justcurious wrote: There appear to be more ions than electrons in the solar wind...
Can you supply a reference for this?
I already did, several times. I think I had gotten that data here (among other places): http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace
So which empirical data you use to support your theories?
There's lots of freely available satellite data. Although as I mentioned in other posts, it's a bit complicated to interpret, you almost have to be an expert on the instrumentation used. Which is one reason I feel very fortunate that an experienced EE professor (Don Scott) broke it down and explained it in a sensible way.
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: But the best explanation of the solar wind data IMO is presented in Don Scott's paper A Note on the Acceleration of the Solar Wind, I recommend you read it, as it will probably clarify a lot of things for you.
Here was my response on 2013-04-09 when that paper was referenced earlier in this thread:
Scott wrote: 8. Stability of the 'Excess' Positive Charge Density A question that might be asked by critics of this proposed mechanism for producing the required electric field strength is, "What maintains the positive charge density in the shape that it must maintain (shown in figure 6)?" To maintain a distribution of matter that is more concentrated than it would normally be in quiescent conditions, there must be a power input to it. A case-in-point is the steady state large standing-wave that can form at the bottom of certain water slides. In figure 7, the wave would collapse if the strong flow coming in from the left were to stop. The height of the water wave is higher than what would be expected in a more slowly moving river. A continuous flow of ions maintains the 'excess' charge density in figure 6.
CharlesChandler wrote: There must be power into it, and there must be a voltage regulator. Can those be explained?
If my question was answered, I missed it.
Your question was "There must be power into it, and there must be a voltage regulator. Can those be explained?"
I suggest that you rephrase your question if you want responses, as it is rather incomprehensible (to me at least). As Mel Acheson says, "Show me the English". And anyhow, what does that have to do with the paper to begin with? If you;re asking where does the electric field come from, to create an electric field, the Sun merely needs to have a different charge than its surroundings, hence the formation of double layers, solar sheaths etc.
CharlesChandler wrote: My "natural tokamak" model for quasars uses an accretion disc (which we know to be there), has extremely powerful magnetic fields (which we know to be there)
So what is the cause of these powerful magnetic fields in your model?
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
justcurious wrote:
CharlesChandler wrote:
justcurious wrote: There appear to be more ions than electrons in the solar wind...
Can you supply a reference for this?
I already did, several times. I think I had gotten that data here (among other places): http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/ace
You don't perchance remember where, specifically, you got the contention that there are more ions than electrons in the solar wind, do you? I don't mean which satellite collected the data — I mean where you saw that contention. And by "ions", do you mean positive ions, or both signs?
justcurious wrote: So which empirical data you use to support your theories?
Here are the papers I'm citing. The data come from a variety of sources.
Cranmer, S. R., 2009: Testing and Refining Models of Slow Solar Wind Acceleration. SHINE 2009 Workshop
Erdélyi, R.; Ballai, I., 2007: Heating of the solar and stellar coronae: a review. Astronomische Nachrichten, 328 (8): 726-733
Frazin, R. A.; Cranmer, S. R.; Kohl, J. L., 2003: Empirically Determined Anisotropic Velocity Distributions and Outflows of O5+ Ions in a Coronal Streamer at Solar Minimum. The Astrophysical Journal, 597 (2): 1145
Gosling, J. T.; Hansen, R. T.; Bame, S. J., 1971: Solar wind speed distributions: 1962–1970. Journal of Geophysical Research, 76 (7): 1811-1815
Lemaire, J.; Scherer, M., 1971: Kinetic models of the solar wind. Journal of Geophysical Research, 76 (31): 7479-7490
Ogilvie, K. W.; Hirshberg, J., 1974: The solar cycle variation of the solar wind helium abundance. Journal of Geophysical Research, 79 (31): 4595-4602
Phillips, J. L. et al., 1995: Ulysses solar wind plasma observations from pole to pole. Geophysical Research Letters, 22 (23): 3301-3304
Sheeley, N. R., Jr.; Wang, Y., 2001: Coronal Inflows and Sector Magnetism. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 562 (1): L107
Swartz, M. et al., 1999: The SERTS97 Rocket Experiment to Study Activity on the Sun: Flight 36.167GS on 1997 November 18. NASA, 1999-208640
justcurious wrote: Your question was "There must be power into it, and there must be a voltage regulator. Can those be explained?" I suggest that you rephrase your question if you want responses, as it is rather incomprehensible (to me at least). As Mel Acheson says, "Show me the English". And anyhow, what does that have to do with the paper to begin with? If you're asking where does the electric field come from, to create an electric field, the Sun merely needs to have a different charge than its surroundings, hence the formation of double layers, solar sheaths etc.
If the Sun had a net positive charge, sure there would be an electric field, and there would be a flow of +ions away from the Sun, due to their repulsion from each other and/or their attraction to the (proposed) negative charge at the heliopause. (That, of course, assumes that +ions flow more freely than electrons.) So there is some sort of vast store of +ions that are slowly leaking out into the interplanetary medium. To prevent the instantaneous discharge of all of the potential, there would have to be some sort of resistance. What is the nature of that resistance?
justcurious wrote: So what is the cause of these powerful magnetic fields in your model?
Sorry — I thought you saw that I answered this in responding to PersianPaladin. My "natural tokamak" model gets all of its confinement just from the relativistic velocities of the plasma itself. In other words, it's a z-pinch, in circular form.
Siggy_G
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote: I think that in collisions, electrons will pick up the direction & speed of the +ions.
Agreed - and this mechanism is in part what has been suggested in several TPODs for what happens when there is an E-field and underlying discharge mechanism, whether at cosmic or high altitude atmospheric phenomena. It's also the explanation to why partly ionized gases can display plasma behaviour. Neutrals are collisionally dragged with the currents that attempt to reach through. This could also contribute to the explanation of the solar wind (mostly?) being a bulk outward drift of both ions and electrons, despite the direction of the proposed E-field.
Now, if the Sun has a net positive charge (or numerous spots of it) and if electrons are collisionally forced to leave it, despite the E-field direction, that would just contribute to the electrostatic potential. One would see strong displays of currents and discharging in the inner regions. This is probably what's going on in the corona; kinetic and thermal mechanisms against Maxvellian. See also last section.
CharlesChandler wrote: And since 1 μV/km is way-way-way below the ionization potentials of the elements present, electron uptake will occur, and that will be the end of the story.
I think the interplanetary medium will stay largely ionized throughout most of the heliosphere due to the ionizing radiation (UV+) from the Sun as well as ambient cosmic rays, both factors interfering with particle recombination. But there is no reason why there shouldn't occur more recombination towards the outer regions of the heliosphere, where there the radiation flux from the Sun and medium density decrease; and where neutrals in fact are detected. Also, when the interstellar medium can be in the plasma state, the interplanetary certainly can.
CharlesChandler wrote: Furthermore, to maintain this position, Bob's questions (concerning the evidence that the electron drift is away from the Sun, not toward it) have to be answered.
I'd like to see more of this data, if it can be summed up / reposted (perhaps it was already provided earlier on). If there is a net cirquit between the heliopause and the Sun, it is likely a plenum of thin and branching currents peaking towards the Sun. But one ought to detect incoming electrons within the bulk outward flow. The measured MFs by Ulysseus are rather spiky/noisy around the Sun.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
From Charles' page:-
Another possibility results from collisions near the center. As matter has been accelerated inward by the "like-likes-like" principle, and rotation has been induced by magnetic pressure in the radial momenta, eventually there will be a significant number of collisions near the center, and some of these will be explosive. The ejecta from these explosions will spiral outward with the same angular momenta they already had.
