The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model

[CharlesChandler]

As I have mentioned in other posts i think the temperature is a combination of several events. [...] At the footprint of a loop you have the cold surface being plasmaized(new word) over some relatively short distance... The temperature rises from 1500K to 70,000K producing the iron plasma that comprises the loop... No body has ever explained why solar loops are made of iron plasma.

I disagree that sunspot umbra temps, as low as 2500 K, are telling us that the 700 km Wilson depression takes us down into cooler plasma -- I think that the umbra is cooler for its own reasons. Remember that the temp on the limb is 4600 K, while perpendicular to the surface it's 6400 K. So at the top, it's 4600 K, and "somewhere below" it's 6400 K. If the temp is 2500 K at a depth of 700 km, then we go from 2500 to 6400 to 4600 K, all in 700 km. That can only mean that the temp is the result of some sort of energy conversion that occurs 3 times more robustly in the topmost 700 km. Your energy conversion is thermionic emissions from a solid iron electrode. That puts the electrode little more than 700 km below the visible surface. But then how are you going to get the hydrodynamic behaviors in the granules? These "make sense" as thermal bubbles that have to be at least as deep as they are wide (>1000 km), and more probably are 4x deeper (4000 km).

A similar hydrodynamic problem is the instances of s-waves in the visible surface after flares.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/C ... eWaves.png

The crest-to-crest distance (i.e., wavelength) started at 6 Mm, and as the waves accelerated outward, in the last frame, it was 10 Mm. Just roughly speaking, I'd say that the trough of a 10 Mm s-wave would be at least 2 Mm below the equilibrium level, which means that there couldn't have been a solid surface at 700 km, or the wave would have bottomed out.

It would be easier to believe that the iron surface is 4800 km below the visible edge, as Michael contends, and then you toss the umbral temps as something to do with the sunspot itself, not temperature layering. You could even make the supersonic updrafts in the granules the consequence of your thermionic vaporization of iron, couldn't you?

Outstanding issues with the solid surface concept would still include differential rotation, supergranules, recharging (i.e., RF energy?), and the overall density (which would be too high if the whole thing was solid iron, so you need a low density core, but you also need it to produce the correct helioseismic shadows at .27 and .70 SR). I'm not saying that these couldn't be solved -- I'm just saying that they're problems.

As concerns the iron in the post-flare coronal loops, my model addresses this, so "nobody" needs to be changed to "only one other guy".

Its plausible that currents [into the Sun] are distributed accordingly. It is also plausible that there are internal dynamics that distributes energy. [...] The energy level of the emitted photons depends on the acceleration and interactions of the electrons emitting them, which in turn depends on medium density (interactions) and electric fields (acceleration). Both factors increase towards the Sun, peaking towards the surface, and are relatively weak and sparse throughout the heliosphere. Emissions accordingly.

If the discharges were responding to a radial electric field, the field density would certainly be the greatest nearest the Sun. But this doesn't change the fact that the discharge channel would propagate backwards, from the Sun, out into the heliosphere. Is it possible to set a plasma lamp such that it just barely achieves arc mode, but doesn't arc all of the way out to the shell? In all of the relevant experiments that I've seen, as soon as the discharge steps up from glow to arc mode, the arc projects all of the way to the other electrode. So the radial field density isn't the critical factor -- it's the instability that causes arc discharges to get organized into discrete channels due to the magnetic pinch effect. In a plasma lamp, and in terrestrial lightning, the width of the channel remains consistent, even though the field density changes dramatically. Once the charges are pinched into a stream, the particle velocity is the same all of the way through, like water through a pipe.

Does nuclear fusion/fission happen in the photosphere?

Yes, in solar flares at the very least. And you're right that this does interesting things to the power requirements, but sustained fusion also places demands on the model in question.

Mozina, M.; Ratcliffe, H.; Manuel, O., 2006: Observational confirmation of the Sun's CNO cycle. Journal of Fusion Energy, 25: 107-114

If the incoming current density is greater and across all surface areas, than you will get arc discharges everywhere rather than auroral phenomena just at the polar regions.

You're assuming the conclusion.

What holds back the positively charged ions? Well, Scott states that the lower photosphere with the high incoming negative charge tends to create a strong net inward negative electric-field force that restricts all but the most energetic ions to escape outward.

The incoming negative charge keeps the positive ions from coming out?

I did not know that there was a Birkeland current "model", and I did not know that according to this model the Sun has a greater conductivity than the surrounding interplanetary medium. This is new and very interesting information, do you have a reference to the supporting data?

I was just referring to the general EU model, wherein the galactic (Birkeland) current powers the Sun. As concerns the conductivity, though they don't realize it, this is a requirement for the current to pass through the Sun, instead of through the surrounding interplanetary medium.

To me, the images of the corona do resemble the aurora.

