PersianPaladin, Why does the torus form at solar minimum? I don't see the issue here. Shouldn't we have the torus forming when the large scale solar magnetic field dominates, but sunspots forming when local magnetic fields dominate? Pump up current to the sun, we get a well organized large scale magnetic field, which forms the torus. Cut current to the sun,letting local electric currents (and their magnetic fields) at the sun's surface dominate, and we see the sunspots. Or am I missing something? Doesn't the electron temperature vs solar cycle, work the same way? A stronger electric field around the sun,leads to dethermalization. The stronger the large scale electric field at 1-5 A.U., the lower we see the electron temperature. Or do I have that backwards, compared to the sunspot cycle?
celeste
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
PersianPaladin, "1/20,000th of the total population of electrons in the Sun's vicinity need to drift toward the Sun." I'm glad you posted that. So you, more than most, will recognize the significance of this aspect of the solar cycle: The mainstream has noted that the solar cycle is related to the sun traveling around the solar system center of mass, with especially strong cycles in years where Saturn and Jupiter are on the same side of the sun (Saturn and Jupiter on the same side means the sun is more strongly orbiting the center of mass). I overheard someone suggesting this idea to Wal Thornhill, and neither party could think of a reason that this small motion should matter. Remember, the center of mass of the solar system lies sometimes within the sun, sometimes just outside the sun's surface. The center of mass travels at varying speeds, obviously, but an average estimate has been described as "about walking speed". That does give you an idea of just how small it is. The point is, if the sun is spiraling through this sea of electrons, and normally would only intercept only ~1/20,000 of them through drift, you can imagine how many more you could intercept by this motion. It's not just electrons drifting towards the sun, but the sun "drifting" ,(at walking speed),into those drift electrons.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Hi Celeste,
This is certainly a difficult and contentious area to deal with.
The plasma torus can only be observed within a certain spectrum of ultra-violet. The key question is - is the plasma torus always equatorial, and is it actually part of the larger Heliospheric Current Sheet?
The evidence thus far seems to show that during solar maximum there is an important role for the heliospheric current sheet which appears to concentrate more towards the polar regions. At solar minima, the current-sheet is more oriented towards the equatorial. The plasma torus also seems more apparent in the equatorial at solar minima. The strength of the solar magnetic field is also a bit weaker during solar minima.
Some summaries from a few papers:-
"The magnetic field strength varies by a factor of two over the solar cycle, peaking near solar maximim. The direction of the Sun's magnetic dipole field changes every solar maximum. At solar minimum, the solar magnetic field is roughly dipolar and the current sheet is closely aligned with the solar equator, whereas at solar maximum the field is highly tilted and has strong non-dipolar components. The configuration of the solar wind also changes dramatically. At solar maximum, the solar wind speed is slow (400 km/s) with average densities of 7 cm(-3) at all heliolatitudes. At solar minimum , coronal holes, regions of open magnetic field lines, cover the solar poles and extend to low heliolatitudes. Solar plasma can flow out along these open field lines at high speeds, 700-800 km/s with densities of 3-3cm (-3). Near the equator the flow is slow and fast like the solar maximum solar wind. "
Source: "Heliophysical Processes", Heliophysical Processes (Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings) - Gopalswamy et al, 2010.
"At solar minimum, the Sun's coronal magnetic field was essentially dipolar and aligned parallel to the spin axis. As a result, the heliospheric current sheet was flat and had very little warp. Around solar maximum, the dipole was perpendicular to the spin axis, and the ratio of quadrupole to dipole strength was high for much of the time. This meant that the current sheet was tilted and highly warped, and reached up to high latitudes"
Source : "Observations of the Sun's magnetic field during the recent solar maximum", T R Sanderson et al, J. Geophys. Res 01/1035; 108.
"The structure of the heliospheric magnetic field changes substantially during the 11-year sunspot cycle. We have calculated its configuration for the period 1976–1982 by using a potential field model, continuing our earlier study near solar minimum in 1976–1977 (Hoeksema et al., 1982). In this paper we concentrate on the structure during the rising phase, maximum, and early decline of sunspot cycle 21, from 1978 to 1982. Early in this interval there are four warps in the current sheet (the boundary between interplanetary magnetic field toward and away from the sun) giving rise to a four-sector structure in the interplanetary magnetic field observed at earth. The location of the current sheet changes slowly and extends to a heliographic latitude of approximately 50°. Near maximum the structure is much more complex, with the current sheet extending nearly to the poles. Often there are multiple current sheets. As solar activity decreases, the structure simplifies until, in most of 1982, there is a single, simply shaped current sheet corresponding to a two-sector interplanetary magnetic field structure in the ecliptic plane."
Source: "The structure of the heliospheric current sheet: 1978–1982", J. Todd Hoeksema et al, 2012 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics.
The following is from a biography of Kristian Birkeland:-
"Once Birkeland was satisfied that electrons were streaming from the cathode, he flicked the switch beside the chamber and powered the electromagnet in the terella. Within seconds, a purple glow could be seen encircling Earth at the equator. As Birkeland increased the strength of the magnetic field around the Earth, the circle divided, and two circles began to move toward the poles. The audience fell silent as the two spiral rings of glowing phosphorescent light hovered around the poles of the Earth, eerie and magical."
Source: "The Northern Lights", Alfred a Knopf, NY, 2001.
I'm suggesting that the center picture is demonstrative of a weaker electromagnetic field and thus closer to the equivalent of a solar minima. The far left picture shows sunspots more densely concentrated in the equator and with notable circles of bright spots at both poles. Thus, this could represent solar maxima (with a stronger magnetic field applied to the terella). This is because at maxima, the electromagnet has more current applied to it and thus there are less likely to be "double-layer" holes nearer the poles where the current and field is strongest. Thus, the tufting concentrates more strongly into a thinner and thinner band away from both poles.
Now, what could lie behind the solar cycle?
Wal Thornhill writes:-
"In the Electric Universe model, the solar sunspot cycle is simply the result of varying the direct current (DC) input to a plasma discharge focused on the Sun. For a continuous current to flow there must be a circuit. Hannes Alfvén provided the circuit but misidentified the Sun as a generator in a local closed circuit instead of a load in a galactic circuit. Dr. D. Scott provided an electrical engineer's perspective of the Sun's magnetic field changes due to a changing input current.The simplicity is obvious. The reversal of the Sun's dipole field and sunspot order during the solar cycle is a natural result of a transformer action as the main current increases and decreases but never reverses. The solar cycle is to be expected since plasma circuits are notorious for their oscillatory tendency."
