It is known that, on frequent occasions, solar protuberances are gradually accelerating in space; sometimes, they loop initially the Sun and change then their direction and move away from the Sun. This fact is, apparently, one of the proofs of our PFO-CFO Theory of Solar System Formation and Transformation, according to which stars radiate heat and light as a result of not fusion but radiation-chemical reactions (this idea was first proposed in a paper by Rutherford and Soddy, but these authors didn’t give a well-composed theory). Protuberances carry out radioactive isotopes into the circumsolar space and accelerate by the energy that is evolving as a result of the radiation-chemical transformations of these isotopes. The heat of these reactions warms the circumsolar space and can influence the Earth’s atmosphere temperature, and the isotopes emitted by the Sun can influence the atmospheric chemical reactions. I think that, in the present time, when the Earth’s warming becomes the cause of growing concern of community, our theory and its conclusions should be taken into consideration.
See, for example,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320254816_Mass_extinctions_of_species_causes_of_Phanerozoic_extinctions_and_possibilities_of_recurrence_of_such_phenomena_in_future
and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320187190_Massovye_vymirania_vidov_priciny_Fanerozojnyh_vymiranij_i_vozmoznost_povtorenia_podobnyh_avlenij_v_budusem_Plenarnaa_lekcia
and related publications.
Dear Victor,
the most dangerous are solar flares, not protuberances, especially solar proton flares. Proton fluxes from flares can create dangerous exposure doses in near-earth orbits, as well as effects even at ground level, as was the case, for example, in March 1989. Eruptive protuberances also occur, but, as a rule, after solar flares. The source of solar flare energy is magnetic fields in the active regions of the Sun, more precisely the explosive transformation of magnetic energy into energy in other forms due to the processes of magnetic reconnection of lines of force. Sincerely, Vsevolod.
Dear Vsevolod,
According to the PFO-CFO Theory of Solar System Formation and Transformation, no thermonuclear (fusion) reactions proceed on the stars. The light and heat radiation is emitted by the radiation-chemical reactions as was first proposed by Rutherford and Soddy, but we proposed a new well-composed theory beginning from the Universe origination and including the Sun formation, transformation, and its further history. This theory explains all principal cosmic phenomena and processes, including those inexplicable up to present, such as formation of all chemical elements, isotopic anomalies, solar temperature increasing from spots to photosphere and from photosphere to corona, regularity of the solar cycles, paradox of the moments of the Sun and the Solar System objects, acceleration of protuberances in their flights, each of the nine mass Earth’s extinctions, current warming, etc., and allows forecasting of the solar behavior. Look at my pages at the ResearchGate site. You could see many our publications with statement about this theory. The last ones are https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320254816_Mass_extinctions_of_species_causes_of_Phanerozoic_extinctions_and_possibilities_of_recurrence_of_such_phenomena_in_future (English presentation of a plenary lecture) and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320187190_Massovye_vymirania_vidov_priciny_Fanerozojnyh_vymiranij_i_vozmoznost_povtorenia_podobnyh_avlenij_v_budusem_Plenarnaa_lekcia (Russian paper).
You, apparently, know that fusion reactions proceed by the chain mechanism. If protuberances were caused by fusion explosions, the protuberances that occurred at red dwarf DG CVn in 2014 should explode the star, but the dwarf shines as if nothing had happened.
The PFO-CFO Theory explains the real nature of protuberances.
Regards, Victor.
Dear Victor,
I have great respect for you for your desire to look at the essence of things in a new way. Essentially, your ideas go against modern concepts of almost all astrophysics. But, I hope, they do not reject the quantum theory of the tunnel effect? Regarding the latter, a high temperature is required for thermonuclear reactions in prominences, otherwise the tunnel barrier will be impenetrable. In the center of the sun, the temperature is 15 million Kelvin, in the protuberances only a few thousand Kelvin. That is the problem. All the best, Vsevolod.
Dear Vsevolod
Can you explain the increase in the rate of protuberance by a factor of 4.5 (Pettit E., An Eruptive Prominence of Record Height, June 4, 1946, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacific, 58 (1946) 310-314)? Can you explain the increase in the temperature by 2000 K from solar spots to the photosphere? Can you explain the formation of the heavy isotopes? Can you explain the differences in the isotopic compositions in different regions of the space in the Solar System? We explain these facts and a lot of other ones not explained earlier.
Did you measure the temperature in the center of the Sun? It is calculated on the basis of the model which was confirmed by nobody and was obtained on the basis of ambiguous imaginations 100 years ago.
The so-called Solar Model doesn't explain a lot of observable phenomena and processes and, the faster it will be shelved and replaced by a more substantiated one, the better will be for humanity, because the Sun not only supplies us with the light and heat but also carries in itself great dangers for the Earth' populations. The people should know about these dangers for understanding that they live under one common sky.
