Lloyd wrote: The Anode models don't seem to specify what generates the interstellar or intergalactic electric currents,
nick c wrote: PLASMA!
Yes, but what is the electromotive force? In other words, what got the plasma moving? Or to put it another way, if I asked you what causes electric currents in copper wires, you might say "electrons", but the answer that I was looking for was "electrostatic potentials". So what creates the E-fields that motivate plasma drifts? There has to be a charge separation mechanism in there somewhere, and that's what we're questioning.
nick c
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Yes, but what is the electromotive force? In other words, what got the plasma moving?
Well everything (plasma or otherwise) is in motion. Show me something that is not in motion.
CharlesChandler
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Yes, but the electric force is the most powerful force in the Universe at the macroscopic level. The implication is that charge separations don't just happen — they need a reason. Sustained galactic currents, everywhere in the Universe, would take a Really Big Reason. Otherwise, the opposite charges would have recombined a long time ago, and the Universe at the macroscopic level would be purely Newtonian. Obviously it is not, and we all know that the only other forces present are magnetic and electric, so we're looking at those. But those two forces, combined with gravity and momentum, present a number of possibilities. Sorting it all out takes looking carefully at the actual nature of the forces, and at the data we're collecting. EM is capable of a lot of different configurations, but that doesn't mean that all of our first thoughts are correct. As Rupert Sheldrake would say, we need to refrain from dogmatism — even our own!!!
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Nick said: [Regarding the statement: The Anode models don't seem to specify what generates the interstellar or intergalactic electric currents,] I do not understand why this keeps cropping up, is not the answer obvious from the basics of the Electric Universe model? PLASMA! Everywhere we look in the cosmos there is plasma: stars, interplanetary space, interstellar space, intergalactic space... These plasmas are moving, and as such they generate electric currents and magnetic fields. There are plasmas moving inside of larger plasma structures which in turn are moving inside of even larger plasma structures creating an intricate web of electric currents and magnetic fields. Take it from there...
Nick, don't you want to know exactly how the electric currents are generated? Birkeland thought the Sun is a cathode. When he rigged it like an anode it didn't resemble the Sun so much. When he rigged it as a cathode, it resembled the Sun much better. It produced a wind of positive and negative charge much like the solar wind, while the anode model did not. Monty's experiment needs to test the cathode model as well as the anode model, don't you agree?
Why does the EU team favor the anode model? Apparently, because Peratt thought the filaments in space were electric currents.
But Charles provides reasons to think that the filaments are not currents, since such currents should light up the entire sky all night and be brighter than the stars and planets (if I understood him right). And Bridgman's relevant calculations seem to be correct that the current necessary to power the Sun would be tremendously bright before reaching the surface and so it should be very visible and would be obviously (electrons) flowing inward, instead of outward, as is observed instead. If the current to the Sun were not strong, it would not be able to produce the Sun's radiation.
The filaments and galaxies are held together by EM forces (in opposition to rotational centrifugal forces), but not in the form of electric currents, for the most part. (See http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5941.)
Until Thornhill, Scott or any other Anode Sun theorist can show in detail how their model can work and why Charles' Cathode Sun model is wrong, I have to go with Charles' model. It seems to explain nearly every feature of astronomy and even geology.
Debate Over a year ago there was hope for a big debate around here to test the EU model. Why don't you ask the team to debate Charles, Michael and Brant? I don't know if those guys might be ready for a debate or not, but I'd sure like to see a good debate. I bet it would be a lot more informative than the one with Nereid would have been.
P.S., Nick also said: [Regarding the statement: Yes, but what is the electromotive force? In other words, what got the plasma moving?] Well everything (plasma or otherwise) is in motion. Show me something that is not in motion.
I haven't read anyone say how electric currents got everything into the presently observed motions of the universe, nor how electric currents formed in the first place. Have you? On the other hand, Charles' material gives a fairly clear explanation of how a combination of EM and other forces resulted in the presently observed universe. We shouldn't settle for unclear mechanisms, if we don't have to.
Lloyd wrote: 1. solar convection being 20 to 100 times weaker than predicted;
This doesn't explicitly support the anode model. It just says that the standard model is in deep trouble.
BTW, my model has supercritical fluids all of the way up to 4 Mm below the surface, and these can conduct heat far better than gases or plasmas. Robitaille's continuing work on the graphite-like crystal structure of supercritical hydrogen suggests that the thermal conductivity should be high. This means that the heat source 120 Mm below the surface (i.e., arc discharges), which is responsible for the supergranules, loses more of its heat to conduction than to (supergranular) convection. This is significant because a heat source 120 Mm below the surface in the absence of conduction would surely produce far more convection than we actually see. The only way to sort it all out is to have a submerged heat source and a lot of thermal conduction. So this isn't a problem for my model, despite the fact that some of the heat is coming from 120 Mm below the surface.
Lloyd wrote: 2. stars are seen forming in electric current filaments tens of lightyears long but all of the same width, 1/3 ly, just like lightning channels have the same width for the length of the lightning bolt;
Saying that the filaments are formed by electric currents is an unsupported assertion. Calling attention to the consistency of a lightning channel is cherry picking. Red sprites are electrostatic discharges in an environment far more similar to the filaments in question (i.e., lower density plasma), and they don't have consistent widths at all. So the widths of discharge channels are not intrinsically fixed, making the analogy an undistributed middle.
To be clear, I do consider the fixed-width filaments to be telling... of something, and it's not hydrostatic or gravitational, which means that it has to be electromagnetic. But that doesn't constitute proof of electrodynamics.
Lloyd wrote: 3. stars flicker because of varying current supply;
The luminosity of a volcanic eruption could be said to flicker, but that doesn't prove that the source of the luminosity is electrodynamic.
Lloyd wrote: 4. pinched nebulae are in z-pinches from electric current, like red square nebula
The red square nebula has me totally stumped. But Thornhill's "explanation" was entirely comprised of unsupported assertions. "These here are pinched currents, and the regular spacing is from double-layers." OK, how did he arrive at those conclusions?
Lloyd wrote: 5. Sgr A is a plasma focus plasmoid
This is another superficial similarity being presented as an "explanation".
Lloyd wrote: 6. plasmoids form in space at the junction of a beam of electrons and a beam of ions
Where are the electron and ion beams? Without those, he doesn't even have a superficial similarity.
Lloyd wrote: Couldn't a plasmoid form like that just before compressive ionization?
There are a lot of different configurations of plasmoids, so this is a tough question to answer. But the only fully physical set of circumstances that would produce CI would be the momentum in an imploding dusty plasma.
Lloyd wrote: 7. the plasma ring around the sun's equator can become unstable and discharge to the sun, causing sunspots
What type of discharge from above would make the footpoint cooler, in the way that sunspots are cooler than the surrounding photosphere?
So here's my whole objection to the EU: every assertion is just a first-blush interpretation within a new paradigm. Now, in all due fairness, in the progress of science, the hardest part is conceiving a new way of looking at things, and gaining the ability to see it everywhere. So they're the pioneers, not me. But I'm trying to develop this territory, and I'm wondering why the pioneers don't want to hear about more detailed surveys that prove that they had the right general idea. The Universe is definitely Electric, but not the way the EU initially conceived it. OK, so what? Does that make me a bad person?
Here I should like to point out that Thornhill showed a diagram of Hannes Alfven's concept of the solar circuit, which laid the foundation for Don Scott's solar model. But for Alfven, the Sun was a generator, while for Scott, it's a motor. So here's a petty little EE disagreeing with a Nobel laureate. Oooooooooo... But the fact of the matter is that if you look carefully at the works of Birkeland, Bruce, Juergens, Alfven, Langmuir, Thornhill, and Scott, you'll find that all of them disagree on various points. If they didn't, we wouldn't be talking about the works of all of them — we'd just refer to the first one who got it right, and the rest of them would have fallen in line behind that one. The progress of science necessitates disagreement, or it isn't progress. It would have been nice if Birkeland had done the whole thing for us, but the bare-faced fact is that in his time, just demonstrating that the aurora was EM was a heckuva stretch, and which was not acknowledged by the scientific community during his lifetime. Most of what we're debating these days concerns things Birkeland didn't even know to exist, because the telescopes hadn't even detected them yet. So for Bruce, Birkeland's work wasn't the last word. For Juergens, Bruce's wasn't. For Chandler, Thornhill's wasn't. I'm well aware of how presumptuous that is, and I'm not going to say for a second that it isn't pure presumptuousness. But I will say that the progress of science starts with the bravery to go beyond the previous generation. Pretty freakin' scary when you think about it — considering the possibility that there are more discoveries yet to be made, beyond what has already been worked out. It gets a lot easier if you don't lock down on a position. And that's the difference between Thornhill & me. I don't have a position — I have a method. I just look at the data, and I look at the theories that attempt to explain the data, and any discrepancies are opportunities for progress. And with this method, I've come a long ways in 4 years. I started with the "Nuclear Fusion & Electric Reconnection" model, which had granules as relativistic jets that fold back on themselves, miraculously all at the same height. But I wasn't scared to break out from the pack, because I saw discrepancies between the data and the existing models, and I wasn't scared to be wrong. The only thing that scares me is the thought that we simply have to accept what previous generations have given us, despite the flaws, and that while they made progress, we cannot, because everybody is locking down on a position. There are serious problems in this world, and solving them will require solving problems that haven't been solved before. Oooooooooo...
Sparky
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
CC:
Yes, but what is the electromotive force? In other words, what got the plasma moving?
Good question....If you find out what electric energy is and where it comes from, let me know.. I suspect you will have to get into the metaphysics of the universe.
It is said that you have to have current in order to have magnetic fields. They are complimentary. Why can't they both be produced as part of a cascade. An arrangement of electrons/ions, being pressured to move, either pushed or pulled, through a medium that has, as part of it's makeup, the propensity to extract "electrical energy", in such circumstances, from the aether.
Since most everything that we see is electrical in some way, I suggest that at the smallest level, there will be the "energy" that we call electricity. And there will also be the magnetic fields, configured in such a way as to confining, then assisting, in delivering that energy when proper conditions manifest.
Until we can demonstrate that electricity is, in it's simplest state, a phenomenon that requires a connection to aether energy, by cascade of charges and magnetic configurations, we will continue the mantra, current causes magnetic fields, and miss the actual mechanism. We may have understanding of effects, but.....
Have you looked at the Primer Fields vid...? I would be interested in your view.
Chromium6
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
This is older research but what do you make of the "oscillations" Charles?
The long-term solar oscillation problem
Helioseismology
Today, astronomers acknowledge that there are mysteries surrounding the sun that could have profound implications for our models of solar structure and activity (Lang 1996a, 1996b), and that among these are solar oscillations. However, these very same oscillations are being used to fine-tune the standard model by measuring how their speeds change as they pass through the sun's various layers (Lang 1996b). This powerful tool is known as helioseismology, and it is capable of directly probing nearly the entire volume of the solar interior in a way that no other observational method can. Davies himself admits that helioseismology can "provide important information on the structure of the Sun." It is in fact one of the great success stories of modern astronomy, because each of the thousands of known oscillations has been matched to the standard model with an accuracy of between four and five decimal places. This is an impressive feat for any complex model of stellar evolution (Scherrer 1996, 1997).
The point is that, despite Davies' claims to the contrary, helioseismology and associated oscillations have all but confirmed the standard model for the structure of the sun (see especially Lang 1997). There is now no doubt that the sun possesses a large, dense central core capable of supporting fusion reactions. This in turn has also confirmed the standard model for solar evolution, because there are very few ways that a star with the sun's mass and elemental composition can evolve to its present state, even if it had been supernaturally created only a few thousand years ago (Graps 1997). It is rather ironic that the very phenomenon that Davies hopes will refute the ancient age of the sun has instead confirmed it.
However, the long-term solar oscillation problem is far from solved. Observations made in the 1980s had partially confirmed the observations made in the 1970s (Scherrer and others 1992; Kotov and others 1992), though it is interesting that Davies makes no mention of any of these other observations. These observations set an upper limit to the frequency of any long-term oscillations, which, perhaps not coincidentally, was 160 minutes. Even so, the astronomers making the observations were convinced that such long-term oscillations must be the result of gravity mode pulsations.
However, because these observations did not conclusively establish the existence of gravity mode oscillations, some researchers dismissed them as either atmospheric effects or an artifact of the earth's movement in solar orbit. If long-period oscillations do exist, then the ground-based GONG system (Global Oscillation Network Group) and the SOHO satellite (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) should be able to detect them. So far they have failed to do so, though this may be due to technical problems (Lang 1996c)]. Though some astronomers still believe they may exist, the GONG and SOHO observations (or lack thereof) have convinced others that gravity mode oscillations are impossible (Scherrer 1997). Yet believer and skeptic alike agree that long period oscillations pose no threat to the validity of the standard model.
Only the solar gravity was completely understood by the astrophysics of the last centuries (since Newton , since 1666). A fine adjustment was given by relativity in the first decades of the last century. However astrophysics of the last century used the magnetic force without success in hundreds of models. Some of them are as follows:
-the existence of the solar wind (the surface should be 24MK hot to emit this wind thermally), -the million Kelvin hot corona which does not radiate heat and cannot be heated by the solar surface of only 6000K, -the quick release and the almost light-velocity of the proton-flares, -the ejected solar masses which never return -many other old observations as the solar cycle and change of the solar poloid field -the strongest magnetic field of the sunspots is never source of a filament or eruption.
All these and many other observations persistently remained unexplained. Many solar processes were sophistically and symbolically explained by magnetic fields of mysterious origin. Prof. K. R. Lang hoped in1995 that SOHO will find the solar dynamo:
"one of the principal motivations for helioseismological studies has been a desire to constrain theories for the solar dynamo that produces the magnetic cycle of the solar activity."
Lang wrote disappointed in 1996 when SOHO did not find the solar dynamo:
"Our new views have raised many questions. They include a crisis in the dynamo theory the unknown mechanisms that heat the million degree corona and accelerate the solar wind."
CharlesChandler
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Sparky wrote: Until we can demonstrate that electricity is, in its simplest state, a phenomenon that requires a connection to aether energy, by cascade of charges and magnetic configurations, we will continue the mantra, current causes magnetic fields, and miss the actual mechanism. We may have understanding of effects, but.....
Yes, for me, a "force" is a quantification of a set of related effects. There might be forces more fundamental than the ones we know, and I applaud the efforts of those in search of a unified theory, which would things so much easier. But I "think" that higher-level work will still stand, if it sticks closely to observable properties of matter. The explanation of it will change, and all of the terminology will be different. For example, to Newton, the Earth orbits the Sun, while to Einstein, the Sun's gravitational field warps space-time such that the Earth, traveling in a straight line from its perspective, is actually orbiting the Sun from the solar perspective. But anything based on the Earth's orbit, such as parallax measurements to determine the distance of nearby stars, still stands. So I'm comfortable proceeding, even knowing that the foundation might get knocked out from under me.
Chromium6 wrote: This is older research but what do you make of the "oscillations" Charles?
I think that the existing "understanding" of waves inside the Sun is quite immature. It is all predicated on the assumption that the plasma is obeying simple fluid dynamic laws. This makes for many surprises.
Kevin L O'Brien wrote: It is in fact one of the great success stories of modern astronomy, because each of the thousands of known oscillations has been matched to the standard model with an accuracy of between four and five decimal places.
This is mis-representative. He's trying to make it sound like the standard model predicted the helioseismic data, which is ridiculous. Rather, the standard model has been meticulously hand-tweaked to accommodate the data.
Furthermore, the "standard model" isn't a singular model. The Dalsgaard model of the density, pressure, temperature, and wave transmission speeds in the Sun has a smooth gradient, from surface to core. The "standard model" also asserts that the composition of the Sun is 75% hydrogen and 25% helium throughout. Well, with an homogenous mix in a smooth density gradient, why are there distinct helioseismic boundaries at .27 and .70 of the solar radius, which separate the Sun into 3 layers (i.e., the core, radiative zone, and convective zone)? This question is answered by ad hoc amendments to Eddington's internal furnace model. So now we have fusion in the core generating photons, which propagate through the "radiative" zone, and then are thermalized in the "convective" zone. So the layers found by helioseismology are assigned roles in the fusion furnace model. And knowing the power output from the Sun, we can calculate how much fusion has to be occurring. This dictates the temperatures and pressures in the core. Knowing the surface temperature, and the core temperature, the Dalsgaard model then applies the ideal gas laws, and finds all of the densities, pressures, temperatures, etc. But the ideal gas laws yield a smooth density gradient, and the fusion furnace model is just an energy budget — it doesn't say why there would be helioseismic boundaries at .27 and .70 of the solar radius. In other words, one hand of the "standard model" doesn't know what the other hand is doing. That's a "great success story"? It is, if you have become quite accustomed to dismal failure, and a broken model is better than no model at all.
In my model, hydrogen & helium only exist in the "convective" zone (which BTW doesn't actually convect much anymore). The "radiative" zone is iron & nickel, and doesn't radiate anything, because there aren't any plausible energy sources at that depth. And the core is platinum & osmium, which aren't going to fuse into anything heavier, no matter the temperature and pressure. This gets the average density right, and provides physical reasons for helioseismic boundaries at .27 and .70 of the solar radius. These layers are bound tightly together by electric forces between charged double-layers. Calculating wave transmission speeds through charged double-layers, such that we could understand solar oscillation modes, pretty much requires starting over from the beginning. I'm working on a finite element analysis engine that, when finished, will integrate the temperatures, pressures, and charges into an exact solution, to find the actual gravitational, electric, and hydrostatic forces present. I'm currently researching supercritical fluids, trying to find definitive methods of estimating the Coulomb barrier at extreme pressures, so I can assign accurate charge densities to the double-layers. Here, the predictions of quantum mechanics are unreliable, and the laboratory data are sparse. I'm starting to think that I'll have to just guess at it, and let future generations come back and fill in the real numbers when they become available. Anyway, when all of that is done, THEN we can see what that does to our understanding of wave transmission speeds inside the Sun.
Chromium6 wrote: Also older is the Solar Dynamo...
The "solar dynamo" is another crashingly naive framework that needs to be totally re-conceived in fully physical terms. The Sun in its quiet phase does have an overall magnetic field, in a solenoidal configuration, with lines of force exiting at the poles. In the active phase, the field is much more complex. And every 11 years, the polarity of the quiet field inverts.
In my model, there are charged double-layers. The total charges are roughly equal, so as the Sun rotates, the fields generated by positive and negative layers cancel each other out, leaving an extremely weak overall field (~1 Gauss). The fact that there is any field at all means that either the charges are not evenly matched, or the layers are not traveling at the same speeds, and the faster one generates the dominant field. The latter "appears" to be the case. Helioseismology has found torsional oscillations, wherein layers speed up and slow down with respect to each other through the solar cycle. In my model, those layers are charged, and are generating magnetic fields. So whichever layer is traveling faster is generating the dominant magnetic field. After 11 years of that, they switch. But IMO, it isn't torsional oscillations that drive the magnetic fields, but rather, it's the other way around. Magnetic pressure from the competing fields enables the layer that agrees with the overall field to rotate faster. Then, during the active phase, when differential rotation breaks up the overall magnetic field, and it reforms in the opposite polarity, the other layer gets to rotate faster. See Cycles for more info.
Here I'll just touch on the way my model treats the various unsolved mysteries that you cite:
the existence of the solar wind (the surface should be 24 MK hot to emit this wind thermally)
Positively charged plasma is ejected by CMEs, and thereafter, electron drag from an outward electric current keeps the solar wind streaming.
the million Kelvin hot corona which does not radiate heat and cannot be heated by the solar surface of only 6000K
Collisions with relativistic electrons flowing outward produce the degree of ionization that is interpreted as high temperatures. This also accounts for Dr. Körtvélyessy's observation that thermal ionization would produce all species of ions (i.e., Fe I, Fe II, Fe III, ..., Fe IX), while what we actually see is just one or a couple highly ionized species. So the ionization isn't thermal. Rather, it's from electron drag, and from the 1.7 GV electric field.
the quick release and the almost light-velocity of the proton-flares
Arc discharges can produce nuclear fusion in the stepped leaders, which can accelerate ejecta to relativistic velocities.
the ejected solar masses which never return
Electron drag keeps the solar wind streaming.
many other old observations as the solar cycle and change of the solar poloid field
See above.
the strongest magnetic field of the sunspots is never source of a filament or eruption
Indeed, CMEs are not caused directly by the magnetic force. Rather, the electric current through sunspots generates the powerful magnetic fields. Such fields introduce an ExB force that discourages positive ions from recombining with the electrons in the sunspot current. Hence the magnetic force helps keep the charges separated. If the current relaxes, so will the magnetic fields, enabling charge recombination. Hence the magnetic fields weaken, and then there is a solar flare, but not because of "magnetic reconnection" below the surface. Rather, it is charge recombination below the surface because the magnetic field went away.
Lloyd
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
More Challenges It is said that the debate on the anode/cathode-sun issue will almost certainly be resolved by the SAFIRE experiment. So let's hope it happens asap.
In the mean time Charles & Co. are challenged to produce a list of a half-dozen, fact based reasons to discount the anode sun hypothesis. For example, disprove: 1. Wal's successful predictions with respect to the virtual cathode at the heliospheric boundary, or 2. Dave Talbott's evidential argument for ion beams from the sun provoking the Martian dust devils and dust storms, or 3. the long-standing argument that the electrochemistry of cometary comas is producing water from vaporized silicates, due to interactions of the negatively charged nucleus with positively charged ions from the Sun.
Sounds like they may not realize that Birkeland's terella produced both positive and negative charge emission as "solar wind".
I guess you haven't answered these points before, Charles, so are these easy to answer, or do they require a lot of work to find the exact arguments first? Following is a quote from Wal's site. Maybe it explains #1 a little. Eh?
Stars as Positive Anodes http://www.holoscience.com/wp/sciences-looming-tipping-poin~ - Juergens identified the many observed discharge phenomena on the Sun as characteristic of those above a positive anode. The interplanetary plasma potential 'locks' to that of the anode — the Sun. So the electric driving potential of the Sun is confined largely to the distant heliosphere boundary — in the region being encountered by the two Voyager spacecraft, where the solar wind has 'mysteriously' come to a halt. It is not a mystery when the electrical model is applied to the Sun. The heliospheric plasma sheath is the 'virtual cathode' in the Sun's circuit. The electric field first reverses on approaching the cathode, causing the protons to decelerate with no evidence of a galactic 'head wind.' Beyond that region the protons will accelerate rapidly away to become cosmic rays. The electrons coming from that vast 'virtual cathode' sphere are focused down a trillion times by the time they reach the photosphere and produce the radiance of the Sun. - The evidence to look for is filamentary currents following the ambient magnetic field direction down to the photosphere. Such filaments are seen at all scales in the Sun's corona, chromosphere and photosphere. The Sun's corona is simply a coronal discharge effect where diffuse plasma is apparently heated to millions of degrees by the electric current flowing through it. Referring back to Swirls in the corona, energy is not transferred from the Sun up to the corona via magnetic "super tornadoes" but in the opposite direction, down toward the Sun by electromagnetic tornadoes. The "super tornadoes" are typical of plasma self-organization at high current densities, in which the current filaments take a helical path, or 'tornado.' - Earlier he said: A recent article in Nature (28 June 2012), Swirls in the corona ... highlights the discovery of 'super-tornadoes' in the chromosphere, between the corona and the photosphere. It is estimated there are more than 10,000 of them continuously present in the quiet Sun. The researchers have leapt to a possible heating mechanism for the corona via these super-tornadoes, which are connected magnetically to vortexes in the photosphere. However, it is not clear how the tornadoes are formed or how energy is transferred from the super-tornadoes to the corona. Predictably, all of this energy is supposed to be driven by convective motion and trapped magnetic fields beneath the photosphere. But we have just seen there is insufficient photospheric convection to produce the Sun's magnetic fields. ... These recent discoveries support Juergens' external electrical powering of the Sun. Together with findings about the Sun's interface with the galaxy at the heliopause that deny all previous theoretical models, they put an emphatic end to standard solar theory. The photosphere is the bottom of the phenomenon we call the Sun.
CharlesChandler
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Lloyd wrote: It is said that the debate on the anode/cathode-sun issue will almost certainly be resolved by the SAFIRE experiment.
Monty Childs wrote: This is the model of the Electric Sun, and it's basically incoming charged plasma to a body of a different electrical potential. In this case here the Sun is positive; the incoming charge is coming from our heliopause, or the source of the electrons, which is negative, or a cathode from an electrical perspective; and that's the model.
So Monty intends to test the existing Electric Sun model. Nowhere in the presentation did he say that he intends to take an agnostic approach to the polarity issue. How is that going to resolve the anode/cathode issue?
Monty Childs wrote: If you see any holes in our approach here, please say something, and say something now, because if you know about it, and you're not saying anything, you are culpable.
I see a hole — he's already committed to a conclusion, and he's not listening to criticisms. I'd like to request that Monty publish the specs for the apparatus, so that they can be reviewed by the EU community. The specs will have to be published anyway, if the research is even to be considered by the scientific community. If there are flaws in the approach, it would be better for everybody if they were revealed before, instead of after, the apparatus is built.
Note that in scientific terms, it's perfectly OK to explicitly test an hypothesis that makes specific contentions. But you have to explicitly state the hypothesis. So if he is to say that the hypothesis is that the Sun is an anode, and here is the apparatus that will test that hypothesis, that's fine. But to say that the apparatus will demonstrate whether or not the Sun is electric, while only testing the anode configuration, is embedding an assumption. If the Sun was actually an anode, he'd get away with it, but if it's actually a cathode, his results will be incorrect. Either he falsely proves that the Sun is an anode (by contriving an apparatus that produces superficial similarities that he'll call proof), or he'll falsely disprove that the Sun is electric, because he couldn't get the anode configuration to work. Of course, such false assumptions happen all the time in science, and sometimes it takes many cycles of experimentation to finally root out all of the ghosts & goblins in the conceptual framework, finally yielding a full understanding. But when people are explicitly revealing assumptions that might be false in advance, if the experimenters don't listen, that's just bad science. This is why we're flaming the mainstream — for locking down on an assumption set and not listening when people point out discrepancies between the model and the data. Are we trying to show that our work can be just as good as the mainstream's?
Lloyd wrote: 1. Wal's successful predictions with respect to the virtual cathode at the heliospheric boundary
A different interpretation of a more detailed nature can be found here:
May, H. D., 2008: A Pervasive Electric Field in the Heliosphere. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 36 (5): 2876-2879
This maintains that when the neutrally charged interstellar wind impinges on the heliosphere, electrons are stripped off in particle collisions, with the more massive nucleons getting embedded deeper into the heliosphere. This leaves a negative double-layer on the outer edge of the heliosphere, while the interior of the heliosphere is positively charged. This would make the interstellar medium look like it was negatively charged, when really, it's just a double-layer around the outside of the positively charged heliosphere.
Lloyd wrote: 2. Dave Talbott's evidential argument for ion beams from the sun provoking the Martian dust devils and dust storms
Tornadoes & dust devils are given highly detailed treatment in my 161-page online book. The ion flow in dust devils (Martian and terrestrial) is upward, not downward.
Lloyd wrote: 3. the long-standing argument that the electrochemistry of cometary comas is producing water from vaporized silicates, due to interactions of the negatively charged nucleus with positively charged ions from the Sun
An alternate interpretation is that comets have detached bow shocks (like all spherical supersonic objects), and that the comet's relationship to the interplanetary medium is the same as the heliosphere's relationship to the interstellar medium — neutrally charged particles impinging on the bow shock are stripped of electrons, creating a negative outer layer, and a positive inner layer, surrounding the comet. The result is the same — the comet is exposed to a net positive charge, which leeches electrons from inside the comet. But the positive sheath around the comet is an artifact of the bow shock, and says nothing of the charge of the interplanetary medium.
Thornhill wrote: Juergens identified the many observed discharge phenomena on the Sun as characteristic of those above a positive anode.
That's the entire extent of the "explanation" that I have heard for the anode model. Juergens said that the photosphere looked like anode tufting. That's not an explanation — it's just an assertion. On closer inspection, the photosphere is very definitely charged, and the charge is positive, and it's part of an electric current. But that doesn't mean that the Sun as a whole is an anode, and in fact, the anode model has intractable problems. If the photosphere was positively charged, and if the net charge of the Sun was positive, the density of the photosphere was taper off to nothing at some distance from the Sun. The density of a double-layer is greatest at the boundary between it and its opposite, which in this case would be an underlying negative layer. Moving away from the boundary, the electric field relaxes, because of distance, and because the positive charges in the upper reaches are shielded from the negative layer by the positive charges in their own layer. (For more info, see this post on the "Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model" thread.) And yet we can clearly see that the photosphere does not taper off at all — it ends quite abruptly, with the density dropping to virtually nothing. This means that it can only be a positively charged double-layer that is clinging tightly to an underlying negative layer, and that the net charge is negative.
Thornhill wrote: The evidence to look for is filamentary currents following the ambient magnetic field direction down to the photosphere. Such filaments are seen at all scales in the Sun's corona, chromosphere and photosphere.
So it's kinda like a plasma ball, with arc discharges coming in. But why would the solar plasma ball have arc discharges in its atmosphere that are so weak that they are only visible if the photosphere is fully eclipsed? You don't need to crunch numbers to get the point here, because it's a relative comparison. If all of the solar power is coming in through these external arc discharges, how could they be the source of all of the power? It would be like a plasma ball, except where the central orb was glowing brightly, but if you hold a coin in front of the camera to eclipse the central orb, and then open up the aperture so that you can pick up low-light details, you can snap a photograph revealing filaments leading inward. From this you would conclude that those filaments were carrying all of the current into the central orb? If so, why are they absolutely invisible when compared to the orb?
Sparky
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
you can snap a photograph revealing filaments leading inward. From this you would conclude that those filaments were carrying all of the current into the central orb? If so, why are they absolutely invisible when compared to the orb?
my not to knowledgeable guess would be dispersion of inward filaments vs concentration of those in a plasma environment.
CharlesChandler
Re: Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun
Hey Sparky!
I've heard that before, perhaps on Holoscience, but I can't remember where. Anyway, arc discharges don't disperse. Lightning in the Earth's atmosphere is traversing matter that is far more dense than the Sun's corona or chromosphere, and it doesn't get dispersed. Rather, it tunnels through the matter. Once the breakdown voltage is achieved, the electrons are accelerated to relativistic speeds, and the magnetic pinch effect consolidates the charge stream. The far greater current density then superheats and evacuates the discharge channel, further reducing the resistance, which enables even faster electrons, and an even more powerful z-pinch. This is how 10,000 amps in a lightning strike can get pinched down to a 1 cm channel, which would obviously vaporize a solid copper conductor of the same diameter, but which zips happily through the near-perfect vacuum of a 2500 C discharge channel. So I think that "filament dispersion" is not actually a realistic expectation for a large-scale anode.
The pinching that does occur, such as in the helmet streamers, actually indicates that the flow is outward, and that it is accelerating as it goes, hence the pinch effect gets more intense with distance from the Sun. This actually speaks volumes about the nature of the fields. Only electrons sitting on a current divider will accelerate with distance from the electrode. In other words, with a net negative charge in the Sun, and a net positive charge in the heliosphere, there has to be another positive charge inside the Sun, and the electrons are sitting in the middle, wondering which way to go, because there are positive charges in both directions. Any electrons that drift outward, toward the heliosphere, will experience more attraction to the heliosphere, and less attraction to the internal positive charge, the further they go. So the forces acting on the electrons get less ambiguous, and the electrons accelerate.
As an analogy, you can take three bar magnets and lay them all out in a row, equally spaced...
n/s ----------- n/s ----------- n/s
In this configuration, that magnet in the middle experiences an attractive force in both directions, and it just sits there. So it's like a "magnetic divider". But if you nudge it just a little closer to one of the end magnets, the force in that direction is greater, and in the opposite direction weaker. So it will start to move in that direction. As it goes, the force in that direction increases, while the force in the other direction decreases, as the field densities are functions of distance. Hence the magnet will accelerate.
IMO, the only way to get the arc discharges that we see in the photosphere is for electrons to be departing from a current divider. That way, they'll start out slowly, with minimal pinching, and thus their own electrostatic repulsion will keep them dispersed. As they move away from the current divider, they accelerate, and thus they get pinched, ultimately into discrete filaments at the tips of the helmet streamers.
Also note that a current divider can accelerate particles away from it, but it cannot decelerate particles toward it. With distance from the current divider, the opposing fields responsible for it superimpose, with little net field emanating from the divider. So the electrons are getting accelerated toward the positive charge in the heliosphere. But if you flip it around, and have the heliosphere negatively charged, would the electrons move quickly toward a positively charged Sun, and then, at the tips of the helmet streams, decelerate to non-relativistic velocities, where electrostatic repulsion would disperse them into a broad charge stream? The answer is no, they wouldn't. The reason is that there would be nothing to accelerate the electrons toward the Sun at all, save electrostatic repulsion away from the heliosphere itself. You might say that nearing the center of the negatively charged heliosphere, they'd decelerate due to electrostatic repulsion from themselves on all sides of the Sun. But then you're not going to get any current density at all in the photosphere, because you'd have a Faraday cage effect. So the observations can only be fully reconciled with electrons moving away from a current divider.
Lloyd
Ask EU Team to Test Both Models
Hey everyone, I call on you all to ask the EU team to test the cathode sun model as well as the anode model in the Safire Project experiment and to provide the specs for the experiment in advance so we can critique it for possible flaws etc.
Whoever doesn't want both models tested at little or no additional cost, raise your hands and explain.
Are you using the standard model of gravity with dark matter or MOND or something like that? In my estimation gravity is broken....
Brant
New Mission Will Explore Bizarre Gravitational Anomaly Around Earth "When spacecraft careen around Earth for a gravity boost, they mysteriously speed up, and physicists want to know why. " "Scientists could not trace a hyperbolic arc for the slingshot--they could only trace incoming and outgoing arcs, with a slight difference between them. This slight difference comes from a velocity boost that no one can explain. It's too much to be an error introduced by something like the solar wind, some other celestial body's influence, or Earth's own "frame-dragging" as it churns spacetime around itself.
"As a result, the yet unknown origin of the flyby anomaly could signal the presence of new or 'exotic' physics at play, a possibility which should not be taken lightly," write the authors of a new paper, Jorge Paramos of the Technical University of Lisbon and Gerald Hechenblaikner of the European satellite maker Astrium. http://www.popsci.com/technology/articl ... ound-earth
A page of gravitation anomalies and such....
"The hole is nearly a billion light-years across. It is not a black hole, which is a small sphere of densely packed matter. Rather, this one is mostly devoid of stars, gas and other normal matter, and it's also strangely empty of the mysterious "dark matter" that permeates the cosmos. "
"2008-8-30: See also this article on the variability of the fine structure constant with respect to distance of the Earth from the Sun: "Do nuclear decay rates depend on our distance from the sun?""
So what creates the E-fields that motivate plasma drifts? There has to be a charge separation mechanism in there somewhere, and that's what we're questioning.
Otherwise, the opposite charges would have recombined a long time ago, and the Universe at the macroscopic level would be purely Newtonian. Obviously it is not, and we all know that the only other forces present are magnetic and electric, so we're looking at those.
But I wasn't scared to break out from the pack, because I saw discrepancies between the data and the existing models, and I wasn't scared to be wrong. The only thing that scares me is the thought that we simply have to accept what previous generations have given us, despite the flaws, and that while they made progress, we cannot, because everybody is locking down on a position. There are serious problems in this world, and solving them will require solving problems that haven't been solved before. Oooooooooo...
I suspect you will have to get into the metaphysics of the universe.