Do you have laboratory example of this "like-likes-like" principle? If not, perhaps we could just go with the plasma focus and field-aligned current explanations for now? After all, the morphologies I showed you in my last post seem to make a compelling case for that being the underlying driver.
I'm not ruling out Tokamak effects playing a role out there - but frankly I find the plasma focus and z-pinch explanation to be more elegant thus far.
You also admit there is a plasmoid at the center of galaxies:-
One possible solution is that the electric force helps keep the toroidal plasmoid consolidated. At relativistic speeds, positive and negative charges will get separated and then pinched into distinct charge streams
You do realise that plasmoids in plasma focus beams are essentially torroids? More accurately - they are a vortex. Yes, they can also be spherical in some cases too depending on various conditions. We still don't understand all the physics involved with such z-pinch devices. So talking about the full evolution of local or macroscopic E-fields and varying plasma resistances as current sheets converge and focus their energy - is still an area that few understand at sufficient accuracy.
You also say the DPF is a "contrived" configuration. Well, you could say that about anything - especially the highly complex and varied behaviour of plasma out there. A DPF essentially is a discharge between two electrodes of differing potential with the inner being at higher voltage and with the discharge filaments merging together and then "kinking" to produce considerable EM instabilities.
I think we can see the same thing here in space:-
(Southern Crab Nebula - filaments merging and producing photons?)
With all these small voltage differences between certain regions of differing plasma characteristics - it means that despite low current-density in individual filaments, if there is enough convergence then you can potentially get energies that are sufficiently of high magnitude to produce stars - or - at a larger scale, produce galaxies.
Siggy_G wrote: Neutrals are collisionally dragged with the currents that attempt to reach through. This could also contribute to the explanation of the solar wind (mostly?) being a bulk outward drift of both ions and electrons, despite the direction of the proposed E-field.
I agree. BTW, in the context of the Sun, this is (perhaps surprisingly) polarity-specific. First, consider that the electron drag was toward the Sun. Neutrals would be dragged into the Sun along with the electrons. But when you think about it, you realize that in a relatively short period of time, all of the available matter will have been packed into the Sun, leaving a perfect vacuum outside of it, and electrons zipping in at near-light-speed. As this is obviously not the case, let's look at it the other way. If the electrons are streaming out, as long as there is still a lot of matter in the Sun, neutrals will keep getting drug out of the Sun, to populate the interplanetary medium. So the model that best matches the observations has electrons streaming out due to an electric field, and neutrals getting drug along at a much lower speed. This is what Birkeland found in his terrella experiments — he could only get electrons, neutrals, and +ions streaming outward if the terrella was negatively charged. Now that we have solar wind data, Birkeland's results are more relevant than they were to him at the time.
Siggy_G wrote: Now, if the Sun has a net positive charge (or numerous spots of it) and if electrons are collisionally forced to leave it, despite the E-field direction, that would just contribute to the electrostatic potential.
This is similar to the Pannekoek-Rosseland field, wherein atomic nuclei are gravitationally separated from electrons because of their greater mass. You're identifying the collision pressure, while the Pannekoek-Rosseland field explicitly cites gravity. But either way, you're both talking about a system that has both inward gravity and outward hydrostatic pressure, or neither of you get what you want.
I agree that this is a factor, but I don't think that it's a big factor. Also, if the temperature is consistent, this gravitational/hydrostatic charge separation achieves an equilibrium, and therefore, cannot be responsible for currents.
Siggy_G wrote: I think the interplanetary medium will stay largely ionized throughout most of the heliosphere due to the ionizing radiation (UV+) from the Sun as well as ambient cosmic rays, both factors interfering with particle recombination.
You're right, and UV radiation certainly assists currents in plasmas, as it creates unbound electrons that can respond to an external electric field. But remember that it's always a balance. When that electron gets liberated from that atom, which way does it go: 1) back to the atom, or 2) in the direction of the external field? It all depends on which field is stronger. The valence electrons in heavy elements are loosely bound (because of electrostatic repulsion from electrons in lower shells), so they are easily liberated, making heavy elements excellent conductors. Lighter elements (especially hydrogen), or highly ionized heavy elements, exert more powerful forces on electrons, and are poor conductors. So I'd expect to see rapid electron uptake in ionized hydrogen and highly ionized iron, and the effects of 1 μV/m to be non-existent. (NB: in an earlier post, I quoted Thornhill who misquotes Scott's estimate of the field. It's microvolts per meter, or millivolts per kilometer, not microvolts per kilometer. But even at 3 orders of magnitude higher, I still think that it's a very weak external field. In the Earth's atmosphere, dark discharges require hundreds of volts/meter or more.) I actually think that the field is much stronger, but only within the first 0.5 AU or so. Photo-ionization will, of course, be a big factor. But to get Fe XV (i.e., iron missing 14 electrons), you need more than photo-ionization and collisional ionization — you need a strong electric field.
CharlesChandler wrote: Furthermore, to maintain this position, Bob's questions (concerning the evidence that the electron drift is away from the Sun, not toward it) have to be answered.
Siggy_G wrote: I'd like to see more of this data, if it can be summed up / reposted...
Bob's presentation is already well-summarized, so I'd just start with that.
Siggy_G wrote: If there is a net circuit between the heliopause and the Sun, it is likely a plenum of thin and branching currents peaking towards the Sun. But one ought to detect incoming electrons within the bulk outward flow.
A few of us totally agree with this, but the rest don't seem to understand the point. With a bulk outflow, the counter-streaming electrons should tunnel through the solar wind in isolated, obvious channels.
Siggy_G wrote: The measured MFs by Ulysseus are rather spiky/noisy around the Sun.
Right, but in a constant electric field, and with a constant supply of electrons, to generate solar radiation that varies less than 1% from maximum to minimum, we'd expect steady electric currents. So there should be sustained lightning channels, like Lichtenberg figures, rooted on the Sun's surface. Instead, we see helmet streamers, which is not an expectation of the anode model.
PersianPaladin wrote: Do you have laboratory example of this "like-likes-like" principle?
Feynman, R.; Leighton, R.; Sands, M., 1970: The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley
Nagornyak, E.; Pollack, G. H., 2005: Connecting filament mechanics in the relaxed sarcomere. Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility, 26 (6-8): 303-306
Pollack, G. H.; Figueroa, X.; Zhao, Q., 2009: Molecules, Water, and Radiant Energy: New Clues for the Origin of Life. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 10 (4): 1419
PersianPaladin wrote: If not, perhaps we could just go with the plasma focus and field-aligned current explanations for now? After all, the morphologies I showed you in my last post seem to make a compelling case for that being the underlying driver.
"Morphologies" seem to make a compelling case for you, and they did for me too, until I took a closer look. I made a detailed study of tornadoes, starting with the EU model, but found that the EU model was as problematic as the mainstream's. So I did the work to develop a better model. With time, such has pretty much become my opinion of the bulk of EU theory. It isn't better than the mainstream's. It's just different. But I'm not looking for different. I'm looking for better. So, will I go with the existing EU models "for now"? No, that was 5 years ago for me. Now I'm directly addressing issues in the mainstream and in the EU models. The Universe is definitely electric. But I can prove that there are intractable problems with central tenets in the EU framework. Until those problems get fixed, there won't be any progress. There is a reason why the EU positions on these issues haven't changed. It's because there's nowhere to go. So we have to go back to the drawing board and see where we went wrong. We know that the Newton-Einstein framework is busted, and that EM is the only other possibility. So the EU premise is correct. But just because EM is the missing ingredient doesn't mean that any EM configuration is going to work.
