I'm sure all of you by now have seen Bob Johnsons' excellent talk at EU 2013 titled "The Electric Sun Revisited". I'd just like to summarise some key-points taken from his talk and then pose an important question.
Basically, with an anode sun we have inflowing current from galactic space coming in to power the sun.
Without an anode, there is no excess of positive ions trying to escape from the solar surface below the higher potential voltage layer. Any positive ions that are drifting around the voltage drop between the photosphere and the lower surface of the sun - will be accelerated if they get to the edge of the hill between the chromosphere and the lower corona (i.e. if they approach the double-layer).
Observations show several problems with the idea of an Anode-sun, and that includes an insufficent rate of electron-drift towards the sun, problems with balancing charges, as well as electron-heating issues at a considerable solar radii distance which is hard to account for Jeurgens' claims or the Crooke's Tube model posited by Thornhill and Scott.
Is an anode sun neccessary if the double-layer voltage drop between the Chromosphere and Lower Corona provides the control mechanism for the flow-rate of ions outward?
Johnson states that the Sun may well consist of a current-free DL rather than a current-carrying DL as formed in a Crooke's Tube. The current-carrying DL is via an externally driven current (such as in Don Scott's diagram of the sun - with polar currents meeting and intensifying in the equator), but the current-free DL is not. It simply forms an electric field that accelerates particles between the hot ionized plasma emperature of the sun and the surrounding plasma at a lower potential. The sunspots largely emit electrons, albeit the solar wind also contains protons. There is also too much high-energy electron flow to account for an Anode sun - suggesting that that the sun is not simply an electrode with a positive current flowing through it.
Johnson refers to a hot-fusion Tokomak device where plasmoids are generated via the pinch-process. He also refers to how this research relates to ball-lightning formation. Referring to two papers - he states that plasmoids contain a "stable force-free arrangement of currents". Essentially a Birkeland Current "wrapped around into a closed-loop". These can be generated via kink-instabilities in pinched currents. Our sun may essentially be a form of plasmoid with high-temp electrons maintaining an overall internal quasi-neutrality.
Photospheric tufting is due to ions accelerated away because they've got too close to the CFDL. This could explain the "bulge"-like morphology of the tufts observed on the sun, rather than them simply being flat in morphology. Electrons could also be drawn as a result of a differing temperature gradient in the plasma.
The plasmoid is slowly leaking out energy, via interaction with the surrounding plasma environment.
The key question, as far as I'm concerned is whether this means that our sun is slowly losing charge and is gradually dissipating as it seeks to equalize its voltage with its surroundings? Is the Birkeland Current that the Heliosphere may be contained in; actually having that much influence apart from some Farraday-like interactions with the corona and current-sheet surrounding the solar plasmoid?
Please correct me if I am making any errors here.
orrery
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Here are some resources to help investigating the nature of Plasmoids:
Because it discusses the way in which a plasmoid moves. This seems like it could be used to devise an experiment to test the model.
I would be very interested to hear what Peratt or Lerner has to say about Plasmoid properties.
Yes, and with regard to the coming SAFIRE project this will have serious repurcussions as to the sort of equipment that will end up being used. How indeed are they going to reproduce the Solar Plasmoid in a way that is prolonged enough to get sufficient readings of various parameters such as electron and ion flux, sunspot or tufting, differential rotations, etc?
One clue according to Bostick is that plasmoids, which were found to be rapidly moving in his "plasma-gun" experiments can slow down considerably in certain conditions:-
Charles found that the plasmoid tokamak model works for exotic stars, which appear to form from rapidly rotating nebular collapse, whereas other stars form from slower rotating nebular collapse, both by a combination of electro-magnetic and gravitational forces. The slower rotating collapses result in compressive ionization of matter into several electric double layers within stars, which have net negative charge. They emit both electrons and protons through the positive photosphere.
