jacmac wrote: Could the primary source of power to "light" the Sun come from the entire heliosphere moving in what I believe is called the Interstellar Medium.
Brant has been working on an idea that ELF EM waves power the Sun, but with such long wavelengths that only something as big as the Sun can act as an antenna. We can't measure them because we don't have an antenna big enough to pick them up. It's an interesting hypothesis. BTW, there is "some" evidence of plasma headed into the Sun, in addition to the solar wind coming back out. The true nature of it has yet to be nailed down. Brant & I agree that electrons are streaming out of the Sun, while he thinks that the Sun is gaining mass from "coronal rain" (i.e., ions settling into the Sun due to gravitational and/or electrostatic attraction), and I believe that there is a net loss of ions in CMEs, where some of it rains back down, and the rest goes out into the interplanetary medium.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
bobinski wrote: As Scott points out, Ir = Nev, i.e. the current equals the product of the number of electrons, the charge on each electron and the velocity of the electrons. The important point to remember is that the electron velocity must be measured relative to the protons; if electrons and protons in a charge-neutral plasma both move with the same velocity then there is no current. Alternatively, a current will arise if the plasma is not charge neutral. In this case the value of 'N' in the above equation must represent the net charge imbalance.
The data for the electron density at the heliopause is not relevant at 1AU. At 1AU, the electron density ne ~ 2.5/cc [Maksimovic 2005, p6 Fig 4]. If the plasma is charge- neutral, Juergens' model requires v ~ 350 km/s relative to the protons. That is to say, there must be a net relative Sunward velocity of 350km/s between all the electrons and the 'background' protons.
First of all, this is a measure by three different space-craft of the various electron populations in the fast solar wind. Most of the measurements take place in the ecliptic plane, albeit the Ulysses craft seems to have the highest resolution and best representation with respect to the latitudinal distribution.
If you refer to my post above, you will find that powerful Kg vertical magnetic fields have been found above the polar regions and are hypothesized to be the source of the fast solar wind which your referenced paper speaks about. We can use Amperes Law to figure out the current generating these vertical magnetic fields in such regions:-
Now, if space-craft at 0.3-1.5 AU out from the sun are not detecting a sufficient electron density and electronion ratio in the fast solar wind - then does that mean that the origin of the fast solar wind above the poles, is neutral? No! Clearly a powerful current is responsible for those polar Kg fields. The vorticity at the poles may be part of a bi-directional current system that is pinched to a sufficient electron density in the polar regions and is much lower in current-density but considerably larger cross-sectionaly through the heliosphere.
The fast solar-wind particles become accelerated outwards and form the equivalent of a "positive column" of a Geissler Tube discharge where ion and electron ratios are generally even. Plasma quasi-neutrality being what it is...of course. Has anybody measured the electric potential difference between the areas of plasma and electron density measured by the Ulysses Craft and the "flux ropes" above the poles?
So I'm not sure you can use that paper to argue against external currents powering the Sun. And again - there are the anomalies such as overall increasing global solar magnetic field throughout the 20th century. Can this be explained simply as part of Solar Cycles? How much converging dark-mode current do you really need to maintain the solar sphere as we see it? We're yet to get a full picture of the actual structure of the photospheric magnetic fields for a start. The temperatures of the photosphere though, as I suggested earlier - are most likely a reflection of a smaller than expected electric current required to power it. Double-layer locations obviously need to be mapped in order to figure out where the potential differences lie between the high voltage sun and the lower voltage zones outward towards the heliosheath to allow current-input possibly within quite a small Debye area.
I think an analogy would be to look at the apparent discharge of comets when they rapidly enter a region of the Sun's electric field and produce a large enough potential difference to create a powerful electric discharge - with large coma's and bright filaments extending both outward and away. Electric currents and electric fields are forming within a certain region of the comet, but don't need to be continuosly running from the Sun to the comet given the quasi-neutral nature of plasma and the nature of break-down into certain regions. The same could perhaps be argued for the Sun - but with bulk electrons (forming negative charge and neg electric fields) flowing from low potential to the high potential of the inner heliosphere. The currents and electric-fields may only manifest very close to the Sun across various DL's. The potential difference between the Sun and the plasma region outward may never quite equalize given the constant motion of the Heliosheath through charged galactic regions that are constantly changing in their composition.
