on the motion of bodies in an orbit

[celeste]

I'll start by pointing out correlations I think may be relevant:
Notice in the last paragraph here http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/ ... arch.shtml ,the observation of planetary and cometary perihelion points to Sirius' position. For example, Earth reaches perihelion when it is at its closest point in its solar orbit, to the star Sirius. But is Homann correct that this is due to gravitational forces of Sirius? Notice from the image here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... arrows.jpg
and the text here http://www.idialstars.com/apex.htm , that Sirius marks the antapex of the sun's way.
As the sun moves through space, planets alternately lead or trail the sun. Perihelion for Earth happens when Earth is most trailing the sun, aphelion happens at the point where the Earth is most leading the sun in their mutual motion through the galaxy. That is the correlation I would like you to consider.

If you are familiar with DJ Sadhu's video,and Phil Plait's objection
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... wrong.html
I would like to make a few comments: 1. DJ Sadhu's video is in fact a good starting point to visualize planetary motion. 2. Phil Plait is correct however, we must realize that planets alternately lead or lag the sun. It is the leading and lagging positions that correlate to perihelion/aphelion positions. So Plait is not only right that planets sometimes lead the sun, but since perihelion points are in the trailing position, planets in fact spend a disproportionate amount of time actually leading the sun. 3. When you realize that the sun is moving through the galaxy at something like 220 km/s , and yet even Earth (an inner planet) only moves around the sun at about 30 km/s, you see that Sadhu's images show much too tight spiraling of planets. The planet's paths are in fact strung out more along the sun's direction of motion. Now it is time to view this (thanks to GaryN for pointing out this link) http://epsppd.epfl.ch/Roma/pdf/P4_053.pdf When you look at figure 4 (a) ,realize that the Earth is in a "dusty filament" that runs nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic plane,and appears to only slightly curve as it travels above or below the ecliptic plane. In other words, this "dusty filament" does in fact trace out the path of Earth's motion through space, once we correct Sadhu's model for the much slower spiraling around sun's direction of travel.

Any questions/objections?

[celeste]

Now let us put this http://www.holoscience.com/wp/newtons-e ... ar-system/
with this http://epsppd.epfl.ch/Roma/pdf/P4_053.pdf

First, Is Wal Thornhill correct, that we need a "feedback mechanism" to maintain planetary orbits? Absolutely. We know (thanks to guys like Tom VanFlandern), that even in a simple three body system, the most likely fate of the least massive body, is to collide with one of the more massive bodies, or be ejected from the system completely. If we want to merely add E-M forces, we only make the problem worse. As Newton realized, if we had forces that propagated slowly (light speed here being "slow"), we would even more quickly have a break down in stable planetary orbits. So we do need some mechanism to keep planetary orbits stable, even on timelines that we have observed.

Here is the problem: Wal, in his model, wants to make the primary driver of charge exchange, the motion of Earth towards and away from the sun. Notice in the other link, (again, figure 4 (a)), that the Earth seems to be in a "dusty filament" running up and down through the galactic plane. So Wal would have the primary "current filament" responsible for stabilizing orbits, running at a 90 degree angle from the observed "dusty filament"? Should not the "dusty filament" be aligned with the primary current flow?

I've argued that the inclination of elliptical orbits, is a direct result of Donald Scott's filament model. You don't need to accept that, (keep it in the back of your mind), but note just that Pluto is in the most elliptical AND inclined orbit of planetary bodies. What that means, is that Pluto's orbit takes it most "up and down" along the direction that we OBSERVE our "dusty filaments". In other words, Wal is right, that elliptical orbits get "dampened" into circular orbits. But it is not because elliptical motions carry the planets towards and away from the sun, and get dampened into circular orbits. It is that elliptical orbits carry the planets up and down along these "dusty filaments", that causes the planets to "dampen" into circular orbits which lie in the ecliptic plane. In short, Wal is right, that it is charge exchange that stabilizes orbits. He does, however, have the current direction wrong. The current flows along the observed dusty filaments. (by the way here: this will resolve some arguments between various solar models. The main current flow in our solar system is NOT between sun and planets. What is the direction of current flow? Follow the "dusty filaments")
Once again, in Donald Scott's filament model: if we have an object moving down the filament axis, we can have charged objects circling around it at a constant radius, and a constant "winding rate". These will be perceived as circular orbits from the perspective of that central object, and all in the same plane. We can also have charged objects traveling down that filament, that move away from, and towards the filament axis. They find themselves traveling rapidly down the filament axis, where the field is more axial, and when they are at a radius where the field is more azimuthal, they spiral more around the filament. From the perspective of the central object, these are inclined AND elliptical orbits.