The Birkeland currents in space are not strong electric currents that form stars and galaxies, but are only weak currents produced by them. If they were such strong currents, they would be as bright as stars. Johnson's video compares stars to ball lightning plasmoids that break off of the bends in lightning, but lightning is as bright as are the plasmoids, whereas currents in space are very dim and therefore weak.
Charles found that the plasmoid tokamak model works for exotic stars, which appear to form from rapidly rotating nebular collapse, whereas other stars form from slower rotating nebular collapse, both by a combination of electro-magnetic and gravitational forces. The slower rotating collapses result in compressive ionization of matter into several electric double layers within stars, which have net negative charge. They emit both electrons and protons through the positive photosphere.
The Birkeland currents in space are not strong electric currents that form stars and galaxies, but are only weak currents produced by them. If they were such strong currents, they would be as bright as stars. Johnson's video compares stars to ball lightning plasmoids that break off of the bends in lightning, but lightning is as bright as are the plasmoids, whereas currents in space are very dim and therefore weak.
Perhaps Charles Chandler should consider evidence such as this:-
"A growing body of evidence indicates that the formation of filaments in interstellar clouds is a key component of the star formation process." http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3403
Given that plasma filamentation can form plasmoids via the Z-pinch process, then surely one doesn't need to invoke "nebular collapse". Not that it should be ruled out, of course!
Please take the time to watch the talk given by Bob Johnson, as well as read my breakdown of it - if you don't have the time. Essentially, what can be inferred is that plasmoids produced in filaments in dusty interstellar clouds scatter once the discharge filament quenches. This was hinted at in Wal Thornhill's brief analaysis of the "Orion bullets". Once the starsplasmoids travel - they may break-up or fission into smaller plasmoids (hence perhaps explaining binary or triple-star systems). If galactic centres are essentially a very highly dense plasmoid (i.e. a dense plasma focus - as suggested in its bipolar jet morphology), then the stars around them may originate from a variety of causes:-
1. Moving in from an interstellar cloud or nebula environment and becoming under the influence of the gravitational and EM forces of the galaxy 2. Being created in an earlier more highly electrically-stressed galactic environment with stronger Birkeland Currents via kink-instabilities (as suggested in Perratt's galactic modelling which shows evolution from a high-energy state to a more low-energy state over time) 3. Periodic ejections from the central plasmoid (albeit this is less likely)
Importantly, the Dense Plasma Focus device demonstrates that plasma pinching can occur via the close proximity of multiple current filaments which merge together; the collective magnetic compression of the currents creates a focus of energy. Thus, galaxies (connected together via strings of dark-mode currents) could be areas where several dark-mode currents come very close together, create a glow-mode discharge and then a DPF effect. Don Scott did a talk at the Natural Philosophy Alliance where he mentioned that several bipolar nebulae (and possibly galaxies) demonstrate two DPF's merging together and intersecting.
Example of DPF processes:-
Our fusion device is a dense plasma focus DPF which simply can merge multiple current filaments (current loops) into a single filament.5 In a DPF, the initial breakdown occurs across the insulator in the form of filaments. These filaments are blown off the insulator by the magnetic pressure,and 1 s after breakdown, the filaments merge to form a uniform thin parabolic current sheath between the electrodes. The plasma sheet carrying the current is formed between the anode and cathode. The JB force causes this current to move along the anode to its terminus, generating pairs of radial filaments in the process. At the anode terminus, the filamentary plasma sheet balloons outward and contracts toward the center. Energy is transferred from the outer region to the central region where a kink plasma instability causes the filaments to twist upon themselves to form a plasmoid with extremely high energy density. Eventually, the plasmoid breaks down and electrons and ions are accelerated from the plasmoid in opposite directions along the axis as intense, narrow beams. The current flow convergence is largely due to the self-consistent nature of the current filament, whereas the heating and compression from the radial and axial implosions are due to both the magnetic forces of the current carrying plasma filament and the inertial forces. Partial conversion of the kinetic energy of the imploding axisymmetric current to internal heat energy may occur during the implosive phase due to self-collision.6
There's also a hint in the fact that the Herschel data found that the star-forming regions in the filaments (that had a constant width) were in the densest parts - again, suggesting a similar mechanism of Birkeland filament "pinching" via intersection-zones of currents:- http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/wp-cont ... aments.jpg
And Lloyd, I'm not sure why you bothered cutting and pasting reams of text from a very dishonest "debunker" in that NIAMI thread.