PersianPaladin wrote: I'm not ruling out Tokamak effects playing a role out there - but frankly I find the plasma focus and z-pinch explanation to be more elegant thus far.
Elegant? Maybe. Accurate? No. And I actually think that the "natural tokamak" idea is a good deal simpler. But I suppose that elegance is in the eyes of the beholder.
PersianPaladin wrote: You also admit there is a plasmoid at the center of galaxies:-
One possible solution is that the electric force helps keep the toroidal plasmoid consolidated. At relativistic speeds, positive and negative charges will get separated and then pinched into distinct charge streams
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6092
Ummm, what I actually said was that "black holes" are toroidal plasmoids. But scientists haven't found a "black hole" at the center of every galaxy, nor is every "black hole" in the center of a galaxy. (They're now saying that quasars are driven by black holes, and Arp's work demonstrates that quasars aren't always at the center of the host galaxy.) So the mainstream correlation between "black holes" and galactic centers isn't correct IMO.
PersianPaladin wrote: You do realise that plasmoids in plasma focus beams are essentially toroids? More accurately - they are a vortex. Yes, they can also be spherical in some cases too depending on various conditions.
Which of those do I realize (i.e., toroid, vortex, or sphere)? I'm confused.
PersianPaladin wrote: A DPF essentially is a discharge between two electrodes of differing potential with the inner being at higher voltage and with the discharge filaments merging together and then "kinking" to produce considerable EM instabilities.
The question is, "How do you get that much potential built up in plasma, and then instantaenously discharge it?" In DPF, they have to discharge capacitor banks to instantaenously generate the potentials, because they're operating way over the breakdown voltage. When this is offered as the explanation for quasars, it sends us in search of excellent capacitance in plasma, which is an excellent conductor. Sure, plasma has some resistance, but is it capable of storing charges and then instantaneously discharging potentials way in excess of the breakdown voltage? And then the current just stops, so that the impulse can resolve into a self-contained plasmoid that collapses? Ummm...
PersianPaladin wrote: With all these small voltage differences between certain regions of differing plasma characteristics - it means that despite low current-density in individual filaments, if there is enough convergence then you can potentially get energies that are sufficiently of high magnitude to produce stars - or - at a larger scale, produce galaxies.
If it did, it wouldn't be DPF.
PersianPaladin wrote: Image of currents merging?
You didn't complete the exercise I described, where I asked you to draw out the lines of force that you think would produce intersecting currents.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Charles Chandler wrote: Feynman, R.; Leighton, R.; Sands, M., 1970: The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Reading, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley
Nagornyak, E.; Pollack, G. H., 2005: Connecting filament mechanics in the relaxed sarcomere. Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility, 26 (6-8): 303-306
Pollack, G. H.; Figueroa, X.; Zhao, Q., 2009: Molecules, Water, and Radiant Energy: New Clues for the Origin of Life. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 10 (4): 1419
Are those lab examples of plasma behaviour? I'm not seeing it.
Charles Chandler wrote: "Morphologies" seem to make a compelling case for you, and they did for me too, until I took a closer look. I made a detailed study of tornadoes, starting with the EU model, but found that the EU model was as problematic as the mainstream's. So I did the work to develop a better model. With time, such has pretty much become my opinion of the bulk of EU theory. It isn't better than the mainstream's. It's just different. But I'm not looking for different. I'm looking for better. So, will I go with the existing EU models "for now"? No, that was 5 years ago for me. Now I'm directly addressing issues in the mainstream and in the EU models. The Universe is definitely electric. But I can prove that there are intractable problems with central tenets in the EU framework. Until those problems get fixed, there won't be any progress. There is a reason why the EU positions on these issues haven't changed. It's because there's nowhere to go. So we have to go back to the drawing board and see where we went wrong. We know that the Newton-Einstein framework is busted, and that EM is the only other possibility. So the EU premise is correct. But just because EM is the missing ingredient doesn't mean that any EM configuration is going to work.
Yes, morphologies matter. Are you saying they don't? True, they are just part of our tool-box in science but they have an important place nonetheless.
It's interesting because you bring up your tornado paper again. I respected that piece of work that you did and referenced it myself. It is natural to assume that electrical forces are not solely at work in Earth tornadoes given that our neutral atmosphere as well as thermodynamic forces are likely impacting the formation of these weather systems. But out there in the plasma environment of space, electrical forces really should be considered and taken seriously and if the morphologies are compelling in similarity to lab examples of electrical discharge, then they're an indication.
Charles Chandler wrote:
Elegant? Maybe. Accurate? No. And I actually think that the "natural tokamak" idea is a good deal simpler. But I suppose that elegance is in the eyes of the beholder.
How about I use the term "natural plasma focus", would that be better?
Charles Chandler wrote: Ummm, what I actually said was that "black holes" are toroidal plasmoids. But scientists haven't found a "black hole" at the center of every galaxy, nor is every "black hole" in the center of a galaxy. (They're now saying that quasars are driven by black holes, and Arp's work demonstrates that quasars aren't always at the center of the host galaxy.) So the mainstream correlation between "black holes" and galactic centers isn't correct IMO.
Which of those do I realize (i.e., toroid, vortex, or sphere)? I'm confused.
Charles Chandler wrote: The question is, "How do you get that much potential built up in plasma, and then instantaenously discharge it?" In DPF, they have to discharge capacitor banks to instantaenously generate the potentials, because they're operating way over the breakdown voltage. When this is offered as the explanation for quasars, it sends us in search of excellent capacitance in plasma, which is an excellent conductor. Sure, plasma has some resistance, but is it capable of storing charges and then instantaneously discharging potentials way in excess of the breakdown voltage? And then the current just stops, so that the impulse can resolve into a self-contained plasmoid that collapses? Ummm...
Au contraire.
Here is Eric Lerner's diagram of inflowing electric field-aligned currents in a rotating proto-galactic cloud:-
He states that unlike the energy source of the plasma focus, the energy source of quasar plasmoids is driven by the rotation of the protogalaxy which generates the currents via the unipolar generation mechanism as also theorized by Alfven. These currents then merge and self-pinch and produce plasmoids once the current-density becomes sufficiently high. There is clearly no need for all of this charge to be stored in just a few filaments given that the entire galaxy and the many diffuse filaments provide the energy. The force-free arrangement of these current filaments and the small angle between these stream flows and the local magnetic fields mean minimum energy loss. As for the problem of "instantaneous discharge" - once you scale up the plasma focus phenomena to astrophysical dimensions then you also scale-up what may take a fraction of a second in a lab to much greater time-periods at the scale of galaxies. The Debye lengths of currents at these scales are enormous compared to say - solar flares, and the current densities of each filament may well be very low, but they can still carry kilo-amperes of current in total.
Charles Chandler wrote: You didn't complete the exercise I described, where I asked you to draw out the lines of force that you think would produce intersecting currents.
lol. I think I'm quite satisified with that picture and several others which provide an indication of what I've been talking about. You say that currents cannot intersect in space, right? Yet currents are travelling through plasma of different densities, temperatures and with different cross-sectional quantities of currents through them at any time - so a current is likely going to enter a more "crowded" region at some point. Again, I refer you back to the "hub" regions where stars are shown to form in IC clouds. Of course, it would be good to look further as to exactly WHY this occurs in a plasma.
Oh, and where does sufficient energy come from to power the really high-energy gamma rays coming from a tiny percentage of AGN's spatial area (within small areas of their centres), given the fact that they are surrounded by typically very low current-density and weak magnetic fields on average? That question could be posed to your "natural tokomak" model.
