© Lloyd

[3] Galaxy and Quasar Natural Tokamaks
[1] Star Formation by Compressive Ionization
[2] Exotic Star Formation by Natural Tokamak

[3] Galaxy and Quasar Natural Tokamaks
--- CONTENTS of this page
--- AGN Tokamak vs Plasma Gun
--- Thornhill Quasar Theory
--- Quasar Formation
--- Tokamak Quasar Shooter
--- Quasars
--- Quasar Mass Increase
--- Electric Gravity Thunderblog
--- INDEX

--- AGN Tokamak vs Plasma Gun
Postby CharlesChandler» Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:13 am
- Lloyd wrote: Thornhill, as I understand, modifying Arp's model, considers that AGN's, i.e. Active Galactic Nuclei, act as plasma guns that shoot out quasars and B.L. Lac objects in opposite directions, usually polarly, stripped of many or most electrons, which remain behind for a time, and these quasars and objects scavenge intergalactic space for electrons, which slows them down and increases their mass and they evolve into companion galaxies.
- While you're waiting for anyone to find holes in your model, maybe you could look for holes in that model of "accretion" of quasars etc, including also for whether AGNs could act as plasma guns.
- I think Thornhill regards planetary nebulae as similar plasma guns, on a much smaller scale, that shoot out mere stars, instead of quasars, so your view on that would be interesting too.
- There is plenty of evidence of axial jets, on a wide range of scales, as you say.
- But is there any evidence of stellar nurseries in the jets?
- Anyway, what I found intriguing about such jets is the question of what causes the jets in the first place?
- These are steady streams of particles, predominantly positive, that stay collimated for extreme distances, until they eventually buckle and disperse, looking somewhat like a high-pressure jet shooting into a low-viscosity fluid (hence, of course, the colloquial name for them).
- The standard model has some gibberish about the jets relieving the pressure in the accretion disc.
- Some even say that without the jets, the accretion wouldn't even occur anyway, as the matter needs an outlet, or it would all just pile up in the middle, and the accretion would stop.
- That's not exactly what I would call mechanistic reasoning. :roll:
- So I looked at it, and this became one of the reasons for settling on the "natural tokamak" concept for extremely high-energy stars.
- The basic idea is that the star is spinning so fast that the magnetic fields confine the plasma, and instantiate a nuclear fusion reactor, by the z-pinch effect.
- The first question that this answers is gamma-ray sources.
- Everybody else's model of nuclear fusion has it occurring in the cores of heavy stars.
- But all of the gamma rays from the interior of stars should get absorbed by the overlying plasma.
- In fact, gamma rays are absorbed by all but the thinnest gas clouds.
- Yet fusion requires incredible pressures.
- How do you get incredible pressures, without any surrounding plasma to push in on it?
- I think that there is actually only one answer to that: magnetic pressure.
- So if you can get the star rotating fast enough, it can fuse heavier elements, without any overlying plasma to supply the pressure.
- Then you get gamma rays escaping straight out into space, as magnetic fields don't block photons.
- At the same time, the "natural tokamak" is the only sustained energy source with bipolar jets.
- Obviously, fusion in the core of a star isn't going to produce bipolar jets.
- The overlying plasma will absorb the momentum of the fusion products, and the high pressures will instantiate turbulence.
- So you'll get a spurt this way, and then that way, out of a deal like that.
- It's doubtful that any of the spurts would even break the surface of the star.
- So bipolar jets aren't caused by core fusion.
- And if it was just pressure from the accretion disc, the ejecta would radiate in all directions, without being collimated.
- But a toroidal energy source would produce precisely this pattern.
- If particles are emitted in all directions, 50% of them are heading toward the interior.
- These collide with each other, with the result being a collimated jet.
- Section of a toroidal explosion

--- Thornhill Quasar Theory
Postby CharlesChandler» Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:05 am
- CharlesChandler wrote: I thought that quasars are just randomly scattered in the vicinity of the AGN.
- Lloyd wrote: No, they're not random.
- Thornhill and at least several TPODs say that quasars are seen to be on or very near the minor axes of nearby galaxies, the minor axis being the polar direction.
- And I think I now remember that Arp said that first.
- Then I'd say that tokamak exhaust supplied the matter, especially if it was sputtering.
- Lloyd wrote: Thornhill said quasars sometimes shoot out of galaxies equatorially, which explains the Dogleg galaxy, which has a spiral arm severed.
- I'd call this a hurricane that spawned a tornado.

--- Quasar Formation
Postby CharlesChandler» Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:57 pm
- Lloyd wrote: I didn't understand your reply to my question about Thornhill's quasar model.
- You talked about bipolar jets, I guess from galaxies, but I was talking about quasars rather than jets. [...]
- I don't know of jets being significantly involved in Thornhill's quasar model.
- Oh OK, so he's talking about a big plasma cannon that shoots huge shells (i.e., quasars), while I'm talking about a little plasma sub-machine gun that just sprays ions. :)
- AGNs in elliptical galaxies do produce bipolar jets.
- I "think" that Arp was just observing that quasars tend to move away from the galactic centers, implying that they were ejected.
- I actually don't know for sure if there is common ground between the jets and the quasars.
- Interesting question.
- Lloyd wrote: I think his stellar model is similar.
- Like AGNs forming plasma guns that shoot out quasars, planetary nebulae form plasma guns that shoot out smaller plasmoids, which are stars, if I understand him correctly.
- The accretion in both cases then would be a result of plasma gun action.
- If you say accretion is due to a natural tokamak, would that be very similar to or different from a plasma gun?
- I'm saying that the natural tokamak IS the gun.
- Thornhill didn't provide the schematic in case you wanted to build one and go wake up somebody else's galactic neighborhood. :)
- (Kids, this requires adult supervision.)
- But the plasma gun and the accretion are two different things.
- The gun produces the ejecta, but it's going to take other forces to get the ejecta to accrete, once they have been superheated and accelerated to relativistic velocities.
- This is where I'm invoking Feynman's "like-likes-like" principle, instead of gravity and CDM, to cause the condensation of dusty plasmas.
- (See Accretion.) This requires that the plasma already be fully neutralized, otherwise electrostatic repulsion would prevent accretion.
- Sparky wrote: The "field lines" inexactness that I referred to is that of describing magnetic flux density with imagined lines, which in reality, do not exist, and for me makes it difficult to comprehend what is really taking place. [...]
- Anyway, I think there should be a better way to describe what is going on.
- Writing can always be clearer, so I'm currently working on better diagrams.
- In the meantime... ;)
- You quoted from CMEs, where I'm talking about electric currents in coronal loops following magnetic field lines between active regions of opposing polarities.
- The magnetic fields definitely exist.
- They are detected by the Zeeman effect, where spectral lines get split.
- We also know that there are electric currents in the coronal loops, which have been estimated (probably conservatively) to be at least 1~3 A/m2.
- So the two active regions are of opposite magnetic polarity, and there is also a charge disparity, and an electric current flowing from one to the other.
- When electric lines of force are parallel to magnetic lines of force, the current falls into a helical motion, known as a Birkeland current.
- This produces distinctive synchrotron emissions, as the electrons rotate around the magnetic lines of force, generating EM waves as they go.
- So that much is real.
- It's the way magnetic fields are discussed in the mainstream literature that is so confusing.
- They talk about magnetic lines of force like rubber bands that can be stretched, and sometimes snap, releasing huge amounts of energy.
- This has nothing to do with reality.
- GaryN wrote: This animation does seem to show an outflow to the fore, but possibly an inflow at the rear.
- Sparky wrote: The inflow is an illusion caused by the reduction of glow from out to in.
- Gary, this is a better example than anything else I've seen so far, :oops: but I agree with Sparky that looks can be deceiving.
- The matter could be flowing in, while some sort of process in it is propagating outward, creating the illusion.
- I'll keep my eye out for more evidence, but I think that all of it is sketchy.
- IMO, redshift data are not reliable at such great distances, so I didn't cite any of those.
- I personally think that the jets are flowing out, and that the inflow on the other side is from the accretion disc, on a plane perpendicular to the jet.
- The more reliable evidence is from planetary nebulae within our own galaxy, where redshift data are less contentious.
- Then I generalize from those ejecta to other jets, and say that all of them are flowing out, and I use the "natural tokamak" construct to explain how inflow can get converted into collimated outflow.
- Perhaps there is an error there.
- But do consider the implications of inwardly-flowing jets.
- Is the matter feeding the accretion disc?
- (In which case, does that make it a "discretion" disc??? :))
- Anyway, keep thinking... :)

