Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies

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: Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies

Unread postby Webbman » Sat Apr 01, 2017 5:03 am

a flux tube looks a lot like an electromagnetic strand to me.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies

Unread postby comingfrom » Sat Apr 01, 2017 4:44 pm

Thank you, Charles.

Well, it would "explain" a lot, but would the full list of expectations of that explanation stand up to laboratory and/or in situ tests? On closer inspection, the expectations are not met.
Since they misassign mass and radius, and treat the photon as either a point particle or wave, they should expect their expectations to not be met.

comingfrom wrote:
Photonic radiation explains why both negative and positive charged particles are in the wind.


Yes, but...
But what?
Unless I am mistaken, but I have read that the solar wind is considered neutral, containing electrons and protons and cations.

Actually, the heavier particles are accelerated in the opposite direction from the lighter particles, so photonic pressure isn't going to work.
Electrons, and protons, and Fe+ are all constituents in the solar wind. All get accelerated away from the Sun.
Quote from Sketch's post...
"We have long wondered why heavier elements in the solar wind move faster and have higher temperatures than the lighter elements," says Kasper. "This is completely counterintuitive."




Hydrogen is accelerated outward, along with the electron strahl coming out of the Sun, while iron is drawn back into the Sun as "coronal rain", sometimes at relativistic velocities.
In the equatorial plane of the solar system is the solar wind, which is radiating outwards from the Sun.
I was referring to, we were talking about, the outward travelling material.

comingfrom wrote:
It explains the temperature.


It actually doesn't explain the temperature increase in the corona.
I wasn't attempting to explain the temperature at the corona, but the temperature of particulate matter in the solar wind, as it travels further from the Sun, which it was discovered continues to be heated (from Skecth's quote above of Adam Szabo of NASA)...
Furthermore, something inside the solar wind continues to add heat even as it blows into the cold of space."


Yes, but monoatomic matter can't absorb infrared radiation.
I thought even electrons have temperature, which means they are recycling infrared photons too.

If photons were capable of accelerating atoms, we should be able to measure this in the laboratory.
How do you suppose we accelerate electrons and protons and atoms in labs?

I suppose that electricity and magnetism is photons.
And we create dense streams of photons to accelerate particles in the laboratory.

We can produce very intense beams of light, at any wavelength.
Yes, they use lasers to accelerate particles too.
And to transfer heat energy.

Even as the Sun does.

To do the kinds of things that are attributed to photonic pressure, such as preventing the gravitational collapse of the Sun, it would definitely be a measurable force.
We are attributing acceleration to atomic and sub atomic particles in the solar wind here.

Even so. Trying to push subatomic particles together requires great force, as you know.

In conclusion, I hate to sound so critical -- ordinarily I'll give any proposal the chance to blossom. But the idea of photonic pressure has been around for almost 100 years now, having first been proposed by Eddington in the 1920s as the only way he could figure out to prevent the gravitational collapse of the Sun. It also fit nicely into Einstein's desire to equate energy with mass. So everybody bought into it, without any laboratory validation. That's OK if you're just trying to float a new hypothesis. But after 100 years, if you can't show the numbers, it's time for somebody to start wondering why. So I think that it's time to apply critical scrutiny to this hypothesis.
As I said, the electro-magnetic field has been known about for a really long time, but they still have a hard time trying to attribute anything to it.

It couldn't be photonic pressure that does all that, because photons, we are told, have no mass. And no radius.
They are point particles. Mathematical probabilities. Waves.
That's the numbers that are believed.

So we have all these unexplained mysterious effects.
And we have an electromagnetic field that can't do much.
Light is too light to do anything?

I've come to believe, that light drives everything.
And that's what makes the universe electric.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Apr 02, 2017 9:23 pm

Sorry for not responding earlier -- I had to take a few days off to improve the accuracy of my Heliosphere paper. ;)

sketch1946 wrote:mmm still can't get the 'heat' out of the thinking?... the mechanism is surely driven by an electric field? But the 'heat' of a moving charged particle is just its kinetic energy, and the driver is the charged walls of the double layer?

The electric field, between the Sun and the heliosphere, is what pulls the electrons out of the Sun, and accelerates them. This kinetic energy is a form of heat. But then there will be collisions between particles, as they spiral around magnetic field lines, and smack into particles spiraling differently, such as in a neighboring dreadlock.

sketch1946 wrote:The Birkeland current/aka flux tube is similar to a plasma gun?

"Plasma gun" could mean a lot of things, and I'm not sure how many of those would classify as Birkeland currents, so I can't say.

sketch1946 wrote:A couple minor points, are you saying all the flux tubes start out all over the surface of the sun, but get bent round and down to end up in a flat sheet, I read 10,000 km somewhere....