You write:-
"Another possibility results from collisions near the center. As matter has been accelerated inward by the "like-likes-like" principle, and rotation has been induced by magnetic pressure in the radial momenta, eventually there will be a significant number of collisions near the center, and some of these will be explosive. The ejecta from these explosions will spiral outward with the same angular momenta they already had. As they move away from the center, they will collide with matter spiraling inward. On collision, the net result will be the vector product of the two motions. So when matter spiraling outward collides with matter spiraling inward, the result is matter rotating around the center — even faster. As there is no theoretical limit to the amount of energy that can be stored in the momentum of an accretion disc, we can expect a sufficiently large one to develop relativistic angular velocities near the center."
Well, that supposes that the surrounding galactic environment can provide sufficient coloumbs or charge density to power the enormous energies that we often observe. So you're basically saying that diffuse charges converge in the centre but you use differing magnetodynamic forces to account for this. Yet, technically this means there is a very steep increase in electric-field from the central region to that only slightly outward from it. Is that not a problem for you? (It's not for me - in the model I refer to).
I've answered it with Lerner's theory and you'll also have to come to an explanation as to what creates the powerful electric currents and fields of sufficient strength to explain what we see. I believe Arp hypothesizes that the kinetic energy of rapidly moving and rotating charged plasma after its ejection from parent AGN's is responsible for the rotation that then induces the radially-inward currents.
If it's just the flow of charge by an unexplained "like-like-likes" force and collisions then which model do you think can be better tested?
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
PersianPaladin wrote: Are those lab examples [of the "like-likes-like" principle] of plasma behaviour?
No, but the principles are the same.
PersianPaladin wrote: Yes, morphologies matter.
Sure they matter. But sometimes things look the same, but for very different reasons. For example, I know people who think that since tornadoes are "funnel" shaped, and so is the vortex in water going down a drain, the two are precisely the same phenomenon. Actually, they look the same, but for very different reasons. But try to explain that to somebody who sees a similarity and locks down on it and you might never get through. Some people just don't understand the concept of similitude, wherein things are demonstrated to be the same, and for all of the same reasons. If so, all knowledge about the first phenomenon can be applied to the second. If not, the apparent similarity actually impedes the progress of our understanding. Sooner or later, differences will start to show up. If people have already locked down on a superficial similarity, they'll find excuses to dismiss the differences, and then it will take even longer to achieve a full understanding. So morphologies matter, but so does similitude.
PersianPaladin wrote: But out there in the plasma environment of space, electrical forces really should be considered and taken seriously...
Definitely.
PersianPaladin wrote: ...and if the morphologies are compelling in similarity to lab examples of electrical discharge, then they're an indication.
Not necessarily.
Charles Chandler wrote: In DPF, they have to discharge capacitor banks to instantaneously generate the potentials, because they're operating way over the breakdown voltage.
PersianPaladin wrote: Au contraire.
Think again. DPF has to rapidly exceed the breakdown voltage, and then the current has to stop abruptly, because the current needs to be an impulse. If it isn't, the current will never close on itself, forming a toroidal plasmoid. This schematic shows a current looping back on itself, but note that where the current is traveling in opposite directions, there is magnetic pressure, due to the opposing magnetic fields (i.e., the corollary of the magnetic pinch effect):
So this configuration of discharge requires a rapid attack and a rapid decay, to create a distinct impulse of current, and then it's capable of closing on itself. With electronic switching, this is trivial. But in the proposed galactic unipolar motor, where the electromotive force is constant, an impulse could only be the result of an instantaneous arc discharge. The first problem is that in space, with a breakdown voltage of something like 1 V/m, the discharges will be extremely weak, if they happen at all. Remember that an arc discharge requires that the potential increase faster than it can be discharged in glow mode, or in a Townsend avalanche. With that as a requirement, the second problem is intractable. The DPF model requires a radial impulse capable of resolving into a toroidal plasmoid. So it's a radial arc discharge. Without solid-state electrodes, how are you going to get the charge density in the center to attract a radial discharge? Why didn't electrostatic repulsion prevent it? A unipolar motor doesn't create a concentration of charge at the center. Charges come in along the equator, and go out along the axis. Where's the concentration necessary for even a weak arc discharge?
Ah, that's right — it's in the apparent similarity.
PersianPaladin wrote: You say that currents cannot intersect in space, right? Yet currents are traveling through plasma of different densities, temperatures and with different cross-sectional quantities of currents through them at any time - so a current is likely going to enter a more "crowded" region at some point. Again, I refer you back to the "hub" regions where stars are shown to form in IC clouds. Of course, it would be good to look further as to exactly WHY this occurs in a plasma.
You're merely assuming the conclusion.
PersianPaladin wrote: Oh, and where does sufficient energy come from to power the really high-energy gamma rays coming from a tiny percentage of AGN's spatial area (within small areas of their centres), given the fact that they are surrounded by typically very low current-density and weak magnetic fields on average? That question could be posed to your "natural tokamak" model.
Actually, extremely powerful magnetic fields (> 100 million Gauss) have been measured in white dwarfs and in magnetars, which have a lot in common with black holes and quasars. Some I'm going with the same model for all of those. Fields like that can only be generated by relativistic velocities. Steady-state fields like that, from apparent point sources, can only be generated by rotating charges. So they're "natural tokamaks", with magnetically-confined plasma rotating around the center. Steady-state gamma rays can only be generated by nuclear fusion, and only the magnetic force can cause nuclear fusion without blocking the gamma rays. Finally, DPF (if it was possible in space) could generate gamma ray bursts, so it would be a possible explanation for pulsars (if it was actually possible anyway), but DPF can't create steady-state gamma ray emissions. That leaves the "natural tokamak" as the only possibility.
PersianPaladin wrote: Well, that supposes that the surrounding galactic environment can provide sufficient coloumbs or charge density to power the enormous energies that we often observe. So you're basically saying that diffuse charges converge in the centre but you use differing magnetodynamic forces to account for this. Yet, technically this means there is a very steep increase in electric-field from the central region to that only slightly outward from it. Is that not a problem for you?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the "like-likes-like" force accelerates matter inward, developing momentum. By the time the collisions start happening in the center, all of the electrostatic attraction is gone, because the "like-likes-like" force in plasma is incapable of condensing matter. So the collisions at the center occur merely because of the momentum that was previously built up. For the sake of clarity, I'd like to point out that the "like-likes-like" force is not a radial attraction of everything in the nebula toward the center. Rather, it's a body force attracting everything to its neighbors. Analogously, if you stretch a rubber band and let it go, it snaps back to its resting state. But the ends are not attracted to the middle of the rubber band — everything is under tensile stress, and if the stretching force is removed, everything pulls together. This gives the impression that the ends are attracted to the center, when really, that's just the cumulative effect of the forces throughout the rubber band. Likewise, the "like-likes-like" force pulls everything together. The implosion at the center occurs because of momentum, not electrostatics.
PersianPaladin wrote: I believe Arp hypothesizes that the kinetic energy of rapidly moving and rotating charged plasma after its ejection from parent AGN's is responsible for the rotation that then induces the radially-inward currents.
The rotation causes the rotation? Is that what they call a "tautology"?
In my model, stellar systems in highly elliptical orbits parallel with the minor axis of the galaxy are moving parallel to the galaxy's magnetic field. As such, charged bodies are subject to a Lorentz force that induces the rotation.
PersianPaladin wrote: If it's just the flow of charge by an unexplained "like-like-likes" force and collisions then which model do you think can be better tested?