--- Tokamak Quasar Shooter
Postby CharlesChandler» Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:35 am
- Lloyd wrote: An even more important issue seems to be your tokamak model.
- It seems to be an excellent model, except for one thing, the quasar data.
- Quasars are found almost always near a galaxy and the plasma gun model seems to be the best candidate for getting quasars out of galactic nuclei, but not too far away.
- If quasars didn't exist near galaxies, there'd be no problem, but they do so there is (I think).
- It seems that the tokamak needs to be redesigned as a shooter.
- Could there be a stage of tokamak development where it gets hyperactive and shoots out quasars?
- If things can explode, like novae and supernovae, and other things can zip through space, like runaway planets and stars, can't there be a connection between the two, and can't tokamaks explode or something, maybe from collisions, if nothing else?
- The "natural tokamak" is very definitely a shooter.
- If it is still feeding, because matter from an accretion disc is still being sucked in by the magnetic confinement, there will be polar jets driven by the high-energy ejecta from the fusion reactor.
- This could be a spray, if the inflow is steady, or it could sputter, if the fuel supply varies.
- It could also oscillate, where extreme temperatures in the reactor might cause the matter to expand, reducing the reaction rate, only to collapse again, producing a new round of fusion.
- This offers an explanation for pulsars, which produce gamma rays in phases that can last as little as 1/1000 of a second.
- An implosion/explosion cycle, with extreme hydrostatic pressure countered by extreme magnetic confinement, could produce oscillations at this rate.
- I don't know of another model that can explain this with plausible physics.
- I "think" that the only difference here comes down to whether or not the quasars (or whatever else) come out of the plasma gun as ready-made objects, or as fully atomized plasma, later to condense into discrete objects.
- The natural tokamak will produce a plasma stream, perhaps that sputters.
- It won't produce fully assembled planets or stars. I don't know what would.
- Plasma pinches and condensed matter are mutually exclusive.
- The magnetic fields in a z-pinch push like charges together, and opposite charges apart.
- This can fuse lighter elements into heavier ones, but it's still just atomic nuclei — no molecules, much less liquids or solids.
- As plasma, it can only stay organized by the magnetic pinch effect, wherein extreme linear velocities keep the polar jets organized, or extreme radial velocities keep toroidal plasmoids organized.
- The latter would seem to be the relevant case for a quasar, which is a point-like object, not a stream.
- So how do you get a plasma gun to shoot toroidal plasmoids?
- I'm thinking in nuts-n-bolts terms here, not just off-handed suggestions.
- I personally think that a quasar, like any star-like object, has its own accretion disc.
- Perhaps matter imploding toward the center of an elliptical galaxy spins off smaller accretions, sorta like the way hurricanes spin off tornadoes?
- Thus there would be angular momentum converging toward the AGN, and quasars forming near it and then drifting away.
- But that doesn't mean that the AGN plasma gun shot out the quasars.

--- Quasars
Postby CharlesChandler» Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:42 pm
- celeste wrote: We still have the empirical data saying that quasars can blow off their surrounding gas and dust in a very short time.
- Does that change your mind on the probability of finding accretion disks around quasars?
- I don't know. :D
- If the dust cloud was an accretion disc, could it have disappeared just because the quasar finally gobbled it all up?
- (I don't know the answer to that one either. :))
- Lloyd wrote: As I recall, Thornhill believes quasars begin as nearly massless atomic particles (mostly protons I think) which shoot out of AGNs (active galactic nuclei) at relativistic velocity (near light speed), then they gradually gain mass and lose velocity, after going a couple million lightyears or so, and come to a stop wrt the outward direction, then they evolve into galaxies.
- OK... and I'm saying that the AGN is a tokamak, which explains how it can emit polar jets.
- So I think that we start out agreeing, if Wal's relativistic protons and my relativistic fusion by-products are actually the same thing.
- But how do the particles gradually gain mass?
- And is there any observed correlation between the location of quasars and the polar jets?
- I thought that quasars are just randomly scattered in the vicinity of the AGN.
- Lloyd wrote: Do you think your beams could produce quasar-sized plasmoids that could shoot out at high velocity?
- It would shoot out high velocity plasma in a collimated form.
- Theoretically, a collimated jet losing speed could morph into an accretion disc at the far end.
- Then the accretion disc could instantiate a tokamak at the point of convergence, a thus a new star would be born of the ejecta out of the polar jet from the old one.
- But I don't know of any evidence of there being an accretion disc (or stellar nursery of any kind) at the end of a polar jet.
- Lloyd wrote: I don't remember in Arp's book if he showed any evidence of quasars transforming into galaxies.
- I know you've studied galaxy evolution, so have you come across anything that might suggest that quasars can so transform?
- Or is there something else that they might evolve into?
- I believe Arp or Wal did say he saw one or more cases of apparent pre-quasar objects within one or more AGNs.
- I'm not sure how we would know the difference between a quasar transforming into a galaxy, versus a galaxy manufacturing a quasar — they'd both look the same in the snapshot, right?
- Personally, I think that if there is a quasar at the center of an elliptical galaxy, it's a tokamak that was spun up by the angular momentum of galactic matter converging on the center.
- But I haven't studied quasars outside of the context of AGNs in elliptical galaxies, so I don't know what happens to the stray quasars Arp was talking about.