Yes, they emanate from all points on the Sun. In the mid-latitudes, they are deflected into the heliospheric current sheet. At the poles, the "flux tubes" don't have that restriction, and they just shoot straight out into space, and at the more rapid pace of 700 km/s, while compressing the mid-latitude "flux tubes" into the HCS results in the slower solar wind, moving at 450 km/s.

sketch1946 wrote:What is the nature of the north/south current sheet fluctuation, is it sinusoidal, or random, regular or irregular, how many fluctuations per solar 'day', ie per 360 degrees axial rotation of the sun?

I think that it takes several days for a noticeable fluctuation to occur.

sketch1946 wrote:Is the fluctuation one of density as well, or is it related to the repulsion of other simultaneous flux tubes?

Probably both are factors.

sketch1946 wrote:What about the protons, do they have an even distribution radially, or are some concentrated at the poles like magnetic field lines?

In my model, the protons are not in the original stream exiting the Sun -- they get picked up along the way. They're everywhere in the interplanetary medium. The actual charge streams are quasi-neutral (i.e., equal quantities of charged particles), but the electrons are traveling faster, which is what makes it an electric current.

Webbman wrote:a flux tube looks a lot like an electromagnetic strand to me.

Yes -- it'a a Birkeland current.

comingfrom wrote:
Charles wrote:Yes, but monoatomic matter can't absorb infrared radiation.

I thought even electrons have temperature, which means they are recycling infrared photons too.

Yes, electrons have temperature, but that doesn't mean that they get it from IR radiation -- at the particulate level, heat is kinetic energy -- particle motion. So anything that can accelerate a particle increases the temperature.

comingfrom wrote:
Charles wrote:If photons were capable of accelerating atoms, we should be able to measure this in the laboratory.

How do you suppose we accelerate electrons and protons and atoms in labs?

We do it with electric fields. Maybe you're using a different definition of "photon", but I'm going with the definition that photons are oscillations in EM fields. This can produce oscillations in particles, but not the linear acceleration that we're talking about here.

comingfrom wrote:I suppose that electricity and magnetism is photons. And we create dense streams of photons to accelerate particles in the laboratory.

OK, so that IS a different definition. No worries. But I'll need for you to identify the conditions in which "dense streams" of photons cause linear accelerations.

comingfrom wrote:Yes, they use lasers to accelerate particles too.

Do you have a reference for this? To be sure, lasers can be used to heat up matter, which can then accelerate itself by the increase in hydrostatic pressure. But that isn't the same as a linear acceleration from a photon with mass imparting momentum into matter.

Because of the differences in definitions, we might be talking past each other here. ;) So if I'm attacking a position that doesn't include you, don't take it personally. ;)
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: 1778
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies

Unread postby Maol » Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:59 am

Charles Chandler, thank you for the tasty food for thought.
Maol
 
Posts: 242
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:40 pm

Re: Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies

Unread postby comingfrom » Tue Apr 04, 2017 5:41 am

Thanks, Charles.

You wrote:
The electric field, between the Sun and the heliosphere, is what pulls the electrons out of the Sun, and accelerates them.
And
but the electrons are traveling faster, which is what makes it an electric current.

My question would be, what makes it an electric field?

It is standard to say a field or current is electric because it contains electrons,
but the explanation is circular for me.
Is it the field that pulls the electrons, or is it the electrons that make it a field?

We do it with electric fields. Maybe you're using a different definition of "photon", but I'm going with the definition that photons are oscillations in EM fields. This can produce oscillations in particles, but not the linear acceleration that we're talking about here.
If E/M fields can only produce occillations, how do we do it with electric fields?

Are you saying there is something else in electric fields besides the EM spectrum (photons)?
Some pullers, perhaps?

Sorry if I sound a little cynical, just trying to understand how you think the electric field works.
From the first thing in the first post is an explanation of what an electric field does, in an over simplified situation.
How there is an attraction between a neutral and a negative.
How it does so seems important for me, since you are using this for a basis for your theorizing.
And the Solar system is not such a simple situation.

I don't think atomic particles have little pluses and minuses inscribed on them,
but this seems to be as much we got for an explanation of "attraction".

Then, when you want electrons to leave the Sun, you say "the electric field pulls them".
But what is this electric field? How does it "pull" electrons?

OK, so that IS a different definition. No worries. But I'll need for you to identify the conditions in which "dense streams" of photons cause linear accelerations.
You said it, "we do it with electric fields".
The Hadron Collider, to identify one accelerator, consumes copious quantities of electricity to accelerate particles.
They manipulate these copious amounts into fields which accelerate the particles.
The denser the field can be made, the faster the particles will accelerate.
A denser field requires more electricity.

