Thunderbolts Forum

'12-02-07, 07:45 Solar	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient CharlesChandler wrote: Solar wrote:As mentioned earlier in this thread there may be some correlations with the so called "ribbon" which might correspond to proximal the 'curling', 'kinking', or 'knoting' as depicted in the Focus Fusion video with sound that you referenced earlier producing a spherical plasmoid. I think most members here like to correspond several aspects because independently no single one has singlehandedly covered all of the bases. As such, and with regard to "without electrostatic repulsion blowing it apart", I'm also not adverse to consider the ponderings of sonoluminescence and/or plasma 'cavitation' [on the cosmic scale] in relation to 'lightning beading' along the discharge channel.These are category errors. You're comparing toroidal knots in electron streams to the aggregation of solid matter in a planet or star, while the toroidal knots have only been demonstrated in electron streams. If you can build planets and stars out of relativistic electrons, you've got something. Otherwise, that strategy might not carry you over the finish line. Similarly, "bead lightning" is no metaphor for star formation in an electrified spiral arm. In lightning, the "beads" are artifacts of the stepped leaders that extend the lightning channel. Essentially, lightning is not an instantaneous flash — it's a complex process that sometimes plays out over several seconds. Somewhere inside the cloud, an instantaneous flash occurs, because the breakdown voltage was exceeded. This creates a discharge channel that is roughly 100 m long. That would be the end of it, except for the fact that the plasma in the discharge channel is a much better conductor than the surrounding air. So now, it's like there is a 100 m wire. Surrounding charge disparities sense that there is a conductor there, and flow toward it. This creates a secondary flash. When those electrons reach the end of the existing discharge channel, they slam into the unsuspecting air at relativistic speeds, extending the channel by another 50~100 m, and creating a hot spot in the air. After the discharge ends, the hot spots will glow a few milliseconds longer than the rest of the channel, because they were a bit hotter. So there is no difference in kind between the hot spots and the straight sections of the dicharge channel connecting them, like beads on a string, where the beads and the string are made of different stuff. It's just an artifact of the way the lightning channel is extended in a stepwise manner. So... the "beads" are not aggregations of matter — they're voids. This is where the current encountered an instantaneous increase in resistance, created hotter temperatures, and evacuated more of the matter. I agree that the electric force is great at condensing matter. But not in lightning (bead or otherwise). Lightning is famous for vaporizing matter, which is different from condensing matter. How does a comparative analogy become a "category error?" I get the impression that you've 'limited' the above dynamic to Earth-bound lightning exclusively and I think it would be beneficial to consider what it is that you are saying above in relation to a comparative analysis of the Hershel findings which you didn't comment on in relation to Earth-bound lightning regardless of how one wants to 'categorize' and 'segment' corresponding functions of Nature. The results, unfortunately, is that you will continually dismiss such corresponding functions as opposed to correlating them because they each belong in their respective 'categories' and never shall the twain meet. Or am I misunderstanding you?
'12-02-07, 09:41 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Solar wrote: How does a comparative analogy become a "category error?" It's a category error if you're citing an example of a phenomenon that is actually a totally different phenomenon, and which has no relevant correlation. In other words, if you call it "bead lightning" because it looks like beads on a string, that's a descriptive analogy, and there's nothing wrong with that — it's just a description of the visual aspect of the phenomenon. But if you are talking about it as if the beads are physical entities that slide down the string, because beads on a string are good like that, and if their behavior actually has nothing to do with beads on a string, that's a category error. Solar wrote: What causes the condensation or "beading" along the discharge channel of a lightning bolt such that electrostatic repulsion doesn't blow the bead apart? The discharge channel begins to become diffuse as the "beads" of plasma coalesce. I think this is owed to the 'evacuation' of said plasma along the discharge path towards "pinch" regions. Personally, I also think 'pulsed plasma cavitation' of some sort may also be involved at the central core of the narrowest aspect of a "sausage kink" i.e. at the apex of the hourglass shaped "pinch" region. Its unusual to try and look at the workings of a star from the supposed inside out in conjunction with the activities of its atmosphere when there are so very many other 'external' factors inextricably connected. There isn't any "condensation" in lightning beads. It sounds like you're visualizing plasma in a discharge channel like a gooey fluid that might bunch up if something pinches the flow. But the visible aspect of a discharge channel represents the absence of matter, not the presence of it. So your conception of lightning is incorrect, and it's not applicable to star formation.
'12-02-07, 11:41 mharratsc	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Charles said: "You're so convinced that the Universe is electric, that you take the first electric answer provided, and then you'll argue if anybody proposes a different answer (even if it's electric also, and more accurate)." I apologize for giving this impression to you, Charles. You're right, of course- I'm not well-educated enough to be properly critical of the specifics of EDM/electrical vortices vs. your tornado theory, nor of Jeurgens/Scotts 'Electric Sun' theory vs. your internal fusion model, yet here I am trying to convince you that the EU is the place to try and find the answers to all this stuff. In my defense, at least I had enough intellect to not be led by the nose like all the rest of the sheep, and I went looking for answers that made more sense, and had some foundation in real physics. I didn't simply believe the B.S. that all the mathematicians came up with when their numerical models didn't match up with empirical data. Do I think that everything stated in every TPOD or every article could possibly be 100% correct? No, and I doubt that any of the authors would suggest that, either. Does the EU offer a better paradigm in which to perform studies that might lead to real discovery and enlightenment? I sure think so... and I think it is a more friendly environment to researchers like yourself than you would ever find in the halls of mainstream academia, and I hope you stick around. Personally, I think that the Thunderbolts site is richer for having folks like you around, even if you find yourself in disagreement of various facets of the EU model. I think you're smart as all hell, and I'm glad that you have stuck around here to challenge us to be a bit more concise with elements of the various hypotheses you found issue with. Please don't think that we're as dogmatic as the mainstream is- just the queries of Solar and Lloyd prove that. As for me- remember that I am old and stubborn, and enjoy arguing my own half-assed opinion regardless of my lack o' facts. Just bear in mind the following, Charles- I think a lot of the EU'ers around here like you and respect you, and I hope you realize that - just because we argue our own opinions - doesn't mean we don't value yours. Also, please consider that there are a lot of aspects of plasma physics that you might not be aware yet and conceivably could sway your opinion, as well. Whatever the case- please don't just consider us a bunch of dogmatists and walk away disgruntled. We'd miss you, bud!
