Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:57 am

Lloyd wrote:I guess you may mean that where positive ions are moving away from a body, whether solid, liquid, or qas/plasma, any free electrons will tend to be dragged along.

There IS a drag force -- it's called resistance -- but we have to keep things in perspective here. If it was just a static electric field, the +ions would be going in one direction, and the electrons would be going in the other, and the resistance would be the limiting factor in how fast they got there. But that isn't going to get both positive and negative charges traveling in the same direction, because the one is dragging the other along. To use Aristarchus' metaphor, it wouldn't be fat people getting pushed through a door, and skinny people getting drug along -- it would be fat people trying to get out, and skinny people trying to get in, and the rate at which they could get through the door is limited by the energy lost in collisions.

Also remember that inertia is a coin with two sides. Yes, once something gets going, it will be tough to stop. But it's also tougher to get going. So in any electric field, the total momentum of the +ions will be exactly the same as the electrons. The electrons will be moving a lot faster, but they're not as heavy, and the momentum is the same.

The only time you'll get counter-flowing charges in an electric field is when there is a concentrated charge stream (such as a pinched stream, like in a lightning strike here on Earth) where particles are traveling much faster.

Lloyd wrote:Since your graph in the thread on Space conductance shows that the solar wind proton numbers diminish nearly to zero by the time the wind, or the HCS, reaches Earth's orbit, it looks like electrons neutralize nearly all of the protons within 1 AU. In fact the initial steep slope of the graph curve seems to indicate that half to two thirds of the protons are neutralized around the distance of Mercury's orbit at .38 AU. Do you concur?

I'm still mulling over the implications there. Of course, particle density and current aren't the same thing, so just because most of the density is close to the Sun doesn't necessary speak to the current density. What I really need to know is the charge densities. Unfortunately, the data there are sparse and indirect. We know that the current is 109 amps at 1 AU, and not detectable at 10 AU. I'm saying that if we work backward from there, it's telling us that the current is greater at the Sun. My calcs predict that it's 1016 amps at the Sun on the basis of charge loss due to CMEs. But like I said, the data are sparse, so I'm still researching this.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Aristarchus » Wed Nov 05, 2014 8:17 pm

Charles Chandler wrote:Ummm... positive and negative charges go in opposite directions in an electric field. The positive charges head toward the negative electrode, and the negative charges head toward the positive electrode. All other factors being the same, they do not both travel in the same direction, but where +ions move more vigorously, because of their greater mass. Thus understanding the solar wind as a manifestation of electric forces requires more than just a static field.


I think we need to distinguish two aspects of this discussion:

1. The Solar Wind and how it how much it affects the solar system, planetary system, and out to the heliosheath.

2. The impact of the in-flow of electrons into the solar system from the intergalactic medium.

As to point number one, we look at how the solar wind impacts the planetary system. We can use this as a starting point when moving forward with considering the anode cathode aspect of the Sun and the incoming intergalactic medium as a cathode.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/mav ... FqsnzTF-XU

SWIA will specifically be measuring the solar wind speed and density, two critical factors that determine how its ions interact with the planet's atmospheric particles. Halekas said although the solar wind itself isn't packed with ions, its blazing speed ensures that a huge number of ions are hitting the Martian atmosphere, and interacting with the atmosphere's particles, every second.

MAVEN deputy principle investigator Janet Luhmann, also at SSL, said by measuring the solar wind's density and velocity, SWIA could help determine whether gusts of denser, faster solar wind contribute to greater atmospheric loss. This information will be used to estimate losses in the past, when solar wind gusts may have been prevalent thanks to an early, more active sun.

Once they hit the planet's atmosphere, the solar wind's ions play several critical roles in aiding particles to escape from Mars' atmosphere. The solar wind is made up of both electrons, which are very small, negatively charged particles, and ions, which are larger positively charged particles like ionized hydrogen and helium.

Halekas said both ions and electrons could start the process of particle escape by transforming the atmosphere's neutral particles into charged ions. This can occur through processes called charge exchange and impact ionization. Ultraviolet sunlight also transforms many atmospheric particles into ions. Once the atmospheric particles become charged, they can interact with the solar wind's magnetic field and be accelerated and carried away from the planet; ions that have been removed like this are called pickup ions. The ionization step is critical, since the original neutral particles don't respond to the solar wind magnetic field and generally have too little energy to escape.