Here is the picture I'd like you to start with: Imagine planets circling the sun, just as shown in the video by DJ Sadhu. Next, apply what you know from Donald Scott's filament model. That is, if planets move towards and away from the sun (change radius in the current filament), they must either race ahead of the sun (in the filaments nearly axial field) , or fall behind (where the azimuthal field carries the planet around the sun, at the expense of motion along the filament).

Here is the best part: Notice from the work of Homann (mentioned in the first post), the perihelion point in Earth's orbit, is when Earth is most "trailing" the sun. This "fits" with the orbits I am describing.

Now a challenge: I'll take for granted that some of you think I'm a loony. I'll merely ask you to consider what happens in Donald Scott's filament model, if we consider that the charged objects are not all free to spiral down the filament axis, but are somehow bound together. That is, what happens when a charged particle, racing down Scott's filament, at a radius where the field is is nearly axial, gets pulled in (by some force, gravitational or electrostatic, to an object at the center of the filament) to a radius where the field is more azimuthal.

Very simply: If you think of the sun as "parked" in space, with planets circling it, you will never understand orbits. Once you accept that planets and the sun are traveling down one of Donald Scott's filaments, you have half the picture. Just add the fact the planets are bound to the sun (and then are forced to either move in and out from the filament axis, or circle at a constant radius), and you have everything you need to map solar system orbits in their entirety.

[seasmith]

~
Celeste wrote:

We can also have charged objects traveling down that filament, that move away from, and towards the filament axis. They find themselves traveling rapidly down the filament axis, where the field is more axial, and when they are at a radius where the field is more azimuthal, they spiral more around the filament. From the perspective of the central object, these are inclined AND elliptical orbits.

Don't forget, the "filament axis" (proscribed by the sun), is itself also spiraling in its progression.
The sum of the system's composite motions then generate the dual barycentric foci for ellipses,
and geometries of hyperbolic conic sections (hence the Bessel functions that Dr. Scott is using as mathematical basis of his model).

Even in EU style models where gravity is described as purely a 'reciprocal' of magneto-dielectric forces, it is generally acknowledged that electric and gravitic components assume a different equilibrium,
dependent on mass/charge and distance from barycenters. We see the mid-plane gas giants with vastly different eccentricities than Mercury or Pluto.
Interlopers, or stray bodies, caught up in Scott's ‘vortex current’ / ‘field-aligned current’
should eventually achieve some system equilibrium (within parameters).

That is possibly the case with Pluto, or even Venus.

[paladin17]

This is an interesting topic. And I thank you for bringing up some interesting data.
However, I have a couple of comments.

First of all, I understand this "filament" was seen only going through Earth, not the whole system (or at least the Sun). So maybe it is just some kind of plasma current due to the Earth's magnetospheric activity. Maybe it is localized and does not span too far away.
Secondly, what about precession of the perihelion? The rates of this process are not big, but measurable. The Earth's perihelion, for example, turns approximately 1 degree every 300 years (so the full turn takes about 110 kyr). Maybe is can cause some interesting effects in this context.

[celeste]

First of all, I understand this "filament" was seen only going through Earth, not the whole system (or at least the Sun). So maybe it is just some kind of plasma current due to the Earth's magnetospheric activity. Maybe it is localized and does not span too far away.

If you notice,in the bottom half of figure 4 (a), http://epsppd.epfl.ch/Roma/pdf/P4_053.pdf , the Earth is not centered in the filament, but lies out from the surface. Which is the same thing we found at a larger scale, for our whole solar system, shown here http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/6192 ... pheres.jpg and talked about here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17833816 The solar system is not centered in the filamentary cloud,but "skimming the surface". The fact that main axis of the "dusty filament" runs right on past the Earth, makes it unlikely that Earth's magnetosphere is in any way causing the filament, correct?

[celeste]

Interlopers, or stray bodies, caught up in Scott's ‘vortex current’ / ‘field-aligned current’
should eventually achieve some system equilibrium (within parameters).

