Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Early in this thread "conventional accepted physics" said that corona
could not exist in fairweather conditions.

I just waded back through my postings. A day or two after making
that statement, I added the context in which that statement was
made. (That happened days ago).

Conventional accepted physics says that corona cannot exist in
fairweather conditions without an additional source of energy.
When I asked that the source of corona energy be identified,
I believe it was you who said, "Who cares?". So I ask again.
Given fairweather conditions, what is the source of energy
for corona? In matters of politics, one follows the money.
In matters of physics, one follows the energy.

Cecil,

I said that one could use either energy or forces (fields) to solve most
problems. (I have said something similar several times in the past.) It
is often much more convenient to use one formalism over the other due to
the availability of numerical information and workable boundary
conditions. If the problem is set up correctly and the math is done
correctly the same answer will result from either formalism.

If you want to solve the corona question by "following the energy", have
at it. Go ahead and set up the correct boundary conditions, figure out
the right equations to use, and just plug-and-crank. Piece o' cake. The
only minor issue is that the atmosphere can act as a effectively
limitless source or sink for energy. But I am confident you can find a
way around that little detail.

By the way, I would sure like to find that reference you have for
"conventional accepted physics." I have a library full of physics books,
all of which seem to be conventional and accepted, but I have not found
one that has such as all-encompassing title.

73,
Gene
W4SZ