Electric Universe Model.,

[upriver]

Quote:
Originally Posted by upriver
As far as I can tell the optically opaque photosphere model is based on the fusion model which I think is wrong.

You think?
Based on what?

Would you rather I say " I know the fusion model is wrong based on everthing I've read and seen. Its not logical and it does not explain plasma phenomena.
There are too many objects that do not fit the spherical fusion, HR diagram life cycle of a star"

[upriver]

Quote:
Originally Posted by upriver
I think that Fe171, 192 pictures are of the surface of the sun underneath the photosphere where loops originate.

As these are.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T1...017_033928.jpg
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/arcade_9_nov_2000.gif

How exactly do you relate the pictures taken at those lines with solid iron?

Actually, I dont relate them to solid iron. Its just that at those wavelengths you can see through the photosphere. Its only 400 miles thick. And I dont think it opticaly opaque since that idea is refrerenced to the fusion model.

What I'm saying is that the light given off by the loop footprints which are at 1 million degrees because its an arc, illuminates the surrounding area which is solid. The filters allow you to see at that wavelength(and have a response curve), including light and dark like a black and white picture.
You say those features are plasma? I say they do not move. It simply does not look like a non-solid.
Those loops are 75,000 to 100,000 Km high which means some of the features in those pictures are 25,000km high. That is higher than the photosphere, chromosphere and transition layer put together.
And we already know that the loops originate underneath the photosphere. You will also notice the dark areas are underneath the loops where the coronal rain falls. The coronal rain can be as cool as 10,000C underneath the tops of the loops.
The measured temp of the sun is measured at the photosphere, sunspots have measured less(4400C), so its reasonable to assume that under the photosphere is cooler yet, especially in the Electric sun model.
The iron surface is a deduction from electrical activity plus the amount of iron in the arcs.

[upriver]

Quote:
Originally Posted by upriver
Everything that is imaged in 171,192 has iron in it. That is the only time you can see it. Ionized. The sun is made of iron which conducts electricity from the poles to the equator. It doesnt affect plasma except for the e-field and magnetic field that the current flow generates.

Again, where is the evidence that there is enough Iron to have any effect on the fields and plasma?

The iron is what provides the conductivity and magnetic field support that we see. There is enough iron to conduct the currents that power the loops and the corona.
This iron is also ionized when an arc forms.
How do I prove that there is an iron surface without sampling it?

The answer requires a quantitative estimate of the amount of Iron in the Sun.

Tusenfem was gracious enough to provide the math.

Okay, lemme do this for Upriver:

Radius of the sun: 7 108 m
Mass of the sun: 2 1030 kg
Average density: 1410 kg m-3
Density of iron: 8 103 kg m-3

So we take a shell of iron of thickness D and calculate how heavy it is.
Volume is 4 pi R2 D (when the thickness is much smaller than the radius of the Sun).

V = 4 pi R2 D = 6 1018 D m[sup3[/sup] = A D

Knowing the density of iron and the volume with parameter D and the mass of the Sun we can get an estimate of how thick the iron layer can be:

D = M / A*Fe = 2 1030 / 6 1018 * 8 103 = 41 106 m

Well, here we see that the iron shell in the Sun is only 6% of the radius of the Sun.

I assume that the inside of the shell is filled with cheese :-)

If there was cheese inside it would be a Fondue.

[tusenfem]

So now we know that the sun is only a shell of 41000 km thickness. And the top temperature is 4400 K or even cooler [Upriver]. Now, the melting point of iron lies at ~1800 K.
The photospere being 400 km thick [Upriver], means that in this plasma there has to be a temperature gradient of about 2600 K over 400 km, and actually more, if you want to have a solid surface.
Actually, significantly more, as unlike mentioned above, in such a shell the temperature will not drop over the shell inward, but, because of gravitational compression, it will increase. This will make the iron shell model of the sun very unstable. I think it should have collapsed already.

Uppie! tell us please how you envision this shell to be formed.

[papageno]

We are having 2 discussions. One about the solar "wind" and if it was an electric current or not. The other is about the circuit that the electric sun is a part of.
This says there are Alfven waves. Like I said.

The existence of Alfven waves in the interplanetary medium does not imply that there is a net flow of charges towards or from the Sun, nor does it imply that there is some closed circuit involving the Sun and the interstellar medium.
None of the quotes provides evidence for a net current or for a Solar System-wide circuit.
And let me point out that a net current between the Sun and the interstellar medium is not compatible with closed circuit.
So, it seems that you are trying to argue simultaneously in favor of two contradictory positions.

Also that there are three diffent particle velocities, which I think pertains to the discussion of the solar wind.

Different particle velocities does not imply a net current or a Solar System-wide circuit.

And the there is something about bi-directional flow, which was also mentioned in this thread that you wanted to see the references.