'12-02-07, 13:25 Sparky	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Charles, I agree with Mike....you have helped me to understand many things better.
'12-02-07, 13:32 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Hey Mike, Well put, and well taken. As you know, I'm not well-educated either. I learned everything I know about science studying tornadoes, and that's what brought me here, where I learned everything I know about plasma. So I have to remind myself of how little I actually know, and I have to remember how much I have gained from people who have been so patient with me (such as yourself). And no, there isn't any other board out there that is better than this one. There are the mainstream boards, where dissent is simply not tolerated, and then there are conspiracy theory boards, where sanity is not tolerated. This is the only one where open-minded people also read professional literature. So this is the place to be for anybody who actually wants to know how the Universe really works. I'm frustrated that after 5 years of work, I never got any traction with my tornado theory, and sometimes that comes out. Of course, if you want instant approval, you have to pick your projects from the pre-approved list. If you actually want to make a contribution, expect for acceptance to come slowly, even from open-minded people. So that's my burden. Anyway, I was too harsh, and you were too generous. Thanks, Charles
'12-02-07, 15:31 mharratsc	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient @Charles- NP, amigo!
'12-02-07, 23:58 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Charles' Analyses * Charles, I look forward to plenty more of your insights. I imagine many folks would be interested in your tornado model, as well as your star models etc. I haven't checked to see if you revised your tornado model, since we discussed it on this forum before, but you made good arguments. The same holds for your star models etc. Planet and Star Formation * I think the idea for matter forming in lightning beads may come from Peratt somewhere. He was probably talking about Birkeland currents in space though, and that may be where Thornhill got the info on how stars and planets may have formed. Have you read Thornhill's articles on star and planet formation at http://holoscience.com? * Velikovsky was the one in this camp who first considered that electrical forces may have been involved in ancient planetary catastrophes. The ancients described what sounded like electrical phenomena. Ralph Juergens, an electrical engineer, then began explaining how electrical forces were likely involved and he even went on to start suggesting that the Sun is an electrical phenomenon etc. Thornhill then took over from Juergens and Scott chimed in later. Talbott apparently decided that the Electric Universe angle was the best one for proving the Catastrophist model, including the Saturn Theory. He's the one who organized the Thunderbolts team and this website and its predecessor, the Thoth email yahoogroup. * It seems that Thornhill and Scott aren't very interested in alternative ideas on their models. Once you've heard a thousand theories, it probably gets tiresome trying to explain why theirs is better. But I think most of the forum members are interested in whatever makes the most sense. You make a lot of sense in certain areas, but folks here want to see if you can explain other phenomena too, because you're willing to talk. * Thornhill has a good image of a star-forming region in an article at http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=4eefp0kj. It seems to show that stars form in electric currents. Here's the image: http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Star%20birth%20filament~ * If you haven't already, I hope you may like to read that article, as it explains that cosmic ray sources to the north and the south are good evidence of an electric circuit of the Sun where exploding double layers produce them. Maybe you can explain double layers for us better. Global Electric Circuit * Have you heard of Earth's global electric circuit? A video discussed it at http://www.livestream.com/naturalclimatechange/video?clipId~. I copied this diagram from it. http://i573.photobucket.com/albums/ss180/Lkindr/TB/GlobElec~ * The image is cut off a little. The video explains that the power of the global circuit increases when more land area is facing the sun, because more thunderstorms occur over land and the thunderstorms help short out the space between the Earth capacitor [to the ionosphere]. Alternatives * I think you and Mathis seem to be right, that EM forces aren't the whole picture, and that gravity etc are involved too, and fusion. Mathis says that too. I hope to hear plenty more of your analyses.
'12-02-08, 07:20 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd wrote: Have you read Thornhill's articles on star and planet formation... From http://holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=6: Thornhill wrote: Plasma physicists argue that stars are formed by an electromagnetic "pinch" effect on widely dispersed gas and dust. The "pinch" is created by the magnetic force between parallel current filaments that are part of the huge electric currents flowing inside a galaxy. It is far more effective than gravity in concentrating matter and, unlike gravity, it can remove excess angular momentum that tends to prevent collapse. Stars will form like beads on a wire until gravity takes over. I can't seem to make the transition from mental image to mechanistic physics with this. A pinch is a relativistic effect, meaning extreme velocities and high energies. And except in carefully contrived circumstances, it's electrons. To get protons involved, you need a relativistic jet, which has to be accelerated by a force other than voltage. (Protons are 2,000 times heavier than electrons, so if a voltage exists between clumps of charge-separated matter, the electrons tend to travel 1,999/2,000 of the distance, while the protons travel 1/2,000 of the distance. In other words, the protons stay where they are, and the electrons do all of the moving.) If you can accelerate protons to relativistic speeds, you're definitely going to see pinch effects, including Marklund convection that might develop a thread of condensed matter in the middle. But we can't forget the context in which all of this occurs. Something other than voltage had to accelerate the protons to relativistic speeds. Once accelerated, it's going to take something other than voltage to slow the matter down, if you're trying to make a star or planet out of it. If a current is present, you have to explain how the electrodes got established, without electrostatic repulsion dispersing them. If free space, you can't have the electrostatic attraction of opposite charges motivating a current, and not have the electrostatic repulsion of like charges at the electrodes. This is easy to forget if you're looking at laboratory experiments where fancy things are happening in plasma when a voltage is applied, and you're not thinking of the physical characteristics of the solid electrodes, because the mental focus is on the plasma in the middle. But out in space, developing voltages between clumps of gas or plasma presents difficulties, and sets limits on charge densities and therefore the voltages between opposite charges. If you're not working within these limits, you might visualize