Re: [Vo]:The faint young Sun paradox
http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/90 It is now universally accepted that the reservoir of energy stored in the sun’s atmospheric magnetic field is what heats the localized plasma in the corona. In simplified terms, the field is generated in the solar interior as a result of large-scale rotational and convective motions of the charged plasma, which serve to produce a strong magnetic field some below the solar surface. At this depth, the field is in the form of a concentrated tube that encircles the sun, but as it makes its way to the surface, it can emerge as a pair, or group, of sunspots connected by arches of magnetic field that extend hundreds of thousands of kilometers into the solar atmosphere. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:47:44 -0700: Hi, [snip] The solar model of Mills posits non-nuclear hydrogen energy from the solar corona, and thereby solves both problems, and more. This corona energy may see-saw in intensity with fusion energy in the core. Here's another thought. There is little or no fusion in the core. Most of it takes place in the Corona, which then heats the surface (explaining why the Corona is hotter). Because the fusion is catalyzed by Hydrinos, the energy appears in the form of fast electrons rather than gamma rays, which is why few/no gammas are detected. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:The faint young Sun paradox
Sure, and it was universally accepted in 1600 that the Sun revolved around the earth. Fundamental change in mainstream perceptions, even with the advantage of the internet - takes a little while to set in. In fact Robin's 'outrageous' suggestion is almost as likely as induction of a localized plasma- which, let's face it, is far from localized. The final analysis may be a hybrid of both. The sun's magnetic field is certainly important - and provides the necessary containment, as in a Tokomak (inverted tokomak); but it has been claimed by more than a few modern observers (not restricted to Randy) that the magnitude of thermal transfer cannot derive from any known inductive process, and must be at least partly self-generated. From: Axil Axil It is now universally accepted that the reservoir of energy stored in the sun's atmospheric magnetic field is what heats the localized plasma in the corona. Robin wrote: The solar model of Mills posits non-nuclear hydrogen energy from the solar corona, and thereby solves both problems, and more. This corona energy may see-saw in intensity with fusion energy in the core. Here's another thought. There is little or no fusion in the core. Most of it takes place in the Corona, which then heats the surface (explaining why the Corona is hotter). Because the fusion is catalyzed by Hydrinos, the energy appears in the form of fast electrons rather than gamma rays, which is why few/no gammas are detected.
Re: [Vo]:The faint young Sun paradox
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/90 It is now universally accepted that the reservoir of energy stored in the sun’s atmospheric magnetic field is what heats the localized plasma in the corona. In simplified terms, the field is generated in the solar interior as a result of large-scale rotational and convective motions of the charged plasma, which serve to produce a strong magnetic field some below the solar surface. At this depth, the field is in the form of a concentrated tube that encircles the sun, but as it makes its way to the surface, it can emerge as a pair, or group, of sunspots connected by arches of magnetic field that extend hundreds of thousands of kilometers into the solar atmosphere. The next paragraph says What is not known, and remains under considerable debate even now, is how the energy stored in the magnetic fields is converted into heating the corona [4] In other words what is universally accepte is the hope that it can explained by magnetic fields by members of this universal club. Harry
Re: [Vo]:The faint young Sun paradox
This statement brings up an interesting question in my mind. If we assume that the magnetic field lines are the source of the energy that activates the solar corona, then what do we expect to happen in the event that there are few of these visible or just below the surface? It is apparent that the sun has an 11 year cycle in sun spot activity and that in the past there have been dry spells for these events. I recall that a period in history around 1670 had an almost total lack of spots. Someone suggested that a fairly large portion of the energy from the sun was due to the corona so should we be concerned when there are few spots? Does the fact that the output from the sun has been relatively consistent tend to negate the magnetic lines argument for corona drive? I had always thought that the time changing fields associated with these lines behaved like a particle accelerator of immense size. That may be the reason for the mass discharges that we dodge every so often, but now I have a question as to whether or not they are the source for the corona heating. They just seem to fall short on energy and time frame. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 15, 2012 12:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The faint young Sun paradox On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://physics.aps.org/articles/v5/90 It is now universally accepted that the reservoir of energy stored in the sun’s atmospheric magnetic field is what heats the localized plasma in the corona. In simplified terms, the field is generated in the solar interior as a result of large-scale rotational and convective motions of the charged plasma, which serve to produce a strong magnetic field some below the solar surface. At this depth, the field is in the form of a concentrated tube that encircles the sun, but as it makes its way to the surface, it can emerge as a pair, or group, of sunspots connected by arches of magnetic field that extend hundreds of thousands of kilometers into the solar atmosphere. The next paragraph says What is not known, and remains under considerable debate even now, is how the energy stored in the magnetic fields is converted into heating the corona [4] In other words what is universally accepte is the hope that it can explained by magnetic fields by members of this universal club. Harry
