Merged Electric Sun Theory (Split from: CME's, active regions and high energy flares)

[The Man]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A11FB385F13738DDDAA0A94DA405B838DF1D3

You are of course correct that his cathode sun theories do not *INSIST* upon a "solid" surface, as I have pointed out in other threads, hence the use of term "rigid' in all our published papers. His cathode model simply can be adapted and used that way since that's exactly how the experiments actually functioned.

So he didn’t have a “"solid" surface” model for the sun. Tell me Michael what would you have had him use to represent a conductive sphere in those experiments? Do you propose that aircraft are made of one solid hunk of metal because that is how some experiment actually functioned?

If he never explicitly asserted a “"solid" surface” model for the sun then stop simply trying to posit yours onto him. It is once again absolutely ludicrous to try to do so.

[
IMO, it's highly *UNLIKELY* however that a cathode sun would produce a "mixed" (as opposed to plasma layered) atmosphere. Any sort of spherical plasma cathode under the surface of the photosphere is likely to be considerably more dense and cooler than the lighter, less dense outer layers, including the surface of the photosphere.

I suggest you read up on the relationships of pressure, volume and temperature in thermodynamics.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I guess this is still your claim that a current carrying plasma is not charge neutral,

Nope. Iron plasma that's so hot that it's already been ionized to a +20 state and emits photons from a +20 state that show up in SDO images is certainly not "charge neutral" as that circuit erupts and turns into "particles with individual packets of kinetic energy and charge".

 

[Reality Check]

Hmmm
...
I haven't read Priests paper yet, so I have no idea how ANY sort of "induction" process could possibly take "years". That doesn't even sound feasible, let alone supportable.

It is not Priest's paper - it is Priest's book that you have been ignoring for over a year:
Magnetic Reconnection Redux V, 30 December 2009

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
Reference the book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Eric Priest & Terry Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Magnetic reconnection is not induction. ...

The conversion of magnetic energy into a current always operates on a time-scale characteristic of the system, and that time scale is controlled by the ability of the magnetic field to move through the conductor, in order to create a dB/dt term from which the current is generated. That time-scale in a plasma is rather different than it is for a fixed conductor. Here we find the real deal once again in Priest & Forbes:

"In space physics the distinction between ideal and non-ideal processes is important because simple estimates imply that magnetic dissipation acts on a time-scale which is many orders of magnitude slower than the observed time-scale of dynamic phenomena. For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 105 km is of the order of 106 yrs."
Priest & Forbes, page 6​

Your opinion or lack of knowledge does not matter. If you can show that Priest is wrong then show it.

Another source for the magnetic diffusion equation works out how long it would take for the magnetic field of a sunspot to dissipate (about 3,000,000 years for a sunspot with a radius of 10^7 meters).

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Hmmm. The coil in my car demonstrates that the current in any circuit can still change rapidly and induce currents in another circuit rather "rapidly". Are you all trying to suggest that every single bit of the energy released in the induction process all has to take place at the point of "reconnection" and ONLY the point of "reconnection"? I don't get it.

Well, I tried.

The point of the coil in an old-fashioned automobile ignition system is to generate a high voltage. It's a transformer. A magnetic field is generated when a current begins to flow through the primary, precisely because the primary's inductance opposes any change in current. The secondary windings transform that magnetic field into a higher voltage. When the voltage becomes large enough to (pardon the expression) discharge through the spark plug's air gap, the spark plug fires.

The current through the spark plug is actually quite small, partly because the coil opposes any rapid large change in current. You don't need much of a spark to ignite the fuel/air mix in an automobile cylinder.

The suddenness of the spark comes from the discharge, which happens when the voltage exceeds a threshold established by the spark gap and dielectric properties of the fuel/air mixture. The coil itself is not responsible for the suddenness of the spark; in fact, the coil's opposition to rapid changes of current helps to limit the spark's current.

 

[Michael Mozina]

So he didn’t have a “"solid" surface” model for the sun.

I believe it would be more correct to state that his cathode sun theory wasn't "limited" to solids, liquids, gases or plasmas, or any combination thereof when describing a "cathode sun". In terms of his actual experiments, he *ONLY* had a "solid surface" sun model.

Tell me Michael what would you have had him use to represent a conductive sphere in those experiments?

Personally I would try Nickel and Iron, Carbon and Magnesium based on the SERTS/SPECTRAL data.

Do you propose that aircraft are made of one solid hunk of metal because that is how some experiment actually functioned?

No.

If he never explicitly asserted a “"solid" surface” model for the sun then stop simply trying to posit yours onto him. It is once again absolutely ludicrous to try to do so.

IMO it would be more ludicrous to try to personally take credit for his work. I'd much rather error on the side of caution, and IMO that means giving credit where credit is due. Birkeland's cathode sun theory isn't limited to any particular state of matter, and it could potentially (did experimentally) include a "solid surface".

I suggest you read up on the relationships of pressure, volume and temperature in thermodynamics.

Ok.

