The Anode Sun Vs The Plasmoid Model

[Corpuscles]

BTW, do you actually realize what I'm doing here? Since sometimes it's necessary to state the obvious, I'm putting you in a position where you have to run a filibuster against me, in the hopes of wearing me down. Certainly many EU critics have eventually gotten tired of broken-record responses, and have walked away. You think that these were victories. What you do not realize is that in proving your tenacity, you're also proving that this is all that you have. Direct answers to my questions would have been easier, and more convincing. If you don't give them, it's because you don't have them. So you respond with what you do have -- tenacity. But with just that, you can win a scientific battle, while forfeiting the war. The EU will never be credible so long as it responds to pointed questions with sheer force of will. That just isn't legitimate science. And it's my objective to either
1) get the EU to clean up its act, or 2) prove that it has no intention. You are diligently working on #2.

Would proof that the physical forces just aren't physically possible be a legitimate reason to disqualify a candidate? Remember that the whole reason for us being on this board is that we saw that the mainstream model just wasn't ever going to work -- the force of gravity is simply insufficient to cause the condensation of matter. That is provable, and that's why we're considering EM possibilities. But shall we apply the same critical scrutiny to our own work? If not, why not?

I think that it all comes down to whether you want a better model, or just a different model.

Hi CC

It's just one of those interested but useless "lurkers" just dropping in hoping to help out if I can.

LOL! That quintessential American political term ( nonsense to Aussies becuase we put a time limit on politicians rants) ....filibuster.
May I, describe it in my terms as "An endless circular rant intended to obsfucate"?. If you go back to where we last communicated circa page 16ish your stated wish/desire was to avoid going round in circles, and rehashing , and "broken record responses".
Yet now you admit (in complete reversal) that your real objective ( quote: "you have to run a filibuster against me") towards PP and presumably other members of this forum?!

I presume you are not quite that arrogant to insist and point fingers at PP is the one with the faulty phonograph and cracked vinyl? But clearly you (and your colleagues albeit who have gone notably/embarrassingly very quiet!) think you have the correct answers and are the ones with the appropriate questions.

My earlier friendly suggestion, which was to approach ( for want of better term ) the "leaders" of key promotional members of Electric Universe Cosmology, sadly (sincerely) you responded with strong indication that you had attempted this and they didn't want to engage with you. Have you seriously thought about why , including analysing the methods/manner of your approach?

What does it all mean?

Here I am in Baltimore USA, as an amateur I've done a heck of a lot of reading, cherrypicking and analysing the scant inadequate data currently available and together with friends have come up with what we, or I, think is a better/best model of the Sun.

An allegory:
I have my bat and a few basemen and I want you all to play ball with me, yes my rules, and btw I am gunna be the captain , MVP, and the winner!... so start pitching!
I'll holler that LOUDER ......START pitching!! I am gunna keeep knocking on your door HOLLERING until YOU DO! I need to clean up your act, coz youse are playing the wrong game, listening to that terrible music! Anyway no one else will listen to me, so at least I will get attention and somebody will notice I have a pretty good bat and can swing it !

Now you have got so frustrated you are starting to throw stones at "your friends" house. eg "EU clean up it's act" , "I have proved Thornhill wrong" !! (btw impossible because I , nor you, have ever seen Wal Thornhill make the claim that he was absolutely right)....

...NOTE of caution.... watch out that some of the most tolerant 'mothers' ( moderators) on any internet forum (especially science related) don't shoo you away!....

Seriously you are a prolific researcher/reader, so please obtain a copy of "How to win friends and influence people" and put it on list as high priority research. That is if you geniunely want to advance with EU proponents/leading authors.

If you have a Martin Luther complex , completely and utterly disgusted at the EU wrongs, then compile your own clear, concise, comprehensive list of "pointed questions". Even if you don't post it here, it may help you realise you are only offering a different interpretation or opinion of scantly available data. Backed up by some good logical progression (applause!!) but without any possible means of definitive proof.
But it will be a heck of an interesting , good belly laugh!

Luther "was on a hiding to nothing" he criticised the very establishment he wanted to partipate in. The only recourse was to start his own.

The EU Cosmology is incomplete and somewhat flawed, everyone even the most dogmatic staunch supporter or even LEADER/author knows THAT!.
However, by slowly and non aggressively "putting it out there it attracts interest, opens minds and steers interested and sometimes important players in the right direction. Yep even
YOU!!!!!