all kinds of fancy things happening that are actually not physically possible. I'm not denying the evidence of magnetic fields that coincide exactly with the observed filaments and star clusters. Such fields are definitely telling us something. But I am questioning whether or not this is evidence of relativistic electric currents. Could it rather be evidence of the "like-likes-like" principle, wherein negatively charged bodies are surrounded by positively charged plasma, and then the bodies are pulled together by the shared opposite charge? Perhaps we should take a closer look at the magnetic field data. We can't expect it to be simple, because of all of the spins and drifts and whatnot. I know I've seen data that appeared (to me at least) to be saying that magnetic lines of force are parallel to the arms in spiral galaxies. What does that tell us? It could be evidence of a field-aligned "current". But the "current" does not necessarily have to be between electrodes at the galactic scale. Charged bodies getting pulled together by the "like-likes-like" principle would create the same telltale signs of a "current", in that a "current" is just moving electric charges. Something else that I'd like to mention: if you're saying that there is some electric current in these filaments, and you're getting some pinching that is helping the plasma condense, I'd be more inclined to agree. But if you're saying that all of the energy responsible for pulling the plasma together into stars, and then all of the energy released in the stars themselves, is coming from this current, I'll definitely disagree. You have to work within the physical limits of the forces in question. This is how I arrived at my model of the Sun. I have magnetic fields that accomplish some magnetic confinement of like charges, and some separation of opposite charges. But it's only barely relativistic, and it doesn't create a singularity — it creates a star, which is not a singularity — it's an object of definite size and shape. It's just that it displays properties that are outside the limits of gravity alone. But I don't invoke EM as an all-or-nothing force, as physics isn't like that. Besides, an all-or-nothing stellar theory would only work on all-or-nothing stars, which wouldn't work on the stars in our Universe. Lloyd wrote: Velikovsky was the one in this camp who first considered that electrical forces may have been involved in ancient planetary catastrophes. The ancients described what sounded like electrical phenomena. Ralph Juergens, an electrical engineer, then began explaining how electrical forces were likely involved and he even went on to start suggesting that the Sun is an electrical phenomenon etc. Thornhill then took over from Juergens and Scott chimed in later. Talbott apparently decided that the Electric Universe angle was the best one for proving the Catastrophist model, including the Saturn Theory. He's the one who organized the Thunderbolts team and this website and its predecessor, the Thoth email yahoogroup. It seems that Thornhill and Scott aren't very interested in alternative ideas on their models. Once you've heard a thousand theories, it probably gets tiresome trying to explain why theirs is better. But I think most of the forum members are interested in whatever makes the most sense. Nobody expects Talbott, Thornhill, or Scott to spend all of their time getting tag-teamed by every wannabe (like me? ). The number of theoretical possibilities is vast, and anybody who maintains a website gets asked to review everybody else's ideas. I get the same thing from my site. I "try" to respond to all inquiries, because it helps them and it helps me too, but I can't respond to everybody. If my site got as much traffic as thunderbolts, then I wouldn't be able to respond to hardly anybody. Nevertheless, if Thornhill and Scott have dug into their existing positions, then the progress will be in leap-frogging them. Here we have to respect our elders, and understand that the ideas that we're considering all originated with Birkeland, Alfven, Juergens, Peratt, etc. Had they not conceived these ideas, we wouldn't be considering the implications. But if it was actually their intention that scientific progress end with them, they wouldn't be worthy of any respect at all. If somebody discovers a gold mine, but only gets 1% of the gold out of it before passing on, shall we, out of respect for them, leave the other 99% in the ground? That would be ridiculous. Similarly, previous generations found some of the value in this approach, but they didn't get all of it, and there are many riddles yet to be solved. If we further this initiative, it's more to their credit than ours, as they will always be the ones who started it, and that's how history works. Going beyond previous generations is not disrespect — it's the highest form of respect one can give. So such is our task. But that brings up another question. Here I quote from the thunderbolts guidelines: davesmith_au wrote: A reminder to all users of our forum, that this is the Thunderbolts.info forum and NOT the publishing house for all other theories of the universe. [...] Out of respect for our hosts please could all users think twice before hitting the "submit" button if their post is contrary to the board on which it is being posted, or contrary to our purpose for being here. If we are, in fact, building a new model, it is certainly the right of our hosts to ask us to take this discussion elsewhere. (I have a board we can use, if it comes to that.) I'll be content to wait until they kick us off. Personally, I think that we're well within the scope of the "Electric Universe" paradigm, as we all agree that the Universe is Electric. Velikovsky didn't invent EM — God did! But in all due respect to Talbott who got this whole thing organized, and who I sincerely admire in that respect, if he wants to keep this board centered on EDM, symbology, and catastrophism, that's his right, and there's nothing wrong with that. But we're definitely talking about new ideas here, not anticipated by previous generations, and some of which specifically refute central tenets in the existing EU paradigm. The only other comment that I'd like to make is that my site is more than just a bulletin board — it also allows people to post articles. So it can be used like a wiki as well as like a bulletin board. I bring this up because I have been thinking that somewhere in here, all of the great ideas and hard work going into this board should evolve into more than just discussions — it should become structured knowledge. In other words, we need a wiki that can be logically organized, and people contributing material should add it to the relevant section, not just to a new thread. Discussions are great for exchanging ideas, but later, to see the big picture, it's tough when you have to read a huge discussion to see where it eventually concluded, and then read a bunch of other discussions to find out what they were taking for granted. So I think that for every 100 pages of discussion, there should be a 10 page summary of the consensus. The next discussion shouldn't start over with a new picture-of-the-day or whatever — it should be a criticism or supplement to what came out of the last discussion. So we need a wiki so that we can build something, instead of just discussing stuff ad nauseam. Where do we put material like that? There are a couple of wikis