 

[Reality Check]

Personally I would try Nickel and Iron, Carbon and Magnesium based on the SERTS/SPECTRAL data

You forgot about the rest of the SERTS data

• potassium
• oxygen
• argon
• helium
• sulfur
• zinc
• aluminuium
• chronium
• calcium
• cobolt
• sodium
• manganese
• titanium
• neon

(see Micheal Mozina's iron crust has been totally debunked)

Let's remind you what the SERTS was:
Solar Extreme-Ultraviolet Rocket Telescope and Spectrograph

The SolarExtreme-ultraviolet Rocket Telescope and Spectrograph (SERTS) instrument obtains spatially resolved spectra and spectroheliograms over a wide range of extreme ultraviolet (EUV) wavelengths characteristic of temperatures between 5x10^4-3x10^7K, providing information about the Sun's corona and upper transition region. Wavelength coverage is 170-450A with spectral resolution near 10000, spatial resolution as good as 5arcsec, and relative photometric accuracy within +/- 20% over most of its range.

The SERTS database does not seem to be accessible through the internet anymore.

For a more technical article: Extreme ultraviolet spectrum of a solar active region from SERTS.

 

[GeeMack]

I believe it would be more correct to state that his cathode sun theory wasn't "limited" to solids, liquids, gases or plasmas, or any combination thereof when describing a "cathode sun". In terms of his actual experiments, he *ONLY* had a "solid surface" sun model.

No. That is a lie. It has been shown time and again in this and other threads to be a lie. It doesn't matter how many times it's said, it will always be a lie. His terrella, which was developed to model the Earth, was a hollow brass ball out of necessity. Kristian Birkeland did not propose anything as idiotic as the Sun having a solid or rigid surface.

And if anyone were stupid enough to suggest that he used a brass sphere because he believed the Sun has a solid surface, we must then presume he believed the Earth and Saturn also have solid metal surfaces. Which would make Birkeland even more of a cracked nut than any of the contemporary crackpots who build their lies on his name.

IMO it would be more ludicrous to try to personally take credit for his work. I'd much rather error on the side of caution, and IMO that means giving credit where credit is due. Birkeland's cathode sun theory isn't limited to any particular state of matter, and it could potentially (did experimentally) include a "solid surface".

Passing off the blame for completely unsupportable crackpot conjectures onto dead scientists is the equivalent of spitting on their graves.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Electric Sun: Reconnection vs Induction II

Tim (or anyone for that matter),

Could you please explain to me what the physical (not mathematical) difference is between what Priest is calling "magnetic diffusion", "magnetic reconnection" and standard ordinary "induction"? There are so many different terms in play here I have no idea how or if magnetic diffusion is even different from "magnetic reconnection" let alone that either of them is actually not "induction" with a silly name. How (physically) are these three names "different" at the level of physics. IMO any transfer of magnetic field energy to particle kinetic energy is simply "induction'. What (physically) makes "magnetic reconnection' a "faster" process than ordinary induction?

I note that good answers have already been provided, with some discussion, by tusenfem in post #2431 and by W.D. Clinger in post #2438.

I will put it like this ...

Induction
Also known as Faraday's Law of Induction, this is the process whereby a time variable magnetic field generates an electromotive force (a voltage, or if you prefer an electric field), which in turn acts to oppose the electric current that is responsible for creating the time variable magnetic field. In a vacuum, as it is usually presented in text books & etc. this manifests itself as expansion and contraction of the magnetic field, changing its shape & size. So if you are sitting in one place, you will see (with appropriate measuring devices, not necessarily with your eyes) the magnetic field move past you this way & that, in response to the current flow.

Magnetic Diffusion
This is the phenomenon of the magnetic field moving relative to a plasma. As you can see, if we move induction from the vacuum to a plasma, the magnetic field no longer enjoys the unfettered liberty granted by a vacuum. The field can move through the plasma no faster than the diffusion time scale allows. Hence my quoted passage from 30 December 2009 ...

"In space physics the distinction between ideal and non-ideal processes is important because simple estimates imply that magnetic dissipation acts on a time-scale which is many orders of magnitude slower than the observed time-scale of dynamic phenomena. For example, solar flares release stored magnetic energy in the corona within a period of 100 s. By comparison, the time-scale for magnetic dissipation based on a global scale length of 10⁵ km is of the order of 10⁶ yrs."
Priest & Forbes, page 6

The process of induction is strictly limited by the diffusion time scale. It cannot possibly act any faster than physics allows.

Magnetic Reconnection
In a fundamental sense, this is the reaction of a magnetic field to the tendency of all physical systems to relax to their lowest available energy state, circumstances permitting. Unlike induction, the magnetic field does not need to move relative to the plasma and is therefore not limited by the diffusion time scale. Imagine if you will a pair of closing scissors and observe the "point" where the scissor blades cross as the scissors are closed. That point can be made to propagate arbitrarily fast simply by closing the scissors faster. No actual physical object follows the trajectory of that point, it is the image of the closing blades; but if you doubt that any energy is involved, just put some paper in the scissors and watch it cut. Magnetic reconnection is an analogous re-arrangement of the topology of the magnetic field. Induction will change the shape of a field but never its connectedness (i.e., topology) and so even in a vacuum it is limited in how fast and how much magnetic field energy can be converted to an electromotive force. However, if we change the topology of the field we can release far more energy (orders of magnitude really) and do it far faster (orders of magnitude really) because the field itself does not move over long distances relative to the plasma, only changes in the pattern of connectedness (i.e., topology) actually propagate and they are not restricted by diffusion physics.

