Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby jacmac » Thu May 25, 2017 8:37 am

This is not directly related to the above discussion of possible solar circuits, but I thought it might be useful.

All the data from space probes have been collected within the general area of the ecliptic(orbit of the earth), and/or the solar equatorial plane, with one exception, Ulysses.
The maximum latitude of Ulysses has been 80.2 degrees from the solar equator.
I was wondering just how close to directly above the solar poles was Ulysses ?
The
spacecraft reached its most southerly point, 80.2 degrees
south of the solar equator, on 13 September 1994, at a
distance of 2.3 AU from the Sun.

The data comes from:
https://pds.nasa.gov/ds-view/pds/viewMi ... ME=ULYSSES

Doing some simple trigonometry:
THE CLOSEST ULYSSES COMES TO BEING DIRECTLY ABOVE THE SOUTHERN POLE IS 70 MILLION MILES.
(no distance is given for the north pole pass, but no doubt similar)

Our data regarding the heliospheric environment is quite limited, by geographic location. IMO

Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Solar » Sun May 28, 2017 5:52 am

Robertus Maximus wrote:
The researchers have just described the model I have proposed in this thread. A rotating Birkeland current in the nearby interstellar medium (nonintermittent) generates ‘vortex filaments’ i.e. Birkeland currents focussed toward the Sun, these currents are filamentary, and their number gives the impression of a sheet (multifractal) which evolves (solar cycle).

From our perspective in the inner heliosphere such rotation of current in the Heliotube may have gone previously unnoticed, could non-radial flows in the solar wind be actually due to the motion of plasma coiling around the Heliotube?


Sharing, and coalescing, these gleaned snippets :

Abstract
The first encounter between the sun and the surrounding interstellar cloud appears to have occurred 2000 to 8000 years ago. The sun and cloud space motions are nearly perpendicular, an indication that the sun is skimming the cloud surface. The electron density derived for the surrounding cloud from the carbon component of the anomalous cosmic ray population in the solar system and from the interstellar ratio of Mg(+) to Mg degrees toward Sirius support an equilibrium model for cloud ionization (an electron density of 0.22 to 0.44 per cubic centimeter). The upwind magnetic field direction is nearly parallel to the cloud surface. The relative sun-cloud motion indicates that the solar system has a bow shock. – P. Firsch: Morphology and ionization of the interstellar cloud surrounding the solar system. 1994


-The Oct 15, 2009 Science News article displays a cropped graphic credited as being from a “REUTERS/Science/AAAS/Handout” (Source-1)

-The whole uncropped Image with section ‘C’ portraying a portion of the magnetic field of the LISM "cloud" in red as it intersects the nose of the heliosphere was found on Google.. (Source-2)

The often commented on remarkable circularity of the IBEX Ribbon *is* the Sun and its heliosphere "skimming" and/or "embedded in" the 'surface' of a "cloud". The "cloud" seems to be the "S1 Shell" which is an arched 'wall' propagating from stellar activity in the ScoCen association. I cannot find out which docs those images are complied from. The image credit simply says that it was (part of?) a handout. It is the best graphical example of what induces the Ribbon that I've seen.

These earliest data showed that the Sun is embedded in a low density partially ionized interstellar cloud, the Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC)…
(…)
Wolleben (2007) has separated Loop I into two spherical shells; the Sun is located in the rim of the S1 component (gray arc in figure 1) that is centered 78±10 pc away at galactic coordinates … - Large-scale Interstellar Structure and the Heliosphere P. C. Frisch, and N. A. Schwadron[/url]

A magnetic filament was identified in these polarization data through the linear rotation of their polarization position angles with distance (Paper III). The filament forms a band over 100° long and wide in the sky, and extends to within 10 pc of the Sun. Paper III discusses a possible association of this filament with the Loop I superbubble. Evidence that this magnetic filament may be associated with the heliosphere is the topic of this paper.
(…)
We propose that the filament is formed in the outer heliosheath, where the ISMF and interstellar plasma are deflected around the heliosphere. – EVIDENCE FOR AN INTERSTELLAR DUST FILAMENT IN THE OUTER HELIOSHEATH: P. C. Frisch, B-G Andersson, A. Berdyugin, V. Piirola, H. O. Funsten, A. M. Magalhaes, D. B. Seriacopi, D. J. McComas, N. A. Schwadron, J. D. Slavin, and S. J. Wiktorowicz

In the following top-down view the Sun is graphically portrayed as being situated in the ”rim” of the S1 shell:

The Scorpius-Centaurus Shells are not filaments:(Source 3). They denote episodes of increased activity (ionization epochs) from the Sco-Cen association. However, any image of the "expanding shell" of a supernova could be used for comparison to show that filamentation may reside *within* the "wall" of an expanding shell as well as affecting the 'surface ' of said "wall".

There is a lot of work going on trying to determine which filaments (aka "clouds") may be interacting with the Heliosphere. The problem is that there are quite a lot of filaments and "bubbles" in the surrounding neighborhood. One cannot have all of these charged magnetized features perpendicularly “cutting” through (and across) one another without these relative motions serving as a ‘moving magnetic field’ and “conductor” relationships.

Basically, the IBEX Ribbon appears to be the result of the nose of the Heliosphere "skimming" the S1 Shell. It is nearly impossible to orient all of these "clouds". Before trying to reconcile individual approaches why not assess what may be occurring with information? Some of the testing does seem to coincide; some of it does not.

Concerning "Clouds"


5. CONFINEMENT OF H i IN AN INTERSTELLAR FILAMENT
The goal of this work is to determine what controls the stability of the filament and the clouds. For many decades, hydrodynamics has been invoked to describe the physics of interstellar structures. But that is to ignore the presence of magnetic fields, and by implication electric currents. Instead, it is suggested there that magnetohydrodynamics, specifically plasma physical concepts, deserve to be considered. A similar evolution of ideas long ago occurred in the study of the physics of the solar corona, which requires that the role of magnetic fields be taken into account to explain filamentary phenomena.