Save up your knowledge on the tunnel effect for any other case, please.
Regards.
Dear Victor,
Thank you for the valuable link to Pettit's work! I've been looking for her for a long time. I could only answer your first question, but I do not want to impose my point of view on you. Judge for yourself: it was in 1946–47 that the Sun had such large areas of sunspots that were not observed before or for about 140 years (please see the picture in the accompanying file). That is, it was at that period that there was not only an unprecedentedly large prominence, but also unprecedentedly large spots. That is, extreme manifestations of solar activity were both at the photospheric and coronal levels ! Of course, these are unique sporadic phenomena and they must have a specific cause. Sincerely, Vsevolod.
Dear Vsevolod
First, in my opinion, your information has nothing to do with our discussion; namely, it by no means explains the initial movement of the protuberance by the circumsolar orbit, its subsequent turning and movement from the Sun with the 4.5-fold acceleration.
This phenomenon has the unique explanation, and this explanation corresponds to our theory. I attach the presentation of our plenary lecture https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320254816_Mass_extinctions_of_species_causes_of_Phanerozoic_extinctions_and_possibilities_of_recurrence_of_such_phenomena_in_future
By the way, bear in mind that I criticize the works only in the cases if I can give a substantiated alternative theory or a substantiated alternative explanation of experiments. I think that, otherwise, the criticism is meaningless.
Dear Vsevolod
I send you one more paper that you, maybe, didn’t read. It is the interview of 2002 with Piers Van der Meer. He was cried down; however, he was the first to show that the Solar Model is no class. He honestly calculated the solar core temperature and obtained 27 millions of Celsius. Meanwhile, we are living up to now. We discussed the problem of the past and future solar history in much more details on the basis of the PFO-CFO Theory and the available information on the Earth’s mass extinctions. The presentation that was sent to you just recently is devoted to this problem. Later, we made this much more accurately and came to the analogous results.
Dear Victor,
Thanks you for your presentation. I read it all, understood something, but mostly did not understand or did not agree. I very much doubt that this can be published in international journals with a high impact factor. In any case, your presentation does not provide links to your articles in such journals. If they are, they should definitely be brought in to make your ideas more trustworthy. I sincerely wish you success, Vsevolod.
Dear Vsevolod
We both, Elena Kadyshevich and I, are most grateful to you for reading our presentation (I think that the corresponding Russian paper is more detailed and easy-to-read for you). It is extremely important for us to know your objections and misunderstandings, because this knowledge would be a signal for us to clarify and to detail the corresponding points. It is so the more important for us because we prepare two short lectures on this subject for different scientific conferences in this May. We would be extremely thankful if you could formulate your doubts. You are right, our theory is against the mainstream, but we are used to it. Possibly, you payed your attention to the fact that we work in different fields between and in physics, chemistry, biology, and astronomy. In particular, I published several papers in Ukrainian journals about the problems of catalysis, chromatography, and other gas/solid reactions; we have the theories about living-matter origination and other natural phenomena, etc. We are grateful to you for paper and figure on the sunspots; we have a nonstandard opinion about the sunspot nature and will obligatory use your experiments if we live till the time when we are able to do this. Thank you once more for your discussion. Regards, Victor.
Dear Vsevolod,
You write that you explain the protuberance of 1946. However, I see no explanation. Why should an increase in the sunspot area lead over the years to very powerful protuberances? Do you think it follows physically from the Standard Solar Model? Do you have any grounds to do this? I see that you only associate this protuberance with the sunspot area, but this is not explanation. Do you know the sunspot nature? Do you know why they are colder than the photosphere by 2000 degrees? On the contrary, the PFO-CFO Theory explains the sunspot nature and explains their decreased temperature.
You write that the protuberance is the result of an explosion. But what and where was exploded? The Sun is giant. If the explosion was in its central zone, where, as you believe, thermonuclear reactions proceed, why didn't this fusion explosion propagated over the entire Sun, and, if this was a surface explosion, what had exploded in the field where no thermonuclear reactions exist?
As you see, you explained nothing.
You didn’t explain also, why the protuberance flew initially around the Sun and, then, turned from it and flew with acceleration, increasing its speed with time by a factor of more than four.
Meanwhile, all these phenomena are explained in the context of the PFO-CFO Theory and cannot be explained by any other way.
Apparently, this phenomenon represents an unambiguous proof of our PFO-CFO Theory, according to which the protuberances are born at the core/radiation zone boundary as a result of an increase in the concentration of electrons, floating from the central zone under the influence of the buoyancy force, and bear in themselves, along with electrons, radioactive pico-drops of the solar substance, which increase in time their energy (and speed) as a result of the radiation-chemical decays.
