicrous. There's hardly a way that a 1000-1000000 K
thermal plasma can be a superconductor.

CM

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:13:28 -0800 (PST), Craig
wrote:

On Jan 27, 5:20*pm, wrote:
...
This article is based on a former article that shows that the solar
cycle is applied to the sun from the galactic disc and not created
internally by a solar dynamo. The solar cycle is what heats the sun by
inducing electric currents and not fusion reaction.

http://www.philica.com/display_artic...?article_id=65

http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/sun.pdf

Strangely, the former article appears to rely on unsubstantiated
assumptions. The author relies crucially on a claim about the
electrical resistivity of the sun, as a means to develop large
electrical currents, which appears to be incorrect.

In particular, the claimed electrical resistivity is based solely on a
conference proceedings paper published in 1987. The conference paper
itself is a theoretical paper, not an experimental one, and the
electrical properties discussed in the text refer to a theoretical
'toy model' and are not linked to measurements in any way.
Furthermore, the Zohar author incorrectly assumes that the conference
paper's units are expressed in "SI" metric units, when they quite
clearly are not. It's actually not clear what the units are, but they
are not SI, and thus, the Zohar author has made a tragic error.

Ultimately, the Zohar author relies on this conference paper to
conclude that the Sun is effectively a superconducting substrate.
This is purely ludicrous. There's hardly a way that a 1000-1000000 K
thermal plasma can be a superconductor.

CM

The sun is not a perfect superconductor and it has some resistance.
Still this resistance is very low as the sun is made of hot plasma.
The low resistance of the sun converts low magnetic fields that cross
the sun to very strong current that heat the sun. The model of a
magnet and a superconductor for stars and galaxies is very useful. It
can explain the rigidity of the galactic disk that creates the galaxy
rotation curve and it can explain the repulsion between galaxies and
the expanding universe.

A formula for the conductivity of hot plasma made of ionized hydrogen
can be found in the book: Cosmic Ray Interactions, Propagation and
Acceleration in Space Plasmas - L. Dorman Springer, 2006 - Page 1.

Conductivity = 2*10^7*T^3/2

Where T is the temperature.

Regards,
Dan Bar-Zohar

On Jan 30, 12:10*am, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:13:28 -0800 (PST), Craig



wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:20*pm, wrote:
...
This article is based on a former article that shows that the solar
cycle is applied to the sun from the galactic disc and not created
internally by a solar dynamo. The solar cycle is what heats the sun by
inducing electric currents and not fusion reaction.

http://www.philica.com/display_artic...?article_id=65

http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/sun.pdf

Strangely, the former article appears to rely on unsubstantiated
assumptions. *The author relies crucially on a claim about the
electrical resistivity of the sun, as a means to develop large
electrical currents, which appears to be incorrect.

In particular, the claimed electrical resistivity is based solely on a
conference proceedings paper published in 1987. *The conference paper
itself is a theoretical paper, not an experimental one, and the
electrical properties discussed in the text refer to a theoretical
'toy model' and are not linked to measurements in any way.
Furthermore, the Zohar author incorrectly assumes that the conference
paper's units are expressed in "SI" metric units, when they quite
clearly are not. *It's actually not clear what the units are, but they
are not SI, and thus, the Zohar author has made a tragic error.

Ultimately, the Zohar author relies on this conference paper to
conclude that the Sun is effectively a superconducting substrate.
This is purely ludicrous. *There's hardly a way that a 1000-1000000 K
thermal plasma can be a superconductor.

CM

The sun is not a perfect superconductor and it has some resistance.
Still this resistance is very low as the sun is made of hot plasma.
The low resistance of the sun converts low magnetic fields that cross
the sun to very strong current that heat the sun. *The model of a
magnet and a superconductor for stars and galaxies is very useful. It
can explain the rigidity of the galactic disk that creates the galaxy
rotation curve and it can explain the repulsion between galaxies and
the expanding universe.

A formula for the conductivity of hot plasma made of ionized hydrogen
can be found in the book: Cosmic Ray Interactions, Propagation and
Acceleration in Space Plasmas - L. Dorman Springer, 2006 - Page 1.

Conductivity = 2*10^7*T^3/2

Where T is the temperature.

Regards,
Dan Bar-Zohar

How many Tesla/m2 is the surface of our sun worth?