Halekas said although the solar wind electrons contribute to particle escape by stripping electrons from some of the neutral atmospheric particles, it's the solar wind ions that play the more critical role in giving the particles enough energy to escape.

The ionized gases in the solar wind—known as plasma—can interact with the wind's magnetic field to form an electric field, and accelerate the newly charged particles in the atmosphere with enough energy for them to escape. While both the electrons and ions form this plasma, Halekas said the ions are in some ways more important, thanks to their larger mass.

Although the solar wind ions are travelling at the same velocity as the electrons, they have a larger mass than the electrons. This gives them a greater momentum, which is created from an object's mass and velocity. Therefore, the solar wind ions are able to transfer more of the necessary momentum to the newly formed atmospheric ions themselves, providing them with more energy to escape.

"The electrons themselves probably don't do as much work in driving escape," Halekas said. "They can ionize some atmospheric gases through electron impact ionization, but they won't drive escape through momentum transfer as the ions can."


We see further evidence of the solar wind affecting the giant planets as discussed before:

http://www.space.com/15270-auroras-uran ... hotos.html

Earth's northern lights can last for hours and dazzle skywatchers with colorful displays, but the Uranus auroras lasted only a few minutes. Even then, the events were just faint glowing dots above the planet's atmosphere. Hubble spotted the light shows at locations that corresponded to the northern magnetic pole of Uranus, researchers said, which would make them the Uranian northern lights.


http://www.universetoday.com/42483/aurora-borealis/

Magnetic fields plus solar wind … so you’d expect aurorae on Jupiter and Saturn, right? And auroral displays around the magnetic poles of these planets are now well documented. Aurorae have also been imaged on Venus, Mars, Uranus, Neptune, and even Io.


When the solar wind's velocity drops to zero inside the heliosheath, and it is here we see the build up "high energy" electrons increase 100 times incoming from the galactic medium. Next, we will look at what surprises were found from Voyager 1 & 2 at the outer edges of the solar system. With new observations come the time for an introduction for a paradigm shift, and thus avoiding placing new theories burdening the existing paradigm, which, as stated before, cause that paradigm to collapse.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Aristarchus wrote:With new observations come the time for an introduction for a paradigm shift, and thus avoiding placing new theories burdening the existing paradigm, which, as stated before, cause that paradigm to collapse.

And as stated before, I really don't see how you think that my work is "burdening the existing paradigm". As far as I'm concerned, the existing paradigm is broken, and cannot be fixed. And the mainstream has already thoroughly rejected my work, since they think that electricity in space is there, but it "doesn't do anything", while I think that the electric force causes dusty plasmas to collapse into stars, and it's what binds the collapsed matter together in the star such that the dusty plasma doesn't just bounce off of itself after imploding, and it's what defines the nature of the energy released by the star. There isn't anything mainstream about that. If you can cast me as a mainstreamer, you can defeat me, but that ain't me. And you have to do more than just say that you have a new idea in order to be correct. Sooner or later, you have to start taking a much closer look at the data, to see if your idea actually has anything to do with the true nature of the phenomena. Not all new ideas are correct.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Sparky » Thu Nov 06, 2014 7:19 am

inside the heliosheath, and it is here we see the build up "high energy" electrons increase 100 times incoming from the galactic medium.


Documentation?

And what were the irrelevant links to show? :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Aristarchus » Thu Nov 06, 2014 1:35 pm

Sparky" wrote:
inside the heliosheath, and it is here we see the build up "high energy" electrons increase 100 times incoming from the galactic medium.



Documentation?


http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/voyag ... FvZaDTF-XU

At the same time, Voyager has detected a 100-fold increase in the intensity of high-energy electrons from elsewhere in the galaxy diffusing into our solar system from outside, which is another indication of the approaching boundary.