Lloyd
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Hoz, you misinterpreted what I said again. I did not say about Lerner what you claimed.
Daniel, it's much better to state specifically anything you want to correct someone about, rather than merely state that they erred. No one learns anything if you don't explain what you're talking about.
Friendly Debate Charles apparently would like to have a friendly debate so folks on all sides can learn from each other. I think that could be very valuable, so I started a thread here http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/posting.php?mode=post~ to discuss rules for a debate and I listed some suggested rules. See what you all think.
Hoz declined to debate before, but seems to have access to a lot of relevant info, so should consider joining a debate, at least as a team member. Hoz, you would have at least a day or more to get any info you need when it's your team's turn to post the next statement (like one statement every day or so). You could ask anyone for an answer to the previous statement by the opposing team, including Don, Wal, Lerner et al. Daniel, you and other readers would be welcome to join one of the teams as well. There could be a debate thread and a second thread for discussion, or maybe a third, so each team could have private discussion on each thread.
The debate could be between those who are for the Anode Sun model and those who are against it.
Or it could be between those for the Plasmoid Sun model vs those for the Cathode Sun model.
Anyone who doesn't want to have a friendly debate is opposed to learning and progress.
In case people poke around too long answering this challenge, I'll post Charles' recent summary of reasoning for his model and ask what points in the summary are incorrect.
Lloyd
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
From CC's paper: "Preview" http://www.qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=8469 This is Charles' recent summary of the reasoning for his model. Are there any significant errors here? [Proof That the Sun's Distinct Limb Is Not Due to Gravity] The standard model of the Sun fails to explain even the simplest of solar observations. - at its visible surface, the Sun is 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, with just traces of heavier elements. - Figure 1 shows the surface of the Sun on the limb, and in the primary wavelength emitted by hydrogen. - Notice that the edge of the photosphere is very distinct, topped by the tenuous plasma in the chromosphere and transition region.1 - Above that, the solar atmosphere is transparent. - The full transition, from opacity to transparency, occurs in only 7 Mm [7,000 km]. - (Figure 1. The solar limb seen in H-α (6563 Å), 2007-05-27, courtesy Fred Bruenjes.) - Further evidence of a distinct surface are the s-waves sometimes caused by solar flares. - S-waves only occur at the boundary between layers with dramatically different densities.2:73 (See Figure 2.) - (Figure 2. Waves propagating after a solar flare, 1996-07-09, courtesy SOHO.) - (The images show an area 200 Mm [200,000 km] across.) - Yet in the standard model, a distinct surface just isn't possible. - If the organizing principle is gravity, balanced only by hydrostatic pressure, the density gradient should be set deterministically by the ideal gas laws. (See Figure 3.) - (Figure 3. The density gradient of the Sun in the Dalsgaard model, based on the ideal gas laws, with gravity supplying the pressure.) - (The X axis shows the decimal of the solar radius starting from the center, and above is the percentage of the solar volume, starting from the surface.) - (The Y axis shows g/cm3.) - The model density at 1.0 R is 2×10^−4 kg/m^3 (i.e., a good laboratory vacuum), increasing steadily to the density of STP air at a depth of 13.22 Mm. - In such a gradient, there is no distinct edge. - Analogously, the Earth's atmosphere traverses the same gradient from the top of the mesosphere (i.e., the dashed red line in (Figure 4) down to sea level.3 - Even when only partially back-lit by the Sun, the [Earth's] mesosphere is transparent. - In full daylight, even the troposphere is transparent. - (Figure 4. Earth's atmosphere back-lit at sunrise, courtesy NASA.) - (The pale blue-green color is from water vapor in the troposphere.) - (The dark blue is from nitrogen and oxygen in the stratosphere.) - (The dashed red line shows the top of the transparent mesosphere.) - (Figure 5. ESO 325-G004) - Hence the plasma on the limb of the Sun should still be quite transparent at a depth [of] 13.22 Mm, and the opacity should increase steadily with depth, without producing a distinct edge. - With an internal light source, the Sun should look like headlights in the fog, with the luminosity gradually tapering off to nothing at some distance from the center - (similar to the luminosity from elliptical galaxies (for different reasons), as in (Figure 5.)) - Since the ideal gas laws leave no room for