~ BG

On Jan 30, 3:10*am, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:13:28 -0800 (PST), Craig



wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:20*pm, wrote:
...
This article is based on a former article that shows that the solar
cycle is applied to the sun from the galactic disc and not created
internally by a solar dynamo. The solar cycle is what heats the sun by
inducing electric currents and not fusion reaction.

http://www.philica.com/display_artic...?article_id=65

http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/sun.pdf

Strangely, the former article appears to rely on unsubstantiated
assumptions. *The author relies crucially on a claim about the
electrical resistivity of the sun, as a means to develop large
electrical currents, which appears to be incorrect.

In particular, the claimed electrical resistivity is based solely on a
conference proceedings paper published in 1987. *The conference paper
itself is a theoretical paper, not an experimental one, and the
electrical properties discussed in the text refer to a theoretical
'toy model' and are not linked to measurements in any way.
Furthermore, the Zohar author incorrectly assumes that the conference
paper's units are expressed in "SI" metric units, when they quite
clearly are not. *It's actually not clear what the units are, but they
are not SI, and thus, the Zohar author has made a tragic error.

Ultimately, the Zohar author relies on this conference paper to
conclude that the Sun is effectively a superconducting substrate.
This is purely ludicrous. *There's hardly a way that a 1000-1000000 K
thermal plasma can be a superconductor.

CM

The sun is not a perfect superconductor and it has some resistance.
Still this resistance is very low as the sun is made of hot plasma.
The low resistance of the sun converts low magnetic fields that cross
the sun to very strong current that heat the sun. *The model of a
magnet and a superconductor for stars and galaxies is very useful. It
can explain the rigidity of the galactic disk that creates the galaxy
rotation curve and it can explain the repulsion between galaxies and
the expanding universe.

A formula for the conductivity of hot plasma made of ionized hydrogen
can be found in the book: Cosmic Ray Interactions, Propagation and
Acceleration in Space Plasmas - L. Dorman Springer, 2006 - Page 1.

Conductivity = 2*10^7*T^3/2

Where T is the temperature.

The first question one might ask is why you cited a theoretical "toy
model" conference proceedings paper in your manuscript, and now are
switching to a new citation. Another question might be, why would a
formula for conductivity in a *space plasma* -- i.e. the solar wind --
be applicable to the solar *interior* as you seem to be using it.

Finally, as I noted previously, but you ignored, you *assumed* the
units were SI (MKS) units. However, astronomers typically work in
c.g.s. units. In fact, the units of (s^-1) in the conference
proceedings you cited are the equivalent c.g.s. units for
conductivity. But since your manuscript uses the cited value as if it
were an MKS quantity, your results are incorrect and irrelevant.
More authoritative references for the conductivity in the solar body,
in MKS units, shows that the conductivity quantities are much smaller
than you claim (e.g. Stix 1989, sec 8.1). Thus, any "magnetic
dissipation" would be many orders of magnitude much less than you
originally claimed.

CM

References
Stix, M. 1989, *The Sun: An Introduction*, Springer.

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 11:45:14 -0800 (PST), Craig
wrote:

On Jan 30, 3:10*am, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:13:28 -0800 (PST), Craig



wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:20*pm, wrote:
...
This article is based on a former article that shows that the solar
cycle is applied to the sun from the galactic disc and not created
internally by a solar dynamo. The solar cycle is what heats the sun by
inducing electric currents and not fusion reaction.

http://www.philica.com/display_artic...?article_id=65

http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/sun.pdf

Strangely, the former article appears to rely on unsubstantiated
assumptions. *The author relies crucially on a claim about the
electrical resistivity of the sun, as a means to develop large
electrical currents, which appears to be incorrect.

In particular, the claimed electrical resistivity is based solely on a
conference proceedings paper published in 1987. *The conference paper
itself is a theoretical paper, not an experimental one, and the
electrical properties discussed in the text refer to a theoretical
'toy model' and are not linked to measurements in any way.
Furthermore, the Zohar author incorrectly assumes that the conference
paper's units are expressed in "SI" metric units, when they quite
clearly are not. *It's actually not clear what the units are, but they
are not SI, and thus, the Zohar author has made a tragic error.

Ultimately, the Zohar author relies on this conference paper to
conclude that the Sun is effectively a superconducting substrate.
This is purely ludicrous. *There's hardly a way that a 1000-1000000 K
thermal plasma can be a superconductor.