Perhaps given that you think "the EU" whoever that is??? has muddied your waters to mainstream acceptance on your crusade to save the world from tornados and solar flare CME power outages, then maybe you could rebadge/ repackage your product offering ( eg CCCIT- Charles Chandlers Compressive Ionisation Theory ) and float it to the
mainstream. You say it is so darned good it is obvious, and can't seem believe or accept Thunderbolts posters don't scamble to get on board, so TRY IT.

Then come back with tail neatly tucked in trousers!

You know you have almost plainly admitted that you are a shill intent on disrupting current EU Theories especially here at TB forum. ( " A wolf in sheeps clothing") but you know you ARE VERY VALUABLE because you make folks here THINK... if they can be bothered reading your novels.

I hope thats enough for now to "fill -you-buster" !?

Cheers

[CharlesChandler]

@Corpuscles:

Your kindness and wisdom are well-proved.

In all due fairness to myself, I am generally content to stick to my own threads, not jumping in on other people's (such as Gary's "Boring Sun" thread) to push my own agenda. People who are interested in my work have been following my threads -- I'm not presumptuous enough to intrude on other lines of reasoning. I wouldn't have even known about this thread, as I only monitor the NIAMI forum, but PersianPaladin's statement on page #1 ("Perhaps Charles Chandler should consider evidence such as this...") popped up on one of my routine searches. So I considered the evidence, and responded. But I guess that JustCurious didn't think I had a right to be discussing solar theory on the actual EU forum, and started a series of personal attacks (beginning on page #4). My "notably quiet colleagues" left in disgust, but I was the one getting attacked, so I stayed on to defend myself. I'm a kinder, gentler guy when I'm not being attacked.

Sure, I could be more diplomatic. So could JustCurious and PersianPaladin. Did you decide to direct your comments at me because I have been (at least compared to them)? We can all do better.

The bottom line here is that this is an exciting time. Not everybody gets to live through an era when such important issues are up in the air -- most people just read about such things in history books. But the discipline of astronomy is in crisis, and we're actively debating the issues, which makes us the avant-garde (and we know it). So this is really cool stuff we're doing. We don't always agree -- that's to be expected. Over the years, I've worn many hats, so to say, and I've seen that the more individualized intellect in the endeavor, the more passionate people are about their own work, the worse they are at explaining it, and the worse they are at truly listening to what other people are doing. Theoretical science certainly is the worst. So every once in a while, we have to take a step back, have a laugh over it, and acknowledge that we all have selflessly donated untold time to the public domain, just for the good of it. So we're all decent people. Explorers tend not to explore where other explorers have gone, but we shouldn't forget that there is a lot of value in combining the results of all of the journeys. I hope others share these sentiments.

Cheers!

[PersianPaladin]

So, I'm questioning the relevance of DPF to the study of quasars. There are apparent similarities there. But are they the same, for all of the same reasons? I don't see it. The power output of a quasar sometimes fluctuates. But for it to be DPF, the impulse has to have a sharp attack & decay. Otherwise, the magnetic fields won't resolve into a toroid. And a radially imploding discharge takes conditions that have never been replicated in plasma without the help of solid-state electronics. Similitude has not been established, and I don't think that it's possible.

"Cosmologists know that most galaxies host a compact, supermassive object at their centre and they believe these must be black holes. Such a black hole is thought to be responsible for the X-ray flares coming from the middle of our galaxy, which would be caused by the black hole devouring surrounding matter. But recent observations show that these flares fire roughly every 20 minutes - a regularity that is hard to explain in terms of the behaviour of a black hole."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... alaxy.html

This almost clock-work like regularity is indicative of a fairly consistent voltage and e-density pulsed plasma discharge impinging on a certain area, rather than the "like-likes-like" inflow and heating of charged matter via apparent non-electrical forces. Powerful gamma rays also periodically eject from galactic centers.

When the galaxy is not emitting any of the radiation in its "bursts", this is probably the period where the plasmoid is building up electromagnetic charge as their density increases within the toroidal circulation - up to the point where collisions cause the decay of the plasmoid. The energy is then liberated in axial jets. Or it could be more complex than this - with potential energy capacitance and then discharge resulting from Farraday induction from the surrounding intergalactic environment - given the changing E-field that the galaxy is moving through. Admittedly, this is somewhat speculative.

Sometimes you see considerable variance in the x-ray output of Quasars which are quite rapid in comparison to larger objects. Quasars thus seem to be considerably smaller-scale objects. I don't think the incoming power from the protogalactic cloud near them is the source of such fluctuations - although plasma focus experiments do show some variations in the intensity of ionization and EM wavelengths with each discharge.