reinterpretation, the only possible conclusion is that forces other than just gravity and hydrostatic pressure are responsible for the sharp increase in density going from the chromosphere to the photosphere. - At the macroscopic level, there are two candidates: the electric force, and the magnetic force. [Proof That the Sun's Distinct Limb Is Not Due to Magnetism] - We can rule out the magnetic force by several lines of reasoning. - First, the Sun's magnetic field averages 1 Gauss, which is merely twice the strength of the Earth's average field, and there is no distinct density drop-off in the Earth's atmosphere. - Second, hydrogen plasma doesn't have much of a magnetic dipole, so it wouldn't respond much, even to a strong field. - Third, if it did, the surface of the Sun would vary [in height] with the strength and polarity of the magnetic field, which it does not. - That leaves only the electric force. [Proof That the Sun's Distinct Limb Is Not Due to Just One Layer of Surface Electric Charge] - Since it's the only candidate, its presence need not be proved any other way. - We can then ask what configuration of the electric force would produce such a distinct edge. - We know that for the electric force to have that much influence, the top layer has to be charged. - We can also deduce with confidence that there has to be a strong field between it and an underlying layer. - If the Sun only had one charge (positive or negative), it would not have a distinct edge on the limb. - The Coulomb force would simply add to the hydrostatic pressure, somewhat more vigorously, and the density would thin out over a much greater distance. [Proof That the Sun's Distinct Limb Is Due to Compressive Ionization in a Deeper Layer] - So there have to be at least two different charges in the Sun, and the charge of the visible surface has to be opposite from the charge of the layer below it. - The electric force then pulls the top layer downward, compacting it far beyond the expectations of the ideal gas laws. - Charged double-layers wouldn't seem possible, since hydrogen plasma at 6,000 K is an excellent conductor. - There are only two forces that can maintain a charge separation in the absence of any resistance whatsoever: the magnetic force, and compressive ionization. - We already ruled out the magnetic force, so compressive ionization is the only candidate. - At extreme pressures (easily achieved inside the Sun), atoms are forced closer together than their electron shells allow, resulting in the expulsion of the electrons.4 - The free electrons congregate at a higher altitude, where the reduced density provides enough space between atoms to accommodate them. - The negative layer so produced might go on to induce a positive charge in the layer above it, which will likewise be a current-free double-layer, still in the absence of any resistance whatsoever. - The positive double-layer will be attracted to the negative layer, but repelled by the positive layer below that (i.e., the one created by compressive ionization), and all three will be stable in a PNP configuration. - Such layers created simply by induction can continue ad infinitum, though in spherical layers, the charge density relaxes [decreases?] with each inversion. - At some point away from the primary charge separation, the next induced double-layer will not be bound firmly enough to stay organized. - So we have deduced with confidence the following facts. -· The electric force is responsible for the extreme density of the photosphere compared to the chromosphere. -· The photosphere is electrically charged. -· There is at least one other layer below it, with the opposite charge, supplying the force necessary to compress the photosphere beyond the expectations of the ideal gas laws. -· The primary charge separation is caused by compressive ionization, setting up the first two charged double-layers. - Additional layers might also be caused by induction. [Proof That the Sun's Distinct Limb Is Not Due to an Anode Configuration, But to a Cathode One] - We can also deduce the charge of the photosphere, and the relative strength of its charge compared to the underlying layer. - There are six possible configurations. - There are two possible stacking orders of charges (positive over negative, or negative over positive). - Then there are three variations for the relative strengths of the charges (top layer is stronger, underlying layer is stronger, or the charges are perfectly matched). - We can dismiss the possibility that the top layer has more charge, since the excess charge would simply drift away. - We can also dismiss the possibility that the charges are evenly matched. - In charged double-layers, the electric field between the layers is greatest at the boundary between them. - Moving away from the boundary, the field density diminishes, because of the increased distance from the opposite charge, and because of repulsion from like charges in the same layer. - Analogously, in a heavy element, the outer electrons are loosely bound, because of distance from the nucleus, and because of repulsion from electrons in inner shells. - The same is true of plasma double-layers. - The significance is that with equally matched charges in the solar double-layers, the density of the top layer would still relax gradually to nothing at some distance away [the density would decrease gradually, instead of abruptly]. - So the distinct limb proves that the underlying charge [layer] has to be more powerful [than the top layer], and the top layer has only its densest component [?]