That is possibly the case with Pluto, or even Venus.

Seasmith, Yes, that is where Scott's model really helps. If you start with that "crazy" idea that Venus was hurled into the inner solar system in recent history, and now orbits in a nearly circular orbit according to the Titius-Bode law, that is two separate problems. Wal Thornhill addressed how we could get to a circular orbit from a more elliptical one, but that did not help to explain how we ended up with that particular orbital radius. That comes only from the balance of gravity and the magnetic forces of Scott's filaments.
In the mainstream gravity only model, if Venus was in fact flung into the inner solar system, its orbital radius was determined by the mass and velocity of Venus at its creation. Quite odd that now Venus should appear to obey any law of planetary orbital spacing.
Now consider: You've seen it argued, that Venus' high temperature was an "artifact" of its fairly recent creation. On the other hand, if Venus came spiraling in across the magnetic field of our solar system filament, and is now in a stable orbit, along the magnetic field direction, that means it must have radiated energy until it traveled along field lines exactly. This is a mechanism not only to explain the temperature of Venus, but its orbit. Venus was not "coincidentally" created with enough mass to orbit according to the same Titius-Bode law with other planets. It radiated energy (and lost mass), until it was able to follow the field lines exactly (gravitational orbit of Venus around sun was the same as magnetic spiraling of Venus down solar system filament).

[CharlesChandler]

This is a really cool thread. I hope that this can serve as a collection point for the wide variety of facts and theories on this topic. Somehow, this stuff is screaming something fundamental to us. But what is it saying???

I don't have much to offer, since I haven't studied this topic much, but I'd just like to mention that I'm brewing an idea that might have something to do with orbital stabilization, though it's electrostatic instead of electrodynamic. Essentially, the idea is that planets are negatively charged bodies with positively charged atmospheres. As such, they are like Debye cells, except on a really big scale. And like Debye cells, there is a slight repulsion between them. The cells are net-neutral, but the positively charged atmospheres on the near side of the planets produce the repulsion, due to the inverse square law. And this repulsion supplies the reason for planets that neither merge nor exit the solar system altogether. So they are gravitationally bound to the Sun, but electrostatically buffered from each other.

At first glance, this would seem to predict that planets would tend to be equidistant from each other, leaving no excuse for Bode's law. But remember that I said that the planets are gravitationally bound but electrostatically buffered. Well, the further you get from the Sun, the less the gravitational binding. Thus the electrostatic repulsion would be more significant, and might result in planets ejecting competitors from the solar system. What we should expect is then a more densely populated inner solar system, and a more sparsely populated outer solar system, which is consistent with Bode's law.

But that's too vague to fully account for the quantization in Bode's law, so there has to be more to it than that.

For book-keeping purposes, the paper I'm working on is at Axial and Orbital Rotations. I'll "try" to keep up with this thread, and integrate info/theories into a review-style article, for reference purposes. It's sooooo difficult to follow a long line of reasoning when the pieces are scattered throughout posts in a forum, so I like to try to assemble the pieces into articles, to whatever extent is possible. (It's just that writing such articles is really time-consuming, so usually I just wish that I could see all of the logic laid out in one place.)

[celeste]

But that's too vague to fully account for the quantization in Bode's law, so there has to be more to it than that.

Bode's law can only be explained by the balancing of magnetic forces with either gravity or electromagnetism.
Let me start simply:
You've seen that text book picture, where a charged particle can either flow down magnetic field lines exactly,or spiral around them on a helical path. The problem in the real world, is that there are no perfectly straight magnetic field lines,flowing off to infinity. Even if you did manage to fire a particle along the magnetic field direction, as the magnetic field curves, the particle will begin to spiral in increasingly radical spirals.
There is a way around this. If we have gravitational (or electrostatic)forces pulling our particle on a curved path, all we need is for the particle's path to be curved along the magnetic field direction. The particle follows the gravitational path,and feels no magnetic force at all (it's following the magnetic field lines). Notice, we might be fooled here. Since the particle is following the magnetic field lines exactly, there are no magnetic forces on the object. We may be inclined to think the particle is obeying gravitational forces only (it is,sort of).
The problem with the gravity only thinking is this: If gravity is the only force affecting our particle, we should be able to increase gravitational forces slightly, and get some slightly smaller radius of curvature for our particle's path. There are in fact no ruled out curvatures, based on the gravitational forces alone. On the other hand, since there ARE magnetic forces out there if we try to get our particle to curve more tightly (more tightly than the magnetic field is curving), we quickly get that increasingly out of control spiraling of our charged particle.
In other words, our particle does in fact obey spiraling that can be explained by gravitational forces alone. It's just that some of our gravitational "orbits" seem to be disallowed.