Bidirectional heat flow does not imply a net charge transfer or a Solar System-wide electric circuit.

I think that quotes support my position but quote-mining does not.
Next time I will read the quotes, put them in my words and refer to the author.

Instead of looking for quotes to present out of context, you should be looking for evidence in support of your position.

As far as I can tell the optically opaque photosphere model is based on the fusion model which I think is wrong.
You think?
Based on what?

Would you rather I say " I know the fusion model is wrong based on everthing I've read and seen. Its not logical and it does not explain plasma phenomena.
There are too many objects that do not fit the spherical fusion, HR diagram life cycle of a star"

No, you should prove that you are right, instead of just stating it.
Show us that the model based on nuclear fusion is not compatible with the experimental evidence.

How exactly do you relate the pictures taken at those lines with solid iron?

Actually, I dont relate them to solid iron. Its just that at those wavelengths you can see through the photosphere. Its only 400 miles thick. And I dont think it opticaly opaque since that idea is refrerenced to the fusion model.

I think that it is safe to say that you do not understand the observations.

What I'm saying is that the light given off by the loop footprints which are at 1 million degrees because its an arc, illuminates the surrounding area which is solid. The filters allow you to see at that wavelength(and have a response curve), including light and dark like a black and white picture.
You say those features are plasma? I say they do not move. It simply does not look like a non-solid.

So, you are looking at still pictures and conclude that they must be solid.

Those loops are 75,000 to 100,000 Km high which means some of the features in those pictures are 25,000km high. That is higher than the photosphere, chromosphere and transition layer put together.
And we already know that the loops originate underneath the photosphere. You will also notice the dark areas are underneath the loops where the coronal rain falls. The coronal rain can be as cool as 10,000C underneath the tops of the loops.
The measured temp of the sun is measured at the photosphere, sunspots have measured less(4400C), so its reasonable to assume that under the photosphere is cooler yet, especially in the Electric sun model.
The iron surface is a deduction from electrical activity plus the amount of iron in the arcs.

I already asked you to provide quantitative estimates of the amount of Iron in the Sun.
Show the evidence that there is enough Iron on the Sun to have any effect on electric and magnetic fields.

Again, where is the evidence that there is enough Iron to have any effect on the fields and plasma?

The iron is what provides the conductivity and magnetic field support that we see.

Plasma can do it too, and better than solid Iron.

There is enough iron to conduct the currents that power the loops and the corona.

And there is enough plasma to do it better than solid Iron.

This iron is also ionized when an arc forms.
How do I prove that there is an iron surface without sampling it?

How do we know what elements are on the Sun?
Spectroscopy: it is possible to estimate the amount of an element from the intensity of spectral lines.
If we can identify those emissions as coming from ionized Iron atoms, it is possible to estimate the density.
Now it's your turn: provide the evidence that there is enough Iron on the Sun, to support your idea.

The answer requires a quantitative estimate of the amount of Iron in the Sun.

Tusenfem was gracious enough to provide the math.

tusenfem simply took the average density of the Sun and of solid Iron, and showed that solid Iron would form a relatively thin shell.
If you want to use his estimate, you have to show that such shell can actually exist on the Sun, and that it has the properties necessary to support your position.
So, where is the evidence in support of such solid Iron shell?


By the way, you still have not addressed this post:

Maybe that fact that more ions reach the heliosphere than electrons, would lead to a higher negative charge density in the inner solar system.

This is just more handwaving, unless you can provide some relevant reference to support your speculation.
Show us that the number of ions and the number of electrons is different.

Now personally, I might think that with the electron flow outward slower than the protons and heavy ions which would make the sun more negative and the heliosphere more positive, creating a positive terminal for the electrons to flow to as they ionize the iron from the surface in flares, and ionize the photosphere.

Show us that the negative and positive charge densities are different.

[upriver]

I still maintain its a "tube" of neutral gas.

"The gravity of the Sun focuses the beam of incoming He atoms and concentrates them in a roughly conical region (focusing cone) in the direction opposite (downwind) of the direction from which they arrive."

http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews73.html

[papageno]

I still maintain its a "tube" of neutral gas.

"The gravity of the Sun focuses the beam of incoming He atoms and concentrates them in a roughly conical region (focusing cone) in the direction opposite (downwind) of the direction from which they arrive."

http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews73.html

I see, again out-of-context quotes.
That is no more a tube than the flow of air from a leafblower.

Instead of trying to understand the scientific evidence provided by the reasearch group, you prefer hanging onto one word in a press release.
You are simply trying to hide the fact that originally you completely misunderstood the reference you provided about the flow of neutral Helium through the Solar System (confusing angular distribution with spatial distribution, for example).
Not to mention that you tried to pass this "tube" of neutral atoms as evidence for net electric currents between Sun and interstellar space.

But none of this has anything to do with the discussion anyway.
Why don't you address my points, instead?