If gas is flowing along magnetic field lines (inside flux tubes), it is not unreasonable to allow for the presence of an electric current because the motion of electrons and neutrals are coupled. Such a current will produce a toroidal magnetic field that will act to stabilize the material in the filament against internal pressure. This hypothesis was first suggested by Bennett (1934) and the effect is known as the Bennett pinch (or Z-pinch). – HIGH-RESOLUTION OBSERVATIONS AND THE PHYSICS OF HIGH-VELOCITY CLOUD A0: Gerrit L. Verschuur


With all of that in mind, obviously more exist, it appears that the nose of the heliosphere is situated in an "shell wall" with relative motion of two different magnetic field orientations at angles perpendicular to one another.The "right-hand rule" should then follow; but how....
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Solar » Sun May 28, 2017 7:09 am

To further:

Concerning "Rotation"

Reference #19 in Robert's first post for this thread cites "8)Discovery that the very local interstellar medium is rotating ahead of the heliosphere."

It appears that expectations concerning the magnetic field just outside of the heliosphere were dashed because "there was no significant rotation in the direction of the magnetic field across the HP.." - M. Opher

How then might the Sun and it's heliosphere interact with this "wall" as the two relative motions of their magnetic fields propagate at some angle perpendicular to one another with the "right-hand rule" in mind - if that is applicable?

Based on the difference between the orientation of the interstellar and the solar magnetic fields, there was an expectation by the community that the magnetic field direction will rotate dramatically across the heliopause (HP). Recently, the Voyager team concluded that Voyager 1 (V1) crossed into interstellar space last year. The question is then why there was no significant rotation in the direction of the magnetic field across the HP. Here we present simulations that reveal that strong rotations in the direction of the magnetic field at the HP at the location of V1 (and Voyager 2) are not expected. The solar magnetic field strongly affects the draping of the interstellar magnetic field (BISM) around the HP. BISM twists as it approaches the HP and acquires a strong T component (East-West). The strong increase in the T component occurs where the interstellar flow stagnates in front of the HP. At this same location the N component BN is significantly reduced. Above and below, the neighboring BISM lines also twist into the T direction. This behavior occurs for a wide range of orientations of BISM. The angle delta = a sin(BN /B) is small (around 10(°) -20(°) ), as seen in the observations. Only after some significant distance outside the HP is the direction of the interstellar field distinguishably different from that of the Parker spiral. In the twist region (after the HP) there is a fast variation of the angle delta/AU and then a slower one farther away as seen in the observations (Burlaga & Ness 2014). We will discuss, as well in this talk, the mechanism responsible for the twist. The same twist is seen ahead of the magnetopause, where the field in the magnetosheath (equivalent to BISM) (in cases where reconnection is small) rotates toward the direction of the magnetospheric magnetic field (equivalent to the HS magnetic field) well upstream of the magnetopause (Phan et al. 1994). The IBEX ribbon, the band of increased intensity of energetic neutral atoms at 1 keV in the outer heliosphere, was originally believed to be aligned with the BISM · r = 0 just outside the HP. These results indicate that the draping of BISM is strongly influenced by the solar magnetic field. Only beyond ≈10 AU outside the HP is the centroid of the band of BISM · r = 0 is aligned with the original BISM direction. - On the Rotation the Interstellar Magnetic Field Ahead of the Heliopause M. Opher et al


Two different motions of magnetized 'structures' moving against one another. And

Recently we proposed (Opher et al. 2015) that the structure of the heliosphere might be very different than we previously thought. The classic accepted view of the heliosphere is a quiescent, comet-like shape aligned in the direction of the Sun's travel through the interstellar medium (ISM) extending for thousands of astronomical units. We have shown, based on magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations, that the tension force of the twisted magnetic field of the Sun confines the solar wind plasma beyond the termination shock and drives jets to the north and south very much like astrophysical jets. These heliospheric jets are deflected into the tail region by the motion of the Sun through the ISM. As in some astrophysical jets the interstellar wind blows the two jets into the tail but is not strong enough to force the lobes into a single comet-like tail. Instead, the interstellar wind flows around the heliosphere and into the equatorial region between the two jets. We show that the heliospheric jets are turbulent (due to large-scale MHD instabilities and reconnection) and strongly mix the solar wind with the ISM. The resulting turbulence has important implications for particle acceleration in the heliosphere. The two-lobe structure is consistent with the energetic neutral atom (ENA) images of the heliotail from IBEX where two lobes are visible in the north and south and the suggestion from the Cassini ENAs that the heliosphere is "tailless." The new structure of the heliosphere is supported by recent analytic work (Drake et al. 2015) that shows that even in high β heliosheath the magnetic field plays a crucial role in funneling the solar wind in two jets. Here we present these recent results and show that the heliospheric jets mediate the draping of the magnetic field and the conditions ahead of the heliopause. We show that reconnection between the interstellar and solar magnetic field both at the flanks of the jets and in between them twist the interstellar magnetic field in a small layer ahead of the HP in agreement with Voyager 1 observations (as seen in Opher & Drake 2013). We present results of the heliospheric jets for a weaker magnetic field, representative of the 2010-2012 period and what is expected to be seen in the ENA maps with solar cycle. - Magnetized Jets Driven by the Sun, the Structure of the Heliosphere Revisited: Consequences for Draping of BISM ahead of the HP and Time Variability of ENAs


The Heliosphere apparently "twist" the magnetic field of the ISM towards the equatorial region "between the two jets." This is a reorientation of the currents such that the secondary signature of "bright spots" (or red indicating intensity) are filaments such as shown with the oft overlooked "Knot in the ribbon at the edge of the solar system 'unties'": Science Daily

What basic electric principle allowed the Electric Universe to claim that “The discovery fits the electric model of stars perfectly”?

“The discovery fits the electrical model of stars perfectly.
(…)
… these cylindrical sheaths of current close down on the star and come in at the equator and this is precisely what’s happening at the Sun.
(…)
These electric currents as they flow in; they come in as filaments – in a ring - and where the material from the Sun, which flows out in the equatorial plane of the Sun, and meets those galactic currents, it acts like search lights punching into a thin cloud. So what we see are the spots where the search lights go through the cloud. In this case the electric currents punch through the Sun’s plasma sheath; the solar wind if you like.” – Wall Thornhill at 2:20-3:08: IBEX—Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun | Space News


This part: "these cylindrical sheaths of current close down on the star and come in at the equator" I see differently although I think its complementary. When looking at an image of the butterfly configuration it is also the tenuous plasma environment that you DON"T see surrounding the butterfly configuration in the form of filamentary "clouds" that is closing "down on the star and come in at the equator." - whereas W. Thornhill seems to refer more so to the 'tubular jets', now assessed as being "bent", which have their electrodynamic intersection in the form of the 'polar rings' such as with the Aurora.