[Vo]:The faint young Sun paradox
Models of the Sun's evolution predict the Sun was 70% percent as bright 2 billion years ago, and the Earth should have been an ice ball at that time. Yet the geological record indicates the oceans were liquid. A number of explanations have been proposed which haven't faired well upon closer study. The lastest explanation says that the Earth at one time orbited closer to the Sun: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530152034.htm Here is another: If LENR occurs inside the Earth then perhaps there was sufficient LENR activity in the Earth billions of years ago to keep the oceans liquid. harry
Re: [Vo]:The faint young Sun paradox
Probably the most sensible solution is that the atmosphere was significantly thicker. 30% less heat input would drop the earth's temperature by about 20°C, but 20% more mass of air would increase the temperature by about 20°C at ground level. We know that during the age of the dinosaurs that there was a lot more oxygen in the atmosphere, it was up to about 30% O2 vs 20% now. Assuming the quantity of nitrogen is about the same (pretty safe as it doesn't react significantly or leak away) then you are looking at another 10°C just in the extra thickness of atmosphere caused by that extra oxygen. Before about 800 million years ago the atmosphere had very little O2 and a whole lot of CO2, which would have made the atmosphere even thicker and further increased the temperature at the surface. Also the earth was spinning a lot faster and the thicker atmosphere transported heat better from the tropics to the poles, producing a wider latitudinal band of temperature climates (this is known from geological studies) On 14 August 2012 23:27, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Models of the Sun's evolution predict the Sun was 70% percent as bright 2 billion years ago, and the Earth should have been an ice ball at that time. Yet the geological record indicates the oceans were liquid. A number of explanations have been proposed which haven't faired well upon closer study. The lastest explanation says that the Earth at one time orbited closer to the Sun: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530152034.htm Here is another: If LENR occurs inside the Earth then perhaps there was sufficient LENR activity in the Earth billions of years ago to keep the oceans liquid. harry
Re: [Vo]:The faint young Sun paradox
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46632008/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/mystery-still-why-early-earth-didnt-freeze-over/ For greenhouse gases to explain the faint young sun paradox, their concentrations would need to have been extremely high, hundreds to thousands of times as much as today. If levels of carbon dioxide were that high, they would be recorded in ancient soils and sediments in the rock record, Pope said. If levels of methane were that high, they would actually form a kind of organic haze in the atmosphere that blocks the sun's rays and would counteract its properties as a greenhouse gas. Now scientists analyzing relatively pristine 3.8-billion-year-old rocks from Isua find no evidence that greenhouse gas levels were high enough to explain the faint young sun paradox, further deepening the mystery, Pope told LiveScience. harry On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:05 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Probably the most sensible solution is that the atmosphere was significantly thicker. 30% less heat input would drop the earth's temperature by about 20°C, but 20% more mass of air would increase the temperature by about 20°C at ground level. We know that during the age of the dinosaurs that there was a lot more oxygen in the atmosphere, it was up to about 30% O2 vs 20% now. Assuming the quantity of nitrogen is about the same (pretty safe as it doesn't react significantly or leak away) then you are looking at another 10°C just in the extra thickness of atmosphere caused by that extra oxygen. Before about 800 million years ago the atmosphere had very little O2 and a whole lot of CO2, which would have made the atmosphere even thicker and further increased the temperature at the surface. Also the earth was spinning a lot faster and the thicker atmosphere transported heat better from the tropics to the poles, producing a wider latitudinal band of temperature climates (this is known from geological studies) On 14 August 2012 23:27, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Models of the Sun's evolution predict the Sun was 70% percent as bright 2 billion years ago, and the Earth should have been an ice ball at that time. Yet the geological record indicates the oceans were liquid. A number of explanations have been proposed which haven't faired well upon closer study. The lastest explanation says that the Earth at one time orbited closer to the Sun: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120530152034.htm Here is another: If LENR occurs inside the Earth then perhaps there was sufficient LENR activity in the Earth billions of years ago to keep the oceans liquid. harry
RE: [Vo]:The faint young Sun paradox
A more sensible solution is that was NO faint young sun to begin with. The same flawed model of solar mechanics that gives us the solar neutrino problem also gives us the faint young sun problem. They invented a straw man that never was much more than fiction, and now that they are trying to keep it in play with an even more insane rationalization. Why not just admit the model is wrong. The solar model of Mills posits non-nuclear hydrogen energy from the solar corona, and thereby solves both problems, and more. This corona energy may see-saw in intensity with fusion energy in the core. From: Robert Lynn Probably the most sensible solution is that the atmosphere was significantly thicker. 30% less heat input would drop the earth's temperature by about 20°C, but 20% more mass of air would increase the temperature by about 20°C at ground level.