Lerner is welcome to try to instantiate DPF in plasma, without solid state electronics, if he can find the funding for it somewhere. But in the laboratory, nobody has even successfully caused any kind of arc discharge in a plasma, when the charges were borne by the plasmas themselves. In other words, you can easily get an arc discharge through plasma, between two solid electrodes. But if you oppositely ionize two batches of plasma, separated by sufficient distance to prevent a discharge during the charge-up phase, and then bring them together, you don't get an arc discharge. Rather, the electrostatic repulsion of like charges reduces the charge density, and then a Townsend avalanche neutralizes the potential. To get an arc discharge, you'd have to fire the plasmas together at extreme velocities. This is why scientists are still scratching their heads over why lightning occurs in the Earth's atmosphere — the potentials for it are definitely present, but they can't figure out how the charge densities necessary for arc discharges can develop, in spite of the electrostatic repulsion. So if Lerner could accomplish this, it would be a breakthrough with many implications. But if you think that success is a foregone conclusion, you simply haven't studied it.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Again - you can't use the claim that some people confuse whirpools in a bath with that of a tornado (because of structural similarity) in this argument. You bring up the idea that I was using an argument from "similtude". Again - I clarified quite clearly that plasma in space is one thing - and thermodynamic influences in our neutral atmosphere with other complex factors - is another. Got it? Good.
Now, in the plasma environment of space - we can examine the morphologies and the type of radiation on offer as well as particle velocities and then compare them with proven and tested laboratory experiments to get a credible indication of what they possibly are. So, with the DPF we can get an indication based on credible possibilities because of the periodic bi-polar jets observed, the hour-glass morphology indicative of a possible plasma Bennett pinch, the "streamers" possibly analagous to double-layers, the high-energy in the center of the pinch, the 56-pair or 28-pair (among other interesting numbers achieved in z-pinch morphologies) filamentation around the axis of supernova 1987a, the incoming streamers and enclosed circles of certain galaxies and nebulae that are very close to that of DPF penumbrae, the disc-shaped spiral morphology seen in galaxy rotation analagous to that observed in the DPF from certain angles, the very close parallel between rock carvingspetroglyphs and related tales of events in the sky and high-energy z-pinches in the laboratory, and so on. All this, as I said - is a credible indication. That's because experiment has backed it up as a contender. I never said it constitutes "proof". It could possibly point in the right direction, until of course there is a rival experimentally-backed hypothesis or theory that can provide explanations.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Okay.....too busy to respond to all your points for now.
We have measured kilo-ampere currents (and more) in inter-galactic space. We know from experiments what happens energetically when such currents merge and produce radiation - sometimes across the entire magnetic spectrum. Of course, you'd like to avoid the very real possibility of the plasma focus explanation and just focus on hypothetical kinetic forces from incoming electric-field derived charge acceleration towards the galactic centre. Fine, I'm not in a position to really exclude your explanation. It's possible. But so is the plasma focus explanation given the papers I have presented here. The ejections of matter from galaxies are periodic and not "constant" either. The gamma ray burst from our galaxy recorded recently has not been constantly occurring. Thus galaxies, AGN's and other such phenomena are different scales of the same pulsed-power event. The EM energy could potentially be stored in a toroidal plasmoid around the galaxy (analagous to the ring-current potentially responsible for powerful Saturniun storms, for example). The larger the scale, then the longer the time-lag between each stage of the discharge and the various appearances of the z-pinch morphology. Don Scott mentioned this in his NPA talk.
But in reality. Neither of us know.
Maybe SAFIRE will bring us more insights. I'm of the opinion that the most we can "prove" thus far is that the plasma in the sun and the galaxy is essentially plasma that is responding to matter of a differing electrical potential.
CharlesChandler wrote: Lerner is welcome to try to instantiate DPF in plasma, without solid state electronics, if he can find the funding for it somewhere. But in the laboratory, nobody has even successfully caused any kind of arc discharge in a plasma, when the charges were borne by the plasmas themselves. In other words, you can easily get an arc discharge through plasma, between two solid electrodes. But if you oppositely ionize two batches of plasma, separated by sufficient distance to prevent a discharge during the charge-up phase, and then bring them together, you don't get an arc discharge. Rather, the electrostatic repulsion of like charges reduces the charge density, and then a Townsend avalanche neutralizes the potential. To get an arc discharge, you'd have to fire the plasmas together at extreme velocities. This is why scientists are still scratching their heads over why lightning occurs in the Earth's atmosphere — the potentials for it are definitely present, but they can't figure out how the charge densities necessary for arc discharges can develop, in spite of the electrostatic repulsion. So if Lerner could accomplish this, it would be a breakthrough with many implications. But if you think that success is a foregone conclusion, you simply haven't studied it.
Umm....could you tell me how a very diffuse plasma in a space-vortex with very low charge density with a Debye Length the size of the Earth can interact with the ionospheric plasma and produce glow-discharges - sometimes of a considerable brightness (i.e. in substorms)? The ions responsible for the spiral-movement in the space vortices are travelling at a considerably high-speed. Some solar flares have travelled at a quarter of the speed of light! Also, can you explain the z-pinch forms seen in Perratt's petroglyph work? And why it SHOULDN'T be on the table as a contender?
Also, Winston Bostick accelerated ions to a speed of 450,000 mph into a magnetic field which generated spirals (http://www.plasma-universe.com/Winston_ ... _clippings). The same spirals can form along the cross-section of Birkeland Currents. How fast do ions travel in a typical space filament? More than 1 million mph (go check the THEMIS data). And of course, faster ion speeds have been seen in other double-thread filamentary features in space.
It is merely an increase in current-density - which gets from the dark-mode discharge to the glow discharge and then to the arc discharge. Again, matter of a differing electrical potential. We have clues pointing in the right direction. But neither of us have thorough proof or answers.
P.S. I never implied white dwarves, etc did not have strong magnetic fields. I was talking about the fields inside a typical galaxy or AGN. And there should really be a caveat about the techniques they currently use to work out magnetic field strength. There have been some controversies over this. Perhaps I will post this later at some point.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
BTW, do you actually realize what I'm doing here? Since sometimes it's necessary to state the obvious, I'm putting you in a position where you have to run a filibuster against me, in the hopes of wearing me down. Certainly many EU critics have eventually gotten tired of broken-record responses, and have walked away. You think that these were victories. What you do not realize is that in proving your tenacity, you're also proving that this is all that you have. Direct answers to my questions would have been easier, and more convincing. If you don't give them, it's because you don't have them. So you respond with what you do have — tenacity. But with just that, you can win a scientific battle, while forfeiting the war. The EU will never be credible so long as it responds to pointed questions with sheer force of will. That just isn't legitimate science. And it's my objective to either 1) get the EU to clean up its act, or 2) prove that it has no intention. You are diligently working on #2.
PersianPaladin wrote: You bring up the idea that I was using an argument from "similtude".
No, I'm saying that you're not using similitude as a test. True similitude requires that you establish that things are the same, for all of the same reasons. Similar morphologies do not establish similitude. If the driving physical forces cannot possibly be the same in both cases, you don't have similitude — you just have a superficial similarity.
PersianPaladin wrote: Again - I clarified quite clearly that plasma in space is one thing - and thermodynamic influences in our neutral atmosphere with other complex factors - is another. Got it? Good.
I'm wondering if you get it. I cited an example of a morphology that is the same, but which does not constitute similitude, because the driving forces are very different (i.e., tornadoes versus whirlpools). It sounds like you got that part. But do you understand that this is what I'm saying about the way you're trying to associate plasma discharges with astronomical phenomena?
