Gases don't coalesce, they diffuse!

[starbiter]

Hello Visount Aero:You wrote

[...]
You can scale this up to the planetary scale and look at Jupiter and Saturn, etc... all are examples of the same phenomenon, that being vortex/cyclonic behavioral structures of gases.

Me
Shouldn't that be plasma instead of gases.

michael

[viscount aero]

Hello Visount Aero:You wrote

[...]
You can scale this up to the planetary scale and look at Jupiter and Saturn, etc... all are examples of the same phenomenon, that being vortex/cyclonic behavioral structures of gases.

Me
Shouldn't that be plasma instead of gases.

michael

Michael, yes technically, plasma is more appropriate; however, the cloudtops of Jupiter we can see with the eye and cameras is not a plasma. The dynamics behind the entire planetary structure itself, yes that is more than likely a plasma dynamic-created system.

A highly interesting and eye-opening article that speaks to a related area, speaking of Jupiter and Earth, is here:
Jupiter's Great Hot Spot
Mar 19, 2010
Is the famous gyre on Jupiter the result of atmospheric convection?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/ ... otspot.htm

and this eye-wall structure seen at Saturn's south pole:

May 17, 2007
Saturn’s Monstrous Polar Storm

A gigantic vortex centered on Saturn’s south pole has sent astronomers scrambling for answers—again. They remain unaware that Wallace Thornhill had predicted this very “surprise.”
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/ ... rstorm.htm

[viscount aero]

another article relating surface spots on Neptune, in this case giant white spots, as indicators of locations of electrical discharging, a la, flux tube phenomena described in the prior cited articles:

The Hot Pole(s) of Neptune

Neptune's south pole is hotter than the rest of the planet. Could the north pole be just as hot?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/ ... eptune.htm

[viscount aero]

this article directly addresses this issue further:
The Trouble with the Trifid
Mar 23, 2010
What is reasonable is often determined by what is familiar, traditional, consensual.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/ ... trifid.htm

excerpt:

"The dark filaments that divide the nebula into thirds, hence giving it its name, Trifid, are called “gases and dust.” They will “collapse and form new stars” due to “gravity’s inexorable attraction.” This twinkle of explanation is entirely pretense. It’s contradicted not only by observations but also by traditional theory itself: Clouds of gas can collapse only if they have no angular momentum and no magnetism. However, for “some unknown reason,” all such clouds do have angular momentum and magnetism, usually a lot. As one astronomer has commented, “Astronomy has a spin problem.”

[junglelord]

I know the laws of physics.
I also have synesthesia.
I NEVER got synestheia events from their crock talk.
Gravity driven collapse of gas and dust into a nebula or star or planet is ABSURD.

Once I was given the keys of the electric universe and plasma....total synesthesia.
Current driven glow mode of plasma.
TOTAL SYNESTHESIA

I know that this type of mental process is not worth a pile of beans in the "scientific" community, yet is has yet to be wrong. I always take my synesthesia as a validation of truth.

Take it from me, gravity and gas coming together into some fairytale story is as harry potter as it gets.

[Solar]

A highly interesting and eye-opening article that speaks to a related area, speaking of Jupiter and Earth, is here:
Jupiter's Great Hot Spot
Mar 19, 2010
Is the famous gyre on Jupiter the result of atmospheric convection?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/ ... otspot.htm

and this eye-wall structure seen at Saturn's south pole:

But, there is no "eye" nor "eye-wall" with Jupiter's gyre. That is a huge problem in my book as relates "gas", "convection" etc. One of the most unsung and overlooked aspects of electro-plasma dynamics are Diocotron instability vortices and 'sub-vortices'.