[Wolverine]

Why don't you address my points, instead?

That would be upriver's most prudent course of action considering the prior warning issued.

[VanderL]

You might be right in your description of the problem, but as far as I understand the Pioneer anomaly, all "known" contributing factors have been excluded (I know there's still debate, but people looking at MoND-like solutions is telling). When we assume a certain values for a) the amount of charging (I think some calculations have been done already in the course of finding contributing factors) and b) the strength of the radial field, it might be possible to get a constant value for the discrepancy, at least I thought the difference from the expected value is constant and not variable.

It might be testable, so that's something at least. Anyway, I'm still looking at data that could imply a radial field, but I'll post it when I understand it (or else put it here as a question).

Cheers.

The paper I was looking at (and don't understand enough) is
this paper, where the authors are trying to describe the interplanetary turbulent electric fields using solar wind data. I was hoping to extract the strength of the radial component of the electric field from the paper, but I need help to see if there is anything to extract at all.

What they did was calculate the electric field from the electron densities and speeds and arrange them into probability density functions (PDF's). The text explains some of the characteristics of these PDF's and what I think I see is that there is "non-gaussianity" of the PDF in the X-direction (radial along the Sun-Earth axis).

This "non-gaussianity" is what I'm trying to understand; does this imply a radial electric field component "on top of" the E-field expected from turbulence? I might be mistaken (likely even), but could this be the radial component I'm looking for?

Comments are appreciated.

Cheers.

[VanderL]

That would be upriver's most prudent course of action considering the prior warning issued.

Wolverine, you could have PM'd upriver.

Just for clarification; do completely unrelated warnings (like an ad hominem or an advertisement warning) add up to a ban?

Cheers.

[papageno]

The paper I was looking at (and don't understand enough) is
this paper, where the authors are trying to describe the interplanetary turbulent electric fields using solar wind data. I was hoping to extract the strength of the radial component of the electric field from the paper, but I need help to see if there is anything to extract at all.

What they did was calculate the electric field from the electron densities and speeds and arrange them into probability density functions (PDF's). The text explains some of the characteristics of these PDF's and what I think I see is that there is "non-gaussianity" of the PDF in the X-direction (radial along the Sun-Earth axis).

This "non-gaussianity" is what I'm trying to understand; does this imply a radial electric field component "on top of" the E-field expected from turbulence? I might be mistaken (likely even), but could this be the radial component I'm looking for?

Comments are appreciated.

This interplanetary induced electric field e = v x b has analogies with the Hall voltage: as in the Hall effect, it is the result of the motion of charged particles (hence the v) in a (external) magnetic field (hence the b).

The paper is dealing with fluctuations of this field about the average value.
Unfortunately they present only normalized data for e (as in Fig. 1), which means that they subtracted the average value of e and then scaled the obtained data by the standard deviation of the fluctuations.
This is justified because they are analyzing the shape of the PDFs for the fluctuations of e.
The result they present seems to be quite technical about the data analysis, but the bottom line of the first part (the non-guassianity) seems to be the refutation of previous assumptions that the variables producing e (velocity and magnetic field) are not correlated (i.e., that they fluctuate independently from each other).

I don't see any implication for a steady radial electric field (i.e., constant in time) nor that the fluctuations of the radial component e_v are asymmetric about the average value.
Maybe you can find more in the references provided by this paper.

[upriver]

That is no more a tube than the flow of air from a leafblower.

You are simply trying to hide the fact that originally you completely misunderstood the reference you provided about the flow of neutral Helium through the Solar System (confusing angular distribution with spatial distribution, for example).
Not to mention that you tried to pass this "tube" of neutral atoms as evidence for net electric currents between Sun and interstellar space.

Lets see. So, do you think it is diffuse outside the solar system and it collaminates inside the solar system or is it collaminated outside the solar system and then diffuse inside the solar system, or is the whole thing diffuse from outside the solar system to the He cone.

Ok, why dont you explain what exactly that picture represents as far as physical helium flow from outside the heliosphere to the He cone.

The 'tube' is composed of 10% Helium neutral atoms.
The other thing is that the shape of the tube changes with solar min and solar max. It changes from oval at min to round at max.

But none of this has anything to do with the discussion anyway.
Why don't you address my points, instead?

I will. Its taking a little research to do this.

[Thanatos]

So much for nucleosynthesis. Particle physicists apparently have much work left to do. Observational [spectrographic] evidence insists there is virtually no iron between the photosphere and earth. While there may be trace amounts of iron in the core of the sun, there is no known mechanism to convey it, much less keep it on the surface.

[papageno]

That is no more a tube than the flow of air from a leafblower.

You are simply trying to hide the fact that originally you completely misunderstood the reference you provided about the flow of neutral Helium through the Solar System (confusing angular distribution with spatial distribution, for example).
Not to mention that you tried to pass this "tube" of neutral atoms as evidence for net electric currents between Sun and interstellar space.

