A Solar Dynamo Theory
I would like to present a model that I believe can model some of the strangeness we see in the world around us. I will explain the math of the model and the steps of development or thought process I have been through. Then use the model to develop a theory of the solar dynamo. If you are familiar with the solar dynamo you know that we really don’t understand how it works. But thanks to a NASA scientist we do know how it behaves and he has documented what we know we don’t know about it. On his NASA site (http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/dynamo.shtml ) he has a list of five things that a model of the solar dynamo must address. I will spend time showing how this model can produce what we observe plus a few extra things we observe that are not on his list.

Up to this point what I am presenting would not seem to belong in the ATM portion of this site but if I do a good job explaining how it can model the solar dynamo and you the reader start to think about it, you will begin to realize for this model to work we need to change our view on how the sun was created in the first place.

The current Mainstream view of a stars formation is based on a gravitational collapsing of material to create a high mass that starts a process of runaway contraction of greater density and higher temperature starting the nuclear fusion process. The material that is collapsing differs based on whose theory you are looking at, but the Mainstream theory is based on Sir James Jeans theory called “Jeans Instability” and the material is interstellar gas clouds.
The theory I am presenting is an ordered method of creating the nuclear fusion process requiring a flow of material, in our Sun’s case hydrogen. I will show how a simple flow of material into a confined space could create the fusion process we observe as our solar dynamo. Confined space in this model is simply flow in is greater than flow out, if the space is expanding but flow in is greater than the rate of expansion then the model will still work, it will however require more time for the process to complete.

I am not suggesting the current Mainstream theory is wrong, rather to create what we see as our solar dynamo, this model, because of order, will create it with greater certainty with the characteristics we observe.

I have a website of the model that contains 18 pages of which the first 8 are the main pages and will get you up through the solar system, of the last 10 pages some are not complete, and others give some background information and then a couple I really go off the deep end. For this solar dynamo theory only the first eight pages should be considered.
I think you will find it fairly easy reading.

1. Models and Theories
2. The Model
3. Making the Model Work
4. Moving to 3 Dimensions
5. Building the Model
6. Tornados and Hurricanes
7. A Model of the Sun
8. The Solar System
Of the first 8 pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 I feel are the important ones.

I considered removing pages 5 and 11 because the experiments I ran look like something a kid in grade school would run; but I am leaving them in because they were what convinced me that the model was valid.

The site is http://www.e-huh.com .

Thanks,

Jim

__________________

If you like his work, toss him a cookie.

Author: Dr. David H. Hathaway

And the Solar Physics Group:
Solar Physics page, Marshall Space Flight Center

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

Hi 01101001,


Thanks for the advice! Actually I had his name in there until I went to post and I started thinking “if I was him would I want my name linked to someone posting to the certified crackpot section of the Bad Astronomy website”? I thought “No Way” so I took his name off. I do reference him and his work on the website.
I appreciate your comments; Dr. Hathaway gets the credit he deserves without the possibility of being tarnished by me.
I attended a NASA Sun Earth Connection conference in Huntsville several years ago and was blown away by the whole thing. I have nothing but respect for all of the scientists at NASA.

Thanks Again,
Jim

__________________

Hey, it just read funny to me, like it was by an anonymous NASA scientist author. I don't see how Hathaway could complain about being credited for his work, in any subforum within BAUT. It will be your interpretation here, or on your site, that will shine or be tarnished.

(A big part of the value of the Internet is that it can be searched. Links and associations are valuable. Now there's one more association in cyberspace between the doctor's name and what someone thinks of and about the work. Who knows, maybe Hathaway will some day search his own name, discover these comments, and decide to participate.)

That said, I've not much interest in solar dynamo models, so I'll leave it to others that might be entranced to carry on with the discussion. Have fun.

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

I'm downloading the 86 MB movie of the sun's magnetic field over the last 22 years.

What can I say? I'm a visual person!

Ok, done, and I've watched it.

Wow.

