Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

[CharlesChandler]

CC, do you agree then that the main EU errors seem to be:
1. considering a vacuum to be an insulator instead of a conductor;
2. overestimating the strength of electric double layers, DLs, in space;
3. fixation on the Anode Sun model;
4. focus on electrodynamics, instead of electrostatics?

I'm not so sure about #2. See comments below.

Do you have a link to a good explanation of the difference between electrodynamics and electrostatics? Or do you have a simple explanation yourself?

The study of the forces between charged particles at rest is electrostatics. The study of how they respond to those forces is electrodynamics. So the CFDL model of the Sun, wherein the matter got compressed so forcefully that electron degeneracy pressure expelled the electrons from the core, setting up charged double-layers that cling to each other thereafter, has electrostatics as its foundation -- the Sun is perfectly comfortable just sitting there, bound together by static forces between charged double-layers, and only if something disrupts the layers will there be electric currents, introducing electrodynamics. The galactic current model of the Sun is founded on electrodynamics, not identifying the potentials causing the currents, and simply focusing on the effects of a current flowing through our part of the galaxy.

Re #2, do you agree that EU overestimates the strength of double layers in space?

They don't exactly get specific about it.

Do they say that galactic currents are double layers?

Not to my knowledge -- they're just currents.

Is a discharge a stream of either charge?

Theoretically it can be, but due to the far greater mobility of electrons, generally they do most of the traveling, and the +ions just stay where they are.

Do you consider galactic filaments to be electric currents?

I don't know. Spiral arms tend to have magnetic fields running parallel to them, implying a current that rotates around the arm. I really don't have any idea what could be causing that current, or which way it is headed.

Have you read up on Marklund convection? That sounds like it could be electric discharge with double layers.

No, it's a z-pinch effect, that stratifies +ions on the basis of their charge. The degree of ionization follows fairly directly from the ionization potential of the ions, which varies for different elements and compounds. Thus the matter gets stratified chemically. But this does not mean that Marklund convection will cause condensed matter. The reason is that the greater the degree of ionization, the greater the electrostatic repulsion between ions. Removing electrons is one of the ways of transitioning matter through the physical states (solid -> liquid -> gas -> plasma), since structured matter requires electrons. Thus the core of a large, pinched ion stream will be pure plasma, incapable of condensation.

Actually he was still learning his model himself at that time. I guess he's still learning it.

Indeed!!! For a while there, I was changing solar models more frequently than I change socks. The CFDL model, with electron degeneracy pressure as the charge separation mechanism, has been stable for a while now, and I've challenged it to explain the full range of solar observations. I'm finding it hard to believe that such a simple model could explain that much stuff without being fundamentally correct. But you've seen how fast I can walk away from a model when it is shown to be inconsistent with the data. For me, science isn't a position -- it's a process that yields forward motion. As soon as it stops moving forward, that's when it's time to start considering other models.

[D_Archer]

The Debate. Hopefully, Aristarchus will return soon to resume raising his issues.

D. Archer said: I thought the point that should be addressed is the point that was mainly raised by me. CC does not acknowledge galactic currents having anything to do with our sun, this is in direct opposition to EU.

That's why I brought up that topic recently here. Is there any evidence you know of that galactic currents enter the heliosphere and power the Sun? Where is that current locally in the vicinity of the Sun? How is it detected?

Why should i answer this?* it is in the EU literature, i just repeat what EU says, this is the Thunderbolts forum for Electric Universe paradigm.

I have no indication that Galactic currents are disproved, Charles has not done this either, his musings distract from actually discussing the EU solar model, i would not have pegged him for an interloper but he looks more like it everyday.

He confused Persian Paladin enough to have him leave this forum, and it seems he is getting to you too. Also Charles is injecting his musing into the Electric Universe part of the forum saying that the anode model is wrong, that galactic current are not found (or the electrons), confusing members about the reality of the actual status quo of the EU solar model.

*look to IBEX, Voyager etc, this was already advised multiple times by other members and ignored by Charles.

Regards,
Daniel

[CharlesChandler]

Is there any evidence you know of that galactic currents enter the heliosphere and power the Sun? Where is that current locally in the vicinity of the Sun? How is it detected?

Why should i answer this?* it is in the EU literature, i just repeat what EU says, this is the Thunderbolts forum for Electric Universe paradigm.

The site admins have a somewhat different view, which is highly commendable -- they tolerate dissent. This is a necessary part of any scientific endeavor.