I'm interested in speed and timing between them. Tim has been contending that the reason it cannot be induction that transfers magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is because induction is too slow. How (physically) is "magnetic reconnection' any faster than induction at transferring magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy?

You will find the answer in my explanation above. Induction is restricted by diffusion through the plasma, magnetic reconnection is not; induction can change the shape but never the topology of the magnetic field, whereas magnetic reconnection is a change in field topology; induction releases energy slowly, whereas magnetic reconnection releases energy impulsively.

 

[The Man]

FYI, I apologize profusely for cutting up your posts like this, but it's just too busy at work to try to answer the whole thing at once and I'd like to keep the conversation moving.

No problem, besides you ain’t the only one who’s busy.

The "thing" I'm trying to describe to you is a river/flow of highly mobile particles that form a "flowing thread" in the solar atmosphere. In some cases they can be akin to the base of a tornado/twister, or an ordinary plasma ball filament. The more current, the stronger the rotation of the thread and the more kinetic energy is being "contained" inside the thread. The stable flow that it's connected to are the areas near the surface that contain those currents observed by Wheatland. Once the circuit is interrupted, all that "contained" kinetic/particle/directional flow, along with the magnetic field that is containing it, will be release in one giant explosive event.

You claimed “that "stable flow" isn't connected to anything specific anymore” inferring that is was connected to something specific before. I asked what that specific thing was, but it seem there was no specific thing and just vague analogies to “a river/flow” and “a tornado/twister”. Then you say “The stable flow that it's connected to are the areas near the surface that contain those currents observed by Wheatland”. So the current flow is connected to the areas the current flow is connected to, amazing insight.

Why will it “be release in one giant explosive event” “Once the circuit is interrupted”. Please be specific and don’t say it is explosive because it explodes.

If two circuits "short circuit" inside of a double layer, *BOTH* circuits might erupt. If the current inside the double layer takes a new path through that double layer, a "rewiring/reconnection" process may ensue, but the point of "rewire/reconnection" will be HOT and potentially explosive.

"short circuit"? Wait, so now the circuit isn’t interrupted, but just given a less resistive path when you were talking about an increasing resistance (your pinch) interrupting the current flow before. Do you just make up this crap as you go? As I said before please take as much time as you need, you don’t seem to be thinking about or trying to understand any of this at all and just spewing whatever nonsense comes into your head. It seems no matter what you do with your circuit it just explodes, but apparently you don’t know how or why.

 

[The Man]

The kinetic energy/momentum of the particles will continue to carry the particles forward, and their cumulative relative charge compared (with respect) to the surrounding plasma it runs into will also drive the movement of particles. In addition, induction from the magnetic field collapse will also drive the movement of plasma.

What direction is “forward”? Are all the particles moving in the same direction all the time or just the same average direction over some period of time? What is the magnitude of this “relative charge”? What is it “relative” to? How is it maintained in conductive plasma? What influence does the collapsing magnetic field have on the current flow? What influence can it no longer maintain as it collapses?

It is presumably that generator in the photosphere.

It could presumably be a unicorn in Uranus. Why specifically do you just presume there to be a “generator in the photosphere”? What’s happening all this time in the convection zone?

The plasma movement around the sunspot creates relative positive and relatively negative "islands" of upwelling plasmas. That charge separation drives the basic circuit.

What moves that plasma “around the sunspot”?

Again, I'm sorry for responding one idea at a time, but it's the only way I'll be able to respond today.

No problem, but I still think you need to take more time.

 

[tusenfem]

At least I knew discharges occur in a plasma and the difference between a current and a 'discharge'. You might try keeping the sniping to a minimum and I might actually start responding to you again. Your overall description of magnetic diffusion vs. induction was somewhat helpful although what exactly do you mean by a "frozen in" magnetic field inside of a moving plasma filament? What exactly is "frozen" about the magnetic field rather than the magnetic fields moving around the thread acting to "pinch" the current carrying thread? How is anything "frozen" in light atmospheric plasma?

So apparently my whole discussion went way over your head, no surprise there.

I have explained to you what diffusion, induction and reconnection is, in the most general terms. I think that, if you really read Alfvén and understood what he wrote, then you would understand what I wrote. And then you would figure out too, what frozen in means in the case of a plasma filament. However, you will not.

As you are not interested in my explanations, I will explain this stuff for other readers of this thread. The terms that I explained (with some examples on how they can be used) are general, which means they hold for all magnetoplasmas.

As obvious from observations, the loops on the Sun move and can show various kinds of motion (oscillations, see e.g. Khodachenko et al), or growth (see movies of the Sun) etc. etc. If the conductivity is great enough, then that means that the plasma and the magnetic field move together and that when the plasma decides to do something, the magnetic field has to follow.

Naturally, the conductivity is high but not infinite, so frozen in would only be an approximation. However, this was a general discussion about plasmas, not about the loops on the Sun, as these terms have a general meaning. It is basically useless to talk about frozen in in the case of a magnetic loop on the Sun, because it does not bring anything.

Ah, and then we have the "light plasma" again, this time in an atmosphere, whatever that may be, it is one of MMs toys, when he does not know it anymore, he just throws in "light plasma" like that is going to help the discussion without ever having defined the term. I asked him repeatedly to define that term. Needless to say, I never got an explanation.