Where is this "ring"? It is the 'cusp', or equatorial 'neck' of the butterfly nebula configuration for the Sun even though its jets are "bent". I simplify all of this just by assessing the relationship in terms of The Sun having a heliospheric-ally induced 'stellar ring current'. These docs show that this is possible by comparatively scaling the configuration as seen with the ring current of Saturn. It is speculatively unknown at this time why the ring current of Saturn rotates with that planet whereas it does not (i think) rotate with Earth. It will be interesting to see over the coming years as to whether or not the "Space Weather" concept will eventually extend to include correlations with delays for 'Galactic Weather' as might be indicated by the activity of the IBEX Ribbon.

The Interface

In short: The Sun is "skimming" along the 'wall' of a magnetized "cloud' and 'curling', or "twist"-ing, the magnetic field of said cloud into filaments of electric currents. The dynamic 'generates' electric currents that come in at the 'equatorial neck' of the "bent jets" of the buttery configuration. As is par for the course it is plainly visible that as those electric currents become reconfigured "magnetic reconnection" will instead be invoked as the premiere dynamic here.

It also means that there is currently a different configuration than two Birkeland currents and Z-Pinch but there are LOTS of filaments just outside the Sun's door. Tons of them. Humanity is so tiny with its probes that for right now image 'C' in (this graphic) reveals a portion of the Sun's electrodynamic interface detected as The IBEX Ribbon.

Right or wrong; those are my speculations thus far. Interested readers are invited to shred them.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Solar » Sun May 28, 2017 3:43 pm

Do excuse me unloading some of these thoughts here. Hopefully Robert Maximus might find at least one pixel useful in his quest.

One of the things that is important is to get a handle on these “clouds”. Obviously these features are as much a "cloud" as the Sun’s electric discharge is a “wind”. Similarly, if the magnetic field of the Sun can “twist” and re-orientate the magnetic field of the LISM then the “draping” colloquialism also obscures the electrodynamic interactions.

LIC: The Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC) is a MUCH larger “cloud” surrounding the Sun.

G-Cloud: The G-Cloud is a MUCH larger filamentary “cloud” with its own unique constitution and magnetic field orientation.

S1 Shell: an expanding front of previous ionization episodes from the Scorpius-Centaurus Association with its own unique magnetic field orientation.

The nearest clouds are the Local Cloud and the G Cloud. On the right, the new results from IBEX solved a discrepancy and are a perfect match with the Local Cloud measurements made by looking at nearby stars. Now we know that the Sun is surrounded by the Local Cloud, while being very close to its edge. – IBEX: New Observations of Interstellar Matter - Briefing Materials See Visuals #4, #13, #14, #16 near the very bottom of page


None of NASA’s visuals incorporate the expanding S1 Shell of the Scorpius-Centaurus association from the work of P. Firsch. They only portray the LIC and the G-Cloud:

Image


The assessments I’ve read thus far view the Sun as simply moving through these features over the course of thousands of years as they likewise move past the Sun at their respective speeds. Nothing I’ve read characterizes the Sun as being permanently “pinched” between The LIC and G-Cloud. It would be an assertion to posit that the LIC and G-Cloud are permanently affixed with the Sun as it moves. What could demonstrate this? From my vantage point youthful stars (blue) may lay directly along the filaments of their birth but older stars don’t necessarily have to. Older stars might possibly “twist” the less intense magnetic fields of any number of the tenuous relatively local clouds of their immediate environment unto their bidding and thereby ‘generate’ electric currents on the spot as they go. In such a case it might appear that a star is 'wandering' off the main filament channel.

Nonetheless, as discussed in the G-Cloud thread the Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC), the S1 Shell, and the G-Cloud (plus any small sub-filamentary “cloudlets” thereof) *seem* to be the only dual/singular rotating Birkeland Current-type comparisons available. The IBEX Ribbon looks to be the result of the Sun and heliosphere with ‘it’s bent jets’ gracefully “skimming” one of those features. Only time will tell.
______

Since I enjoy speculating about all of this (sometimes) I’m going to unabashedly share the craziest idea I've had about this circular Ribbon. The butterfly configuration for the Sun is considered to be ‘distorted’ into bent jets, and considering the rotating emissions of M29, I couldn't help but wonder: Where would the Sun’s version of circular “Precessing Jets” go under these circumstances? If they existed, could the ‘distortion’ of the normally symmetric butterfly configuration have somehow tilted, or bent, them in a forward direction so that one of them is scribing a circular ribbon on the sky?

Haha… yes; I went there.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Wed May 31, 2017 10:27 am

Solar,

Opher and her team now agree with the conclusion of Dialynas et al.: “You can’t really argue with the new result,” says Merav Opher of Boston University, who was not involved in the study. “The data so loudly say that there is no tail.” (See: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/no-long-twisted-tail-trails-solar-system)

The idea of a heliospheric tail(s) must be abandoned in light of this evidence; that said abandoning a worldview after over five decades of acceptance is going to be difficult as we can see from this paragraph:

While the observational evidence now favors a spherical shape for the heliosphere, recent simulations suggest something more exotic. The bubble might actually be shaped like a croissant, Opher says. The simulations, which incorporate data from Voyager 1, show that the interaction of the magnetic fields from the sun and interstellar space squish the solar wind into two jets — what might be observed as two short tails. These jets haven’t been detected yet. But if they are, she says, they could give clues to other sets of jets seen in the universe such as those shooting from young stars or possibly even black holes.’ (my emphasis)

I can understand where the confusion arises, both teams are looking at the same data yet Opher and her team are reluctant to let go of the heliotail- why?

In an earlier post I wrote: “I would predict that future papers will mention that despite being spherical the heliosphere will be found to be ‘connected’ somehow to the LISM this ‘connection’ will appear ‘open’. It will be found that such an extended ‘connection’ will exhibit a ‘preferred direction’ or ‘preferred heliospheric latitude’.
“For example the ‘croissant’ structure of the heliosphere as modelled in this paper: (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150219115636.htm) will be a less appetising but more accurate hourglass.”

It will be interesting to see if any of the two teams makes this connection.

Solar wrote:To further:

Concerning "Rotation"

Reference #19 in Robert's first post for this thread cites "8)Discovery that the very local interstellar medium is rotating ahead of the heliosphere."

