Monday, December 15, 2008

Stream of Atomic Hydrogen Coming From The Sun

James Anthony Phillips: Solar Flare Surprise.

Dec. 15, 2008: Solar flares are the most powerful explosions in the solar system. Packing a punch equal to a hundred million hydrogen bombs, they obliterate everything in their immediate vicinity. Not a single atom should remain intact.

At least that's how it's supposed to work.

"We've detected a stream of perfectly intact hydrogen atoms shooting out of an X-class solar flare," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. "What a surprise! These atoms could be telling us something new about what happens inside flares."

The event occurred on Dec. 5, 2006. A large sunspot rounded the sun's eastern limb and with little warning it exploded. On the "Richter scale" of flares, which ranks X1 as a big event, the blast registered X9, making it one of the strongest flares of the past 30 years.

NASA managers braced themselves. Such a ferocious blast usually produces a blizzard of high-energy particles dangerous to both satellites and astronauts. Indeed, moments after the explosion, radio emissions from a shock wave in the sun's atmosphere signaled that a swarm of particles was on its way.

An hour later they arrived. But they were not the particles researchers expected.

NASA's twin STEREO spacecraft made the discovery: "It was a burst of hydrogen atoms," says Mewaldt. "No other elements were present, not even helium (the sun's second most abundant atomic species). Pure hydrogen streamed past the spacecraft for a full 90 minutes."
Read the whole thing.


Quantum_Flux said...

Nice. Hydrogen to regenerate the hydrogen that is escaping. This proton/electron binding probably occured en route to the Earth. My bet is that electrons were the "leader" (note: scitech dictionary has been wrong in details before) to that particular Birkeland Current.

Raptor Lewis said...

I NEVER doubted the capabilities of the sun. Did that affect Mercury at all?

OilIsMastery said...

Mercury gets it too. Mercury is held in orbit by the Sun's electromagnetic field. No gravity or Newtonian God required.

Quantum_Flux said...

I think that you'd have a major problem with stability if it were the electric forces that keep mercury orbiting around the sun, what would happen to the orbit if mercury were to gain or lose charge?

OilIsMastery said...

It's so close to the sun all the time that it's almost always in equilibrium.

However, catastrophes can take place:

"If an atom is built as a microcosmical model of a solar system, elements arriving from interatomic space, also travelling from one atom to another must be in existence. Contacts between elements, increase in numbers of electrons, polarities, change of orbits, all must take place. Change of orbits and emitting of energy at these moments were supposed by Bohr." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, November 1942

Quantum_Flux said...

I do believe that Velikovsky is talking about the Bohr Model of the Atom in that quote. The model has been superceded by the more geometrically accurate view of Electron Orbitals and Probability Regions which is a description based on probability wave amplitudes.

Anaconda said...


The shematics you provided are helpful. Thanks.

As I understand it, the schematics trace out probabilities of location and trajectory and that is very important in understanding the atomic structure. I maintain what the schematics don't do is explain charcteristics and properties of electrons.

It has to be said, we don't know exactly what electrons are. But likely an electron is closer to a particle and a photon is closer to a wave. There is scientific evidence that electrons have a discrete body.

And if electrons have a discrete body, which incidently at least several of the Quantum Mechanics probability schematics agree with because if electrons have spin and rotation then there would be four quadrants of probability:

Exactly as shown in the figures provided.

So, if the above is probable then Velikovsky's characterizations of electron properties seem likely.

We know high energy photons like X-rays and Gamma-rays can impact electrons. This would seem to be another validation of Velikovsky.

Thanks for the quote, OilIsMastery.

Anaconda said...


Try this on for size: A particle can shed or absorb a wave. If so, then that might explain why electrons seem to be able to emit wave action (light and other intensity waves on the spectrum) and the intensity of the wave action is determined by the energy held by the electron.

Waves can impart energy to electrons.

This might also explain the difference between an electromagnetic field and an electromagnetic wave.

Light is closest to pure energy, therefore, has the highest transmutability and most ephemeral nature.

Quantum_Flux said...

Well, the way the Feynman describes it is like this:

A wave has a certain momentum but has an uncertain position in space, whereas a particle has a certain position in space but an uncertain momentum....Hence, a wave-particle acts as a particle with uncertain trajectories (XY) when the position (Z) is measured and a wave with diffraction (XY) effects when the momentum (Z) is measured.