Lets see. So, do you think it is diffuse outside the solar system and it collaminates inside the solar system or is it collaminated outside the solar system and then diffuse inside the solar system, or is the whole thing diffuse from outside the solar system to the He cone.

It is explained here and here, which you already linked to:

Because the Sun's motion relative to the surrounding gas, an interstellar breeze of neutral atoms blows through the heliosphere, very much like the wind felt when driving an open car. Only very close to the Sun is the neutral gas ionized by the Sun's UV light and the by the solar wind, which leads to a small cavity in the neutral gas, roughly of several AU in size. Except for hydrogen, which is affected by radiation pressure, the Sun's gravity deflects the neutral gas flow, leading to a concentration of neutral gas density in the direction opposite to inflow direction of the gas.

The Solar System is moving through in a "cloud" of interstellar gas.
The ionized component is stopped at the Heliopause, while the neutral component (Helium) can pass through.
The Helium Atoms that get close enough to the Sun are deflected by its gravity, increasing the density of this neutral gas "behind" the Sun (the cone).
Part of the neutral gas is ionized when near the Sun.

Ok, why dont you explain what exactly that picture represents as far as physical helium flow from outside the heliosphere to the He cone.

I already did in post #1714, where I corrected your misinterpretation in post #1698.
That graph shows that the instrument detected Helium atoms coming from a specific direction, not an increase of the density of neutral Helium in a certain, tubular, region of space.

The 'tube' is composed of 10% Helium neutral atoms.
The other thing is that the shape of the tube changes with solar min and solar max. It changes from oval at min to round at max.

The cone "behind" the Sun contains the deflected neutral Helium atoms from the interstellar "cloud", which are partly ionized by the radiation emitted by the Sun:

The green insert shows how the cone intensity decreases from 1996 (solar activity minimum) to 2000 (solar maximum) as the ionization, monitored with the CELIAS SEM sensor on SOHO, increases.

It is not surprising that the ionized part of the deflected flow depends on solar activity.

But none of this has anything to do with the discussion anyway.
Why don't you address my points, instead?

I will. Its taking a little research to do this.

You should have done that research before posting your claims.
If you don't know how they are relevant to the discussion, why did you provide them in the first place?

I discussed the references you provided, showing that they either are not relevant or contradict your claim.
Now it is your turn to address the direct questions I asked you.

[Nereid]

[snip]

I will. Its taking a little research to do this.

In the meantime, please do not post any further on this topic, in this thread.

How long do you think you will need, to be able to answer the direct, specific questions asked of you, about your ideas?

[captain swoop]

Are we really seeing posts about an Iron Sun again? I thought that Undead had been well and truly Staked.!

[Wolverine]

Wolverine, you could have PM'd upriver.

For the sake of direct expediency, I thought it appropriate to stress the prior warning publicly.

Just for clarification; do completely unrelated warnings (like an ad hominem or an advertisement warning) add up to a ban?

Yes. Varied infractions are cumulative, although resulting disciplinary action depends upon their severity.

[VanderL]

For the sake of direct expediency, I thought it appropriate to stress the prior warning publicly.

Hmmm, I think it's a bad idea.

Yes. Varied infractions are cumulative, although resulting disciplinary action depends upon their severity.

No kidding, this place is becoming stricter by the day. I think you guys are a little overmoderating at times, imo. Where is the openminded atmosphere.

Cheers.

[Duane]

VanderL, there is a thread here discussing the forum rules.

[upriver]

And let me point out that a net current between the Sun and the interstellar medium is not compatible with closed circuit.
So, it seems that you are trying to argue simultaneously in favor of two contradictory positions.

I never said "closed" circuit.

No, you should prove that you are right, instead of just stating it.
Show us that the model based on nuclear fusion is not compatible with the experimental evidence.

Right here is an example of a non prediction by the fusion model.

"FG Sagittae in the last hundred years has gone from magnitude 13.7 to 9.1 and at the same time has dropped each year about 250K in temperature. It has also gone from a B spectral type star, through descending types, to its present K2Ib, and has now a definite warm color tone visually."

http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/1198.shtml

"The star FG Sagittae breaks all the rules of accepted stellar evolution. FG Sagittae has changed from blue to yellow since 1955! It, quite recently, has taken a deep dive in luminosity. FG Sagittae, is the central star of the planetary nebula (nova remnant?) He 1-5. It is a unique object in the sense that for this star we have direct evidence of stellar evolution but in a time scale comparable with the human lifetime. [CCD Astronomy, Summer 1996, p.40.]"

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

As my teacher used to say "It only take one observation to prove a theory wrong"

I already asked you to provide quantitative estimates of the amount of Iron in the Sun.
Show the evidence that there is enough Iron on the Sun to have any effect on electric and magnetic fields.