--- Quasar Mass Increase
Postby Lloyd » Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:39 pm
- Quasars from Low Mass to Large Mass?
- Though Charles may not be able to check this out for a spell, I figured I may as well post the following here now, rather than lose it somewhere else.
- The question is really whether subatomic particles start out at low mass and gradually gain in mass themselves, until they reach their normal masses.
- I think the following discussions give some pretty good clues about the best thinking along these lines.
- http://saturniancosmology.org/files/gravity/light.txt [Thornhill:]
- I agree with Davies that the charge on the electron has not changed.
- But neither has the speed of light.
- Unlike Davies, it seems to me that the basis of the physical universe is electric charge, governed by a near-instantaneous electrostatic force.
- All forms of matter and its interactions spring from that simple basis.
- Every particle and collection of particles is a resonant system of orbiting charges, from which comes resonant quantum effects and the manifestation of inertial mass.
- Resonance explains the puzzling non-radiating ground-state of an atom.
- Gravity, magnetism and nuclear forces can all be understood in terms of electric dipole forces between distorted systems of orbiting charge.
- http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp~ [Thornhill:]
- Arp outlines the empirical relationships between active galaxies, quasars, BL Lac objects and galaxy clusters:
- 1. High-redshift objects (such as quasars) are aligned on either side of low-redshift eruptive objects (often active galaxies).
- The pairs have equal positive and negative dispersions from a redshift periodicity value.
- This implies that quasars are ejected with quantized intrinsic (not Doppler, i.e., velocity) redshifts from active galaxies.
- [In 1967 Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge noted the preferred values of redshifts of quasars.
- In 1971 K. G. Karlsson derived a formula relating those values: (1+z2)/(1+z1) = 1.23 (where z2 is the next higher redshift from z1).
- This gives observed quasar redshifts of z = .061, .30, .60, .96, 1.41, 1.96, etc.
- Arp comments wryly that this is one of the truly great discoveries in physics, for which Karlsson "was rewarded with a teaching post in secondary school and then went into medicine."]
- 2. The youngest ejected objects appear to have the highest redshifts.
- As distance from the active galaxy increases, the objects decrease in redshift—stepwise, in consonance with Karlsson's periodicity.
- This implies that intrinsic redshift decreases with age in quantum jumps.
- 3. The objects also tend to increase in brightness and to slow down with distance.
- This implies that they gain mass as they age.
- [Nereid:] Starting with 0.061, the sequence is (to 3 significant figures): 0.305, 0.605, 0.974, 1.428, 1.987, 2.674, 3.519, 4.558, 5.837, and 7.409.
- Evidence for ejection of quasars from galaxies.
- http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/intrinsic_redshifts_in_qu~
- http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys -pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/
- One idea which has emerged from the EU camp is that, observationally speaking, there appears to exist an increase in the mass of the quasars as the quantized redshift in quasars falls.
- This is an important aspect of Arp's observations which was noteworthy enough to end up in the documentary, "The Cosmology Quest".
- It also appears quite clearly on page 108 of Seeing Red, Arp's explanation for his observations, where he states:
- "Now comes a key point: If the mass of an electron jumping from an excited atomic orbit to a lower level is smaller, then the energy of the photon of light emitted is smaller.
- If the photon is weaker it is redshifted ...
- it suffices here to understand that lower-mass electrons will give higher redshifts and that younger electrons would be expected to have lower mass."
- One way to explain intrinsic redshift is as quantized changes in energy levels of electrons, protons and neutrons within the atom.
- Within the EU view, the masses of subatomic particles change in response to electrical stress.
- In an Electric Universe, that includes magnetic and gravitational stress.
- Wal Thornhill argues that increasing negative charge on bodies increases their mass and gravity (see "Orbital Energy" in http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s). ...
- the plasmoid formed in a plasma gun is the most copious beamed source of neutrons known.
- So, most of the mass ejection will be neutral and decaying, once free of the plasmoid's electromagnetic influence, into protons and electrons (nascent hydrogen).
- - The second fact is that electrons, being much lower in mass than protons, will remain entangled in the plasmoid in greater numbers and for longer than protons.
- Also, strong electric fields in the plasmoid will tend to separate the electrons and protons, giving oppositely directed beams.
- http://othergroup.net/thoth/thoiii09.txt - [Thornhill:]
- Quantum theory has nothing to offer by way of a physical model to explain the redshift jumps across entire galaxies.
- And since there is no real model of how gravity works, there is no sensible explanation of how inertial mass can increase with time, nor of its link with gravitational mass. ...
- I think the biggest changes occur early in the history of a proto-galaxy where the brightness is increasing most rapidly.
- That is, the electric stress on stars is rising from the red anode glow to the bright tufting stage.
- Yes, planetary orbits would be affected but I doubt that it would be sufficient to set in motion the events of the recent history of the solar system.
- If the effects were that drastic I would expect to see a galaxy somewhere in deep space with a lot of nova/supernova activity in evidence, caused by sudden gravitational disturbances in binary star systems.
- We need to get a handle on what the redshift quantum represents in terms of mass increase of atoms.
- Arp gives a change of the electrons inertial mass of about .024% (if my arithmetic is right) for a 72km/sec change in redshift.
- If this is applied to all subatomic particles then it would not cause drastic effects.
- http://www.bazaarmodel.net/phorum/read.php?3,8359 - [Thornhill:]
- We cannot have a theory of everything until we have a workable concept of the structure of matter that satisfies the observation that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent.
- When we accelerate electrons or protons in an electromagnetic field they become less responsive to the fields the more they are accelerated.
- This has been interpreted as an increase in mass.
- However, charges have no mass. So how do they give the electron, proton and neutron the property of mass?
- The accelerating electromagnetic field will distort the orbits of charges within the electron or proton.
- It seems the more distorted a particle becomes, the more easily the energy supplied to accelerate the particle is assimilated in further distortion rather than in acceleration.
- Hence the apparent increase in mass.
- The inertial mass of a particle is a measure of the degree to which it responds to an electric field by distorting rather than accelerating.
- It implies the charge centers of a proton at rest have to be separated more than those in an electron at rest.
- That allows the proton to distort more readily than an electron in the same electric field and accounts for their differences in size and mass. ...
- The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass implies that gravity is also an electrical force. ...
- The electrical relationship between matter and mass allows us to understand how quasars can be newborn objects that have low mass and brightness and high intrinsic redshifts.
- With time, their mass increases and their intrinsic redshift decreases in quantum jumps.
- This shows that quantum effects also occur on a galactic scale.
- It is another powerful argument for the near infinite speed of the electric force.
- http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_ele~
- It seems simpler and more sensible to suggest that both nuclear and chemical energy is released or absorbed by the rearrangement of the resonant orbits of charged particles.
- It is then common sense to suggest that mass is the measured response of a system of charged particles to an external electrostatic force.
- The more massive an object, the more the electrostatic force contributes to the elastic deformation of its protons, neutrons and electrons, rather than their acceleration.
- This is the phenomenon seen in particle accelerators and conventionally attributed to relativistic effects.
- But relativity reduces to classical physics in a universe where the electrostatic force has near-infinite speed.
- http://www.discordancyreport.com/theory/
- One theory postulated by English astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and Indian astrophysicist Jayant Narlikar is the Hoyle-Narlikar Theory of conformal gravity.
- This theory proposes that the inertial mass of a particle of matter starts at zero and increases as it interacts with an increasing number of surrounding particles with time.
- According to this theory, younger and more recently created electrons will have smaller masses than older, less recently created electrons.
- These less massive electrons will emit lower energy photons with the resulting light redshifted in comparison to the photons emitted by older electrons.
- If it is presumed that smaller more compact extragalactic bodies are younger objects then this theory nicely explains why these younger objects are more redshifted.
- http://electric-cosmos.org/ouruniverse.htm
- Electrical repulsion that is alternately felt (when planets' plasma sheaths intersect) and then not felt (when the sheaths do not intersect) could circularize orbits relatively quickly.
- In addition there is strong evidence that gravity and mass itself is dependent on electrical charge.

--- Electric Gravity Thunderblog
Postby Lloyd » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:21 pm
- Gravity as Electrical Effect?
- In my recent post here, I provided some of Thornhill's ideas about subatomic particles starting out massless and then gaining mass, as in quasars.
- I see that one of the Thunderbloggers discussed this topic this past spring and winter.
- So I'll provide links to those for now and later maybe I'll have time to quote the more important passages.
- I suppose I did read these before, but there was no connection then to CC's model.
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/02/25/article-14-solvi~
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/03/03/article-15-point~
- Gravitational Constant: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/03/10/article-16-impli~ ctrical-explanation-of-mass-and-gravity-part-1/
- Electric Forces in Nature and Space: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/03/26/article-17-impli~ ctrical-explanation-of-mass-and-gravity-part-2/
- Gravity, Neutrinos, Aether: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/28/article-18-impli~ ctrical-explanation-of-mass-and-gravity-part-3/
- Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Compressive Ionization: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/05/29/article-19-impli~ ctrical-explanation-of-mass-and-gravity-part-4-2/
[3] Galaxy and Quasar Natural Tokamaks
--- AGN Tokamak vs Plasma Gun
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Thornhill Quasar Theory
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Quasar Formation
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Tokamak Quasar Shooter
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Quasars
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Quasar Mass Increase
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Electric Gravity Thunderblog
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~

--- AGN Tokamak vs Plasma Gun
Postby CharlesChandler» Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:13 am
- Lloyd wrote: Thornhill, as I understand, modifying Arp's model, considers that AGN's, i.e. Active Galactic Nuclei, act as plasma guns that shoot out quasars and B.L. Lac objects in opposite directions, usually polarly, stripped of many or most electrons, which remain behind for a time, and these quasars and objects scavenge intergalactic space for electrons, which slows them down and increases their mass and they evolve into companion galaxies.
- While you're waiting for anyone to find holes in your model, maybe you could look for holes in that model of "accretion" of quasars etc, including also for whether AGNs could act as plasma guns.
- I think Thornhill regards planetary nebulae as similar plasma guns, on a much smaller scale, that shoot out mere stars, instead of quasars, so your view on that would be interesting too.
- There is plenty of evidence of axial jets, on a wide range of scales, as you say.
- But is there any evidence of stellar nurseries in the jets?
- Anyway, what I found intriguing about such jets is the question of what causes the jets in the first place?
- These are steady streams of particles, predominantly positive, that stay collimated for extreme distances, until they eventually buckle and disperse, looking somewhat like a high-pressure jet shooting into a low-viscosity fluid (hence, of course, the colloquial name for them).
- The standard model has some gibberish about the jets relieving the pressure in the accretion disc.
- Some even say that without the jets, the accretion wouldn't even occur anyway, as the matter needs an outlet, or it would all just pile up in the middle, and the accretion would stop.
- That's not exactly what I would call mechanistic reasoning. :roll:
- So I looked at it, and this became one of the reasons for settling on the "natural tokamak" concept for extremely high-energy stars.
- The basic idea is that the star is spinning so fast that the magnetic fields confine the plasma, and instantiate a nuclear fusion reactor, by the z-pinch effect.
- The first question that this answers is gamma-ray sources.
- Everybody else's model of nuclear fusion has it occurring in the cores of heavy stars.
- But all of the gamma rays from the interior of stars should get absorbed by the overlying plasma.
- In fact, gamma rays are absorbed by all but the thinnest gas clouds.
- Yet fusion requires incredible pressures.
- How do you get incredible pressures, without any surrounding plasma to push in on it?
- I think that there is actually only one answer to that: magnetic pressure.
- So if you can get the star rotating fast enough, it can fuse heavier elements, without any overlying plasma to supply the pressure.
- Then you get gamma rays escaping straight out into space, as magnetic fields don't block photons.
- At the same time, the "natural tokamak" is the only sustained energy source with bipolar jets.
- Obviously, fusion in the core of a star isn't going to produce bipolar jets.
- The overlying plasma will absorb the momentum of the fusion products, and the high pressures will instantiate turbulence.
- So you'll get a spurt this way, and then that way, out of a deal like that.
- It's doubtful that any of the spurts would even break the surface of the star.
- So bipolar jets aren't caused by core fusion.
- And if it was just pressure from the accretion disc, the ejecta would radiate in all directions, without being collimated.
- But a toroidal energy source would produce precisely this pattern.
- If particles are emitted in all directions, 50% of them are heading toward the interior.
- These collide with each other, with the result being a collimated jet.
- Section of a toroidal explosion

--- Thornhill Quasar Theory
Postby CharlesChandler» Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:05 am
- CharlesChandler wrote: I thought that quasars are just randomly scattered in the vicinity of the AGN.
- Lloyd wrote: No, they're not random.
- Thornhill and at least several TPODs say that quasars are seen to be on or very near the minor axes of nearby galaxies, the minor axis being the polar direction.
- And I think I now remember that Arp said that first.
- Then I'd say that tokamak exhaust supplied the matter, especially if it was sputtering.
- Lloyd wrote: Thornhill said quasars sometimes shoot out of galaxies equatorially, which explains the Dogleg galaxy, which has a spiral arm severed.
- I'd call this a hurricane that spawned a tornado.