I'm not questioning whether or not the currents are there. But the model in question states that all of the Sun's power comes in through external currents. If that was the case, the "solar aurora" would be obvious.

Torsional oscillation.... Is it your own theory?

No.

I'm very curious about the "instrumented data". Please share your source. The "radiating outward open field lines" I believe are astrophysicists ideas of how it should be.

Richardson, J. D., 2000: The Solar Wind: Probing the Heliosphere with Multiple Spacecraft. COSPAR Colloquium on The Outer Heliosphere: The Next Frontier, Potsdam

Israelevich, P. L. et al., 2001: MHD simulation of the three-dimensional structure of the heliospheric current sheet. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 376: 288-291

Phillips, J. L. et al., 1995: Ulysses solar wind plasma observations from pole to pole. Geophysical Research Letters, 22 (23): 3301-3304

Cranmer, S. R., 2009: Testing and Refining Models of Slow Solar Wind Acceleration. SHINE 2009 Workshop

Who will you trust when it comes to plasma physics and cosmology, Alfven and Peratt or astrophysicist who "believe in" the big bang?

Alfven developed his model before satellites started making in situ observations.

So why do you use Blackbody radiation in your explanations if it's quantum-babble?

I don't use the quantum mechanics "explanation" of black-body radiation. The general characteristics were defined by Kirchhoff, and I use Robitaille's theory of what causes it (as I stated in a previous post), which is not QM.

You're breaking the deal of no walls of text, and max 1 or 2 points.

Here's what I actually said (offline)...

Some people are following my work closely, and appreciate it when I elaborate, while others are not so interested, and wonder why I take up so much space on some of these threads. When in doubt, if I wait until asked before answering, it should cut down a bit on the clutter.

So I'm trying to be more succinct, refraining from elaborating, and not opening up too many new tangents. I elaborated a bit on the black-body issue, because it's a crucial topic in stellar/solar theories, and I saw that you were quoting mainstream sources as if they were reliable, and I thought I'd save you some trouble by giving you the heads-up. Sorry. You still twisted my words around, and blamed me for it. Then, when I don't elaborate, you say things like, "I'm sorry but I disagree, I don't find your explanation straightforward at all. Torsional oscillation... Is it your own theory?" So it's my fault that you don't know what torsional oscillation is? Or is it my fault that I didn't elaborate? But then it would have been my fault for explaining without being asked. Hmmm, I don't think that this is my problem. Please just go in your Control Panel and block me. Or just don't read this thread anymore.

To the others on this thread, I'm striving to be more succinct. If I see open issues, I'll respond briefly. If I don't make sense and you consider it to be important, just let me know what doesn't make sense. If you want to make personal comments, PM me.

[PersianPaladin]

Have you tried contacting Monty Childs who is heading the SAFIRE project?

Here is his youtube account:-
http://www.youtube.com/user/scirustech

[CharlesChandler]

Have you tried contacting Monty Childs who is heading the SAFIRE project?

Yes. I supplied him with these prints as of 2012-10-26, as a proposed test of the cathode model, while suggesting that he get the champions of the anode model to supply their own prints, if they didn't think that their model could be tested just by flipping the polarity.

Solar Cathode Test

I have heard loose references to SAFIRE testing both the cathode and anode configurations, but they haven't published any prints, so I have no way of knowing whether or not the requirements for the cathode test will be met. Specifically, the acceleration of particles away from the orb can only be achieved in a tripole field, with a positive charge inside the orb, a negative charge on the surface, and a positive charge away from the orb. This puts the cathode on a current divider. The significance is that electrons emitted from the cathode will move slowly at first, as they will be attracted both to the positive charge inside the orb, and to the other, slightly more powerful positive charge outside of it. As the electrons drift away from the orb, by the inverse square law their attraction to the inner positive charge will diminish, while their attraction to the outer positive charge will increase. This will produce an acceleration. As best as I can tell, this is the only way to get a cathode to emit electrons from its entire surface, without getting pinched into discrete channels at the surface, and to accelerate away from the surface, ultimately getting pinched into discrete channels some distance away from the surface, as they are in the helmet streamers. The solar properties that might be reproducible in this configuration are the helmet streamers, the granules, and possibly the spicules.

[PersianPaladin]

Well, you've certainly put a lot of work into it. That's to your credit.

Naturally, I am yet to accept most of your premises as I'm still convinced in my own basic hypotheses regarding the Sun. But as long as you maintain contact with the SAFIRE team, then maybe we can all progress.

Obviously, I am not able to compete with you in terms of the details.

[PersianPaladin]

If you and your volunteer colleagues can improve on it, then I suggest you make polite and humble approach to Dave Talbott (Sponsor/ADMINISTRATOR) of this forum and even open private communication lines with the likes of Wal Thornhill et al.