PersianPaladin wrote: Now, in the plasma environment of space - we can examine the morphologies and the type of radiation on offer as well as particle velocities and then compare them with proven and tested laboratory experiments to get a credible indication of what they possibly are.
You correctly acknowledge that the apparent similarity only presents a possibility — my compliments. For you, that's the end of the analysis. The part that you don't get is that I'm going the next step, examining the actual physical forces. What I'm finding is that the physical forces cannot possibly be the same. But then you respond, "But the phenomena look the same, and here are some more examples." And when I present an alternative interpretation, you say, "But the phenomena look the same as in the first model, and here are some more examples." But these are really just examples of your unwillingness to go the next step, in the consideration of the actual physical forces involved.
PersianPaladin wrote: All this [superficial evidence], as I said - is a credible indication. That's because experiment has backed [DPF] up as a contender. I never said it constitutes "proof". It could possibly point in the right direction, until of course there is a rival experimentally-backed hypothesis or theory that can provide explanations.
Would a "natural tokamak" constitute a "rival experimentally-backed hypothesis"? If not, why not?
PersianPaladin wrote: Fine, I'm not in a position to really exclude your explanation. It's possible. But so is the plasma focus explanation given the papers I have presented here.
DPF remains a possibility, until/if/when you consider the actual physical forces. For you, it's only a possibility because of the apparent similarity, and because you don't want to discuss physical forces.
CharlesChandler wrote: Lerner is welcome to try to instantiate DPF in plasma, without solid state electronics, if he can find the funding for it somewhere. But in the laboratory, nobody has even successfully caused any kind of arc discharge in a plasma, when the charges were borne by the plasmas themselves. In other words, you can easily get an arc discharge through plasma, between two solid electrodes. But if you oppositely ionize two batches of plasma, separated by sufficient distance to prevent a discharge during the charge-up phase, and then bring them together, you don't get an arc discharge. Rather, the electrostatic repulsion of like charges reduces the charge density, and then a Townsend avalanche neutralizes the potential. To get an arc discharge, you'd have to fire the plasmas together at extreme velocities. This is why scientists are still scratching their heads over why lightning occurs in the Earth's atmosphere — the potentials for it are definitely present, but they can't figure out how the charge densities necessary for arc discharges can develop, in spite of the electrostatic repulsion. So if Lerner could accomplish this, it would be a breakthrough with many implications. But if you think that success is a foregone conclusion, you simply haven't studied it.
PersianPaladin wrote: Umm....could you tell me how a very diffuse plasma in a space-vortex with very low charge density with a Debye Length the size of the Earth can interact with the ionospheric plasma and produce glow-discharges - sometimes of a considerable brightness (i.e. in substorms)? The ions responsible for the spiral-movement in the space vortices are traveling at a considerably high-speed. Some solar flares have travelled at a quarter of the speed of light!
Note the bolded words. Do you know the difference between an arc discharge and a glow discharge?
PersianPaladin wrote: Also, can you explain the z-pinch forms seen in Perratt's petroglyph work?
Why stop there? Here's a depiction of the geocentric theory of the solar system that was drawn circa 1750.
This doesn't have to be interpreted — it has the principle objects in our solar system clearly labeled. So, does this prove that in 1750, everything in our solar system revolved around the Earth? If not, why not? It's an image, and it was drawn by a person. And I can cite plenty of other examples of similar drawings.
PersianPaladin wrote: And why it SHOULDN'T be on the table as a contender?
Would proof that the physical forces just aren't physically possible be a legitimate reason to disqualify a candidate? Remember that the whole reason for us being on this board is that we saw that the mainstream model just wasn't ever going to work — the force of gravity is simply insufficient to cause the condensation of matter. That is provable, and that's why we're considering EM possibilities. But shall we apply the same critical scrutiny to our own work? If not, why not?
I think that it all comes down to whether you want a better model, or just a different model.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
Actually if you refer back to what I said - I stated the difference between looking at similtude in an environment such as Earth and that of space plasma. The forces available to us are primarily gravitational and electric. The electric force is more dominant. I actually questionned the methodology which you used to come up with your appeal to Feynman with respect to the make-up of galaxies. If you want me to go into more detail with regard to Perratt's replication of Bostick's two plasmoid interactions then I will. He used the principles of interacting Birkeland currents in his simulation (i.e. his model). The rotation curves, velocity curves and radiation profiles matched that of existing galaxies.
Again - when we have the electric force as the primary mover in plasma - then to dismiss the detail of morphology is a mistake. And no, morphology isn't the only thing I have been talking about here.
Siggy_G
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote: Analogously, if you stretch a rubber band and let it go, it snaps back to its resting state. But the ends are not attracted to the middle of the rubber band — everything is under tensile stress, and if the stretching force is removed, everything pulls together. This gives the impression that the ends are attracted to the center, when really, that's just the cumulative effect of the forces throughout the rubber band. Likewise, the "like-likes-like" force pulls everything together. The implosion at the center occurs because of momentum, not electrostatics.
Although in a context about galaxies, I think this analogy applies to the anode model. A cumulative effect of forces throughout the medium is exactly the effect one gets from a spherical voltage gradient towards the centre, as described by Scott.
A test particle at the boundary isn't literally attracted by an electrostatic force or oppositely charged particle at the centre, as sometimes quoted by critics. Nor does it have to be affected by Debye screening in the configuration described by the anode model. The test particle is attracted to a net excess of opposite charge in a cross section shell further in. This tendency is very likely fluctating and varied for any given spherical cross-section. The net drift is dynamically inward likely through a plenum of small net charged pockets and channeled DLs.
CharlesChandler wrote: (...) UV radiation certainly assists currents in plasmas, as it creates unbound electrons that can respond to an external electric field. But remember that it's always a balance. When that electron gets liberated from that atom, which way does it go: 1) back to the atom, or 2) in the direction of the external field? It all depends on which field is stronger. (...) you need more than photo-ionization and collisional ionization — you need a strong electric field.
It's a good point. I believe the mechanism I mention in the section above is caused by local e-fields which free charges are being attracted to or repelled from. This constitutes a larger overall voltage gradient. It's clearly a dynamic scenario regardless of model.
Siggy_G
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote:
Siggy_G wrote: If there is a net circuit between the heliopause and the Sun, it is likely a plenum of thin and branching currents peaking towards the Sun. But one ought to detect incoming electrons within the bulk outward flow.
(...) With a bulk outflow, the counter-streaming electrons should tunnel through the solar wind in isolated, obvious channels.
Yes, but not neccesarily obvious channels. I think that would imply either few very strong currents to begin with and/or a somewhat dense medium. Again, take notice of the highly variable (spiky) Ulysses data for the solar wind. If incoming currents are interfering with the fast outflow, wouldn't that drag or retard some of the outflowing bulk particles? The resolution of the data is not super high, and I think an anode model would predict that higher resolution data would show particle flows in both direction within the corona.
CharlesChandler wrote:
Siggy_G wrote: The measured MFs by Ulysseus are rather spiky/noisy around the Sun.
Right, but in a constant electric field, and with a constant supply of electrons, to generate solar radiation that varies less than 1% from maximum to minimum, we'd expect steady electric currents. So there should be sustained lightning channels, like Lichtenberg figures, rooted on the Sun's surface. Instead, we see helmet streamers, which is not an expectation of the anode model.
The Sun is a massive object and its thermal energy has a lot of inertia, if one can use that term in such a context. Its radiation wouldn't respond immediately to current fluctations, which likely are there. There are other factors that do respond, clearly.