Why are you silent?
I am impatient for your criticism and your real explanation of this phenomenon.
Regards, Victor.
Dear Victor,
Aristotle 24 centuries ago said: "Wonderment compels a person to philosophize." Does it surprise you that unprecedented large spots and an unprecedentedly large prominence appeared on the Sun soon (less than a year) after the first atomic explosions on Earth? Take a close look at the schedule I sent you 2 days ago. Such very large spots (as well as the prominence) were neither before nor after! Does this surprise you? And what is the probability of a random coincidence? It is easy to estimate that for each pair of correlations it is less than 1%, but for both events together (as independent - they originated from different active regions on the Sun) it is less than 0.01%. Does this not surprise you or is it still slightly surprising? Sincerely, Vsevolod.
Dear Vsevolod,
Sorry, this your issue is beyond my understanding.
Dear Victor, I did not ask you if you understand this problem. I asked you if these solar-terrestrial correlations seem surprising to you. But does it not seem surprising to you that the solar cycle No. 19 (1954-1964) was maximum in power over the past 140 years (see graph) coincided with the period of maximum power of nuclear tests on Earth? And, by the way, it coincided with the period of the greatest total energy of catastrophic earthquakes with M> 7.9. Best wishes, Vsevolod.
Dear Vsevolod,
I think that the Earth by no means can influence the Sun, while the Sun can influence the Earth, including through unknown mechanisms. In particular, I consider the possibility that just solar phenomena are responsible for the tektite rains on the Earth.
Meanwhile, the sunspot activity is at present rather low, and we consider this as the forerunner of powerful protuberances in the following period of the enhanced solar activity.
Dear Vsevolod,
Your data characterise only a partial, small region of the Sun. Why did you observe just this solar region and is there a correlation with other regions of the Sun?
Dear Victor,
you misunderstood the essence of our research. We took a homogeneous parameter of solar activity, namely corrected area of groups of sunspots. This, note, is better than the well-known Wolf's numbers, because there it is necessary to divide all the spots on the disk into groups, and this is done on the basis of measurements of their polarities by the Zeeman effect. But this method itself was introduced only from 1925, and before this year, the Wolf's numbers were calculated quite arbitrarily. So, taking from the Greenwich catalog of the area of all groups of sunspots over the past 140 years (when there is the most reliable data), we looked at (a) in what years were the sunspots with maximum areas and which are areas of sunspots averaged over each year. From here such results. I emphasize once again: we (with V.M. Efimenko) analyzed all the spots for the specified period. Sincerely, Vsevolod.
Dear Vsevolod,
OK! Thank you. Yes, I understand that it should be just so, and I understand your first figure just so. But what does the index SP,S in the second figure mean? Sincerely, Victor.
Dear Victor, the index in the second figure means smoothed summary areas of sunspots on the entire visible disk. Regarding the counting method, this is a complete analogy of the smoothed Wolf numbers. Namely, firstly monthly values of all the spots on the disk are calculated. Then these values are smoothed over one year, more precisely over 13 months, and more precisely, over a period of +/- 6 months relative to the given month. As to possible other details, please see our paper in atached file. All the best, Vsevolod.
P.S. I apologize: for some reason I cannot send you this my letter with an attached article. So I had to remove the article. It is strange that my first Figure also disappeared from the chronicle of our correspondence ...
Dear All, Dear Vsevolod,
I decided to show the figure that is quite natural for our PFO-CFO Theory of Solar System Formation and Transformation and represents a solid proof of the PFO-CFO Theory. The figure shows the acceleration of the solar protuberance of June 4, 1946. It is calculated by us on the basis of the paper cited under it. This protuberance, according to its original descriptions, moved initially in the circumsolar orbit and then turned away from the Sun. As we see, its speed increased steadily from the initial measured speed and increased by a factor of about 4.5 over the time interval of observations. This result means that the energy of the protuberance substance increased with time. In our opinion, this phenomenon should be explained by radiation-chemical reactions and, according to the PFO-CFO Theory, protuberances carry out the radioactive isotopes from the solar field located between the solar core and radiation zone.
Meanwhile (this is about another phenomenon), it is known that the rotation speed of the solar core is higher than that of the radiation zone by a factor of several units. This means that a density jump exists in this field of the Sun. The PFO-CFO Theory explains this phenomenon, while the widely-distributed theory doesn’t explain it.
Dear Victor, of course the huge and accelerating prominence of June 4, 1946 is something out of the ordinary. It reached the height greater than the diameter of the sun! I think it would be scary to observe it in the H-alpha filter. But note that there were other very large protuberances, namely: a prominence on September 17, 1937, which reached an altitude of 1 million kilometers, and a prominence on March 20, 1938, which reached an altitude of 1.55 million kilometers. Sincerely, Vsevolod.
