Debate: Aristarchus vs. Chandler

[Aristarchus]

Charles, I have a life. In all due time. I measure the days. I'm listening to music right now. Go to bed, or use your studies elsewhere. I gathered the information. I do it at my own leisure. You made some drastic errors. I will finish the next post at the time that suits me. Then will go on to the mistakes you made with double layers. It's rather simple, but my time is precious. I've read your posts, and currently perusing your book trying to decipher your research. All in due course. Patience ... you're not going anywhere, nor I ... tomorrow the Sun may bless us both. LOL!

[Aristarchus]

Charles, you're real forces are those that have been defined by you. It's beyond me why some posters here have been deluded by your parlor tricks:

Maxwell’s equations can be used in limited and well-defined ways – especially in those regions of non-quasi-neutrality.

Now, I ask the reader to search for non permittivity vs permittivity. We'll get back to this - but I want to explore the galactic current and Charles assumptions about DL's in future posts. Just beware, what Charles chooses to neglect or ignore.

[antosarai]

Why would someone write six postings over a span of five hours just to ask everybody wait?

[D_Archer]

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?

With all due respect Lloyd but i am not the one on the bench here.

Lloyd:

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

How can i reply to this, i think the theory CC created is a big mess. It is difficult to start tearing it down because you can literally start anywhere. So i just focus on the galactic influence on our sun, which is apparent in the EU model but lacking with CC.

Pba that i am not an intellectual per se, i think Don Scot, Wallace and other have explained EU Sun theory in detail already and i would think you are familiar with the concepts and data.

You also know Miles Mathis and it seems that his charge model and EU is compatible in a lot of places. Miles also has Galactic influence into the sun.

Regards,
Daniel

[CharlesChandler]

Why would someone write six postings over a span of five hours just to ask everybody wait?

Because it masks the drive-by's...

Charles, I have a life. In all due time. I measure the days. I'm listening to music right now. Go to bed, or use your studies elsewhere. I gathered the information. I do it at my own leisure. You made some drastic errors. I will finish the next post at the time that suits me. Then will go on to the mistakes you made with double layers. It's rather simple, but my time is precious. I've read your posts, and currently perusing your book trying to decipher your research. All in due course. Patience ... you're not going anywhere, nor I ... tomorrow the Sun may bless us both. LOL!

Notice the rhetorical style -- assert-and-redirect -- he did it twice in a row just in that one paragraph.

Anyway, I found another cool implication in my model of dusty plasmas. With a negatively charged dust grain, surrounded by a positively charged Debye sheath, the entire cell is net neutral, and doesn't have a strong electric interaction with its environment. But since the closest aspects between two cells are the like-charged sheaths, the repulsion between them is the dominant force, due to the inverse square law. And as long as the sheaths are firmly bound to the dust particles, the entire cell repels other cells. But if the sheath gets stripped from the dust particle, the net force becomes attractive, as demonstrated in previous posts.

This has implications all of the way down to atomic theory, because an atom is the same sort of configuration (just with the polarity being switched -- atomic nuclei are positively charged, and electron clouds are negatively charged). But the same principles should still apply. So neutrally charged atoms should repel each other, because the electron shells of neighboring atoms repel, and that force is a little stronger, because the shells are closer to each other. Only if one or more electrons get knocked loose will there be a net attraction that will pull atoms together into molecules. The positively charged nuclei are attracted to the shared electrons between them, but the electrons can't be in shells when this happens -- they have to be free electrons in-between the atoms. I know that I've heard that molecules form faster when there is an ionizing agent of some kind, but I never heard it explained, and this might be the reason.

Then we come full circle, and consider the implications of atomic theory in the conversion of giant molecular clouds (GMCs) into dusty plasmas, which then collapse into stars. If neutrally charged atoms repel each other, there has to be an ionizing agent that will knock a few electrons loose. So when do GMCs get converted to dusty plasmas? When there is a supernova nearby. The reason would be that the UV radiation from the supernova ionizes the matter, making larger molecules -- and ultimately dust particles -- possible. Somewhat later, the slower moving ejecta from the supernova plows into that dusty plasma, shearing the Debye sheaths off of the dust particles, creating a huge electrostatic body force that causes the dusty plasma to collapse into a star.

Hence it's the same principle on two different scales, and supernovae just happen to supply both of the catalysts required for star formation -- they convert GMCs to dusty plasmas, and dusty plasmas into stars, because of the way the electric forces work out in net neutral cells, be they atoms or Debye cells. So it totally makes sense that supernovae trigger star formation.

[antosarai]

If supernovae trigger star formation, then how did the primordial supernova(e) form?

[D_Archer]

CC says >

supernova

How you just lap up bogus mainstream ad hoc additions to failed models and apply it to your own model to make things works is amazing.

Regards,
Daniel

[jacmac]

Charles said:

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).

Charles, You have described the current moving away from the sun as tapering off with distance from the sun down to nothing at 10 AU. Elsewhere, I think, you talked about electrons catching up to the +ions, therefore there is no "curren"t. Also, some of the charged particles could recombine to become neutral particles.