around, such as plasma-universe.com. I'll contact the webmasters and see what they want to do. But I truly believe that in all of the back-and-forth discussions on this board, there is the opportunity for a lot more forward progress if we can create structured knowledge in addition to free-form discussions. So this is something that we should investigate. If all else fails, we can use my site for this. Lloyd wrote: If you haven't already, I hope you may like to read that article, as it explains that cosmic ray sources to the north and the south are good evidence of an electric circuit of the Sun where exploding double layers produce them. Maybe you can explain double layers for us better. This is interesting: Thornhill wrote: In an ESA report last month the high-resolution of the Herschel space observatory produced another surprise, "The filaments are huge, stretching for tens of light years through space and Herschel has shown that newly-born stars are often found in the densest parts of them... Such filaments in interstellar clouds have been glimpsed before by other infrared satellites, but they have never been seen clearly enough to have their widths measured. Now, Herschel has shown that, regardless of the length or density of a filament, the width is always roughly the same. "This is a very big surprise," says Doris Arzoumanian, Laboratoire AIM Paris-Saclay, CEA/IRFU, the lead author on the paper describing this work. Together with Philippe André from the same institute and other colleagues, she analysed 90 filaments and found they were all about 0.3 light years across, or about 20,000 times the distance of Earth from the Sun. This consistency of the widths demands an explanation." This is evidence of an organizing principle, and I'd tend to agree that it's an electric current, but as noted above, I don't think that the current is actually forming the stars, much less powering them. I think that it's just helping to condense the matter. In electrostatics, double-layers are fairly simple. If you have a conducting plate and you apply a charge to it, you can expect an opposite charge to build up in the air around it. So if the plate is negatively charged, you get positively charged air around it. Once that happens, you might also get a layer of negatively charged air outside of the positive layer. The net charge between the plate and the air around it will be zero, as an equal amount of charge in the air will be attracted to the charge in the plate. But outside of the first layer of charged air, another layer can form, because it's closer to the charged air than it is to the plate, and the electric force falls off with the square of the distance. So if the plate is negative, the first layer of air is positive, and the next layer of air is negative, attracted to the positive air because that is the closest. Note that all of this happens only because air is an insulator. If it wasn't, the first layer of charged air never would have formed — whatever charges were available would have simply flowed into the plate. Only to the extent that the air has capacitance can these "space charges" (as opposed to point charges) develop. My understanding of electrodynamic double-layers in plasma is the same, except that we have to remember that plasma is an excellent conductor, so charges aren't going to stay separate for long. To my knowledge, the only thing that can maintain charge separations in plasma is opposing magnetic fields, if opposite charges are flowing rapidly in the same direction. So in a relativistic plasma jet composed of both atoms and electrons, the atoms will get pinched together, and so will the electrons, but the atoms and electrons will be split into parallel streams, separated by opposing magnetic fields, but still bound to each other by the electric force. This results in a "twisted pair" of particle streams, one positive and the other negative. I "think" that this accurately describes the nature of the "DLs" in this diagram: http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Alfven%27s%20heliospher~ But I don't understand what is meant by "unipolar inductor", and it says, "Such double layers have not yet been discovered." So I really can't explain the diagram. I looks like a perpetual motion machine. And the rest of it that whole page is beyond me. Anybody? Lloyd wrote: Have you heard of Earth's global electric circuit? The video explains that the power of the global circuit increases when more land area is facing the sun, because more thunderstorms occur over land and the thunderstorms help short out the space between the Earth capacitor [to the ionosphere]. The "fair weather field" (between the negative Earth and the positive ionosphere), at roughly 100 V/m, appears to be important in setting the stage for charge separations in thunderstorms. But then the storms develop much more powerful fields, averaging 10 kV/m, and at times exceeding the breakdown voltage of the air (3 MV/m at sea-level, or 2 MV/m up in the middle of the cloud, 5 km above the ground). The close correlation between electric fields and storm structure pretty much proves that the fields are artifacts of the storm itself. The storm is not acting as a conductor that concentrates the fair weather field, or if it is, the contribution is insignificant. I discuss the topic of thunderstorm charge separation in greater detail in the Electric Clouds thread.
'12-02-08, 11:51 mharratsc	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Regarding pinching, instabilities, and convection, here are some comments from Wal Thornhill's article Twinkle Twinkle Electric Star: An electric star is formed by the equivalent of a lightning bolt in a molecular (plasma) cloud. Just like earthly lightning, cosmic lightning scavenges, squeezes and heats matter along the discharge channel. Where the squeeze is most intense, the current may 'pinch off' to give the effect of 'bead lightning.' In high-energy plasma lab discharges researchers have found that hot plasma 'beads' (known as plasmoids) form along the discharge axis before "scattering like buckshot" when the discharge quenches. "Another important phenomenon known as 'Marklund convection' occurs along the discharge axis. It separates the chemical elements radially. Marklund convection causes helium to form a diffuse outer layer, followed by a hydrogen layer, then oxygen and nitrogen in the middle layers, and iron, silicon and magnesium in the inner layers. So electric stars should have a core of heavy elements and an upper atmosphere mostly of hydrogen. This renders the difference between stars and planets to be more apparent than real." (highlights mine) So there are lots of different forms of pinch instabilities. 'Sausages' or 'beads' can form in the filament and be held in stasis until the field breaks down and they go zinging off hither and yon. Explains sphericity in regards to 'pinching' of stars and planets, and also is the physical basis of the polar alignment of the 'Saturn Model' espoused by some of the folks in the EU as well. I should point out that this very same characteristic of plasma pinching has been shown to create blue spherules out of red hematite powder in Vemasat Labs experiments, and (combined with Marklund convection) goes a good ways in providing a better explanation for the formation of geodes of various form and fashion than does the explanation provided by mainstream geology (im my opinion, at least).