 

[tusenfem]

I'm interested in speed and timing between them. Tim has been contending that the reason it cannot be induction that transfers magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy is because induction is too slow. How (physically) is "magnetic reconnection' any faster than induction at transferring magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy?

So, you're not going to respond to me, but you are going to ask me questions?!

Take the induction equation, the time scale for induction, as I have told you is:

[latex]
\tau_{diffusion} \approx L^2 (\sigma \mu)^{-1}
[/latex]

Take a plasma conductivity σ and the permeability of vacuum μ₀ and the length L over which the magnetic field needs to diffuse and calculate the time it takes for stuff to diffuse.

From the book by Schrijver and Sicsoe (Heliophysics: Plasma Physics of the Local Cosmos, 2009) we look at table 3.1 and find for the Sun that the diffusion time is years. Any other reference book, discussion magnetic diffusion, will give the same value.

As MRx in the Sun, or in the magnetotail, happens on minutes time scale, it is quite obvious why diffusion does not do the trick.

Then we can move to induction. From simple circuit theory one knows that the induction time scale of an LRC circuit is simplest:

[latex]
\tau_{induction} \approx \frac{\cal L}{R}
[/latex]

where [latex]{\cal L}[/latex] is the induction of the loop and R the resistivity. Again, putting in realistic values, the time scale is enormous, as [latex]{\cal L}[/latex] is very large and R very small.

Magnetic reconnection, being neither of these two processes is faster because of various reasons, not in the least that the outflow region of the MRx needs to move with the Alfvén speed, and thus this process is inherently faster than what was discussed before, now working on a time scale:

[latex]
\tau_{Alfven} \approx \frac{L}{v_A}
[/latex]

 

[The Man]

I believe it would be more correct to state that his cathode sun theory wasn't "limited" to solids, liquids, gases or plasmas, or any combination thereof when describing a "cathode sun". In terms of his actual experiments, he *ONLY* had a "solid surface" sun model.

Without an explicit statement from him attesting to him having such a ""solid surface" sun model" it would be and is simply incorrect to say or even infer that he did have such, support or in anyway even suggest such a model.

In terms of actual experiments some aeronautical engineers "*ONLY* had a solid" metal aircraft scale model as well, yet you are unlikely to find an operational full size aircraft that is solid metal. Nor did those experiments infer that such a functioning full size solid metal aircraft was even possible. In fact the configuration of the experiment and the physics involved demonstrates that it is not.

Now certainly you can make quite a good paper type airplane out of aluminum foil and it will fly quite well (hey a solid metal plane that flies!!!), but it doesn't scale up well to a full size aircraft (capable of fitting a person inside). Each time you double the dimensions of that configuration the volume and thus the mass increases eight times. Until the lift generated can no longer support the weight of just the aircraft. More specifically the volume increases to the third power of the scaling factor, scale the dimensions up by three and the volume goes up by 27 times. Some physical aspects are very scale dependent which I don't think you (and others) have realized yet, as some others here have tried to make this point a number of different ways.

Personally I would try Nickel and Iron, Carbon and Magnesium based on the SERTS/SPECTRAL data.

So still a conductive sphere. Birkeland had "SERTS/SPECTRAL data" and used them in the material selection for his experiments directed at aurora around the earth?

Go ahead, by all means please, try them.

No.

So do you see that an experimental configuration often just represents some particular aspects but not others or all aspects and perhaps has some very specific limitations of scale?

IMO it would be more ludicrous to try to personally take credit for his work. I'd much rather error on the side of caution, and IMO that means giving credit where credit is due. Birkeland's cathode sun theory isn't limited to any particular state of matter, and it could potentially (did experimentally) include a "solid surface".

No more ludicrous then it is to try to posit your own notions onto his work. Try to error on the side of caution by not doing so. You want to claim that Birkeland's experiments inspired your "solid surface" sun notion, fine, go right ahead.

Similarly if I want to claim that some wind tunnel testing or an aluminum foil scale model plane inspired an idea for a solid metal aircraft single person sized glider, I could do that as well. However, it's not likely to fly except just in the face of aerodynamics and the physics of scaling. Much like your "solid surface" sun notion only flies in the face of very basic thermodynamics.

Ok.

Please let us know when you have done so and can express your understanding of such in your own words by describing the relationships of density to temperature.

 

[tusenfem]

Nope. Iron plasma that's so hot that it's already been ionized to a +20 state and emits photons from a +20 state that show up in SDO images is certainly not "charge neutral" as that circuit erupts and turns into "particles with individual packets of kinetic energy and charge".

Please prove to me that it is not charge neutral.
What exactly makes it not charge neutral?
The fact that iron is ionized 20+ just means that there are 20 electrons for every iron ion.
You keep on blabbering this nonsense for years, however you never explain what you mean with charge neutral. I specifically use charge neutral, meaning:

[latex]
\Sigma_{j = i,e} n_j q_j= 0 {\rm ~~Coulomb}
[/latex]

where i runs over all ion species and e over the electrons, because you consider a working EMF also as a kind of non neutrality.

I guess you think that when iron ionizes to 20+ the electrons just disappear from the plasma?

 

[tusenfem]

For those interested in a good overview of the starting models of MRx (Sweet-Parker and Petschek), they might be interested in reading this paper by Priest & Forbes (1986). Maybe a bit on the old side, but is shows why the first models were too slow (bottleneck problem) and how Petschek found a solution to that problem.