--- Quasar Formation
Postby CharlesChandler» Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:57 pm
- Lloyd wrote: I didn't understand your reply to my question about Thornhill's quasar model.
- You talked about bipolar jets, I guess from galaxies, but I was talking about quasars rather than jets. [...]
- I don't know of jets being significantly involved in Thornhill's quasar model.
- Oh OK, so he's talking about a big plasma cannon that shoots huge shells (i.e., quasars), while I'm talking about a little plasma sub-machine gun that just sprays ions. :)
- AGNs in elliptical galaxies do produce bipolar jets.
- I "think" that Arp was just observing that quasars tend to move away from the galactic centers, implying that they were ejected.
- I actually don't know for sure if there is common ground between the jets and the quasars.
- Interesting question.
- Lloyd wrote: I think his stellar model is similar.
- Like AGNs forming plasma guns that shoot out quasars, planetary nebulae form plasma guns that shoot out smaller plasmoids, which are stars, if I understand him correctly.
- The accretion in both cases then would be a result of plasma gun action.
- If you say accretion is due to a natural tokamak, would that be very similar to or different from a plasma gun?
- I'm saying that the natural tokamak IS the gun.
- Thornhill didn't provide the schematic in case you wanted to build one and go wake up somebody else's galactic neighborhood. :)
- (Kids, this requires adult supervision.)
- But the plasma gun and the accretion are two different things.
- The gun produces the ejecta, but it's going to take other forces to get the ejecta to accrete, once they have been superheated and accelerated to relativistic velocities.
- This is where I'm invoking Feynman's "like-likes-like" principle, instead of gravity and CDM, to cause the condensation of dusty plasmas.
- (See Accretion.) This requires that the plasma already be fully neutralized, otherwise electrostatic repulsion would prevent accretion.
- Sparky wrote: The "field lines" inexactness that I referred to is that of describing magnetic flux density with imagined lines, which in reality, do not exist, and for me makes it difficult to comprehend what is really taking place. [...]
- Anyway, I think there should be a better way to describe what is going on.
- Writing can always be clearer, so I'm currently working on better diagrams.
- In the meantime... ;)
- You quoted from CMEs, where I'm talking about electric currents in coronal loops following magnetic field lines between active regions of opposing polarities.
- The magnetic fields definitely exist.
- They are detected by the Zeeman effect, where spectral lines get split.
- We also know that there are electric currents in the coronal loops, which have been estimated (probably conservatively) to be at least 1~3 A/m2.
- So the two active regions are of opposite magnetic polarity, and there is also a charge disparity, and an electric current flowing from one to the other.
- When electric lines of force are parallel to magnetic lines of force, the current falls into a helical motion, known as a Birkeland current.
- This produces distinctive synchrotron emissions, as the electrons rotate around the magnetic lines of force, generating EM waves as they go.
- So that much is real.
- It's the way magnetic fields are discussed in the mainstream literature that is so confusing.
- They talk about magnetic lines of force like rubber bands that can be stretched, and sometimes snap, releasing huge amounts of energy.
- This has nothing to do with reality.
- GaryN wrote: This animation does seem to show an outflow to the fore, but possibly an inflow at the rear.
- Sparky wrote: The inflow is an illusion caused by the reduction of glow from out to in.
- Gary, this is a better example than anything else I've seen so far, :oops: but I agree with Sparky that looks can be deceiving.
- The matter could be flowing in, while some sort of process in it is propagating outward, creating the illusion.
- I'll keep my eye out for more evidence, but I think that all of it is sketchy.
- IMO, redshift data are not reliable at such great distances, so I didn't cite any of those.
- I personally think that the jets are flowing out, and that the inflow on the other side is from the accretion disc, on a plane perpendicular to the jet.
- The more reliable evidence is from planetary nebulae within our own galaxy, where redshift data are less contentious.
- Then I generalize from those ejecta to other jets, and say that all of them are flowing out, and I use the "natural tokamak" construct to explain how inflow can get converted into collimated outflow.
- Perhaps there is an error there.
- But do consider the implications of inwardly-flowing jets.
- Is the matter feeding the accretion disc?
- (In which case, does that make it a "discretion" disc??? :))
- Anyway, keep thinking... :)

--- Tokamak Quasar Shooter
Postby CharlesChandler» Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:35 am
- Lloyd wrote: An even more important issue seems to be your tokamak model.
- It seems to be an excellent model, except for one thing, the quasar data.
- Quasars are found almost always near a galaxy and the plasma gun model seems to be the best candidate for getting quasars out of galactic nuclei, but not too far away.
- If quasars didn't exist near galaxies, there'd be no problem, but they do so there is (I think).
- It seems that the tokamak needs to be redesigned as a shooter.
- Could there be a stage of tokamak development where it gets hyperactive and shoots out quasars?
- If things can explode, like novae and supernovae, and other things can zip through space, like runaway planets and stars, can't there be a connection between the two, and can't tokamaks explode or something, maybe from collisions, if nothing else?
- The "natural tokamak" is very definitely a shooter.
- If it is still feeding, because matter from an accretion disc is still being sucked in by the magnetic confinement, there will be polar jets driven by the high-energy ejecta from the fusion reactor.
- This could be a spray, if the inflow is steady, or it could sputter, if the fuel supply varies.
- It could also oscillate, where extreme temperatures in the reactor might cause the matter to expand, reducing the reaction rate, only to collapse again, producing a new round of fusion.
- This offers an explanation for pulsars, which produce gamma rays in phases that can last as little as 1/1000 of a second.
- An implosion/explosion cycle, with extreme hydrostatic pressure countered by extreme magnetic confinement, could produce oscillations at this rate.
- I don't know of another model that can explain this with plausible physics.
- I "think" that the only difference here comes down to whether or not the quasars (or whatever else) come out of the plasma gun as ready-made objects, or as fully atomized plasma, later to condense into discrete objects.
- The natural tokamak will produce a plasma stream, perhaps that sputters.
- It won't produce fully assembled planets or stars. I don't know what would.
- Plasma pinches and condensed matter are mutually exclusive.
- The magnetic fields in a z-pinch push like charges together, and opposite charges apart.
- This can fuse lighter elements into heavier ones, but it's still just atomic nuclei — no molecules, much less liquids or solids.
- As plasma, it can only stay organized by the magnetic pinch effect, wherein extreme linear velocities keep the polar jets organized, or extreme radial velocities keep toroidal plasmoids organized.
- The latter would seem to be the relevant case for a quasar, which is a point-like object, not a stream.
- So how do you get a plasma gun to shoot toroidal plasmoids?
- I'm thinking in nuts-n-bolts terms here, not just off-handed suggestions.
- I personally think that a quasar, like any star-like object, has its own accretion disc.
- Perhaps matter imploding toward the center of an elliptical galaxy spins off smaller accretions, sorta like the way hurricanes spin off tornadoes?
- Thus there would be angular momentum converging toward the AGN, and quasars forming near it and then drifting away.
- But that doesn't mean that the AGN plasma gun shot out the quasars.