"We've been using the flow of energetic charged particles at Voyager 1 as a kind of wind sock to estimate the solar wind velocity," said Rob Decker, a Voyager Low-Energy Charged Particle Instrument co-investigator at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Md. "We've found that the wind speeds are low in this region and gust erratically. For the first time, the wind even blows back at us. We are evidently traveling in completely new territory. Scientists had suggested previously that there might be a stagnation layer, but we weren't sure it existed until now."
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Sparky » Thu Nov 06, 2014 1:55 pm

--- to help scientists discern whether the solar wind was blowing strongly in another direction. It was not.


At the same time, Voyager has detected a 100-fold increase in the intensity of high-energy electrons from elsewhere in the galaxy diffusing into our solar system from outside, which is another indication of the approaching boundary.


I read this as vague. 100 X what?? And what relative relationship to the solar wind does it have? :? Especially since no inward flow was detected, only a diffusing.. :?
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire
Sparky
 
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Aristarchus » Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:17 pm

Sparky wrote:I read this as vague. 100 X what?? And what relative relationship to the solar wind does it have? :? Especially since no inward flow was detected, only a diffusing.. :?


The solar wind blows back.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:31 pm

At the same time, Voyager has detected a 100-fold increase in the intensity of high-energy electrons from elsewhere in the galaxy diffusing into our solar system from outside, which is another indication of the approaching boundary.

"We've been using the flow of energetic charged particles at Voyager 1 as a kind of wind sock to estimate the solar wind velocity," said Rob Decker, a Voyager Low-Energy Charged Particle Instrument co-investigator at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Md. "We've found that the wind speeds are low in this region and gust erratically. For the first time, the wind even blows back at us. We are evidently traveling in completely new territory. Scientists had suggested previously that there might be a stagnation layer, but we weren't sure it existed until now."

If you're calling this support for the galactic current model, you might want to scrutinize the sentence that you highlighted. Yes, it says that the wind is blowing back at us, which is encouraging for your position. But it also says that this is the first time that it did that, meaning that the entire rest of the time that Voyager 1 has been in operation, it detected wind blowing away from the Sun, which is not so good for your position. It seems that you only see the part that you like.

If we let the data do the talking, there is very definitely a region within the heliopause where the solar wind collides with the interstellar winds. We can expect a lot of turbulence in the region, and we can also expect an electric field, since the +ions in the interstellar wind will get embedded deeper in the heliosphere than the electrons, due to their greater mass. Thus the inner heliopause is positively charged, while the outer heliopause is negatively charged, and there is an electric field between these two layers. No surprise there. But all of that is local to the heliopause, at least if we let the data do the talking.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Aristarchus » Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:46 pm

Charles Chandler wrote:If you're calling this support for the galactic current model, you might want to scrutinize the sentence that you highlighted. Yes, it says that the wind is blowing back at us, which is encouraging for your position. But it also says that this is the first time that it did that, meaning that the entire rest of the time that Voyager 1 has been in operation, it detected wind blowing away from the Sun, which is not so good for your position. It seems that you only see the part that you like.


This is what was actually stated and the readers can decide:

"We've been using the flow of energetic charged particles at Voyager 1 as a kind of wind sock to estimate the solar wind velocity," said Rob Decker, a Voyager Low-Energy Charged Particle Instrument co-investigator at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Md. "We've found that the wind speeds are low in this region and gust erratically. For the first time, the wind even blows back at us. We are evidently traveling in completely new territory. Scientists had suggested previously that there might be a stagnation layer, but we weren't sure it existed until now."


I understand what NASA (Never A Straight Answer) inferred from the data, but they were also surprised by the number of incoming "high energy" electrons. This is why I sought clarification in my previous post to you. I will continue to read the questions posed by Lloyd to you, and your positing on your model. However, I made it very clear at the beginning of this topic where I was going with it from my perspective.

I also think you have an answer to your question about the consensus science, your model, and what I construe as a paradigm shift. Actually, you made my point for me.

"For the first time" doesn't really comply with gathering further evidence based of sound scientific methodology.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Lloyd » Thu Nov 06, 2014 3:47 pm

Galaxy-like Solar System?