 

[Haig]

Sorry for the delay, not much free time for this, just now.

The number comes from the ratio of the electrostatic attraction between a single electron and a single proton to the gravitational attraction between a single electron and a single proton.


Now, let's see that this means if we're not dealing with a single electron and a single proton. Let's say I have a single electron on my left, and a small ball of Y protons on my right. The electrostatic force will scale up as Y, and the gravitational force will scale up as Y as well, so we get the same ratio.


Now suppose I've got one electron on my left, and a small ball of X protons and Y electrons on my right. The electrostatic force will scale up as X - Y, while the gravitational force remains close to X (assuming we don't have Y >> X). What does this mean if X = Y? Why, it means we have no electrostatic force! And here we learn an important lesson: electrostatic forces can cancel, but gravitational forces don't.


In fact, it is the very strength of electromagnetism which precludes large charge imbalances. Large charge imbalances take huge forces to create in the first place, and those huge forces will act to quickly dissipate the imbalance. Only small charge imbalances are stable over any significant time scale. So when we look at the sun, which has something like 10⁵⁷ protons, the electromagnetic force that an electron experiences is not 10⁵⁷ times stronger than for a single proton, not even close. But the gravitational force IS 10⁵⁷ times stronger.


And 10⁵⁷ is a lot bigger than 10³⁹

So, if you want to compare the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force on the scale of anything larger than a single electron and a single proton, your 10³⁹ is irrelevant. What matters is the mass and the charge imbalance. On any large scale, the charge imbalance will always be a tiny fraction of the total number of charges. Which means that electromagnetism is quite frequently irrelevant next to gravity. That's why we don't bother with electromagnetism when calculating the orbits of satellites, or the trajectory of the moon: gravity dominates completely. If you want to show that it's stronger in a particular case, you need to have numbers to back that up. And... you don't. You never do. The only numbers you guys have ever produced is Jeurgens' numbers, and those are absurd and easily debunked.

Thanks for that explanation, I really do appreciate you taking the time to explains things to curious laymen like me.

However, EU/PC exponents DO say 10³⁹ IS relevant and you CAN compare the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force in MUCH larger objects because double layers (DLs) separate cells of plasma in space.

See these:

From http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma-Universe.com

Electromagnetic force

The Electromagnetic force is that which occurs when an electromagnetic field interacts with electrically charged particles, such as those that make up a plasma (ie. electrons, protons and other ions).
Plasmas interact strongly with electromagnetic forces, resulting in complexity in structure and motion that far exceeds that found in gases, liquids, and solids.

~Snip~

Electromagnetic field
The electromagnetic field is a physical field that is produced by electrically charged objects and which affects the behaviour of charged objects in the vicinity of the field. The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space and describes the electromagnetic interaction, one of the four fundamental forces of nature (including gravitation, the weak interaction, and the strong interaction). The field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents); these two are often described as the sources of the field. The way in which charges and currents interact with the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz Force Law.
The behavior of the electromagnetic field can be resolved into four different parts of a loop: (1) the electric and magnetic fields are generated by electric charges, (2) the electric and magnetic fields interact only with each other, (3) the electric and magnetic fields produce forces on electric charges, (4) the electric charges move in space.
A particle at rest feels only the force due to the electric field.

Acceleration
"Only electric fields can accelerate charged particles. Gravity is too weak by several orders of magnitude, and collisions are much to rare"[4]
A magnetic field produces a force that is always perpendicular to path that a charge follows. Since the magnetic force always acts at right angles to the motion of a charge, it can only turn the charge, it cannot do work on the charge.
A changing magnetic field also produces an electric field (Faraday's Law).

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Electromagnetic_force

Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos – 2007 Don Scott

INTRODUCTION

PLASMA cosmology was formally introduced more than 25 years ago by Alfvén [1]–[3]. This paper was based on his earlier experimental investigations and those of Birkeland and Langmuir. They, in turn, had been motivated by the concepts embodied in Maxwell’s equations. This compact set of relations codifies the results of a long series of experiments that were performed by the founders of electrical science. Thus, plasma cosmology is not based simply on deductive reasoning and mathematical formalisms, but rather on verified laboratory evidence.


For example, an indication of the dominance of the magnetic force is demonstrated by a ball bearing on a table. All of Earth’s baryonic mass exerts a gravitational pull on the bearing, preventing it from lifting off the table. Yet, the smallest horseshoe magnet easily snatches it away. On a cosmic scale, magnetic energy density can also exceed gravitational energy density. For example, in the local supercluster, the magnetic field energy density exceeds the gravitational energy density by at least an order of magnitude [4].


The local interstellar medium has an estimated ion–electron pair concentration in the range of 0.01–1/cm3 Thus, the volume between the Sun and its nearest neighbor contains some 6 × 10 ⁵⁴ ion–electron pairs. However, quantitative calculations based on simple electrostatic forces between such particles lead to erroneous conclusions. This is because double layers (DLs) separate cells of plasma in space (e.g., heliospheres ) such that electrostatic forces between bodies that are each surrounded by such DL-bounded plasma cells are negligibly weak. Homogeneous models often are found to be misleading and should be replaced by inhomogeneous models, with the inhomogeneities being produced by filamentary currents and DLs that divide space into cells [5]. Space in general has a cellular structure.