Baring in mind that the apparent short periodic bursts of such phenomena - even across large distances - does not negate the influence of electric currents. Once you have pinched non-thermal synchrotron radiating filaments (http://reu.physics.ucla.edu/common/pape ... in_ben.pdf) in the region - then you have an indication of a continuing incoming sea of high current-density particles converging in the center. Here is Perratt's work on sychrotron galactic filaments which show the presence of field-aligned currents (http://www.plasmauniverse.info/Perattpd ... Peratt.pdf). Synchrotron filaments are a clear indication of currents spiralling through magnetic fields. The currents are in a force-free arrangement. The currents don't have to be moving at the speed of light from the outer galactic arm as long as the flow and power-input is fairly constant. Consider a river analogy. The intensification of the currents however, in the form of a z-pinch can be responsible for synchrotron and relativistic particle flows (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.js ... %3D4198483).

What was the question? I'm saying that the electric force, by its adherence to the inverse square law, is capable of an attractive force between two neutrally charged cells. What part of that is not correct?

And I'm saying that Birkeland Currents (field-aligned electric currents) are of prime importance. Plasma is a good conductor (albeit not perfect) of electricity. If plasma (acting as a conductor) is flowing through a magnetic field then this will induce currents. Birkeland Currents will be formed if you have charged particles moving (for any reason - e.g. due to electric-fields across DL's) relative to a magnetic field across that same location. The Birkeland Currents will, in turn, produce their own magnetic fields. You'll notice that galactic magnetic fields are typically aligned with the spiral arms. So, again - Birkeland Currents are important and so are "double layers", something which Alfven implored astrophysicists to consider as a new astrophysical object with varying complexities. For example, the ability of azimuthal DL's around the Birkeland Current axis which contribute to the stability of the filament, prevent the discharge of the axial current with the surrounding plasma, and so forth. The DL's in the azimuthal region are often multiple and thus one cannot really talk about a "like-likes-like" force alone in this context. Again, it all depends on the relative current directions and plasma characteristics in the region. You get repulsion too, of course.

Go for it, if you can demonstrate the relevance. As best as I can tell, Bostick fired two plasma streams together, got shapes that looked like galaxies, Peratt did the same thing with math, and you conclude that this proves that galaxies are plasmoids. And because they are, stars are formed by Marklund convection, because it's DPF. That's nothing but undistributed middles.

It's interesting how you dismiss Perratt's work with interacting BC filaments given that he simply used the established principles of electrodynamics to build on Bostick's work. Again, with computer models it's important to consider the data that is being put in. The mainstream modellers use MHD simulations, dark-matter, dark energy, gravitational forces and even experimental hypothetical forces that often result in problematic output. Perratt cannot be accused of this. Here are the findings:-
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.ph ... _formation

Again, I don't think this constitutes proof. But I believe this is the right track.

No, you really haven't. To get the rapid attack & decay of the DPF impulse in an quasar, you need a radial arc discharge, and it has to be axisymmetric, or it won't resolve into a toroid. The electromotive force is proposed to be a unipolar motor, but this isn't going to create an extreme charge density in the center, producing a radial arc charge. It also isn't going to recharge the system in the required timeframe. These questions need to be addressed to establish similitude.

Now who is talking about morphologies? I'm not going to post the examples and comparisons again. You need to say WHY Perratt, Lerner and Scott are so wrong and frail in their basic understandings of electro-dynamics to say that their conclusions about charge density convergence are incorrect. Again, there is no problem of recharge times unless you're creating a problem where there isn't one.

I'm sure you would, and without establishing the conditions necessary for a DPF impulse.

You're basically arguing for the generation of a plasmoid (in it's toroidal "doughnut" form - which can also be formed in z-pinches) but with electrical forces in plasma and space-plasma that are yet to be clearly demonstrated. You then rely on magnetic field collisions and kinetic forces do you not? Yes, perhaps it works in your model. Great. How does it work physically? Not just mathematically. And how does it account for the rapid x-ray pulsations? Does your "natural tokamak" build up circulating charge and then reach a critical density and then decay by releasing powerful jets? How can magnetic field collisions do this in a pulsed fashion? Plasmoids can store EM energy. If yours is a plasmoid then why "power" it without recourse to converging electric currents? You seem to require converging or collisions of magnetic fields causing compression. Where are the currents that are behind those magnetic fields? Is it in the inflow of charged particles perhaps? (i.e. currents).