So I am agreeing with you.
But what is electricity?
Is it a current/field of pluses and minuses, which tell the electrons which way to go (and some photons for oscillation)?
Is it a stream of pullers pulling electrons (and some photons for oscillation)?
Or are the pullers like skyhooks hanging in the field?

And how come your electron pullers haven't pushed all the protons into the Sun?
The protons are getting pulled ("picked up along the way") by the electrons which are getting pulled by your electric field, and your electric field doesn't act on the protons?

I was going ask why the presence of protons and CAT ions and ENAs that are known to be in the Solar wind, but you explained it.
But now I have to ask, why the electric field doesn't pull(push?) the ambient protons into the Sun?

Also,
we were shown, that larger particles are faster, but you are holding on to the notion that the electrons are faster.

From Sketch's post
"We have long wondered why heavier elements in the solar wind move faster and have higher temperatures than the lighter elements," says Kasper. "This is completely counterintuitive."

But you say,
but the electrons are traveling faster


~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Apr 04, 2017 11:08 pm

Hi Paul. BTW, thanks for the questions -- it takes questions to motivate thinking. ;)

comingfrom wrote:
Charles wrote:The electric field, between the Sun and the heliosphere, is what pulls the electrons out of the Sun, and accelerates them.
Charles wrote:but the electrons are traveling faster, which is what makes it an electric current.

My question would be, what makes it an electric field? It is standard to say a field or current is electric because it contains electrons, but the explanation is circular for me. Is it the field that pulls the electrons, or is it the electrons that make it a field?

There is a pre-existing electric field, between the negatively charged Sun, and the positively charged interplanetary medium. Then the electrons respond to that field, instantiating an electric current.

comingfrom wrote:
Charles wrote:We do it with electric fields. Maybe you're using a different definition of "photon", but I'm going with the definition that photons are oscillations in EM fields. This can produce oscillations in particles, but not the linear acceleration that we're talking about here.

If E/M fields can only produce oscillations, how do we do it with electric fields? Are you saying there is something else in electric fields besides the EM spectrum (photons)? Some pullers, perhaps?

Yes, there can be electrostatic attraction (or repulsion), and then there can be oscillations in that attraction/repulsion. In other words, I think of it like a guitar string, which is stretched tight (i.e., the "pull"), and which can oscillate (i.e., the "waves"). Perhaps a better analogy is sound waves, which are longitudinal, rather than the transverse waves in a guitar string.

comingfrom wrote:But what is this electric field? How does it "pull" electrons?

I don't know. Surely there is a lower level of understanding that I'm totally neglecting, but for me, it's enough to be able to quantify the observable effects, even if I have no intuitive comprehension of action at a distance (if that's what it is).

comingfrom wrote:The Hadron Collider, to identify one accelerator, consumes copious quantities of electricity to accelerate particles. They manipulate these copious amounts into fields which accelerate the particles. The denser the field can be made, the faster the particles will accelerate. A denser field requires more electricity.

I would phrase it like this:
A moving electric charge generates a magnetic field.
In the presence of an external magnetic field, the generated field can yield magnetic repulsion, which can be made to do work, such as accelerating the moving electric charge.
If that external magnetic field was itself generated by an electric current inside electromagnets, it's an electric current generating magnetic fields that push against the magnetic fields of a moving electric charge, which instantiates an electric current in the form of particle acceleration inside the chamber.

comingfrom wrote:But what is electricity?

I'm going with the conventional definition of "electricity", which includes resting electric fields (i.e., electrostatics), perhaps the oscillations within those fields (i.e., photons), the motion of charged particles in response to those fields (i.e., electric currents), and interplays between electric and magnetic forces (i.e., electrodynamics).

comingfrom wrote:And how come your electron pullers haven't pushed all the protons into the Sun?

Good question. The prime mover is solar flares, which eject particles from the surface of the Sun. In my model, the particles in the top layer of the Sun are positively charged. So the coronal mass ejections affect a net loss of +ions that are spewed out into the interplanetary medium, giving it a net positive charge, and leaving the Sun with a net negative charge. This is what generates the resting electric field that pulls the electrons out of the Sun. Still, the same force is being applied to the +ions, hence the question of why that force pulls electrons out of the Sun, instead of pulling +ions back into the Sun. The answer would be momentum. Protons are 1836 times heavier than electrons, and the protons have been accelerated away from the Sun. So it's up to the electrons to stream out of the Sun in pursuit of the protons. So it's like a car that weighs 1836 pounds getting a push that will cause it to roll across a level parking lot. Then there is a 1 pound weight attached by a bungee cord to the bumper. The tensile force in the bungee cord acts on both the car and the 1 pound weight, but the car keeps on going, and the 1 pound weight is pulled in the direction of the car.