. - This leaves only two possible configurations, depending on the stacking order (positive over negative, or negative over positive). - First we'll consider that the underlying layer is positive. - If so, it would easily strip all of the excess electrons from the overlying [i.e. top] layer, as they would all be unbound at 6,000 K. - Neutral atoms left behind would form a gravitational gradient, tapering off to nothing at infinity. - So the underlying layer cannot be positive. - The only remaining possibility is that the underlying layer is negative. - As such, it will attract positive ions, and ionize neutral atoms to pull in the positive charges that it wants. - Excess electrons above such a layer will not shield it from our view, because free electrons are transparent. - Hence the distinct limb reveals the extent of a positive double-layer being held down tightly to a far stronger negative layer. - (Figure 6. Convective zone layers.) - (Red = negative; green = positive.) - (Dimensions are in Mm.) - Figure 6 depicts this charge configuration, with a positive charge on top, a negative layer below that, and another positive layer below that. [How the PNP Layers Formed] - If we look back at Figure 3, we see that at ~0.83 R the density has achieved that of liquid hydrogen due to the gravitational force. - Additional pressure will then ionize the hydrogen [by compressive ionization], creating a layer of positive charge. - For this reason, the top of the primary positive layer is set there (i.e., 125 Mm below the surface). - Due to the helioseismic echo at the tachocline, the bottom of that layer is set 84 Mm deeper. - All of the electrons expelled from the primary positive layer will congregate above, creating a negative layer. - The positive layer at the top [called the photosphere] can only be the result of induction. - Its depth is set at 20 Mm due to the presence of a slight helioseismic echo there. - Hence by fully processing a few simple facts, we gain a lot of information about the structure of the Sun, at least near the surface. - The remainder of this work applies this general method, of going back to the most salient observations of the Sun, and thoroughly considering the implications. - The result is a fully physical model that performs respectably at a high specificity. References 1. Robitaille, P., 2011: On the Presence of a Distinct Solar Surface: A Reply to Hervé Faye. - Progress in Physics, 3: 75-78 2. Robitaille, P., 2007: A High Temperature Liquid Plasma Model of the Sun. Progress in Physics, 1: 70-81 3. Picone, J. M.; E. Hedin, A.; Drob, D. P.; Aikin, A. C., 2002: NRLMSISE-00 empirical model of the atmosphere: Statistical comparisons and scientific issues. Journal of Geophysical Research, 107 (A12): 1468 4. Saumon, D.; Chabrier, G., 1992: Fluid hydrogen at high density: Pressure ionization. Physical Review A, 46 (4): 2084-2100
justcurious
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Lloyd, would you mind if you guys play "debate & learn" on the lower boards? Everytime there's a good discussion going on, it ends up getting cluttered with noise. You guys' posts are usually very long and diverge form the topic. It becomes hard to follow good discussions, and other people's good posts get burried and forgotten. Perhaps you can start your own threads? I believe you have a "call for criticisms" thread for yours and Charle's solar model.
upriver
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
jacmac wrote: Could the primary source of power to "light" the Sun come from the entire heliosphere moving in what I believe is called the Interstellar Medium.
Brant has been working on an idea that ELF EM waves power the Sun, but with such long wavelengths that only something as big as the Sun can act as an antenna. We can't measure them because we don't have an antenna big enough to pick them up. It's an interesting hypothesis. BTW, there is "some" evidence of plasma headed into the Sun, in addition to the solar wind coming back out. The true nature of it has yet to be nailed down. Brant & I agree that electrons are streaming out of the Sun, while he thinks that the Sun is gaining mass from "coronal rain" (i.e., ions settling into the Sun due to gravitational and/or electrostatic attraction), and I believe that there is a net loss of ions in CMEs, where some of it rains back down, and the rest goes out into the interplanetary medium.