Now problem number 1.
If we have a charged particle spiraling around a wire (drawn to the wire by either gravity or electrostatic forces), we can have it circle the wire at any radius. We can calculate gravitational/electrostatic orbits at any radius from the wire, and we find azimuthal fields at every radius from the wire. There are no "disallowed" radii for circling according to both gravity/electrostatics, and also following the magnetic field around the wire.

Now let's look at Donald Scott's filament model. We have magnetic fields here that vary back and forth with radius, from azimuthal, to axial. Scott himself missed something here. He said a charged particle is free to travel down his filament at any radius where the field is axial. That is only true if there are NO gravitational or electrostatic forces pulling our particle towards the center of the filament. That does not describe any real world filament,does it?
On the other hand, if we had insanely strong forces pulling our particle towards the filament axis, we could spiral down the filament at any radius where the magnetic field spirals around the filament equally fast. (Nearly azimuthally). Again, not real world. The truth is, that for any "reasonable" mass and charge on a particle, we can spiral down one of Scott's filaments. We just need to match the winding rate of the magnetic field around the filament axis, to the spiraling around the filament due to gravitational or electrostatic forces. Note that this happens at fixed intervals as we move radially outward in Scott's filament. This is how we get to Bode's law.

Finally, the point that started this all for me, was that Bode's law starts at some minimum radius from solar system axis,THEN continues on some regular pattern. This is the same pattern we see in Scott's filament model. He starts with an axial field at some minimum radius, then we get that nice systematic "flip flopping" of magnetic field direction with radius. Planets do in fact obey orbits that can be described by gravity only forces. It's the "disallowed" orbits that are ruled out by magnetic field winding rates not matching those gravity orbits.

[Solar]

HA! Down yonder; in the NIAMI section!?!?! Lets shall!

The known electrical activity between Jupiter and Io appears to have intensified recently:

"We typically expect one huge outburst every one or two years, and they're usually not this bright," Imke de Pater of the University of California, Berkeley, lead author of one of two new studies describing the blasts, said in a statement. "Here we had three extremely bright outbursts, which suggest that if we looked more frequently we might see many more of them on Io." – Giant Volcanoes Rock Jupiter's Moon Io

Jupiter Moon Volcanic Plume seen by Spacecraft



Now scale the dynamic up substituting Jupiter with the Sun and the planets, Earth in the following case, constitute variations of Io as depicted here (Source)

The same electrical relationship exist. Therefore, it is possible that *if* image ‘a’ of Fig. 4 - on page 4 – of SKELETAL STRUCTURES IN THE IMAGESOF COSMIC DUST CLOUDS is a filament, an electric current within which the Earth is entrained it is possible that its reveals the electric current between Earth and Sun running perpendicular to the plane of the solar system.

We’ve also discussed the off-centered star of, for example, The Eye of an Hourglass Nebula wherein the star appears to be entrained ‘skimming’ the filament ‘wall’ as opposed to being directly centered along the filament axis.

Now add several planets orbiting that off-centered star increasing in distance from that star and one can see how it is possible for the outermost planets to have orbits that pass more toward the filament axis where the field becomes more axial. Since the central star is ‘skimming’ the filament wall when the orbit of one or more of its orbiting planets are 180 degrees opposite from the filament axis the field becomes more azimuthal, the planet is further inside the outer filament wall than its off-centered star.

Planets orbiting closer to the off-centered star tend become a bit more ‘stabilized’. They are not making as ‘deep’ a transition from being closer to the main filament axis (axial) towards being in the main filament wall (azimuthal). I'd agree that these differences, where an orbit is taking a planet relative to the ‘sheaths’ of a filament, might present the various orbital inclinations. So, this seems more correct:

We can also have charged objects traveling down that filament, that move away from, and towards the filament axis. They find themselves traveling rapidly down the filament axis, where the field is more axial, and when they are at a radius where the field is more azimuthal, they spiral more around the filament. From the perspective of the central object, these are inclined AND elliptical orbits.

Here is the picture I'd like you to start with: Imagine planets circling the sun, just as shown in the video by DJ Sadhu. Next, apply what you know from Donald Scott's filament model. That is, if planets move towards and away from the sun (change radius in the current filament), they must either race ahead of the sun (in the filaments nearly axial field), or fall behind (where the azimuthal field carries the planet around the sun, at the expense of motion along the filament).

Let’s straighten out a problematic relevant to this topic:

In another thread member Celeste referenced this paper “Peculiar Movements of the Sun, Earth and Stars”. It’s a keeper.

We also want to make note of the attempts to graphically portray aspects of this topic:

"In the helical model, he shows the planets as orbiting around the Sun perpendicular to the motion of the Sun around the galaxy; "face-on", if you like.This is wrong. Because the orbits of the planets are tipped by 60°, not 90°, they can sometimes be ahead and sometimes behind the Sun. That right there, and all by itself, shows this helical depiction is incorrect."

There can be no mistaking that Sadhu's video shows the orbits with the wrong tilt. But is that so critical ? Well actually no, not really. Fact is that if you include the tilt, you still see the planets making a "spiral" pattern (technically it's a helix) as they move through space. The overall appearance just isn't that massively different compared to a 90 degree tilt. – Formerly Physics of the Carribean

Whether with Plait, Taylor, Sadhu, et al and although it is admitted that there is a ‘lead and lag’ relation occurring between Sun and planets NONE of the graphic depictions appear to portray the ‘lead and lag’ relationship while depictions. They all show the planets affixed along the plane of the Sun’s equator; which is wrong. The ‘lead and lag’ aspect is that which is being covered here as the charged bodies move ‘up and down’ relative to their orbits traversing more towards the filament axis (axial) and oppositely more towards, or within, the filament ‘wall’ (azimuthal) in this off-centered star relationship:

Stars in the early stages of life are surrounded by dust clouds that thin out and dissipate as the star reaches maturity, becoming rings in their final stages. One star, however, has a dust ring that has long puzzled astronomers because it is not centered around the star as usual. Instead, the ring is elliptical, with the parent star off to one side. – Hidden planet pushes star's ring a billion miles off-center

In all of these graphic depictions none are portraying the 'lead and lag' off-centered relationship.

[celeste]

Therefore, it is possible that *if* image ‘a’ of Fig. 4 - on page 4 – of SKELETAL STRUCTURES IN THE IMAGESOF COSMIC DUST CLOUDS is a filament, an electric current within which the Earth is entrained it is possible that its reveals the electric current between Earth and Sun running perpendicular to the plane of the solar system.

Solar, I think you are referring to a picture like in the first post here http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 219#p98607 ?

The question I have is this: We don't see solar flares at the sun's poles, and then expect an influx of charged particles at our poles. If we see a solar flare near the sun's equator, but aimed in our direction,we then expect an influx of charged particles (yes,maybe funneled in at Earth's poles). So is that more consistent with charge flowing out of the sun's poles,and into earth's poles? Or is that more consistent with the sun and Earth being on nearly parallel (twisting) filaments, where arcing occurs from the sun to Earth's filament?

If the sun and planets are moving together through some giant current filament, isn't that more consistent with a parallel flow of charge to sun and planets, (more than series flow)?

One thing I found interesting, is that even if the local cloud was not a current filament, but a neutral filament held together electrostatically (Charles Chandler's model), we still see the sun "skimming the cloud surface", but then supposedly exiting the cloud in the future. This would mean our whole solar system would still be traveling somewhat radially through the charged double layers of this electrostatic cloud. That still provides parallel current flow to the sun and planets.

Again, these are only questions. Is the main current flow from the sun to the planets? Or is there a main current flowing to both sun and planets, with arcing between them? If the sun and planets are traveling through the same galactic magnetic field (a point we needed to explain precession), doesn't the fact that the sun and planets are spinning in the same direction,help here? Or am I even more confusing the issue?

[Solar]

Some thoughts:

Solar, I think you are referring to a picture like in the first post here http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 219#p98607 ?

Generally speaking yes. That diagram by member Spark correlates with the graphic depiction from NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center and these are what have been resolved since 2008 with Magnetic Portals Connect Earth to the Sun just as exemplified with the Jupiter/Io electric relationship at the smaller scale.