Well it would be about the amount that allows us to believe that the sun has a density of 1.4. I'm in the same boat as you, there is no proof as to what the sun is made of since you cant see inside.
The only evidence I can present I'm sure you are already familiar with. Since we infer the density of the sun, if gravity theory(there is an aether) is incorrect it may not be of the density that we assume. But I cant show that either.

"Noting that gaseous envelopes may not reflect the Sun’s internal composition, Harkins [2]
used analyses on 443 meteorites to conclude that Fe, O, Ni and Si are more abundant."

http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2005/LunarAbstract.pdf

http://www.thesunisiron.com/

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

tusenfem simply took the average density of the Sun and of solid Iron, and showed that solid Iron would form a relatively thin shell.
If you want to use his estimate, you have to show that such shell can actually exist on the Sun, and that it has the properties necessary to support your position.
So, where is the evidence in support of such solid Iron shell?

I have none. Anything that is exists will be interpeted in the standard model, so I'm finding this an exercise in frustration.

Originally Posted by upriver
Maybe that fact that more ions reach the heliosphere than electrons, would lead to a higher negative charge density in the inner solar system.

This is just more handwaving, unless you can provide some relevant reference to support your speculation.
Show us that the number of ions and the number of electrons is different.

I cant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by upriver
Now personally, I might think that with the electron flow outward slower than the protons and heavy ions which would make the sun more negative and the heliosphere more positive, creating a positive terminal for the electrons to flow to as they ionize the iron from the surface in flares, and ionize the photosphere.

Show us that the negative and positive charge densities are different.

At this point I cant find anything to support my position on charge density.




Here is the Ulysses pinhole view. I think these are different cross sections of interstellar helium.
From the link you provided
http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/ulysses/gas/

http://www.mps.mpg.de/data/projekte/...a95058_2_c.png
http://www.mps.mpg.de/data/projekte/...a96007_2_1.png
http://www.mps.mpg.de/data/projekte/...a96011_2_1.png

[papageno]

And let me point out that a net current between the Sun and the interstellar medium is not compatible with closed circuit.
So, it seems that you are trying to argue simultaneously in favor of two contradictory positions.

I never said "closed" circuit.

Silly me!
When you said:

I'm assuming that the solar polar plumes(Birkeland currents) extend to the heliosphere.

[...]

They(the currents) are traveling around the heliopause to the poles and down the polar plumes to the sun. Down the sun from the poles to the equator. Out at the equator to the heliosphere.

[...]

The current flow is from the heliosphere down the poles. It flows from the poles down the sun to the equator. Since iron is a magnetostrictive material, the current creates (helioseismic)waves as it flows to the equator. At the equator the current density is high enough to form coronal loops and flares, together these produce ALfven waves and initial acceleration of the solar wind which extends to the heliosphere.

(bolding mine)
I actually thought you were talking about a closed circuit between the Sun and the Heliopause.

Now, show us the evidence of a net current between Sun and Heliopause.

No, you should prove that you are right, instead of just stating it.
Show us that the model based on nuclear fusion is not compatible with the experimental evidence.

Right here is an example of a non prediction by the fusion model.

"FG Sagittae in the last hundred years has gone from magnitude 13.7 to 9.1 and at the same time has dropped each year about 250K in temperature. It has also gone from a B spectral type star, through descending types, to its present K2Ib, and has now a definite warm color tone visually."

http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/1198.shtml

"The star FG Sagittae breaks all the rules of accepted stellar evolution. FG Sagittae has changed from blue to yellow since 1955! It, quite recently, has taken a deep dive in luminosity. FG Sagittae, is the central star of the planetary nebula (nova remnant?) He 1-5. It is a unique object in the sense that for this star we have direct evidence of stellar evolution but in a time scale comparable with the human lifetime. [CCD Astronomy, Summer 1996, p.40.]"

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

As my teacher used to say "It only take one observation to prove a theory wrong"

The star FG Sagittae is not our Sun, is it?
So, how do these observations disprove the current model of the Sun?

I already asked you to provide quantitative estimates of the amount of Iron in the Sun.
Show the evidence that there is enough Iron on the Sun to have any effect on electric and magnetic fields.

Well it would be about the amount that allows us to believe that the sun has a density of 1.4. I'm in the same boat as you, there is no proof as to what the sun is made of since you cant see inside.
The only evidence I can present I'm sure you are already familiar with. Since we infer the density of the sun, if gravity theory(there is an aether) is incorrect it may not be of the density that we assume. But I cant show that either.

"Noting that gaseous envelopes may not reflect the Sun’s internal composition, Harkins [2]
used analyses on 443 meteorites to conclude that Fe, O, Ni and Si are more abundant."

http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2005/LunarAbstract.pdf

http://www.thesunisiron.com/

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/

You started claiming that pictures, such as from TRACE, show a solid Iron surface:

From the pictures, solid until ionized from the surface.

then you said

Actually, I dont relate them to solid iron. Its just that at those wavelengths you can see through the photosphere.