celeste
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
PersianPaladin and Llyod, I think I can settle your debate. When you look at the Double Helix Nebula, what do you see? If you see stars primarily orbiting each other,with filaments flowing between them, then stars are the real source of E-M, and Birkeland currents secondary. If you see current filaments spiraling around each other, with stars confined to them, then Birkeland currents are the real source of E-M, with stars a byproduct of them. 2. If you are willing to consider Walter Cruttenden's work which shows that our whole solar system precesses (not just Earth), we are left with the conclusion that, at least in the sun's case, the filament(s) are driving our star, not that our star is driving any local, weak Birkeland filaments. (again I'll harp on this point: you can not suggest that electrical forces play even a small role in shaping planetary orbits, and keep the mainstream's idea of Earth's precession, which requires only gravitational tugs on the earth). Now my opinion. When I see the Double Helix Nebula, I see filaments spiraling through space,almost immune to whatever star may or may not be on them at any point. Each star merely draining a small amount of the current that is there. A star is no more significant to a galactic current filament, than a pin hole leak is to a garden hose. That's just my current opinion, ask me again next week
Now, if you look at it you can see that the filaments at the outer edge are further spaced out, and thus they are less bright. Then the filaments merge closer together and the energy/brightness increases. Don Scott has interpreted the center of this image as analogous to a dense plasma focus. In this case, we have a bipolar arrangement creating the bright plasma in the center.
A careful analysis of the Cygnus Loop Nebula suggests that the brighter filaments are those that are the most densely packed, with the less bright filaments a bit more spaced out. You can also observe spaced out filaments that appear to merge together:- http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/6335 ... 46-710.jpg
Of course, things are a lot more complex than this and there is a limit to how much one can infer from visual observation alone.
Lloyd
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Filaments in Space
PP said: "A growing body of evidence indicates that the formation of filaments in interstellar clouds is a key component of the star formation process." http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.3403 Given that plasma filamentation can form plasmoids via the Z-pinch process, then surely one doesn't need to invoke "nebular collapse". Not that it should be ruled out, of course!
That source doesn't suggest that filaments are powerful Birkeland currents. A more complete quotation is this.
A growing body of evidence indicates that the formation of filaments in interstellar clouds is a key component of the star formation process. In this paper, we present new Herschel PACS and SPIRE observations of the B59 and Stem regions in the Pipe Nebula complex, revealing a rich, organized network of filaments. The asymmetric column density profiles observed for several filaments, along with the bow-like edge of B59, indicates that the Pipe Nebula is being compressed from its western side, most likely by the winds from the nearby Sco OB2 association. We suggest that this compressive flow has contributed to the formation of some of the observed filamentary structures.
Star Formation
PP: If galactic centres are essentially a very highly dense plasmoid (i.e. a dense plasma focus - as suggested in its bipolar jet morphology), then the stars around them may originate from a variety of causes:- 1. Moving in from an interstellar cloud or nebula environment and becoming under the influence of the gravitational and EM forces of the galaxy 2. Being created in an earlier more highly electrically-stressed galactic environment with stronger Birkeland Currents via kink-instabilities (as suggested in Perratt's galactic modelling which shows evolution from a high-energy state to a more low-energy state over time) 3. Periodic ejections from the central plasmoid (albeit this is less likely)
#1 is essentially Charles Chandler's model, I believe. #2 Peratt's model contrasts with #3 Arp's and Thornhill's models, which have galactic centers periodically shooting out quasars which evolve into companion galaxies. Charles' model includes a version of Arp's quasar formation, but quasar evolution isn't clear yet, as far as I know. - What's the difference between a nebula, an interstellar cloud and a plasmoid? Nebulae and IS clouds are plasma. Plasmoids are plasma with magnetic fields. Nebulae and IS clouds often have magnetic fields.