Dear Vsevolod, Dear All,
According to the PFO-CFO Theory, protuberances contain electrons and radioactive pico-drops with definite neutron-to-proton ratios. This ratio increases with the age of the star, and the concentration of the pico-drops can depend on the power of the protuberances. As a result of radiation-chemical decays, pico-drops transform to atomic nuclei with evolution of the energy of radioactive decays. Therewith, the energy of protuberances increases and their speed grows. Therefore, the powerful protuberances acquire “the second cosmic speed” and fly away from the Sun. I saw no information about measurements before 1946 of the changes in the speed of protuberances as they moved away from the Sun. Do you have the results of such measurements?
According to the Theory, the sunspots represent the tops of the weak protuberances, in which the radiation-chemical reactions had no time to develop, and, therefore, their temperature is lower than that of the ambient photosphere. The solar corona contains piping hot atoms heated by the secondary and tertiary radiation-chemical reactions.
Regards, Victor.
PS. I am waiting for continuation of the discussion.
Dear Victor, unfortunately, I do not have journal references to articles about extreme prominences of 1937-38. We observed a powerful limb flare on July 19, 2012, and we measured in it subkilogauss magnetic fields at a fairly high altitude, about 40 Mm (see the associated file). But the rise of its arches was observed for a relatively short time and it was approximately uniform. All the best, Vsevolod.
Dear Vsevolod,
Of course, there are the prominences with a spectrum of their powers and with a spectrum of their speeds. The weak prominences give only sunspots, the slightly more powerful ones give loops, those ones which are more powerful disperse at the circular orbit, and only the most powerful ones show a sharp acceleration. I think that the acceleration of the prominence under consideration can't induce doubts.
Dear All, Dear Vsevolod (the following conclusion is important and timely),
I think that the following conclusion results from our discussion.
The prominences emit energy from the Sun; the more powerful event, the more energy is transmitted into the space and dissipated over it. Therewith, the amount of the energy can increase in time.
It is necessary to take into account that, in the context of the PFO-CFO Theory, each elemental radioactive pico-drop of the solar substance can be subjected to several sequential r-ch decays, including that after the prominence desintegration.
Therefore, the aftereffect of prominences should be considered as one of the possible factors of the Earth's warming.
The measwurements of the solar protuberance of June 4, 1946 represesent, in our opinion, solid proof of the PFO-CFO Theory of Solar System Formation and Transformation.
Dear all, of course, the solar prominences still have a lot of riddles. One of them is what the magnitude of the local magnetic fields in these formations. The prominences occur most often in the inner corona of the Sun, where it would seem that the gas and dynamic pressure are too small to allow strong magnetic fields to exist. Nevertheless, in our studies together with Olga Botygina, it was shown that sometimes very strong local fields of the 'kilogauss' range occur here (especially in active prominences) . At present, this conclusion is still far from universal recognition. Perhaps this will be a big surprise for future researchers.Best wishes, Vsevolod.
Dear All, Dear Vsevolod,
The phenomenon is of quite in the context of the PFO-CFO Theory. According to it, the stellar protuberances, including the solar prominences, result from an excess of the pressure of the electron-gas separating the stellar radiation zone (RZ) and core over the counter-pressure of overlying layers of the RZ. The protuberances consist of electrons with an admixture of the pico-drops of the stellar substance occurring at the core/RZ boundary. Just these electrons initiate the magnetic field of the protuberance and circumprotuberance space of the stellar corona. Just these electrons are the cause of the cyclic transformation of the stellar (solar) magnetic field. These phenomena are repeatedly described in our publications and in RG discussions with Drs. Matts Roos and Alexander Chepick. The information by Dr. Vsevolod Lozitsky is one of the numerous confirmations of the PFO-CFO Theory of Solar System formation and Transformation given, for example, in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235410562_Development_of_the_PFO-CFO_hypothesis_of_solar_system_formation_Why_do_the_celestial_objects_have_different_isotopic_ratios_for_some_chemical_elements ;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275831650_PFO-CFO_Hypothesis_of_Solar_System_formation_Solar_System_formation_and_past_and_future_evolution;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275831560_PFO-CFO_Theory_of_Solar_System_formation_from_empty_space_to_the_future_of_our_planet;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320187190_Massovye_vymirania_vidov_priciny_Fanerozojnyh_vymiranij_i_vozmoznost_povtorenia_podobnyh_avlenij_v_budusem_Plenarnaa_lekcia (the last, in Russian).
- Badges
- Science topic