- Wal Thornhill, The Solar Cycle, Science's Looming 'Tipping Point', November 19, 2012
The thing is, Birkeland's "terella" showed solar cycle dynamics (in terms of changing ring-current distribution) that was instigated when he changed the strength of the terella magnetic field, not the strength of the current that was entering the cathode.
My suggestion is that rather than an anode-current (entering the sun at the pole) from the galaxy playing the main role in the solar cycle and wind - perhaps there could be a role for the Heliospheric Current Sheet? Basically, Birkeland's Terella was magnetized by an internal electro-magnet as well as having a cathode-current applied to it. Perhaps we should consider similar, but perhaps more complex dynamics for our Sun at the center of a dark-mode Birkeland "pinch". In his talk at EU 2013, Bob Johnson refers to some work by Hannes Alfven regarding the Heliospheric Current Sheet - and suggests that it may actually be driving the dynamics of the corona and the solar cycle itself via an alternating flow-direction in the cycle. Basically, the z-pinched Birkeland Current that the sun is influenced by; may bleed in current through the heliosheath and towards the sun at solar maxima and thus create a stronger and more complex solar magnetic field with a slower solar wind output (i.e. perhaps because the voltage hill may end up being modified and with less of a voltage gradient above the photosphere). At the other end of the solar cycle, the heliospheric current goes outward from the sun's equator (after entering the equatorial current-sheet indicated via coronal holes from the poles) back towards the heliosheath and thus the magnetic field becomes weaker overall (particularly at the poles) and the polar regions have a steeper voltage gradient with the surrounding plasma.
Thus, sunspot formation occurs at solar maxima via the inflow of the heliospheric current sheet, with this creating a region of higher voltage plasma above the Sun - particularly at the poles. This reduces the steepness of the voltage gradient and thus sunspots (double-layer holes?) are going to form further away from the poles. Sunspots are more numerous at the Sun during solar maxima because the general magnetic field of the Sun is stronger as a result of this extra current input. The stronger induced currents in the photosphere further away from the poles are going to affect the dynamics of the various double-layers and responses to the new voltages.
Naturally, it's more likely considerably more complex than this of course.
celeste
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
PersianPaladin, I think you may be right about the role of the Heliospheric Current Sheet. For sure the mainstream has noticed the correlation of solar cycle to motion around the solar system center of mass. That motion is not along the polar current flow, but as you say, through the current sheet. Now, I'll ask you to speculate here: Is it the sun's position in our filament that matters? Or, remembering that there is evidence that our filament is spiraling around another, (G-cloud thread), could it be our motion relative to the other filament that matters? It is motion in one direction across the current sheet that matters, so there must be some asymmetry. We know if we are in a filament, with current running along our polar axis, that the other filament must be (at it's closest point),right across the current sheet from us. If another filament is nearby, then our sun (as it spirals around the solar system center of mass), slips edge on towards and away from the electric and magnetic fields of the other filament. Could that be what matters?
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
celeste wrote: PersianPaladin, I think you may be right about the role of the Heliospheric Current Sheet. For sure the mainstream has noticed the correlation of solar cycle to motion around the solar system center of mass. That motion is not along the polar current flow, but as you say, through the current sheet. Now, I'll ask you to speculate here: Is it the sun's position in our filament that matters? Or, remembering that there is evidence that our filament is spiraling around another, (G-cloud thread), could it be our motion relative to the other filament that matters? It is motion in one direction across the current sheet that matters, so there must be some asymmetry. We know if we are in a filament, with current running along our polar axis, that the other filament must be (at it's closest point),right across the current sheet from us. If another filament is nearby, then our sun (as it spirals around the solar system center of mass), slips edge on towards and away from the electric and magnetic fields of the other filament. Could that be what matters?
That's an interesting speculation. Perhaps solar maxima arises from increased electromagnetic "pinching" that occurs along inter-section zones of two spiralling dark-mode currents that induces a larger amount of current within the heliosphere. There are many things we can speculate on, of course.
Thus far I think the evidence for the Anode Sun is still compelling, but there are some questions that just need some clarification.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
PersianPaladin wrote: 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."
OK, but you're just assuming that those filaments are formed by currents. If filaments form stars, and currents form filaments, then currents form stars. But the second "if" is unsupported.
PersianPaladin wrote: Given that plasma filamentation can form plasmoids via the Z-pinch process, then surely one doesn't need to invoke "nebular collapse".
Z-pinches in plasma require relativistic particle velocities. Then you might get nuclear fusion. But you're not going to get condensed matter, such as stars, planets, etc., or in a focus fusion laboratory, spherules or anything like that.
Furthermore, focus fusion uses a pulse to generate a plasmoid, as you note. Obviously, there is no such gargantuan pulse in star formation. But then you say that in star formation, it's a steady-state current, and that this produces the same effects as pulsed focus fusion. But this isn't correct. If it was, why would Lerner et al. bother with pulses?
PersianPaladin wrote: And Lloyd, I'm not sure why you bothered cutting and pasting reams of text from a very dishonest "debunker" in that NIAMI thread.
Our workgroup has the philosophy that all criticisms should be considered. If they're not legitimate, the reasoning should be shown, and that becomes part of the body of literature on the topic. The problem with off-hand dismissals is that the criticisms keep popping up. So we believe in full disclosure, and in formal treatments of all possibilities. This is the only way that we'll ever make any progress on any of these issues.
upriver
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
PersianPaladin wrote: 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."
OK, but you're just assuming that those filaments are formed by currents. If filaments form stars, and currents form filaments, then currents form stars. But the second "if" is unsupported.
PersianPaladin wrote: Given that plasma filamentation can form plasmoids via the Z-pinch process, then surely one doesn't need to invoke "nebular collapse".
Z-pinches in plasma require relativistic particle velocities. Then you might get nuclear fusion. But you're not going to get condensed matter, such as stars, planets, etc., or in a focus fusion laboratory, spherules or anything like that.
Furthermore, focus fusion uses a pulse to generate a plasmoid, as you note. Obviously, there is no such gargantuan pulse in star formation. But then you say that in star formation, it's a steady-state current, and that this produces the same effects as pulsed focus fusion. But this isn't correct. If it was, why would Lerner et al. bother with pulses?
PersianPaladin wrote: And Lloyd, I'm not sure why you bothered cutting and pasting reams of text from a very dishonest "debunker" in that NIAMI thread.
Our workgroup has the philosophy that all criticisms should be considered. If they're not legitimate, the reasoning should be shown, and that becomes part of the body of literature on the topic. The problem with off-hand dismissals is that the criticisms keep popping up. So we believe in full disclosure, and in formal treatments of all possibilities. This is the only way that we'll ever make any progress on any of these issues.
Excellent post and questions....
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
PersianPaladin wrote: 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."
OK, but you're just assuming that those filaments are formed by currents. If filaments form stars, and currents form filaments, then currents form stars. But the second "if" is unsupported.
PersianPaladin wrote: Given that plasma filamentation can form plasmoids via the Z-pinch process, then surely one doesn't need to invoke "nebular collapse".
Z-pinches in plasma require relativistic particle velocities. Then you might get nuclear fusion. But you're not going to get condensed matter, such as stars, planets, etc., or in a focus fusion laboratory, spherules or anything like that.
Furthermore, focus fusion uses a pulse to generate a plasmoid, as you note. Obviously, there is no such gargantuan pulse in star formation. But then you say that in star formation, it's a steady-state current, and that this produces the same effects as pulsed focus fusion. But this isn't correct. If it was, why would Lerner et al. bother with pulses?
PersianPaladin wrote: And Lloyd, I'm not sure why you bothered cutting and pasting reams of text from a very dishonest "debunker" in that NIAMI thread.
Our workgroup has the philosophy that all criticisms should be considered. If they're not legitimate, the reasoning should be shown, and that becomes part of the body of literature on the topic. The problem with off-hand dismissals is that the criticisms keep popping up. So we believe in full disclosure, and in formal treatments of all possibilities. This is the only way that we'll ever make any progress on any of these issues.
Are there no relativistic or near-relativistic electron velocities in these high-energy regions? How do you know?
Don't give me an "its a black hole or gravity" explanation. Synchrotron radiation (http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Cond ... on4_1.html), as you know is energy-loss from relativistic motion of electrons around a spiralling field path. The emissions of radiation are broad-spectrum. The same emissions can be found in galactic jets. Is there a plasmoid or a black hole at the center?
Now, your issue is trying to compare Eric Lerner's Focus Fusion plasmoid with that of those in space. In an earlier post, I made the argument that the plasmoids generated by the pinched-currents in space need not be anywhere near as dense as Lerner's DPF. However, the principle of formation is the same. Winston Bostick essentially made two plasma-guns facing each other and generated high-speed plasmoids that pinched and formed galactic structures.
Your argument of "matter condensation" is also tantamount to assuming that lightning cannot create glass out of sand. It can. But that's probably a diversionary argument. Marklund Convection is the proposed mechanism for sorting matter in the EU interpretation of things. So why not sort fused particles and dust (which lies in the path of the discharge) into hot chemically rich ionized gas which then cools off later?
From Don Scott's paper:-
When several different chemical elements are contained within such a region of compression, they do not mix homogeneously. Rather, they tend to distribute themselves radially according to their ionization potentials. This effect was studied by G.T. Marklund[5] and is now called Marklund convection. While discussing Marklund convection, Peratt[6] also says,
"The most abundant elements of cosmical plasma can be divided into groups of roughly equal ionization potentials as follows: He (24eV); H, O, N (13eV); C, S (11eV); and Fe, Si, Mg (8eV)…. These elements can be expected to form hollow cylinders whose radii increase with ionization potential. Helium will make up the most widely distributed outer layer; hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen should form the middle layers, while iron, silicon, and magnesium will make up the inner layers. Interlap between the layers can be expected and, for the case of galaxies, the metal-to-hydrogen ratio should be maximum near the center and decrease outwardly…. Mirabel and Morras[7] (1984) have detected the inflow of neutral hydrogen toward our own galaxy."
Any time charges are accelerated (as they are in the case of a Birkeland current) "synchrotron" electro-magnetic radiation at various frequencies occurs – typically from microwaves through hard x-rays. Thus, a Birkeland current performs a scavenging effect, gathering and concentrating whatever (neutral or ionized) elements it passes near. The result is analogous to a cosmic coaxial cable transmission line.
Plasmoids can be produced in the lab under much smaller quantities of electric current - such as in the silicon-wafer discharge experiments that have created "ball lightning". You can find those on Youtube.
I'm sure you are familiar with Perratt's work and his simulations? And of course, Eric Lerner's presentation on Google Tech Talks?
Of course, you can bring up potential objections about the bipolar nebula and galactic pinches as being essentially slow-motion explosive events. But thus far, it seems the most adequate theory.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
PersianPaladin wrote: Are there no relativistic or near-relativistic electron velocities in these high-energy regions?
I'm not saying that there cannot be relativistic particles in these regions. I'm saying that relativistic particles don't condense.
PersianPaladin wrote: If so...why have we measured synchrotron radiation at the heart of quasars?
That's caused by free electrons moving rapidly in a powerful magnetic field. That isn't condensed matter.
PersianPaladin wrote: Is there a plasmoid or a black hole at the center?
All that synchrotron radiation tells us is that 1) there is an electric field, to motivate the electrons to high velocities, and 2) there is also a magnetic field, whose lines of force are parallel to the electric field's. The source of the fields could be solid (such as the Earth) or some sort of plasmoid. I consider black holes to be plasmoids, where extremely rapid rotation has generated a "natural tokamak", and the magnetic fields will be intense.
PersianPaladin wrote: Winston Bostick essentially made two plasma-guns facing each other and generated high-speed plasmoids that pinched and formed galactic structures.
Did he created condensed matter? Or were the "structures" simply comprised of non-condensed higher-density plasma? I'm not questioning whether or not you can push ions together with magnetic fields. I'm questioning whether or not you can build molecules that way, which are necessarily neutral in charge, and low in temperature.
PersianPaladin wrote: Marklund Convection is the proposed mechanism for sorting matter in the EU interpretation of things. So why not sort fused particles and dust (which lies in the path of the discharge) into hot chemically rich ionized gas which then cools off later?
How are they going to cool off?
