PP said: What I meant [was] 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.
I had similar discussions with CC last year, but his arguments ended up seeming to be much better than conventional EU theory. I think he explained that the magnetic and electric pressures oppose each other in Marklund convection, so that, when electric pressure tends to condense matter, magnetic pressure opposes it, and when magnetic pressure tends to condense it, electric pressure opposes it. I could be wrong. As for glass formed by lightning, there are relativistic velocities reached by the electrons in the lightning channel, I believe, but I think the glass is formed largely by the heat generated. The sand doesn't travel at relativistic velocity and doesn't get crowded to the center of the lightning channel as per Marklund convection, since it's not in the channel at all. Fulgurites are glass tubes formed by lightning. They don't form at the center of the lightning channel either. They form on the periphery, apparently merely from heating, after the electron stream pushes the sand aside to form a hollow tube. These tubes often branch and make turns, perhaps as a result of magnetic pressures. Maybe people should look for little ball lightning sphere remnants by the bends in the fulgurites.
upriver
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
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.
Which is why I have come to believe gravity is broken enough to posit a model of gravity that will allow an iron sun to exist...
Brant
upriver
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
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.
Yep. After much welding I agree...
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.
Filaments form in plasma because the local gas or plasma is not capable of carrying the potential difference between the 2 electrodes or potentially different astronomical bodies.... So they do carry energy..... Flux tubes operate in several different modes in that they act like a wire following the right hand rule when the tube is first instantiated, and then they switch to field aligned after a "reconnection" event where they are pinched off from the rest of the tube like sausages... This I groked from much CLUSTER study...
Check out these lab experiments with filaments and reconnection...I think I even did a reconnection thread on JREF... Three-dimensional current systems generated by plasmas colliding in a background magnetoplasma. http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/pages/gallery.html
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Hey folks — I just got online, so it will be a bit before I've had a chance to carefully read and respond to these excellent posts. In the meantime, here's something for everybody to ponder. I'd like to suggest that the participants on this thread join into a Star Formation workgroup, for the purpose of producing a document detailing the various hypotheses, the supporting evidence, and arguments against. It sounds like a lot of work. But compared to the total amount of labor that has been dumped into this debate over the years, on dozens of threads, it wouldn't be much work at all. We're going in circles here, with the same assertions being tossed around over and over — we just don't realize it, because nobody has pulled all of this together into one coherent thesis. Well, this thing will keep going 'round and 'round, until one or more people lay it all out. So this is what we should do. The thesis doesn't have to be conceived in its entirety, and completed in one monolithic effort — it can evolve over time, with small contributions. But if we put 1/10 of the effort into producing a thesis as we have already put into these threads, in the end we'll have a 10 page document that makes sense, instead of another 100 page thread that doesn't. In the future, as new information comes in, the document can be updated, and anybody interested in the topic can be directed to the current document, instead of starting a new thread, and then spending 90% of the time re-hashing the same arguments with people who only have a few of the pieces (because they never saw the whole thing laid out). Does this sound reasonable?
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
I'm not as well versed as most people here when it comes to the EU model. But looking at the videos of solar flares, it looks to me that the stuff tries to burst out/away from the sun and gets pulled back to the photosphere. But if the burst is strong enough, if the plasma reaches a certain distance from the sun, a sort of critical distance, it then get's accelerated away. Isn't this typical of a double-layer?
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote: My calculations show that the compression ratio, from the density of a typical dusty plasma, to the density of a star, is 1019.
PersianPaladin wrote: Can you post your paper or your calculations?