Re: [Vo]:The faint young Sun paradox
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: A more sensible solution is that was NO faint young sun to begin with. I was waiting for someone to suggest this possibility. The same flawed model of solar mechanics that gives us the solar neutrino problem also gives us the faint young sun problem. They invented a straw man that never was much more than fiction, and now that they are trying to keep it in play with an even more insane rationalization. I am not sure how Mill's hydrino would resolve the faint young sun paradox. Are you saying the corona is a significant source of radiant energy which is overlooked in coventional solar models, such that the Earth would freeze over without the Sun's corona ? harry
RE: [Vo]:The faint young Sun paradox
Harry, I have not followed Mills' cosmological arguments for years and they may have changed. IIRC he thinks 100% of the UV and EUV (which is the main emission spectrum for f/H) and something like 40% of the net thermal energy received on earth comes from the Corona. That instantly solves the neutrino problem elegantly. There was in fact no faint young Sun so the only adjustment there, needed to the correct the old model is that the ratio of thermal output from Corona-to-Core may have varied. Therefore, if Mills is correct, then the answer to your question is yes - without this additional energy from the Corona, we would freeze over. It is possible that the ash from deep shrinkage (Deep Dirac Level ??) is synonymous with dark matter as Terry pointed out the other day. In which case, every Sun probably has a Corona which is continually producing dark matter over time. -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder Jones Beene wrote: A more sensible solution is that was NO faint young sun to begin with. I was waiting for someone to suggest this possibility. The same flawed model of solar mechanics that gives us the solar neutrino problem also gives us the faint young sun problem. They invented a straw man that never was much more than fiction, and now they are trying to keep it in play with an even more insane rationalization. I am not sure how Mill's hydrino would resolve the faint young sun paradox. Are you saying the corona is a significant source of radiant energy which is overlooked in coventional solar models, such that the Earth would freeze over without the Sun's corona ? harry
Re: [Vo]:The faint young Sun paradox
Just a bunch of collapsed microsingularities emitting hawking radiation around the sun collapsed due to the intense gravity and flux. The smaller they are the hotter they get. The smallest might get up to... 5.6×1032 K vs a monster black hole in the emptiest part of space which is somewhat cooler ~ 3 K I think since it is attempting to be in equilibrium with cosmic background radiation On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:05 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Harry, I have not followed Mills' cosmological arguments for years and they may have changed. IIRC he thinks 100% of the UV and EUV (which is the main emission spectrum for f/H) and something like 40% of the net thermal energy received on earth comes from the Corona. That instantly solves the neutrino problem elegantly. There was in fact no faint young Sun so the only adjustment there, needed to the correct the old model is that the ratio of thermal output from Corona-to-Core may have varied. Therefore, if Mills is correct, then the answer to your question is yes - without this additional energy from the Corona, we would freeze over. It is possible that the ash from deep shrinkage (Deep Dirac Level ??) is synonymous with dark matter as Terry pointed out the other day. In which case, every Sun probably has a Corona which is continually producing dark matter over time. -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder Jones Beene wrote: A more sensible solution is that was NO faint young sun to begin with. I was waiting for someone to suggest this possibility. The same flawed model of solar mechanics that gives us the solar neutrino problem also gives us the faint young sun problem. They invented a straw man that never was much more than fiction, and now they are trying to keep it in play with an even more insane rationalization. I am not sure how Mill's hydrino would resolve the faint young sun paradox. Are you saying the corona is a significant source of radiant energy which is overlooked in coventional solar models, such that the Earth would freeze over without the Sun's corona ? harry
Re: [Vo]:The faint young Sun paradox
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:47:44 -0700: Hi, [snip] The solar model of Mills posits non-nuclear hydrogen energy from the solar corona, and thereby solves both problems, and more. This corona energy may see-saw in intensity with fusion energy in the core. Here's another thought. There is little or no fusion in the core. Most of it takes place in the Corona, which then heats the surface (explaining why the Corona is hotter). Because the fusion is catalyzed by Hydrinos, the energy appears in the form of fast electrons rather than gamma rays, which is why few/no gammas are detected. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:The faint young Sun paradox
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:47:44 -0700: Hi, [snip] The solar model of Mills posits non-nuclear hydrogen energy from the solar corona, and thereby solves both problems, and more. This corona energy may see-saw in intensity with fusion energy in the core. Here's another thought. There is little or no fusion in the core. Most of it takes place in the Corona, which then heats the surface (explaining why the Corona is hotter). Because the fusion is catalyzed by Hydrinos, the energy appears in the form of fast electrons rather than gamma rays, which is why few/no gammas are detected. what would keep the sun from collasping under its own gravity? harry
Re: [Vo]:The faint young Sun paradox
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Wed, 15 Aug 2012 00:36:58 -0400: Hi, [snip] On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:42 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:47:44 -0700: Hi, [snip] The solar model of Mills posits non-nuclear hydrogen energy from the solar corona, and thereby solves both problems, and more. This corona energy may see-saw in intensity with fusion energy in the core. Here's another thought. There is little or no fusion in the core. Most of it takes place in the Corona, which then heats the surface (explaining why the Corona is hotter). Because the fusion is catalyzed by Hydrinos, the energy appears in the form of fast electrons rather than gamma rays, which is why few/no gammas are detected. what would keep the sun from collasping under its own gravity? Excellent question! You probably just shot down the theory! :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