Charles, in this post, http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15347&p=101186#p100972, a few days ago, Celeste referenced a paper that she said indicates that the HCS, at least some of the time, is shaped like a spiral galaxy, with two arms coming off the Sun, instead of a skirt. She seems to consider that the two arms are connected to the galaxy the way Wal portrays a galactic current as moving inward along the spiral arms to the galactic center and then out through bipolar jets and from there back out and around to the ends of the spiral arms. So I think she's thinking that the solar system is similarly formed like a miniature galaxy with a similar current pattern, with solar jets or something circling back to the outer ends of the HCS .

Would you like to import her post here, or relevant parts of it, and comment? I submitted an image of how it sounded like the paper was describing the HCS and she said my version looked right, with two spiral arms coming off the Sun, instead of a whole sheet.

Accretion to CFDLs
It's not real clear to me how galactic molecular cloud implosions result in CFDLs within the stars and planets that are formed from the implosions. I know you've discussed it elsewhere in a little more detail than what's in your paper/s. Do you have links to such discussions for us? Or do you plan to fill in more details at some point?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4364
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby nick c » Thu Nov 06, 2014 6:26 pm

At the same time, Voyager has detected a 100-fold increase in the intensity of high-energy electrons from elsewhere in the galaxy diffusing into our solar system from outside, which is another indication of the approaching boundary.
This statement refers to incoming electrons from interstellar space not the turning back of the solar wind. That is a separate observation.

"...high energy electrons from elsewhere in the galaxy..."Voyager has detected, at or near the heliopause, incoming galactic electrons.

If anyone wants to interpret that statement differently go right ahead.
The statement seems to me to be quite unambiguous and direct.
Well, this statement by NASA supports Scott's model...high energy galactic electrons entering the solar system would be a reasonable expectation of his Electric Star Model.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2446
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Aristarchus » Thu Nov 06, 2014 10:01 pm

Here is how the two observations comport with Scott's model - emphasis mine:

http://electric-cosmos.org/SolarElecFlux2013.pdf

The total electron current that can be drawn by the solar discharge is the product of this random current density and the surface area of the sphere occupied by the cathode drop. We now (see update #1 above) have a better measurement of how large this sphere is. Its radius is approximately 2x1013 m, so its spherical boundary must have a collecting surface area of something greater than 5x1027 square meters.

Such a surface would then collect a current of interstellar electrons amounting to approximately 1.6x10-7 Amp per square meter x 5x1027 square meters = 8x1020 A. (Some 20,000 times the number needed!). Of course this calculation involves many estimated quantities, but they are the best estimates available to science today (Fall 2012).

This calculation makes it clear that it is not reasonable to conclude that there are not enough electrons entering the Sun’s environment to power it. In fact, in light of the new NASA data, it is now possible to reduce our estimate of the Sun’s voltage to ~ 1010/16,000 = 0.5 million volts = 500 kV which, relatively speaking, is not extremely large. There are commercial transmission lines here on Earth using higher voltages6
.

NASA’s observation (#3 above) that the direction of the solar wind actually reverses (begins to flow sunward) out near the heliopause is further confirmation that the analogy between the behavior of the Sun’s surrounding plasma and what is observed in laboratory “gas” (plasma) discharge tubes is a valid one. Near the cathode of such a tube, a layer of electrons is often observed. Such a layer creates a negative electric field (force per unit charge) applied to positive charge carriers (+ions in the solar wind). The heliopause is a virtual cathode for the Sun’s plasma discharge.


A standard criticism from skeptics of Juergens’ Electric Star hypothesis has always been, “where are all the necessary incoming relativistic electrons?” First of all, the incoming electrons do not have to be (will not be) relativistic. Secondly, it appears NASA is in the process of finding them. Perhaps Electrical Universe theoreticians should issue a press release entitled “Dark Electrons Found by NASA.” For this reason this short paper carries that sub-title.


Next, for giggles and fun times, I will post the consensus science's take on this. Bring the whole family. It's a family event! Just so everyone has a good time!
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Thu Nov 06, 2014 11:30 pm

Lloyd wrote:Celeste referenced a paper that she said indicates that the HCS, at least some of the time, is shaped like a spiral galaxy, with two arms coming off the Sun, instead of a skirt.