--- Quasars
Postby CharlesChandler» Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:42 pm
- celeste wrote: We still have the empirical data saying that quasars can blow off their surrounding gas and dust in a very short time.
- Does that change your mind on the probability of finding accretion disks around quasars?
- I don't know. :D
- If the dust cloud was an accretion disc, could it have disappeared just because the quasar finally gobbled it all up?
- (I don't know the answer to that one either. :))
- Lloyd wrote: As I recall, Thornhill believes quasars begin as nearly massless atomic particles (mostly protons I think) which shoot out of AGNs (active galactic nuclei) at relativistic velocity (near light speed), then they gradually gain mass and lose velocity, after going a couple million lightyears or so, and come to a stop wrt the outward direction, then they evolve into galaxies.
- OK... and I'm saying that the AGN is a tokamak, which explains how it can emit polar jets.
- So I think that we start out agreeing, if Wal's relativistic protons and my relativistic fusion by-products are actually the same thing.
- But how do the particles gradually gain mass?
- And is there any observed correlation between the location of quasars and the polar jets?
- I thought that quasars are just randomly scattered in the vicinity of the AGN.
- Lloyd wrote: Do you think your beams could produce quasar-sized plasmoids that could shoot out at high velocity?
- It would shoot out high velocity plasma in a collimated form.
- Theoretically, a collimated jet losing speed could morph into an accretion disc at the far end.
- Then the accretion disc could instantiate a tokamak at the point of convergence, a thus a new star would be born of the ejecta out of the polar jet from the old one.
- But I don't know of any evidence of there being an accretion disc (or stellar nursery of any kind) at the end of a polar jet.
- Lloyd wrote: I don't remember in Arp's book if he showed any evidence of quasars transforming into galaxies.
- I know you've studied galaxy evolution, so have you come across anything that might suggest that quasars can so transform?
- Or is there something else that they might evolve into?
- I believe Arp or Wal did say he saw one or more cases of apparent pre-quasar objects within one or more AGNs.
- I'm not sure how we would know the difference between a quasar transforming into a galaxy, versus a galaxy manufacturing a quasar — they'd both look the same in the snapshot, right?
- Personally, I think that if there is a quasar at the center of an elliptical galaxy, it's a tokamak that was spun up by the angular momentum of galactic matter converging on the center.
- But I haven't studied quasars outside of the context of AGNs in elliptical galaxies, so I don't know what happens to the stray quasars Arp was talking about.

--- Quasar Mass Increase
Postby Lloyd » Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:39 pm
- Quasars from Low Mass to Large Mass?
- Though Charles may not be able to check this out for a spell, I figured I may as well post the following here now, rather than lose it somewhere else.
- The question is really whether subatomic particles start out at low mass and gradually gain in mass themselves, until they reach their normal masses.
- I think the following discussions give some pretty good clues about the best thinking along these lines.
- http://saturniancosmology.org/files/gravity/light.txt [Thornhill:]
- I agree with Davies that the charge on the electron has not changed.
- But neither has the speed of light.
- Unlike Davies, it seems to me that the basis of the physical universe is electric charge, governed by a near-instantaneous electrostatic force.
- All forms of matter and its interactions spring from that simple basis.
- Every particle and collection of particles is a resonant system of orbiting charges, from which comes resonant quantum effects and the manifestation of inertial mass.
- Resonance explains the puzzling non-radiating ground-state of an atom.
- Gravity, magnetism and nuclear forces can all be understood in terms of electric dipole forces between distorted systems of orbiting charge.
- http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&amp~ [Thornhill:]
- Arp outlines the empirical relationships between active galaxies, quasars, BL Lac objects and galaxy clusters:
- 1. High-redshift objects (such as quasars) are aligned on either side of low-redshift eruptive objects (often active galaxies).
- The pairs have equal positive and negative dispersions from a redshift periodicity value.
- This implies that quasars are ejected with quantized intrinsic (not Doppler, i.e., velocity) redshifts from active galaxies.
- [In 1967 Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge noted the preferred values of redshifts of quasars.
- In 1971 K. G. Karlsson derived a formula relating those values: (1+z2)/(1+z1) = 1.23 (where z2 is the next higher redshift from z1).
- This gives observed quasar redshifts of z = .061, .30, .60, .96, 1.41, 1.96, etc.
- Arp comments wryly that this is one of the truly great discoveries in physics, for which Karlsson "was rewarded with a teaching post in secondary school and then went into medicine."]
- 2. The youngest ejected objects appear to have the highest redshifts.
- As distance from the active galaxy increases, the objects decrease in redshift—stepwise, in consonance with Karlsson's periodicity.
- This implies that intrinsic redshift decreases with age in quantum jumps.
- 3. The objects also tend to increase in brightness and to slow down with distance.
- This implies that they gain mass as they age.
- [Nereid:] Starting with 0.061, the sequence is (to 3 significant figures): 0.305, 0.605, 0.974, 1.428, 1.987, 2.674, 3.519, 4.558, 5.837, and 7.409.
- Evidence for ejection of quasars from galaxies.
- http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/intrinsic_redshifts_in_qu~
- http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/14~
- One idea which has emerged from the EU camp is that, observationally speaking, there appears to exist an increase in the mass of the quasars as the quantized redshift in quasars falls.
- This is an important aspect of Arp's observations which was noteworthy enough to end up in the documentary, "The Cosmology Quest".
- It also appears quite clearly on page 108 of Seeing Red, Arp's explanation for his observations, where he states:
- "Now comes a key point: If the mass of an electron jumping from an excited atomic orbit to a lower level is smaller, then the energy of the photon of light emitted is smaller.
- If the photon is weaker it is redshifted ...
- it suffices here to understand that lower-mass electrons will give higher redshifts and that younger electrons would be expected to have lower mass."
- One way to explain intrinsic redshift is as quantized changes in energy levels of electrons, protons and neutrons within the atom.
- Within the EU view, the masses of subatomic particles change in response to electrical stress.
- In an Electric Universe, that includes magnetic and gravitational stress.
- Wal Thornhill argues that increasing negative charge on bodies increases their mass and gravity
- (see "Orbital Energy" in http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s). ...
- the plasmoid formed in a plasma gun is the most copious beamed source of neutrons known.
- So, most of the mass ejection will be neutral and decaying, once free of the plasmoid's electromagnetic influence, into protons and electrons (nascent hydrogen).
- - The second fact is that electrons, being much lower in mass than protons, will remain entangled in the plasmoid in greater numbers and for longer than protons.
- Also, strong electric fields in the plasmoid will tend to separate the electrons and protons, giving oppositely directed beams.
- http://othergroup.net/thoth/thoiii09.txt - [Thornhill:]
- Quantum theory has nothing to offer by way of a physical model to explain the redshift jumps across entire galaxies.
- And since there is no real model of how gravity works, there is no sensible explanation of how inertial mass can increase with time, nor of its link with gravitational mass. ...
- I think the biggest changes occur early in the history of a proto-galaxy where the brightness is increasing most rapidly.
- That is, the electric stress on stars is rising from the red anode glow to the bright tufting stage.
- Yes, planetary orbits would be affected but I doubt that it would be sufficient to set in motion the events of the recent history of the solar system.
- If the effects were that drastic I would expect to see a galaxy somewhere in deep space with a lot of nova/supernova activity in evidence, caused by sudden gravitational disturbances in binary star systems.
- We need to get a handle on what the redshift quantum represents in terms of mass increase of atoms.
- Arp gives a change of the electrons inertial mass of about .024% (if my arithmetic is right) for a 72km/sec change in redshift.
- If this is applied to all subatomic particles then it would not cause drastic effects.
- http://www.bazaarmodel.net/phorum/read.php?3,8359 - [Thornhill:]
- We cannot have a theory of everything until we have a workable concept of the structure of matter that satisfies the observation that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent.
- When we accelerate electrons or protons in an electromagnetic field they become less responsive to the fields the more they are accelerated.
- This has been interpreted as an increase in mass.
- However, charges have no mass. So how do they give the electron, proton and neutron the property of mass?
- The accelerating electromagnetic field will distort the orbits of charges within the electron or proton.
- It seems the more distorted a particle becomes, the more easily the energy supplied to accelerate the particle is assimilated in further distortion rather than in acceleration.
- Hence the apparent increase in mass.
- The inertial mass of a particle is a measure of the degree to which it responds to an electric field by distorting rather than accelerating.
- It implies the charge centers of a proton at rest have to be separated more than those in an electron at rest.
- That allows the proton to distort more readily than an electron in the same electric field and accounts for their differences in size and mass. ...
- The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass implies that gravity is also an electrical force. ...
- The electrical relationship between matter and mass allows us to understand how quasars can be newborn objects that have low mass and brightness and high intrinsic redshifts.
- With time, their mass increases and their intrinsic redshift decreases in quantum jumps.
- This shows that quantum effects also occur on a galactic scale.
- It is another powerful argument for the near infinite speed of the electric force.
- http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_ele~ m
- It seems simpler and more sensible to suggest that both nuclear and chemical energy is released or absorbed by the rearrangement of the resonant orbits of charged particles.
- It is then common sense to suggest that mass is the measured response of a system of charged particles to an external electrostatic force.
- The more massive an object, the more the electrostatic force contributes to the elastic deformation of its protons, neutrons and electrons, rather than their acceleration.
- This is the phenomenon seen in particle accelerators and conventionally attributed to relativistic effects.
- But relativity reduces to classical physics in a universe where the electrostatic force has near-infinite speed.
- http://www.discordancyreport.com/theory/
- One theory postulated by English astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and Indian astrophysicist Jayant Narlikar is the Hoyle-Narlikar Theory of conformal gravity.
- This theory proposes that the inertial mass of a particle of matter starts at zero and increases as it interacts with an increasing number of surrounding particles with time.
- According to this theory, younger and more recently created electrons will have smaller masses than older, less recently created electrons.
- These less massive electrons will emit lower energy photons with the resulting light redshifted in comparison to the photons emitted by older electrons.
- If it is presumed that smaller more compact extragalactic bodies are younger objects then this theory nicely explains why these younger objects are more redshifted.
- http://electric-cosmos.org/ouruniverse.htm
- Electrical repulsion that is alternately felt (when planets' plasma sheaths intersect) and then not felt (when the sheaths do not intersect) could circularize orbits relatively quickly.
- In addition there is strong evidence that gravity and mass itself is dependent on electrical charge.