Charles,
I think the same thing about CME's as you do...That if its mass leaving the surface what you see is what you get... Most leaves and some falls or rains back down... Particularly that recent CME where the large chunks fall back to the sun under the power of gravity..
Recently I have been wondering if all astronomical objects grow...
Take for instance VV Cephei vs the sun....The difference is so astounding that how could the same plasma model work for all sizes?? You would think that it would take a correspondingly long time for these stars to collapse into a lit star...
However if stars grew then there is no problem in a infinitely old universe if gravity is really an external force....
upriver
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
PersianPaladin wrote: Now, if space-craft at 0.3-1.5 AU out from the sun are not detecting a sufficient electron density and electronion ratio in the fast solar wind - then does that mean that the origin of the fast solar wind above the poles, is neutral? No! Clearly a powerful current is responsible for those polar Kg fields. The vorticity at the poles may be part of a bi-directional current system that is pinched to a sufficient electron density in the polar regions and is much lower in current-density but considerably larger cross-sectionaly through the heliosphere.
I'm thinkin that you just didnt see the papers I posted about the Polar Plumes... According to the paper the polar plumes are outflows... And so I asked the question "Can you have current(electrons, ions) flowing into the poles at the same time?" I could never say yes to that question so thats why am using the power source I am... If you can let me know... It appears to me that everything leaves the sun from all places...
Solar tornados are not a efficient power channel... They dissipate energy...
There are dynamic inflows of H and He but I use that mechanism to put gas on the solar surface to use in nucleosynthesis process... Its justa a guess... Gas Heading the Wrong Way http://www.spacetoday.org/SolSys/Sun/Su ... nward.html The gas comes from interstellar neutral gas inflows into the solar system and consists of H, He, Ne, N, Ar, and trace amounts of other gases. The reason the gases flow into the solar system is because they are neutral or un-ionized thereby not affected by the magnetic fields of the sun or heliosphere... The Galactic Environment of the Sun http://www.americanscientist.org/issues ... &css=print
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
bobinski wrote: The data for the electron density at the heliopause is not relevant at 1AU. At 1AU, the electron density ne ~ 2.5/cc [Maksimovic 2005, p6 Fig 4]. If the plasma is charge-neutral, Juergens' model requires v ~ 350 km/s relative to the protons. That is to say, there must be a net relative Sunward velocity of 350km/s between all the electrons and the 'background' protons.
PersianPaladin wrote: Now, if space-craft at 0.3-1.5 AU out from the sun are not detecting a sufficient electron density and electronion ratio in the fast solar wind - then does that mean that the origin of the fast solar wind above the poles, is neutral? No! Clearly a powerful current is responsible for those polar Kg fields. The vorticity at the poles may be part of a bi-directional current system that is pinched to a sufficient electron density in the polar regions and is much lower in current-density but considerably larger cross-sectionaly through the heliosphere. [...] So I'm not sure you can use that paper to argue against external currents powering the Sun.
You have to actually listen to what's being said, and to consider the implications, otherwise you'll just be talking past each other, and repeating yourself over and over, without ever making any new points. He's saying that the solar wind is streaming out at 400 km/s, and the Juergens model would have electrons streaming in at 350 km/s. Think about that for a second. That's a 750 km/s difference. The density of the interplanetary medium is slight (i.e., roughly 5 particles per cubic centimeter), giving a mean free path measured in tens of meters (or more). But collisions are going to happen, and they'll be extremely violent. And the electrons are going to lose all of their velocity, being 1836 times lighter than protons. In fact, they'll be bounced back toward the heliopause. Imagine what would happen if a ping-pong ball collided with a basketball. So then the electron needs to get accelerated again, which is not a problem, but then there will be another collision. Now, electrons getting accelerated to relativistic velocities in just tens of meters is not the problem (depending on the voltage). But maintaining an average drift velocity of 750 km/s, even through 5 particles per cubic centimeter, is an eyebrow-raiser.