As far as galactic magnetic fields are concerned - running paralell to the spiral arms is indicative of Birkeland Currents. Axisymmetric global fields as well as the Faraday RM model is elaborated on here with respect to higher resolution instrumentation:-
http://www3.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/rbeck/skads.pdf

[PersianPaladin]

I would like to add a clarification regarding the brief pulses of energy from galaxies. With respect to the DPF, on page 4-5 of this paper Lerner states that the plasmoid decay is not a smooth continuous process - the ion-beams form in many pulses of pico-second length or less during the decay.
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Magneti ... No%201.pdf

Pages 7 and 8 are also worth a read as to his ideas regarding the scaled-up times of galactic filamentary self-compression producing plasmoid generation and decay. Interestingly, during peak compression the plasmoid becomes transparent due to the synchrotron frequency increasing relative to the electron plasma frequency.

[justcurious]

I thought "like likes like" is used to explain mild attractions, such as clumping of clouds.
CC argues that magnetic pinching, explained by a direct cause-effect relationship, could not be powerful enough for fusion (or condensation as CC calls it) to take place. But the theory that he puts forward (like likes like) is even worst in that respect. It also requires many special conditions such as nearby galactic explosions' bow shocks stretching/rolling clumps of "like likes like" plasma into filaments, and a good imagination.
Did I understand correctly?

[PersianPaladin]

To be honest, I do have some of my own questions and doubts about the Dense Plasma Focus interpretation for galaxies, quasars, etc - the more I read into it. I'll probably need to speak to Eric Lerner again or some other expert who deals regularly with these sort of discharges. My humble view is that the z-pinch does have an important role to play and this may not neccessarily require scaling up the very short time-scales of plasmoid evolution\decay in order to describe galaxies as essentially single-discharge events in time. The 20-minute periodicity of x-rays is considerably shorter than the 1-year periodicity of plasmoid jet pulses that Lerner calculates in his paper. A look at Perratt's work does show that he sees the plasma focus in two planetary moons (i.e. explaining the morphology of volcanoes) but I'm wondering if it's just better to stick with Z-pinch plasma discharges rather than rigidly stick to the DPF and its constraints. Perratt's work on high-energy aurora's doesn't stick to the DPF explanation and plasmoids and stacked torroidal instabilities are produced in high-voltage and dynamic interactions between pairs or triplets of Birkeland Current systems in the auroral system.

I'm not entirely closed to a "natural tokamak" explanation either. It's just that I'd not exclude field-aligned electric currents from being the power source.

I've come to a "diocotron instability" conclusion for perhaps explaining why galaxies seem to be connected together via cosmic strings or filaments:-



Diocotron instability in lab:-


http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Dio ... bility.jpg

Typical spiral morphologies in diocotron instabilities:-


Aurora above Alaska:-


Similar instability in Saturn's north pole:-


It has a polar hot-spot. Thermodynamic forces are unlikely to account for this storm:-


Is this a spiral galaxy at the north pole?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/media ... FF4329.jpg

The interactions of two charge sheets interacting with each other can form such vortex instabilities. The question is whether the energies detectable at the center of galaxies, AGN's etc can be explained by this.

[Corpuscles]

I thought "like likes like" is used to explain mild attractions, such as clumping of clouds.
CC argues that magnetic pinching, explained by a direct cause-effect relationship, could not be powerful enough for fusion (or condensation as CC calls it) to take place. But the theory that he puts forward (like likes like) is even worst in that respect. It also requires many special conditions such as nearby galactic explosions' bow shocks stretching/rolling clumps of "like likes like" plasma into filaments, and a good imagination.
Did I understand correctly?

Hi JC (Sam)

Giving credit to where, I think it is due, I think CC's "pointed question" about the hypothesised ability of Z pinch to coalesce (or 'condense") elementry particles into heavier matter, is one of the most interesting and significant he makes.

We know $$$billions have been spent trying or attempting to fuse ,just simple, deuterium and trillium using massive magnetic fields and extreme temperatures , with barely any tangible or useful result let alone getting out more energy than is put in. (Yes they want to keep playing with funding so they announce they are close )

This means, by extension, that something is wrong with our concept of star & matter formation.
This is IMHO one "holy grail" piece of the big picture that current EU Cosmology is lacking.

PP has repeatedly asked CC for lab experimental proof of the Feynman "likes likes likes" (LLL)concept ... show us that CC... and THEN you'll have lots of attention!

It's (LLL)a conceptual possibility but there seems to be more missing.

If you haven't read the essay linked in NIAMI board thread " A new view of Magnetic field ( by Alfvens Doctoral Student)" posted by Infinion I highly recommend it.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 10&t=12659

The whole universe has this myterious 'stuff' and it has a vital part to play in the big picture solution.
Cheers
Steve

[PersianPaladin]

Avoiding the need for a Dense Plasma Focus to account for high energy releases at the centre of galaxies at the fairly short time-scales that are observed - we could simply regard the release as an exploding double-layer. Once the z-pinch produces sufficiently intense build-up of electromagnetic instabilities in the current and high enough voltage in the existing double-layers, the entire current can become released as a result.

From the Essential Guide:-

If the underlying current is still present after the explosion, then the cycle can repeat indefinitely. A DL forms, the current increases, the DL explodes with consequent emission of large amounts of radiation, the current starts to build up again, and a new DL forms.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/02 ... chapter-9/

Don Scott elaborates and refers to Alfven's work:-

"'In the case of the instability leading to the extinction of the current, it should be remembered that every electric circuit is explosive in the sense that if we try to disrupt the current, a release of the whole inductive energy at the point of disruption will occur.' - H. Alfvén, Cosmic Plasma, Reidel, Holland, Boston, 1981, p.27."

"Alfvén extrapolated his findings about terrestrial power lines to the study of magnetized cosmic plasma. In the case of the disruption of an electric current within such a plasma, he said, 'If the current disruption is caused by an instability in the plasma, the inductive energy in the circuit will be released in the plasma. … The disruption of a current through a plasma is often caused by a double layer becoming unstable.'"

"Astrophysicists ignore Alfvén's work. They attempt to arrive at a de novo explanation for the release of such energy by embracing the notion that the motion and interaction of magnetic field lines is its root cause. They expound on the (basically false) idea that magnetic fields are 'frozen into' plasma, and by moving and breaking, these lines carry the plasma along and spew it out into space."

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblo ... _wheel.htm

So perhaps a diocotron instability from two Birkeland Currents producing a z-pinch filamentary discharge closer to the center of galaxies (with synchrotron filaments detected) with EM energy building within a current-carrying double-layer producing instabilities to the point where it explodes?

[CharlesChandler]

This almost clock-work like regularity is indicative of a fairly consistent voltage and e-density pulsed plasma discharge impinging on a certain area, rather than the "like-likes-like" inflow and heating of charged matter via apparent non-electrical forces.

I agree that EM pulses from galactic centers are not the consequence of simple accretion (by the "like-likes-like" force, or any other). But I disagree that the conditions for pulsed arc discharges are present in space. This takes resistance, breakdown, and a powerful recharging mechanism. You can cite all of the evidence you want. It's all evidence of something. But could it possibly be evidence of DPF? To make it evidence of DPF, you have to address the DPF-specific issues. Otherwise, it's just evidence of something.

Sometimes you see considerable variance in the x-ray output of Quasars which are quite rapid in comparison to larger objects. Quasars thus seem to be considerably smaller-scale objects. I don't think the incoming power from the protogalactic cloud near them is the source of such fluctuations - although plasma focus experiments do show some variations in the intensity of ionization and EM wavelengths with each discharge.

Your first point is valid. The frequencies of regular EM pulses set limits on the sizes of the objects that generate them, since random microphysical events can only become synchronized over a specific distance within a specific timeframe. For example, if photons are the synchronizing agent, the speed of light is the limiting factor. And suppose that the Sun & the Earth were pulsing. It takes roughly 8 minutes for light to travel from one to the other, for roughly 16 minutes to do the round trip. So pulses faster than one every 16 minutes could not possibly be the result of sympathetic oscillations in a Sun/Earth system -- they would have to come just from one or the other. Likewise, the 20 minute cycle that you noted cannot possibly come from anything much larger than 1 AU, because the fastest synchronizing agent possible (i.e., photons) hits its limit. So I agree with your doubt that "the incoming power from the protogalactic cloud near them is the source of such fluctuations". 20 minute cycles come from stellar systems, not galactic systems.

But then you note that the DPF output can vary from one pulse to the next. I "think" that you're saying that the observed "pulses" are actually meta-cycles in individual pulses (like an amplitude-modulated sine wave). To get 20 minute meta-pulses made up of individual AM pulses that are not themselves detectable as discrete pulses, the individual pulse rate has to be much faster. This exasperates the issues concerning resistance, breakdown, and recharging.

I actually questionned the methodology which you used to come up with your appeal to Feynman with respect to the make-up of galaxies.

What was the question? I'm saying that the electric force, by its adherence to the inverse square law, is capable of an attractive force between two neutrally charged cells. What part of that is not correct?

And I'm saying that Birkeland Currents (field-aligned electric currents) are of prime importance.

In what sense does asserting the importance of something else question my method? I "think" that you're saying that if my method acknowledges something other than what you consider to be of prime importance, then my method is questionable. (And they call ME presumptuous!)

It's interesting how you dismiss Perratt's work with interacting BC filaments given that he simply used the established principles of electrodynamics to build on Bostick's work.

Stop twisting my words around -- it serves no one's purpose. My point was that your combination of the works of Bostick, Peratt, Marklund, and Lerner is nothing but undistributed middles. In other words, I'm questioning the conclusions that you're drawing from the (potentially unrelated) works. BTW, so does Peratt. From his website:

The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'.

If you were being faithful to Peratt's work, you could borrow all of his credibility, for whatever that would be worth. But you're not, so this isn't even good argumentum ad verecundiam.

You need to say WHY Perratt, Lerner and Scott are so wrong and frail in their basic understandings of electro-dynamics to say that their conclusions about charge density convergence are incorrect.

Why do you have to put it like that, saying that I "need" to do an ad hom attack? Please rephrase.

Again, there is no problem of recharge times unless you're creating a problem where there isn't one.

The problem is a matter of resistance, breakdown, and a recharging mechanism capable of a slew rate up to the task. These are non-trivial problems, especially if the medium is an excellent conductor. The onus is on the one making the claims to explicitly identify the physical conditions, or it isn't a physical model.

You're basically arguing for the generation of a plasmoid (in it's toroidal "doughnut" form - which can also be formed in z-pinches) but with electrical forces in plasma and space-plasma that are yet to be clearly demonstrated.

The "natural tokamak" model doesn't create a toroidal plasmoid with electrical forces. Rather, relativistic angular velocities generate magnetic fields that confine the plasma.

You then rely on magnetic field collisions and kinetic forces do you not?

I don't even know what a "magnetic field collision" is.

How does it work physically? Not just mathematically.

It works the same way a laboratory tokamak works, except that the plasma confinement all comes just from the relativistic angular momentum, not from applied external magnetic fields. So it's just a circular z-pinch.

And how does it account for the rapid x-ray pulsations?

All tokamaks are capable of falling into oscillations. This is because the ejecta from a nuclear fusion event cause the expansion of the plasma, and yet the temporarily expanded plasma is less likely to fuse. Only after the shock front has passed, and the plasma resumes its former density, can the next fusion event occur. Sputtering is a common phenomenon in energy conversions, if the conversion chokes the fuel supply, and fusion is just one example.

Chapman, I. T. (2011): Controlling sawtooth oscillations in tokamak plasmas. Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, 53: 013001

The bipolar jets are the consequence of the collimation of the ejecta that happen to be toward the interior. This diagram shows an axial section through a toroidal explosion.

Once collimated, the ejecta are kept organized by the magnetic pinch effect.

I thought "like likes like" is used to explain mild attractions, such as clumping of clouds.

You're right that the "like-likes-like" force explains mild attractions. The force that causes the collapse of dusty plasmas into stars has been estimated at 5x the force of gravity (and which is typically attributed to additional gravity from CDM). I'm saying that this 5x force is electrostatic. And since gravity is so weak, 5 times more is a mild attraction, so this seems correct.

CC argues that magnetic pinching, explained by a direct cause-effect relationship, could not be powerful enough for fusion (or condensation as CC calls it) to take place.

Fusion and condensation are actually distinctly different processes. In fusion, small atoms are combined into larger atoms. For instance, 4 protons and 2 electrons from hydrogen atoms can be fused into 1 helium atom (with 2 protons and 2 neutrons). But condensation pertains to physical states (i.e., solids, liquids, gases, and plasmas), not elements (i.e., hydrogen, helium, etc.). The conversion of a gas into a liquid is condensation. The opposite conversion is known as evaporation. So fusion/fission is not to be confused with condensation/evaporation.

If you're actually asking about nuclear fusion, where the only compressive force is the magnetic pinch effect, and where the magnetic force is generated purely by the velocity of the plasma itself (i.e., z-pinch), the magnetic force only becomes (theoretically) capable of overpowering the Coulomb barrier and accomplishing nuclear fusion when the plasma velocity achieves the speed of light. I don't think that anybody has actually tried this yet. Fusion in a laboratory tokamak happens with the help of applied magnetic fields, and particle collisions due to spins. In the "natural tokamak" model, we certainly cannot expect the plasma stream to achieve the speed of light. But we can expect particle collisions due to spins, and because of new matter getting pulled in.

Then again, if you're talking about condensation, neither the "like-likes-like" force, nor the magnetic pinch effect, are capable of this, all by themselves. I'll elaborate on request, but in my model of star formation, the LLL body force accelerates matter inward, converting force to momentum, and it's the momentum that accomplishes the final aggregation of the star, not the LLL force.

Once condensed, I have two models, depending on which type of star it is. "Normal" stars are held together by compressive ionization, while "exotic" stars are held together by magnetic confinement.

We know $$$billions have been spent trying or attempting to fuse ,just simple, deuterium and trillium using massive magnetic fields and extreme temperatures , with barely any tangible or useful result let alone getting out more energy than is put in.

Right. One of these days, they might take a step back and do a sanity check on their energy budget, and realize that such an incredibly lossy process cannot possibly produce a net surplus of power. Maybe they try have tried sanity checks, but they all bounced or something.

This means, by extension, that something is wrong with our concept of star & matter formation.

Yes. Z-pinches aren't as strong as some people think.

PP has repeatedly asked CC for lab experimental proof of the Feynman "likes likes likes" (LLL) concept.

From earlier on this thread (page #23):

Nagornyak, E.; Pollack, G. H., 2005: Connecting filament mechanics in the relaxed sarcomere. Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility, 26 (6-8): 303-306

Pollack, G. H.; Figueroa, X.; Zhao, Q., 2009: Molecules, Water, and Radiant Energy: New Clues for the Origin of Life. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 10 (4): 1419

It's (LLL) a conceptual possibility but there seems to be more missing.

Right -- it isn't the whole story in star formation. But it's certainly a body force in dusty plasmas, and its physical properties "seem" to match up 1-for-1 with the behaviors currently attributed to CDM (i.e., only 5x more powerful than gravity, triggered by supernovae, etc.).

[CharlesChandler]

So perhaps a diocotron instability from two Birkeland Currents producing a z-pinch filamentary discharge closer to the center of galaxies (with synchrotron filaments detected) with EM energy building within a current-carrying double-layer producing instabilities to the point where it explodes?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnkT6C9Ose8

[Corpuscles]

Corpuscles wrote:
PP has repeatedly asked CC for lab experimental proof of the Feynman "likes likes likes" (LLL) concept.

Charles Chander replied:
From earlier on this thread (page #23):

Nagornyak, E.; Pollack, G. H., 2005: Connecting filament mechanics in the relaxed sarcomere. Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility, 26 (6-8): 303-306

Pollack, G. H.; Figueroa, X.; Zhao, Q., 2009: Molecules, Water, and Radiant Energy: New Clues for the Origin of Life. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 10 (4): 1419

Charles you astound me!
<moderator edit>


Good luck

BYE

[upriver]

Lerner is welcome to try to instantiate DPF in plasma, without solid state electronics, if he can find the funding for it somewhere. But in the laboratory, nobody has even successfully caused any kind of arc discharge in a plasma, when the charges were borne by the plasmas themselves. In other words, you can easily get an arc discharge through plasma, between two solid electrodes. But if you oppositely ionize two batches of plasma, separated by sufficient distance to prevent a discharge during the charge-up phase, and then bring them together, you don't get an arc discharge. Rather, the electrostatic repulsion of like charges reduces the charge density, and then a Townsend avalanche neutralizes the potential. To get an arc discharge, you'd have to fire the plasmas together at extreme velocities. This is why scientists are still scratching their heads over why lightning occurs in the Earth's atmosphere -- the potentials for it are definitely present, but they can't figure out how the charge densities necessary for arc discharges can develop, in spite of the electrostatic repulsion. So if Lerner could accomplish this, it would be a breakthrough with many implications. But if you think that success is a foregone conclusion, you simply haven't studied it.

This is part of the reason that I think there is a solid surface below the photosphere...

[upriver]

Corpuscles wrote:
PP has repeatedly asked CC for lab experimental proof of the Feynman "likes likes likes" (LLL) concept.

Charles Chander replied:
From earlier on this thread (page #23):

Nagornyak, E.; Pollack, G. H., 2005: Connecting filament mechanics in the relaxed sarcomere. Journal of Muscle Research and Cell Motility, 26 (6-8): 303-306

Pollack, G. H.; Figueroa, X.; Zhao, Q., 2009: Molecules, Water, and Radiant Energy: New Clues for the Origin of Life. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 10 (4): 1419

Charles you astound me!
<moderator edit>
Good luck

BYE

Gerald H. Pollack is doing some fantastic work.....

Long-range attraction in aqueous colloidal suspensions
Qing Zhao,a,b Jason Coult,a and Gerald H. Pollacka

"However, many observations on colloidal systems cannot be explained quantitatively or qualitatively by the standard DLVO theory.10–30 An alternative description of the basic governing forces was put forward by Langmuir in 1938.9 Focusing on long-range attractions, Langmuir hypothesized that the attractive forces among like-charged colloidal particles were fundamentally electrostatic in nature, arising from the arrangement of counterions between particles. Based on this mechanism, Feynman coined the term “like-likes-like” through the intermediary of unlikes.20 Ise et al.’s experimental observations in the 1980’s and 1990’s,10–15 Sogami’s theory,16 and Smalley’s reports17–19 also did not fit in with DLVO theory, and showed a much longer attractive force range.

Extending over many micrometers, the attractive force has been pursued extensively by Ise et al., whose experimental results implied that the attraction drove a reversible phase transition between the disordered isotropic state and the liquid crystalline state.21–26 Attractive forces over distances of 100 to 1000 nm were also found by Grier et al. using different approaches.27–30 In a recent review, McBride and Baveye pointed out that although DLVO theory adequately describes repulsive interactions between isolated like-charged particles, explaining multi-particle interactions in suspensions with low electrolyte concentration and high particle charge must require some long-range attractive force,1 in concordance with the pioneering views of Langmuir and Feynman."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3208514/

[CharlesChandler]

Charles you astound me!
<moderator edit>

Good luck

BYE

That's not exactly the most coherent ad hom attack I've ever seen. Not that any of them are particularly logical, but I'm not even sure what he's attacking. It's also a somewhat surprising shift, from the kind & helpful suggestions of his previous post. Anyway, as concerns the "like-likes-like" principle, I'm mainly taking Gerald Pollack's word for it, since it's central to his work, and he's done a lot of work. Here is a passage from his website:

In aqueous media, it has been long known that like-charged substances do not repel one another, as expected; they actually attract one another. Feynman referred to this paradoxical attraction as “like-likes-like” and went on to postulate that the attraction occurs because of the “unlikes” that inevitably gather in between, thereby creating the attractive force.

Feynman’s thesis has been supported by elegant experiments of Norio Ise at Kyoto University and we have recently been able to confirm this thesis with direct evidence (Nagornyak et al., 2009). We found that like-charged gel spheres immersed in water and separated by as much as half a millimeter attract one another; they attract despite the large separation, and after some time they coalesce. Further, we confirmed the expected presence of opposite charges lying in between the spheres. The opposite charges derived from the exclusion-zone that develops around each sphere, generating opposite charges beyond, and in high concentration in between the spheres. Thus, it is true that like-likes-like through an intermediate of unlikes, as Feynman theorized.

It sounded reasonable enough to me, so I went with it. As PersianPaladin pointed out earlier, the lab work was with liquids, not plasmas. So what I'm saying about Debye cells in space hasn't been directly confirmed. But I don't see why the electric force, or the inverse square law, would work differently in plasmas. So I started considering the implications, and found this attractive force to be a nice replacement for CDM.

Now, I don't mean to suggest that because Pollack said it, it has to be true, nor that because Feynman said it, it has to be true, since that would be fallacious reasoning. But it almost sounds like Corpuscles thinks that I'm just making this stuff up. If you believe Corpuscles, Feynman didn't say it; Pollack didn't quote him; and I fabricated the whole thing, inventing fictitious references and constructing a model based on them, which I then tried to pass off as legitimate work. Hmmm... maybe Corpuscles has a different version of the Internet than me... can somebody check to see if Pollack is actually saying the things I quoted above? Maybe I have lost my mind. But IMO, something in my last post set Corpuscles off, the same way that something on page #4 of this thread set JustCurious off. I'd explore the issue, but I'm not a psychologist. For my purposes, it's good enough to just conclude that if you raise legitimate questions about central EU tenets, and employ rigorous reasoning, people in the EU get just a bit frazzled, and then they start saying stupid stuff.

Gerald H. Pollack is doing some fantastic work.....

Whew -- you just saved me a $15 co-pay! I was just about to head out for an emergency session with my therapist.

[PersianPaladin]

I will withdraw from further participation from this thread, given the rather distasteful turn in which things have ended up.

Regarding Tony Perratt's alleged claims. This was addressed by people on this forum and it is false to jump to conclusions that Perratt was the person who wrote that message. He had been hounded by people for getting involved with EU and plasma cosmology work and being involved with people associated with it. His health then hit a considerable low and his activity stopped.

Regardless, I think this thread has not only gotten considerably off-topic but it has also become somewhat of a farce with no neutral experts able to moderate the many claims being made, or for the EU advocates to actually defend themselves from attack given the length of responses and the lack of time in which people have to respond (among other problems).