--- Electric Gravity Thunderblog
Postby Lloyd » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:21 pm
- Gravity as Electrical Effect?
- In my recent post here, I provided some of Thornhill's ideas about subatomic particles starting out massless and then gaining mass, as in quasars.
- I see that one of the Thunderbloggers discussed this topic this past spring and winter.
- So I'll provide links to those for now and later maybe I'll have time to quote the more important passages.
- I suppose I did read these before, but there was no connection then to CC's model.
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/02/25/article-14-solvi~ :
- http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/03/03/article-15-point~
- Gravitational Constant: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/03/10/article-16-impli~ ctrical-explanation-of-mass-and-gravity-part-1/
- Electric Forces in Nature and Space: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/03/26/article-17-impli~
- Gravity, Neutrinos, Aether: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/28/article-18-impli~
- Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Compressive Ionization: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/05/29/article-19-impli~

INDEX

[3] Galaxy and Quasar Natural Tokamaks

--- AGN Tokamak vs Plasma Gun

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315#p71917

--- Thornhill Quasar Theory

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=90#p73110

--- Quasar Formation

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=15#p72052

--- Tokamak Quasar Shooter

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=75#p73034

--- Quasars

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=75#p73051

--- Quasar Mass Increase

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=90#p73407

--- Electric Gravity Thunderblog

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&start=105#p74026

--- AGN Tokamak vs Plasma Gun

Postby CharlesChandler» Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:13 am

- Lloyd wrote: Thornhill, as I understand, modifying Arp's model, considers that AGN's, i.e. Active Galactic Nuclei, act as plasma guns that shoot out quasars and B.L. Lac objects in opposite directions, usually polarly, stripped of many or most electrons, which remain behind for a time, and these quasars and objects scavenge intergalactic space for electrons, which slows them down and increases their mass and they evolve into companion galaxies.

- While you're waiting for anyone to find holes in your model, maybe you could look for holes in that model of "accretion" of quasars etc, including also for whether AGNs could act as plasma guns.

- I think Thornhill regards planetary nebulae as similar plasma guns, on a much smaller scale, that shoot out mere stars, instead of quasars, so your view on that would be interesting too.

- There is plenty of evidence of axial jets, on a wide range of scales, as you say.

- But is there any evidence of stellar nurseries in the jets?

- Anyway, what I found intriguing about such jets is the question of what causes the jets in the first place?

- These are steady streams of particles, predominantly positive, that stay collimated for extreme distances, until they eventually buckle and disperse, looking somewhat like a high-pressure jet shooting into a low-viscosity fluid (hence, of course, the colloquial name for them).

- The standard model has some gibberish about the jets relieving the pressure in the accretion disc.

- Some even say that without the jets, the accretion wouldn't even occur anyway, as the matter needs an outlet, or it would all just pile up in the middle, and the accretion would stop.

- That's not exactly what I would call mechanistic reasoning. :roll:

- So I looked at it, and this became one of the reasons for settling on the "natural tokamak" concept for extremely high-energy stars.

- The basic idea is that the star is spinning so fast that the magnetic fields confine the plasma, and instantiate a nuclear fusion reactor, by the z-pinch effect.

- The first question that this answers is gamma-ray sources.

- Everybody else's model of nuclear fusion has it occurring in the cores of heavy stars.

- But all of the gamma rays from the interior of stars should get absorbed by the overlying plasma.

- In fact, gamma rays are absorbed by all but the thinnest gas clouds.

- Yet fusion requires incredible pressures.

- How do you get incredible pressures, without any surrounding plasma to push in on it?

- I think that there is actually only one answer to that: magnetic pressure.

- So if you can get the star rotating fast enough, it can fuse heavier elements, without any overlying plasma to supply the pressure.

- Then you get gamma rays escaping straight out into space, as magnetic fields don't block photons.

- At the same time, the "natural tokamak" is the only sustained energy source with bipolar jets.

- Obviously, fusion in the core of a star isn't going to produce bipolar jets.

- The overlying plasma will absorb the momentum of the fusion products, and the high pressures will instantiate turbulence.

- So you'll get a spurt this way, and then that way, out of a deal like that.

- It's doubtful that any of the spurts would even break the surface of the star.

- So bipolar jets aren't caused by core fusion.

- And if it was just pressure from the accretion disc, the ejecta would radiate in all directions, without being collimated.

- But a toroidal energy source would produce precisely this pattern.

- If particles are emitted in all directions, 50% of them are heading toward the interior.

- These collide with each other, with the result being a collimated jet.

- Section of a toroidal explosion

--- Thornhill Quasar Theory

Postby CharlesChandler» Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:05 am

- CharlesChandler wrote: I thought that quasars are just randomly scattered in the vicinity of the AGN.

- Lloyd wrote: No, they're not random.

- Thornhill and at least several TPODs say that quasars are seen to be on or very near the minor axes of nearby galaxies, the minor axis being the polar direction.

- And I think I now remember that Arp said that first.

- Then I'd say that tokamak exhaust supplied the matter, especially if it was sputtering.

- Lloyd wrote: Thornhill said quasars sometimes shoot out of galaxies equatorially, which explains the Dogleg galaxy, which has a spiral arm severed.

- I'd call this a hurricane that spawned a tornado.

--- Quasar Formation

Postby CharlesChandler» Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:57 pm

- Lloyd wrote: I didn't understand your reply to my question about Thornhill's quasar model.

- You talked about bipolar jets, I guess from galaxies, but I was talking about quasars rather than jets. [...]

- I don't know of jets being significantly involved in Thornhill's quasar model.

- Oh OK, so he's talking about a big plasma cannon that shoots huge shells (i.e., quasars), while I'm talking about a little plasma sub-machine gun that just sprays ions. :)

- AGNs in elliptical galaxies do produce bipolar jets.

- I "think" that Arp was just observing that quasars tend to move away from the galactic centers, implying that they were ejected.

- I actually don't know for sure if there is common ground between the jets and the quasars.

- Interesting question.

- Lloyd wrote: I think his stellar model is similar.

- Like AGNs forming plasma guns that shoot out quasars, planetary nebulae form plasma guns that shoot out smaller plasmoids, which are stars, if I understand him correctly.

- The accretion in both cases then would be a result of plasma gun action.

- If you say accretion is due to a natural tokamak, would that be very similar to or different from a plasma gun?

- I'm saying that the natural tokamak IS the gun.

- Thornhill didn't provide the schematic in case you wanted to build one and go wake up somebody else's galactic neighborhood. :)

- (Kids, this requires adult supervision.)

- But the plasma gun and the accretion are two different things.

- The gun produces the ejecta, but it's going to take other forces to get the ejecta to accrete, once they have been superheated and accelerated to relativistic velocities.

- This is where I'm invoking Feynman's "like-likes-like" principle, instead of gravity and CDM, to cause the condensation of dusty plasmas.

- (See Accretion.) This requires that the plasma already be fully neutralized, otherwise electrostatic repulsion would prevent accretion.

- Sparky wrote: The "field lines" inexactness that I referred to is that of describing magnetic flux density with imagined lines, which in reality, do not exist, and for me makes it difficult to comprehend what is really taking place. [...]