But I come to a different conclusion from Bob. He thinks that such a drift velocity is impossible, and I agree with that. For him, it's over at that point, but it isn't actually that simple. I'm saying that such a net drift velocity could happen, albeit with different characteristics, but those characteristics are not observed. Confronted with the resistance from a 750 km/s drift, and given that electrons in a respectable electric field can rapidly achieve relativistic velocities, the electrons will form into discrete charge streams, by the magnetic pinch effect. In other words, they should clump together into interplanetary lightning strikes. Once pinched into discharge channels, the electrons move faster, since they have evacuated all of the counter-streaming protons from the channel, and thus have eliminated the resistance. This is how lightning in the troposphere works, and if it weren't for the z-pinch, and the subsequent reduction of resistance due to the evacuation of the discharge channel, arc discharges wouldn't happen. You need the resistance to build up the potential, and then you need for there to be a catastrophic failure of the resistance to get a discharge. That failure is the direct consequence of the magnetic pinch effect, because the faster the electrons move, the more consolidated they get, and the more consolidated they get, the faster they move (due to reduced resistance in the smaller channel). So it's a bimodal "instability", where either you have an extremely slow electron drift in dark or glow mode, or you have a relativistic drift in arc mode, and there are distinct thresholds between these modes. With a 750 km/s drift velocity, and only a 1 V/m breakdown voltage in space, you very definitely have the conditions necessary for the drift to graduate to arc mode.
The problem with that is that all of this current would be concentrated into a handful of discrete discharge channels. In other words, we'd expect the Sun to look like a plasma lamp, with a small number of highly dynamic, but easily identifiable, arc discharges, with discrete footpoints on the surface of the Sun. And I just don't see any way around that. You have to consider these instabilities when talking about large currents (i.e., 1016 amps) moving through a medium with a low breakdown voltage. You speak of the magnetic pinch effect as if it's the organizing principle of galaxies, stellar systems, star formation, planetary nebulae, and just about everything else, except the conditions in which it was first discovered and has been best-studied, i.e., lightning.
So, without dodging the issue by citing more evidence of electric currents in and around the Sun, can you answer why the currents don't get pinched, and why the brightest aspects of the Sun are not the handful of discrete discharge channels that the anode model "should" predict (if it was true to the implications of its assertions)?
I agree that the currents are there, so you don't have to sell me on that. But I disagree on the nature of the currents.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
My criticism of Bob's source still stands - as his was a reference to the fast solar wind electron density and I cited that the origin of the fast solar wind is from powerful vertical magnetic fields in the polar region. Electric currents are behind those magnetic fields. Whether you like it or not, upriver. Unless you want to argue about "magnetic re-connection" or "twisted fields".
There are lots of other sources on electron flux and density distributions near the Sun, such as here:-
We can argue all day about the apparent inadequate ratios between charges in certain locations, but it still has to account for the origin of the particles in the solar-wind coming from regions of significant electric current.
And solar tornadoes can't transmit electric current? They only dissipate energy do they?
The solar tornadoes drag winding magnetic field and electric currents into the high atmosphere. It is possible that the magnetic field and currents play a key role in driving the coronal mass ejections.
These are magnetic entities (i.e. they carry currents) - just as apparently is the more thoroughly measured "tornado" structures found above Earth:- http://www.electricyouniverse.com/eye/t ... rrents.jpg (Source: NASATHEMIS).
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
So, without dodging the issue by citing more evidence of electric currents in and around the Sun, can you answer why the currents don't get pinched, and why the brightest aspects of the Sun are not the handful of discrete discharge channels that the anode model "should" predict (if it was true to the implications of its assertions)?