Now you backpedal saying that we "can't see inside".

Apparently you are not familiar with spectroscopy, helioseismology and solar neutrinos.
The average density of the Sun is not the only way we have to find out what the Sun is made of and how it works inside.
Saying that "there is no proof as to what the sun is made of" is misrepresenting the current state of observations.

So, you did not present evidence to support your idea, and you have not shown how the paper agrees with your idea (by the way, Manuel's work has been discussed elsewhere on this board).
Also, you admit that you cannot show how the available evidence supports your idea.

tusenfem simply took the average density of the Sun and of solid Iron, and showed that solid Iron would form a relatively thin shell.
If you want to use his estimate, you have to show that such shell can actually exist on the Sun, and that it has the properties necessary to support your position.
So, where is the evidence in support of such solid Iron shell?

I have none. Anything that is exists will be interpeted in the standard model, so I'm finding this an exercise in frustration.

What is this? The big-bad-conspiracy-of-the-evil-mainstream-scientists copout?
Why don't you stop wasting time with unsupported claims?

Maybe that fact that more ions reach the heliosphere than electrons, would lead to a higher negative charge density in the inner solar system.

This is just more handwaving, unless you can provide some relevant reference to support your speculation.
Show us that the number of ions and the number of electrons is different.

I cant.

Now personally, I might think that with the electron flow outward slower than the protons and heavy ions which would make the sun more negative and the heliosphere more positive, creating a positive terminal for the electrons to flow to as they ionize the iron from the surface in flares, and ionize the photosphere.

Show us that the negative and positive charge densities are different.

At this point I cant find anything to support my position on charge density.

You should not make claims that you cannot support them with properly formulated and scientifically valid reasonings or experimental evidence.

Here is the Ulysses pinhole view. I think these are different cross sections of interstellar helium.
From the link you provided
http://www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/ulysses/gas/

http://www.mps.mpg.de/data/projekte/...a95058_2_c.png
http://www.mps.mpg.de/data/projekte/...a96007_2_1.png
http://www.mps.mpg.de/data/projekte/...a96011_2_1.png

Cross-sections?
Why do you keep posting links without context?

From the observed local angular distributions, the parameters of the interstellar helium outside the heliosphere, the flow velocity and direction, the temperature and density, can be derived.

[...]

This instrument is designed to measure the local angular distribution of the interstellar, neutral helium particles (Witte et al., 1992).

In principle, the Sensor acts like a pin-hole camera.

The whole celestial sphere can be scanned by using the spacecraft rotation and an instrument-provided mechanical stepping platform to point the sensors optical axis to different cone angles. Angular resolutions (pixel size) between 0.7^ox1^o and 11^ox8^o can be selected.

One such "Sky Map" was obtained in January 1992, when ULYSSES was approaching planet Jupiter.

It should be noted that the locally observed flow direction considerably deviates from the flow direction of the interstellar medium because of the gravitational deflection of the particle trajectories by the Sun and because of an abberation effect due to the spacecraft velocity.

(bolding mine)
I read flow direction, angular distributions (that's why the axes in the plots show degrees), but no cross-sections.

[Van Rijn]

Regarding FG Sagittae, from here:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo..._Sagittae.html

The consensus view is that FG Sagittae is a final helium flash object, similar to Sakurai's Object, about to make a rapid transition to the white dwarf stage.

This is definitely not a star on the main sequence, as is stated in upriver's own source.

Here's a short bit on final helium flash objects:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclo...ium_flash.html

They are expected to change luminosity and evolve quite rapidly. The statement that "The star FG Sagittae breaks all the rules of accepted stellar evolution" appears to be incorrect.

[upriver]

I can tell that I'm just not smart enough to give good answers.
So what I'm saying is that no matter what answer I give, somehow I dont think it will be enough.

We just got a new Phantom v7 160,000fps camera for sonofusion research.
And I'd rather spend time there.
http://www.visiblesolutions.com/phantomv7.html

So I hope these are enough because I dont know any more.

Now, show us the evidence of a net current between Sun and Heliopause.

The one thing I know is that the solar system is moving through a plasma. A variable plasma.
That is a fact.
Everybody knows what happens to an object immersed in plasma.
And if the equilibrium time is greater than the variation time in the plasma, then what do you think happens?
That is all I know.

The star FG Sagittae is not our Sun, is it?
So, how do these observations disprove the current model of the Sun?

No, it is not our sun.
If it takes only 100 years to go through a change that is supposed to take millions of years then that disproves the fusion model. Which our sun is based on. So that would prove that the sun was not fusion. FG is not the only object that has provided a surprise to the round ball fusion standard model.