This is also what electrons do in their atomic orbitals, hence they are viewed as orbital waves of known energy/momentum until the position or energy level is measured. Now, I don't know exactly how the quantum states for all of the electron orbitals for each individual atom or molecule are mapped out, but I think that it is mostly done so in a Stern-Gerlach separation apparatus.

Anaconda said...


With all due respect to Dr. Feynman, stating location is a characteristic of a particle and momentum is characteristic of a wave is stating a truism. Feynman wanted to understand both location and momentum which is an understandable scientific quest. (Trajectory -- trajectory is a better term because it suggests both location and momentum of a discrete body.)

The scientific evidence suggests electrons have discrete bodies.

Particles by definition have location. Waves by definition have direction.

The evidence is that electrons both absorb and emit photons (energy) for lack of a better descriptive word. Also, there is evidence that the absorbtion or emission changes the electron's trajectory.

Which possibly is why electrons in flow (electric current) are harder to map because when electrons emit energy it changes their orientation (trajection). Electrons in an electric current are most prone to emit or absorb energy.

Electrons seek orbit around a nucleous, naked electrons in a plasma don't have a nucleous to orbit.

Perhaps, that is what makes naked electrons so unstable and hard to map -- failing to have an orbit causes instabiltiy and disequalibrium.

States of instability and disequalibrium make electrons more prone to emit or absorb energy.

Perhaps, that is what causes electrons to flow so readily in a self-reinforcing feed back system from one location to another location (electric current): The "seeking" or "promise" of finding stable orbits.

Stability and equibibrium for an electron is finding an orbit around a host nucleous.

But for Mankind tapping into and using Nature's energy "circuit" means understanding and controlling electrons and ions while in flux (plasma) state.

That means understanding electrons in their greatest state of instability and disquilibrium.

Mankind's challenge is great.

Quantum_Flux said...

Well, yes sir, understanding plasma and lightning is a major part of rocket science and is very complex with the above third order differential equations and complex flow modeling properties.

Check out Von Neuman's declassified mathematical physics on nuclear rocket propulsion for a taste of the super-complexity involved:

A Metal Dumbo Rocket Reactor

Anaconda said...


Science@NASA is the official press release for NASA.

NASA has released two bombshells in a month and a half.

The first: Science@NASA, Magnetic Portals Connect Sun and Earth, October 30, 2008

The second: Science@NASA, Solar Flare Surprise, December 15, 2008 (release cited by post)

Both show "surprise". How many surprises does the gravitational model get before the conclusion is reasonably drawn: The gravitational model is wrong.

What this latest NASA release shows is that matter is sent to the Earth from the Sun in sub-atomic packages, in electrons, in ions (postive charged particles) and in the case of hydrogen, complete atoms.

All the items listed suggest an electric plasma flowing from the Sun to the Earth, which NASA shows only a tenuous grip of understanding.

I note that ions of heavier elements are ejected from the Sun: helium, oxygen and iron.

This is more scientific evidence that, indeed, the Sun can and does supply heavier ions that can contribute to Earth gaining mass, Expanding Earth theory.

Also, a provocative idea is that discrete solar flares have discrete constituent elements, if so, could Birkeland currents transport, say the iron element which triggers specific chemical reactions on Earth, say basalt that forms the oceanic crust. Oceanic crust may be, in fact, part of a specific mineral world-enveloping shell that reaches under all the continents.

The great, historical basalt flows could possibly be from this basaltic "changeover".

What NASA theorizes about hydrogen recombination also suggests recombination is possible in the Earth's interior, as well. Another scientific 'tidbit" that suugests a mechanism for Expanding Earth theory.

Anaconda said...


QF states: "...[U]nderstanding plasma and lightning is a major part of rocket science..."

It's much more profound than simply "rocket science."

It's about tapping into Nature's workwheel, here, on Earth, making vast amounts of electrical power available for pennies on the dollar of current production costs.
Nikola Tesla was right and the 21st century, will only be truly the 21st century when that "workwheel" is tapped.

By the way, when the Quantum_Leap in electrical power generation happens, it will make phovoltaic cells look like peanuts...

Quantum_Flux said...

What do you mean by "the gravitational model is wrong" [Anaconda]?

Do you mean to say that the formula ...


doesn't quite work between the Earth and the Moon? Or how about for all of the satellites that have succesfully been placed into orbit around the Earth for over 50 years using that basic equation? How about the landing of rovers on Mars and Venus using that equation?

I admit, that equation doesn't do well on the galactic scale where dark matter has a big effect, but on the local scale it gets our chemical rockets from A to B very precisely, ergo one cannot completely reject newtonian gravitation based on that line of reasoning.