We all agree that there are currents there — that's not the issue. The question concerns the nature of the currents. Stop citing evidence of electric currents — we're already convinced. But as concerns the nature of the currents, we're looking at a broader body of evidence, and considering other possible configurations. You have only your original position. You think that you're arguing against mainstreamers who deny the presence of currents. Actually, if you were to listen to them, even they acknowledge currents, though they conceptualize them in a different way. And you talk past them too. They have convinced you of nothing, and you have convinced them of nothing, because neither of you will look at the full complement of data, and consider other possibilities that can more accurately account for the observations. This gives the EU the reputation for tenaciously adhering to tenets in spite of evidence to the contrary. Is that your objective? I'm trying to prove that the Universe is definitely electric, and how. You're polarizing everybody in the world against us. We're not going to convince anybody of anything just with tenacity. Anybody who would be impressed by that is far more impressed with the tenacity of the mainstream!
D_Archer
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
D_Archer wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote: Can somebody... anybody... tell me what drives the "main current increasing in strength" in this diagram?
The main driving force of E/M is charge, Miles Mathis has described the basic charge field that underlies and drives E/M. His charge is photons (far infrared, he calls them ß-photons). Anti-photons come in at the north pole and photons come in at the south pole, charge mostly leaves the sun at the equator. With this basic premise, much enigma's about the sun (or any star) can be solved.
Kind regards, Daniel
Charles asked a question and i answered the question and PP also supplied references to currents entering the poles of the sun, this in accordance with Don Scott's model.
Regards, Daniel
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
D_Archer wrote: The main driving force of E/M is charge, Miles Mathis has described the basic charge field that underlies and drives E/M. His charge is photons (far infrared, he calls them ß-photons). Anti-photons come in at the north pole and photons come in at the south pole, charge mostly leaves the sun at the equator. With this basic premise, much enigma's about the sun (or any star) can be solved.
This is just ad hoc attribution, inventing forces on demand to explain the observations. But we already have models like that. What do "charge fields" give us that MHD does not? With MHD, you can do anything you want to sop up anomalies, and you can get funding! So who needs charge fields?
In the more fundamental sense, why reinvent physics to explain the anomalies? I'm convinced that it isn't physics that's broken. Rather, it's the non-physical constructs of Einstein et al. (i.e., general relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.) that have failed so miserably. But while some scientists followed in Einstein's footsteps, eventually creating a mathematical playpen that is now fully disassociated from empirical verification, other scientists have been employing a rigorous method that is now performing famously, in and out of the laboratory. Based on the atomic theory of matter, it shows us how to add up inertial, gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces, to derive predictions. It explains the periodic law, and thus chemistry and everything based on it, as well as thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, metallurgy, etc., etc., etc. Incredibly, it's been 100 years since anybody seriously considered the possibility that rigorous physics could solve astrophysical problems. 19th century physics certainly couldn't handle it. But physics has come a long way since then. We are now sure that EM exists, and we know about nuclear forces. What if that's all we need? If so, it will survive Occam's razor, but charge fields will not.
In the end, you make your guess, you lay down your money, and you take your chances. My money is all riding on proven laboratory science, and I'm not putting a penny on QM, QED, GR, CDM, MHD, or anything else that is fundamentally non-physical, nor am I betting that laboratory science could have worked out so cleanly when it will take a fundamental re-conception (such as what Mathis is attempting) to work out the remaining mysteries. At the very least, it would be worth the effort to at least try proven science before throwing it in the garbage can. So that's what I'm doing.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
If we take a look at the basic structure of the field-aligned currents entering and leaving our ionosphere:-
HINODE observations show that most spicules form a twisting "double-thread" structure during their evolution. Reminiscent of our field-aligned birkeland currents:-
Who is to say that the Sun is not connected to a galactic circuit just as the Earth is connected to a solar circuit? One could argue that the vertical magnetic flux data at the poles is probably not representative of anything except that of a complex magnetic-reversal system; given that the powerful vertical fields turn into considerably weaker fields during solar maxima:- http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hinod ... metry.html
So, that's another mystery for electric models to look over.
Electron, proton and ion populations are another matter, and I've already highlighted the pitfalls of trying to count the correct amount of incoming electrons at certain locations. The Sun's behaviour is more complex than most of us realise.