It appears that expectations concerning the magnetic field just outside of the heliosphere were dashed because "there was no significant rotation in the direction of the magnetic field across the HP.." - M. Opher
This is understandable, this phenomenon was expected of the standard model not what I’m suggesting here, Opher et al. now suggest that magnetic reconnection is the source of the twist: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aa692f/pdf

Looking back at my October 2016 post: https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16299&start=120#p115766

The two Voyager spacecraft are heading generally toward the galactic centre but in slightly different directions, from my 2D diagrams Voyager 1 would be heading in a direction slightly ‘up’ the waist of the Heliotube away from the most pinched region. Voyager 2 is heading toward the IBEX Ribbon and is not finding what Voyager 1 found as would be expected. I believe what the two Voyager spacecraft are finding is consistent with what I have proposed here.

If both the Dialynas and Opher teams are willing to abandon over five decades of accepted views of the heliosphere, and this is what the data is telling us: (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/40, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/77/meta) if it is found that the heliosphere has faint bi-polar 'jets' (in all probability a tube) then we may find a review of our understanding of the Very Local Interstellar Medium is in order.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Solar » Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:39 am

Robertus Maximus wrote:Solar,

Opher and her team now agree with the conclusion of Dialynas et al.: “You can’t really argue with the new result,” says Merav Opher of Boston University, who was not involved in the study. “The data so loudly say that there is no tail.” (See: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/no-long-twisted-tail-trails-solar-system)

The idea of a heliospheric tail(s) must be abandoned in light of this evidence; that said abandoning a worldview after over five decades of acceptance is going to be difficult as we can see from this paragraph:

While the observational evidence now favors a spherical shape for the heliosphere, recent simulations suggest something more exotic. The bubble might actually be shaped like a croissant, Opher says. The simulations, which incorporate data from Voyager 1, show that the interaction of the magnetic fields from the sun and interstellar space squish the solar wind into two jets — what might be observed as two short tails. These jets haven’t been detected yet. But if they are, she says, they could give clues to other sets of jets seen in the universe such as those shooting from young stars or possibly even black holes.’ (my emphasis)

I can understand where the confusion arises, both teams are looking at the same data yet Opher and her team are reluctant to let go of the heliotail- why?

In an earlier post I wrote: “I would predict that future papers will mention that despite being spherical the heliosphere will be found to be ‘connected’ somehow to the LISM this ‘connection’ will appear ‘open’. It will be found that such an extended ‘connection’ will exhibit a ‘preferred direction’ or ‘preferred heliospheric latitude’.
“For example the ‘croissant’ structure of the heliosphere as modelled in this paper: (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150219115636.htm) will be a less appetising but more accurate hourglass.”

It will be interesting to see if any of the two teams makes this connection.


Wish I could read this one: “The bubble-like shape of the heliosphere observed by Voyager and Cassini - Dialynas et al ”.

Researchers continue to discuss the Heliosphere in terms of the cometary model for the same reason that both ideal plasma and non-ideal plasma exist. The inertia of original assumptions that formed the groundwork and starting points for analysis are still the paradigm from whence to reason. There is no choice but to compare the various facets of older paradigms to new phenomena.

Basically, the extent of the downwind emissions are unknown. No probe has been sent in that direction like the Voyagers towards the nose; so nothing is known about what occurs outside of the Heliosphere downwind. Since no theory predicted the existence of the Ribbon and Belt features researchers are in new territory. It’s true that “a review of our understanding of the Very Local Interstellar Medium is in order.” That is a part of what is occurring via the results as noted by McComas:

It shows that what we thought we understood before about this interaction is definitely not right; and we have to kind of go back and start over.”
(…)
We now have to go back and figure out what physics we’re missing in all our models and understanding. – D. McComas at 5:20-17:30 2009: NASA IBEX Science Update


The tree of Solar Astrophysics has been uprooted. I think Researchers are at their best at times like this.

Robertus Maximus wrote:
Solar wrote:To further:

Concerning "Rotation"

Reference #19 in Robert's first post for this thread cites "8)Discovery that the very local interstellar medium is rotating ahead of the heliosphere."

It appears that expectations concerning the magnetic field just outside of the heliosphere were dashed because "there was no significant rotation in the direction of the magnetic field across the HP.." - M. Opher
This is understandable, this phenomenon was expected of the standard model not what I’m suggesting here, Opher et al. now suggest that magnetic reconnection is the source of the twist: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/aa692f/pdf

Looking back at my October 2016 post: https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16299&start=120#p115766

The two Voyager spacecraft are heading generally toward the galactic centre but in slightly different directions, from my 2D diagrams Voyager 1 would be heading in a direction slightly ‘up’ the waist of the Heliotube away from the most pinched region. Voyager 2 is heading toward the IBEX Ribbon and is not finding what Voyager 1 found as would be expected. I believe what the two Voyager spacecraft are finding is consistent with what I have proposed here.

If both the Dialynas and Opher teams are willing to abandon over five decades of accepted views of the heliosphere, and this is what the data is telling us: (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/40, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/771/2/77/meta) if it is found that the heliosphere has faint bi-polar 'jets' (in all probability a tube) then we may find a review of our understanding of the Very Local Interstellar Medium is in order.


I'm all for what you refer to as a the "Heliotube" of a butterfly configuration, bent or otherwise, because of (multifractal) scaling. The following ESA article on “Black Aurora”, aka “anti-aurora”, explain the bimodal manner that, when scaled up, serve as a microcosmic example of how butterfly sheaths (your Heliotube) are formed at larger scales:

The Cluster data show that the black aurora occurs where there are holes in the ionosphere(*), the part of the upper atmosphere where aurorae are created. Here, the particles that make up the ionosphere are shooting upwards into space inside regions known as positively charged electric potential structures.
This is the opposite process to that which creates visible aurorae, where electrons spiral down from space into the atmosphere within similar, but negatively charged, structures.