(Staying with a general E/U model for the moment)

So, my question is: Are these particles, whether becoming neutral, or becoming a non "current," STILL EXISTING well inside the 100 AU heliosphere ? And, assuming broad dispersion, would they not be available to be drawn back toward the sun to act, again, as a source of material for solar consumption. And would this not lower the amount of "new" particles needed to enter the heliosphere from outside ? Possible Recycling ?

Thanks,
Jack

[CharlesChandler]

If supernovae trigger star formation, then how did the primordial supernova(e) form?

Excellent question! Quick answer: I don't know. I "think" that it goes without saying that the primordial Universe had to be irregular. Evenly dispersed matter never would have condensed, no matter which model you're using. The gravity would have been omni-directional, and hydrostatic pressure would have maintained the distribution. No electric currents, and no electric fields. But with some irregularities, perhaps a few solid bodies condensed, just by vapor deposition. And perhaps two of these bodies collided, generating a thermonuclear explosion, with the UV radiation and particulate ejecta necessary to trigger star formation elsewhere.

Are these particles, whether becoming neutral, or becoming a non "current," STILL EXISTING well inside the 100 AU heliosphere ? And, assuming broad dispersion, would they not be available to be drawn back toward the sun to act, again, as a source of material for solar consumption. And would this not lower the amount of "new" particles needed to enter the heliosphere from outside ? Possible Recycling ?

Another great question! There IS evidence of matter falling back into the Sun. It appears to be the rare exception, and the bulk of the solar wind continues to expand, on out to the heliopause. But there ARE "growing Sun" proponents who believe that the Sun is still in the process of consuming matter. The "recycling Sun" would be halfway between that and the "dwindling Sun" model that (in various forms) dominates the consensus. Anyway, you could start here:

Sheeley, N. R., Jr.; Wang, Y., 2001: Coronal Inflows and Sector Magnetism. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 562 (1): L107

Here's a review of the same work:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 162617.htm

[Sparky]

auto-:

If supernovae trigger star formation, then how did the primordial supernova(e) form?

What primordial supernova?

*********************************************8
Daniel:

How you just lap up bogus mainstream ad hoc additions to failed models and apply it to your own model to make things works is amazing

Being a literalist can cause all sorts of problems with comprehension. What is a supernova? What does CC believe it to be? What do you think it is?

_____________*****************************

Jack

would they not be available to be drawn back toward the sun

What force would do that to neutral particles?

[CharlesChandler]

What is a supernova? What does CC believe it to be?

I certainly do not believe that they are simple thermonuclear explosions, as the standard model has it. Sometimes they leave remnants behind. As Wolynski puts it, explosions don't leave remnants in the center -- they go boom! -- and they leave absolutely nothing in the center -- the remnants are all in the debris field. Also, sustained explosions are nearly a contradiction in terms. So a supernova lasting weeks, or even months, isn't really consistent with an explosion. So I think that they are flare-ups of nuclear fusion in toroidal plasmoids. Gamma ray bursters might be planetary and/or stellar collisions.

[jacmac]

Charles,

Thanks for the links.

Sparky,

Jack(said)
would they not be available to be drawn back toward the sun

What force would do that to neutral particles?

In my general reading about plasma it has always been said that a volume of "gas" only needed about 2-5 % of the particles to be charged to act as a plasma, and that the whole entity would then move together under electromagnetic forces. Is this not basically correct ?

[Sparky]

a volume of "gas" only needed about 2-5 % of the particles to be charged to act as a plasma, and that the whole entity would then move together under electromagnetic forces.

That may be correct....So, if electric force drove all ions outward, what would pull them back into the sun.?

[jacmac]

Sparky,

I need to read more about what +ions and electrons are doing near the sun. I think much of the info is on charged particles leaving the sun and becoming part of the heliospheric current sheet, (the solar wind). I was speculating on what could be happening in the vast part of the heliosphere that is not part of the solar wind. There are 2 links above about solar inflows from Charles.

This is all very complicated. I am trying to focus on ideas that I don't see others talking about.

[CharlesChandler]

In my general reading about plasma it has always been said that a volume of "gas" only needed about 2-5 % of the particles to be charged to act as a plasma, and that the whole entity would then move together under electromagnetic forces. Is this not basically correct ?

That's way, way more charge than is needed. My calculations on tornadoes demonstrated that 1 charged particle in 100,000,000 neutrals was sufficient to get the air to behave in a fundamentally different way. My calculations on dusty plasmas use a much smaller ratio: 1 in 1016 is enough to generate an electric force far more powerful than gravity. That isn't surprising when we recall that the fundamental force is 1039 more powerful. In all but the most rigorous contrived apparatus, a 2-5 % charge would probably be impossible, and certainly not necessary for the electric force to dominate. So while plasma is the 4th state of matter, when we talk about plasmas in the real world, we're really talking about very weakly ionized gases. They still have fluid dynamic properties, but those properties are modulated or even dominated by the electric force.