Are you saying that the (supposed) interstellar currents are not following concentrations of matter? If so, are the currents following voids? Or is the matter all the same density? Tell me what I got wrong.
jacmac
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Lloyd,
I agree with this:
viscount aero said:
"That is why my mind gravitated to a non-partisan vacuum and why I concluded that it was neither a resistor nor a conductor."
My thought experiment:
A) Two electrodes in enclosed volume, fixed distance apart. Apply voltage. Measure current.
B) Improve "vacuum" in enclosed space. Measure current again.
C) Repeat.
As the quantity of matter in the improved vacuum goes down any change in current should be a result of the change in quantity of matter and would therefore be a measure of the conductivity or resistance of the matter.
Beyond this I do not think one can alter the "density ??? " of the space in order to test its conductivity or resistance.
This is my preferred answer to recent either/or questions; neither.
Jack
D_Archer
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
CharlesChandler wrote:
D_Archer wrote: The filaments are the currents...
Are you saying that the (supposed) interstellar currents are not following concentrations of matter?
Filaments concentrate matter, so you can not put the cart before the horse.
If so, are the currents following voids?
Why would currents follow anything? I think the questions asking, 'what is it following?' is wrong. Would you ask what is lightning following?
Or is the matter all the same density? Tell me what I got wrong.
I quoted you >
that currents (if present) would avoid filaments of matter in space
A thing can not avoid itself. Filaments of matter are where the current is ( the current filament comes first), they concentrate the matter. So the density of matter goes up, would this cause resistance somewhere along the filament, yes probably, that would be where stars form.
Regards, Daniel
viscount aero
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
To add, any matter which is organized is an area or volume of matter compression (which is the premise behind the Primer Fields that I tend to agree with). Moreover, the tendency of plasma to arrange itself into filaments attests to this. There must be a transmission medium that is constrained and compressed into a structure for electrons to create a circuit. The medium is the matter itself.
The discussion gets to the heart of the nature of the architecture of matter. Plasma filamentous structure is a state of matter, whereas outer space vacuum is not considered a state of matter. It is a void. I've had lengthy debates with a couple of members about this. My position was that outer space is actually "something" and a state of matter. Yet mathematicians do no agree on this (ironically). But that is a tangent. We must, for this talk, disqualify outer space as being a state of matter. So my position in this thread depends on the vacuum being non-material--inert (even though it could be considered another state of matter for another discussion).
Suffice it to say, disorganized stuff is floating around in the void, including protons and electrons, dust, etc... but these are freely disassociated particles and molecules. You could say they are dissolved or suspended in space as in a "solution."
Because a circuit depends on flowing electrons--an attraction of electrons to "vacancies" in atoms seeking to get their electrons back--purely empty void offers no such relationship as it is not "matter" per this paradigm. Matter is the stuff seeking out the electrical connections, not empty void. Matter creates resistance, not empty void. Matter creates conductance, not empty void.
Take for instance OH- hydroxyl (hydroxide ion). This is physically unstable and will tend to give up an electron pair or gain a proton (often H to form H20). But it does so among complimentary matter, not void. OH- does not bond with the void.
What we consider traditional matter floats in the void but is not the void. You could even say that mater exists "outside" of the vacuum. Conductors or resistors are made of particles seeking to balance their state. The void is already "balanced." The void, although not resistant, doesn't need to give up or gain anything. So the vacuum is non-partisan as it is neither a resistor nor a conductor. Outer space is not an element on the Periodic Table.
So the vacuum acts like a conductor in the sense that it poses no resistance. But is it one? Is it either?
To reiterate (and repost) the confusion, the establishment actually considres vacuum a conductor!
electrode [i′lek‚trōd] (electricity) • An electric conductor through which an electric current enters or leaves a medium, whether it be an electrolytic solution, solid, molten mass, gas, or vacuum. • One of the terminals used in dielectric heating or diathermy for applying the high-frequency electric field to the material being heated.