Scott's paper can be summed up as one big undistributed middle. Z-pinches can compress ionized matter, and the more ionized it is, the more compressed it gets. But ionized matter and condensed matter are mutually exclusive. To use an analogy, I might say that I had developed a new technique for manufacturing condensed matter. How am I going to do that? With high pressure. Sounds good enough. How do I generate the pressure? With heat inside a sealed enclosure. So I'm going to pump a bunch of gas that is ready to condense into a container, screw the lid on tightly, and then turn on the Bunsen burner. As the temperature increases, so does the pressure. But instead of creating a liquid from a gas, I actually create a plasma from a gas. If I let the thing cool back down, it will condense. Sure. But not because of the "pressure". It will condense because of the lack of heat. Similarly, you can increase the pressure on a plasma, if it's charged, and if you apply a powerful magnetic field. But that doesn't force condensation — it precludes it. To enable condensation, you have to remove the thing that you were doing that precluded it (i.e., heat and/or ionization). Either way, it cannot be the "pressure" (hydrostatic or magnetic) that causes the condensation. Only neutrally charged matter, with a full complement of electrons to balance the charges of the nuclei, and to form the covalent bonds, and in the absence of thermal energy more powerful than the covalent bonding, can condensation occur.
In short, fancy patterns of plasma discharges do not speak to star or galaxy formation, since the conditions are mutually exclusive.
PersianPaladin wrote: Of course, you can bring up potential objections about the bipolar nebula and galactic pinches as being essentially slow-motion explosive events. But thus far, it seems the most adequate theory.
Define "adequate".
Mind you, I am fully convinced that the Universe is electric. I "think" that I'm in the process of proving it, and with rigorous methods. My solar model continues to pass every test. I don't understand how EU proponents got so entrenched that they don't want to hear any new electric interpretations of the data that are far more accurate. But such appears to be the case. Ironically, that's precisely the sort of accusation we level at the mainstream — they've got a story and they're sticking to it, and it doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary we show them — they continue to refuse to consider any new ideas. Well, are we seeking a more accurate representation of the Universe, or are we just trying to prove that we can be just as stubborn and dogmatic as the mainstream? I'm starting to believe that some of the most avid EU advocates really don't believe that the Universe is electric at all. If they did, they wouldn't be scared to see it proved. Rather, they just want to believe something that's "out there", and for them, it will take the sheen off if it gets real. Too bad for them, because the Universe actually IS electric, and this whole thing is in the process of getting very real!!! So we're going to lose the sci-fi enthusiasts... bummer...
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
"... it is convenient to discuss separately the properties of weakly ionized gases, where the collisions of the charged particles with the neutral gas molecules are the most important, and those of highly ionized gases, where collisions between charged particles play a dominant role. It must then be observed that due to the large effective cross-section for collisions between charged particles, such collisions can be dominant even at a relatively low degree of ionization . Thus, as far as collision processes are concerned, plasmas with degrees of ionization larger than 1 per cent are to be considered as highly ionized." -
Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Falthämmar in Cosmical Electrodynamics (2nd Ed., 1963).
Any neutral particles in even a 1.2% ionized plasma cross-sectional region are going to be influenced by electro-magnetic forces, albeit indirectly. They thus become overwhelmed by the electrical and magnetic forces at work.
Anthony Perratt writes:-
"The degree of ionization in interplanetary space and in other cosmic plasmas may vary over a wide range, from fullγ ionized to degrees of ionizatίon of only a fractiοn of a percent. Even weakly ionized plasma reacts strongly to electromagnefic fields since the ratiο of the electromagnetic force to the gravitatiοnal force is 39 orders of magnitude. For example, although the solar photospheric plasma has a degree of ionization as low as 10^-4, the major part of the condensable components is still largely ionίzed. The "neutral" hydrogen (HI) regions around galaxies are also plasmas, although the degree of ionizationis only 10^-4."
- Physics of the Plasma Universe (1981).
Now, your contention that Marklund Convection only compresses ionized matter and that "ionized matter and condensed matter are mutually exclusive" is somewhat of a misnomer. Perratt says:-
"When a plasma is only partially ionized, the electromagnetic forces act on the non-ionized components only indirectly through the viscosity between the ionized and non-ionized constituents. [..] This mechanism provides a very efficient convection process for the accumulation of matter from plasma".
Thus, even the neutral (although we should really call them quasi-neutral plasma components) elements within the plasma cloud are dominated by the plasma processes.
And of course, further ionization can take place:-
" If both a plasma and a neutral gas are so thin that collisional momentum exchange is negligible, one would expect them to move through each other without appreciable interaction. That this need not be so was suggested by Alfven (1942) .. He introduced the hypothesis that if the relative velocity exceeds a certain critical value, a strong interactίοn and rapid ionization of the neutral gas would take place. [..] Nevertheless, the hypothesis was confirmed later in a lαboratοry experiment [Fahleson 1961] . For many yeas it remained a mystery, but experiments have now clarified the phenomenon at least in general terms. What is inνοlνed is an instability that transfers energy from ions to electrons, so that theγ become capable of ionizing"
Now, Marklund wrote that the matter in a Birkeland Current is sorted according to their ionization potential. The elements with the LOWEST ionization potential are brought closest to the axis of the current column. The convectional process via the viscosity layer between ionized and non-ionized matter referred to by Perratt et al, was expanded on in Marklund's paper. The elements brought to the axis are usually the heaviest elements. The intense heat and magnetic pressure in pinches is more than enough to create solid accretion of matter in dusty clouds, particularly when the discharge quenches. Experiments by plasma physicist C.J. Ransom, for example - found that "martian blueberries" can be formed in the lab when certain electrical discharges strike layers of hematite and compress them into balls. Plasmoids seem to form in interstellar clouds in the densest parts of plasma filaments surrounded by dust, and this filamentary form of star formation does seem to be the important method (as the mainstream keeps finding, albeit erroneously attributing to "sonic booms"). Once the discharge quenches the plasmoid may scatter or become cometary and perhaps start fissioning or ejecting matter which enters into a region of lower current-density. This can possibly account for binary and triple star systems as well. The ejection of plasmoids from a cosmic electric discharge was also alluded to by Halton Arp when he found out that Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN's) had a strong relationship (in terms of energy and brightness contours) to that of Quasars - as well as apparent visual connections that back up the statistical relationship. Active Galactic Nuclei may well be particularly electrically-stressed plasmoids. Now - the implications of this is that bright QSO's (quasar stellar objects) forming as a result of plasma fissioning should not preclude the likelihood of star-formation or even planetary formation via similar electrical processes.
Indeed, Arp suggested that quasars eventually form into galaxies - with star-formation also potentially occuring. This fits in with Perrat's galactic simulations via the interaction of Birkeland Currents.
Now, back to the predictions of Marklund and Perratt and Alfven's "critical ionization velocity" regarding the sorting of matter in field-aligned currents:-
"Observations of neutral hydrogen (HI) emission profiles produced by gas in the local interstellar medium are found to be characterized by four linewidth regimes. Dominant and pervasive features have widths on average of 5.2, 13, and 31 km/s and a very broad component approximately 50 km/s wide. A striking coincidence exists between these linewidths and the magnitudes of the critical ionization velocities of the most abundant atomic species in interstellar space: 6 km/s for sodium and calcium, 13 km/s for carbon, oxygen and nitrogen, 34 km/s for helium, and 51 km/s for hydrogen. The data relate to observations near neutral hydrogen structures that are filamentary." http://www.plasmauniverse.info/download ... .TPS00.pdf
Why is this significant? If the CIV is found with such a width-profile in galaxies then we aren't merely talking about mainly gravito-centric processes orbiting the center of galaxies.
Regarding star-formation, we have this 2011 presentation by the European Space Agency. I am sure Alfven' and EU proponents in general, would find a lot of problems with the appeals to Magnetohydrodynamic processes and gravity-dependent fluid-dynamic processes that are used: -
Instead, voltage differences in a plasma and double-layers are likely to be dominant. Astrophysicists with their MHD and gravito-accretion models ignored Alfven's appeals to consider double-layers as a unique stellar object back in the 80's. While Alfven did push for a certain gravito-influenced star formation model earlier, in his latter days he became less certain and was more open to EM forces as being dominant.
"There is a general belief that stars are forming by gravitational collapse; in spite of vigorous efforts no one has yet found any observational indication of confirmation. Thus the 'generally accepted' theory of stellar formation may be one of a hundred unsupported dogmas which constitute a large part of present-day astrophysics." - Hannes Alfvén
Of course, gravitation could have a role in these plasma filamentary clouds where star formation is being observed - but this is via the process of "gravito-electrodynamics" that applies to plasmas and which EU proponents recognise:- http://www.plasma-universe.com/Gravito-electrodynamics
Not the traditional view of stellar accretion and the language of fluid-dynamics and "neutral" gases. And you know the funny thing that Anthony Perratt pointed out a few years back? He said that the astrophysicists who were developing "accretion-disc models" were constantly failing to get results without using the same electrodynamic plasma functions and models that Perratt had used at Los Alamos Labs. And of course now - we see astronomers becoming "surprised" when we see star formation confined to consistent-width plasma filaments with the strongest star formation at intersectional regions. Precisely the prediction of EU, which shows that the densest proximity of current sheaths creates a focus of energy via the pinch-mechanism. The radio-wave emitting filaments of "dark matter" also seem to form galaxies at the densest intersectional regions of filaments. Coincidence? No. This has also been predicted. Of course, the Bennett Pinch is ignored by mainstreamers. Too bad!
Just to add this clarification from Marklund, regarding ionization and neutralization :-
"In my paper in Nature the plasma convects radially inwards, with the normal E x B/B2 velocity, towards the center of a cylindrical flux tube. During this convection inwards, the different chemical constituents of the plasma, each having its specific ionization potential, enter into a progressively cooler region. The plasma constituents will recombine and become neutral, and thus no longer under the influence of the electromagnetic forcing. The ionization potentials will thus determine where the different species will be deposited, or stopped in their motion."
Bob and Jim Johnson's "Essential Guide to the EU" has this to say:-
Plasmas often contain a high proportion of charged dust grains, which will also be drawn into the filament. Viscous drag between the charged particles and neutral atoms will tend to draw the neutral atoms towards the filament as well.
Therefore, current filaments in space will tend accumulate matter in them as a result of the misalignment of the electric field causing the current and the total magnetic field.
Remembering that pinches can occur if any misalignment of I and B occurs, any matter that has been drawn into the filament will also be compressed if a misalignment of I and B occurs. If the pinch force is large enough, it can fragment the filament into discrete spherical or toroidal plasmoids along the axis of the current. Any matter in the pinch zone would then become compressed into the same form.
Because the electromechanical forces are vastly stronger than gravity, this mechanism offers a means by which diffuse matter can be accumulated and compressed in a much more efficient way than gravitational compression of diffuse clouds of fine dust particles.
Of course, once the matter has been sufficiently compressed and if it is neutralized by recombination of ions and electrons, then the electromagnetic forces may be reduced to the point that gravity becomes significant and continues the compression started by the electromagnetic forces.
First of all, I'd like to thank you for raising the level of scholarship on this topic. You have presented more real information on this than I have ever seen in one place. My compliments.
Second, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'd like to reiterate that we need a central place to put high-quality articles on various topics such as these, instead of the material being scattered through miscellaneous threads, with bits and pieces to be found on a variety of different websites. I might not agree with all of your points, but I maintain that all of the arguments should be laid out for all to see. Maybe I'd change my mind on one or more issues if I ever heard anything more than stubborn argumentativeness. Perhaps others outside of our community feel the same way. So this is what I'm trying to do with my site, and I pasted a copy of your post into the following category:
Third, I totally agree that it doesn't have to be pure plasma in order to be strongly influenced by EM forces. In my paper on tornadoes, I demonstrate that 1 charged particle in 100 million is sufficient to alter the fluid dynamic properties of the air. By atmospheric standards, 1 charged particle in 1 million is considered an extremely strong charge. And indeed, the external EM forces act just on the charged particles, but these collide with neutral particles, transferring the force. By extension, I agree in principle that z-pinches can consolidate matter. But I also found that the parts of a tornadic storm where 1 part in 1 million were charged were where condensation refused to form. So even though the temperature, pressure, and humidity would allow it, the slight degree of ionization prevented the formation of aerosols or ice crystals from water vapor. This, of course, doesn't necessarily generalize to space plasmas, and the sorts of qualitative statements being made here will never constitute proof one way or another. But I did want to say that you start out with at least a possibility.
Nevertheless, I still see enough problems in the z-pinch star formation hypothesis to consider it to be implausible.
Perratt wrote: This mechanism provides a very efficient convection process for the accumulation of matter from plasma.
The compression of matter raises the temperature, precisely by the compression ratio. The increased heat decreases the chance of condensation. If the pressure is relaxed, the matter disperses due to hydrostatic pressure. To create condensed matter with pressure, you also need a heat sink. My calculations show that the compression ratio, from the density of a typical dusty plasma, to the density of a star, is 1019. Where are you going to sink that much heat in a z-pinch?
PersianPaladin wrote: Now, Marklund wrote that the matter in a Birkeland Current is sorted according to their ionization potential. The elements with the LOWEST ionization potential are brought closest to the axis of the current column.
The elements with the lowest ionization potential are the easiest to ionize, and thus they become more ionized, and more subject to magnetic pressure. Since the electrons in the outer shells of heavier elements are not bound as tightly to the nucleus, they are easier to strip off. In other words, the ionization potential is lower. This is why Marklund convection sorts the heavy elements to the inside, and light elements to the outside.
PersianPaladin wrote: The intense heat and magnetic pressure in pinches is more than enough to create solid accretion of matter in dusty clouds, particularly when the discharge quenches.
Heat does not create solid accretion — it discourages it. If the pressure is relaxed, the matter doesn't cool first, and condense because it has cooled. Rather, it expands because it is hot, and cools only as a direct function of the expansion ratio. Once separated from other particles, the cooler particles are no closer to condensing than before they were compressed.
PersianPaladin wrote: Experiments by plasma physicist C.J. Ransom, for example - found that "martian blueberries" can be formed in the lab when certain electrical discharges strike layers of hematite and compress them into balls.
This isn't a z-pinch effect. It's just slag from an arc discharge forming into spherules after splattering out of the arc footpoint. You can create "blueberries" with an acetylene torch taken to a chunk of soft steel the same way, for the same reasons.
PersianPaladin wrote: Plasmoids seem to form in interstellar clouds in the densest parts of plasma filaments surrounded by dust, and this filamentary form of star formation does seem to be the important method (as the mainstream keeps finding, albeit erroneously attributing to "sonic booms").
I agree that shock waves don't cause the collapse of dusty plasmas, and I agree that filaments are important in star formation. But I'm not convinced that filaments are z-pinches.
Note that the way some people are conceptualizing filaments isn't terribly useful. For example, when Don Scott says, "Thus, a Birkeland current performs a scavenging effect, gathering and concentrating whatever (neutral or ionized) elements it passes near. The result is analogous to a cosmic coaxial cable transmission line," I don't understand the "analogy". It seems that a lot of people think of cosmic filaments as electrical extension cords that pump power into galaxies, stars, & planets. What's wrong with that analogy is that it conjures up an image of the extension cord (i.e., plasma filament) just sitting there, with the current passing through it. And then the z-pinch consolidates the matter, perhaps making it an even better extension cord. This just isn't correct. Arc discharges passing through stationary gases or plasmas evacuate the discharge channels. In other words, they drill holes through the matter. Extremely violent particle collisions result in extreme temperatures, and the ions are dispersed, leaving the electrons free to flow through the hollow tube that they created for themselves. So no, cosmic filaments are not extension cords.
In order to get condensed matter from a z-pinch, the first prerequisite would be that both the ions and the electrons be traveling in the same direction, at the same speed, so the electrons will assist in molecule building, instead of smashing them to the 4 winds in relativistic collisions. Marklund convection only occurs in plasma jets that satisfy these requirements. With that in mind, we have to start thinking about a way of accelerating a quasi-neutral plasma jet to a relativistic speed, without heating it (since that would discourage condensation). That's going to be tough to do. And then, we have to clear out a path for this relativistic jet through intergalactic space, so that it doesn't encounter stationary particles and get heated to millions of degrees by the relativistic collisions. But if we could do that, then we "might" have some relativistic stars and planets zipping through space. These will last until they run into something, at which time all of their thermonuclear potential will be released. So, are you saying that all filaments, and the condensations thereof, are relativistic?
PersianPaladin wrote: Once the discharge quenches the plasmoid may scatter or become cometary and perhaps start fissioning or ejecting matter which enters into a region of lower current-density.
This is the kind of terminology that makes me suspect that you're thinking of an electric current passing through stationary matter, which isn't going to condense anything at all.
PersianPaladin wrote: The ejection of plasmoids from a cosmic electric discharge was also alluded to by Halton Arp when he found out that Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN's) had a strong relationship (in terms of energy and brightness contours) to that of Quasars - as well as apparent visual connections that back up the statistical relationship. Active Galactic Nuclei may well be particularly electrically-stressed plasmoids. Now - the implications of this is that bright QSO's (quasar stellar objects) forming as a result of plasma fissioning should not preclude the likelihood of star-formation or even planetary formation via similar electrical processes.
I "think" that this is Thornhill's "AGN plasma gun" idea. Arp was the first to associate quasars of high redshift with galaxies of lower redshifts, and he suggested that the quasars had been ejected from the AGNs. I don't think he ever talked about a "plasma gun", but you could quote him if you know where he said this. I believe that quasars are just stars in elliptical orbits around the galactic centers, and the ones moving away from us have high redshifts. But I don't believe that there is any "plasma gun" anywhere in there, nor have I seen a schematic detailing the physical forces involved.
PersianPaladin wrote: Indeed, Arp suggested that quasars eventually form into galaxies - with star-formation also potentially occurring.
I think that Arp was just following tradition with this. When first discovered, quasars were thought to be galaxies, due to the brightness (assuming that they were extremely far away, by interpreting the redshift within the Big Bang theory). Better telescopes revealed other stars in the vicinity, and quasars got demoted to AGNs. Then Arp said that he found quasars away from the galactic centers, challenging even the AGN status. I think that this was a battle he simply didn't care to fight, so he called the wayward quasars "proto-galaxies". But neither he nor anyone else has laid out a schematic for what a quasar actually is, nor for how it would spawn a whole new galaxy. So I'd call this stuff pure extrapolation.
PersianPaladin wrote: This fits in with Perrat's galactic simulations via the interaction of Birkeland Currents.
Computer simulations don't prove anything. (I'm a computer programmer.)
PersianPaladin wrote: The [ionization] data relate to observations near neutral hydrogen structures that are filamentary.
There are other possible explanations for ionization in filaments, such as UV radiation from a nearby supernova. This doesn't prove the presence of currents.
PersianPaladin wrote: Why is this significant? If the CIV is found with such a width-profile in galaxies then we aren't merely talking about mainly gravito-centric processes orbiting the center of galaxies.
Nowhere in my work is gravity the dominant force. I'm even starting to think that it isn't responsible for the orbits of the planets around the Sun. So I think that we agree here.
PersianPaladin wrote: Astrophysicists with their MHD and gravito-accretion models ignored Alfven's appeals to consider double-layers as a unique stellar object back in the 80's.
I totally agree that this is where the mainstream went wrong.
PersianPaladin wrote: Of course, gravitation could have a role in these plasma filamentary clouds where star formation is being observed...
Gravity "appears" to account for something like 1/5 to 1/20 of the force required for the collapse of a dusty plasma.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote: Third, I totally agree that it doesn't have to be pure plasma in order to be strongly influenced by EM forces. In my paper on tornadoes, I demonstrate that 1 charged particle in 100 million is sufficient to alter the fluid dynamic properties of the air. By atmospheric standards, 1 charged particle in 1 million is considered an extremely strong charge. And indeed, the external EM forces act just on the charged particles, but these collide with neutral particles, transferring the force. By extension, I agree in principle that z-pinches can consolidate matter. But I also found that the parts of a tornadic storm where 1 part in 1 million were charged were where condensation refused to form. So even though the temperature, pressure, and humidity would allow it, the slight degree of ionization prevented the formation of aerosols or ice crystals from water vapor. This, of course, doesn't necessarily generalize to space plasmas, and the sorts of qualitative statements being made here will never constitute proof one way or another. But I did want to say that you start out with at least a possibility.
I do agree though, there is quite a bit of uncertainty in this atmospheric field and it would probably be rash to draw too quick to conclusions.
CharlesChandler wrote: The compression of matter raises the temperature, precisely by the compression ratio. The increased heat decreases the chance of condensation. If the pressure is relaxed, the matter disperses due to hydrostatic pressure. To create condensed matter with pressure, you also need a heat sink. My calculations show that the compression ratio, from the density of a typical dusty plasma, to the density of a star, is 1019. Where are you going to sink that much heat in a z-pinch?
Can you post your paper or your calculations? You raise a valid point about compression - but what I am about to talk about is experimental rather than theoretical assumptions.
CharlesChandler wrote: The elements with the lowest ionization potential are the easiest to ionize, and thus they become more ionized, and more subject to magnetic pressure. Since the electrons in the outer shells of heavier elements are not bound as tightly to the nucleus, they are easier to strip off. In other words, the ionization potential is lower. This is why Marklund convection sorts the heavy elements to the inside, and light elements to the outside.
Indeed. I agree.
CharlesChandler wrote: Heat does not create solid accretion — it discourages it. If the pressure is relaxed, the matter doesn't cool first, and condense because it has cooled. Rather, it expands because it is hot, and cools only as a direct function of the expansion ratio. Once separated from other particles, the cooler particles are no closer to condensing than before they were compressed.
Precisely. What I meant that the magnetic pressure is an important factor in accretion. The high particle velocity, B field and heat combined with the current is important for fusing particles together. Hence why lightning can create glass from sand. And of course, the solid occurs because the heat is suddenly expunged once the discharge quenches and thus we have a rapid cooling. Marklund did explain that particles enter into a progressively cooler (and denser) axial-current region as part of radial separation.
CharlesChandler wrote: This isn't a z-pinch effect. It's just slag from an arc discharge forming into spherules after splattering out of the arc footpoint. You can create "blueberries" with an acetylene torch taken to a chunk of soft steel the same way, for the same reasons.
They describe the creation of hematite spheres from hematite dust, as well as other material. The spherical layering, distinct equatorial and pole features (equatorial bulges, smooth/rough hemispheric differences), solid cores, hollow cores, fused pairs, fused multiples, flat-plane hemispheres, spherules forming in crown-like features around craters, etc. Of course, in some conditions - no spheres were created, and fulgurites were created in the lab instead. The magnetic-pinch is referred to in the paper.
CharlesChandler wrote: I agree that shock waves don't cause the collapse of dusty plasmas, and I agree that filaments are important in star formation. But I'm not convinced that filaments are z-pinches.
Note that the way some people are conceptualizing filaments isn't terribly useful. For example, when Don Scott says, "Thus, a Birkeland current performs a scavenging effect, gathering and concentrating whatever (neutral or ionized) elements it passes near. The result is analogous to a cosmic coaxial cable transmission line," I don't understand the "analogy". It seems that a lot of people think of cosmic filaments as electrical extension cords that pump power into galaxies, stars, & planets. What's wrong with that analogy is that it conjures up an image of the extension cord (i.e., plasma filament) just sitting there, with the current passing through it. And then the z-pinch consolidates the matter, perhaps making it an even better extension cord. This just isn't correct. Arc discharges passing through stationary gases or plasmas evacuate the discharge channels. In other words, they drill holes through the matter. Extremely violent particle collisions result in extreme temperatures, and the ions are dispersed, leaving the electrons free to flow through the hollow tube that they created for themselves. So no, cosmic filaments are not extension cords.
Yes, I think the extension chord analogy obviously breaks down at some point. This is because we know that auroral Birkeland Currents are dynamic and they're obviously not stationary. We also have evidence (admitted by NASA) that "electric tornadoes" pump charged particles into the ionosphere that effectively help power the auroras. We do have evidence of field-aligned currents in interstellar clouds via observations of their morphology, and Don Scott did a great presentation not long ago on the merging of interstellar and intergalactic currents that "pinch" in certain intersectional regions and hence why the plasmoidgalactic center forms and can even become active. Again, the EM radiation can be explained via current-carrying DL's rather than "dark matter" or other mysterious forces or MHD based "Hall fields". Of course, the nature of plasma quasi-neutrality means that the filamentary discharges are not permanent and are in effect going to be be re-organised, disseapear or re-emerge with various Debye lengths as high-voltage plasmoids move (quasi-neutral plasma can only hold significant voltages in relatively small regions - hence the filamentary nature of the cosmos).
CharlesChandler wrote: In order to get condensed matter from a z-pinch, the first prerequisite would be that both the ions and the electrons be traveling in the same direction, at the same speed, so the electrons will assist in molecule building, instead of smashing them to the 4 winds in relativistic collisions. Marklund convection only occurs in plasma jets that satisfy these requirements. With that in mind, we have to start thinking about a way of accelerating a quasi-neutral plasma jet to a relativistic speed, without heating it (since that would discourage condensation). That's going to be tough to do. And then, we have to clear out a path for this relativistic jet through intergalactic space, so that it doesn't encounter stationary particles and get heated to millions of degrees by the relativistic collisions. But if we could do that, then we "might" have some relativistic stars and planets zipping through space. These will last until they run into something, at which time all of their thermonuclear potential will be released. So, are you saying that all filaments, and the condensations thereof, are relativistic?
There are quite a few assumptions there and I'm not sure if they are correct to be honest. It will take some time for me to clarify some of the claims. I'd have to get back to you on that.
CharlesChandler wrote: This is the kind of terminology that makes me suspect that you're thinking of an electric current passing through stationary matter, which isn't going to condense anything at all.
Why assume that?
CharlesChandler wrote: I "think" that this is Thornhill's "AGN plasma gun" idea. Arp was the first to associate quasars of high redshift with galaxies of lower redshifts, and he suggested that the quasars had been ejected from the AGNs. I don't think he ever talked about a "plasma gun", but you could quote him if you know where he said this. I believe that quasars are just stars in elliptical orbits around the galactic centers, and the ones moving away from us have high redshifts. But I don't believe that there is any "plasma gun" anywhere in there, nor have I seen a schematic detailing the physical forces involved.
I refer you to this piece by Arp, and I will selectively quote an excerpt:-
"Plasmoids ejected from an active nucleus can fragment or ablate during passage through galactic and intergalactic medium which results in the forming of groups and clusters of proto galaxies. The most difficult result for astronomers to accept is galaxy clusters which have intrinsic redshifts. Yet the association of clusters with lower redshift parents is demonstrated in Arp and Russell, 20011. Individual cases of strong X-ray clusters are exemplified by elongations and connections as shown in the ejecting galaxy Arp220, in Abell 3667 and from NGC 720 (again, summarized in Arp, 20034). Motion is confirmed by bow shocks and elongation is interpreted as ablation trails. In short — if a quasar evolves into a galaxy, a broken up quasar evolves into a group of galaxies." http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/from_ ... ue_pacific
The connection between AGN's and quantized QSO redshifts is convincingly argued by Arp as demonstrative of intrinsic redshift as a result of changing electron mass. But I won't get into the details here.
True, but Perratt's work can't simply be dismissed simply because it's a computer simulation that used EM principles applied to interacting current-pairs over time. Winston Bostick also got galactic structure from a similar process, albeit in the laboratory.
CharlesChandler wrote: There are other possible explanations for ionization in filaments, such as UV radiation from a nearby supernova. This doesn't prove the presence of currents.
Yes, but these alternate explanations fall short - just as gravity falls short for galactic morphology, velocity profiles and EM radiation. Hence the creation of dark matter, dark energy and black holes.
The existence of magnetic fields in galaxies has been known about for some time, albeit the process and origin of their formation has never really been claimed to be understood. The fact that magnetic fields run mostly parrallel to the optical massive spiral arms in some galaxies is also poorly understood by the mainstream. Even in galaxies which lack any optical spiral structure, the magnetic field still forms the characteristic spiral structure.
The mainstream scientists claim that the earliest galaxies probably obtained their magnetism from energetic jets produced by black holes or ejection of matter from the first stars that formed as a result of gravitational collapse. However, in order to sustain the fields in today's galaxies – some mechanism needs to be in-place.
They claim that, in many galaxies, a "dynamo" process transfers mechanical energy into the magnetic energy that is observed. For this, they claim that the turbulent and fluid movement of gas in the galaxy can generate large-scale fields that are sustained. But does plasma really behave in such a way?
Astronomers assume that gas turbulence from supernovas, star formation, and magnetic energy transference via differential galactic rotation play a role in determining the magnetic profile of galaxies. But still, these cannot account for all that is observed.
As this article states, the mainstream has to opine to some archaic past event to explain them:-
Alfven and Perratt have offered solutions to such an apparent mystery.
CharlesChandler wrote: Nowhere in my work is gravity the dominant force. I'm even starting to think that it isn't responsible for the orbits of the planets around the Sun. So I think that we agree here.
Same here.
kiwi
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote: Nowhere in my work is gravity the dominant force. I'm even starting to think that it isn't responsible for the orbits of the planets around the Sun. So I think that we agree here.
What did Gauss do, which other astronomers and mathematicians of his time did not, and which led those others to make wildly erroneous forecasts on the path of the new planet? Perhaps we shall have to consult Gauss's great teacher, Johannes Kepler, to give us some clues to this mystery. Gauss first of all adopted Kepler's crucial hypothesis, that the motion of a celestial object is determined solely by its orbit, according to the intelligible principles Kepler demonstrated to govern all known motions in the solar system. In the Keplerian determination of orbital motion, no information is required concerning mass, velocity, or any other details of the orbiting object itself. Moreover, as Gauss demonstrated, and as we shall rediscover for ourselves, the orbit and the orbital motion in its totality, can be adduced from nothing more than the internal "curvature" of any portion of the orbit, however small. Think this over carefully. Here, the science of Kepler, Gauss, and Riemann distinguishes itself absolutely from that of Galileo, Newton, Laplace, et al. Orbits and changes of orbit (which in turn are subsumed by higherorder orbits) are ontologically primary. The relation of the Keplerian orbit, as a relatively "timeless" existence, to the array of successive positions of the orbiting body, is like that of an hypothesis to its array of theorems.------ From this standpoint, we can say it is the orbit which "moves" the planet, not the planet which creates the orbit by its motion! -------
Great post by Kiwi. Makes me feel more confortable with my idea that orbits may have little to do with mass, and that mass of planets is deduced based on Newtonian gravitational orbits. But there isn't really any way to determine the mass of a planet or star, it's not like we can weigh them... just a thought...
I like the idea of a sun with a liquid or solid core, because the sun spots are dark.
I'm starting to believe that some of the most avid EU advocates really don't believe that the Universe is electric at all. If they did, they wouldn't be scared to see it proved. Rather, they just want to believe something that's "out there", and for them, it will take the sheen off if it gets real. Too bad for them, because the Universe actually IS electric, and this whole thing is in the process of getting very real!!!