'12-02-08, 12:09 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Charles quoted the forum rules: please could all users think twice before hitting the "submit" button if their post is contrary to the board on which it is being posted, or contrary to our purpose for being here. * I think we're complying with the rules. The purpose of this board is to discuss electric stars, galaxies etc, consistent with EU Theory. We're discussing EU Theory in this thread, as well as your and other related theories. If the mods decide we're not adhering closely enough to EU Theory, they'll move us to NIAMI, where we can continue to discuss there. EU Wiki You said: I think that for every 100 pages of discussion, there should be a 10 page summary of the consensus. The next discussion should ... be a criticism or supplement to what came out of the last discussion. So we need a wiki so that we can build something, instead of just discussing stuff ad nauseam. Where do we put material like that? There are a couple of wikis around, such as plasma-universe.com. I'll contact the webmasters and see what they want to do. But I truly believe that in all of the back-and-forth discussions on this board, there is the opportunity for a lot more forward progress if we can create structured knowledge in addition to free-form discussions. So this is something that we should investigate. If all else fails, we can use my site for this. * I'm totally with you there. I've been saying similar things for some time. I guess we're just going to have to join Ian's wiki and start posting stuff there, if he's not too strict, or start something similar on your site. Star Forming Z-Pinches? - From http://holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=6: Thornhill wrote: Plasma physicists argue that stars are formed by an electromagnetic "pinch" effect on widely dispersed gas and dust. The "pinch" is created by the magnetic force between parallel current filaments that are part of the huge electric currents flowing inside a galaxy.- A pinch is a relativistic effect, meaning extreme velocities and high energies. And except in carefully contrived circumstances, it's electrons. - If you can accelerate protons to relativistic speeds, you're definitely going to see pinch effects, including Marklund convection that might develop a thread of condensed matter in the middle. * Doesn't the following show that normal wired electric currents with slow-moving charges, not relativistic, can also produce z-pinches? http://www.plasma-universe.com/images/thumb/9/92/Can-pinche~ * And what about cosmic rays? NASA says, "About 90% of the cosmic ray nuclei are hydrogen (protons), about 9% are helium (alpha particles), and all of the rest of the elements make up only 1%." And they say cosmic rays have relativistic speed. And at the above webpage, Thornhill showed evidence that exploding double layers at great distances above and below the Sun produce cosmic rays. Can cosmic rays move in electric currents? And isn't it likely that the solar wind is organized into electric currents, since plasma tends to move and produce currents? Electrostatics? - Something other than voltage had to accelerate the protons to relativistic speeds. Once accelerated, it's going to take something other than voltage to slow the matter down, if you're trying to make a star or planet out of it. - If a current is present, you have to explain how the electrodes got established, without electrostatic repulsion dispersing them. I[n] free space, you can't have the electrostatic attraction of opposite charges motivating a current, and not have the electrostatic repulsion of like charges at the electrodes. * The pith ball TPOD suggests that electrodynamics is much more dynamic than electrostatics. Have you read that one? It's at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050301pithbal~. - I'm not denying the evidence of magnetic fields that coincide exactly with the observed filaments and star clusters. ... But I am questioning whether or not this is evidence of relativistic electric currents. Could it rather be evidence of the "like-likes-like" principle, wherein negatively charged bodies are surrounded by positively charged plasma, and then the bodies are pulled together by the shared opposite charge? * We'll have to think about that. It's possible. - [It seems] that magnetic lines of force are parallel to the arms in spiral galaxies. What does that tell us? It could be evidence of a field-aligned "current". But the "current" does not necessarily have to be between electrodes at the galactic scale. Charged bodies getting pulled together by the "like-likes-like" principle would create the same telltale signs of a "current", in that a "current" is just moving electric charges. * Could the arms of spiral galaxies be kept apart by short-range repulsion and affected by long-range attraction? - ... [I]f you're saying that there is some electric current in these filaments, and you're getting some pinching that is helping the plasma condense, I'd be more inclined to agree. But if you're saying that all of the energy responsible for pulling the plasma together into stars, and then all of the energy released in the stars themselves, is coming from this current, I'll definitely disagree. - I don't invoke EM as an all-or-nothing force, as physics isn't like that. * I think you're probably right, like Mathis. - My understanding of electrodynamic double-layers in plasma is the same, except that we have to remember that plasma is an excellent conductor, so charges aren't going to stay separate for long. To my knowledge, the only thing that can maintain charge separations in plasma is opposing magnetic fields, if opposite charges are flowing rapidly in the same direction. So in a relativistic plasma jet composed of both atoms and electrons, the atoms will get pinched together, and so will the electrons, but the atoms and electrons will be split into parallel streams, separated by opposing magnetic fields, but still bound to each other by the electric force. This results in a "twisted pair" of particle streams, one positive and the other negative. I "think" that this accurately describes the nature of the "DLs" in this diagram: http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Alfven%27s%20heliospher~ * I think I read that like charges tend to segregate from opposite charges in plasma by forming double layers. And I thought I read regarding currents that the positive current is tubular within a negative tubular current. The twisting pairs can be more than one pair too. And the pairs have short-range repulsion and long-range attraction at the rate of 1/r. Have you read any of that? I haven't heard of the pairs being one positive and one negative. If that's what you've read, could you provide a source? * And would you like to comment on the following? 2009 THEMIS SCIENCE NUGGETS Observations of Double Layers in Earth's Plasma Sheet http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/public/THEMIS/SCI/Pubs/Nuggets/200~ http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/public/THEMIS/SCI/Pubs/Nuggets/200~ Figure 3 displays the E|| signal of four more double layers in the PS observed by the THEMIS satellites at high time resolution (8192 samples/s). All have the same characteristic signature: a nearly unipolar E|| structure adjacent to a turbulent region of electron phase-space holes. The polarity of the electron phase-space holes (negative then positive or positive then negative) is consistent with the high-potential side of the double layer (electron acceleration). All are observed during periods of strong fluctuations in B and E. Assuming that the double layers travel at the ion acoustic speed, all are on the order of 10 Debye lengths with potentials comparable to Te. The double layers are observed primarily in three plasma environments: (1) at the plasma sheet boundary layer, (2) near the current sheet where |B| is minimum, or (3) during bursty bulk flows events. * Bursty sounds like explosive, but I'm not confident that that's what's meant. * Do you want to ask Thornhill to explain the unipolar conductor etc, that you didn't understand? Then tell us what he said, if you then understand, so we can understand too? * And ultimately I hope you can explain how the positive and negative layers form in stars like the Sun. You haven't already explained that in detail, have you? * Another thing I forgot to mention last time is that one TPOD says globular star clusters are plasmoids, which are also called ball lightning. Plasmoids also occur in galactic centers, I think. Thornhill has suggested somewhere that ball lightning is made of neutrinos, but I don't know that the TPOD would agree on that, at least regarding globular cluster stars. Ball lightning is sometimes seen around lightning, as if the beads in lightning strokes may detach as ball lightning. Lightning seems to transmute oxygen into sulfur, which is why there's often a sulfur smell from nearby lightning, according to Thornhill's theory, I think. That suggests that there is Marklund convection in lightning, which pulls oxygen to the channel center, where it's smashed into sulfur.
'12-02-08, 21:00 seasmith	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient So... the "beads" are not aggregations of matter — they're voids. This is where the current encountered an instantaneous increase in resistance, created hotter temperatures, and evacuated more of the matter. I agree that the electric force is great at condensing matter. But not in lightning (bead or otherwise). Lightning is famous for vaporizing matter, which is different from condensing matter. Charles, You may be there conflating the effect of lightening, with the affect of lightening. just sayin... s
'12-02-09, 05:11 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient mharratsc wrote: Regarding pinching, instabilities, and convection, here are some comments from Wal Thornhill's article... There isn't any doubt in my mind that Thornhill has said the same thing in many different ways over the years. My previous comments still apply. Lloyd wrote: I guess we're just going to have to join Ian's wiki and start posting stuff there, if he's not too strict, or start something similar on your site. I got an email back from Ian. He said that it's hard enough just trying to defend plasma cosmology, that he isn't going to open up his wiki for public editing. So we'll have to use something else. I liked the debate that we tried to have a year ago, as it revealed the weak points in the construct that I had at that time. But you kept restructuring the document to reformulate my statements, and I was spending all of my time trying to figure out why you kept changing everything around. I also found the Google Docs spreadsheet to be a primitive environment for staging a constructive debate. So I'd like to suggest that we use my site. I added a section called "Plasma Cosmology" at: http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/?top=9454 Registered users can just click the "Add Article" button to author their own content. It's all HTML, but the cool thing is that it's a "what you see is what you get" environment, so you don't have to know any bulletin board code or wiki syntax. If you know how to use any word processor, you'll find it easy to use. I understand when people don't want to learn new systems, but this is easier to learn than Google Docs, because it's more conventional. So this is what I use. I'd love to see people use this system for stupid stuff like coming up with a list of plasma resources that's easier to read. On thunderbolts, if you want to find information on something, you have to read through huge lists of links. There are several other sites that have lists of resources, such as Ian's and Dave Smith's. But it's a lot of work maintaining those lists, and one person can only do so much. So this needs to be a collaborative effort. But on thunderbolts, where we can collaborate, all you can do is post into threads. So we have these huge link lists. But on my site, you can put things into categories, and you can easily flip through the categories to get to what you want. Stuff can appear in more than one category, if it applies. So this is the way to go. Lloyd wrote: Doesn't the following show that normal wired electric currents with slow-moving charges, not relativistic, can also produce z-pinches? That's a good point. I'm surprised that they drew it as a theta-pinch instead of a z-pinch, as the z-pinch is much better at plasma confinement. The theta-pinch is what we would expect in a magnetic-field-aligned current, where the plasma falls into a circular path around the magnetic field lines, producing a solenoidal field that agrees with the external field. But the theta-pinch introduces a centrifugal force that detracts from the confinement. Regardless... You do have a point. To agree also with myself physics isn't all-or-nothing. My solar model has barely relativistic speeds accomplishing "some" confinement, well beyond the force of gravity, and in a configuration that matches the observed properties of the Sun. So indeed, velocities do not need to be some substantial percentage of the speed of light for electrodynamic forces to emerge. But the toroidal pinch plasmoids that are incorrectly being identified with bead lightning, and both of which are being incorrectly identified with plasma condensation, are definitely relativistic effects. And the more fundamental question persists: how do you take a thread of pinched condensation and roll it up into a big ball so that you can call it a star or a planet? This is where the literary device of "bead lightning" is invoked to get the unsuspecting reader to make a mental leap to the conclusion that this is a proven property of plasma. Why don't I just hand you some Rosary beads and tell you to start counting Hail Mary's? If you're convinced, it will be for reasons more solid than a descriptive analogy. Lloyd wrote: And what about cosmic rays? NASA says, "About 90% of the cosmic ray nuclei are hydrogen (protons), about 9% are helium (alpha particles), and all of the rest of the elements make up only 1%." And they say cosmic rays have relativistic speed. And at the above webpage, Thornhill showed evidence that exploding double layers at great distances above and below the Sun produce cosmic rays. Can cosmic rays move in electric currents? And isn't it likely that the solar wind is organized into electric currents, since plasma tends to move and produce currents? Exactly! If you have a plasma jet (even a barely relativistic one), electrodynamic forces come into play. Now show me how to build a star from a pinched plasma jet. I want to see a diagram that accounts for the inertial, gravitational, electric, and magnetic forces. Lloyd wrote: The pith ball TPOD suggests that electrodynamics is much more dynamic than electrostatics. Have you read that one? You're not going to convince me of anything just by saying, "It's complicated." Show me how it works, and I want to see every nut and bolt in the whole thing, so I can inspect the entire line of reasoning. If it's too complicated for me to understand, I'll be the one to decide whether I'm going to take it all on faith. But if I was going to accept something that doesn't sound right, just on the credentials of who is saying it, I would have just stuck with the mainstream. They have the funding for really cool Discovery Channel programs. So when you're the contender, you can't ask people to take stuff on faith — you have to lay it all out. This is what you guys haven't done yet, and until you do, the only people who will agree with you will be people who just want to disagree with the mainstream. Lloyd wrote: Could the arms of spiral galaxies be kept apart by short-range repulsion and affected by long-range attraction? Did you mean to say "short range attraction and long range repulsion"? That would pinch the matter into discrete arms, and then empty the void between them. Either way, I don't know. Lloyd wrote: I think I read that like charges tend to segregate from opposite charges in plasma by forming double layers. And I thought I read regarding currents that the positive current is tubular within a negative tubular current. The twisting pairs can be more than one pair too. It all depends on what created the jet, and on the electrodynamic forces that then modulated it. Lloyd wrote: And the pairs have short-range repulsion and long-range attraction at the rate of 1/r. The electric force varies with 1/r^2, while the circular magnetic force around a moving charge varies with 1/r. Hence at close ranges the electric force is more powerful, while at long ranges the magnetic force is more powerful (and at relativistic speeds might be powerful than the electric force). Lloyd wrote: I haven't heard of the pairs being one positive and one negative. If that's what you've read, could you provide a source? See Of Pith Balls and Plasma: Thornhill wrote: And the solar wind seems to be composed of nearly equal numbers of positive ions and negative electrons. Lloyd wrote: And would you like to comment on the 2009 THEMIS SCIENCE NUGGETS? I'm not questioning the existence or importance of electrodynamic double-layers. I'm relying on them! But this doesn't prove that stars are formed by pinches. Lloyd wrote: Do you want to ask Thornhill to explain the unipolar conductor etc, that you didn't understand? Then tell us what he said, if you then understand, so we can understand too? He said that he only responds to questions that demonstrate an existing comprehension of all of the EU principles. That's understandable. He isn't anybody's personal tutor. If I cared to research it, I'd probably be able to figure out what they're trying to say. I just don't think that it's applicable. As Thornhill pointed out, the polar currents have not been detected. If these were the forces that were powering the entire Sun, they would have to be detectable. So normally a lack of evidence for is not evidence against, but when you make absolute statements like that, there is going to be clear and obvious evidence, or you provide a really good reason why the evidence is hidden, or you're wrong. Lloyd wrote: And ultimately I hope you can explain how the positive and negative layers form in stars like the Sun. You haven't already explained that in detail, have you? Re-read the original post. Lloyd wrote: Lightning seems to transmute oxygen into sulfur, which is why there's often a sulfur smell from nearby lightning. Lightning creates ozone, which itself causes part of the smell. The other part is from the highly-reactive nature of ozone. It rapidly oxidizes whatever it touches, producing a variety of compounds, some of which might have a noxious odor. But there aren't any nuclear reactions in lightning, shifting elements on the periodic table. That's just X-Files stuff that surrounds any issue that scientists don't fully understand. seasmith wrote: You may be there conflating the effect of lightening, with the affect of lightening. That's the charge against the EU.
'12-02-09, 08:39 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Charles' Wiki * I appreciate your ambition, Charles. I tried out your wiki a little. I think I'd like to try working on a page together with someone there. Can 2 or more people work at the same time on the same page? (They can on Google Docs.) I should be available sometime today or tomorrow, i.e. Thur. or Fri. (and thereafter). Someone name a time and I'll try to be there after noon anyway. The collaboration might be brief to begin with. Charles, can you include the link after your signature each time you post? - I suggested to the TB forum admins last year that there should be a board on here where folks can edit what they've posted any time, so we can make meaningful documents on the forum, but they weren't having any of that, which is a shame. * I think this is where I tried your wiki: http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure/?top=9454,9458. Could you make it so the URLs are a lot shorter? Charles' Model of Star Formation I said last time: I hope you can explain how the positive and negative layers form in stars like the Sun. You haven't already explained that in detail, have you? And, Charles, you said: Re-read the original post. * Okay, I'll try to stitch together here the parts of your post that seem to answer my question most directly. [T]he Sun is obviously a bunch of plasma that is attracted to itself — far more so than gravity can explain.... At the surface, the density drops off sharply, as if the plasma is inside a sealed container. ... [And] no heat source (nuclear or otherwise) creates containment in free space. Since the hydrogen and helium in the Sun do not have strong magnetic dipoles, we can rule out magnetostatics. ... This leaves electrostatics as the attractive force. In other words, a charge separation has occurred, and the opposite charges are attracted to each other by the electric force. - At relativistic speeds, the magnetic force becomes as powerful as the electric force, and can influence the current. ... [And] if the "current" is charged particles shooting through space, the magnetic field exerts back-pressure on the charged particles, consolidating them in what is known as the magnetic pinch effect. ... [The magnetic] fields generated by positive and negative charges moving in the same direction oppose each other. And this, of course, generates magnetic [repulsive] pressure between them. ... The result is a charge-separated plasma jet. ... [P]ositive and negative [jets] form a "twisted pair" of charge streams known as a Birkeland current.... If this much is true about linear plasma jets, then it is also true about circular jets. ... Here it is useful to think of these circular plasma jets as a sort of open-air tokamak. - To build a model out of these principles, we will start with the core of the Sun. It is known that the core rotates as a solid body, at a faster revolution rate than the overlying layers. ... Nominally, we'll say that the angular velocity in the core is 3 km/s. At such speeds, magnetic fields 10 orders of magnitude greater than those in electric motors will generate a magnetic pinch effect that will accomplish some consolidation of like charges, and separation of opposite charges. Just guessing, let's say that the core is positively charged. - This means that outside of the core, there will be a negatively charged double-layer. This double-layer will be attracted to the core by the electric force, but repelled from it by the magnetic force. This layer would be the radiative zone. (Etc.) Questions * Are you sure the initial separated charge streams need to move at relativistic speeds? That's at least about 10% of light speed, or 30,000 km/s. Why is 3 km/s enough to maintain charge separation in the Sun, but not in space? * Water in a container and exposed to light maintains charge separation near the container walls. * You said recently that the .3 ly diameter filaments in a star-forming region, mentioned in a Thornhill http://holoscience.com article last year, appear to be electrical. I think you meant they suggest charge separated currents. Right? * Isn't a current with a diameter of the Sun's core all we need? The current is already spinning positive and negative charge. With a little magnetic pinching, won't the charges in the current thicken? And to get such pinching, it just needs to enter a region that causes the current to speed up. Is that right? * So that's the whole process, isn't it? I mean, once the positive core is formed, the adjacent negative stream will pile onto it. Then you just need some more charge separated currents to supply the remaining outer layers. Hmm? * And what do you need to maintain the Sun's continuing energy output? It seems that Miles Mathis answered that with his 15% charge field supply of power and 85% fusion supply. ???
'12-02-09, 10:29 CharlesChandler	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Lloyd wrote: I tried out your wiki a little. I answered your questions there. Lloyd wrote: I suggested to the TB forum admins last year that there should be a board on here where folks can edit what they've posted any time, so we can make meaningful documents on the forum, but they weren't having any of that, which is a shame. Bulletin boards just aren't good at that. When people go to respond, it makes gibberish of the whole thing if the previous post gets changed. So I'm not surprised that they didn't go for it. They could do this in WordPress if they wanted to, but it would take some work to set it up, and right now they're a bit tapped out, with the transition to WordPress, and with all of the new material that they're posting. So I wouldn't blame them if they didn't want to support yet another ongoing project. Lloyd wrote: Are you sure the initial separated charge streams need to move at relativistic speeds? That's at least about 10% of light speed, or 30,000 km/s. Why is 3 km/s enough to maintain charge separation in the Sun, but not in space? As we have previously agreed, "relativistic" is a relative term. All moving electric charges generate magnetic fields, even the electrons that are doing the work in electric motors, which move at an average speed of a couple of micrometers per second. So if you're just positing the existence of a magnetic field, the current doesn't have to be relativistic (in the true sense). But you should be careful when attributing capabilities to the field, when the electric force is also present, because unless you're talking about currents moving at a big fraction of the speed of light, the electric force might still be more powerful. It all depends on the actual configuration of E and B fields, but I mention this because when I first got into the study of plasma, I had magnetic fields doing all kinds of stuff that they really couldn't do, because I didn't understand the relationship between speed and the strength of the magnetic field. As concerns your actual question, I said: "At relativistic speeds, the magnetic force becomes as powerful as the electric force, and can influence the current." The first part is true, and the second part is true, but misleading. It would be more accurate to say that the magnetic fields will always influence the current, but only at relativistic speeds does the B field become as powerful as the E field. Lloyd wrote: Water in a container and exposed to light maintains charge separation near the container walls. I agree — that's photo-ionization creating "partial" charge separation. Lloyd wrote: You said recently that the .3 ly diameter filaments in a star-forming region [...] appear to be electrical. I think you meant they suggest charge separated currents. Right? You're referring to my comment on Doris Arzoumanian's findings, as quoted by Thornhill, that the filaments are all the same width, regardless of length, which I found interesting. I said that this is evidence of an organizing principle, and I'd tend to agree that it's an electric current. But I really don't have an opinion on what kind of current it was. And do you mean a current because of a charge separation, or do you mean a plasma jet with both protons and electrons that have been separated into distinct streams? Either way, I don't know. Lloyd wrote: Isn't a current with a diameter of the Sun's core all we need? The current is already spinning positive and negative charge. With a little magnetic pinching, won't the charges in the current thicken? And to get such pinching, it just needs to enter a region that causes the current to speed up. Is that right? Let's chat about this some, as I really can't tell precisely what you're asking, and I'm scared that I'll answer a question other than what was asked. Lloyd wrote: So that's the whole process, isn't it? I mean, once the positive core is formed, the adjacent negative stream will pile onto it. Then you just need some more charge separated currents to supply the remaining outer layers. Hmm? Pretty much. Lloyd wrote: And what do you need to maintain the Sun's continuing energy output? It seems that Miles Mathis answered that with his 15% charge field supply of power and 85% fusion supply. I "think" that I agree with Mathis, but perhaps naively. For the time being, my model has "some" fusion going on in the core, while the main significance of this is just that it stirs up the convective zone, creating thermal bubbles that erupt as granules. But the energy that we receive is from electric arcs in the photosphere. You could say that this energy originated with the fusion going on in the core, while the arcing was simply the one conversion that ultimately released energy outward. But I'm not a Mathis expert, so I shouldn't misrepresent my stubbed-in placeholder construct as "agreeing with Mathis" who probably did some actual math.
'12-02-09, 23:20 Lloyd	Re: The Sun's Density Gradient Sun Formation I said: Isn't a current with a diameter of the Sun's core all we need? The current is already spinning positive and negative charge. With a little magnetic pinching, won't the charges in the current thicken? And to get such pinching, it just needs to enter a region that causes the current to speed up. Is that right? Charles said: Let's chat about this some, as I really can't tell precisely what you're asking.... * You explained most of the process of the Sun's formation, but I'm trying to understand the details between the phase where the twisted pair of opposite charge streams are formed into a Birkeland current and the phase where the Sun's core forms. I think all we need is for the positive stream to be large enough to make the Sun's core in a short time. Head-on View of Birkeland Current * If you look at the twisted pair of streams head-on as they're coming toward you in space, you could see the cross-section of each stream as a circle. So they look like two circles revolving around each other. So the positive stream circle is your future core and the negative circle is the future first negative layer that will surround the core. Tributary Currents in Vast Gas Cloud * In a vast ionized gas cloud there will be little currents forming and these will feed into larger currents, like tributaries of a river. So that's how the positive and negative streams become large enough to form a core. If the current gets too fast, the magnetic fields will pinch and eventually cause the pinched part of the streams to stop briefly, and the momentum of the material approaching the pinch will slam it into the stopped material, making a two balls of plasma, one of each charge. The balls attract each other and the negative ball, being lighter, falls onto the positive ball and forms a layer around it. The positive ball continues to spin with less forward momentum than when it was a moving stream, but it has enough rotational velocity to maintain enough magnetic field to prevent the negative charge from penetrating and neutralizing the core. Animation * Here's an animation, which, at the one minute mark, may help explain how the ball of plasma forms in space to initiate star formation: http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/dpf_animation/. It doesn't show the two opposite charge streams very well, I guess. Here's an image similar to the animation. http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5011/5497677698_3e9e50e1a7.j~ Layering * Anyway, the trailing streams continue to move forward and fall onto the core in successive layers, until the streams are fairly exhausted and a star has formed. * What do you think? Are misconceptions improving?