I'd love to glean some neat insight, but I'm afraid I haven't a clue, other than the fact that I noted activity last seemed to peak around 2001.

Nice page "HUH", must study it, more complex than a quick breeze.

How does your model factor in the Sun's uneven spin? - as shown in this page: http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin...jpg_image.html

Does your model produce the same results, where equator mass spins ahead of hemisphere masses? Thanks.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

Hi mugaliens,
If you are a visual person and find the Sun fascinating here are some sites you might be interested in.

The first is NASA’s main SOHO site that you can get daily pictures and movies. It is pretty boring right now but in three or four years you will be checking it daily. NASA (and others) are predicting that 2010 and 2011 will have the most solar activity in recorded history.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov.

If you are just learning about how the sun works you don’t want to mess up that learning with an ATM theory that has a low probability of having any substance to it. So I won't start spouting off my ideas.

Here are a couple of other sites that have some interesting information:
This is a story on what NASA is predicting:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...ec_cycle24.htm

Another one is about the solar magnetic conveyor:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...ycle_flow.html

I stick to using NASA and major colleges as sources of information.

Also, I found our solar system’s current sheet very interesting. If you Google “Pete Riley current sheet” you will find some interesting information. I heard a talk Pete gave and was blown away. The current sheet is the largest thing in our solar system.

Jim

__________________

Hi nutant gene 71,

The theory is the outer surface is forced to spin faster than the inter dynamo portion. If you look at the shape from the top view you will see a lot of clearance near the equator where the two flows cross, this crossing I see as very violent and a source of expansion of gases. This works like a pump spinning the surface faster. The surface is not solid so where the most action is where the most expansion is. Near the poles of the model of sun there is very little clearance, very little action and therefore moves slower.


The drawing that shows the equator mass spinning ahead of hemisphere mass is showing a possible theory of twisting. This shape of spin ahead can be seen in some photos of the sun and I have heard it referenced as the solar magnetic conveyor. The model I am presenting produces this shape at the math level and can be seen on the model. On the model this is the flow or magnetic conveyor that drives the model.

Thanks for the interest!
Jim

__________________

I just took a look at the HUH website, specifically "chapter 7" where the sun is being discussed. Then I came across
the explanation of Figure 7.1

Now, I may be mistaken, but I don't think I am, but the black lines in the upper right corner are everything but magnetic fields, these are the traces of gravity waves P and S modes in the sun. So, I would say that your understanding of the mainstream solar dynamo is rather imperfect.

Also, I would like to know what the Galileo spacecraft is supposed to have measured about the solar dynamo/magnetic field.

is the any evidence that the radiative zone is consisting of two flows? would we not see sunspots move in one direction at one half of the sun and in the other direction on at the other half where the flow is reversed? would we not see sunspot in a "north-south" line across the sun instead of an elongated "east-west" line?

I think that with helioseismology we would most definitely have found out whether there are two opposing flows in the "radiative zone".

I think I will stop there, no need to read any further.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Hello tusenfem,
First let me start by saying when I posted this ATM I was hoping I would get at least one of four specific people to critique the theory and you were one of the four. I truly appreciate the time you took to review the site, thank you.

To answer your questions:

First problem, I wrote in Galileo spacecraft by memory and was wrong on the spacecraft it was a joint NASA/ESA Ulysses mission. This is the link to the information I used:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin....html&edu=high

I got to this site looking for information on cyclones and tornados. I had a model of what looked like a dual vortex and I was looking for information, the sun was the last place I would have ever thought to find any type of match for what I was looking at. The information on the site is 10 years old but I have never found anything saying it was wrong.

Quote:

Quote by tusenfem: (1) is there any evidence that the radiative zone is consisting of two flows? would we not see sunspots move in one direction at one half of the sun and in the other direction on at the other half where the flow is reversed? would we not see sunspot in a "north-south" line across the sun instead of an elongated "east-west" line? (2) I think that with helioseismology we would most definitely have found out whether there are two opposing flows in the "radiative zone". I think I will stop there, no need to read any further.