PP: And Lloyd, I'm not sure why you bothered cutting and pasting reams of text from a very dishonest "debunker" in that NIAMI thread.
I quote only information that seems potentially helpful, regardless of the source. If you're suggesting that I promote dishonest debunking, that's insulting.
Bob's Video Plasmoid Sun Model Opposes the Anode Sun Model - Charles and I did see Bob Johnson's video and we agree with him that the anode model of the Sun probably doesn't work. We've also previously discussed aspects of (Bob's) plasmoid model and found it doesn't seem to explain some important solar features. Electric or Birkeland currents can pinch and squeeze plasma, but it doesn't seem to condense neutral matter much. How dense is matter in a plasmoid, like ball lightning? It's nothing like the density of water or solid rock. Is it? I haven't been able to find information on plasmoid density so far in terms that I can easily understand. I found a paper at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1990ApJ...365L..31G that seems to say that a solar flare plasmoid is calculated to have a density of ~8.8x10^36 electrons/m^3. Since the mass of an electron is 9.1x10^-34 gm, I think the density of that plasmoid would be 8.8x9.1x100 =~8kg/m^3. That's 125 times less dense than water. Did I reason that out correctly? - A powerful electric current can squeeze an aluminum soda can, as Thornhill demonstrated in a lab and as is shown on a TPOD. Lightning can also squeeze copper tubing, probably shown in the same TPOD. But can it condense matter? You can squeeze a soda can by removing the air from it too. And that would probably work on copper tubing too, if the ends are capped. Air pressure at sea level is about 14.7#/sq.in., which is enough to do that. So a z-pinch doesn't seem to be enough by itself to condense matter. If those filaments in space can condense plasma into something like ball lightning, that could possibly help get a nebula to implode. The combination of electric and gravitational forces in nebulae/plasmoids seem to be able to explain how they can implode and then condense by compressive ionization, which latter Thornhill has discussed on his website. - Celeste, I didn't follow your reasoning.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Lloyd,
My quote from that paper is reflective of the fact that they are forming in filamentary regions. The Herschel findings also show the same thing. Both the people who used the Herschel data and the paper that I quoted; come to the conclusion that the filaments are formed by "sonic booms" or "winds". This is CONTRARY to the behaviour of plasma and should be thrown out completely.
Regarding your problems with "condensing" matter. Again, have a look at the way the filaments were spotted with the instruments (such as Herschel). These filaments are surrounded by a LOT of interstellar dust and cannot normally be seen with typical instruments. This also confirms the nature of these Birkeland Current discharges because they are known to scavenge matter and compress it via Marklund, azimuthal fields and the pinch process. If a particular space region is more dusty than another; then certain powerful filaments will be obscured. In some of the bipolar nebulae you can see dust obscuring the central plasmoid, but proper instruments are able to view it:- http://www.universetoday.com/47250/very ... -hot-star/
The center of that nebulae lies a white-dwarf star, and these are typically regarded as very dense objects second only to "neutron stars". Of course, I question the nature of "neutron stars" as having anything to do with neutron compaction.
Regarding your objection to plasmoid density. Again, I think you need to look at Eric Lerner's work regarding the dense plasma focus.
What can produce such intense bipolar magnetic radiative lobes? A dense plasmoid and periodic collapsing magnetic fields, exploding double-layers and perhaps a relaxation-oscillator effect as the environment surrounding the plasmoid builds up charge.
Plasmoids ejected by the sun are in the form of solar flares and are usually quite low-density torroidal features that occasionally coalesce into spherical electron closed force-free currents. If you look at Thornhill and Scott's work and examine the images properly, you can find evidence for the merging of Birkeland filaments that are responsible for the energy focus at the center of bipolar nebulae and galaxies. Also, the baryonic matter in space is quasi-neutral, rather than "neutral". Dusty plasmas are still an ongoing area of research:- http://www.plasma-universe.com/Dusty_plasma
And are you implying there are NO magnetic fields in nebulae and interstellar clouds? The instrumental data disagrees with you. Plasma quasi-neutrality is clearly being violated at certain Debye lengths as is evident from varying radio-noise from such locations.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
A reminder of some of Bob's points regarding the Anode model.
1. The solar polar region is not distinct contrary to the expectation that it would be (if currents were entering the poles to the anode). 2. Why does the torus form at solar minimum? How can this account for sunspot explanations via the anode-model? 3. Why is electron temperature between 1 and 5AU+ outward from the sun decreasing at a much lower rate than expected for the anode-sun model? Why is there an UPTICK in electron-temperature outward from the sun that is dependent on the solar cycle? 4. Evidence (from Strahl electron distribution) that there are more electrons leaving the sun than the protons. Also, there are no Strahl electrons moving towards the sun. 5. Accelleration data outward from the sun suggests a CFDL between the Chromosphere and Lower Corona playing a major role. 6. Don Scott's PNP Transistor model for the Anode-sun supposes that protons are trying to escape the sun's surface particularly at solar maxima, and thus there needs to be a voltage hill just above the sun's surface towards the photosphere. But the strong electron emissions from sunspots seem to challenge this assumption.
The collisions of the electrons with the ions generate a short pulse of highly-intense X-rays. If the device is being used to generate X-rays for our X-ray source project, conditions such as electrode sizes and shapes and gas fill pressure can be used to maximize X-ray output. - If the device is being used to produce fusion energy, other conditions can minimize X-ray production, which cools the plasma. Instead, energy can be transferred from the electrons to the ions using the magnetic field effect. Collisions of the ions with each other cause fusion reactions, which add more energy to the plasmoid. So in the end, the ion beam contain more energy than was input by the original electric current. (The energy of the electron beam is dissipated inside the plasmoid to heat it.) This happens even though the plasmoid only lasts 10 ns (billionths of a second) or so, because of the very high density in the plasmoid, which is close to solid density, makes collisions very likely and they occur extremely rapidly.
They say the plasmoid doesn't last long because it gets too dense. And it sounds like the density must be less than the density of water or ice. So that doesn't seem very promising for Birkeland current z=pinches being able to condense matter. It's okay with me if z-pinches can condense matter, but, as I stated above, I think more is needed than just the z=pinch. I said I can conceive of the possibility that the weak interstellar or intergalactic currents can produce z-pinches that can make something like ball lightning on a large scale, like a nebula or cloud, but other electrical attractive forces in the nebula, possibly combined with gravitational forces, especially in the late stage of condensation, seem to be required to carry out the condensation of planets and stars etc. Nebula vs Plasmoid - I did not say nebulae and clouds have no magnetic fields. I said the opposite. I think most probably do have magnetic fields. So I asked how they're different from plasmoids, since plasmoids seem to be defined as plasma that has magnetic fields. So I was saying we may be talking about the same thing with different words, nebula instead of plasmoid. But Charles has worked out a much more detailed explanation of the condensation process than any other that I know of. I'm quite familiar with most of Thornhill's website material etc. - What you described from Johnson's video are all points against the anode sun model and Charles and I agree with Johnson about those points. But we don't agree entirely with the Plasmoid Model either. Johnson said he looked up the sources that Juergens originally referenced in coming up with his anode sun model, and Johnson seemed perplexed as to how Juergens interpreted those sources as evidence for the anode model.
PP: What can produce such intense bipolar magnetic radiative lobes? A dense plasmoid and periodic collapsing magnetic fields, exploding double-layers and perhaps a relaxation-oscillator effect as the environment surrounding the plasmoid builds up charge.
As I mentioned above, Charles has a plasmoid model for galactic centers, as well as for exotic stars. His model has the nebular collapse occurring with greater rotational velocity than for normal star formation, so they end up with huge magnetic fields etc. His model seems to be more thoroughly developed than any other model.
celeste
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Llyod, Let me take one more approach. We've seen how the mainstream had a problem with the shape of galactic spiral arms. Why don't they wind up? A patch was made to the gravitational model, which was that it was density waves that caused the shape of spiral arms. Well, along comes EU, showing that the shape of spiral arms can be explained by electrical current flow, and best of all, we can duplicate it in the lab. So, we see stars along these paths that can best be described by galactic scale electric currents. Now comes the question. If we start with the galactic scale currents, and say that stars form along them (it doesn't matter how stars are formed), the formation of stars into spiral arms is straightforward. If you want to suggest that star formation comes first, and current filaments are a by-product of them, we are right back to our original problem. How does the material that will form our stars, get into and stay in that configuration? Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the fact that we have so many stars appearing along the path of what appears to be galactic scale filaments, seem to be evidence that galactic currents form stars? And that each individual star can be robbing the filament of only the smallest portion of its energy? Which brings me back to my opinion. As PersianPaladin says,there is a limit to how much one can infer from visual observation alone. A well behaved current filament, with electrons and ions flowing past each other, may escape our detection (until we know how to look at radio scintillation, bending of light by strings of "dark matter",etc). Merely throw in the slightest glitch in that filament,(a star), and all of a sudden, it has our attention. And that was the point of my garden hose analogy. You see a garden hose, and you don't even know if inside there is water flowing or not. A pinhole leak (star) may give you a clue that something is going on inside the hose(current filament). But don't think by looking at the leak, that you have any idea of just how much water is flowing through that hose, totally invisible to you.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Lloyd wrote: They say the plasmoid doesn't last long because it gets too dense. And it sounds like the density must be less than the density of water or ice. So that doesn't seem very promising for Birkeland current z=pinches being able to condense matter. It's okay with me if z-pinches can condense matter, but, as I stated above, I think more is needed than just the z=pinch. I said I can conceive of the possibility that the weak interstellar or intergalactic currents can produce z-pinches that can make something like ball lightning on a large scale, like a nebula or cloud, but other electrical attractive forces in the nebula, possibly combined with gravitational forces, especially in the late stage of condensation, seem to be required to carry out the condensation of planets and stars etc.
Lloyd,
The plasmoid does not last long because of the fact that the discharge from the capacitor banks only lasts "a few millionths of a second" and the plasmoid will be even less prolonged due to the fact that it is highly electrically-stressed and unstable. However. Lightning discharges only last for a fraction of a second on Earth and so do the plasmoids. Birkeland Currents in space at a much larger scale with a much more sustained electrical discharge (rather than simply a few millionths of a second) are going to produce a tremendously greater duration of plasmoid longevity. And what you are most likely seeing in space is the reflection of an ongoing process where charge density is building up in the central galactic plasmoid and then being discharged. The center of our galaxies basically, are transient and unstable! This is why you see many "highly-dense" and very-hot white dwarfs in the center of bipolar nebula, as well as star-birth and "highly dense" stars nearer the center of galaxies. It is also why you see apparent mass-loss from central stars in bipolar nebula manifesting as energy in the lobes of the nebulae - because the plasmoid fields have collapsed. Remember, out there (as Don Scott has said) it is an ongoing process and should be considered a sort of slow-motion compared with lab conditions at smaller scales. Energy from the collapsing plasmoid is also most likely stored in torroidal ring-currents surrounding them and this could also influence the energetic profile of galaxies and quasars.
Again, you are saying the density is less than water or ice and I think you're creating a misleading avenue of thought here. Lightning discharges and the compressive magnetic forces here on Earth can produce much more dense material from the compression of dust and sand. Again, I have provided evidence of the merging of Birkeland Currents that can account for the creation of dense stars as well as solid matter. Even the currents in the tails of comets were predicted by Hannes Alfven to reach up to a billion amperes. We've found evidence of powerful magnetic turbulence in the tails of such comets, e.g. Giacobbi-Zinner. Far greater than anything on Earth. Your assumption that pinches and azimuthal fields cannot "condense matter" is too dismissive and I simply do not agree. Furthermore, despite what I have posted above re: the perceived "density" of white dwarf stars and the centre of galaxies - I want people to consider the possibility that the mainstream scientists are using incorrect methods to calculate the density of stellar objects.
Lloyd wrote: - I did not say nebulae and clouds have no magnetic fields. I said the opposite. I think most probably do have magnetic fields. So I asked how they're different from plasmoids, since plasmoids seem to be defined as plasma that has magnetic fields. So I was saying we may be talking about the same thing with different words, nebula instead of plasmoid. But Charles has worked out a much more detailed explanation of the condensation process than any other that I know of. I'm quite familiar with most of Thornhill's website material etc.
It can be detailed, but does it reflect the evidence that is observed? The Standard model is the most detailed out there, but it fails to compellingly reflect the evidence. Again, we do not have empirical evidence of "nebular collapse", and we do have evidence of star-formation occuring inside plasma filaments of consistent width and in areas of greatest filamentary density. I provided some visual examples too of how generally weak dark-mode currents can become amplified via mutual attraction and inter-section.
A plasmoid distinguishes itself from dusty plasmas (large collections of dust particles and different individual charged species interacting as a complex un-uniform whole) and long-distance filamentary currents in plasmas in the sense that they are small focussed torroidal closed-loops of current with specific properties. Bostick described them thus:-
Bostick wrote:[7] "Plasmoids appear to be plasma cylinders elongated in the direction of the magnetic field. Plasmoids possess a measurable magnetic moment, a measurable translational speed, a transverse electric field, and a measurable size. Plasmoids can interact with each other, seemingly by reflecting off one another. Their orbits can also be made to curve toward one another. Plasmoids can be made to spiral to a stop if projected into a gas at about 10−3 mm Hg pressure. Plasmoids can also be made to smash each other into fragments. There is some scant evidence to support the hypothesis that they undergo fission and possess spin." http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... ML&format=
I would like to remind people that mainstream theory assumes "big G" is used to calculate both the mass of the Earth and stellar objects and assumes that it is a constant. The electric force can challenge the traditional fixed-notions of mass.
Thornhill writes:-
G has the peculiar dimensions of length cubed, divided by mass and by time squared ([L]3/[M][T]2). A. K. T. Assis argues that dimensional constants like G should not appear in the laws of physics. They "must depend on cosmological or microscopic properties of the universe." [1] Garcia-Berro et al state, "Questioning the constancy of fundamental parameters is essentially trying to understand a more fundamental theory behind." [2]
We conceal our ignorance of any underlying physical mechanism by tolerating dimensional constants. If mass is an electrical variable, G cannot be constant. Assuming G to be universal as well gives rise to calculated masses and densities of celestial bodies that lead to further conjectures cantilevered upon the already dubious assumptions. Stellar and planetary structure and composition are based upon this erroneous conviction.
A Plasmoid Model of the sun, as well as discoveries regarding its unique round-ness (challenging the gravitocentric theory) also challenge conventional notions of its mass. There is a possibility that it may well be far less massive than we have ever considered. This of course, affects the issue of density.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
I would like to add, regarding the proposal of a "plasmoid" sun - it will be hard to find scientific papers out there that do not resort to MHD equations as well as assumptions over "open" and "closed" field-lines in referring to the behaviour of ball-lightning or plasmoids. I'm sure Bob is aware of this.
For now there is the apparent problem of the weakness of the solar dipole magnetic field at around 50 Gauss. You can calculate that currents of around 2,500 amperes can account for such a dipole field. If the sun is a plasmoid; then one would expect significantly more powerful magnetic fields to reflect the internal looping currents.