Been there, done that. The EU leaders have never expressed any interest whatsoever in the work that I'm doing. And this goes all the way back to the electric tornado theory that I developed, which I thought would be a welcome contribution to the (seemingly) growing body of solid work being done in the EU. But the reality is that the EU isn't growing at all. The EU leaders are basically saying, "This is our story, and we're sticking with it." So I tried to gain acceptance for my tornado theory on other boards, and in the scientific community. But I found that the EU had gotten there ahead of me, and had so soured everybody on the EM approach with their recalcitrant evangelism that nobody wanted to hear about electric tornado theory anymore. But I have no intention of giving up. Tornadoes kill people. For me, EM theory isn't an idle intellectual pastime. It's human lives on the line, and everybody's cozy little preformed conclusions, in the mainstream and in the EU, mean nothing to me. With a rigorous method, progress can be made, and lives can be saved. So now I have only two choices: get the EU to clean up its act, so that the entire paradigm gets acknowledged as legitimate, and then there will be progress in tornado theory, or discredit the EU, so that they are no longer in my way. So I'm out to prove that the Universe is, in fact, electric. And either the EU gets real, or it demonstrates that it really has no interest in seeing their premise proved, which will prove that the EU is really just a big scam.

Of course, I'm not a universal genius, and as I've said many times before, I never seem to get anything right on the first try. But when I'm shown to be wrong, I don't then show that I don't care, and just stick to my story, as if this is all just intellectual prerogative anyway. No, if I'm wrong, I get right. This process will, of course, continue ad infinitum. For me, truth isn't a position -- it's a process. And with this mentality, I've developed a model that takes more into account than any other that I've seen. If I stick to this process, the scope & specificity of the model will simply continue to grow. Problems will be identified, and they will be fixed. With time, people will start to realize that I'm making progress. And they will also get a good look at the things that are impeding my progress. To stop me, you'll have to do it in full public view. And then you'll have to answer for why you think that progress should be impeded. Sometime later, after you've lost, you'll realize that impeding scientific progress was a self-defeating proposition from the very beginning. The truth doesn't sleep, and in the end, it always wins. Use a method that leads you to the truth, and you'll win too. Pick an idea that you like and refuse to acknowledge evidence that you're wrong, and you've already lost.

But mind you -- I'm not asking people to accept my work outright. I'm asking people to engage in honest, open discussions of the issues. I don't have all of the answers. But I'll lay out what I've done, and I'll listen carefully to criticisms, and I'll ask others to do the same. Then we'll make progress.

But please when a quality science journalist like Hoz Turner (PP) posts a link with praise to those (YOUR) efforts...

"Quality science journalist"? Like who??? The first rule of journalism is, "Check your facts." Hoz doesn't know this. He tried to defend his contentions about Marklund convection by saying that proof was established in the laboratory by the "Vemasat blueberries". Here was his comment:

I do have faith that CJ Ransom and Vemasat Labs know the difference between ordinary welding slag and the pinched spherules with their particular morphologies.

"Faith" isn't "quality science journalism". If he had double-checked the facts, he would have learned that the "blueberries" are just welding slag. But later he continued...

And regarding the Vemasat Lab spherules. Again, Chandler continues to ignore the morphologies generated that show they are distinct from just "slag". I'm sure they know the difference between the two. Unless you want to ask him to perform another experiment with a "control", or just outright accuse him of scientific incompetence? I'm wondering if Lloyd or Chandler want an honest debate here or they are just throwing their hypothetical assumptions around.

Well, OK, if you're going to call my honesty into question, I guess I'll have to state what I honestly know to be true, since I am a qualified CNC machinist, with hands-on experience with plasma cutters, EDM, arc welding, and acetylene torches. The typical width of the electron stream in arc welding is 0.25 mm. The blueberries averaged 1.00 mm in diameter. So the blueberries were 4 times wider than the electron stream. And yet they were created inside the electron stream, by Marklund convection? How do you condense a 1.00 mm blueberry inside a 0.25 mm electron stream? I can say with a high degree of confidence that this isn't physically possible, and anybody who says it's so either just doesn't know the relevant specs (i.e., incompetence), or does, but has an ulterior motive for misrepresenting the facts (i.e., fraud). These are not "hypothetical assumptions" -- they are machining specs that are publicly accessible (even to journalists -- who bother to look). Now, can I get an honest rebuttal to that? Or am I just going to get slandered some more, for "dishonestly" not taking Ransom & Thornhill on faith?

You guys are so far over the line that you don't even realize that you've crossed a line. I wonder how many signatures I'd be able to get on a protest petition if I post it to the rest of the science boards on the Internet, citing the "published literature" coming out of the EU, and easily showing how specious it actually is? I think that I could get Ransom & Thornhill remembered more for their blueberries than for all of the rest of what they have done put together, and all of their future prospects will disappear. And EU champions think that they have the right to slander me?