Regarding spicules, I think they are analagous to the Birkeland Current schematic diagram I linked to above, and it seems they are important for maintaining the double-layer according to Don Scott:-
"In order to maintain the double layer above the photosphere that causes almost all the observed properties of the Sun, a certain ratio of the number of outgoing positive ions to the number of incoming electrons must exist. Quoting from Ralph Juergens: 'In a much cited classical review paper of 1929, Irving Langmuir demonstrated that a double sheath (DL) is stable only when the current densities of the positive-ion and electron flows across [through] it are properly related. The ratio of the electron current into the tuft to the positive-ion current out of the tuft must equal the square root of the ion mass divided by the electron mass, which is to say: (electron current / ion current)^2 = ion mass / electron mass = 1836. Thus electron current / ion current = 43.' "So there needs to be a lot more (43 times as many) electrons coming down through the DL as there are positive ions moving outward. "
Again, I'd like to consider an analogy with the Electric Comet - but baring in mind that such an object exhibits cathode arc features rather than that of an Anode discharge. Still, the principle is the same with respect to it being a discharge as a result of a steep voltage gradient between the comet and the surrounding electric field of the Sun. There is evidence of bi-directional jet flow from cometary nuclei, and so perhaps we should consider thinking about where the incoming electric current is coming from (within "neutral" interplanetary space) in order to power the discharge of the comet. The same could be said for the Sun, but of course - it's an Anode discharge (in my view) that was probably formed a long time ago and the currents entering it are the result of low-to-high potential V gradient flow. The solar-wind forms the "positive column" in the discharge that extends and then stops close to the virtual Cathode region (low potential). Why is the discharge of the Sun maintained? Well, if the Sun's plasmasphere is moving through a weak galactic current filament then the voltage will never be quite equalized between the Sun's Anode discharge and the galactic filaments due to constant movement. On the Earth, this doesn't seem to make sense. One would expect an instant discharge and equalization and the dissapearance of the Sun. But yet, if you refer to the behaviour of the "electric comet" again, you'll find that it doesn't instantly discharge as soon as it rapidly enters an area of sufficiently different voltage. In fact, the discharge builds up and gets stronger as it moves into a stronger electric field region. The speed of the movement is basically faster than the speed in which the comet nuclei can fully adjust its voltage to the environment. The same could perhaps be said to our Sun - which is moving at 486,000 miles per hour through the galaxy.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote: So, without dodging the issue by citing more evidence of electric currents in and around the Sun, can you answer why the currents don't get pinched, and why the brightest aspects of the Sun are not the handful of discrete discharge channels that the anode model "should" predict (if it was true to the implications of its assertions)?
This is not a straight forward question to answer given the problems in actually detecting the currents in the vertical about the Sun. Magnetic fields usually give them away, but I've already discussed the complexities and difficulties regarding mapping the fields in both the chromosphere, photosphere and polar regions. Just take this example regarding differences in magnetic field structure and intensity between the photosphere and chromosphere - with one being more time-variant:-
The analysis treated latitude-by-latitude monthly averages and revealed poleward monotonic increases in intensity and unipolarity. The photospheric polar field structure was approximately steady between 2003 and 2008 while the chromospheric field appears to be more time dependent, becoming approximately steady only approaching activity minimum in 2008. We found that the photospheric field is approximately radial in both polar caps between 2003 and 2008 and had field intensity increasing poleward,
Whether the "flux ropes" or "spicules" observed are actually "pinched" currents may or may not be true - but we don't have the sufficient probes to confirm that at present. Just tentative clues.
Lloyd
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
JC said: Lloyd, would you mind if you guys play "debate & learn" on the lower boards? Everytime there's a good discussion going on, it ends up getting cluttered with noise.
I mostly post things that deal directly with the anode and plasmoid sun issues here. I even post things that may support the anode sun theory sometimes. Even my last long post above from Charles' website supplies some support for all of the elecrtric sun models, even though it ends with the most support for CC's cathode model.
If you want to complain about our posting evidence against the anode or plasmoid models or about trying to learn from each other, then I should have the same right to complain about your complaining. I even suggested previously that you post Don's arguments so we can all read them here, but I guess you don't read my posts, since you never did it.
You'll probably get your wish that I go away. I was hopeful that there may be more productive discussion here, but it looks now like there won't be much more from you, Hoz or Daniel, so I expect I'll stop participating here.
