© Charles Chandler

 

Addressing spherical symmetry, here is an animation of a plasma pinch occuring inside Lerner's dense plasma focus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Byf5_e2W8Hs

I think you're aware that proponents of the Electric Universe/Electric Sun model feel that all stars are powered by energy received from their galactic circuits, right? Lot's of power there for the taking!

 

Here's a better video (with sound to explain what's going on):

http://focusfusion.org/index.php/site/article/dpf_animation/

Yet this is just another example of some of the fancy things that "might" happen (the video is an animation, and anything is possible in an animation) when working with high voltages between solid electrodes. Getting the same thing to happen, when the electrodes are clumps of plasma, is a little bit harder. The electrostatic repulsion between like charges at the electrodes is, by definition, more powerful than the electrostatic attraction between the electrodes, because of the distance factor. In a solid electrode, the crystal lattice of the solid holds the electrode together, but in plasma, with only gravity holding it together, the repulsion has a tendency of dispersing the plasma. This is something that I had to learn in order to understand thunderstorm electrification. If you look at the principles of EM as a grab-bag of diverse properties, you can make anything do anything. But some of those things aren't actually going to work if you take all of the factors into account. I went down many a blind alley, seeing a behavior of thunderstorms and grabbing the EM property that "could" do that, when really it couldn't under the circumstances. So you have to look at all of the factors. With respect to the "galactic circuit", I'd like to know how that much electricity flows, from that distance away, toward an electrode made of plasma, that somehow remains an electrode with a net charge, without electrostatic repulsion blowing it apart.

Ironically, if you actually looked at my model, you'd realize that I'm actually solving your biggest problem. I think that I would still disagree with you, that the Sun's primary energy source is external. But if it is, and if it is electromagnetic, you have to explain what overcomes electrostatic repulsion to maintain the net charge, thereby enabling the voltage and thus the current. My model can explain that — yours cannot.

 

Lots of fancy electrodynamic things can happen when working with high voltages between solid electrodes, especially when the current is just electrons, which have little mass and therefore respond to the slightest of electric fields. Things get way more complicated if there is a powerful external magnetic field. Then you get all kinds of spins and sub-spins, and you can even get toroidal plasmoids along a pinched current where there is a sudden change in the external magnetic field.

But when you say that electron spins falling into a highly unstable toroidal configuration along a pinched current constitute an explanation for the aggregation of matter into moons, planets, and stars, you've committed a non-trivial category error.

In the laboratory, you're not going to see those configurations in the flow of atomic nuclei, as the mass is too great, and the inertial forces preclude such behaviors. So it just applies to electrons. If you turn off the E-field, you're not going to be left with a little clump of matter there.

More critically, nobody can answer how such voltages ever occurred in the first place, when the anodes and cathodes have to be instantiated in plasma, which are quite easily dispersed by the repulsion of like charges. So even if you could get a toroidal plasmoid made of atomic nuclei in a pinched charge stream, where are the electrodes that caused such a current?

To have a true explanation, you have to demonstrate that the form is the same, and for the same reason, and that all aspects of the metaphor are relevant. Then you've got a physical identity, which constitutes a real explanation. But if there are fundamental differences between the conditions causing the two sets of phenomena, the visual similarity is purely coincidental, and you haven't explained anything.

 

When the magnetic pinch occurs, both tubular flows are blocked, but, apparently, the ionized matter doesn't stop; instead its forward movement is converted into circular movement, which causes it to form a sphere. All of the ionized matter in the Birkeland current tube to its source must continue to move forward until it piles into the growing ionic sphere. While the positive ion tube is forming the core of the sphere, the negative ion tube flowing from the opposite direction, must pile into the sphere as well, but from the opposite direction, and forms a layer over the positive core. Depending on how much matter is in each ion tube, the sphere will become either an asteroid, moon, planet, or star.

 

I need to see a diagram of this, explicitly identifying the field alignments, and explaining how the forces resolve into this configuration. As put, this is either a very lossy reduction of far more complex behaviors, or it's just incorrect. I know that the onus is on me to read... read... read... until I either understand or definitely disagree with good reason. But I got burned out on reading high-level generalizations that attributed fancy behaviors to plasma that could explain anything, when what they're actually saying doesn't actually make any sense. That's my whole problem with the mainstream theories, and I'm not going to be equally wrong but in a different way by taking an alternative view... I want to see the whole thing laid out, with the nuts and bolts necessary to hold the whole thing together clearly labelled.

 

Remembering that pinches can occur if any misalignment of I and B occurs, any matter that has been drawn into the filament will also be compressed if a misalignment of I and B occurs. If the pinch force is large enough, it can fragment the filament into discrete spherical or toroidal plasmoids along the axis of the current. Any matter in the pinch zone would then become compressed into the same form.

Because the electromechanical forces are vastly stronger than gravity, this mechanism offers a means by which diffuse matter can be accumulated and compressed in a much more efficient way than gravitational compression of diffuse clouds of fine dust particles.

I'm questioning whether "matter" can be fragmented into discrete spherical or toroidal plasmoids. I think that this only happens in electron streams (as correctly noted in the Essential Guide 6.2), leaving the aggregation of matter into celestial bodies unexplained. Also, you have positive and negative streams traveling side-by-side in opposite directions, which I questioned earlier.

 

Have you read about plasma guns and Thornhill's idea that AGNs, or Active Galactic Nuclei, act as plasma guns, which shoot out high velocity, low mass, quasars periodically, the quasars consisting largely of positive ions, due to magnetic fields holding back electrons? The electrons follow behind later, when the magnetic fields subside. Wouldn't quasars be electrodes then? And the electron streams would also be electrodes? Quasars are considered to form into companion galaxies as they lose velocity and gain mass by Marklund convection.

 

I agree that plasma jets emitted by AGNs are well-known, and I agree that the jets are charged. I also agree that knots form in the jets. But I don't think that the knots are necessarily the same as the "accumulation of matter" mentioned in the Essential Guide 6.11. The knots could be sputtering in the jet source, or places where the jet encountered other accretions, and the collisions produced the x-rays that we call "knots".

Furthermore, jets have a source but not a destination. So yes, a plasma gun can create a jet that stays organized indefinitely, due to the electrodynamic effects. But that's not a current responding to a voltage between two electrodes, which means that the results of high voltage experiments are not necessarily relevant. You have to establish how the "discrete spherical or toroidal plasmoids" can occur in plasma jets.

Further still, suppose the quasar has a net charge, making it a potential electrode which could support a current. Is there any evidence of this? We know about plasma jets being emitted, but have we ever seen a current from something into an AGN?

And further still, what formed the quasar in the first place? In other words, if you have electrodes, you can get a current, and if you have a current, you can get pinch effects. If you could get these effects to occur in plasma streams that included both electrons and atomic nuclei, you'd have all of the makings for a stable celestial body. But you never explained how the first two electrodes were formed.

 

Do you suppose Marklund had no lab evidence to support this statement?

 

I'm not questioning Marklund. But I would question whether this is relevant in star formation. How does plasma convecting towards the center of a cylindrical flux tube roll up into a ball to make a star? What happened to the flux tube? Did something strip it away? Elsewhere we're agreeing that plasma jets can continue indefinitely, due to the organizing electrodynamic forces.

 

Another interesting irony pertains to the Tokamak. Designed as an attempt to recreate the Sun's power source, it has ironically validated a couple of the EU's claims: that of fractal-like plasma scaling and of filamentary and Faraday motor structures embedded within plasmas of all types.

I totally do not see what "skeletal microstructures in various types of dust deposit in tokamaks" has to do with star formation. I can point to other things in nature that are filamentary. Like trees. Does that prove that filaments in astrophysics are made of wood?

 

There exists a burden to explain structures like the Cygnus Loop...

We agree that plasma jets are organized by electrodynamic forces. But that isn't going to form a star.

 

So why could not the layering of positive and negative layers that your theory says forms planets and stars be supplied by ion flows? If positive and negative megalightning can form planets and stars, that would be Marklund Convection, I presume, which could contain iron etc toward the center of the flow.

 

I agree that Marklund convection can concentrate neutrally charged matter inside a plasma jet, and even cool it to the point that it might become liquid or even solid. But starting with a cooled thread of solid matter along the axis of a plasma jet moving at the required relativistic speeds, how do you convert that to a spherical clump of matter moving slowly through space? The answer sometimes given is toroidal knots in a pinched charge stream, but that's a category error. The toroidal knots are just electrons — inertia precludes such behaviors in positive ions. So there's a "magic happens here" in the "Marklund convection forms astronomical orbs" construct.

 

46~60

61~75

76~90

91~105