"The black aurora isn't actually an aurora at all; it's a lack of auroral activity in a region where electrons are 'sucked' from the ionosphere," explained Professor Göran Marklund of the Alfvén Laboratory in Sweden. – CLUSTER QUARTET PROBES THE SECRETS OF THE BLACK AURORA


Of course that is Earth's version. Solar astrophysics appears to be “skimming” the cusp of its next phase – the ability to detect and discern the larger solar environment which may include the Sun’s stellar jets (*If* they exist), the orientation of same (*IF* they) exist, whether or not there are emissions that undergo precession, the extent of downwind emissions, which filamentary “clouds” the Sun may be interacting with, whether or not their bulk flows rotate as a whole indicating larger interactive ‘structures’, correlations of all of these with solar cycles. I'd actually like there to be "jets" and it would be grand if they were "bent" because of another idea I've not expressed.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby jacmac » Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:30 pm

On May 25 I said:
This is not directly related to the above discussion of possible solar circuits, but I thought it might be useful.

All the data from space probes have been collected within the general area of the ecliptic(orbit of the earth), and/or the solar equatorial plane, with one exception, Ulysses.
The maximum latitude of Ulysses has been 80.2 degrees from the solar equator.
I was wondering just how close to directly above the solar poles was Ulysses ?
The
spacecraft reached its most southerly point, 80.2 degrees
south of the solar equator, on 13 September 1994, at a
distance of 2.3 AU from the Sun.

The data comes from:
https://pds.nasa.gov/ds-view/pds/viewMi ... ME=ULYSSES

Doing some simple trigonometry:
THE CLOSEST ULYSSES COMES TO BEING DIRECTLY ABOVE THE SOUTHERN POLE IS 70 MILLION MILES.
(no distance is given for the north pole pass, but no doubt similar)

Our data regarding the heliospheric environment is quite limited, by geographic location. IMO


For some reason i doubled the angle and used 20 degrees. My Bad.

The angle is 9.8 degrees(I used 10); so the closest distance the Ulysses probe came to being directly above the south pole is about 35 million miles 90 degrees out from the solar pole.
Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Solar » Sun Jun 04, 2017 10:42 am

Robertus Maximus wrote:From my calculations the Fast Solar Wind (FSW) is largely confined to the long axis of the heliotube it is known that the north and south solar wind hemispheres are asymmetric, such an asymmetry may exist because we are essentially looking ‘up’ and ‘down’ the heliotube. Future studies may realise this.

Some studies unconnected with solar research may unexpectedly reveal features associated with the heliotube.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170418111504.htm

In the article above one of the authors, Zaritsky states: "Indeed, in one direction, we see the gas coming toward us, and the opposite direction, we see it moving away from us," the authors conclude the ‘gas’ exists in a galactic halo.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02005

From the actual paper above we find, from figure 2, that the ‘gas’ is aligned on galactic coordinates as is the heliotube, coincidence?

Research that could point to the existence of the heliotube may already exist in print- it’s just the small matter of putting the pieces together.


Yes. I think you're correct.

Robertus Maximus wrote:
The Sun’s Orientation

In order to appreciate the approach I am suggesting a brief understanding of the Sun’s orientation as it moves around the Milky Way Galaxy is needed. A common misconception is that the Sun’s rotational axis (North and South poles) is aligned with the rotational axis of the galaxy (North and South Galactic poles). This is not the case, the Sun’s rotational axis is inclined some 63 degrees (2) from the rotational axis of the galaxy; the Sun and the solar system are effectively tipped over on their side with the Sun’s north pole pointing in the direction of motion (see: image below). A similar situation exists in the solar system were Uranus’ rotational axis is tilted (some 98 degrees) in relation to the Sun’s axis. Interestingly, given that Uranus’ axial tilt is more closely aligned to that of the galaxy is this an indication that Uranus is a captured former brown dwarf?

Image


The Sun’s rotational axis is conveying the line of sight perspective. The Cassini Belt aligns with the galactic plane. The IBEX Ribbon, especially its circularity, is a different feature all together and corresponds to a circular manifestation delineating the Sun’s north polar fast solar wind incident at (intersecting) the ‘surface’ ("skimming") of an interstellar “cloud”.

It honestly does look as if the northern half of a bipolar butterfly nebula configuration aka the ‘opening’ of your Heliotube. I just couldn’t figure out where the “Precessing Jet”-like collimated emissions that would ‘sweep’ the interior of the Heliotube might be. Perhaps image #11 from NASA’s IBEX NASA Science Update Visuals reveals this?

Helium and Oxygen

The caption for image #11 says “...IBEX is the detection of the interstellar gas that flows directly into the solar system.” However, it must be remembered that the neutrals are produced via “charge exchange”. There is a tight “spot” of energetic neutrals heading towards your view, Relative to the scale how does one get such a tight "spot" like that? When you put the near circular Ribbon with the Helium and Oxygen "spot" the center of Dr. Scott's filament viewed 'down the barrel' comes to mind.

Does that mean that the Sun is not “skimming” the surface of an interstellar “cloud” aka a filament? Of course not. That is how the dynamic is induced at the interface where the Heliosphere and “cloud” intersect. This means that when combining the most relevant features Belt, Ribbon, Helium/Oxygen “spot” – the viewer is looking ‘up and into’ a manifest “Ring” of the Sun’s northern bipolar outflow (a filament channel) as it is tilted towards galactic center - whereas the Belt is more so delineating the “neck” of the bipolar region. The 63 degree tilt of the Sun’s rotational axis merges the two electrodynamic features because of the viewing geometry.

I'm beginning to wonder if we've been staring at two halves of the same non-linear asymmetric equation and approaching things from two different perspectives? I've been looking at a Heliospheric Ring current whereas Robert has been looking for the Heliotube of bipolar outflow. Meanwhile the viewing geometry of the 63 degree tilt of the Sun's rotational axis towards the galaxy is overlapping both features.

Robertus Maximus wrote: Now if we look at page at pages 3 and 12 of the document in the link provided in the main body of text: ‘On the Origin of the 5-55 keV Heliosheath ENAs using Cassini/INCA measurements’, what do we see? ENA concentrations in the Cassini Belt appear to rotate over the course of the sunspot cycle but just like Saturn’s ring current the pattern ‘is doughnut shaped but in some instances it appears like someone took a bite out of it.’ (https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/668/).

The high energy Cassini Belt straddles the galactic equator with an estimated distance of 90- 140 AU, this paper describes the relationship between the IBEX Ribbon and Cassini Belt: http://www.issibern.ch/teams/Supratherm ... ui_AIP.pdf

If the IBEX Ribbon is the link, as researchers assume, to the LISMF then would that not make the Cassini Belt the solar system’s version of a ring current- a half eaten doughnut rotating through the solar cycle consisting of trapped particles originating in the FSW? Unlike Earth and Saturn if the Cassini Belt is a ring current then it is not aligned with the Sun’s equator instead it is aligned with the galactic equator. Perhaps as I indicated originally this was due to the distances involved?Source


Correct, but why do the Sun's equator and the galactic equator have to align?

Planetary nebulae are thought to be sculpted by the rotation of the star system from which they form. This is dependent on the properties of this system — for example, whether it is a binary [3], or has a number of planets orbiting it, both of which may greatly influence the form of the blown bubble. The shapes of bipolar nebulae are some of the most extreme, and are thought to be caused by jets blowing mass outwards from the star system perpendicular to its orbit.

"The alignment we're seeing for these bipolar nebulae indicates something bizarre about star systems within the central bulge," explains Rees. "For them to line up in the way we see, the star systems that formed these nebulae would have to be rotating perpendicular to the interstellar clouds from which they formed, which is very strange." – Bizarre alignment of planetary nebulae


Taking image #3 into consideration IBEX NASA Science Update Visuals: The two Voyagers flew into VERY interesting regions. They both missed the IBEX Ribbon. Why? V1 flew ‘into’ the Heliotube. V2 flew just on the outside of same. The color blue in these images, particular North and South when aligned Earth's orientation, are the fast solar wind. In the following IBEX image downwind the sun is behind you. The fast solar wind are in blue at North & South. As they come around your left and right towards the rear heading away from you what I refer to as the "Ring Current" of green, yellow, and red ENA emissions continue downwind and are slightly tilted.

Solar System's Tail discussed During Online Media Briefing

ENA Downwind Emissions

Question: If the Ribbon is a near circular manifestation of the intersection of the Sun’s fast solar wind with the 'surface' of a "cloud" and the Helium/Oxygen "spots" are perhaps a signature of the "beam" that would precess inside the extended Heliotube where is the southern bipolar counterpart? Is it 'lost' in the downwind ENA haze of assymetry?

Sorry for any typos.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Solar » Mon Jun 05, 2017 4:57 pm

Solar wrote:It honestly does look as if the northern half of a bipolar butterfly nebula configuration aka the ‘opening’ of your Heliotube. I just couldn’t figure out where the “Precessing Jet”-like collimated emissions that would ‘sweep’ the interior of the Heliotube might be. Perhaps image #11 from NASA’s IBEX NASA Science Update Visuals reveals this?

Helium and Oxygen

The caption for image #11 says “...IBEX is the detection of the interstellar gas that flows directly into the solar system.” However, it must be remembered that the neutrals are produced via “charge exchange”. There is a tight “spot” of energetic neutrals heading towards your view, Relative to the scale how does one get such a tight "spot" like that? When you put the near circular Ribbon with the Helium and Oxygen "spot" the center of Dr. Scott's filament viewed 'down the barrel' comes to mind.


:oops: *embarrassed* I do severely apologize for my last post misinterpreting the use of analytical methods and filtering to get a better handle on “areas in which the heavy neutral atom signal is statistically significant”.

Here is the paper on that:

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE HEAVY NEUTRAL ATOMS MEASURED BY IBEX

Again. My bad.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:06 am

Solar,

In my October 2016 post I wrote:
Robertus Maximus wrote:The Heliosphere and the Solar Cycle

The long accepted view of the shape of the heliosphere (HS) is that it is a comet-like object with a long tail opposite to the direction in which the solar system moves through the local interstellar medium (LISM). However, in the paper by Parker (The Stellar Wind Regions, 1961) we find from figure 1 (in the original paper) that the comet-like shape occurs under certain conditions namely: ‘The streamlines of the subsonic, nearly incompressible, hydrodynamic flow of a stellar wind beyond the shock transition (r=R) in the presence of a subsonic interstellar wind carrying no significant magnetic field.’ Indeed, Parker described the special condition under which a comet-like shaped HS would occur: ‘Steady subsonic interstellar wind without interstellar magnetic field’. (1) (my emphasis).

Parker, however, did model a HS constrained by a: ‘Large scale interstellar field in the absence of significant interstellar gas pressure and interstellar wind’, only this HS is not comet-like.

So, the accepted model of the HS is one based on the assumption that there is no significant LISMF. But we now know that there must exist a significant magnetic field, coupled with a slower relative inflow motion we can ask- would a comet-like HS form at all?

In this paper: ‘Imaging the Interaction of the Heliosphere with the Interstellar Medium from Saturn with Cassini’ by S. M. Krimigis, et al. 2009, the authors suggest, following a review of data from the Cassini spacecraft and based on the morphology of the ‘Cassini Belt’, that the HS is indeed shaped as Parker described, if it were influenced by a: ‘Large scale interstellar field in the absence of significant interstellar gas pressure and interstellar wind’ and not the conventional comet-like shape, the authors admit that: ‘It is very different from the contemporary paradigm.’ (2)

To my mind a picture is emerging that is at odds with the mainstream view of the HS.

Standard interpretation of the alignment of the Heliosphere

Looking at an all-sky map we find that the ‘nose’ of the comet-like HS lies at a point between the constellations Ophiuchus and Scorpius, in the general direction of the galactic centre (0 degrees, galactic longitude). On the same map we find Voyager 1also lies within the constellation Ophiuchus whilst Voyager 2 can be found in the constellation Telescopium. Viewed from Earth both Voyager spacecraft are headed ‘upwind’ in the ‘nose’ of the HS (the HS ‘tail’ can be found ‘downwind’ in the constellation of Taurus, 180 degrees galactic longitude).

Viewed from Earth Voyager 2 is remarkably close to the structure known as the IBEX Ribbon. Is it possible that one or both of the Voyager spacecraft have measured conditions in the outer HS influenced by the IBEX Ribbon? Furthermore, if the ‘comet-like’ HS model is wrong, as observations of the Cassini Belt suggest, where would that leave the Voyager spacecraft and what are they measuring?

From the alternative model i.e. a ‘diamagnetic bubble’ suggested by Krimigis, et al. and for the purpose of this discussion I will use the term ‘Heliotube’ (HT) to describe the nature of the environment from which the Sun draws energy to sustain the solar discharge.

Heliotube 3A.gif
Galactic Coordinates looking toward 270 degrees longitude. For illustrative purposes only, not to scale.


Heliotube 4A.gif
Galactic Coordinates looking toward 0 degrees longitude. For illustrative purposes only, not to scale.


From the illustrations above it can be seen that the ‘X’ of the pinched HT approximately matches the latitudinal extent of both the Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) and Cassini Belt.

Now, how does this relate to the findings of Dialynas et al? Let us consider the standard interpretation of the heliosphere’s interaction with the VLISM, this view was accepted for over five decades and was based on the comet-like model suggested by Parker.

In this model the two Voyager spacecraft are heading “upwind” in the “nose” direction of the comet-like shaped heliosphere- we now know this model is incorrect.

With the galactic coordinate system in mind: (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Celestial.png), looking at an all-sky map based on galactic coordinates: (http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/wgalchart.gif), and paraphrasing what I wrote earlier, we see that “the “nose”’ of the comet-like heliosphere lies at a point between the constellations Ophiuchus and Scorpius, in the general direction of the galactic centre (0 degrees, galactic longitude). On the same map we find Voyager 1 also lies within the constellation Ophiuchus whilst Voyager 2 can be found in the constellation Telescopium. Viewed from Earth both Voyager spacecraft are headed “upwind”’ in the “nose” of the heliosphere (the heliosphere “tail” can be found “downwind” in the constellation of Taurus, 180 degrees galactic longitude).

Conventionally, both Voyager spacecraft and Pioneer 11 are heading in the general direction of the galactic centre (0 degrees galactic longitude) toward the “nose”, only Pioneer 10 is heading in the direction of the “tail” (180 degrees galactic longitude).

However, we know that the solar system is moving in a direction not quite perpendicular to the galactic centre (approximately 70 degrees galactic longitude) from the constellation of Canis Major toward the constellation Lyra.

With the comet-like heliosphere model in mind, why is the VLISM flow from the general direction of the galactic centre?

Now, let us consider the diamagnetic bubble model (originally suggested by Parker) as revealed by Voyager and Cassini observations.

(https://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/natastron/2017/s41550-017-0115/images_hires/w582/s41550-017-0115-f1.jpg)

From the image in the link above, we see a bubble shaped heliosphere with the “Interstellar flow” (red lines) still arriving from the “nose” direction, where we find the two Voyager spacecraft but now if we look at the “Interstellar magnetic field” (grey lines), the alignment of the field-lines is not too dissimilar to the orientation of the “Heliotube”, i.e. not quite perpendicular to the line of 0 degrees galactic longitude) with the long axis aligned along the plane of the galaxy.

If, I am correct, then why are researchers still talking in terms of “nose” and “tail”, why is the inflow reportedly from the “nose”? Obviously this terminology would be a relic from the comet-like model, nevertheless in the Heliotube model inflow would occur in the waist or pinched region of the Heliotube creating the impression of a “nose”.

The IBEX Ribbon, which was visible at solar minimum 2009- 2010, is found toward the “nose” hemisphere, if you refer to my 2D image from my October 2016 post looking towards 0 degrees galactic longitude, where I have shown this. In a 3D representation I would visualise this as a pinched red Coca Cola can the IBEX Ribbon represented by the white “flow” motif.

What of the “tail”? I was sceptical with the claims made by researchers when they looked at the “tail” region, to a certain extent I believe they were seeing a tail when one just simply was not there. The “tail” hemisphere of the heliosphere is simply a region where the off-set IBEX Ribbon was incomplete. At the beginning of the IBEX mission, the Ribbon flux portrayed latitudinal and energy-dependent ordering related to the FSW-SSW structure. In the last few years, however, this ordering has broken down, reflecting solar maximum conditions.

The latest IBEX data release and paper can be found here:
http://ibex.swri.edu/ibexpublicdata/Data_Release_10/index.html

The authors conclude: “… that the solar wind must be the ultimate source of the Ribbon ENAs.” As I have repeatedly pointed out on this thread the heliosphere and the Sun itself, show asymmetrical behaviour the authors agree “…the heliosphere’s interaction is highly asymmetric and not well described by simple symmetric models.”

IBEX has observed solar minimum and maximum conditions (although an unusual weak maximum) it will be interesting to see how the outer heliosphere and VLISM continue to evolve as a new cycle begins.

Now, from my point of view, my mind still at odds with the mainstream view, or perhaps it is just odd?
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Solar » Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:47 pm

Robert

IBEX Release 10 notes that "we now argue that a secondary ENA source mechanism should be adopted as the primary and most likely explanation of the Ribbon." Within the context of looking for a Heliotube, that is interesting.

Robertus Maximus wrote:"(https://www.nature.com/article-assets/n ... 115-f1.jpg)

From the image in the link above, we see a bubble shaped heliosphere with the “Interstellar flow” (red lines) still arriving from the “nose” direction, where we find the two Voyager spacecraft but now if we look at the “Interstellar magnetic field” (grey lines), the alignment of the field-lines is not too dissimilar to the orientation of the “Heliotube”, i.e. not quite perpendicular to the line of 0 degrees galactic longitude) with the long axis aligned along the plane of the galaxy.

If, I am correct, then why are researchers still talking in terms of “nose” and “tail”, why is the inflow reportedly from the “nose”? Obviously this terminology would be a relic from the comet-like model, nevertheless in the Heliotube model inflow would occur in the waist or pinched region of the Heliotube creating the impression of a “nose”.


You're using "inflow" in terms of the "twisting" of the IMF by the heliopause to induce filaments of currents entering at the "waist" (of a butterfly config) as discussed earlier. IBEX is using the term "inflow" differently, in terms of the relative motions of the Heliosphere and ISM as they move in their respective directions in general - and the 'seepage' of interstellar species into the heliosphere such as with delineating "inflow parameters" for direct sampling of:

Interstellar Neutral Helium in the Heliosphere from IBEX Observations. III. Mach number of the flow, velocity vector, and temperature from the first six years of measurements - by Bzowski et al

In short, you're looking at the inflow of electric currents into the heliosphere whereas IBEX is looking at the inflow of ISM "gases" such as Helium, Oxygen, Nitrogen into the heliosphere.

Robertus Maximus wrote:"If, I am correct, then why are researchers still talking in terms of “nose” and “tail”, why is the inflow reportedly from the “nose”?


The image from Nature depicts a bubble in the midst of an "interstellar flow" portrayed in red. The "flow has a magnetic field orientation portrayed in gray. How to interpret the flow?? It could be a "wall", an 'advancing front, etc. Language has its limitations. The reason(s) that the flow of the VLISM is generally portrayed from Galactic Center is that the motion of even larger bubbles tends 'outward' from that direction. They are aware of these galactic behaviors influencing the Sun's neighborhood:

Interaction of the Loop I Supershell with the Local Hot Bubble - Discovered in the ROSAT All-Sky Survey

A MYSTERIOUS RING OF MICROWAVES

There are galactic scale "winds', "shells", streams, and bubbles of former epochs propagating 'outward' in all directions from GC. These contribute to current observations. This also occurs with collections of galaxies:

How is the Chandra X-ray Observatory able to detect these sound waves?

"Nose" and "tail" characterizations aren't the only orientation language being used. Nautical language from the "Bow Shock" analogy is also used (port and starboard lobes) in some documents. Both are "archaic" however, there has to be some reference frame established to denote the relative motions that are involved such as "downwind" and "upwind" which are also in use. Also seen are "nose" and "anti-nose". They're just analogies.

The only term that might cause some confusion is "Tail". This is because initially IBEX data were interpreted as though there was a comet-like tail and then, subsequent to that, the diamagnetic bubble suggestion offered that the Sun and heliosphere were 'tail-less'. In light of the confusion, when necessary, I simply interpret "tail" as indicating a direction; not a physical feature.

There is nothing "odd" about your Heliotube approach. There are quite a few theories trying to asses IBEX data. Its the 'norm' around these parts to try and see if the 'standard' approach, usually involving the kinematics of gases, has any electric implications - because - gases don't readily form cohesive long-term stable 'structures' such as filaments, a Belt, or Ribbon. Gases diffuse instead. The old model has been shaken yet its vestiges are bound to crop up while the data forces a readjustment.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby celeste » Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:05 pm

I'm interested in how this orbit fits within the circuits discussed in this thread:
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronom ... t-jupiter/
If a planet orbits over the star's spin axis, and very near to the star at that, how does that fit into the circuit?
celeste
 
Posts: 753
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Solar » Sun Jun 11, 2017 6:28 am

I’m going to rain on the parade.

My suspicion is that the Ribbon will be assessed as the Heliospheric version of “the annular feature proposed by Egger & Aschenbach”. An inter-facial coupling dynamic produced by the heliosphere interacting with either the “S1 Shell”, the Loop I Supperbubble, or the edge of the Local Interstellar Cloud (LIC).

An annular volume of dense neutral gas is predicted to form at the interaction zone between two colliding interstellar bubbles.
(..)
In conclusion the observed annular HI feature is a product of the interaction between the Local Bubble and the Loop I supershell. – Discovered in the ROSAT All-Sky Survey


Egger & Aschenbach (1995) proposed that the collision between both bubbles led to the formation of a wall of neutral gas surrounded by a dense interstellar ring feature at the interaction zone. This conclusion was inspired by collisional models of spherical shock fronts, which revealed that a dense interacting wall would arise, - Santos et al OPTICAL POLARIZATION MAPPING TOWARD THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE LOCAL CAVITY AND LOOP I

Interaction between Local Bubble and Loop I

That is all.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:01 am

On Wednesday October 12, 2016 I wrote:
Robertus Maximus wrote:
It would be interesting to see if Alpha Centauri A and B displayed a 22 year cycle- although any cycle could potentially be disrupted by the binary nature of the central pair.

Now a new study has confirmed that the 11 year (22 year) solar activity cycle is the “principle” cycle on ALL Sun-like stars and "the cycle periods of the Sun and other solar-type stars all follow the same relationship."

"This research shows that the 11-year cycle is the principal cycle of all solar-type stars," said Allan Sacha Brun, Head of the Laboratory Dynamics of Stars and their Environment and principal investigator of the European Research Council project called STARS2.

See: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-sun-stars-mystery.html

The theme of this thread is that the JMST Electric Sun model is essentially the correct description of what makes the Sun (and stars) shine- with the addition that solar (and stellar) cycles are driven by cyclical Birkeland currents in the Sun’s (a star’s) environment.

This latest study is yet further evidence of the validity of this proposal.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby jacmac » Fri Jul 14, 2017 1:58 pm

At this site
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-sun-stars-mystery.html
I find:
So researchers carried out a series of simulations of stellar magnetic fields, and showed that the Sun's magnetic cycle depends on its rotation rate and luminosity, said the report.

So, our sun's rotation rate and luminosity gives us an 11/22 year cycle.

At this site
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-sun-stars-mystery.html
We see
Although 61 Cyg A is a little dimmer and cooler than the Sun, the scientists were able to detect changes in its activity coinciding with polarity flips over a seven-year activity cycle, for a magnetic cycle of 14 years.

For 61 Cyg A there is a 7/14 year cycle.
Robert says:
"This research shows that the 11-year cycle is the principal cycle of all solar-type stars," said Allan Sacha Brun, Head of the Laboratory Dynamics of Stars and their Environment and principal investigator of the European Research Council project called STARS2.

Yes; they describe the magnetic cycle as the PRINCIPLE cycle.
However:
Now a new study has confirmed that the 11 year (22 year) solar activity cycle is the “principle” cycle on ALL Sun-like stars and "the cycle periods of the Sun and other solar-type stars all follow the same RELATIONSHIP."

My CAPS.

That relationship is:
depends on its rotation rate and luminosity

The cycles seem to come from each star's rotation rate and luminosity, BUT
the length of the cycles in years is NOT THE SAME.
I think the jury is still out on this.

My personal favorite is that the magnetic cycle is driven by the orbiting planets(perhaps connected to the star's rotation rate).
Our suns 11/22 year cycle is close to the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn.
But the cycle average is not spot on the same as the orbit periods.; also the cycles vary quite a bit.
Here is my explanation:

Watch someone in the kitchen MIXING cake batter with a mixing machine.
You ask "how many turns of the blades does it take ?
Answer; until the batter is done !

So, the orbiting planets mix up the solar magnetic field until it flips polarity, only to continue being mixed and flips back. The planets are constantly moving from one solar magnetic field polarity into the other and back again.
The solar system, with all its parts is not a scientific construct. IT IS ORGANIC.

Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest