This is the conventional treatment of the topic, but I disagree. The most detailed explanation of the actual nature of resistance that I ever saw is on Georgia State's website:meemoe_uk wrote:b) I think increasing plasma density improves conductivity to up a limit. Plasmas are pretty much neutral, as this is a minimum electric potential. A plasma with more ions per Cross sectional area can hold more electrons per cross sectional area, and so can have greater current density and so great current.
Microscopic View of Ohm's Law
They contend that resistance can be calculated as the time lost in each electron/nucleus collision, plus the time lost in overcoming the inertia of the electron as it gets accelerated through the mean free path to the next collision. The void between the collisions offers no resistance. Thus if the electron was being accelerated through a pure vacuum, the only "resistance" would be its resting inertial force. In any measurable electric field, the electron's inertial force is practically infinitesimal by comparison, so the electron gets rapidly accelerated to a relativistic velocity.
So the thinner the plasma, the greater the conductivity. The implication is that the more dense plasma in the heliosphere "should" get a (supposed) galactic current to go around, instead of through the heliosphere, because of the better conductivity in the interstellar medium.
What's a "subsurface field"?meemoe_uk wrote:No each body gets its own private subsurface magnetic field.at whatever magnetic field is powering the Sun is also powering us (?)
I'm not convinced that the expulsion of magnetic fields from a superconductor is relevant to the study of 6000+ K plasma. Superconductivity is also accompanied by superparamagnetism. Hence the electron spins all get lined up by the external field, and this creates an internal field density that repels the external field. But in 6000+ K plasma, the electrons are fully randomized, meaning no spin alignment, and thus no paramagnetism, and thus no field repulsion.meemoe_uk wrote:Since you haven't been specific I'll just post a link to the Meissner effect.
Hang on a second. You're saying that the magnetic field from the galactic current is powering the Sun. I'm saying that if it is, it should be measurable -- at the surface of the Sun, and on Earth. But then you're saying that the field is subsurface, and therefore not measurable? I "think" that I'm misunderstanding you, but the "internal field" that came from the galactic current should be measurable "inside" a magnetometer here on Earth, right?meemoe_uk wrote:Don't think so. It's subsurface. Best thing to do is drill into the Earth to find the Earth's equivalent field. otherwise, what about those magnetic filaments that pop out of the sun's surface? I think they are attached to the subsurface magnetic field.Would we be able to measure these fields? The average field that we do measure at the surface is just 1 Gauss
Yes, I agree with that.meemoe_uk wrote:If the galactic current really is supplying a lot of the sun's power then there should be a stronger magnetic field than 1 gauss, don't you agree?
I think that you should continue work on this. IMO, the fatal flaw is the galactic current. Nevertheless, the diagrams that you did are more detailed than anything I've seen the EU produce. I know that sounds odd, considering that this has been the essence of their stellar model for at least 10 years now. But it's a fact that the EU doesn't get into specifics (because that's where all of the problems are). Still, I'm a big believer in seeing every avenue explored, and even the blind avenues need to be documented in order to have a complete map of the territory. And sometimes, a blind alley doesn't turn out to be so blind after all, when later discoveries create a new possibility. Furthermore, even if it stays a blind alley, it's a utility to future generations to have it all mapped out, because they'll do the same thing we're doing -- rethink everything. If theoretical work (even of the fruitless variety) is documented, they can easily zip through, instead of laboring through what they think is a new discovery, when really it's the same blind alley that was explored a decade earlier. So all avenues have to be explored and documented. At the very least, there really ought to be a clear, diagrammed statement of the galactic current model.meemoe_uk wrote:If you can destroy this assertion then my theory looks doubtful.