The Sun condensed from a dusty plasma with a volume of something like 7.48 × 1037 km3. The temperature would have been roughly 10 K. The volume of the Sun is 1.41 × 1018 km3, meaning a compression ratio of 5.31 × 1019. If we multiply 10 K by that ratio, we get an expected temperature of 5.31 × 1020 K. See:
Prialnik, D., 2000: An Introduction to the Theory of Stellar Structure and Evolution. Cambridge University Press
Williams, J. P.; Blitz, L.; McKee, C. F., 1999: The Structure and Evolution of Molecular Clouds: from Clumps to Cores to the IMF. arXiv:astro-ph
Richardson, J. D., 2000: The Solar Wind: Probing the Heliosphere with Multiple Spacecraft. COSPAR Colloquium on The Outer Heliosphere: The Next Frontier, Potsdam
PersianPaladin wrote: 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.
That's a recipe for nuclear fusion, not accretion.
PersianPaladin wrote: 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.
Thermal conduction occurs only in particle collisions. Molten sand, in the ground, cools quickly. Confined plasma in space, surrounded by a vacuum, will never cool.
PersianPaladin wrote: Marklund did explain that particles enter into a progressively cooler (and denser) axial-current region as part of radial separation.
Ionization, with its attendant Coulomb forces, plus the magnetic pressure, removes degrees of freedom from particles, and thus reduces the effective temperature. So yes, the axis of a z-pinch will be the lowest in temperature. But those particles aren't going to condense because they're cool, if one of the reasons for the low temperature is ionization.
PersianPaladin wrote: I recommend that you read the following paper published by Vemasat Laboratories [...] The magnetic-pinch is referred to in the paper. [...] Z-pinches also referred to here...
Sorry — you'll have to quote the relevant sections for me. I don't have the time to read everything that is referenced.
PersianPaladin wrote: 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".
All I've seen so far is hand-waving. I want to see schematic diagrams showing plausible EM configurations. The transition from verbal to visual thinking is a tough one, but it is a necessary step. If this step cannot be made, it's because the idea could not be realized.
PersianPaladin wrote: 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, disappear 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).
I want to know the charge separation mechanism(s), the resistance(s), the voltage(s), the watt(s), ... "Plasma is good like that" isn't an explanation.
Halton Arp wrote: 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.
In what sense are quasars plasmoids? (I have an answer for this, but I'm not sure that my answer is the same as his or yours.) And how did he arrive at the conclusion that quasars are proto-galaxies?
PersianPaladin wrote: Winston Bostick also got galactic structure from a similar process, albeit in the laboratory.
Galactic structures have also been reproduced in the laboratory with fluid dynamics. Spiral galaxies were once thought to be huge hurricanes. Is that proof too? To really have something, you have to demonstrate not only that the results look the same, but also, that they are the same for all of the same reasons. In the near-perfect vacuum of space, there is no way to get even more of a vacuum at the center of a galactic vortex, so no, spiral galaxies are not hurricanes. Likewise, they may or may not be whatever Perratt was simulating. And when I see a simulation, and I don't see the accompanying schematic diagram of the physical forces, I suspect that it was all just creative programming. It's fun, and it looks cool, but it doesn't prove anything except the prowess of the programmer, and sometimes the gullibility of the audience. I'm not specifically flaming Perratt here — I'm just saying that the way simulations are done these days, I no longer take them seriously.
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.
PersianPaladin wrote: 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.
I "think" that you have a pre-formed conclusion there. I agree that the mainstream model (gravity + hydrostatics) falls short, and that they subsequently bastardized the model with non-physical assertions, rather than adding real forces, such as EM. But I don't do that.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Wal Thornhill has responded by telling me this
Wal Thornhill wrote: On my quick read, Charles Chandler chooses not to understand Marklund convection (or a number of other things). A key feature of MC is that the linear compression of matter allows efficient radiation away from the filament, unlike a great cloud of radially collapsing dust. So, when gravitational collapse begins along the filament, the matter is cool.
I think you should have a read of that Vemasat Labs paper that I linked to in my response, Charles. I did paraphrase and list some of the key features found from the z-pinched dust that is distinct from "welding slag". I think they'd be rather insulted if you said they didn't know what they were talking about. It's not a long paper at all and the bit that is relevant is rather short and there are of course visuals.