I think Lichtenberg figures imply breakdowns in a dilectric medium of higher density than the interplanetary medium (which may not be called a dilectric per se), and a medium where currents are confined into stronger branches due to density and pressure than they would in a less dense medium. Think of high altitude red sprites versus cloud-to-ground lightning. Besides, I think the spiky Ulysses data implies that the outgoing solar wind is disturbed by something going against it... And I think the helmet streamers imply cirquit legs above the granule footprints, and the rest of the cirquit body is spread ghostly throughout the interplanetary medium.
PersianPaladin
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
CharlesChandler wrote: BTW, do you actually realize what I'm doing here? Since sometimes it's necessary to state the obvious, I'm putting you in a position where you have to run a filibuster against me, in the hopes of wearing me down. Certainly many EU critics have eventually gotten tired of broken-record responses, and have walked away. You think that these were victories. What you do not realize is that in proving your tenacity, you're also proving that this is all that you have. Direct answers to my questions would have been easier, and more convincing. If you don't give them, it's because you don't have them. So you respond with what you do have — tenacity. But with just that, you can win a scientific battle, while forfeiting the war. The EU will never be credible so long as it responds to pointed questions with sheer force of will. That just isn't legitimate science. And it's my objective to either 1) get the EU to clean up its act, or 2) prove that it has no intention. You are diligently working on #2.
PersianPaladin wrote: You bring up the idea that I was using an argument from "similtude".
No, I'm saying that you're not using similitude as a test. True similitude requires that you establish that things are the same, for all of the same reasons. Similar morphologies do not establish similitude. If the driving physical forces cannot possibly be the same in both cases, you don't have similitude — you just have a superficial similarity.
PersianPaladin wrote: Again - I clarified quite clearly that plasma in space is one thing - and thermodynamic influences in our neutral atmosphere with other complex factors - is another. Got it? Good.
I'm wondering if you get it. I cited an example of a morphology that is the same, but which does not constitute similitude, because the driving forces are very different (i.e., tornadoes versus whirlpools). It sounds like you got that part. But do you understand that this is what I'm saying about the way you're trying to associate plasma discharges with astronomical phenomena?
PersianPaladin wrote: Now, in the plasma environment of space - we can examine the morphologies and the type of radiation on offer as well as particle velocities and then compare them with proven and tested laboratory experiments to get a credible indication of what they possibly are.
You correctly acknowledge that the apparent similarity only presents a possibility — my compliments. For you, that's the end of the analysis. The part that you don't get is that I'm going the next step, examining the actual physical forces. What I'm finding is that the physical forces cannot possibly be the same. But then you respond, "But the phenomena look the same, and here are some more examples." And when I present an alternative interpretation, you say, "But the phenomena look the same as in the first model, and here are some more examples." But these are really just examples of your unwillingness to go the next step, in the consideration of the actual physical forces involved.
PersianPaladin wrote: All this [superficial evidence], as I said - is a credible indication. That's because experiment has backed [DPF] up as a contender. I never said it constitutes "proof". It could possibly point in the right direction, until of course there is a rival experimentally-backed hypothesis or theory that can provide explanations.
Would a "natural tokamak" constitute a "rival experimentally-backed hypothesis"? If not, why not?
PersianPaladin wrote: Fine, I'm not in a position to really exclude your explanation. It's possible. But so is the plasma focus explanation given the papers I have presented here.
DPF remains a possibility, until/if/when you consider the actual physical forces. For you, it's only a possibility because of the apparent similarity, and because you don't want to discuss physical forces.
CharlesChandler wrote: Lerner is welcome to try to instantiate DPF in plasma, without solid state electronics, if he can find the funding for it somewhere. But in the laboratory, nobody has even successfully caused any kind of arc discharge in a plasma, when the charges were borne by the plasmas themselves. In other words, you can easily get an arc discharge through plasma, between two solid electrodes. But if you oppositely ionize two batches of plasma, separated by sufficient distance to prevent a discharge during the charge-up phase, and then bring them together, you don't get an arc discharge. Rather, the electrostatic repulsion of like charges reduces the charge density, and then a Townsend avalanche neutralizes the potential. To get an arc discharge, you'd have to fire the plasmas together at extreme velocities. This is why scientists are still scratching their heads over why lightning occurs in the Earth's atmosphere — the potentials for it are definitely present, but they can't figure out how the charge densities necessary for arc discharges can develop, in spite of the electrostatic repulsion. So if Lerner could accomplish this, it would be a breakthrough with many implications. But if you think that success is a foregone conclusion, you simply haven't studied it.
PersianPaladin wrote: Umm....could you tell me how a very diffuse plasma in a space-vortex with very low charge density with a Debye Length the size of the Earth can interact with the ionospheric plasma and produce glow-discharges - sometimes of a considerable brightness (i.e. in substorms)? The ions responsible for the spiral-movement in the space vortices are traveling at a considerably high-speed. Some solar flares have travelled at a quarter of the speed of light!
Note the bolded words. Do you know the difference between an arc discharge and a glow discharge?
PersianPaladin wrote: Also, can you explain the z-pinch forms seen in Perratt's petroglyph work?
Why stop there? Here's a depiction of the geocentric theory of the solar system that was drawn circa 1750.
This doesn't have to be interpreted — it has the principle objects in our solar system clearly labeled. So, does this prove that in 1750, everything in our solar system revolved around the Earth? If not, why not? It's an image, and it was drawn by a person. And I can cite plenty of other examples of similar drawings.
PersianPaladin wrote: And why it SHOULDN'T be on the table as a contender?
Would proof that the physical forces just aren't physically possible be a legitimate reason to disqualify a candidate? Remember that the whole reason for us being on this board is that we saw that the mainstream model just wasn't ever going to work — the force of gravity is simply insufficient to cause the condensation of matter. That is provable, and that's why we're considering EM possibilities. But shall we apply the same critical scrutiny to our own work? If not, why not?
I think that it all comes down to whether you want a better model, or just a different model.
You know, I've posted valid and relevant sources and references to back-up my arguments. If I had the time and energy I'd post more that show the detection of field-aligned filaments in interstellar clouds that are, in turn - aligned with the magnetic field of galaxies. Newly-born stars are found to be developing inside them. Galaxies also seem to form at filamentary "hubs". And we know that field-aligned currents have current-flow mechanics (axial and multiple azimuthal DL's) that are more than simply a Feynmian force. We know of course that it's more than just field-aligned currents, there are current-free DL's, kinetic plasma, non-thermal plasma, etc influences out there in the interstellar environment. Plasma is complex.
As for arc discharges and glow discharges, I already told you the essential difference. Arcs have a lower terminal voltage and a higher current-density as well as differences in the kinetic vibrations of ions and electrons. A glow discharge can become an arc depending on the nature of the DL, plasma pressure, gaseous composition, ambient temperature, and current density. This is what causes one mode of plasma to change to another (e.g. dark mode to glow mode to arc mode).
I am not particularly happy with you saying that I'm not discussing physical forces. I gave you material and summed up the electrodynamic forces involved in the plasma focus. What you want to do - is for me to talk about your physical forces in your model.
Anyhow - I know your agenda. If you think the EU has a credibility issue, then you need to understand why the former heads of major NASA contractors are getting involved at the Thunderbolts conferences and EU-related experiments directly with us. They're actually coming with an open mind with respect to what we have to offer, rather than pushing their own models on to us.
CharlesChandler
Re: The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model
PersianPaladin wrote: Actually if you refer back to what I said - I stated the difference between looking at similtude in an environment such as Earth and that of space plasma.