The question I have is this: We don't see solar flares at the sun's poles, and then expect an influx of charged particles at our poles. If we see a solar flare near the sun's equator, but aimed in our direction,we then expect an influx of charged particles (yes,maybe funneled in at Earth's poles). So is that more consistent with charge flowing out of the sun's poles,and into earth's poles? Or is that more consistent with the sun and Earth being on nearly parallel (twisting) filaments, where arcing occurs from the sun to Earth's filament?

More consistent with ‘polar’ configuration as exemplified with generally diagramming the Jupiter/Io electrical interaction; yet not so very ‘rigid’ with the approach as the filaments are also detected to ‘break down’, or diverge, into smaller more localized filaments as exemplified via reference material in the thread “Flux ropes in the Solar Wind” by member Cosmic Lettuce.

If the sun and planets are moving together through some giant current filament, isn't that more consistent with a parallel flow of charge to sun and planets, (more than series flow)?

More so ‘parallel’, imho, such that some celestial bodies can become electrically charged to the point of the Supernova ('bearing the brunt of increased electrical stress' - Scott) without necessarily effecting other relatively nearby systems likewise to the same extent such that one has nearly simultaneous multiple supernovae in a particular region. Yet, at the larger scale the galaxy may host regions of multiple supernovae over time and ‘sparkle’ with them. Other celestial bodies are somewhat ‘asleep’ (Mercury). In a parallel circuit one unit can ‘go out’, or diminish, while the others continue to work with a momentary 'quickening'. In a series circuit if one member of the circuit ‘goes out’ the entire circuit ceases to function:

In a series circuit, every device must function for the circuit to be complete. One bulb burning out in a series circuit breaks the circuit. In parallel circuits, each light has its own circuit, so all but one light could be burned out, and the last one will still function. – Series and parallel circuits

With parallel configurations, a star can 'go out' and the circuit 'reconfigures' itself which is consistent with:

Since a small fraction of magnetic clouds have been found with a duration of several hours,
making the distinction between small FRs and MCs is di- cult, as solely based on the duration of the events. As such,these two populations of FRs slightly overlap in radius [Jan-vier et al., 2014]. In the following, both FR populations are simply referred to as FRs, while we refer to small FRs and MCs to distinguish the two populations of detected FRs. - In Situ Properties of Small and Large Flux Ropes in the Solar Wind

They're observing and detecting electrical 'reconfigurations' where larger filaments 'breakdown' into smaller filaments and vise versa on a regular basis in so little a span of time as hours.

One thing I found interesting, is that even if the local cloud was not a current filament, but a neutral filament held together electrostatically (Charles Chandler's model), we still see the sun "skimming the cloud surface", but then supposedly exiting the cloud in the future. This would mean our whole solar system would still be traveling somewhat radially through the charged double layers of this electrostatic cloud. That still provides parallel current flow to the sun and planets.

Agreed

Again, these are only questions. Is the main current flow from the sun to the planets? Or is there a main current flowing to both sun and planets, with arcing between them? If the sun and planets are traveling through the same galactic magnetic field (a point we needed to explain precession), doesn't the fact that the sun and planets are spinning in the same direction,help here? Or am I even more confusing the issue?

Will forgo discussion of orbits as these are related to the 'shear flow' or 'laminar flow-like' properties of the other "Force", or 'substance', perceived as "gravity" that has been rejected. It has a two-fold property one of which is "electrostatics" and there has been study of rotation induced via these means, the propagation of the "field", which is by no means "static" and may have "retrograde flow" trailing:

UC Riverside researchers' discovery of electrostatic spin challenges century-old theory

Going to take the long way ‘round with the first part and attempt to correlate some of the things we’ve discussed: The Sun electrically rules the solar system of which it is part and parcel but the electrical influences between Sun and planets is a bidirectional relationship as generally assessed via the principle of Lenz. Larger currents develop, or ‘branch’ into smaller currents and vise versa. So, with Io as example a “main current” and ‘sub-currents’ of the exchange can be generally assessed as such in this infrared of “Io Through Different Eyes”.