Actually, it's a lot more complicated than that. The source of the HCS is the helmet streamers. In the following image, there are streamers emanating in every direction, which is typical during the active phase.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/C ... clipse.jpg

You can think of the particles coming out of those streamers as a spray. Then, with the rotation of the Sun, the spray becomes a sheet. But there can be a bunch of them. So the "ballerina's skirt" is a gross oversimplification already -- there are typically multiple layers of sheets. If you set up two sprinkler heads, one on top of the other, with the upper one spraying at a higher elevation than the lower one, the spray wouldn't merge into one sheet -- there would be two "sheets" of water hitting the lawn at two different distances from the center. If they were 180 degrees out of phase from each other, this might give the impression of one wave-like sheet. But that would be an oversimplification. To further reduce it to symmetrical spiral arms would be even more of a stretch. Anyway, here are the data:

http://iswa.ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/IswaSyst ... /index.jsp

Still, the motion is away from the Sun. As soon as you start talking about the proposed Alfven circuit, or anything similar, you have to walk away from the data, because there isn't any evidence of any steady-state return. Hence there isn't any evidence of a Sun-centric circuit.

Lloyd wrote:It's not real clear to me how galactic molecular cloud implosions result in CFDLs within the stars and planets that are formed from the implosions.

On implosion, the pressure (mainly from momentum, and merely augmented by gravity) becomes sufficient for charge separation, due to electron degeneracy pressure. The role played by the gravity field is that it makes the pressure highest in the core, such that it gets ionized first, leaving the core positive, surrounded by a negative layer containing the electrons that were expelled from the core. Thus the first two charged layers are established. Then the electric force between them holds them together, preventing the hydrostatic rebound, and further concentrating the gravity field, which further increases the pressure, thereby making the charge separation more robust.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby Aristarchus » Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:28 am

Charles and Lloyd,

Lloyd had dedicated a topic to CC's research in a new NIMI thread. However, this topic was started Oct 15th, and Lloyd started his new thread on Nov 2nd. The latter is where the above questions and responses from Lloyd and CC belong. I understand that the hits are low on the thread started by Lloyd, but this is called the Aristarchus vs. Chandler thread. I didn't name it. I thought it was a bad title to begin with. It doesn't show much confidence in your argument if you must commander the subject to such an extent.

Learn to partition the topics. You're not being restrained, but, obviously, I'm exposing an agenda. If you're through with this topic, let it go. I'm very content to elaborate without you.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison
User avatar
Aristarchus
 
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Nov 07, 2014 12:37 am

nick c wrote:Well, this statement by NASA supports Scott's model...high energy galactic electrons entering the solar system would be a reasonable expectation of his Electric Star Model.

Sure it is. Even more of a reasonable expectation would be that closer to the Sun, where the current density should be greater, and where we have considerably more satellites collecting information, the evidence of electrons streaming toward the Sun should be considerably more robust. And yet those data are conspicuously absent.

A standard criticism from skeptics of Juergens’ Electric Star hypothesis has always been, “where are all the necessary incoming relativistic electrons?” First of all, the incoming electrons do not have to be (will not be) relativistic.

What is the support for the conclusion that the electrons don't have to be relativistic? Electrons in lightning strikes here on Earth, up against much more resistance, and accelerated over a much shorter period of time, achieve 1/10 of the speed of light. You can't just say that your model does not require relativistic electrons and consider the objection to be properly dismissed. The objection was based on the physical properties of plasma discharges that can then be formulated into expectations that must be met. To address this, you have to lay out the physical properties.

My model doesn't have this problem, since it has electrons inside the Sun sitting on a current divider, where they are at once attracted to a layer of positive charge beneath them, and the positive charge in the heliosphere. Only negative charges in excess of the neutralizing positive charge deeper inside the Sun will escape, and their velocity will be low at first, since the net field is weak. As the electrons get further from the Sun, they will accelerate, since the attraction to the deeper positive layer falls off with the inverse of the square of the distance, and likewise the attraction to the heliosphere increases with proximity. And this acceleration with distance from the Sun has been well-observed. Among other things, it accounts for the increase in temperature in the corona with distance from the Sun. Without a current divider, I don't see how you're going to explain these details.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1790
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests