Questions on Cathode Sun Models
- Do B&M agree that compressive ionization is real?
- Do they agree that EM forces assist gravity to produce nebular collapse to form stars etc?
- Does B have evidence that antennae create electrons via longitudinal aether waves?
- Would these electrons form electric discharges and produce neutrons?
- Would the neutrons then decay into protons and electrons or hydrogen atoms?
- If filaments in space do not join all or many of the stars and galaxies in electric circuits, how do the filaments form?
- Are planetary auroras caused by electric currents from the Sun?
- If so, what's the maximum distance such currents can extend?
- I think Steven Rado argued that protons can attract each other if they get within one de Broglie wavelength of each other or some similar kind of wavelength. And Kanarev found that neutrons seem to make it possible for protons to come close together. He also found that electrons seem to move in strings of four and double strings of four each side-by-side. Is it possible that the z-pinch or similar event causes protons and electrons to combine into neutrons (since it's apparently been found that lightning produces 5,000 neutrons/m^3/s)? Didn't C state that z-pinches do compress plasma, but not into atoms? But if they produce neutrons, wouldn't those decay into hydrogen?
Questions on Supernova Discussion
At 6 pm ET tonight and Friday night, I'll try to be at https://drive.google.com/?hl=en&tab=wo&pli=1#all for supernova discussion. I may post the following questions there in advance.
_LK1. What evidence is there that the local interstellar cloud containing the Sun and the G-cloud containing alpha Centauri etc are electric Birkeland current filaments?
_LK2. Is your theory that red giant stars are ion-compressed stars that undergo reverse ion-compression and then explode as supernovae, and that pulsars are then produced from the implosions of supernovae?
_LK3. What's the difference between Charles' and Michael's pulsars? (Charles' pulsars are tokamaks, rather than ion-compressed stars, where fast nebular rotation produces pulsars etc and slower nebular rotation produces ion-compressed stars etc. Michael's pulsars consist of neutronium produced from supernova implosions.)
_LK4. Why would pulsar pulses not be produced by electric discharge (ED), since the pulses resemble lightning signatures?
_LK5. Could pulsar pulses be produced as a tokamak star (pulsar) beam hits a binary companion star and produces an ED many times/sec?
_LK6. Would Earth lightning, which occurs about 200 times/sec worldwide, look like a pulsar signature from Mars' orbit or beyond?
_LK7. If red giant stars are ion-compressed and supernovae are reverse ion-compressed (i.e. ion-decompressed), and if pulsars are non-ion-compressed tokamaks that spin faster than normal stars, then does some force accelerate some of the supernova's inner material to produce a pulsar?
I have 24 points listed here in favor of the cathode solar model. I'm including some questions after the 24 points.
Can you guys add details for any of these arguments to help clinch them?
(Should we have a Google Doc discussion or something on these points?)
The sun must not be an anode, because:
_1. the surface of the photosphere would be of negative charge and would not have a sharp or distinct boundary, because electrons would repel each other;
_2. a very strong magnetic field would be detected in the flow of electrons from the interplanetary medium into the Sun;
_3. the sunward flow of electrons would look like earthly lightning strikes, pinching down at the solar surface, or like in a plasma ball, instead of helmet streamers that pinch away from the surface in the opposite direction at the top of the corona;
_4. coronal loops would not be able to rise up above the photosphere;
_5. Birkeland's cathode terella would not have been able to duplicate all of the solar features;
_6. the Sun would not have cathode features;
_7. it would not have sunspots, which are cathode spots;
_8. it would not have flares, which are discharges between sunspots;
_9. Birkeland's terella would not have had loops like coronal loops;
_10. electrons would flow into the Sun and protons would flow out, instead of both particles flowing out as in Birkeland's terella;
_11. if current flowed only into the Sun, it would be a mere resistor in the galactic circuit, which would not produce so many neutrinos; and there'd be no source for the galactic circuit, if stars don't power it;
_12. the solar wind conforms to an Arc Cathode paper's findings;
_13. the photosphere has extremely low eV temperature (.6 eV) and the corona has high eV temperature (~100 eV);
_14. Scott or someone would have worked out the schematic drawings for the solar instantiation of the PNP transistor by now;
_15. if the photosphere charge was negative, considering the conductivity of the plasma, it wouldn't exert a body force on the plasma itself; it would just strip off the electrons;
_16. there are plenty of references to "electron strahl", which are beams of electrons leaving the Sun and are typically found at the tips of helmet streams and in spicules;
_17. the only construct that can produce the full compliment of observed properties of the Sun is that [of] the Sun as a cathode emitting 2.93×10^15 A which causes 4.99×10^24 W of ohmic heating.
_18. particles accelerate going away from the Sun, not toward it;
_19. the photons that are emitted by a cathode electron zipping past a nucleon without recombining are different from the photons emitted by anode electron uptake
_20. the sun, like a cathode, possesses an ionized atmosphere;
_21. Milton said spicules are huge fountains that spit electrons high into the corona
_22. when counter-streaming electrons toward the sun were observed, it was the exception rather than the rule
_23. electrons are able to rise, spiral and ramp up the magnetic field to form sunspots
_24. positive charged CMEs would be more attracted to the denser negative charged photosphere, if it were an anode, than to the thin supposedly incoming streaming electrons
Can you guys answer these questions for me, or think of better questions?
1_. Do you all agree that granules are cathode tufts, rather than anode tufts, or something else?
2_. MM, can you document all of Birkeland's terella findings that support the cathode Sun model?
3_. CC et al, what's the evidence that the IPM is positive-charged?
4_. Is Milton right that "The solar gas shows an increasing percentage of ionized-to-neutral atoms with altitude"? If so, is it because the IPM is positive charged?
5_. Can Scott's PNP photosphere graph apply to a positive charged photosphere? Here's his diagram.
Fig. 12. Energy, electric field strength, and charge density as a function of radial distance from the Sun's surface. Illustration from Don Scott's book The Electric Sky.
6_. Is Michael's point worth including, that, if stars are electrically connected, they must generate the electric currents that connect them, since there are no other known candidates?