I have no indication that Galactic currents are disproved, Charles has not done this either, his musings distract from actually discussing the EU solar model, i would not have pegged him for an interloper but he looks more like it everyday.

I don't know about galactic currents in general, but there is no evidence of any galactic current powering the Sun, since there is no evidence of any current between 10 and 100 AU. So it isn't that I don't acknowledge the IBEX and Voyager data. I'm questioning why they found E-fields, and possibly currents, in the heliopause, without finding them inside of 100 AU. And it's not that we don't have the ability to detect currents in the interplanetary medium -- we have detected the heliospheric current sheet. But that's just within 10 AU of the Sun. As I've said several times, the HCS appears to taper off with distance from the Sun, down to nothing at 10 AU. It's about 109 amps at 1 AU. I'm saying that it's 1015 amps at the surface of the Sun, and as such, it's the right amount of current to account for the 1026 watts of power that the Sun produces. So to say that the Sun is powered by a galactic current not only requires asserting the existence of a current between 10 and 100 AU that hasn't been detected -- it requires neglecting the current that has been detected (otherwise, there would be too much current).

Am I just not stating this stuff clearly enough?

[D_Archer]

Am I just not stating this stuff clearly enough?

You always ramble on a bit with your own musings etc which muddles the issue.

If no galactic current then we can say that you are missing the galactic component, ie how the sun interacts with its galactic environment. This is a crucial part for EU, i think the new post solar made is a step in the right direction.

Just because you can not see the relationship or that you think it is not yet detected does not mean it is not there.

We know the sun reacts to asteroids to the planets, probably to other stars and very likely to the galactic center. There are connections everywhere, we just have to find them.

Regards,
Daniel

[CharlesChandler]

@Daniel: do you believe that tornadoes are formed by intergalactic EDM, and that any other analysis is pointless?

[D_Archer]

@Daniel: do you believe that tornadoes are formed by intergalactic EDM, and that any other analysis is pointless?

What tornadoes?

Normal earth tornadoes cause (or model or how it works) can be found locally but in the end the energy to do work does come from the Sun (and a cosmic ray influence has been established for Earth weather as well) and the Sun gets it from...

Regards,
Daniel

[Sparky]

CC:

Any suggestions?

Have you published papers or produced a book detailing your tornado investigations?

Same for evolution of the sun hypothesis? Unless you regard online sites for depositing papers and your own site as having the same weight as a book or recognized scientific peer reviewed publisher.

The books could be science fiction/mystery stories, with the mechanism hypothesis mixed in.

This format seems to have run it's course.

[CharlesChandler]

Normal earth tornadoes cause (or model or how it works) can be found locally but in the end the energy to do work does come from the Sun (and a cosmic ray influence has been established for Earth weather as well) and the Sun gets it from...

And have you studied tornadoes? Or is tornado theory just another one of those things that got lumped together in the "could be EDM" category, and now cannot be reconsidered? The reason for asking is that for you, all of this might be philosophy, but tornadoes kill people, and a more accurate theory of how they work could save lives.

Have you published papers or produced a book detailing your tornado investigations?

Do you mean, "Have I tried?" I have corresponded with the leading researchers in the field, and I have been explicitly told that if they were asked to referee my work, they would reject it, because it doesn't fit with the current funding strategy.

This format seems to have run it's course.

There are still lurkers who are listening, as I hear mention from time to time.

[Lloyd]

D. Archer

Daniel said: Why should i answer this?* [re galactic currents;] it is in the EU literature, i just repeat what EU says, this is the Thunderbolts forum for Electric Universe paradigm.

I read most of what the EU literature says, but didn't see where they show that it [the galactic current] is detectable within the solar system. If you can quote what they said about that, or give us a link to that quote, I'll know where to find it and other interested readers will know too. That's why I think it would be worthwhile to quote them for us.

I have no indication that Galactic currents are disproved, Charles has not done this either, his musings distract from actually discussing the EU solar model, i would not have pegged him for an interloper but he looks more like it everyday.

I don't see how Charles' posts prevent anyone else from discussing the EU model. An interloper is someone who's not wanted. Why would the EU forum members not want him involved in discussion? Why would they not want everyone to be free to discuss their own findings etc? Bob Johnson's video discussion did not favor the anode model and I think it favored CFDLs, like in Charles' model. The EU team has posted Bob's video online. So are you favoring banning that video?

He confused Persian Paladin enough to have him leave this forum, and it seems he is getting to you too. Also Charles is injecting his musing into the Electric Universe part of the forum saying that the anode model is wrong, that galactic current are not found (or the electrons), confusing members about the reality of the actual status quo of the EU solar model.

People don't need help to get confused about the nature of the universe. The universe is rather complicated, so everyone is confused. It's no individual's fault that they get confused. But I feel much less confused by CC's model than by anyone else's. The EU model seems way too vague to me. CC's model is extremely explicit and seems to make nearly perfect sense. It seems to explain every major feature of the Sun and much of the universe.

*look to IBEX, Voyager etc, this was already advised multiple times by other members and ignored by Charles.

You're welcome to state specifically what IBEX, Voyager etc have found and at what locations.

[To CC:] You always ramble on a bit with your own musings etc which muddles the issue.

You're free to ignore anything that seems irrelevant. His statements seldom seem irrelevant to me.

If no galactic current then we can say that you are missing the galactic component, ie how the sun interacts with its galactic environment. This is a crucial part for EU, i think the new post solar made is a step in the right direction.

How does EU say the Sun interacts with the galactic environment, other than via a galactic current? For a discussion like this, it's best to have specific statements or quotes of them. You're welcome to provide such statements here. You're also welcome to link to Solar's post.

Just because you can not see the relationship or that you think it is not yet detected does not mean it is not there. We know the sun reacts to asteroids to the planets, probably to other stars and very likely to the galactic center. There are connections everywhere, we just have to find them.

Please provide the data for us here, or a link to the data. We'll see a relationship if there's data that shows it. What reactions to asteroids, planets, stars etc by the Sun are you referring to?

[CharlesChandler]

Following up on my earlier promise to run some more numbers on the dusty plasma collapse model, I have an update. First, the context. Previously, I had calculated the electrostatic forces on the Debye cells in dusty plasmas, assuming a relatively weak charge of 1 charged particle in 1016 neutrals. I found a slight repulsive force between the Debye cells, due to the repulsion between the positively charged sheaths of neighboring cells, which dominated because they are the nearest aspects of the cells to each other. So if the Debye cells are stable, the dusty plasmas should actually be expanding, not collapsing. But if there is a gas cloud collision, the sheaths get stripped off of the dust grains, and that totally changes the EM configuration. I knew that the force would go from repulsive to attractive, and dramatically so, but I didn't know by how much. Now I know.

Here are the two conditions that were examined. The resting condition is on the left, with dust particles (in red) are surrounded by well-formed Debye sheaths (in blue). The collisional condition is on the right, with the Debye sheaths shifted off of the nuclei.

Configurations.png (11.24 KiB) Viewed 5648 times

Here are the results for the resting condition. The X axis shows the various center-to-center spacings that were calculated, and the Y axis shows the ratio of the electric force over the gravity between the particles. At a spacing of 10 meters, the electric force was about 5 times more powerful than gravity. (The dashed red line is for 5 charged particles in 1015 neutrals, where the electric force went to 20x the gravity at a spacing of 10 meters.)

But with the sheaths shifted off of the nuclei, at a spacing of 10 meters, the electric force was 1275 times more powerful than gravity, and went up to over 1600x from there as the plasma implodes.

Forces_Shifted.png (6.19 KiB) Viewed 5648 times

I conclude that these are the forces responsible for dusty plasma collapse.

[Aristarchus]

The universe is rather complicated, so everyone is confused.

Oh the irony ... Charles has told us he has given the preeminent analysis of detail in his model ... even if all you have to do is ask him questions ad infinitum. I imagine that the latter would make the universe very convoluted. Just make sure you include the data consecrated by Charles.

Moving on ...

If the Sun was powered by galactic currents, the discharge wouldn't be just from the Sun to the heliopause -- it would be from the Sun out into the interstellar medium, and beyond. To drive such a current, we'd have to be in an electric field, so I'd really expect just one incoming and one outgoing discharge channel. The Sun wouldn't be a sphere -- it would be a tube. Anyway, I don't know where to begin with something so unrealistic.

The EU model introduces a hypothesis for the galactic currents for powering the sun and uses the lab experiments to confirm it, but I'm not sure such a simplification of the language does justice to your hypothesis . The EU admits it doesn't have empirical data, but it reverts to laboratory experiments regarding galactic currents, but we'll get to that later. Remember, scalability and where to use it.

For now, let's look at your current assertion that is outside the galactic current ,,, as it pertains to D. E. Scott and my link to his research.

This discharge can be in the dark mode, glow mode, or arc mode depending on several variables, most notably – the value of the electric current density that exists within the any body of the plasma.

The cylindrical shape of the typical laboratory plasma discharge tube is quite different from the spherical shape of the plasma surrounding the Sun. One purpose of this paper is to investigate the analytic consequences of that spherical geometry.

Next, I'll explain the galactic current according to EU, but we'll wait - pause - and let the fan club continue for a person that self admittedly stated he ignores the data. This will be a very deliberate attempt, so please be patient dear reader.

Now, let's go on to D. E. Scott, whose work set the paradigm for this forum:

http://electric-cosmos.org/SunsEfield2013.pdf

But, r is now the radius of an imaginary sphere that is larger than the Sun (r > RS). The idea, of course, is that this larger sphere still only contains the original amount of charge, 2 that is on the Sun. Expression 6 tells us that as long as there is no additional net charge located outside of the Sun’s surface, the strength of the electric field emanating from it decreases inversely as the square of the radial distance at which it is measured. This is the only result acceptable to those who ignore the possible existence of charge densities within the plasma that surrounds the Sun. It represents an over-simplification and, as such, yields a result that is generally invalid.

Next, Maxwell's equations ...

[Aristarchus]

Please be patient, reader. The Great Charles will have a response to the double layers and the Debye cells, which the Debye is not merely the focus upon the cells. I'm doing quite a bit of things right now to get my own published work noticed, but still continue to review Charles' research into my own decade worth of research. Expect quite a bit of non-essential that will seek for the fan club to bury my postings, but I already accommodated for that.

Lloyd, Sparky, Charles ... good luck.

[Aristarchus]

The universe is rather complicated, so everyone is confused.

Oh the irony ... Charles has told us he has given the preeminent analysis of detail to his model ... even if all you have to do is ask him questions ad infinitum. I imagine that the latter would make the universe very convoluted. Just make sure you include the data consecrated by Charles.

Moving on ...

If the Sun was powered by galactic currents, the discharge wouldn't be just from the Sun to the heliopause -- it would be from the Sun out into the interstellar medium, and beyond. To drive such a current, we'd have to be in an electric field, so I'd really expect just one incoming and one outgoing discharge channel. The Sun wouldn't be a sphere -- it would be a tube. Anyway, I don't know where to begin with something so unrealistic.

The EU model introduces a hypothesis for the galactic currents for powering the sun and uses the lab experiments to confirm it, but I'm not sure such a simplification of the language does justice to your hypothesis . The EU admits it doesn't have empirical data, but it reverts to laboratory experiments regarding galactic currents, but we'll get to that later.

For now, let's look at your current assertion that is outside the galactic current ,,, as it pertains to D. E. Scott and my link to his research.

This discharge can be in the dark mode, glow mode, or arc mode depending on several variables, most notably – the value of the electric current density that exists within the any body of the plasma.

The cylindrical shape of the typical laboratory plasma discharge tube is quite different from the spherical shape of the plasma surrounding the Sun. One purpose of this paper is to investigate the analytic consequences of that spherical geometry.

Next, I'll explain the galactic current according to EU, but we'll wait - pause - and let the fan club continue for a person that self admittedly stated he ignores the data. This will be a very deliberate attempt, so please be patient dear reader.

Now, let's go on to D. E. Scott, whose work set the paradigm for this forum:

http://electric-cosmos.org/SunsEfield2013.pdf

But, r is now the radius of an imaginary sphere that is larger than the Sun (r > RS). The idea, of course, is that this larger sphere still only contains the original amount of charge, 2 that is on the Sun. Expression 6 tells us that as long as there is no additional net charge located outside of the Sun’s surface, the strength of the electric field emanating from it decreases inversely as the square of the radial distance at which it is measured. This is the only result acceptable to those who ignore the possible existence of charge densities within the plasma that surrounds the Sun. It represents an over-simplification and, as such, yields a result that is generally invalid.

Next, Maxwell's equations ...

[Aristarchus]

Charles,

The emphasis should be on the Debye length not the Debye cell.

[CharlesChandler]

Next, Maxwell's equations ...

Anybody can copy equations out of a book. But where did he use those equations to calculate real forces, and then compare the calculated forces with the observations, as I have done, with dusty plasma collapses, as well as with the solar energy budget?