Apparently you are not familiar with spectroscopy, helioseismology and solar neutrinos.

If you are taking a spectrogram of the gasous envelope, it may not reflect the composition of the interior, which is different than viewing at a particular wavelength(172,191,1600, magnetogram 512).
The helioseismology results are in favor of a sun with a solid surface due to variations in solar radius.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111
Solar neutrinos come from surface fusion in flares in the form of x and z pinches.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002700/a002750/

What is this? The big-bad-conspiracy-of-the-evil-mainstream-scientists copout?

And we all know that conspiracies dont exist. Flash Movie.
http://www.freedomunderground.org/me....php#Preloader

I read flow direction, angular distributions (that's why the axes in the plots show degrees), but no cross-sections.

Ok. In this picture of "flow direction, angular distributions " you are almost facing the oncomming flow.
"The actual positions of Sun, Earth, and Jupiter are indicated by yellow, green and white dots, respectively."
http://www.mps.mpg.de/data/projekte/...a94343_2_2.png
If you look at the pictures and the dots, you can figure out where in the orbit the picture(counts) was taken. So I should have not used the word tube. It is definately a column shaped flow.

And this picture is of Ulysses orbit which seems to pass right through it. And it shows the same approx. the same angle with a little less resolution. Not the paste up angle.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/obj...objectid=35875

[Tim Thompson]

If it takes only 100 years to go through a change that is supposed to take millions of years then that disproves the fusion model.

But it's not, so it doesn't. What's so hard about that?

The helioseismology results are in favor of a sun with a solid surface due to variations in solar radius.

No way. As a matter of strict fact, the fact that helioseismology exists is about as good a proof as one could have that the sun cannot be "solid" anything, including iron. That's because the sound waves that helioseismologists measure are recognizable as fluid vibrations. And they are recognizable as reaching all the way to the core. Sic Transit Solid.

[papageno]

I can tell that I'm just not smart enough to give good answers.
So what I'm saying is that no matter what answer I give, somehow I dont think it will be enough.

Throughout this thread you have stubbornly tried to ignore the points raised by people that know about the subject.
You have tried to hide your ignorance and lack of understanding behind a wall of links and references that were either irrelevant to the discussion or plainly contradicted your claims.
With you "wall of references" you tried to shift the burden of proof: the implication was that if your critics do not show that those references are irrelevant or contradicted you, then your claims stand.
This is not how it works.
Your recent admissions that you cannot support your claims and that you are "not smart enough to give good answers", together with the fact that you seem not to have learned a single thing about astronomy, physics or simply how to make a scientifically valid argument, show that you have just been wasting our time in this thread.
What would be appropriate for you to do, is to retract your claims and apologize for wasting our time.

We just got a new Phantom v7 160,000fps camera for sonofusion research.
And I'd rather spend time there.
http://www.visiblesolutions.com/phantomv7.html

So I hope these are enough because I dont know any more.

They are not enough.

Now, show us the evidence of a net current between Sun and Heliopause.

The one thing I know is that the solar system is moving through a plasma. A variable plasma.
That is a fact.
Everybody knows what happens to an object immersed in plasma.
And if the equilibrium time is greater than the variation time in the plasma, then what do you think happens?
That is all I know.

So, you do not have a shred of evidence of a net current between the Sun and the Heliopause.
Your suggestion that "everybody know what happens to an object immersed in a plasma" is not even a well founded speculation: it is an attempt to appeal to "common sense" and shift - again - the burden of proof.
Now, you either show the details of your "reasoning", which includes writing the relevant equations, showing how you reach the conclusion that there is a net current, or you retract your claim.
It is time to put up or shut up.

The star FG Sagittae is not our Sun, is it?
So, how do these observations disprove the current model of the Sun?

No, it is not our sun.
If it takes only 100 years to go through a change that is supposed to take millions of years then that disproves the fusion model. Which our sun is based on. So that would prove that the sun was not fusion. FG is not the only object that has provided a surprise to the round ball fusion standard model.

Now, you either show the details of your "reasoning" showing how you reach the conclusion that those observations disprove the fusion model of our Sun, or you retract your claim.

Apparently you are not familiar with spectroscopy, helioseismology and solar neutrinos.

If you are taking a spectrogram of the gasous envelope, it may not reflect the composition of the interior, which is different than viewing at a particular wavelength(172,191,1600, magnetogram 512).

First you said that the pictures obtained from particular Iron-ions show the solid Iron surface.
Then you said that you could not relate those emission lines with a solid Iron surface.
Now you say (translated): "If I am looking at a particular emission, then my interpretation is right. If any professional physicist or astronomer gives another interpretation, then they are wrong. Trust me."
You have to show that you are right: just claiming it won't do it.

