Thank you, Charles.
I don't know what "causes" electric charges, nor do I know why the electric force can be repulsive for like charges, and attractive for opposite charges. It's good enough for me that these can be measured accurately in the laboratory, and that the measurements can be corroborated.
The densities of the plasma on the Sun are not so easy to corroborate.
But one thing I thought was plain, plasmas are way less dense than solids and liquids, let alone atoms pressed side by side.
For example, protons have charge and mass. So if you add a certain number of protons to a mix, it should add that much mass, and that much charge. And the numbers line up reliably. So I'm satisfied that masses, charges, & fields between them are real.
You hope the math stacks up as they say.
Personally, I can't see how an electron on the Sun can be attracted by protons in the interplanetary medium.
For one, the same standard model tells us the interplanetary medium sums to neutral.
In time, our understanding what's going on at the sub-atomic level might change. But that won't change my work.
It will be a much longer time before we can confirm what is going on in the body of the Sun, so your work is safe for a long time.
Not as long as someone who worked on Black Holes, mind you.
Worst case scenario would be that some of the terminology might change. But the macroscopic behaviors of those sub-atomic assemblies will still be the same.
We all have great hope for our theories.
For example, in Isaac Newton's day, fluids were thought to be continuous substances, and all of the formulas of fluid dynamics, from that day to this, take that for granted. And yet we now know that matter is granular, where macroscopic level properties such as hydrostatic pressure and viscosity are the consequence of a large number of individual collisions between grains of matter. Still, the formulas of fluid dynamics continue working. In fact, you can prove that averaging the effects of that many individual events will produce quite precisely those aggregate behaviors. And it just happens to be a whole lot easier to use fluid dynamics formulas, rather than counting atoms and estimating their speeds.
So this is how it's done.
I know. But if they have any underlying incorrect assumptions or conclusions, because you adopted it without question (and for a whole new environment, I might add), you will have also adopted their errors.
Likewise, maybe electric fields are the consequence of some sort of particle exchange, rather than action at a distance between pluses & minuses. But a change in the substrate isn't going to change my work -- electric charges & fields will still behave the same way.
You won't change your model until you become convinced of inflows, and interstellar currents. Is what I see.
I applaud the theoretical work being done these days on the substrate, because IMO, our understanding is paper-thin. I favor Bill Lucas' atomic model, but there are others out there that solve problems that the mainstream model doesn't touch. So I'll leave that stuff up to them.
Still, there is plenty of work to be done at the macroscopic level, and as long as it's based on laboratory science, it's still valid. So that's what I'm doing.
I applaud you too. Just because I disagree, don't suppose I am not impressed. Your work is thorough, very thought provoking, and well presented. I very enjoyed reading your papers.
If the current is coming from outside of the Sun, wouldn't we see the discharge in the chromosphere before the CME?
Charge is invisible. But observations of inflows are seen, when the currents drag some of the plasma down with it. I linked inflow papers for you. Did you not read them?
In my present model, each spherical layer discharges to the layer below.
Each layer has double layers separating them. I abide by Alfven's definitions of double layers, where the DLs are between regions of like charge keeping them seperated. Not the layers of like charge being the layers. Your Sun hasn't got double layers, but is more like a Sara Lee cheesecake, that is, "layer upon layer".
(Maybe you don't get that Ad.)
In Alfven's model, as I understand it, and maybe I'm wrong, a double layer is two layers of electric field between regions of like charge.
Just beware that there will always be a finer granularity. You're already talking about stuff too small to see with the naked eye, and you want even finer granularity before you'll call it mechanical?
Atoms are smaller than microscopes can see too, yet we theorize about them. And we do have knowledge and theories about the photonic, or electomagnetic, scale too. We measure their wavelengths, frequencies and energies.
I do believe photons are recycling too, but we can sum that in with the photons, when we are studying how photons effect us, or our experiments.
You can go the next step, in proposing the existence of even finer particles that are responsible for charges & fields.
Like I said, I believe there are orders of magnitudes below the electromagnetic spectrum. But I also believe we (science) aught to focus on learning what is happening at the E/M level first.
But if that gets accepted, the next generation will call it non-mechanical, because it was never explained where those particles came from.
Now you are just waffling some excuses to justify yourself. As if we explained where macro particles came from.
And do you have a mechanical explanation for how photons came into existence?
They were smaller energy particles before they got spun up into photons. Or they were fermions before they got spun down into photons.