And regarding the z-pinch not being able to happen in space? Well, that's tantamount to saying there aren't electric currents in space when even NASA admits that and has detected them above the Earth. Are the plasmoids that have been detected in our magnetosphere caused by "magnetic re-connection" or the Bennett Pinch mechanism that Alfven et al have stated happens in a plasma?
We also have strong evidence for CFDL's (current-free double layers) and CCDL's (current-carrying double-layers) that make up our magnetosphere too. The bow-shock and magnetotail current-sheet are regions where large amounts of energetic charged particles are produced. Energetic charged particles are accelerated in thin boundary regions that separate different plasma characteristics. Alfven also discussed this in a conference speech at NASA.
Do we have 100% evidence of such currents out in space? No. But the presence of magnetic fields, radio and micro-waves in intergalactic space implies electric currents. These currents of course, are hard to measure or quantify and profile at these great distances. But the methodology of extrapolating electric currents at galactic scales has been used in papers such as this:-
We present radio emission, polarization, and Faraday rotation maps of the radio jet of the galaxy 3C303. From this data we derive the magnetoplasma and electrodynamic parameters of this 50 kpc long jet. For one component of this jet we obtain for the first time a direct determination of a galactic-scale electric current (∼ 1018 A) , and its direction − positive away from the AGN. Our analysis strongly supports a model where the jet energy flow is mainly electromagnetic.
I could go on, but I'm afraid this could go around in circles. I do welcome your idea of a "star-formation" group however. But I am no expert in this field. I'm just an avid science journalist and part-time computer programmer.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Wal Thornhill wrote: On my quick read, Charles Chandler chooses not to understand Marklund convection (or a number of other things). A key feature of MC is that the linear compression of matter allows efficient radiation away from the filament, unlike a great cloud of radially collapsing dust. So, when gravitational collapse begins along the filament, the matter is cool.
Can somebody explain this? I don't mean assert it — I mean explain it. I can understand how the more highly ionized matter along the axis is cooler — like I said earlier, electric fields remove degrees of freedom, and thereby lower the effective temperature. Magnetic pressure does the same thing. But how does the "linear compression of matter allow efficient radiation away from the filament"? It sounds like he's imagining a heating filament surrounded by matter that can absorb the heat from the filament. But the axis isn't hotter than its surroundings — it's already cooler, due to the electric and magnetic forces. Hotter, neutral particles will be buoyant compared to the ions, so they will radiate outward, limited only by friction as they work their way past ionized particles held in place by the magnetic field, hence the convection. But the hotter particles won't condense, because they're hotter. The cooler ions won't condense, because of the Coulomb force. What part of this do I not understand? But please, don't ask me to "understand" just the assertions — I only "understand" explanations! And please please please, remember that I'm as committed to the premise that the Universe is electric as anyone. And I want to see it proven, in the most rigorous of terms. And I've done a lot of work to that end. If such is not acceptable in the EU community, then OK. But it shouldn't be like that.
PersianPaladin wrote: I think you should have a read of that Vemasat Labs paper that I linked to in my response, Charles.
OK, I read it. BTW, what was the width of the spherules? The only dimension that I saw mentioned was that the hollow ones had shells that were less than .3 mm thick. But what were the diameters of the spherules?
PersianPaladin wrote: I did paraphrase and list some of the key features found from the z-pinched dust that is distinct from "welding slag".
I saw the descriptions of the features on the spherules, but I didn't see where control tests were done to generate slag (such as from a cutting torch), which could be compared to the "pinched" spherules.
PersianPaladin wrote: And regarding the z-pinch not being able to happen in space?
When did I say that? It happens all the time, and it figures significantly in several parts of the work that I'm doing. I'm just questioning whether or not stars are formed this way.
PersianPaladin wrote: Do we have 100% evidence of such currents out in space? No.