CM

The sun is not a perfect superconductor and it has some resistance.
Still this resistance is very low as the sun is made of hot plasma.
The low resistance of the sun converts low magnetic fields that cross
the sun to very strong current that heat the sun. *The model of a
magnet and a superconductor for stars and galaxies is very useful. It
can explain the rigidity of the galactic disk that creates the galaxy
rotation curve and it can explain the repulsion between galaxies and
the expanding universe.

A formula for the conductivity of hot plasma made of ionized hydrogen
can be found in the book: Cosmic Ray Interactions, Propagation and
Acceleration in Space Plasmas - L. Dorman Springer, 2006 - Page 1.

Conductivity = 2*10^7*T^3/2

Where T is the temperature.

The first question one might ask is why you cited a theoretical "toy
model" conference proceedings paper in your manuscript, and now are
switching to a new citation. Another question might be, why would a
formula for conductivity in a *space plasma* -- i.e. the solar wind --
be applicable to the solar *interior* as you seem to be using it.

Finally, as I noted previously, but you ignored, you *assumed* the
units were SI (MKS) units. However, astronomers typically work in
c.g.s. units. In fact, the units of (s^-1) in the conference
proceedings you cited are the equivalent c.g.s. units for
conductivity. But since your manuscript uses the cited value as if it
were an MKS quantity, your results are incorrect and irrelevant.
More authoritative references for the conductivity in the solar body,
in MKS units, shows that the conductivity quantities are much smaller
than you claim (e.g. Stix 1989, sec 8.1). Thus, any "magnetic
dissipation" would be many orders of magnitude much less than you
originally claimed.

CM

References
Stix, M. 1989, *The Sun: An Introduction*, Springer.

Hi,

You are right there is confusion between cgs units and mks units.
To convert the resistivity from cgs to mks the following ratio is
used: 1 s = 8.988*10^9 Ohm*m
Using this ratio it is possible to convert the formulas from Durney
and Dorman.

In Durney 9*10^6*T^3/2 is in cgs and when converted to mks will give
0.001*T^3/2 in Dorman the convertion will give 0.002*T^3/2. This is
close to the value in Stix that gives 0.003*T^3/2.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wxH...sult#PPA308,M1

I did the calculation again using the Stix formula and using 4000000K
as the temperature.
http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/energy_calc2.pdf

This also gives an energy that is larger than what is lost from the
sun luminosity.


Regards,
Dan Bar-Zohar

On Feb 3, 1:49*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 11:45:14 -0800 (PST), Craig
wrote:



On Jan 30, 3:10*am, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:13:28 -0800 (PST), Craig

wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:20*pm, wrote:
...
This article is based on a former article that shows that the solar
cycle is applied to the sun from the galactic disc and not created
internally by a solar dynamo. The solar cycle is what heats the sun by
inducing electric currents and not fusion reaction.

http://www.philica.com/display_artic...?article_id=65

http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/sun.pdf

Strangely, the former article appears to rely on unsubstantiated
assumptions. *The author relies crucially on a claim about the
electrical resistivity of the sun, as a means to develop large
electrical currents, which appears to be incorrect.

In particular, the claimed electrical resistivity is based solely on a
conference proceedings paper published in 1987. *The conference paper
itself is a theoretical paper, not an experimental one, and the
electrical properties discussed in the text refer to a theoretical
'toy model' and are not linked to measurements in any way.
Furthermore, the Zohar author incorrectly assumes that the conference
paper's units are expressed in "SI" metric units, when they quite
clearly are not. *It's actually not clear what the units are, but they
are not SI, and thus, the Zohar author has made a tragic error.

Ultimately, the Zohar author relies on this conference paper to
conclude that the Sun is effectively a superconducting substrate.
This is purely ludicrous. *There's hardly a way that a 1000-1000000 K
thermal plasma can be a superconductor.

CM

The sun is not a perfect superconductor and it has some resistance.
Still this resistance is very low as the sun is made of hot plasma.
The low resistance of the sun converts low magnetic fields that cross
the sun to very strong current that heat the sun. *The model of a
magnet and a superconductor for stars and galaxies is very useful. It
can explain the rigidity of the galactic disk that creates the galaxy
rotation curve and it can explain the repulsion between galaxies and
the expanding universe.

A formula for the conductivity of hot plasma made of ionized hydrogen
can be found in the book: Cosmic Ray Interactions, Propagation and
Acceleration in Space Plasmas - L. Dorman Springer, 2006 - Page 1.

Conductivity = 2*10^7*T^3/2

Where T is the temperature.

The first question one might ask is why you cited a theoretical "toy
model" conference proceedings paper in your manuscript, and now are
switching to a new citation. *Another question might be, why would a
formula for conductivity in a *space plasma* -- i.e. the solar wind --
be applicable to the solar *interior* as you seem to be using it.

Finally, as I noted previously, but you ignored, you *assumed* the
units were SI (MKS) units. *However, astronomers typically work in
c.g.s. units. * In fact, the units of (s^-1) in the conference
proceedings you cited are the equivalent c.g.s. units for
conductivity. *But since your manuscript uses the cited value as if it
were an MKS quantity, your results are incorrect and irrelevant.
More authoritative references for the conductivity in the solar body,
in MKS units, shows that the conductivity quantities are much smaller
than you claim (e.g. Stix 1989, sec 8.1). *Thus, any "magnetic
dissipation" would be many orders of magnitude much less than you
originally claimed.

CM

References
Stix, M. 1989, *The Sun: An Introduction*, Springer.

Hi,

You are right there is confusion between cgs units and mks units.
To convert the resistivity from cgs to mks the following ratio is
used: *1 s = 8.988*10^9 Ohm*m
Using this ratio it is possible to convert the formulas from Durney
and Dorman.

In Durney 9*10^6*T^3/2 is in cgs and when converted to mks will give
0.001*T^3/2 in Dorman the convertion will give 0.002*T^3/2. This is
close to the value in Stix that gives 0.003*T^3/2.http://books.google.com/books?id=wxH...n,+Michael+Sti...

I did the calculation again using the Stix formula and using 4000000K
as the temperature.http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/energy_calc2.pdf

This also gives an energy that is larger than what is lost from the
sun luminosity.

Why are you using the values of plasma conductivity for the
chromosphere in your calculation, when the calculation refers to the
deeper interior?

Why, in your calculations, do you refer to "upper radiative zone" when
such descriptions only refer to the standard model of the sun where
the energy is produced by fusion?

Finally, as noted previously, your supposition of the sun as "almost"
a superconductor is not tenable. You supposed that time variation in
the intergalactic magnetic field would somehow induce a back-e.m.f. in
the sun -- and thus a current -- that resistive heating alone would
account for all solar energy production. You "derived" emfs of 3 MV
and resistances of 9e-16 Ohm (which I don't necessarily concur with).
A simple calculation shows that the induced currents would produce
magnetic fields about 10 billion times as much field as the sun
actually has. I.e. your supposition leads to ridiculously incorrect
magnetic fields. That is because a back-emf can *never* induce a
magnetic field larger than the external field that caused it in the
first place.

The same issue would occur with a superconducting loop experiencing a
changing external magnetic field. By your same analogy, the
resistance of the loop is nearly zero, so the dissipated power would
be nearly infinite. However, in reality, the variations of magnetic
field will induce *only* enough current to cancel out the external
variations, and the resulting dissipated power would be negligible.
Beyond that, the e.m.f. would be short circuited. Thus, in reality,
even if the other premises of this "theory" were correct (which I do
not admit), the amount of power that could be dissipated in the sun by
this process is negligble (1e-9 of solar luminosity).

CM

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:06:25 -0800 (PST), Craig Markwardt
wrote:

On Feb 3, 1:49*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 11:45:14 -0800 (PST), Craig
wrote:



On Jan 30, 3:10*am, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:13:28 -0800 (PST), Craig

wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:20*pm, wrote:
...
This article is based on a former article that shows that the solar
cycle is applied to the sun from the galactic disc and not created
internally by a solar dynamo. The solar cycle is what heats the sun by
inducing electric currents and not fusion reaction.

http://www.philica.com/display_artic...?article_id=65

http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/sun.pdf

Strangely, the former article appears to rely on unsubstantiated
assumptions. *The author relies crucially on a claim about the
electrical resistivity of the sun, as a means to develop large
electrical currents, which appears to be incorrect.

In particular, the claimed electrical resistivity is based solely on a
conference proceedings paper published in 1987. *The conference paper
itself is a theoretical paper, not an experimental one, and the
electrical properties discussed in the text refer to a theoretical
'toy model' and are not linked to measurements in any way.
Furthermore, the Zohar author incorrectly assumes that the conference
paper's units are expressed in "SI" metric units, when they quite
clearly are not. *It's actually not clear what the units are, but they
are not SI, and thus, the Zohar author has made a tragic error.