So, here's the tipping point again: do we want a slander war, or do we want to do a legitimate scientific inquiry? I'm for science, and I'm insisting that the problems in the EU get fixed. If obvious errors cannot be fixed, just publicly say so.

Yep I have even weirder thoughts, there is no particle wave duality.... ONLY WAVES!

Ah, if I had another couple of lifetimes, I'd give at least one of them to wave theory! And of course waves can only travel in a medium, so there is no such thing as empty space. But I've got my hands full with stuff going on at larger scales, and I "think" that a rewrite of the foundational principles won't change the higher-level manifestations. So Birkeland currents become a combination of standing & traveling waves through the aether, instead of magnetic field aligned particle streams -- but the currents don't know that we changed their names! So I'm proceeding with proven laboratory science, even though I'm suspicious of the chaos of modern particle physics and quantum mechanics, and I'm applauding the efforts of anybody exploring new avenues.

...you include the works of the late , great Harold Aspden in your study material. Whilst extremely math heavy in its presentation, did you cherry pick or do you get what he was on about?

I basically cherry-picked him, just for the info on supercritical hydrogen. Aether is too far outside the scope of the galactic/stellar modeling that I'm doing.

...but by then you would be plucked, turned inside out, with your hide hanging out to dry...

That's the kind of debate I'm seeking, as long as the points are legitimate. I don't need any more lessons in rhetoric!

By somewhere else i mean somewhere other than this thread. There are two threads on the new insights thread board about Your work. One is titled "CC's Theory Debate". Wouldn't that be a good place to discuss Your debate?

I have suggested several times that threads be a little bit more containerized, attempting to stick to the back-n-forth on one issue, and for tangents to be broken out into new threads. I also have no problem keeping my "mad ideas" on the NIAMI forum. But that isn't what triggered the slander campaign from JustCurious, and the stone-walling from PersianPaladin. The problem is that I identified flaws in central EU tenets, such as star formation by Marklund convection. Here are the guidelines:

All posts to the scientific parts of the forum should be confined to properly constructed scientific arguments either supporting or challenging published Electric Universe theory. The ONLY places we treat as exceptions to these guidelines is on "The Human Question" and "New Insights and Mad Ideas" boards.

Do you believe that these should be modified, to include a clause stating that people who prove Thornhill wrong should be slandered?

This....IMO....was unfair of you.

Especially with regard to your claim about the EU "literature". First off, here are some of the predictions made by Thornhill et al:-

http://www.thunderbolts.info/predictions.htm

How many successful ones have you made?

As for the "blueberries" - I came across in the wrong way, and I already apologized for that impression. But I never stated that "Marklund convection" occurred in that process and neither did Wal Thornhill (correct me if I'm wrong). The magnetic "pinch" process was involved in the particular discharge specifications that were used in the experiment. Here is what Wal told me:-

"Nowhere are Martian 'blueberries' attributed to a z-pinch. What you call the melt from an electric arc depends on the context."

The z-pinch however, is theorized to occur at the scale of lightning discharges; which the lab experiments were trying to model at a scaled-down level with respect to certain crater formations.

{With respect to the paper by CJ Ransom http://www.scribd.com/doc/109611581/The ... res-of-the)

"Given the low energies I prefer to call it a simple magnetic pinch because it doesn't exhibit the many complexities of a lab z-pinch. But I was only a co-author."

[PersianPaladin]

Oh and let's not forget their paper was published in the IEEE. A peer-reviewed and rather "mainstream" journal. Not that it matters though.....

[CharlesChandler]

How many successful [predictions] have you made?

I made one recently. On 2013-01-15, on the Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model thread, the topic of bolides came up. I made the following assertions:

A meteor coming in at an angle will start spinning, due to the pressure gradient in the air. (The air underneath is higher in pressure than the air overhead.) This sounds outlandish, but for a meteor 1 km across, we should consider that in the first km above the ground, the air pressure goes from about 1000 mb down to about 850 mb, so the air under the meteor is 15% more dense than the air above it. Hence there will be more friction on the bottom than on the top, and this will cause the meteor to "roll" across the air. Moving at 70 km/s would develop an extremely fast spin. And what do we know about charged objects that are spinning rapidly? They generate magnetic fields. So just as the Earth's magnetic field deflects charged particles toward the poles, the meteor's far more powerful magnetic field might be deflecting charged particles towards its axis of rotation (parallel to the ground, and perpendicular to the direction of travel). Hence there might indeed be an electric current flowing through the meteor's center. But it isn't megalightning between the meteor and the ground. Rather, it's a self-induced current due to its extremely rapid rotation.

Here's an image that I did later to illustrate the idea:

Rolling Bolide Regime

Then, on 2013-02-15 (just one month later), for the first time ever, we got hi-res photos & videos of a bolide trail before it dispersed, revealing twin smoke trails, on an axis parallel to the ground and perpendicular to the direction of travel, which were not predicted by anyone else.

Chelyabinsk Trails

Note that this model asserts that bolides (and asteroids for that matter) are positively charged, which is consistent with the evidence, and which is contrary to the EU model. Here is the full write-up:

Meteoric Airbursts

As for the "blueberries" [...] I never stated that "Marklund convection" occurred in that process...

Oops, sorry, I must have misunderstood this comment...

Marklund wrote that the matter in a Birkeland Current is sorted according to their ionization potential. The elements with the LOWEST ionization potential are brought closest to the axis of the current column. The convectional process via the viscosity layer between ionized and non-ionized matter referred to by Perratt et al, was expanded on in Marklund's paper. The elements brought to the axis are usually the heaviest elements. The intense heat and magnetic pressure in pinches is more than enough to create solid accretion of matter in dusty clouds, particularly when the discharge quenches. Experiments by plasma physicist C.J. Ransom, for example - found that "martian blueberries" can be formed in the lab when certain electrical discharges strike layers of hematite and compress them into balls.

See why I'm confused?

...and neither did Wal Thornhill...

Nowhere are Martian 'blueberries' attributed to a z-pinch. What you call the melt from an electric arc depends on the context.

Oops, my bad again. I guess I need just a little enlightenment then. In this paper by Random & Thornhill, which is entirely about the formation of spherules by electric currents, the only explanation of how this happens is summarized in this image:

Maybe I'm just plumb dumb, but I thought that this was saying that the current was pinching the blueberries. How could I have been so wrong?

Given the low energies I prefer to call it a simple magnetic pinch because it doesn't exhibit the many complexities of a lab z-pinch. But I was only a co-author.

OK, I'm off to the liquor store (again). Maybe that will help. Back in 30.

[nick c]

justcurious, and all concerned....
I removed your response to CC's post (above).
It contains inappropriate language and an ad hom comment.
(I also removed upriver's question to you, since it had no context once your post was removed.)

Please review forum rules and guidelines here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... p?f=11&t=4
specifically:

Personal or ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated, under any circumstances. If you disagree with something which has been posted, address the post, not the poster.

It is really not that difficult. If someone posts something that you find to be untenable, instead of questioning their integrity or sanity, it should be a simple matter to point out the error of their position. There is no need for an attack on anyone's character.

Please, now let's just resume the thread. Their is no need for any response to this moderation post.
Thanks for your cooperation,
Nick

[justcurious]

I came across this paper calling for a new interstellar space probe to study the heliopause/sheath and interstellar medium. Here is the title and authors:

The Science with the Interstellar Heliopause Probe
H. Fichtner, B. Heber, and M. Leipold
Institut fur Theoretische Physik IV, Ruhr-Universit ¨ at Bochum, 44780 Bochum, Germany
Institut fur Experimentelle und Angewandte Physik, Christian-Albrechts-Universit at Kiel 24118 Kiel, Germany
Kayser-Threde GmbH, Space Technology and Utilization Section, 81379 Munich, Germany

http://www.astrophys-space-sci-trans.ne ... 3-2006.pdf

They reference many papers from a Russian researcher by the name of Baranov he seems to know a lot about gases and plasma), who would have predicted a "wall of neutral hydrogen" at the periphery of the solar system.
This would now be called the "Baranov interface". Now they are using this "hydrogen wall" as they call it as a "signature" in observation of other stars. The focus in the paper seemed to be on protons rather than electron behaviour in the solar wind. My analysis of the ACE data recently indicates that there are more protons than electrons flowing out of the Sun through the solar wind. So it appears that protons leave the Sun's surface to recombine with electrons from extrasolar/interstellar space. Not sure if you would call it a cathode or an anode, but it's definitely a circuit, and

To a non specialist as myself, I see this as a predictable outcome of the EU solar model in the sense that, there are currents from/to the Sun's surface and it's heliosheath (outer membrane).

I also wanted to mention an astonishing statement in the paper... (but perhaps rather predictable for followers of the EU)... In section 2 - The scientific objectives of IHP, section 2.1 - The basic questions... check this out!

In view of the recently revived interest in the so-called ‘Pioneer Anomaly’ (Anderson et al., 2002) a fifth question could be added:
• Is the ‘Pioneer Anomaly’ real and is Newton’s law of gravitation to be modified?

[justcurious]

How many successful [predictions] have you made?

I made one recently. On 2013-01-15, on the Re: Call for Criticisms on New Solar Model thread, the topic of bolides came up. I made the following assertions:

A meteor coming in at an angle will start spinning, due to the pressure gradient in the air. (The air underneath is higher in pressure than the air overhead.) This sounds outlandish, but for a meteor 1 km across, we should consider that in the first km above the ground, the air pressure goes from about 1000 mb down to about 850 mb, so the air under the meteor is 15% more dense than the air above it. Hence there will be more friction on the bottom than on the top, and this will cause the meteor to "roll" across the air. Moving at 70 km/s would develop an extremely fast spin. And what do we know about charged objects that are spinning rapidly? They generate magnetic fields. So just as the Earth's magnetic field deflects charged particles toward the poles, the meteor's far more powerful magnetic field might be deflecting charged particles towards its axis of rotation (parallel to the ground, and perpendicular to the direction of travel). Hence there might indeed be an electric current flowing through the meteor's center. But it isn't megalightning between the meteor and the ground. Rather, it's a self-induced current due to its extremely rapid rotation.

Here's an image that I did later to illustrate the idea:

Rolling Bolide Regime

Then, on 2013-02-15 (just one month later), for the first time ever, we got hi-res photos & videos of a bolide trail before it dispersed, revealing twin smoke trails, on an axis parallel to the ground and perpendicular to the direction of travel, which were not predicted by anyone else.

Chelyabinsk Trails

Note that this model asserts that bolides (and asteroids for that matter) are positively charged, which is consistent with the evidence, and which is contrary to the EU model. Here is the full write-up:

Meteoric Airbursts

I think it would be fairer to let others judge the claimed prediction relating to the rolling bollide theory.
There is a lengthy dicsussion and debate on this topic in the thread Feb 15 Meteorite(s) hit Russia - Analysis
I will keep my opinion to myself as requested by the moderator.

[CharlesChandler]

I think it would be fairer to let others judge the claimed prediction relating to the rolling bolide theory.

You don't judge a prediction by whether or not you like the theory that made it. You judge a prediction by its correspondence to the observations. So here are the facts:

1. I said, a month in advance, that a bolide could develop electric currents, from the leading edge of the solenoidal magnetic field, to footpoints on each pole of the axis of rotation, which I specified to be parallel to the ground, and perpendicular to the direction of travel.
2. The Chelyabinsk bolide left two sustained trails, at equal altitudes, which is what would have been produced if the specified electric currents were burning into the bolide.
3. No one else ever said that before.

Anybody care to weigh in on whether or not that was close enough to call a match?

[upriver]

I think it would be fairer to let others judge the claimed prediction relating to the rolling bolide theory.

You don't judge a prediction by whether or not you like the theory that made it. You judge a prediction by its correspondence to the observations. So here are the facts:

1. I said, a month in advance, that a bolide could develop electric currents, from the leading edge of the solenoidal magnetic field, to footpoints on each pole of the axis of rotation, which I specified to be parallel to the ground, and perpendicular to the direction of travel.
2. The Chelyabinsk bolide left two sustained trails, at equal altitudes, which is what would have been produced if the specified electric currents were burning into the bolide.
3. No one else ever said that before.

Anybody care to weigh in on whether or not that was close enough to call a match?

I'd call it a hit.....

[justcurious]

I think it would be fairer to let others judge the claimed prediction relating to the rolling bolide theory.

You don't judge a prediction by whether or not you like the theory that made it. You judge a prediction by its correspondence to the observations. So here are the facts:

1. I said, a month in advance, that a bolide could develop electric currents, from the leading edge of the solenoidal magnetic field, to footpoints on each pole of the axis of rotation, which I specified to be parallel to the ground, and perpendicular to the direction of travel.
2. The Chelyabinsk bolide left two sustained trails, at equal altitudes, which is what would have been produced if the specified electric currents were burning into the bolide.
3. No one else ever said that before.

Anybody care to weigh in on whether or not that was close enough to call a match?

Fireballs are not a new phenomena. The electric nature of meteors was well documented already.
Fireballs with two trails is not new either. Other older videos I saw also show the same sort of configuration, the trails seem to be coming out of the sides. Nowadays people liken them to UFOs, in other times they probably likened them to the Devil or some demon with horns. In anycase, if it has been observed before, then what you are describing is your "explanation" of a phenomena rather than a "prediction" isn't it? Especially if previous twin-trail meteors showed the same behaviour.

Regarding the airburst, what exactly was predicted? How can your prediction be verified?

For a discussion and judgement on explanations and descriptions (as opposed to predictions) of what happened in Chelyabinsk, I suggest the other thread would be more appropriate.

[CharlesChandler]

Fireballs with two trails is not new either. Other older videos I saw also show the same sort of configuration, the trails seem to be coming out of the sides.

If that's true, then my point #3 is false, and my "prediction" gets demoted to a "postdiction". Can you provide links to the videos?

Regarding the airburst, what exactly was predicted? How can your prediction be verified?

The research that I'm following asserts that bolides are positively charged, and the absence of valence electrons does two things: 1) it weakens the structural integrity of the bolide, and 2) it introduces electrostatic repulsion. Taken together, these constitute a reason for the bolide to break up into pieces, when otherwise (i.e., with a neutral or negative charge) it would simply melt from the outside. But there isn't anything new about that. The new piece was the polar currents, which I actually discarded as a cause of bolide break-up, favoring the simpler Coulomb force, but which predicts bipolar smoke trails.

For a discussion and judgement on explanations and descriptions (as opposed to predictions) of what happened in Chelyabinsk, I suggest the other thread would be more appropriate.

You can continue it if you want, but I think that we reached an impasse. You guys locked down on the triboelectricity explanation, and didn't want to consider anything else. Despite this being a common explanation, I called that just a sloppy use of the term. Blunt objects traveling at hypersonic speeds (such as bolides) always build up detached shock fronts. Once they do, the ambient air doesn't touch the object -- the collision is between the high-pressure air inside the shock front and the ambient air outside of it. If triboelectric charging occurs there, it's because air is rubbing against other air? Dry air isn't on the triboelectric series anyway, but even if it was, it couldn't be on both sides of the series, such that rubbing it against itself would cause a charge separation. Rubbing a balloon on your hair develops static electricity. Rubbing a balloon against another balloon does not, because like substances are on the same side of the series. Unless of course you rub them fast enough to get frictional or thermionic emissions, but that isn't triboelectricity. If it is, the whole concept of the triboelectric series, and the chemical mechanisms that cause it, becomes meaningless. If triboelectricity is actually a useful thing to understand, it serves nobody's purpose to re-use it to explain other stuff that definitely isn't triboelectricity, by definition, just because we don't have any other convenient explanation. But you guys didn't want to hear that. Static electricity is a common phenomenon, and triboelectricity is commonly cited as the mechanism for charging in the atmosphere. It doesn't explain detached shock fronts, and it doesn't specify the sign of the charge, which is useful in understanding the structural failure of bolides. But if you want a quick-n-dirty explanation, especially one that doesn't explicitly specify that the bolide is positively charged, which is contrary to the EU opinion, triboelectricity is an adequate explanation for you, and I am fully convinced that you will not be swayed of that opinion. Thus that debate ends.

The only reason why I'm going into this detail on this thread is that Hoz wanted to know if I had ever made a successful prediction.

[PersianPaladin]

I'm not going to bother continuing the "martian blueberry" argument because we'll just end up round in circles. Perhaps I made an error with respect to Marklund Convection in a given laboratory context. My memory (this has been a LONG thread) sometimes serves me ill. Still, if you have a problem with the idea that z-pinches occur in high ampere lightning discharges (they do, btw) then go and have a word with the referees of the IEEE paper. Oh, and you can also talk to them about magnetic "pinches" being involved in shaping the morphologies of the spherules in the lab. But I'm done on this issue. I want to move on.


Now....back to the issue at hand....


In his IEEE paper titled "The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars", Wal Thornhill delivered a compelling case that the bi-polar and circular morphology of the supernova is formed by essentially the same z-pinch discharge phenomena that can be observed in bipolar nebula as well as high-ampere discharges in the lab. These are explosive events, but they are electrical in nature.

Excerpt from Wal's paper:-

Megaampere particle beams show characteristic 56- and 28-fold symmetry. Peratt writes 'A solid beam of charged particles tends to form hollow cylinders that may then filament into individual currents. When observed from below, the pattern consists of circles, circular rings of bright spots, and intense electrical discharge streamers connecting the inner structure to the outer structure.'
"...individual current filaments are maintained by their azimuthal self-magnetic fields, a property lost by increasing the number of electrical current filaments. The scaling is constant for a given hollow beam thickness, from microampere beams to multi-megaampere beams and beam diamters of millimeters to thousands of kilometers." This scaling of plasma phenomena has been extended to at least 14 orders of magnitude, so the bright ring of SN 1987A can be considered as a stellar scale 'witness plate' with the equatorial ejecta sheet acting as the witness plate for the axial Birkeland currents (Fig. 3).
Peratt adds "Because the electrical current-carrying filaments are parallel, they attract the Bio-Savart force law, in pairs but sometimess three. This reduces the 56 filaments over time to 28 filaments, hence the 56- and 28-fold symmetry patterns. In actuality, during the pairing, any number of filaments less than 56 may be recorded as pairing is not synchronized to occur uniformly. However, there are 'temporarily stable' (longer duration) states at 42, 35, 28, 14, 7 and 4 filaments. Each pair formation is a vortex that becomes increasingly complex [17]."
The images of SN 1987A may be interpreted as showing that the Birkeland currents around the star have paired to a number close to 28. The bright spots in the image show a tendency toward pairing and groups of three. This witness plate model explains why the glowing ring is so nearly circular and is expanding more slowly than expected from a shock front. It is more akin to a cloud at night caught in the beams of a ring of searchlights.
If the equatorial ring is showing the Birkeland currents in the outer sheath of an axial plasma current column, then the supernova outburst may be the result of an intense Z-pinch focused on the central star causing exploding double layers above the poles in the central column. It is important to note that the Z-pinch naturally takes the ubiquitous hourglass shape of planetary nebulae. It fits the shape of SN 1987A with its three rings. No poorly explained stellar winds and magnetic fields from within the star are required.

Now, I'd like to draw your intention to this image of the "beaded ring" associated with 1987A:-

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... es_big.jpg

Astronomers assume that the circular beaded formation is the result of a "supersonic shock wave unleashed during the explosion". These then apparently slam into rings of gas with the collisions creating the heating at temperatures between a few thousand to a million degrees fahrenheit.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 9/image/a/

Astronomers think slow-moving shock-waves from supernova explosions are responsible for filamentary star-formation in interstellar clouds:-

"The very massive stars form first and explode into supernova. This makes shock waves into the molecular cloud, causing nearby gas to compress and form more stars."
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec13.html

"The European Space Agency's Herschel observatory has revealed that nearby interstellar clouds contain networks of tangled gaseous filaments. Astronomers were fascinated to discover that each filament is approximately the same width, hinting that they may result from interstellar sonic booms throughout the Milky Way.

Herschel has revealed that the filaments are gigantic, stretching for tens of light years through space and that newly-born stars are often found in the densest parts of them. One filament imaged by Herschel in the Aquila region contains a cluster of about 100 infant stars."
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... birth.html

All nice and dandy. Except there's a problem. Not only do we have evidence that magnetic fields are aligned and\or perpendicular to these filaments (http://www.mpia-hd.mpg.de/homes/stein/E ... bai.Li.php), we also find more evidence that the magnetic fields in interstellar molecular clouds are far too organised for interstellar clouds to be affected more by turbulence than by galactic magnetic fields:-

"Astronomers at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy have, for the first time, measured the alignment of magnetic fields in gigantic clouds of gas and dust in a distant galaxy. Their results suggest that such magnetic fields play a key role in channeling matter to form denser clouds, and thus in setting the stage for the birth of new stars."

If turbulence played a more important role in these clouds than the ordering influence of the galaxy's magnetic field, the magnetic field associated with the cloud would be random and disordered. Thus, Li and Henning's observations are a strong indication that magnetic fields indeed play an important role when it comes to the formation of dense molecular clouds."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132119.htm

Thus, the alignment of magnetic fields along the filaments and the ordered nature of the magnetic fields (aligned with the galaxy) negates the importance of supernova shock-wave dynamics or other such "turbulence" in initiating star-formation and generating the wide-scale filamentary structure.

Now, I find it interesting that the glowing filamentary rings and other features of apparent "supernova remnants" are also attributed to "shock-waves" that heat up gas via collisions. Yet, the "beads" observed in Supernova 1987A which glow with considerable brightness are not possibly considered to be stellar (bright and roughly spherical) objects. That's because the mainstream has a certain lense in which it peers through and decides to categorize certain things in an arbitrary way.

Of course, Supernova 1987A isn't the only example of bi-polar structure and filamentary and beaded manifestations in apparent supernova remnants. It's pretty much a common observation:-
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/1999/0237/
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2004/casa/

We can see the evolution of what I am calling "beaded plasma discharge striations" in the circular z-pinch filaments of Supernova 1987A:-
http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/ar ... o0409b.jpg



Thornhill has made a compelling case that this is the result of a z-pinch field-aligned electric discharge. The mainstream thinks that such "shock-waves" are capable of producing stars in interstellar clouds. They miss the likelihood that small stars are being produced within the actual supernova "shockwave remnants" themselves. What we are seeing are snapshots of a dynamic and explosive event.

The "beads" are striations in a pinched electric current that can form under certain conditions - i.e. you need the right temperatures, pressures, density, etc.

Here are some laboratory examples of spherical "plasma ball" striations happening when the temperature of a plasma discharge is varied very significantly :-

http://www.calvin.edu/~mwalhout/plasmastriations.htm
(You need the QuickTime plug-in to see the videos)

Some more lab examples here:-
http://plasmas.free.fr/rec/striations/striations.htm

Of course, the difference between the glowing "spots" on the metallic plate in Perratt's experiment and the arc discharge in a low-pressure plasma environment is that the circular filaments creating them - are not impinged on a surface in a neutral gas environment.

I maintain that star-formation is actually far more simple than many of us might think. Since we can have a good indication of formation - this can then lead to later theories as to how we deal with the perpetuation of the discharge throughout the galactic environment.

The mainstream cannot resort to the "supernova wave turbulence creates stars via initiating compression" idea anymore without being asked to consider if the same "shock-wave" forms the super-hot "beads" in the circular "shock-ring" of supernovas. And then they will be asked to consider the fact that these are not "shock-waves", but field-aligned currents discharging, merging and striating in space.