In some cases, yes we do. The bipolar jets from the so-called "black holes" are definitely ionized, definitely relativistic, and definitely pinched. As moving electric charges, those are currents. But the evidence for star-to-star and galaxy-to-galaxy currents is lacking.
PersianPaladin wrote: I could go on, but I'm afraid this could go around in circles.
This is where I think a formal document would help. Bouncing around is easy in a thread, but in the step-by-step logic of a formal document, either the questions get answered, or they are clearly designated as open questions, while tangents are clearly tangents.
PersianPaladin wrote: I do welcome your idea of a "star-formation" group however. But I am no expert in this field. I'm just an avid science journalist and part-time computer programmer.
Yet your responses have been as factual as any that I have seen on this topic, and that's valuable. Sometimes the experts don't explain themselves well, and they need somebody to try to make sense of what they're saying. Sometimes a new discovery is lurking in a vague explanation, and it takes a naive question to reveal what's missing. So let somebody else be the expert. You be the organizer. That's what I do. I just keep asking questions, and insisting on clear explanations. If something doesn't make sense, I keep asking. All of the major pieces in the model that I'm using now came from other people! So there's no need to be possessive, like you have to be an authority, or you have nothing to contribute. Share and share alike. Knowledge doesn't know that you possess it! And somewhere in the process of documenting brave new ideas that have never been fully explained before, your understanding increases, and your writing skills improve. What's the down side?
celeste
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
http://iopscience.iop.org/2041-8205/719/2/L177 PersianPaladin and CharlesChandler, I thought you may be interested in this (just the abstract is enough,if you are busy). The association of synchrotron-emitting relativistic electrons, with what appears to be pretty mundane filaments (containing stars), is why I'm posting this. Any comments?
Lloyd
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CC said: I'd like to suggest that the participants on this thread join into a Star Formation workgroup, for the purpose of producing a document detailing the various hypotheses, the supporting evidence, and arguments against.
Magnetic Field Orientation in Filaments I also posted a paper there by this title. I think CC said magnetic fields are parallel to galactic spiral arms, so they aren't pinching and compressing the arms into filaments. This article seems to say that the magnetic field of an Orion star-forming filament is perpendicular to it, so I'm guessing that means the field does compress the filament. Is that right, Charles? Or is the assumption wrong that the polarization is due to thermal emission of dust grains in the B-field?
Here's the first few sentences from the paper. Magnetic Fields in Star-Forming Molecular Clouds: JCMT Polarimetry of OMC-3 in Orion A Brenda C. Matthews & Christine D. Wilson Dept. of Physics & Astronomy, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada Using the new imaging polarimeter mounted on SCUBA at the JCMT, we have detected polarized thermal emission at 850 micro-m from dust along the 6 minute length of the dense filament known as OMC-3 in Orion A. The polarization pattern is highly ordered and is aligned with the long axis of the filament throughout most of the region, diverging only near the southern boundary by 30-60° (see Figures 1 and 2). This configuration indicates a plane-of-sky magnetic field, B-perpendicular, oriented normal to the filament along most of its length (if the polarization arises from thermal emission of dust grains aligned by the magnetic field via the Davis-Greenstein mechanism).
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Charles....
If stars are high current-density plasmoids (formed in a similar way as in the laboratory), then why assume that their mass and density is as great as mainstream methods of calculations presume them to be. Dare we presume that our Sun is far lighter, less massive and less dense than we have ever imagined?
I'll get back to you on Marklund Convection - as I do have faith that CJ Ransom and Vemasat Labs know the difference between ordinary welding slag and the pinched spherules with their particular morphologies.
Plasmoids are essential vortex magnetic instabilities, but also can form toroidal features. The toroidal plasmoid in the solar flare arcade then coalesces into a more spherical form. The same process happens, albeit at a lower current-density - in our magnetosphere. It could also happen in interstellar clouds and galactic currents in certain regions.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
celeste wrote: The association of synchrotron-emitting relativistic electrons, with what appears to be pretty mundane filaments (containing stars), is why I'm posting this. Any comments?