^^^they declare vacuum to be a medium! So what is outer space, then? It must be a state of matter as a medium implies a substance But then go debate a physicist on this, demand they define the "outer space particles," and they will eventually begin to avoid the topic and not admit to "outer space" being "something." Yet "spacetime" is the demi-God super "fabric" that can bend, warp, dilate, compress, you name it Confused yet?
CharlesChandler
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
D_Archer wrote: Filaments of matter are where the current is (the current filament comes first), they concentrate the matter. So the density of matter goes up, would this cause resistance somewhere along the filament, yes probably, that would be where stars form.
If denser matter has more resistance, that's a self-defeating construct. To whatever extent the current succeeded in concentrating the matter, that concentration would present more resistance, and the current would find another way around, since currents follow the path of least resistance. Once established in an alternate route, if matter once again started to get concentrated, the resistance would once again send the current looking for another way around. It would only resolve into a stable current with a stable concentration of matter if the resistance did not increase with the consolidation, but the data show otherwise.
Also, no one has answered the question of how Marklund convection can create condensed matter. The z-pinch will consolidate matter, but the greatest consolidation will occur in the matter that has the greatest charge, since it is the most subject to the magnetic force. But the same property will prevent the formation of aggregates from that matter, because the electrostatic repulsion of like charges will be far greater than the z-pinch. So a z-pinch can consolidate matter more than it would have been otherwise, but it cannot form molecules, much less densely-packed stars.
Sometimes I think that EU proponents are just as bad at ignoring the electric force as the mainstream. The only difference is that EU theory has z-pinches doing everything, while the mainstream has MHD doing everything. But either way, the most powerful force at the macroscopic level isn't being taken into account.
viscount aero
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
CharlesChandler wrote:
D_Archer wrote: Filaments of matter are where the current is (the current filament comes first), they concentrate the matter. So the density of matter goes up, would this cause resistance somewhere along the filament, yes probably, that would be where stars form.
If denser matter has more resistance, that's a self-defeating construct. To whatever extent the current succeeded in concentrating the matter, that concentration would present more resistance, and the current would find another way around, since currents follow the path of least resistance. Once established in an alternate route, if matter once again started to get concentrated, the resistance would once again send the current looking for another way around. It would only resolve into a stable current with a stable concentration of matter if the resistance did not increase with the consolidation, but the data show otherwise.
But the current requires matter to exist for it to continue flowing to something (as in a diode's one-way cathode-to-anode relationship). Electrical current does not seek out a void. That the void offers no resistance does not necessarily qualify it as a conductor. The void is undefined. It is neither anode nor cathode.
CharlesChandler
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
viscount aero wrote: Electrical current does not seek out a void.
I'm questioning that.
viscount aero
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
CharlesChandler wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Electrical current does not seek out a void.
I'm questioning that.
Fair enough
This is quite a conundrum isn't it?
GaryN
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Electrons seem to be able to go through vacuum just fine, or my old tube amplifier would be pretty useless.
Gary, you are correct and why I embedded that reference in my post before last. Hence: "as in a diode's one-way cathode-to-anode relationship." I'm talking about a vacuum tube. A diode is a vacuum tube. That is why the establishment defines vacuum as an electrode:
electrode [i′lek‚trōd] (electricity) • An electric conductor through which an electric current enters or leaves a medium, whether it be an electrolytic solution, solid, molten mass, gas, or vacuum.
But then say to a cosmologist "outer space is a giant electrode" and they will suddenly ignore you. My problem is that I see both sides of the argument
upriver
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Is it the matter of the electron that provides the energy to do work or is it the(kinetic) energy of the electron that provides the energy to do work.
It seems as though there is no impedance to an electron moving through the vacuum. But the electron is not what actually does the work, Its the kinetic energy of the moving electron that does the work. Kinetic energy is the most basic energy of the universe I believe. Charge could be just the jitter of the electron.
Now what about thin vs thick plasma?