Since you consistently misspell it, I take it that you're simply not familiar with the term "similitude". Sometimes it's used in a sloppy way, but strictly speaking, it's an evaluation of the relevance of a laboratory test. As Wikipedia puts it, "Similitude is achieved when testing conditions are created such that the test results are applicable to the real design." This isn't just an apparent similarity that can be used to explain away something. If somebody wants to determine with wind tunnel tests whether or not a plane is actually going to fly, all of the relevant in situ conditions have to be replicated (and properly scaled), or the test results aren't reliable.
So, I'm questioning the relevance of DPF to the study of quasars. There are apparent similarities there. But are they the same, for all of the same reasons? I don't see it. The power output of a quasar sometimes fluctuates. But for it to be DPF, the impulse has to have a sharp attack & decay. Otherwise, the magnetic fields won't resolve into a toroid. And a radially imploding discharge takes conditions that have never been replicated in plasma without the help of solid-state electronics. Similitude has not been established, and I don't think that it's possible.
PersianPaladin wrote: I actually questionned the methodology which you used to come up with your appeal to Feynman with respect to the make-up of galaxies.
What was the question? I'm saying that the electric force, by its adherence to the inverse square law, is capable of an attractive force between two neutrally charged cells. What part of that is not correct?
PersianPaladin wrote: If you want me to go into more detail with regard to Perratt's replication of Bostick's two plasmoid interactions then I will.
Go for it, if you can demonstrate the relevance. As best as I can tell, Bostick fired two plasma streams together, got shapes that looked like galaxies, Peratt did the same thing with math, and you conclude that this proves that galaxies are plasmoids. And because they are, stars are formed by Marklund convection, because it's DPF. That's nothing but undistributed middles.
Siggy_G wrote: Although in a context about galaxies, I think this [rubber band] analogy applies to the anode model. A cumulative effect of forces throughout the medium is exactly the effect one gets from a spherical voltage gradient towards the centre, as described by Scott.
I don't understand this. As concerns Scott's model, I'd be happy to discuss it, but only if my questions are directly addressed. Specifically, the model asserts a net positive charge inside the Sun, and a metered outflow of positive ions, due to the damming effect of the charged double-sheath. This means that the positive face of the double-sheath is exerting force on the Sun, to contain the net positive charge, only letting a little bit of it pass out into the heliosphere. Where does the double-sheath get the force that it exerts on the Sun? If those questions are not answered, it's not a realistic enough model to discuss.
CharlesChandler wrote: With a bulk outflow, the counter-streaming electrons should tunnel through the solar wind in isolated, obvious channels.
Siggy_G wrote: Yes, but not necessarily obvious channels.
I agree that the channels wouldn't have to be visible, if the solar atmosphere really didn't present enough pressure for particle collisions. But we have to consider the implications of that. If there aren't enough collisions to detect the channel, there is nothing impeding the flow of electrons, in which case they will approach the speed of light, even in a weak E-field. The magnetic pinch effect will be extreme in such conditions. The stronger the pinch, the more consolidated the channels (i.e., the fewer of them, and the smaller the diameter). From this we predict a small number of extremely bright spots on the Sun, as the footpoints of these near-light-speed charge streams. And by "bright", I don't mean spicules or faculae. They should be steady-state gamma ray sources, with plumes of fusion by-products billowing out into the solar atmosphere, like EDM on a piece of steel. We have the instrumentation to the detect the magnetic fields at the footpoints, and the temperatures, and the spectrum. If such a current was the primary (or sole) solar power source, these filaments would be detectable, if only at the footpoints.
Siggy_G wrote: The Sun is a massive object and its thermal energy has a lot of inertia, if one can use that term in such a context. Its radiation wouldn't respond immediately to current fluctuations, which likely are there.
I agree that a sputtering current could sustain a stable temperature, due to the enormous size of the heat sink. But then, instead of a steady 1026 watts streaming in to get 1026 watts coming back out, you need spikes greater than 1026 watts, which would be even easier to detect.
Just as a reminder, my solar model attributes 2/3 of the solar power to an electric current (and 1/3 to nuclear fusion). So I'm not challenging the premise that the Sun is electrically powered. I just can't get past the problems in the anode model.
Siggy_G wrote: I think Lichtenberg figures imply breakdowns in a dielectric medium of higher density than the interplanetary medium (which may not be called a dielectric per se), and a medium where currents are confined into stronger branches due to density and pressure than they would in a less dense medium. Think of high altitude red sprites versus cloud-to-ground lightning.
The diffuse nature of red sprites has more to do with the low charge density than with the low general density. The thin upper atmosphere presents little resistance to electric currents. As a consequence, not much potential can build up without Townsend avalanches neutralizing them. When CG lightning rapidly alters the charge equilibrium, a blue jet and/or red sprite can result. But the currents are weak. If the currents were powerful, as would be needed to light up the Sun continuously, instead of just produce a brief, barely detectable flash, the magnetic pinch effect would consolidate the charge stream.
PersianPaladin wrote: You know, I've posted valid and relevant sources and references to back-up my arguments.
No, you really haven't. To get the rapid attack & decay of the DPF impulse in an quasar, you need a radial arc discharge, and it has to be axisymmetric, or it won't resolve into a toroid. The electromotive force is proposed to be a unipolar motor, but this isn't going to create an extreme charge density in the center, producing a radial arc charge. It also isn't going to recharge the system in the required timeframe. These questions need to be addressed to establish similitude.
PersianPaladin wrote: If I had the time and energy I'd post more that show the detection of field-aligned filaments in interstellar clouds that are, in turn - aligned with the magnetic field of galaxies.
I'm sure you would, and without establishing the conditions necessary for a DPF impulse.
PersianPaladin wrote: If you think the EU has a credibility issue, then you need to understand why the former heads of major NASA contractors are getting involved at the Thunderbolts conferences and EU-related experiments directly with us. They're actually coming with an open mind with respect to what we have to offer, rather than pushing their own models on to us.
And how did you determine that they don't have an agenda? Because they agree with you? What if the EU has positioned itself as the authority on EM astronomy, but the EU has it wrong, and the mainstream wants it to stay that way? Then the mainstream would want to lend credibility to it, not because it's right, but because it's wrong. The mainstream is actually really good at this stunt, and I can cite many examples. You can challenge the mainstream, as long as there is an Achilles Heel that cannot be fixed. That way, the mainstream gets to prove that it is so open-minded that it will consider gibberish (as long as it's actually gibberish, and not a threat). So astronomers are willing to tolerate String Theory, because it cannot possibly be tested, but anybody challenging Big Bang cosmology is denied telescope time, because the Big Bang theory can be falsified. Hence the stamp of approval from the mainstream doesn't mean that you're making scientific progress, nor that your credibility will improve. They might just fluff you up and then present your work to a broader audience in such a way that you become the one that everybody loves to laugh at, while the mainstream looks all the more authoritative by comparison.
What if the EU has positioned itself as the authority on EM astronomy, but the EU has it wrong, and the mainstream wants it to stay that way? Then the mainstream would want to lend credibility to it, not because it's right, but because it's wrong. The mainstream is actually really good at this stunt, and I can cite many examples. You can challenge the mainstream, as long as there is an Achilles Heel that cannot be fixed. That way, the mainstream gets to prove that it is so open-minded that it will consider gibberish (as long as it's actually gibberish, and not a threat). So astronomers are willing to tolerate String Theory, because it cannot possibly be tested, but anybody challenging Big Bang cosmology is denied telescope time, because the Big Bang theory can be falsified. Hence the stamp of approval from the mainstream doesn't mean that you're making scientific progress, nor that your credibility will improve. They might just fluff you up and then present your work to a broader audience in such a way that you become the one that everybody loves to laugh at, while the mainstream looks all the more authoritative by comparison.