Another paper looks at magnetic field strength in faculae (the region between solar granules) at solar minima and finds stronger gauss fields (up to kilo gauss levels) in polar faculae than elsewhere:-
ABSTRACT Quiet Sun magnetic fields in the internetwork are almost ubiquitous. Simultaneous observations in infra-red and visible lines and high spatial resolution (<0.5″) data in visible lines show that their field strengths range from below few hundred Gauss to kilo-Gauss. Most of the flux is contained in small-scale, strong-field features located mainly in intergranular lanes. The average unsigned flux density exceeds 20 Gauss. The new detections are confirmed by recent quiet Sun observations in the G band. The generation of the strong fields in the internetwork, which may be due to a local dynamo, poses a challenging problem. – Polar faculae (PFe) are small-scale magnetic features at the polar caps of the Sun. They take part in the solar cycle and are thus likely to be rooted deeply in the solar interior. They are the result of the global dynamo at the solar poles. PFe also possess kilo-Gauss magnetic fields which have the same polarity as the global magnetic field. The rôle of quiet Sun magnetic field structures and of PFe for the dynamics of the corona and for the solar wind are addressed.
These polar faculae are found to occur mostly during solar minima, albeit this earlier data didn't quite set their Gauss-strength to be as high as the paper above:- http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 8.000.html
A minimum of 60,000 amperes of current could be concentrated in certain faculae regions, albeit the mechanism for this is still open to question.
It has come to my attention that Don Scott has already addressed at least two of the points brought up by Bob Johnson in his talk.
Regarding the apparent problem of electron drift velocity towards the sun referred to by Johnson - Don Scott wrote that the incoming speed does not need to be relativistic at all. He also answers the criticism that we "observe" an almost equal ratio of protons of electrons in the solar wind:-
The calculation presented in the first part of this report concludes that as many as 20,000 times the required number of electrons may be collected from outside the heliopause as are needed to power the Sun electrically. A logical conclusion from this is that only 1/20,000th of the total population of electrons in the Sun's vicinity need to drift toward the Sun.
3. Plasmas have what is called the "plasma frequency". Even after an electron is freed from an atom (producing an ionized ion/electron pair) that electron tends to oscillate around the +ion at a certain frequency. The electron is free to drift away from the ionic center, but often continues to dance around it until it jumps over to the vicinity of another ion. Visualize a set of 20,000 (ionized) ion/electron pairs in a plasma where only one of them at a time jumps (drifts) to a neighboring ion. The vast sea of dancing (in Brownian motion) electrons easily camouflages the drift motion of one out of 20,000 electrons. That is why the criticism of the Juergens ES model that says, "We only see equal numbers of ions and electrons moving in the solar wind." Is not a valid one.
He also addresses Johnson's claim that the poles of the Sun should have a different photospheric appearance if they were operating as an anode:-
The appearance of the photosphere at the poles of the Sun seems to be the same as it is at lower solar latitudes. Doesn't that disprove the idea that a concentrated polar flow of charge is located in the polar regions? No, because the powering flow of charge is only a small fraction of the ambient ion/electron population. That is not enough to change the character of the photospheric plasma.
However, there are still the following questions for Don Scott and anode-sun proponents to address (if they have not already done so):-
1. Why does the torus form at solar minimum? How can this account for sunspot explanations via the anode-model? 2. Why is electron temperature between 1 and 5AU+ outward from the sun decreasing at a much lower rate than expected for the anode-sun model? Why is there an UPTICK in electron-temperature outward from the sun that is dependent on the solar cycle? 3. Evidence (from Strahl electron distribution) that there are more electrons leaving the sun than the protons. Also, there are no Strahl electrons moving towards the sun. [ CAVEAT - Scott may have addressed this point already in his reference to "plasma frequency" behaviour in the circuit] 4. Don Scott's PNP Transistor model for the Anode-sun supposes that protons are trying to escape the sun's surface particularly at solar maxima, and thus there needs to be a voltage hill just above the sun's surface towards the photosphere. But the strong electron emissions from sunspots seem to challenge this assumption. Can this be explained?