I "think" that this is about a pair of galactic jets. IMO, galactic jets are currents, which are polarized and pinched. (This doesn't mean that these currents are necessarily hooked up to anything at the far end, but the rapid movement of charged particles out of the galactic centers constitutes a current, at least locally.) But the paper doesn't say anything about star formation. Since I haven't seen anything about star formation in the bipolar jets from quasars, black holes, pulsars, planetary nebulae, or anything else for that matter, I'm of the opinion that stars don't form in pinched, relativistic bipolar jets. Has anybody seen evidence to the contrary? I'm not locking down on this position — I'm just saying that I haven't seen anything to build on, at least as concerns star formation. So I think that bipolar jets speak only to the structure at the center that produced them.
Lloyd wrote: I started a thread here for [the Star Formation workgroup]: http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6961 [i.e., the Solar Models page].
I also pasted a link into this folder, where there are other related items:
Lloyd wrote: I posted links there to Bob Johnson's video, transcript and video images.
Thanks for capturing the images! Bob's presentation is quite a goldmine of relevant facts and references. (I disagree with his toroidal plasmoid conclusion about the Sun, because the magnetic field data don't support it, but everything else is solid.)
Lloyd wrote: This article seems to say that the magnetic field of an Orion star-forming filament is perpendicular to it, so I'm guessing that means the field does compress the filament.
I can't be certain from the way it's worded. In the abstract of this paper (which you quote on my site, by the same authors on the same topic, and which is a lot shorter than the full dissertation that you quote), they say,
Brenda C. Matthews and Christine D. Wilson wrote: The polarization pattern is highly ordered and is aligned with the long axis of the filament throughout most of the region, diverging only near the southern boundary by 30°–50°. If the polarization arises from thermal emission of dust grains aligned via either paramagnetic inclusions or radiative torques, this configuration indicates a plane-of-sky magnetic field which is normal to the filament along most of its length.
OK, so which is it? I "think" that the "If..." statement is a counter-point to the previous statement, but that isn't clear. In the conclusion, they say,
Brenda C. Matthews and Christine D. Wilson wrote: These data indicate that B⊥ is perpendicular to the filament along most of its length, diverging only in the most southern regions by between 30° and 50°.
The image definitely makes it look like the B-field is aligned to the axis of the filament, but it's a 2D image, and the polarity isn't designated. Anyway, if the perpendicular is perpendicular, then it's parallel? (If that's what it's saying, and if there were only two dimensions to worry about, that would be true.)
Anyway, let's just suppose that the B-field is parallel to the filament. (If so, that would match the B-fields in spiral arms.) The only way to get this is with electric charges that are rotating around the filament axis. I'm thinking that these filaments are dusty plasmas that got stretched somehow, where the tensile force from the "like-likes-like" principle drew the plasma into filaments, thereby creating a convergent motion toward the axis of the filaments. Once the plasma got moving, any external magnetic field would exert a Lorentz force that would induce a spiral around the axis, and generating a solenoidal magnetic field in agreement with the external field, and accentuating it. This more powerful field then organizes the rest of the particle motions into rotation around the axis as they converge on it. This is consistent with the fact that our solar system, and all known planetary nebulae, rotate on an axis that is aligned beyond chance to the external magnetic field running parallel to the parent filament.
If the filaments had electric currents running through them, the magnetic fields would not be aligned to the axis. Rather, they would rotate around the axis.
PersianPaladin wrote: If stars are high current-density plasmoids (formed in a similar way as in the laboratory), then why assume that their mass and density is as great as mainstream methods of calculations presume them to be. Dare we presume that our Sun is far lighter, less massive and less dense than we have ever imagined?
If you challenge the way mass is estimated, that applies to all masses, doesn't it? So the estimates of the mass in dusty plasmas that collapse, and in the Sun/planets/moons, and in distant stars, and in galactic filaments, all get adjusted by the same factor. Unless of course you just want to adjust the one factor that's troubling you... But if it's applied across the board, all of the thermodynamic calcs still apply.