The diocotron instability (also called the slipping stream plasma instability), is "one of the most ubiquitous instabilities in low density nonneutral plasmas with shear in the flow velocity [.. that can ..] occur in propagating nonneutral electron beams and layers".[2] [3] It may give rise to electron vortices,[4], which resembles the Kelvin-Helmholtz fluid dynamical shear instability, and occurs when charge neutrality is not locally maintained.[5] The term diocotron derives from the Greek διωκειν, meaning "pursue."[5]
Diocotron instability

Experiments on instability transport began with investigation of hollow electron columns which exhibit "diocotron" mode shear instabilities, which are the plasma analogue of Kelvin-Helmholtz fluid instabilities. The instability undergoes nonlinear saturation with the formation of vortices, then the vortices move chaotically and appear as turbulent noise, and finally the noise decays leaving a reasonably quiet 2D quasi-equilibrium. The collisional (or "viscous") transport to 3D thermal equilibrium then occurs on a much longer time scale. - Nonneutral Plasmas

In his particle-in-cell simulation Anthony Peratt discusses this apparently scalable dynamic as relates the arms of galaxies:

A polarization induced charge separation also occurs in each arm. Because of this field, the arm is susceptible to the diocotron instability... -Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies pg 171-172

References to Diocotron instability of non-neutral plasma can also be found on Holoscience by using the search function.

[viscount aero]

But, there is no "eye" nor "eye-wall" with Jupiter's gyre. That is a huge problem in my book as relates "gas", "convection" etc. One of the most unsung and overlooked aspects of electro-plasma dynamics are Diocotron instability vortices and 'sub-vortices'.

correct, I shouldn't have used the term eye-wall in this case. Terrestrial hurricanes however similar looking are not directly analagous to the structure at Saturn. Saturn is cryogenically frozen. Yet it's weather is orders of magnitude more violent than Earth.

[Solar]

Saturn is cryogenically frozen.

That is an interesting point Vis. The dynamics of Saturn and Jupiter, insofar as the 'banding' and the smaller polar vortices within and/or around larger ones seems to suggest that there may be some loose correlation with those formations seen on Callisto. As if at some point similar activities on Callisto's might have been 'flash frozen' resulting in the formation of Valhalla "crater" with the diffusion of any atmospheric gases that may have been present.

Just sharing a curious long held thought.

[biknewb]

I guess the question should not be "can gases coalesce?" but rather can plasmas coalesce?
This would require the "puny force of gravity" (to use Wal's phraseology) to overcome the electrical force.
My money is on the electrical force!

Jarva, although this link properly belongs on the Planetary page, I'm just offering it to you because you mentioned above the unlikelihood of planetary impactors.

Jim: What link is that?

Nick

From the description I guess this might be the link: http://sites.google.com/site/dragonstormproject

Biknewb

[Jarvamundo]

Interesting analysis of evidence thanks jj, material seems strangely familiar... will absorb.

Reminds me of the chances of all the 'impacts' on a comet being round impact craters. Absurd, as each impactor would have to hit near head on, no grazing?, EU models from Thornhill of-course provide mechanisms for this.

Re can plasmas coalesce, the dusty plasma articles here are most interesting, thanks solar.

Re nick c: You betcha the money is on EM vs gravity... If there is charge flowing, plasma couldn't give 1 toss about gravity, it'll do anything to get to the anode... this difference is well understood... 10^39 better odds on EM... all mainstream needed was a reasonable conductor, since we thought space was a empty... enter the star of the show, Birkeland.

The evolution of plasma into concentrations, then into star systems is what needs to be explored. Cosmology statement best wraps this up... there is so much still to learn and study... we need cash... http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

* Do the currents / galaxies 'create' matter? Seferts --> ejecting quasars --> quantized redshift models (arp/narlikar)
* How does plasma organize matter, into what structures? dusty plasma articles... solars
* What are the steps in evolution of these pinches into stars? (concentrations --> stars --> etc)
* How much current is out there, and where exactly is it? mapping of currents
* Where does the current come from in the first place? Prof.Meyl neutrino flux, Prof.Gaensler Magnetic Universe / dynamo's? others?

We also need to bear in mind... EU and plasma cosmology may just throw out the gravity-dominated big bang model, and all the coalescing gas models all together... simply a non-event, as a different evolutionary model is fitting the data better.