Now, perhaps I'd buy that it is possible that Mercury doesn't really have a general relativistic redshift due to frame dragging, but that the effects are more appropriately explained by electrical forces, but overall the equation for gravitation has been proven in rocket technology for over 50 years, and even longer than that with airplane technology, and yet still longer with trebuchets and launching fireballs over castle walls or in military firepower.

So, you think you can define gravitation as all electrical effects, well, that is sorely mistaken I believe. On a further note, gravitation explains hydrostatic pressures with depth of liquids and solids, and to a lesser degree with gases (since they are more dynamic they are loosely modelled by gravitation).

Quantum_Flux said...

As for photovoltaics, I've heard of power efficiencies as high as 50% when combined with thermovoltaics, at least in space where the solar radiation isn't being scattered by our atmosphere there is a much higher flux of photons for electron capture.

Anaconda said...


"Rocket science" was a metaphor for technological advancement in electrical power generation. I'm not disputing that the gravitational model has gotten Man to the Moon and back alive and many other "space feats!"

Although, it should be noted that Mission Control has adjusted spacecraft in flight numerous times because of trajectory anomalies. (Gravity behaving badly?)

What I mean is that the gravitational model, where electromagnetism is not considered important, is wrong and Electric Universe theory, where plasma dynamics is the predominant force, is right.

As to photovoltaic power, even with the efficiencies you's peanuts compared to the power source I have in mind. And I've already provided clues to the source and mechanism.

Maybe, that's part of the issue with your "mental image", you have a case of "tunnel vision:-)"

Quantum_Flux said...

My 'tunnel vision' sees how two Mars Rovers can go around on the surface for 6 years running computers and telemetry and then only be limited by the dust build up on the solar panels from martion dust storms.

Anyhow, NASA explains the trajectory anomalies as being due to photon pressures and heat buildup which results in infrared radiating out on the sunside of the space crafts. According to this article, the energy flux from solar radiation alone in space near Earth is about 1365 watts per square meter (that's about 13.5x100 watt lightbulbs all being lit in 1 square meter area, have you ever put your hand near just one 100 watt lightbulb before?).

BF said...


Oliver Manuel []

Dear Benny,

Thank you for keeping attention focused on political responses to the pseudo-scientific issue of anthropological global warming.

Public interest in the weather and the global climate is now encouraging space scientists and research funding agencies like NASA and ESA to study more carefully experimental observations on our heat source - the Sun.

On Monday 15 Dec 2008, Dr. Richard Mewaldt of Caltech reported surprise at the chemical composition of material ejected from the Sun:

Dr. Mewalt and I attended the same "Joint SOHO/ACE Workshop on Solar and Galactic Composition" in Bern, Switzerland on 6-9 March 2001, where I presented a paper (based on the composition of solar ejecta implanted in lunar samples) that showed:

a.) The Sun formed on a supernova core;
b.) Iron (Fe) is the most abundant element in the Sun; and
c.) The Sun sorts elements by mass and selectively covers its surface with lightweight elements like H and He. Heavier are in deeper solar layers.

At that same conference, Dr. Donald V. Reames presented experimental data on the composition of solar ejecta that seemed to support my conclusion: The Wind spacecraft observed that the abundances of successively heavier weight elements in impulsive solar flares were enriched by factors of ~10, ~100, and ~1,000 relative to the highly mass-fractionated material at the surface of the Sun.

Dr. Reames paper was included in the proceedings ["SOLAR AND GALACTIC COMPOSITION, A Joint SOHO/ACE Workshop," American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings AIP CP589 (Editor: Robert F. Wimmer-Schweingruber, 2001) pp. 153-164]. My paper was excluded from the proceedings but the essential features of our observations were described in two paragraphs of the proceedings [ibid., page 364].

These latest results from Caltech confirm segregation of elements by mass in solar ejecta:

The first material to be ejected ". . . was a burst of hydrogen atoms," says Mewaldt. "No other elements were present, not even helium" (the Sun's second most abundant atomic species). The second wave of particles included protons and heavier ions such as helium, oxygen and iron.

The equally "strange" material that Dr. Reames observed coming from a solar flare was described in a paper first published in the Astrophysical Journal 540 (10 Nov 2000) L111-L114.

Continued public interest in the weather and the global climate will encourage space scientists and space agencies like NASA and ESA to face experimental data which has already clearly indicated that Earth's heat source is not a ball of Hydrogen heated by H-fusion.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

Via CCNet