PersianPaladin wrote: I do have faith that CJ Ransom and Vemasat Labs know the difference between ordinary welding slag and the pinched spherules with their particular morphologies.
De omnibus dubitandum. (Doubt everything.)
Once again, were you able to find out the width of the spherules? They described them in detail, but neglected to mention the actual dimensions.
PersianPaladin wrote: I'm also wondering what you think of Wal's IEEE paper on Supernova 1987A.
I put this on my list of stuff to review.
PersianPaladin wrote: This picture from a paper on plasmoid formation in solar flares may interest you...
You have to cite the paper, so I can get the context. This "looks" like expectations of the magnetic reconnection model, to which I do not subscribe.
PersianPaladin wrote: Plasmoids are essential vortex magnetic instabilities, but also can form toroidal features. The toroidal plasmoid in the solar flare arcade then coalesces into a more spherical form. The same process happens, albeit at a lower current-density - in our magnetosphere. It could also happen in interstellar clouds and galactic currents in certain regions.
These are all possibilities, at least in the highly generalized sense in which the statements are being made. And I agree that toroidal plasmoids can cause nuclear fusion. But I'm unconvinced of their ability to create condensed matter.
upriver
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
Brenda C. Matthews and Christine D. Wilson wrote: These data indicate that B⊥ is perpendicular to the filament along most of its length, diverging only in the most southern regions by between 30° and 50°.
The image definitely makes it look like the B-field is aligned to the axis of the filament, but it's a 2D image, and the polarity isn't designated. Anyway, if the perpendicular is perpendicular, then it's parallel? (If that's what it's saying, and if there were only two dimensions to worry about, that would be true.)
Anyway, let's just suppose that the B-field is parallel to the filament. (If so, that would match the B-fields in spiral arms.) The only way to get this is with electric charges that are rotating around the filament axis. I'm thinking that these filaments are dusty plasmas that got stretched somehow, where the tensile force from the "like-likes-like" principle drew the plasma into filaments, thereby creating a convergent motion toward the axis of the filaments. Once the plasma got moving, any external magnetic field would exert a Lorentz force that would induce a spiral around the axis, and generating a solenoidal magnetic field in agreement with the external field, and accentuating it. This more powerful field then organizes the rest of the particle motions into rotation around the axis as they converge on it. This is consistent with the fact that our solar system, and all known planetary nebulae, rotate on an axis that is aligned beyond chance to the external magnetic field running parallel to the parent filament.
If the filaments had electric currents running through them, the magnetic fields would not be aligned to the axis. Rather, they would rotate around the axis.
And this is what is observed in the local filaments that CLUSTER studies. They have a force free core wrapped by a current layer that moves in a helical direction, with a magnetic field I believe at ~90 degrees wrapping the whole thing. And the system is dynamic. When you take the picture changes what you see especially when a "reconnection" is involved...
Yep... Heres what I said in 2008. And I think I said it before that while talking about flux tubes on the BAUT forum..or was it JREF...
"I generally thing of it(them) as an electric current that takes the form of a flux tube following the right hand rule. Even then I still have suspicion that the energy is really carried in the field in the form of "kinetic energy" and the electrons are along for the ride.
The actual instantaneous form of the flux tube initially is that of a force free core wrapped by a current flow that follows the right hand rule and is helical. The core takes up about 40% of the flux tube. This is the form reported back by CLUSTER. I put the dynamics together with the other form reported back.
When the current flow reaches a certain point a pinch happens, several pinches can happen in one filament. This produces sections of filament when you have the aforementioned form. This outer magnetic field collapses driving a current into the force free core producing a reformed force free filament which CLUSTER also detects.