Theoretical analyses based on the classical plasma theory often fail to correspond to real results that are obtained via direct observation. On the other hand, simulations on supercomputers and actual laboratory experiments provide accurate descriptions of the behavior of such cosmic plasmas. Rotation is an inherent result of interacting electric currents in plasma. Computer models of two current filaments interacting in a
plasma have accurately reproduced details of spiral galaxy rotation profiles [6]. Plasma cosmology also offers [1] a model that predicted the existence of galactic jets and the behavior of double-radio-source galaxies prior to their observation.


It is clear that a rigorous understanding of the real physical properties of magnetic fields in plasmas is crucial for astrophysicists and cosmologists. Incorrect pronouncements about the properties of magnetic fields and currents in plasma will be
counterproductive if these conceptual errors are propagated into publications and then used as the basis of new investigations.

~Snip~

CONCLUSION

Maxwell showed that magnetic fields are the inseparable handmaidens of electric currents and vice versa. This is as true in the cosmos as it is here on Earth. Those investigators who, for whatever reason, have not been exposed to the now
well-known properties of real plasmas and electromagnetic field theory must refrain from inventing “new” mechanisms in efforts to support current-free cosmic models. “New science” should not be invoked until all of what is now known about
electromagnetic fields and electric currents in space plasma has been considered. Pronouncements that are in contradiction to Maxwell’s equations ought to be openly challenged by responsible scientists and engineers.

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

Scott's conclusions in his refutation of tusenfem's calculation also show this different view.

Conclusions:

1. Observed magnetic fields around (and due to) the Sun require the presence of electric currents.


2. The exact locations and paths taken by those currents are not yet clear – but they must exist if the magnetic fields exist (unless we want to deny the validity of Maxwell’s equations).


3. We know now that the aurora displays (plasma glow discharges) that we see both here on Earth and on various other planets are due to electric currents coming from the Sun moving down into the "cusps" (indentations) of the magnetospheres (plasmaspheres) of those bodies. It would not be surprising if the Sun also received electric current from the galaxy via a similar morphology to produce its plasma arc discharges.


4. It has taken establishment astrophysics over a century (after Birkeland first described this mechanism) to recognize its existence. It is premature to deny the possibility of a similar mechanism on the Sun.


5. Juergens’ model implies that the outer surface of the heliosphere is the collector of the necessary current stream from the nearby region of our galaxy. Inside the heliopause (within the "solar wind" plasma) the movement of electrons would consist of a "drift current" moving inward toward the Sun superimposed on a vastly stronger "Brownian (random) motion" and therefore be difficult to measure. For a summary of Juergens’ computation see Appendix C of The Electric Sky.


6. The Electric Sun model is still in its infancy. Whether or not it is correct in each one of its details is not as important as realizing that the phenomena observable at and above the photosphere are indeed highly electrical in nature.


7. Those who demand that ES proponents state exactly how, where, and by what paths electrons get to the Sun seem not to be even more outraged by the claim that invisible "missing matter" exists and is responsible for dozens of otherwise inexplicable observations. Am I the only one to see the irony in that?

For the solar wind. Not for what powers the sun.

Bit of crossed wires here. Tubbythin said (my bold)

Without a model it is impossible to say

in this post Here I took that to mean he thought there was NO electrodynamic model per se

There is no electrodynamic model of the sun. The standard model includes electrodynamics, but it is based on core fusion. No serious alternative to the standard model exists. Attempts to create such an alternative have consistently failed, most of them by not even reaching the point where they could be evaluated.

If you accept this concept of a science model

Many people think mistakenly that scientific models are always complicated, impenetrable mathematical equations. But in truth, many scientific models are just as understandable as are models found outside of science

Then the EU/PC electrodynamic model of the Sun is valid. You don't have to agree with it just accept that it exists and is a alternative to the standard model. Like Scott's sketched one Here and Wal Thornhill's Here and Plasma-Universe.com Here

Hannes Alfvén considered the heliospheric current sheet to be part of a heliospheric current system, as he believed all cosmic plasmas to be part of a "plasma circuit". [2] [3]
The Sun behaves as a unipolar inductor producing a current that flows outwards along both axes B2, and inwards in the equatorial plane, C, and along Solar magnetic field lines B1. The current closes at a large distance, B3

.

The notation is 10^39, not 10 x 39. 10 x 39 is simply 390.

yes, that was sloppy of me but you knew what I meant

And lots of people know. The answer is it depends on your system, as I explained in detail above.

Yes, I understand that but to rule out EU/PC theory in the face of clear evidence that supports it is wrong IMO.

Consider this:

Venus radiates in the infrared with twice the energy it receives from the sun, so there must be a source for that heat. Venus has an extremely weak magnetic field and no magnetosphere but it does possess an ionosphere, so it is an electrically charged body. The ionosphere is prickly with Birkeland currents that carry electricity from the "solar wind" (actually a stream of ions ejected by the sun's electromagnetic field) into the Venusian environment. With so much electrical energy pumping into it, it may be that the planet is constantly charging and discharging with an infrared glow.
Birkeland currents act as transmission lines moving energy from the sun and planets over the entire solar system and ultimately, throughout interstellar space. Venus is not really separate from the sun, but acts as an element in the vast electrical circuit that powers the stars. Plasma discharges in that scenario are not so "unexpected".

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/081106mane.htm

The kinetic model of weather does not take into account the fact that planets much farther out in the Solar System have sustained winds that make those on our planet seem like gentle breezes. The average wind speeds on the gas giant planets are fantastic.

Jupiter's winds clock at 635 kilometers per hour around the Great Red Spot; Saturn's average wind speed is up to 1800 kilometers per hour; Uranus 900 kilometers per hour; and Neptune comes in at 1138 kilometers per hour. On Neptune the winds are blowing through an atmosphere that measures minus 220 degrees Celsius. Why is it that the most remote planets, receiving small fractions of the solar energy bathing Earth, are able to convert that small fraction into much larger effects?

As mentioned in a previous Picture of the Day, Earth is a small charged body moving in a large cell of plasma, so physical phenomena on or near the planet must take the electrical nature of plasma into account. Contemplating the larger picture will help to add new details to the study of everyday phenomena, such as the weather.

Perhaps lightning also powers the wind. Neptune has some of the strongest winds of any planet in the Solar System, yet it is farthest from the Sun—its frigid atmosphere contradict the thermal model of air movement. Perhaps hurricanes, tornadoes, and even prevailing winds are electrical in nature?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100121wind.htm

 

[Michael Mozina]

No problem, besides you ain’t the only one who’s busy.

I hear you. FYI, when I say "electric sun", it does NOT mean that the sun has to be 'externally' powered by electric currents. I explained to Zig awhile back that in terms of the power supply, the internal functionality of the sun, and it's composition, Alfven and Bruce and Dungey all used a "standard" solar theory. What I personally mean by the term 'electric sun' would be any solar model that has a surface that ELECTROmagnetically interacts with the interstellar winds via the heliosphere. IMO the 'standard' solar model is in fact a 'dumbed down" (to magnetism) "electric sun" model. I can't very well exclude the standard model since Alfven used that model when creating his plasma cosmology theories.

You claimed “that "stable flow" isn't connected to anything specific anymore” inferring that is was connected to something specific before. I asked what that specific thing was, but it seem there was no specific thing and just vague analogies to “a river/flow” and “a tornado/twister”.

Until the "pinch" essentially breaks the circuit, it's all one current carrying pinched filament, much like we find in an ordinary plasma ball. It's all one continuous filament until the pinch disrupts the circuit and the whole thing erupts. You're essentially asking me to what depth that filament goes, but I cannot technically answer that question. AFAIK, if the 'standard' solar model is correct, that filament could conceivably originate with the magnetic field that created it, down in the core. I can't say how 'deep' the filament goes, I can only say it's "hot/carrying lots of current" as it exits and reenters the photosphere as Wheatland's work attests.

Why will it “be release in one giant explosive event” “Once the circuit is interrupted”. Please be specific and don’t say it is explosive because it explodes.

The pinch effect becomes so strong, that the circuit is literally "pinched" apart by the magnetic field. It's more likely to occur *OUTSIDE* of the photosphere than inside the photosphere due to temperature and density changes outside the photosphere.

"short circuit"? Wait, so now the circuit isn’t interrupted, but just given a less resistive path when you were talking about an increasing resistance (your pinch) interrupting the current flow before. Do you just make up this crap as you go?

No, evidently I'm trying to discuss too many topics at once and I'm confusing the hell out of you. My apologies.

A circuit oriented approach has several advantages IMO. A *SINGLE* circuit can reach temperatures and a single circuit can "erupt" without 'reconnecting' to anything else. Since these circuits are made of mobile plasma, it is possible for them to "short circuit" into other 'circuits' and all hell breaks loose. I think I"m trying to discuss too many different issues and I'm just confusing things in the process. For now, how about you and I stick to SINGLE circuit eruptions, and we'll tackle the short circuit scenario later?

 

[Michael Mozina]

For those interested in a good overview of the starting models of MRx (Sweet-Parker and Petschek), they might be interested in reading this paper by Priest & Forbes (1986). Maybe a bit on the old side, but is shows why the first models were too slow (bottleneck problem) and how Petschek found a solution to that problem.

FYI, thanks, that's also very helpful. I'll take some time after work today to thoroughly review the paper so I can explain where the flaw is located, or why it's not applicable to a circuit interruption oriented theory, one or the other. FYI, we all have day jobs, so be patient.

 

[GeeMack]

I hear you. FYI, when I say "electric sun", it does NOT mean that the sun has to be 'externally' powered by electric currents. I explained to Zig awhile back that in terms of the power supply, the internal functionality of the sun, and it's composition, Alfven and Bruce and Dungey all used a "standard" solar theory. What I personally mean by the term 'electric sun' would be any solar model that has a surface that ELECTROmagnetically interacts with the interstellar winds via the heliosphere. IMO the 'standard' solar model is in fact a 'dumbed down" (to magnetism) "electric sun" model. I can't very well exclude the standard model since Alfven used that model when creating his plasma cosmology theories.

Well it's a good thing that ridiculous claim has finally been abandoned, that crazy one about solar flares and CMEs being electrical discharges like lightning here on Earth or the sparks in a toy plasma ball.

 

[Haig]

You mean the same Don Scott who thinks that all of the fusion in the Sun happens at the top of the photosphere which demonstrates an ignorance of the basics of nuclear physics:

He's not alone in suggesting that (my bold):
Electric Stars

Are stars powered from within, or does the power come from elsewhere? This was the question asked by Sir Arthur Eddington in the 1920s. He settled for the former, and this laid the foundation for current mainstream models. Ralph Juergens asked the question again in the 1970s, and opted for the latter. According to Juergens, stars shine because they are connected to electric circuitry within galaxies. An electric star's brightness thus depends on the power of the electric current feeding it, not on the amount of nuclear fuel available to burn.


Stars thus behave as electrodes in a galactic glow discharge. The many surface phenomena that can be seen on the Sun -- hot corona, sunspots, prominences, flares, et al -- can all be explained by an electric Sun, but are more difficult to understand from a nuclear point of view. Nuclear reactions take place on the surface, not in the core, perhaps explaining why neutrino numbers vary with sunspot cycles, and these reactions are almost certainly produced in the same way that we produce them in the lab -- by accelerating particles in an electric field

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/electric.html

The fact that there are not enoiugh gamma rays detected to account for the amount of fusion needed to power the Sun means that they have to be shielded somehow, i.e. by the fusion happening deep within the Sun.

Sounds so similar to the fact that there are not enough neutrinos detected to account for the amount of fusion, theorised to take place, in the core. However, the amount of neutrinos actually detected IS the right amount if fusion is occurring in the double layer (DL) at the top of the photosphere.

Add to this

• Scott Reality Check predicts that the Sun is about the size of the Earth

I've corrected that for you RC.
Just to be clear why it should read "Reality Check predicts that the Sun is about the size of the Earth" it's because you deliberately misrepresent Scott. So good luck with that

On a different point and for a good “Discussion of Scott - On the Sun's Electric Field” see HERE

”The conclusion of Dr. Scott's article:


The application of Maxwell’s equations to the correct spherical geometry of the Sun’s environment suggests a set of self-consistent, non-zero-valued electric-field functions and space-charge distributions that EU theorists have long felt existed, but have not previously been described quantitatively. These variations in the electric field suggest a possible explanatory mechanism for the here-to-fore ‘inexplicable, anomalous behavior’ of space probes in the vicinity of the heliopause.

I think physicist missed the point of the article.

physicist wrote:
Mr Scott actually manages to solve the problem in question incorrectly - because his differential equation (9) has been solved subject to the wrong boundary conditions. The solution (10) and the comments that follow it are not correct.

Which boundary conditions are wrong and why? Are you talking about the charge density of the anode dark space pads? “

RC I think you'll like the views of Physicist but Siggy_G (not shown) and Solrey have good answers IMO.

Another point about Don Scott's idea: It requires that much of what we know about physics is wrong!

You'll find it's called a Paradigm Shift

And just in case you are still ignorant of the other flaws in the electric sun idea, Haig:

And just in case you are still ignorant of the other flaws in the standard model idea, Reality Check: Click HERE HERE HERE and HERE

Scott's RC's ignorance of the basics of nuclear physics EU/PC Theory

Here let me help you a bit RC:

Electric Sun Verified

The EU model is based on a hierarchy of repeated patterns of plasma behavior, from the size of a galaxy down to a few centimeters in the laboratory. Therefore it is subject to experimental confirmation, unlike most astrophysical theory today. So discoveries from space like this one should trigger experiments in plasma laboratories around the world instead of theorists wasting resources by conjuring up ever more complex and unlikely models based on invalid concepts of space plasma. IBEX's recent results that have taken researchers by surprise have given yet more strength to the EU model, a model that confidently predicts that the shape of the Sun’s galactic plasma environment is the hourglass, Z-pinch shape of planetary nebulae and supernovae, aligned with the local interstellar magnetic field. The beautiful symmetrical patterns that arise in plasma discharges from very simple principles renders all modeling that ignores the electrical nature of matter and the universe worthless.
Wal Thornhill

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=74fgmwne

Scott RC predicts that the Sun is about the size of the Earth

How about this RC?


Criticism of the Electric Sun Model
http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/the-editor-s-musings/criticism-of-the-electric-sun-model


This just might help you understand RC (but I doubt it. My bold)


Sun and stars

“A Star and hence our Sun, is an almost entirely ionized ball of plasma, consisting of electrons and ions, in which there is hardly any gas (neutral atoms). The movement of the plasma produces strong magnetic fields and corresponding electric currents.”

“A solar flare takes a similar shape to that of an Electric Birkeland current.”

http://www.plasma-universe.com/Sun_and_stars

Let me know if there is anything in these posts that you cannot understand.

Since you asked - why do you bother trying to debunk EU/PC Theory when there is so much insanity in mainstream? See Here

Links To Insanity
“Look for a recurring theme here.... Like "SUPRISE! STARTLED! PERPLEXED! PUZZLED!" Typically scientists don't like surprises. It means their models are wrong.”

http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/links-to-insanity


Some Papers to ponder:

Peer Reviewed Papers In Cosmology

“This library of papers deals only in reality. No cosmic gimicks, made up matter, or magical dark energies.

Most of the papers revolve around plasma cosmology and disproof of currently accepted theories.”

http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/peer-reviewed-papers