The answer to (1) is yes:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...ormwarning.htm

NASA’s interpretation of the data shows two counter rotation zones, one above the equator and one below. This would give the bidirectional sunspots like you described. The model I show has the two opposite flows crossing, creating a line of action from the pole to pole of the sun. The flows crossing would be violent causing a tremendous release of energy, causing among other things sunspots. The convective zone spins faster and the sunspots or explosions would be recorded on this convective zone and only move one direction.


The answer to (2) is the helioseismology data collected fits the model I am using better than NASA’s model. See page 6 (the 2nd page):
http://www.phys.au.dk/~jcd/oscilnotes/chap-2.pdf

The alternating pockets can be shown on the model I am suggesting, they wouldn’t be as neat as they have them shown but I could create a cutaway showing the pocket effect.

NASA’s Dr. Hathaway says on his website that they don’t have a model of the solar dynamo and are struggling to create a model that will go through all of the screwy contortions the sun goes through. It looks to me like the model and theory I presented can fit what is observed.

The real ATM idea I am suggesting is how the sun was created. Can the flow of hydrogen flowing into a fixed space create the sun? I would love to hear your thoughts on this.


Again, thank you very much for taking the time and giving your comments.

Jim

__________________

And you did not feel compelled to change the error on your page?

I can understand making a mistake like that, that is no problem. The more grieving comment on that part is the fact that you show propagation paths of P and S waves in the sun and say that they are magnetic fields. You talk about garden sprinkler fields, whatever those may be. Most likely based on your wrong assumption of the black lines in the upper right part of the figure.

Interesting, I had not seen this proposed model.

Well, actually it is David Hathaway's interpretation of the data, and here is the paper. But these flows are NOT as on your page. The flows transport the sun spots from the equator to the pole. From your own link to NASA:

which is rather different from what you draw with your blue and orange "flows".

And where in this chapter does it show that your model fits better?

I think we already have rather good models describing the solar dynamo. I am sure Papageno could tell you all about them. The alpha and omega dynamo's seem to work rather well. We don't have all the details, that is true, but then, the sun is a vastly complex object.

I don't understand that statement (and it is not the topic of this thread). But the answer is yes. The primordial hydrogen cloud self gravitated to become the sun (whoah here I must step on a lot of solar physicist toes, to summarize the creation of the sun in 1 sentence). I don't understand what you mean with "the flow of hydrogen".

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Thanks, OJ (hope you don't mind the connotation - it just seems to fit).

I fondly recall sitting in second grade, watching a movie about the sun hosted by some two guys who happened to do a lot of similar movies in the 1960s involving science. Nearly everything they said turned out to be true.

Can you imagine that?

I appreciate the links to the sites - thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem And you did not feel compelled to change the error on your page?

Oh I was compelled, but I was out of town attending a seminar. I have corrected that and the interpretation of the waves and provided a link to the site that compares the lawn sprinkler to the tornado effect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem I can understand making a mistake like that, that is no problem. The more grieving comment on that part is the fact that you show propagation paths of P and S waves in the sun and say that they are magnetic fields. You talk about garden sprinkler fields, whatever those may be. Most likely based on your wrong assumption of the black lines in the upper right part of the figure.

My problem was I was mentally combining the current NASA model with the Ulysses data and my model. In the very short dialog we have had I find that you are exposing some weaknesses I didn't know I had. I have a lot of work to do to correct this. There is a quote by Francis Bacon that went something like: "The reason people believe weird things is they record the hits and ignore the misses...". Back to your concern about the P and S waves is that I had seen them called gravity waves, sound waves, pressure waves and sound and magnetic waves. I of course said yes they are magnetic waves and recorded it as a hit.

I think you are looking at the yellow/orange loops and I was looking at the black. The top black loop takes material from the equator to the top pole. The bottom black loop takes material from the pole to the equator. The picture is badly labeled but does show the problems of plotting the complexity of the flows.

This animation from page 8 on my site show one of the problems defining flows on the sun: http://e-huh.com/animations/dosedoe.html
If you watch this animation you will see at first a rotating object but soon you can see that the two objects are rotating and twisting into and out of each other. That was my animation, this is NASA's: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...heet/Min_sm.qt

Quote:
Going back to the Francis Bacon quote I need to work on this. I can't match all of the pictures with the model, but I think I can match half of them. I will put together an animation of what my thought process was/is.

Papageno was another on my list of four. In his dialog with Sweetster he made some comments sort of "as matter of fact" that went against popular mainstream science. The keyword is popular. I got the feeling he could shed some light on whether nature could create a model like I am showing.

Well in one sentence I think you did a great job of summarizing the current mainstream thinking of how the sun was created. I can't really argue that it didn't happen this way. My problem, presenting the theory of the solar dynamo based on the model I am using is that the odds of a gravition collapse creating the dynamo like the model is slim to none. It is like building it from the outside in versus the inside out.

One final thing, I went to the Ulysses mission site and found out that they have extended its mission and it is going to make another pass around the sun coming up in Nov. of this year. I thought it was going to end after two passes. If I get a chance I am going to gather the data from the first two passes and show how it fits to the model then predict what they will see in this next pass.

I thank you again Tusenfem! I truly appreciate you taking the time and I value your comments.

Thank You,

Jim

__________________

Ouch… You got me! I would go for a name change but after reading the rules I think I could get it changed easier in real life than on this site.

I saw your post on the Solar Jerk ATM thread and your prediction. I think the movies you saw in the 60's must of had an effect on you. I plan on making some predictions before my 30 days are up. I think you will find we are not that far apart.

If you are interested in other facets of the sun you might want to follow the joint NASA/ESA Ulysses mission due to make another pass around the sun November of this year. This is the site: http://ulysses.esa.int/science-e/www...cfm?fareaid=11
I am going to put something together on the two previous passes around and post it on this ATM thread. If my memory is correct the mission was only going to be two passes and I just discovered they are making another pass. If you look at the data you will see why. You will either see light bulbs popping on or funding for another pass. The sun is weird.


OJ

__________________

When I found out that Ulysses was making a 3rd pass around the sun and would finish in early 2008 I thought I would predict what the data would look like using my proposed model. When I started looking at where Ulysses was I found that the third pass is almost complete and the data that I have found so far matches what I would have predicted.

If you are not familiar with the ESA/NASA joint Ulysses mission this pdf file has a quick summary and simple graphs of the data: http://teachspacescience.org/graphics/pdf/10000938.pdf

I found a paper A Floor in the Solar Wind Magnetic Field by L. Svalgaard and E. W. Cliver that has a chart using Ulysses data that shows a flip/flop of the Outward IMF and the Inward IMF in the 2000 and 2001 time frame. The same time a flip/flop of the sun’s magnetic field. Unfortunately when I went to reference this paper it was no longer free and you must pay for it. I tried searching to see if I could find it somewhere else but was unsuccessful.

My prediction based on my model is the chart will look like the first pass except it will be flipped both vertically and horizontally. The vertical flip shows in the Svalgaard and Cliver paper. The horizontal flip will be obvious on a circular plot.

I think anyone that has studied Dr. Hathaway’s Butterfly diagrams would come to the same conclusion on the two flips. The big difference is the base model I am suggesting provides the mechanism for this second flip.

Below is an attachment that when clicked on will expand and shows the first two passes and my est. Third Orbit prediction. I have yet to see a circular chart of the third orbit and of course I could be wrong on my prediction.

Jim

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________

To tusenfem,
I promised an animation showing how I envision the magnetic/sound waves picked up on the surface of the sun.

This is a link to an animation: http://e-huh.com/animations/thinslice/

This animation is a thin slice taken through the equator of the model.

I picture the Inward and Outward flow of IMF is generated by the action shown in the animation.

Jim

__________________