Interestingly enough the filaments in the magnetotail take the form of the twin twisted filament whereas the one connecting the sun and earth has a single filament with layers.." http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... b27aae76e5
Lloyd
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Focus on Bob's Plasmoid Sun Model?
CC said: Bob's presentation is quite a goldmine of relevant facts and references. (I disagree with his toroidal plasmoid conclusion about the Sun, because the magnetic field data don't support it, but everything else is solid.)
Sounds like that's what our work group ought to focus on: analyzing Bob Johnson's Plasmoid Sun model and seeing what are the main requirements for it and what evidence goes for and against those requirements. I copied the transcript of his video from your site and I hope to get time to go through it to look for the main tenets of his theory. But, if you or anyone else already have a whole or partial list of his main tenets, feel free to share it.
Space Insulator or Conductor? I think we should probably also discuss your view that another mistake Juergens made was in supposing that space is an insulator, when it's actually a conductor with almost no resistance.
Questions for Brant Brant, do you agree with Charles that space is a conductor, or with Juergens et al that it's an insulator? And, since you say that galactic or nebular filaments do have magnetic pinches, do you think the pinches would form stars? I seem to remember you saying before that you agree with EU that stars form by magnetic pinches of Birkeland currents. Is my memory right or wrong? If you agree with that manner of star formation, have you analyzed how exactly the conflicting magnetic and electric fields would allow matter to condense?
Some Plasmoid Sun Model Tenets Does everyone agree that these are some of the main tenets of Bob's Plasmoid Sun Model? 1. The Sun is powered by a galactic Birkeland current. 2. Current enters the Sun during the quiet phase and exits during the active phase of the solar cycle. 3. The Sun was formed as a ball-lightning-like plasmoid breaking out of a bend in the Birkeland current. 4. During the quiet phase the Sun stores charge and during the active phase it leaks charge outward.
Maunder Minimum Quiet Sun If I stated that correctly, I don't think that would be able to explain the Maunder Minimum, the century or more of time during which the Sun showed no sunspots and yet continued to radiate almost the same amount of energy as before and after, but slightly less, so that the climate was somewhat colder during that time.
bobinski
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
There appears to be some confusion about the plasmoid model I suggested as a possible alternative to the anode Sun: I am NOT suggesting that the Sun is powered by galactic Birkeland Currents; on the contrary, I couldn't find the requisite currents (electron velocities) and so I developed the plasmoid model which does not need them.
I suggested that the plasmoid loses energy, which is what makes the Sun radiate.
I went on to suggest that the Alfven circuit is concerned with rotation, not the Sun's power output; the Alfven circuit may be related to the solar cycle; bulk plasma with high electron velocities in the azimuthal direction (i.e. around the Sun in the equatorial plane) drifts inwards & outwards radially in different halves of the 22-year cycle. This current is seen as the heliospheric current sheet; whatever energy it contains is partly converted to/from coronal rotation and partly stored in the solar equatorial torus which grows to a maximum at solar minimum.
This oscillatory part of the model does not require the Sun itself to be a plasmoid; it could work with any other model which can explain how the Sun radiates energy without apparently receiving sufficient current from the galaxy to explain the radiant output.
In the future, as new information comes in, the document can be updated, and anybody interested in the topic can be directed to the current document, instead of starting a new thread, and then spending 90% of the time re-hashing the same arguments with people who only have a few of the pieces (because they never saw the whole thing laid out). Does this sound reasonable?
I'm not specifically flaming Perratt here — I'm just saying that the way simulations are done these days, I no longer take them seriously.
CharlesChandler wrote:And please please please, remember that I'm as committed to the premise that the Universe is electric as anyone. And I want to see it proven, in the most rigorous of terms. And I've done a lot of work to that end. If such is not acceptable in the EU community, then OK. But it shouldn't be like that.
PersianPaladin wrote:OK, I read it. BTW, what was the width of the spherules? The only dimension that I saw mentioned was that the hollow ones had shells that were less than .3 mm thick. But what were the diameters of the spherules?