- Anyway, I think there should be a better way to describe what is going on.

- Writing can always be clearer, so I'm currently working on better diagrams.

- In the meantime... ;)

- You quoted from CMEs, where I'm talking about electric currents in coronal loops following magnetic field lines between active regions of opposing polarities.

- The magnetic fields definitely exist.

- They are detected by the Zeeman effect, where spectral lines get split.

- We also know that there are electric currents in the coronal loops, which have been estimated (probably conservatively) to be at least 1~3 A/m2.

- So the two active regions are of opposite magnetic polarity, and there is also a charge disparity, and an electric current flowing from one to the other.

- When electric lines of force are parallel to magnetic lines of force, the current falls into a helical motion, known as a Birkeland current.

- This produces distinctive synchrotron emissions, as the electrons rotate around the magnetic lines of force, generating EM waves as they go.

- So that much is real.

- It's the way magnetic fields are discussed in the mainstream literature that is so confusing.

- They talk about magnetic lines of force like rubber bands that can be stretched, and sometimes snap, releasing huge amounts of energy.

- This has nothing to do with reality.

- GaryN wrote: This animation does seem to show an outflow to the fore, but possibly an inflow at the rear.

- Sparky wrote: The inflow is an illusion caused by the reduction of glow from out to in.

- Gary, this is a better example than anything else I've seen so far, :oops: but I agree with Sparky that looks can be deceiving.

- The matter could be flowing in, while some sort of process in it is propagating outward, creating the illusion.

- I'll keep my eye out for more evidence, but I think that all of it is sketchy.

- IMO, redshift data are not reliable at such great distances, so I didn't cite any of those.

- I personally think that the jets are flowing out, and that the inflow on the other side is from the accretion disc, on a plane perpendicular to the jet.

- The more reliable evidence is from planetary nebulae within our own galaxy, where redshift data are less contentious.

- Then I generalize from those ejecta to other jets, and say that all of them are flowing out, and I use the "natural tokamak" construct to explain how inflow can get converted into collimated outflow.

- Perhaps there is an error there.

- But do consider the implications of inwardly-flowing jets.

- Is the matter feeding the accretion disc?

- (In which case, does that make it a "discretion" disc??? :))

- Anyway, keep thinking... :)

--- Tokamak Quasar Shooter

Postby CharlesChandler» Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:35 am

- Lloyd wrote: An even more important issue seems to be your tokamak model.

- It seems to be an excellent model, except for one thing, the quasar data.

- Quasars are found almost always near a galaxy and the plasma gun model seems to be the best candidate for getting quasars out of galactic nuclei, but not too far away.

- If quasars didn't exist near galaxies, there'd be no problem, but they do so there is (I think).

- It seems that the tokamak needs to be redesigned as a shooter.

- Could there be a stage of tokamak development where it gets hyperactive and shoots out quasars?

- If things can explode, like novae and supernovae, and other things can zip through space, like runaway planets and stars, can't there be a connection between the two, and can't tokamaks explode or something, maybe from collisions, if nothing else?

- The "natural tokamak" is very definitely a shooter.

- If it is still feeding, because matter from an accretion disc is still being sucked in by the magnetic confinement, there will be polar jets driven by the high-energy ejecta from the fusion reactor.

- This could be a spray, if the inflow is steady, or it could sputter, if the fuel supply varies.

- It could also oscillate, where extreme temperatures in the reactor might cause the matter to expand, reducing the reaction rate, only to collapse again, producing a new round of fusion.

- This offers an explanation for pulsars, which produce gamma rays in phases that can last as little as 1/1000 of a second.

- An implosion/explosion cycle, with extreme hydrostatic pressure countered by extreme magnetic confinement, could produce oscillations at this rate.

- I don't know of another model that can explain this with plausible physics.

- I "think" that the only difference here comes down to whether or not the quasars (or whatever else) come out of the plasma gun as ready-made objects, or as fully atomized plasma, later to condense into discrete objects.

- The natural tokamak will produce a plasma stream, perhaps that sputters.

- It won't produce fully assembled planets or stars. I don't know what would.

- Plasma pinches and condensed matter are mutually exclusive.

- The magnetic fields in a z-pinch push like charges together, and opposite charges apart.

- This can fuse lighter elements into heavier ones, but it's still just atomic nuclei — no molecules, much less liquids or solids.

- As plasma, it can only stay organized by the magnetic pinch effect, wherein extreme linear velocities keep the polar jets organized, or extreme radial velocities keep toroidal plasmoids organized.

- The latter would seem to be the relevant case for a quasar, which is a point-like object, not a stream.

- So how do you get a plasma gun to shoot toroidal plasmoids?

- I'm thinking in nuts-n-bolts terms here, not just off-handed suggestions.

- I personally think that a quasar, like any star-like object, has its own accretion disc.

- Perhaps matter imploding toward the center of an elliptical galaxy spins off smaller accretions, sorta like the way hurricanes spin off tornadoes?

- Thus there would be angular momentum converging toward the AGN, and quasars forming near it and then drifting away.

- But that doesn't mean that the AGN plasma gun shot out the quasars.

--- Quasars

Postby CharlesChandler» Mon Nov 19, 2012 6:42 pm

- celeste wrote: We still have the empirical data saying that quasars can blow off their surrounding gas and dust in a very short time.

- Does that change your mind on the probability of finding accretion disks around quasars?

- I don't know. :D

- If the dust cloud was an accretion disc, could it have disappeared just because the quasar finally gobbled it all up?

- (I don't know the answer to that one either. :))

- Lloyd wrote: As I recall, Thornhill believes quasars begin as nearly massless atomic particles (mostly protons I think) which shoot out of AGNs (active galactic nuclei) at relativistic velocity (near light speed), then they gradually gain mass and lose velocity, after going a couple million lightyears or so, and come to a stop wrt the outward direction, then they evolve into galaxies.

- OK... and I'm saying that the AGN is a tokamak, which explains how it can emit polar jets.

- So I think that we start out agreeing, if Wal's relativistic protons and my relativistic fusion by-products are actually the same thing.

- But how do the particles gradually gain mass?

- And is there any observed correlation between the location of quasars and the polar jets?

- I thought that quasars are just randomly scattered in the vicinity of the AGN.

- Lloyd wrote: Do you think your beams could produce quasar-sized plasmoids that could shoot out at high velocity?

- It would shoot out high velocity plasma in a collimated form.

- Theoretically, a collimated jet losing speed could morph into an accretion disc at the far end.

- Then the accretion disc could instantiate a tokamak at the point of convergence, a thus a new star would be born of the ejecta out of the polar jet from the old one.

- But I don't know of any evidence of there being an accretion disc (or stellar nursery of any kind) at the end of a polar jet.

- Lloyd wrote: I don't remember in Arp's book if he showed any evidence of quasars transforming into galaxies.

- I know you've studied galaxy evolution, so have you come across anything that might suggest that quasars can so transform?

- Or is there something else that they might evolve into?

- I believe Arp or Wal did say he saw one or more cases of apparent pre-quasar objects within one or more AGNs.

- I'm not sure how we would know the difference between a quasar transforming into a galaxy, versus a galaxy manufacturing a quasar — they'd both look the same in the snapshot, right?

- Personally, I think that if there is a quasar at the center of an elliptical galaxy, it's a tokamak that was spun up by the angular momentum of galactic matter converging on the center.

- But I haven't studied quasars outside of the context of AGNs in elliptical galaxies, so I don't know what happens to the stray quasars Arp was talking about.

--- Quasar Mass Increase

Postby Lloyd » Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:39 pm

- Quasars from Low Mass to Large Mass?

- Though Charles may not be able to check this out for a spell, I figured I may as well post the following here now, rather than lose it somewhere else.

- The question is really whether subatomic particles start out at low mass and gradually gain in mass themselves, until they reach their normal masses.

- I think the following discussions give some pretty good clues about the best thinking along these lines.

- http://saturniancosmology.org/files/gravity/light.txt [Thornhill:]

- I agree with Davies that the charge on the electron has not changed.

- But neither has the speed of light.

- Unlike Davies, it seems to me that the basis of the physical universe is electric charge, governed by a near-instantaneous electrostatic force.

- All forms of matter and its interactions spring from that simple basis.

- Every particle and collection of particles is a resonant system of orbiting charges, from which comes resonant quantum effects and the manifestation of inertial mass.

- Resonance explains the puzzling non-radiating ground-state of an atom.

- Gravity, magnetism and nuclear forces can all be understood in terms of electric dipole forces between distorted systems of orbiting charge.