So it's an odd sort of electric current. There are both protons and electrons moving away from the Sun, but the electrons are traveling faster than the protons, hence it isn't just the expansion of a quasi-neutral plasma -- there is an identifiable electric current in there, which is why they call it the "heliospheric current sheet". Relative to the Sun, both the protons and electrons are moving away, but relative to themselves, the velocity is different, so that's an electric current. But where does that current go? Normally, an electric current is between two electrodes, but there is no identifiable terminal that is the target of this HCS. Rather, the current simply dissipates. So I'm saying that as the electrons catch up to the protons, the protons get neutralized. At that point, there is no longer any "current", since neutrally charged atoms in motion don't constitute an electric current. Thus all that we're left with is neutrals moving away from the Sun.

comingfrom wrote:Also, we were shown that larger particles are faster, but you are holding on to the notion that the electrons are faster.

First, here's a link to a video of a CME, which shows the behavior of highly ionized iron. Far from following the solar wind out into space, it rains back down to the Sun at an extremely high speed. It follows magnetic field lines, proving that it's charged. Due to its opacity, and the frequency of emission, those are +ions. For +ions to be moving this vigorously toward the Sun proves that the ambient electric field is between a negatively charged Sun and a positively charged interplanetary medium.

http://www.youtube.com/v/HloC4xMg4Z4

Now for the instrumented data. This paper reports that electron temperatures decrease with distance from the Sun, but not as fast as would be expected, given the decompression of the particles during the expansion.

Phillips, J. L. et al. (1995): Ulysses solar wind plasma observations from pole to pole. Geophysical Research Letters, 22 (23): 3301-3304

These papers also show higher electron temperature (i.e., kinetic energy, or speed) than expected, and which is higher for electrons than for protons.

Cranmer, S. R. (2009): Testing and Refining Models of Slow Solar Wind Acceleration. SHINE 2009 Workshop

Frazin, R. A.; Cranmer, S. R.; Kohl, J. L. (2003): Empirically Determined Anisotropic Velocity Distributions and Outflows of O5+ Ions in a Coronal Streamer at Solar Minimum. The Astrophysical Journal, 597 (2): 1145

This paper reports on electron strahl (i.e., particle streams) emanating from the surface of the Sun, with no corresponding proton strahl.

Štverák, Š. et al. (2009): Radial evolution of nonthermal electron populations in the low‐latitude solar wind: Helios, Cluster, and Ulysses Observations. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics (1978–2012), 114 (A5)

This paper reports on a net electron flow away from the Sun:

Ogilvie, K. W.; Hirshberg, J. (1974): The solar cycle variation of the solar wind helium abundance. Journal of Geophysical Research, 79 (31): 4595-4602
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: 1778
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies

Unread postby comingfrom » Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:53 am

Thank you, Charles.

Thank you for your patience.

There is a pre-existing electric field, between the negatively charged Sun, and the positively charged interplanetary medium. Then the electrons respond to that field, instantiating an electric current.
Yes, we know there is an electric field.
But now, not only do atomic particles have pluses and minuses inscribed upon them, but so does the Sun and the interplanetary medium.
And positively charged protons heading to the positive end of the field.

And I still do not how the electrons are moved.

I think you meant to say interstellar medium. Did you?

Yes, there can be electrostatic attraction (or repulsion), and then there can be oscillations in that attraction/repulsion. In other words, I think of it like a guitar string, which is stretched tight (i.e., the "pull"), and which can oscillate (i.e., the "waves"). Perhaps a better analogy is sound waves, which are longitudinal, rather than the transverse waves in a guitar string.
I know this is an analogy,
but I can't imagine the guitar strings of an electric field, nor the medium which carries the waves,
so I cannot think of electric fields like that.

There has to be a real mechanical explanation for the motions we see.
But the only mechanical explanations I can find are not received by mainstream.

Yours is like a mainstream explanation. An analogy which obviously isn't the case, but which is supposed to be what the field is like.

I don't know. Surely there is a lower level of understanding that I'm totally neglecting, but for me, it's enough to be able to quantify the observable effects, even if I have no intuitive comprehension of action at a distance (if that's what it is).
Your theory is based upon this neglected understanding.
You pull "electric field", and "magnetic field", out of your tool bag whenever you need a causality

I would phrase it like this:
A moving electric charge generates a magnetic field.
For a start, they don't always.
Secondly, if we understood what an electric field was, we might understand how they sometimes generate magnetic fields.
And we may also come to know how they "pull" charged particles.