Ultimately, the Zohar author relies on this conference paper to
conclude that the Sun is effectively a superconducting substrate.
This is purely ludicrous. *There's hardly a way that a 1000-1000000 K
thermal plasma can be a superconductor.

CM

The sun is not a perfect superconductor and it has some resistance.
Still this resistance is very low as the sun is made of hot plasma.
The low resistance of the sun converts low magnetic fields that cross
the sun to very strong current that heat the sun. *The model of a
magnet and a superconductor for stars and galaxies is very useful. It
can explain the rigidity of the galactic disk that creates the galaxy
rotation curve and it can explain the repulsion between galaxies and
the expanding universe.

A formula for the conductivity of hot plasma made of ionized hydrogen
can be found in the book: Cosmic Ray Interactions, Propagation and
Acceleration in Space Plasmas - L. Dorman Springer, 2006 - Page 1.

Conductivity = 2*10^7*T^3/2

Where T is the temperature.

The first question one might ask is why you cited a theoretical "toy
model" conference proceedings paper in your manuscript, and now are
switching to a new citation. *Another question might be, why would a
formula for conductivity in a *space plasma* -- i.e. the solar wind --
be applicable to the solar *interior* as you seem to be using it.

Finally, as I noted previously, but you ignored, you *assumed* the
units were SI (MKS) units. *However, astronomers typically work in
c.g.s. units. * In fact, the units of (s^-1) in the conference
proceedings you cited are the equivalent c.g.s. units for
conductivity. *But since your manuscript uses the cited value as if it
were an MKS quantity, your results are incorrect and irrelevant.
More authoritative references for the conductivity in the solar body,
in MKS units, shows that the conductivity quantities are much smaller
than you claim (e.g. Stix 1989, sec 8.1). *Thus, any "magnetic
dissipation" would be many orders of magnitude much less than you
originally claimed.

CM

References
Stix, M. 1989, *The Sun: An Introduction*, Springer.

Hi,

You are right there is confusion between cgs units and mks units.
To convert the resistivity from cgs to mks the following ratio is
used: *1 s = 8.988*10^9 Ohm*m
Using this ratio it is possible to convert the formulas from Durney
and Dorman.

In Durney 9*10^6*T^3/2 is in cgs and when converted to mks will give
0.001*T^3/2 in Dorman the convertion will give 0.002*T^3/2. This is
close to the value in Stix that gives 0.003*T^3/2.http://books.google.com/books?id=wxH...n,+Michael+Sti...

I did the calculation again using the Stix formula and using 4000000K
as the temperature.http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/energy_calc2.pdf

This also gives an energy that is larger than what is lost from the
sun luminosity.

Why are you using the values of plasma conductivity for the
chromosphere in your calculation, when the calculation refers to the
deeper interior?

Why, in your calculations, do you refer to "upper radiative zone" when
such descriptions only refer to the standard model of the sun where
the energy is produced by fusion?

Finally, as noted previously, your supposition of the sun as "almost"
a superconductor is not tenable. You supposed that time variation in
the intergalactic magnetic field would somehow induce a back-e.m.f. in
the sun -- and thus a current -- that resistive heating alone would
account for all solar energy production. You "derived" emfs of 3 MV
and resistances of 9e-16 Ohm (which I don't necessarily concur with).
A simple calculation shows that the induced currents would produce
magnetic fields about 10 billion times as much field as the sun
actually has. I.e. your supposition leads to ridiculously incorrect
magnetic fields. That is because a back-emf can *never* induce a
magnetic field larger than the external field that caused it in the
first place.

The same issue would occur with a superconducting loop experiencing a
changing external magnetic field. By your same analogy, the
resistance of the loop is nearly zero, so the dissipated power would
be nearly infinite. However, in reality, the variations of magnetic
field will induce *only* enough current to cancel out the external
variations, and the resulting dissipated power would be negligible.
Beyond that, the e.m.f. would be short circuited. Thus, in reality,
even if the other premises of this "theory" were correct (which I do
not admit), the amount of power that could be dissipated in the sun by
this process is negligble (1e-9 of solar luminosity).

CM

Why are you using the values of plasma conductivity for the
chromosphere in your calculation, when the calculation refers to the
deeper interior?

At the top part of page 308 of stix 1989 it say that the the formula
0.003*T^3/2 is estimated for the sun convection zone.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wxH...sult#PPA308,M1

The term "upper radiative zone" is used to denote the depth that its
temperature is used to find the conductivity. It is roughly 0.6*Rsun.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/im...nsity_vs_r.jpg

The conductivity according to the calculatiob abouve is very high a
bout three times that of copper. The large size of the sun decreases
the resistance and gives 9.38*10^-16 ohm. This low resistance cannot
be achevied on earth without superconductor.

The currents inside the sun that are created by the solar cycle cannot
produce magnetic field that oppose the solar cycle. Those induce
currents that are created inside the sun are separated into positive
ions that flow forward and electrons that flow backward. Since the sun
is rotating the opposite charges produce magnetic fields in opposite
direction that cancel each other. On Jupiter and other planets the
magnetosphere is created by the induce currents and the field that
create the magnetosphere is larger then the field of the solar cycle.

Read the file on stellar rotation on how the electric charges are
separated to creatre the jet streams of jupiter and the sun plasma
belts.

Regards,
Dan Bar-Zohar

On Feb 11, 12:41*am, wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 12:06:25 -0800 (PST), Craig Markwardt



wrote:
On Feb 3, 1:49*pm, wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 11:45:14 -0800 (PST), Craig
wrote:

On Jan 30, 3:10*am, wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:13:28 -0800 (PST), Craig

wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:20*pm, wrote:
...
This article is based on a former article that shows that the solar
cycle is applied to the sun from the galactic disc and not created
internally by a solar dynamo. The solar cycle is what heats the sun by
inducing electric currents and not fusion reaction.

http://www.philica.com/display_artic...?article_id=65

http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/sun.pdf

Strangely, the former article appears to rely on unsubstantiated
assumptions. *The author relies crucially on a claim about the
electrical resistivity of the sun, as a means to develop large
electrical currents, which appears to be incorrect.

In particular, the claimed electrical resistivity is based solely on a
conference proceedings paper published in 1987. *The conference paper
itself is a theoretical paper, not an experimental one, and the
electrical properties discussed in the text refer to a theoretical
'toy model' and are not linked to measurements in any way.
Furthermore, the Zohar author incorrectly assumes that the conference
paper's units are expressed in "SI" metric units, when they quite
clearly are not. *It's actually not clear what the units are, but they
are not SI, and thus, the Zohar author has made a tragic error.

Ultimately, the Zohar author relies on this conference paper to
conclude that the Sun is effectively a superconducting substrate.
This is purely ludicrous. *There's hardly a way that a 1000-1000000 K
thermal plasma can be a superconductor.

CM

The sun is not a perfect superconductor and it has some resistance.
Still this resistance is very low as the sun is made of hot plasma.
The low resistance of the sun converts low magnetic fields that cross
the sun to very strong current that heat the sun. *The model of a
magnet and a superconductor for stars and galaxies is very useful. It
can explain the rigidity of the galactic disk that creates the galaxy
rotation curve and it can explain the repulsion between galaxies and
the expanding universe.

A formula for the conductivity of hot plasma made of ionized hydrogen
can be found in the book: Cosmic Ray Interactions, Propagation and
Acceleration in Space Plasmas - L. Dorman Springer, 2006 - Page 1.

Conductivity = 2*10^7*T^3/2

Where T is the temperature.

The first question one might ask is why you cited a theoretical "toy
model" conference proceedings paper in your manuscript, and now are
switching to a new citation. *Another question might be, why would a
formula for conductivity in a *space plasma* -- i.e. the solar wind --
be applicable to the solar *interior* as you seem to be using it.

Finally, as I noted previously, but you ignored, you *assumed* the
units were SI (MKS) units. *However, astronomers typically work in
c.g.s. units. * In fact, the units of (s^-1) in the conference
proceedings you cited are the equivalent c.g.s. units for
conductivity. *But since your manuscript uses the cited value as if it
were an MKS quantity, your results are incorrect and irrelevant.
More authoritative references for the conductivity in the solar body,
in MKS units, shows that the conductivity quantities are much smaller
than you claim (e.g. Stix 1989, sec 8.1). *Thus, any "magnetic
dissipation" would be many orders of magnitude much less than you
originally claimed.

CM

References
Stix, M. 1989, *The Sun: An Introduction*, Springer.

Hi,

You are right there is confusion between cgs units and mks units.
To convert the resistivity from cgs to mks the following ratio is
used: *1 s = 8.988*10^9 Ohm*m
Using this ratio it is possible to convert the formulas from Durney
and Dorman.

In Durney 9*10^6*T^3/2 is in cgs and when converted to mks will give
0.001*T^3/2 in Dorman the convertion will give 0.002*T^3/2. This is
close to the value in Stix that gives 0.003*T^3/2.http://books.google.com/books?id=wxH...n,+Michael+Sti...

I did the calculation again using the Stix formula and using 4000000K
as the temperature.http://www.pixelphase.com/sun/energy_calc2.pdf

This also gives an energy that is larger than what is lost from the
sun luminosity.

Why are you using the values of plasma conductivity for the
chromosphere in your calculation, when the calculation refers to the
deeper interior?

Why, in your calculations, do you refer to "upper radiative zone" when
such descriptions only refer to the standard model of the sun where
the energy is produced by fusion?

Finally, as noted previously, your supposition of the sun as "almost"
a superconductor is not tenable. *You supposed that time variation in
the intergalactic magnetic field would somehow induce a back-e.m.f. in
the sun -- *and thus a current -- that resistive heating alone would
account for all solar energy production. *You "derived" emfs of 3 MV
and resistances of 9e-16 Ohm (which I don't necessarily concur with).
A simple calculation shows that the induced currents would produce
magnetic fields about 10 billion times as much field as the sun
actually has. *I.e. your supposition leads to ridiculously incorrect
magnetic fields. *That is because a back-emf can *never* induce a
magnetic field larger than the external field that caused it in the
first place.

The same issue would occur with a superconducting loop experiencing a
changing external magnetic field. *By your same analogy, the
resistance of the loop is nearly zero, so the dissipated power would
be nearly infinite. *However, in reality, the variations of magnetic
field will induce *only* enough current to cancel out the external
variations, and the resulting dissipated power would be negligible.
Beyond that, the e.m.f. would be short circuited. *Thus, in reality,
even if the other premises of this "theory" were correct (which I do
not admit), the amount of power that could be dissipated in the sun by
this process is negligble (1e-9 of solar luminosity).

CM

Why are you using the values of plasma conductivity for the
chromosphere in your calculation, when the calculation refers to the
deeper interior?

At the top part of page 308 of stix 1989 it say that the the formula
0.003*T^3/2 is estimated for the sun convection zone.http://books.google.com/books?id=wxH...n,+Michael+Sti...

The term "upper radiative zone" is used to denote the depth that its
temperature is used to find the conductivity. It is roughly 0.6*Rsun.http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/im...nsity_vs_r.jpg

But that still begs the question.... why are you using the terminology
and estimates of the standard solar model, when clearly you do not
believe the standard solar model is correct?


The conductivity according to the calculatiob abouve is very high a
bout three times that of copper. The large size of the sun decreases
the resistance and gives 9.38*10^-16 ohm. This low resistance cannot
be achevied on earth without superconductor.

As already mentioned, but you conveniently ignored, the
"superconductor" interpretation has several implications. First, a
superconductor will resist all changes in externally applied magnetic
field, because the changing field will induce an opposing e.m.f. (and
current) which perfectly cancels out the applied change. Second, the
induced opposing current cannot generate a magnetic field larger than
the original applied change.

The currents inside the sun that are created by the solar cycle cannot
produce magnetic field that oppose the solar cycle. ...

Your claim is odd. Your original "theory" claimed that the solar
cycle is induced by changing interstellar magnetic fields at the sun's
position, and that somehow these external fields induce a large
resistive electrical dissipation within the sun. Your "currents ...
created by the solar cycle" phrasing appears to be a diversion to hide
the original claim.

*Any* currents induced within the sun by a changing external magnetic
field will *oppose* the external change... that is the nature of
Lenz's law which you yourself invoked! It doesn't matter whether
"electrons flow forward" or "ions flow backward," the only important
factor is the net charge flow. And in fact, in such a flow where
electrons/ions flow forward/backward, the magnetic field does *not*
cancel out, as you erroneously claimed.

If you had bothered to take your claimed e.m.f. and resistance, and
calculate the amount of induced current implied by those values, you
would find an amount of current which would produce a completely
unphysical magnetic field, a magnetic field many billions of times
more than the sun actually has. Thus, your "theory" cannot be
correct. The reason it fails is because you did not consider the
limitations of Lenz's law before you applied it.

CM