Quote:
Originally Posted by tusenfem
Why only papers from the late 1960s, where there is enough new stuff published, e.g. de Jager and Versteegh from 2005 and an addition to it (or correction on one mechamism) by Shirley from 2006. |
I am not trying to do a full review of these other proposals, just showing that they are serious proposals. If anyone wants to make a list of published papers and put it in this thread, then do so by all means, but I will concentrate on the proposal that I am making and only mention the others where there is some commonality of difference that I want to point out.
Quote:
|
What exactly are we supposed to understand from the Sun moving through its own magnetic field? The sun moves in its 179 year looping around the barycenter. The solar wind which carries the magnetic field, which originates from the Sun, flys away at 400 km/s, how is the Sun moving through this?
|
The body of the Sun also has a magnetic field as do sunspots. They are not flying out at 400 km/s. Anyway, I have no interest in defending that theory. I am proposing an alternative that has a moderate correlation with that theory in its predictions, but is based on an entirely different mechanism.
Quote:
|
GR effect by planets on radiation and relativistic matter in the Sun's core causes slight convection cells in the solar interior leading to a varying amount of heat reaching the surface and to the production of magnetic fields. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
|
Well, it is more important to understand the later statement about the convection on the polar direction which is the result of a full rotation accumulation and so can build up over years.
The important thing is that if you accept that there is a doubling (or 5/3 times) effect of gravity on radiation (which was proven in the Eclipse experiments) then the central part of the Sun experiences a different rate of acceleration from what the surface experiences. Because of rapid mixing of momentum between radiation and matter, this acceleration applies to the matter there.
Additionally, there is an argument that this increased acceleration also applies to the relativistic content of ordinary matter as well as to light. This was all explained by G D Birkhoff in 1927.
Quote:
|
Also I do not understand anything about this claim The fact that radiation is more strongly affected by gravity than ordinary matter at non-relativistic velocities is the basis of my proposal. I guess you are going to explain that to us.
|
Yes.
Quote:
|
For now, I will make the assumption that radiation in the solar core (as an ensemble of mass) is accelerated by 5/3 times as much as non-relativistic matter and that there is a similar effect on the relativistic component of matter in the Sun also. I think that you first need to show that this assumption is justified. Why would gravity work harder on relativistic particles?
|
It was proven in the Eclipse observations that light was bent twice as much as expected in Newtonian theory. That bending is an acceleration and a change in momentum. That momentum is being transfered to matter at every interaction between radiation and matter in the solar interior.
Quote:
|
Please, start from point zero, show that your assumptions are justified before you go any deeper into this stuff. And read some recent papers on the topic.
|
There are no papers on this topic. No-one has ever calculated the accumulation of momentum that happens on contained radiation before.
Quote:
|
And for those who, like me, do not know what syzygy is (no it is not wysiwyg's sister), here is the definition from Merriam Webster. A difficult word for alignment.
|
Yes. An approximate syzygy of Jupiter, Venus and Earth occurs every 1.6 years, but good syzygys occur at intervals averaging 11.07 years although they are clustered around 10.38 and 12.00 years. There is definitely something in the tidal hypothesis. I am just showing that there is also an additional effect of the planets on the sun.