In the presence of an external magnetic field, the generated field can yield magnetic repulsion, which can be made to do work, such as accelerating the moving electric charge.
Repulsion is the key word here.

Because elsewhere, you say it "pulls" electrons.
Electric pulls, and magnetic repels?

If that external magnetic field was itself generated by an electric current inside electromagnets, it's an electric current generating magnetic fields that push against the magnetic fields of a moving electric charge, which instantiates an electric current in the form of particle acceleration inside the chamber.
This is standard knowledge.
What is not known yet, is how.

I'm going with the conventional definition of "electricity", which includes resting electric fields (i.e., electrostatics), perhaps the oscillations within those fields (i.e., photons), the motion of charged particles in response to those fields (i.e., electric currents), and interplays between electric and magnetic forces (i.e., electrodynamics).
This is complex stuff.
And we haven't had a better explanation of how since Maxwell. From the mainstream, that is.

Good question. The prime mover is solar flares, which eject particles from the surface of the Sun. In my model, the particles in the top layer of the Sun are positively charged. So the coronal mass ejections affect a net loss of +ions that are spewed out into the interplanetary medium, giving it a net positive charge, and leaving the Sun with a net negative charge. This is what generates the resting electric field that pulls the electrons out of the Sun.
The positives ejected in CMEs cause the attraction field which pull the electrons out of the Sun.

Q1. How do electrons and negatives ions avoid being ejected in the CMEs?
Q2. Could the attraction of some protons millions of miles away in space be enough to pull the electrons from their homes in the Sun?

Still, the same force is being applied to the +ions, hence the question of why that force pulls electrons out of the Sun, instead of pulling +ions back into the Sun. The answer would be momentum. Protons are 1836 times heavier than electrons, and the protons have been accelerated away from the Sun. So it's up to the electrons to stream out of the Sun in pursuit of the protons. So it's like a car that weighs 1836 pounds getting a push that will cause it to roll across a level parking lot. Then there is a 1 pound weight attached by a bungee cord to the bumper. The tensile force in the bungee cord acts on both the car and the 1 pound weight, but the car keeps on going, and the 1 pound weight is pulled in the direction of the car.
Allow me to remind you again, what that NASA bloke said...
"We have long wondered why heavier elements in the solar wind move faster and have higher temperatures than the lighter elements," says Kasper. "This is completely counterintuitive."


It wouldn't be counterintuitive if the mechanics of electric fields was understood.

So it's an odd sort of electric current. There are both protons and electrons moving away from the Sun, but the electrons are traveling faster than the protons, hence it isn't just the expansion of a quasi-neutral plasma -- there is an identifiable electric current in there, which is why they call it the "heliospheric current sheet". Relative to the Sun, both the protons and electrons are moving away, but relative to themselves, the velocity is different, so that's an electric current.
I would still like to know what is moving the the particulate matter.

Saying it is an odd sort of electric field just allows for fudging.
My guess is it that is no more odd than any other stellar electric field.

But where does that current go? Normally, an electric current is between two electrodes, but there is no identifiable terminal that is the target of this HCS. Rather, the current simply dissipates.
The IBEX and voyager missions discovered it slows down and forms a "swamp" at the heliopause.

But the currents you were speaking of. The Birkeland currents coming from the granules, rather than the HCS, I believe connect directly to the planets.

So I'm saying that as the electrons catch up to the protons, the protons get neutralized. At that point, there is no longer any "current", since neutrally charged atoms in motion don't constitute an electric current. Thus all that we're left with is neutrals moving away from the Sun.
From what I read, they go through stages of ionization and de-ionization on the way.
And the neutral atoms are energetic too.

First, here's a link to a video of a CME, which shows the behavior of highly ionized iron. Far from following the solar wind out into space, it rains back down to the Sun at an extremely high speed. It follows magnetic field lines, proving that it's charged. Due to its opacity, and the frequency of emission, those are +ions. For +ions to be moving this vigorously toward the Sun proves that the ambient electric field is between a negatively charged Sun and a positively charged interplanetary medium.
The link produces and error, not found.
But I think I know what you mean.

To me, flares like that are on the surface, and are subject to, and shaped by, intense local fields.
Particles have to escape beyond the corona before they become subject to the wider electric field of the Sun.
The spheres of the Sun, the photosphere, chromosphere, and corona, etc, all have double layers, which the wind's particles must break through before they can join the wind.

Now for the instrumented data. This paper reports that electron temperatures decrease with distance from the Sun, but not as fast as would be expected, given the decompression of the particles during the expansion.
Then I wonder why Kasper said bigger particles accelerate faster, and heat more,
which implies all particles are gaining energy two ways.