- http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4252 [Thornhill:]

- Arp outlines the empirical relationships between active galaxies, quasars, BL Lac objects and galaxy clusters:

- 1. High-redshift objects (such as quasars) are aligned on either side of low-redshift eruptive objects (often active galaxies).

- The pairs have equal positive and negative dispersions from a redshift periodicity value.

- This implies that quasars are ejected with quantized intrinsic (not Doppler, i.e., velocity) redshifts from active galaxies.

- [In 1967 Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge noted the preferred values of redshifts of quasars.

- In 1971 K. G. Karlsson derived a formula relating those values: (1+z2)/(1+z1) = 1.23 (where z2 is the next higher redshift from z1).

- This gives observed quasar redshifts of z = .061, .30, .60, .96, 1.41, 1.96, etc.

- Arp comments wryly that this is one of the truly great discoveries in physics, for which Karlsson "was rewarded with a teaching post in secondary school and then went into medicine."]

- 2. The youngest ejected objects appear to have the highest redshifts.

- As distance from the active galaxy increases, the objects decrease in redshift—stepwise, in consonance with Karlsson's periodicity.

- This implies that intrinsic redshift decreases with age in quantum jumps.

- 3. The objects also tend to increase in brightness and to slow down with distance.

- This implies that they gain mass as they age.

- [Nereid:] Starting with 0.061, the sequence is (to 3 significant figures): 0.305, 0.605, 0.974, 1.428, 1.987, 2.674, 3.519, 4.558, 5.837, and 7.409.

- Evidence for ejection of quasars from galaxies.

- http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/intrinsic_redshifts_in_quasars_and_galaxies .pdf http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys -pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/

- One idea which has emerged from the EU camp is that, observationally speaking, there appears to exist an increase in the mass of the quasars as the quantized redshift in quasars falls.

- This is an important aspect of Arp's observations which was noteworthy enough to end up in the documentary, "The Cosmology Quest".

- It also appears quite clearly on page 108 of Seeing Red, Arp's explanation for his observations, where he states:

- "Now comes a key point: If the mass of an electron jumping from an excited atomic orbit to a lower level is smaller, then the energy of the photon of light emitted is smaller.

- If the photon is weaker it is redshifted ...

- it suffices here to understand that lower-mass electrons will give higher redshifts and that younger electrons would be expected to have lower mass."

- One way to explain intrinsic redshift is as quantized changes in energy levels of electrons, protons and neutrons within the atom.

- Within the EU view, the masses of subatomic particles change in response to electrical stress.

- In an Electric Universe, that includes magnetic and gravitational stress.

- Wal Thornhill argues that increasing negative charge on bodies increases their mass and gravity (see "Orbital Energy" in http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s). ...

- the plasmoid formed in a plasma gun is the most copious beamed source of neutrons known.

- So, most of the mass ejection will be neutral and decaying, once free of the plasmoid's electromagnetic influence, into protons and electrons (nascent hydrogen).

- - The second fact is that electrons, being much lower in mass than protons, will remain entangled in the plasmoid in greater numbers and for longer than protons.

- Also, strong electric fields in the plasmoid will tend to separate the electrons and protons, giving oppositely directed beams.

- http://othergroup.net/thoth/thoiii09.txt - [Thornhill:]

- Quantum theory has nothing to offer by way of a physical model to explain the redshift jumps across entire galaxies.

- And since there is no real model of how gravity works, there is no sensible explanation of how inertial mass can increase with time, nor of its link with gravitational mass. ...

- I think the biggest changes occur early in the history of a proto-galaxy where the brightness is increasing most rapidly.

- That is, the electric stress on stars is rising from the red anode glow to the bright tufting stage.

- Yes, planetary orbits would be affected but I doubt that it would be sufficient to set in motion the events of the recent history of the solar system.

- If the effects were that drastic I would expect to see a galaxy somewhere in deep space with a lot of nova/supernova activity in evidence, caused by sudden gravitational disturbances in binary star systems.

- We need to get a handle on what the redshift quantum represents in terms of mass increase of atoms.

- Arp gives a change of the electrons inertial mass of about .024% (if my arithmetic is right) for a 72km/sec change in redshift.

- If this is applied to all subatomic particles then it would not cause drastic effects.

- http://www.bazaarmodel.net/phorum/read.php?3,8359 - [Thornhill:]

- We cannot have a theory of everything until we have a workable concept of the structure of matter that satisfies the observation that inertial and gravitational mass are equivalent.

- When we accelerate electrons or protons in an electromagnetic field they become less responsive to the fields the more they are accelerated.

- This has been interpreted as an increase in mass.

- However, charges have no mass. So how do they give the electron, proton and neutron the property of mass?

- The accelerating electromagnetic field will distort the orbits of charges within the electron or proton.

- It seems the more distorted a particle becomes, the more easily the energy supplied to accelerate the particle is assimilated in further distortion rather than in acceleration.

- Hence the apparent increase in mass.

- The inertial mass of a particle is a measure of the degree to which it responds to an electric field by distorting rather than accelerating.

- It implies the charge centers of a proton at rest have to be separated more than those in an electron at rest.

- That allows the proton to distort more readily than an electron in the same electric field and accounts for their differences in size and mass. ...

- The equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass implies that gravity is also an electrical force. ...

- The electrical relationship between matter and mass allows us to understand how quasars can be newborn objects that have low mass and brightness and high intrinsic redshifts.

- With time, their mass increases and their intrinsic redshift decreases in quantum jumps.

- This shows that quantum effects also occur on a galactic scale.

- It is another powerful argument for the near infinite speed of the electric force.

- http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/electric_universe/esp_electricuniverse03.ht m

- It seems simpler and more sensible to suggest that both nuclear and chemical energy is released or absorbed by the rearrangement of the resonant orbits of charged particles.

- It is then common sense to suggest that mass is the measured response of a system of charged particles to an external electrostatic force.

- The more massive an object, the more the electrostatic force contributes to the elastic deformation of its protons, neutrons and electrons, rather than their acceleration.

- This is the phenomenon seen in particle accelerators and conventionally attributed to relativistic effects.

- But relativity reduces to classical physics in a universe where the electrostatic force has near-infinite speed.

- http://www.discordancyreport.com/theory/

- One theory postulated by English astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and Indian astrophysicist Jayant Narlikar is the Hoyle-Narlikar Theory of conformal gravity.

- This theory proposes that the inertial mass of a particle of matter starts at zero and increases as it interacts with an increasing number of surrounding particles with time.

- According to this theory, younger and more recently created electrons will have smaller masses than older, less recently created electrons.

- These less massive electrons will emit lower energy photons with the resulting light redshifted in comparison to the photons emitted by older electrons.

- If it is presumed that smaller more compact extragalactic bodies are younger objects then this theory nicely explains why these younger objects are more redshifted.

- http://electric-cosmos.org/ouruniverse.htm

- Electrical repulsion that is alternately felt (when planets' plasma sheaths intersect) and then not felt (when the sheaths do not intersect) could circularize orbits relatively quickly.

- In addition there is strong evidence that gravity and mass itself is dependent on electrical charge.

--- Electric Gravity Thunderblog

Postby Lloyd » Mon Dec 10, 2012 8:21 pm

- Gravity as Electrical Effect?

- In my recent post here, I provided some of Thornhill's ideas about subatomic particles starting out massless and then gaining mass, as in quasars.

- I see that one of the Thunderbloggers discussed this topic this past spring and winter.

- So I'll provide links to those for now and later maybe I'll have time to quote the more important passages.

- I suppose I did read these before, but there was no connection then to CC's model.

- http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/02/25/article-14-solving-the-mystery-of-mass/Subtrons:

- http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/03/03/article-15-pointers-towards-explaining-mass-and-gravity-electrically/

- Gravitational Constant: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/03/10/article-16-implications-of-the-ele ctrical-explanation-of-mass-and-gravity-part-1/

- Electric Forces in Nature and Space: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/03/26/article-17-implications-of-the-ele ctrical-explanation-of-mass-and-gravity-part-2/

- Gravity, Neutrinos, Aether: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/28/article-18-implications-of-the-ele ctrical-explanation-of-mass-and-gravity-part-3/

- Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Compressive Ionization: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/05/29/article-19-implications-of-the-ele ctrical-explanation-of-mass-and-gravity-part-4-2/

[3] Galaxy and Quasar Natural Tokamaks
--- AGN Tokamak vs Plasma Gun
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Thornhill Quasar Theory
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Quasar Formation
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Tokamak Quasar Shooter
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Quasars
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Quasar Mass Increase
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~
--- Electric Gravity Thunderblog
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&am~