The helioseismology results are in favor of a sun with a solid surface due to variations in solar radius.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510111

Changes in the subsurface stratification of the Sun with the 11-year activity cycle

We report on the changes of the Sun’s subsurface stratification inferred from helioseismology data.
Using SOHO/MDI (SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory/Michelson Doppler Imager) data for the last 9 years and, more precisely, the temporal variation of f-mode frequencies, we have computed the variation of the radius of subsurface layers of the Sun by applying helioseismic inversions.
We have found a variability of the “helioseismic” radius in antiphase with the solar activity, with the strongest variations of the stratification being just below the surface around 0.995R0.
Besides, the radius of the deeper layers of the Sun, between 0.975R0 and 0.99R0 changes in phase with the 11-year cycle.

It is obvious that you did not read or understand the paper: nowhere is a solid surface mentioned.
So, one more reference that is irrelevant or contradicts your claims, as usual.

Solar neutrinos come from surface fusion in flares in the form of x and z pinches.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002700/a002750/

The solar flare at Active Region 10039 on July 23, 2002 exhibits many exceptional high-energy phenomena including the 2.223 MeV neutron capture line and the 511 keV electron-positron (antimatter) annihilation line. In the animation, the RHESSI low-energy channels (12-25 keV) are represented in red and appears predominantly in coronal loops. The high-energy flux appears as blue at the footpoints of the coronal loops. Violet is used to indicate the location and relative intensity of the 2.2MeV emission.

And the evidence of fusion on the surface is where? Nowhere.
So, one more reference that is irrelevant or contradicts your claims, as usual.

What is this? The big-bad-conspiracy-of-the-evil-mainstream-scientists copout?

And we all know that conspiracies dont exist. Flash Movie.
http://www.freedomunderground.org/me....php#Preloader

So, the answer is: "Yes! There is a Big Bad Conspiracy of evil mainstream-scientists!"
Any evidence? Of course not, as usual.

I read flow direction, angular distributions (that's why the axes in the plots show degrees), but no cross-sections.

Ok. In this picture of "flow direction, angular distributions " you are almost facing the oncomming flow.
"The actual positions of Sun, Earth, and Jupiter are indicated by yellow, green and white dots, respectively."
http://www.mps.mpg.de/data/projekte/...a94343_2_2.png
If you look at the pictures and the dots, you can figure out where in the orbit the picture(counts) was taken. So I should have not used the word tube. It is definately a column shaped flow.

"Column shaped flow"=tube.
Changing the word does not change the concept: you are still hanging onto your idea that the neutral Helium flow is within a tube.

And this picture is of Ulysses orbit which seems to pass right through it. And it shows the same approx. the same angle with a little less resolution. Not the paste up angle.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/obj...objectid=35875

Been there, done that.
I already explained that those lines are there to show the flow pattern, they are not the representation of physical boundaries of the flow.
This is clear if your read the text and look at the plots.

Are you going to post more irrelevant links, or are you going to face the fact that you cannot support your claims or even build a physically meaningful speculation?

[skywatch]

looks like garbage smells like garbage must be garbage

[VanderL]

And the evidence of fusion on the surface is where? Nowhere.

Papageno, suppose there is a correlation between solar surface phenomena (sunspots, CME's, flares etc) and solar neutrino counts, would this convince you that fusion is happening at the solar surface?

Cheers.

[Celestial Mechanic]

Papageno, suppose there is a correlation between solar surface phenomena (sunspots, CME's, flares etc) and solar neutrino counts, would this convince you that fusion is happening at the solar surface?

Tap your heels together and repeat after me: Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation. Correlation is not causation.

[Eta C]

Papageno, suppose there is a correlation between solar surface phenomena (sunspots, CME's, flares etc) and solar neutrino counts, would this convince you that fusion is happening at the solar surface?

Cheers.

Is there? References please. If not, you've merely made a rhetorical question. Plus, who's to say that the surface effects are not driven by the interior dynamics. That is, increases and decreases in the fusion rate inside the sun could change both the solar neutrino rate and the surface phenomena. While I'm making an equally unsupported statement here, it makes more sense than yours given our current knowledge of the sun, and represents another possible mechanism. So the answer to your question (from this physicist at least) is no. There are other, more likely, possibilities.

That being said, I don't believe we've seen variations in the solar neutrino flux that correlate with the sunspot cycle, and I'm pretty sure we haven't seen spikes in the flux that correlate with solar flares (I'll do a quick check). We've only been able to measure the total flux for about 4 years now, and taking the old measurements and multiplying by 3 may give some indications, but is no substitute for ongoing measurements by SNO and other neutrino observatories.

[phunk]

Papageno, suppose there is a correlation between solar surface phenomena (sunspots, CME's, flares etc) and solar neutrino counts, would this convince you that fusion is happening at the solar surface?

Cheers.

Might convince me that there is a connection but not that one causes the other. Maybe something deep subsurface is causing both the surface effects and the neutrinos?