I dont know but I suspect that under the right conditions a thicker plasma becomes a better conductor just by virtue of being able to deliver more kinetic energy via electrons down a filament. At some point there are too many electrons impeding the progress and it is no longer a superconductor relative to a wire.
So depending on how you define the problem determines the answer you get. I think what we really need to do is look at what electricity is in the context of moving through a vacuum. How is the energy really transferred mechanically.
viscount aero
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
upriver wrote: Is it the matter of the electron that provides the energy to do work or is it the(kinetic) energy of the electron that provides the energy to do work.
It seems as though there is no impedance to an electron moving through the vacuum. But the electron is not what actually does the work, Its the kinetic energy of the moving electron that does the work. Kinetic energy is the most basic energy of the universe I believe. Charge could be just the jitter of the electron.
Now what about thin vs thick plasma?
I dont know but I suspect that under the right conditions a thicker plasma becomes a better conductor just by virtue of being able to deliver more kinetic energy via electrons down a filament. At some point there are too many electrons impeding the progress and it is no longer a superconductor relative to a wire.
So depending on how you define the problem determines the answer you get. I think what we really need to do is look at what electricity is in the context of moving through a vacuum. How is the energy really transferred mechanically.
Great insight
Lloyd
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
The Heart of EU Theory?
Thanks for all the replies, folks!
In case anyone overlooked the opening post, I mentioned that in his Pensee' or Kronos article back in the '70s Juergens argued that vacuum is a strong insulator to electric current. That's assuming my recollection is fairly accurate.
Would everyone agree that Juergens' assumption that a vacuum is an electric insulator is at the heart of EU theory? Would the theory that galactic currents power the stars be tenable if it were assumed or proven that vacuum is not an insulator or is a "non-resistor"?
celeste
Re: Does Space Insulate or Conduct?
Lloyd wrote: Could everyone elaborate a little?
Is the heliospheric current sheet an electric current, or not? And why or why not?
There is no vacuum, nor SpaceTime. The Dynamic Octaves of creation, of the Songline, which we are a part of, or traverse through — whether Planetary, Stellar, Galactic or SuperGalactic — are of ElectroMagnetic and Plasma experience or topology.
Thus whether you are talking the conduction of a group plasma wave — or electromagnetic signal (phase wave) upon, around and through it — the signal, voltage, or power loss (or amplification) will be dependent on the impedance of both the transmitted signal or power, and the medium. That is we are looking at the impedance match.
In the case of the interior electromagnetic signals of the electron or proton, we are talking zero resistance. Superconductivity ...
This is very close to the background resistance of cosmic space, which is very VERY close to zero — which is in fact determined by the Redshift Constant, α = 0.00023683050759 / Mpc. [I don't have my notes with me today, so if anyone wants to convert that into Joules/Parsec or similar — then convert it into Volts/Meter — that would be grand!]
For the general case of sending a signal or a plasma wave across the Interstellar or Intergalactic media — or within a star or superstar — the impedance of the medium which we need to match with depends on the DIRECTION we are sending our signal or charge group. Because all these regions and octaves are made up of plasma filaments moving in specific directions, with specfic velocities, and having specific densities. Big BIG difference whether you are signaling across a region with one proton and electron per cubic meter — or a heliosphere with millions of charges per cubic meter — or with or against a dense plasma filament or particle beam with many trillions of trillions — or within the Superluminally-spinning filaments of Sagittarius A* with (10^35 to 10^40?) protons & nucleons per cubic meter. [Need to look up my density numbers for SGRA*.]
Then the final criterion — of whether our signal or 'charge envelope' will experience a loss, or a gain (be amplified) --- be redshifted or blueshifted — would depend on whether we are going into a faster and denser media, or slower and fluffier media — and whether we are moving up, down, or cross stream ...
But then go debate a physicist on this, demand they define the "outer space particles," and they will eventually begin to avoid the topic and not admit to "outer space" being "something." Yet "spacetime" is the demi-God super "fabric" that can bend, warp, dilate, compress, you name it
Confused yet?
