SOLAR COSMIC RAYS AND CLIMATE

*Oliver K. Manuel 1 and Golden Hwaung 2 . 1. CSSI Associate & Emeritus Professor, University of Missouri, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701 USA. 2. Material Testing Lab., LA Transportation & Development Dept., Baton Rouge, LA, 70806 USA. ...................................................................................................................... Manuscript Info Abstract ......................... ........................................................................ Manuscript History

The recent findingsconfirmthe basic misunderstanding of nuclear energy that Kuroda noted in his 1936 class-notes followingAston"s lecture at the Imperial University of Tokyo (Kuroda, 1992) and the validity of Kuroda"s insight into the beginning of the world, while standing in the ruins of Hiroshima one day in August 1945: "The sight before myeyes was just like the end of the world, but I also felt that the beginning of the world may have been just like this" (Kuroda, 1982, page 2).Richard Carrington (1859) had already reported the immediate effects on Earth from a large solar flare, Hess had received a Nobel Prize for discovering cosmic rays (Hess, 1936), and Forbush (1937Forbush ( , 1938 had reported impulsive decreases in cosmic ray intensity from solar-induced geomagnetic storms. Perhaps Kuroda imagined that an even larger solar eruption, or a super-solar explosion birthed the world and rebirthed the Sun, as two of Kuroda"s former students finally suggested thirty years later (Manuel and Sabu, 1975), after they and their students started to uncover evidence that chemically and isotopically heterogeneous debris from a super-solar, supernova formed the entire solar system (Manuel et al, 1972). Kuroda and Manuel (1970) had reported a common mass-dependent fractionation ofthe solar system"s neon and xenon isotopes before Manuel et al. (1972) found xenon in carbonaceous meteorites to be a mixture of isotopically distinct "strange xenon" (Xe-2 -with almost twice the normal abundances of 136 Xe and 124 Xe)and mass fractionated "normal xenon" (Xe-1 -in air, in the Sun and in bulk meteorites).
Authors of the current report found only "normal xenon"(Xe-1) in meteoritic troilite (FeS) (Hwaung and Manuel, 1982) and concluded that this distinct mix of nucleogeneticxenon components was"dominant in a central Feand Srich region of the proto-planetary nebula.""Normal xenon" was therefore assumed for the bulk Sun in calculating the enrichment of lightweight elements and isotopes of other noble gases in the solar photosphere and in the solar wind from mass-dependent fractionation (Manuel and Hwaung, 1983). Their analysis showed the solar interior consists mostly of the same elements that comprise the matrix of ordinary meteorites and rocky planets: Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, and Mg. Measurements during the Galileo probe of Jupiter later confirmed the Sun"s iron-rich interior (Manuel et al., 1998).
The next section compares a recent summary of mainstream opinions on cosmic rays (Howell, 2016)with measurements and observations that suggestsolar waste products are the correct answer to her lingering question, "What are cosmic rays?" Results and Discussion:-1. Howell"s lingering question suggests an error in the first sentence of the report, "Cosmic rays are atom fragments that rain down on the Earth from outside of the solar system" (Howell, 2016). Schindler Table 1 is a summary of the cosmic ray exposure of majortypes of meteorites in the solar system (Eugster et al., 2006). Iron-rich supernova debris nearest the pulsar remnant formed iron meteorites, trapped "normal xenon" (Xe-1) and received the highest exposure to cosmic rays from the pulsar remnant. Stone meteorites formed further away, also trapped mostly "normal xenon" (Xe-1), and received less exposure to early cosmic rays. Carbonaceous meteorites formed even further from the pulsar remnant, trapped "strange xenon" (Xe-2) that Manuel and Hwaung (1983) predicted would be found in Jupiter and received the lowest exposure to cosmic rays from the supernova pulsar remnant.
3. Howell (2016) concluded cosmic rays "can be created in supernovas, there may be other sources available for cosmic ray creation. It also isn't clear exactly how supernovas are able to make these cosmic rays so fast". Supernovas and super-stellar eruptions certainly release sufficient energy, but it is unclear how energy is focused on cosmic ray particles, collimated beams and bullets (Sahai, et al., 2016) by deep-seated Meisner ejections of magnetic fields from a rotating, super-fluid, super-conductor (Ninham, 1963;Manuel et al., 2002) or simple compression (Hwaung, 2012). Ordinary stars have pulsar cores and iron-rich mantles, inside an outer veneer of gravitationally-retained hydrogen from neutron-emission and decay (Manuel, 2016a,b, c,d). This outer layer increases and the star expands during stellar evolution, from a young, T-Tauri type star with strong surface magnetic fields to the Red Giant stage, about to be reborn by discharging the outer layer in a supernova and starting over again.
4. Measurements of xenon isotopes as Galileo probe descended in Jupiter atmosphere confirmed Manuel and Hwaung (1983) prediction of "strange" Jovian xenon. As shown below, hydrocarbon contamination increased as the probe descended and the apparent value of the ( 136 Xe/ 134 Xe) ratio decreased. The method described by Windler (2000) was used to calculate a value of 136 Xe/ 134 Xe = 1.04 +/-0.06 for the point of zero hydrocarbon contamination from eleven mass-spectrometric scans. 5. Simple geometric consideration of the decrease in the 4 flux of cosmic rays as the 3 rd power (cube) of distance from source illustrates why the local source of cosmic rays must be considered if the source of energy that powers ordinary stars, galaxies and the expanding cosmos is neutron repulsion (Manuel et al., 2000(Manuel et al., , 2001b(Manuel et al., ,c, 2011. Earth"s closest star is the Sun, 1 AU away. The next closest one is ~3 x 10 5 AU (4.2 light years) away. The Crab Nebula, produced by the supernova explosion of a star in 1054 AD is ~4 x 10 8 AU (6,500 light years) away.
Thus the probability of a cosmic ray from the Sun striking Earth is ~3 x 10 16 times more likely than the probability a cosmic ray from the next closest star would strike Earth, and ~6 x 10 25 times more likely than the probability that a cosmic ray from the Crab Nebula would strike Earth.

Conclusion and Acknowledgements:-
Invisible force fields hold Earth and other planets in a stream of waste products from the Sun-solar energy, solar neutrinos, solar wind, and solar cosmic rays. These produce ion-tracks in air, on which water vapor condenses to electrically charged clouds that discharge rain, lightening and thunder. We realize we know only a little. More will be revealed, if we adhere to basic principles of science.
Many students, friends and colleagues encouraged us to report the Sun"s influence on human affairs, although we have not yet shown if solar cosmic rays are produced by compression conversion of matter into energy (Hwaung, 2012) in the Sun or by the acceleration of solar hydrogen by impulsive Meisner emissions of deep-seated magnetic fields from the Sun"s super-conducting interior (Ninham, 1963). This is like deciding how neutron-repulsion causes emission of electrons from neutron-rich nuclei and proton-repulsion causes emission of positrons from protonrich nuclei. Regardless how, they do.