In the mutual exchange is seen the ‘downward strikes’ as well as the ‘upward discharges’ (the “recoil”) from the electrical nature inherent in the planet itself. The are also mutual electrical exchanges in the mediums themselves ("Spider Lightning"). It’s not a question of whether the systems are internally or externally powered. This causes the same confusion when pondering which came first between chicken and egg. All electrical systems ‘respond’ to electrical interactions and establish mutual electrical exchange relationships. We like to say “input” and “output” and set up some sort of psychology that separates one as ‘cause’ and the other as 'effect' when the fact is that BOTH relations constitute mutual electrical activity.

As has been assessed, the Sun is also a member of a larger system and has its own variation of ‘stellar aurorae’ characterized as “coronal holes”. There are other assessments that, again imho, can be gathered from lightning phenomena (Cosmic or Nebular correlated with terrestrial; which is also Cosmic – they’re not separate phenomena obviously). The “ball lightning”, ‘resonant cavitation’, ionization/recombination, dielectric breakdown, the efforts of John Abrahamson (there is ‘dirt’ or dust in space entrained as coherent electrified and magnetized “molecular clouds”, "dark molecular clouds", "infrared dark molecular clouds" and the like), how it is that on multiple occasions during a single ‘strike’ the “lightning channel” – the filament itself and/or any of its ‘branches’ (even ‘sections’ of either) - may momentarily disappear yet, the established ‘electrostatic path’ (just as you are reasoning with the G-Cloud/LIC filament) may become ‘re-energized’. The occurrence of that, referred to as transitioning from “dark mode” versus “glow mode”, and all of these taken into consideration. There exist no dedicated efforts along those lines of reasoning and study save the "Nebular Lightning" hypothesis which has unfortunately been left to languish in halls of astrophysics.

This is observable. Take some time and choose a single ‘bolt’, or branch, or smaller ‘branches’, and observe the transition as the same ‘path’ brightens and dims to the point of vanishing only to become re-energized multiple times. Notice also the “recoil” along a branch as the 'electrification' can ‘traverse’ in both directions (bidirectional) along the same path. The distant towers serve to artificially do what a planet may do naturally when mutually discharging back (“return currents”/”upward positive leaders”): Downward Positive Cloud-to-Ground Lightning Flash Triggers Upward Positive Leaders from Towers.

On the main page for this work draw attention to another particular video (4th one down) entitled “Double +CG Flash with Weak Upward Leaders, 8/30/11 (10,000 ips)” to observe the mutual electrical exchange (bidirectional electric discharges/filaments) and multiple 'quickenings' of the same 'dark mode path'.

Is this is a 'Positive Leader':


The “main current” seems obvious as a ‘branching’ from an even larger region to the right of the image. It would be interesting to assess the dipole orientation of that star and try to locate its heliotail. It is also quite interesting to contrast the almost ineffable correlation of the dynamics hinted at with the above star and the comet-like “heliotail” of our solar system as discussed in the thread “IBEX discovers heliotail”. Is it just a “tail” of “dust and gas” vicariously ‘blowing’ in the ‘wind’? Or, might the heliotail itself constitute a 'positive leader'-like "main current" with electrical exchange with a larger “main current” in the circuit as possibly likewise resolved with the above star, see? Might our Sun be the ‘tip’ of an advancing “positive leader” threading its way through the galaxy with "coronal holes" being the 'stellar aurora' of its circuital relationship? Or might the sun exist as a 'bead on a string' with several other stars entrained ‘skimming’ the wall of a section of an even larger “main current” in “dark mode” as imaged for the Taurus Molecular Cloud?

All very interesting questions.

Then, there is another even larger scale approach that we’ve discussed: Our relative location within, what appears to be, the “ring current” at the apex of the “sausage kink” of the hourglass-shaped “Galactic Chimney”. Our star appears to be a part of that “ring current” (off-centered in a torus from the main axis) and in such a case might be generally understood to be traveling in a direction within the “ring current” perpendicular to, and formed by, an even larger still Galactic “main current” penetrating the galactic disk perpendicular as assessed via the general orientation of the Gould’s Belt.

So, the resolutions have been made observing the characteristics and orientation of charged dust, star clusters, tori, "magnetic vortices" and such, to generally assess a broad overview of “main currents” ‘branching’ to become smaller scale “main currents” for other regions, to yet again ‘branch’ to become smaller scale “main currents” through this particular region of the galaxy. They are constantly reconfiguring but at Cosmic scales the broad overall ‘structures’ endure long enough to observe and asses these electrical relationships.

Therefore yes: A “main current flowing to both sun and planets, with arcing between them” as no system is a fully “closed circuit” cut off from the environment - as well as “main current flow from the sun to the planets”. They BOTH occur including planets interacting with each other and the larger environment of course with both Sun and planets individually and collectively ‘discharging back’ establishing mutual electrical exchange with the environment.

The Universe certainly presents quite a lot of interesting things to ponder.

[celeste]

Let’s straighten out a problematic relevant to this topic:

In another thread member Celeste referenced this paper “Peculiar Movements of the Sun, Earth and Stars”. It’s a keeper.

We also want to make note of the attempts to graphically portray aspects of this topic:

"In the helical model, he shows the planets as orbiting around the Sun perpendicular to the motion of the Sun around the galaxy; "face-on", if you like.This is wrong. Because the orbits of the planets are tipped by 60°, not 90°, they can sometimes be ahead and sometimes behind the Sun. That right there, and all by itself, shows this helical depiction is incorrect."

There can be no mistaking that Sadhu's video shows the orbits with the wrong tilt. But is that so critical ? Well actually no, not really. Fact is that if you include the tilt, you still see the planets making a "spiral" pattern (technically it's a helix) as they move through space. The overall appearance just isn't that massively different compared to a 90 degree tilt. – Formerly Physics of the Carribean

Whether with Plait, Taylor, Sadhu, et al and although it is admitted that there is a ‘lead and lag’ relation occurring between Sun and planets NONE of the graphic depictions appear to portray the ‘lead and lag’ relationship while depictions. They all show the planets affixed along the plane of the Sun’s equator; which is wrong. The ‘lead and lag’ aspect is that which is being covered here as the charged bodies move ‘up and down’ relative to their orbits traversing more towards the filament axis (axial) and oppositely more towards, or within, the filament ‘wall’ (azimuthal) in this off-centered star relationship:

Stars in the early stages of life are surrounded by dust clouds that thin out and dissipate as the star reaches maturity, becoming rings in their final stages. One star, however, has a dust ring that has long puzzled astronomers because it is not centered around the star as usual. Instead, the ring is elliptical, with the parent star off to one side. – Hidden planet pushes star's ring a billion miles off-center

In all of these graphic depictions none are portraying the 'lead and lag' off-centered relationship.

Solar, Notice in "Peculiar Movements of the Sun,Earth and Stars", Dean does try to show the lead and lag motion of the Earth,rather than just uniform helical spiraling. In his figure 2, at point a, Earth lags the sun. At b, Earth is traveling very axially along the Sun's way,and rockets ahead of the Sun. At c, the Earth leads. By point d, Earth is traveling more across the Sun's way (compare the angle between Sun's way and Earth's courses, at b and d). A video would have been more clear, than his diagram here.

His mistake, was that it is Pluto,and not Earth that shows most of the lead and lag, while Earth does in fact show more uniform spiraling. The mistake was that he used the Sun's motion in the galactic reference frame. The problem is, we don't care about how the solar system is moving compared to the galaxy, but how we are moving compared to our local filamentary "clouds". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Inte ... arrows.jpg As you see, the "clouds" themselves are moving in the galactic reference frame. Here what is important, is that the "cloud" motion is at an extreme angle to the Sun's path.

If you look at that Local Cloud image, you may jump to the wrong conclusion, and think the sun travels down the axis of those spiraling clouds. When you jump to the local cloud reference frame, you realize that the sun must be spiraling around the local cloud axis.
We also needed, (to explain Homann's work of how Sirius' motion keeps it in synch with our precession), that Sirius spirals around the same axis. Again, in the Local Cloud image, if one was to draw in magnetic field lines according to how those clouds spiral, you would find the Sun and Sirius spiraling along nearly the same axis.

This brings us to another problem we need to correct: The sun's motion in the galactic reference frame, is an almost useless piece of information. When we thought the Sun was in a gravitational, elliptical orbit around the galactic center, then Sun's motion in the galactic reference frame was important. If we even consider for a moment that the Sun MAY be on some spiraling path (and especially if we don't yet have that path mapped out), then the motion of the Sun in the galactic frame is a function of where we are in our spiraling path. I think the first step, would be to plot all our local star and planetary motions into the LIC reference frame?