These papers also show higher electron temperature (i.e., kinetic energy, or speed) than expected, and which is higher for electrons than for protons.
That NASA bloke, which Sketch and I keep quoting, must have lied.

This paper reports on a net electron flow away from the Sun:
I read a linked paper here recently which reported electron inflows.

I'll see if I can find it.
Don't think this was it, but this came up when I searched.

N. R. Sheeley, Jr., T. N. Knudson,1 and Y.-M. Wang:CORONAL INFLOWS AND THE SUN’S NONAXISYMMETRIC OPEN FLUX
E. O. Hulburt Center for Space Research, US Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375-5352
Received 2000 October 2; accepted 2000 October 26; published 2001 January 11

And this.

ESA website:
SOHO'S LATEST SURPRISE: GAS NEAR THE SUN HEADING THE WRONG WAY
20 November 2001

~~`
If the Sun is emitting electrons (or the electrons are being pulled out), then, given time, the Sun would become positively charged, and electrons would be attracted back in.

In my model Birkeland currents are bidirectional (in concentric circles).
But the Solar wind is a one direction sheet current (heading outwards from the Sun).
And currents (the particles, whether they be electrons or protons) are driven by the photons in the field.
The photons radiated by the Sun are literally pushing the electrons, protons and atoms.
There is no attractive force except for gravity, which has little effect on sub atomic sized particles,
but being so small, they are easily accelerated by photon bombardment.

Most of the photons in the field are infrared, which is heat.
This explains both why the particles are being accelerated, and why they are being heated, on their journey away from the Sun.

My model also maintains a stable constant charge.
Incoming currents replenish the Sun and keep it charged and shining.

~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:24 am

comingfrom wrote:And positively charged protons heading to the positive end of the field.

No, I'm saying that electrons are pulled out of the Sun by their attraction to the positively charged interplanetary medium.

comingfrom wrote:I think you meant to say interstellar medium. Did you?

No, I don't see any significant electrical interaction between the heliosphere and anything outside of it.

comingfrom wrote:
A moving electric charge generates a magnetic field.

For a start, they don't always.

When do they not?

comingfrom wrote:Repulsion is the key word here. Because elsewhere, you say it "pulls" electrons. Electric pulls, and magnetic repels?

No, both the electric and the magnetic forces can be attractive or repulsive.

comingfrom wrote:Q1. How do electrons and negatives ions avoid being ejected in the CMEs?

In my model, the particles in the top layer of the Sun are positively charged. So the coronal mass ejections affect a net loss of +ions that are spewed out into the interplanetary medium, giving it a net positive charge, and leaving the Sun with a net negative charge.

comingfrom wrote:Q2. Could the attraction of some protons millions of miles away in space be enough to pull the electrons from their homes in the Sun?

If the electric field is strong enough. Note also that there is a repulsion between the negative charges inside the Sun, once it becomes net negative. So the electrons are pushed outward by other electrons inside the Sun, and pulled outward by the +ions in the interplanetary medium.

comingfrom wrote:Allow me to remind you again, what that NASA bloke said...
"We have long wondered why heavier elements in the solar wind move faster and have higher temperatures than the lighter elements," says Kasper. "This is completely counterintuitive."

Yes, and the previous sentence in that quote goes like this:
The solar wind, however, is much stranger. Chemical elements of the solar wind such as hydrogen, helium, and heavier ions, blow at different speeds; they have different temperatures; and, strangest of all, the temperatures change with direction.

Now, which temperatures go in which direction? This information seems to be hard to find, but the stuff I found says that the electrons are accelerated outward more than the +ions.

comingfrom wrote:The link produces and error, not found.

Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJN0hWMrugE

comingfrom wrote:CORONAL INFLOWS AND THE SUN’S NONAXISYMMETRIC OPEN FLUX

That paper talks about a neutrally charged gas cloud falling back into the Sun. I take this as part of the evidence that there is no net mass loss in the Sun.

comingfrom wrote:If the Sun is emitting electrons (or the electrons are being pulled out), then, given time, the Sun would become positively charged, and electrons would be attracted back in.

The electron emission neutralizes the Sun. CMEs eject +ions, leaving the Sun with a net negative charge.

comingfrom wrote:There is no attractive force except for gravity, which has little effect on sub atomic sized particles, but being so small, they are easily accelerated by photon bombardment.

Sorry, but I can't visualize gravity. :mrgreen:
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: 1778
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:36 pm

Thank you, Charles.

No, I'm saying that electrons are pulled out of the Sun by their attraction to the positively charged interplanetary medium.

No, I don't see any significant electrical interaction between the heliosphere and anything outside of it.
I think of the heliosphere as being the endpoint of the interplanetary field.
Which makes the apparent attraction between the Sun and the ISM.
At least, for the solar wind particles.

When do they not?
When the numbers of clockwise spins roughly equal the counterclockwise spins, then there is no orthogonal component to the field.

Venus' electric field, for an example, has virtually no magnetic field.

No, both the electric and the magnetic forces can be attractive or repulsive.
I should have seen that answer coming.

In my model, the particles in the top layer of the Sun are positively charged. So the coronal mass ejections affect a net loss of +ions that are spewed out into the interplanetary medium, giving it a net positive charge, and leaving the Sun with a net negative charge.
Attributing electrical activity to pluses and minuses doesn't do it for me.
That's where I have a problem.
Pluses and minuses are symbols, they aren't an explanation of how attraction and repulsion occur.

I see bidirectional currents connecting to the spheres. When the charge builds up in one sphere, it discharges to the next sphere (currents occuring between the spheres).
Not unlike the Earth's ionosphere discharges into the lower atmosphere, where rain and lightning eventually earths the charge.

If the electric field is strong enough.
This is where I get confused.
Is it the protons or the field?

Does "is strong enough" mean "has enough protons"?
Electrons are being pulled into the field, and the field has to maintain it's positivity to keep doing this.

Note also that there is a repulsion between the negative charges inside the Sun, once it becomes net negative.
I believe the activity we see on the Sun is more complex than this.
And again, negative signs are just a man made symbol, and doesn't explain how even two single electrons repel each other.

Does charge have negative and positive photons?
Little pushers and little pullers, maybe.
To give us negative charges and positive charges.

So the electrons are pushed outward by other electrons inside the Sun, and pulled outward by the +ions in the interplanetary medium.
In one sentence you have charges, in the next sentence your electrons and ion are pushing and pulling each other.
So charges are the sum of negatives and positives, any imbalance being a charge, either negative or positive, depending on ratio of electrons to protons and +ions.

Now there are too many electrons on the Sun, so they are busy chucking overboard as many members of their own species as fast as they can, helped of course by the welcoming arms of many free protons waiting millions of miles away.

Now, which temperatures go in which direction? This information seems to be hard to find, but the stuff I found says that the electrons are accelerated outward more than the +ions.
The way the space agencies report the data doesn't help.


Nice one.

Here are a couple of short compilation vids of spectacular flares.
Surface of the Sun as You've Never Seen it
Hypnotic Solar Explosions 4K

That paper talks about a neutrally charged gas cloud falling back into the Sun. I take this as part of the evidence that there is no net mass loss in the Sun.
Intergalactic currents connect to the heliosphere, charging it.
Interplanetary currents connect the outer heliospere to the coronasphere, charging it.
Intersphere currents take the charge to surface of the Sun.

When a region on the surface gets overcharged by one of these incoming currents, a flare occurs, and arcing.
The overcharged region is discharging to a region of less charge.

There is no negative and positive charges.
Charges are simply relative to one another, and separated by double layers.
When the static charge becomes too great in one region for the double layer to contain it, a discharge occurs.

The electron emission neutralizes the Sun. CMEs eject +ions, leaving the Sun with a net negative charge.
The Sun is huge repository of charge.
The charge is what makes it shine.
Charge is energy.
It isn't negative energy.
The Sun has such a net positive amount of charge, it in turn charges all the bodies in the solar system.
The Sun's charge comes in on galactic currents.

Sorry, but I can't visualize gravity. :mrgreen:
Mathematically the vectors can be reversed (Einstein's Equivalence Principal), as if all matter is expanding.
But when I try to visualize gravity, it appears to be an outcome of rotational motion.

I also have possible different E/M solutions, for gravity on the surface of a body, and for orbital mechanics.
But I am unable to prove or disprove them to me.
If we're stuck to the surface by electrostatic charge, and the charge fields maintain celestial rotation and orbits, then there is no gravity.
Seems possible to me.

~
I'm still new to all this, and I look up to you.
Excuse me for critically challenging you, but I do it for the discussion, to learn.

Mainstream tells us we cannot use the macro world as an analogy for the quantum world.
Though similar in some ways, atoms are not like solar systems.
Electron orbits are diffuse probabilities.
All the protons and neutrons occupy a single space at the nucleus.
The model of the atom is nonsense, and we are taught that is because nature is nonsense at the quantum level.
I simply can't believe their models.
Quantum physicists interpreting the data using misconceived theories, and coming out with nonsense.

I want to give physical properties (mass and radius, not pullers and pushers) back to charge, and atoms, and stop attributing attraction and repulsion to plus and minus symbols. It's not my idea, but once I tried it, I haven't been able to go back.

There are going to be differences, when comparing atoms to solar systems to galaxies.
Size matters to mechanics.
But I believe the same basic laws of motion apply.
Photons are tiny bodies flying around at the speed of light.
Many millions or billions of times bigger are electrons and protons and the atomic level.
Up to the macro levels as we know them.

Photons are very very very very (x10 more very) small compared to steller and planetary bodies, but there are lots of them, and they keep bombarding for millions of years, and are the foundational 'cosmic energy' which drives all rotation.
And at the atomic level they also accelerate atomic particles to high speeds.
At the planetary to galactic size they maintain the rotations.

I'm going with your idea, but I've dropped 'positive' and 'negative' and going with a physical explanation.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:43 am

comingfrom wrote:Attributing electrical activity to pluses and minuses doesn't do it for me.
That's where I have a problem.
Pluses and minuses are symbols, they aren't an explanation of how attraction and repulsion occur.
[...]
And again, negative signs are just a man made symbol, and doesn't explain how even two single electrons repel each other.
[...]
There is no negative and positive charges.
Charges are simply relative to one another, and separated by double layers.
When the static charge becomes too great in one region for the double layer to contain it, a discharge occurs.
[...]
I'm going with your idea, but I've dropped 'positive' and 'negative' and going with a physical explanation.

I can't "explain" positive & negative charges either, but I'm not sure that I fully understand a model that has only one charge, and nothing but repulsion as an electric force. If that were the case, I'd expect all of those charges to have repelled each other, resulting in a perfect distribution of them throughout the Universe, and no net electric force anywhere, nor any electric currents for that matter.

comingfrom wrote:Photons are tiny bodies flying around at the speed of light.
Many millions or billions of times bigger are electrons and protons and the atomic level.
Up to the macro levels as we know them.

I have never seen any convincing evidence of photons having mass. IMO, this was an attempt to validate Einstein that never panned out.

Interesting ideas though. ;)
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: 1778
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Aug 04, 2017 3:28 pm

Thank you, Charles.

I can't "explain" positive & negative charges either, but I'm not sure that I fully understand a model that has only one charge, and nothing but repulsion as an electric force. If that were the case, I'd expect all of those charges to have repelled each other, resulting in a perfect distribution of them throughout the Universe, and no net electric force anywhere, nor any electric currents for that matter.
It's not that hard to picture.
All [baryonic] matter is recycling photons. Photons enter in at the poles and go out the equator, just as with the celestial bodies.
Electrons being much smaller (1,800th) than protons, and having much smaller photon fields, tend to get drawn towards protons by their much larger fields.

I have never seen any convincing evidence of photons having mass. IMO, this was an attempt to validate Einstein that never panned out.
It is said photons have no mass or radius, but they do have energy.
When photons transfer energy, we call it heat, or light, or electricity.

But energy is mass equivalence. This is also said (in E=mc2)
That photons can impinge on my retina is pretty convincing evidence for me.
And that we can convert sunlight to electricity in solar panels.

There would be no energy when sunlight (for an example) impacts, if it had no mass.
Basic Newtonian physics, I thought.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies

Unread postby Webbman » Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:20 pm

exactly. m cannot be zero. ever.

either the equation is junk or everything must have mass. Cant have it both ways.
The secret to the universe is a rubber band.
Webbman
 
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Aug 04, 2017 5:27 pm

comingfrom wrote:There would be no energy when sunlight (for an example) impacts, if it had no mass.
Basic Newtonian physics, I thought.

In Newtonian physics, mass & energy are distinct. When waves travel across the surface of water, and then do work on the shoreline, converting solid rock to sand, that isn't the transfer of mass -- it's the transfer of energy. Of course, the energy acts on mass, and that which pounds on the shoreline has mass (i.e., the water). But that doesn't mean that energy & mass are the same.
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: 1778
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies

Unread postby johnm33 » Sun Aug 06, 2017 10:23 am

Charles. Something 'coming from' almost said, is how at every step there's an orthogonal translation of energy, in at the pole out near the equator, have you addressed that anywhere in your work?
johnm33
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 4:43 am

Re: Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Aug 06, 2017 1:14 pm

johnm33 wrote:Charles. Something 'coming from' almost said, is how at every step there's an orthogonal translation of energy, in at the pole out near the equator, have you addressed that anywhere in your work?

I give a detailed description of how energy output from the Sun is directed into the planar heliospheric sheet, and why this energy is split into polar entry points to the Earth, such as in this image:

Image

You just have to look at the interaction between the electric & magnetic fields.
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: 1778
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 2 guests