I guess the point there is, when thinking of BBT... alot changes with EM/steady state... ALOT

One could argue plasma cosmo is well down the path of detailing some of these processes http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html... I have yet to see a stable gravity-dominated computer model of a spiral formation!

With so much still to understand, we need more research dollars, and EM engineer input in designing the experiments. Dauntingly for mainstream 100 years of astro work will need to be reassessed... not all thrown out... just reassessed.... (enter natural mainstream resistance... heheh... thats like EM Lenz Law yeah )

TB.info is doing a great job of exploring the details of the EU model, it's going to be a big journey (smaller for some ).

[jjohnson]

Hi, Alex et al,

Here is a little idea that sprang unbidden into the dusty plasma of my brain. First, it is a conundrum in conventional star formation as to how a large cloud of gas can attract itself into a more concentrated self-gravitating mass (big "sphere" to little , more dense sphere) and begin the type of rotation which causes the collapse to flatten out into a spinning, flattened disk. All the while, continuing the central collapse to the point where they believe that thermonuclear process begin under the great heat and pressure provided by gravity. This entire concept seems to be altogether difficult to model or understand if it tries to stand on gravity alone.

I've looked at hundreds of photos of planetary nebulas, which almost always are depicted as "the death throes of a star like the Sun in its final stages of life" or similar claptrap. Looking at these phenomena from a side (or top) view, they look like two funnels end-to-end, or better, and more explicitly, like one or two Birkeland currents pinching down at a central point. Round planetary nebula are a more or less an axial peek "down the tube", often very filamentary and with a star visible In the center. Under the conditions of a Z-pinch, or Bennett pinch, rotation of matter around the longitudinal axis seems just about inevitable, particularly if two currents are involved. In the lab, these are filmed in X ray and the process takes nanoseconds. In a galactic setting, the diameters of the "wires" are large, not to put too fine a point on it, on the order of possibly a couple of light years. Throughout most of a galaxy the current density in Birkeland filaments (charges per cubic meter) is so low as to constitute a dark discharge mode, radiating at the long wavelength end of the spectrum, way below optical in frequency.

When two filaments with currents in the same direction pass close enough to one another, Biot-Savart takes over and draws them relatively close together, to the point where the mutual repulsion of like charges slows their approach, and the mutually oblique magnetic fields set up charge motions that are not simply field aligned, but are accelerated, forcing them to cross constant magnetic field values and become accelerated thereby. This generates electric fields which further changes the conditions, and the pinching effect is underway. All this is not rocket science (except to me, perhaps) but right here we have the conditions for stellar formation. Not "death" throes or nearing a termination nexus on the Herzsprung-Russell depiction.

Matter is compressed into greater density AND set into rotational motion. That the velocity of this rotating matter is greater than the gravitic escape velocity from the orbits is of no instance, as the charged matter itself is bound tightly the the electrodynamic forces at work, and cares not a fig for the relatively tiny gravity force vectors, which are certainly present.

As the pinch continues, which because or the distances involved may take years or possibly millennia, not ns, the current density becomes greater, enters glow mode and if it continues to densify, entering arc mode. By this point, matter, both ionized and non-ionized, is swirling around the hot core, organized by Marklund convection into shells of different elements and ions organized by their ionization potential. This is not 'hot gas' or 'stellar wind' or simple 'magnetic field lines twisting and reconnectiong and generally getting their knickers into a knot'. It is a plasma, hard at work, creating heavy radiation and increasing the density of mass and charge, both.

A swirling equatorial ring of matter the plane of which is normalt to the long axis of the current, around the greatest area of pinching, is a natural outcome, observed repeatedly at lab, solar and galactic scales. Gravity and electromagnetic interactions both have to be occuring in the organisation of this stuff, but it starts when the large plasma currents interact and initiate a process which gravity by itself cannot. To me these planetary nebulae are much more likely to be the form of stellar generation than are those clumpy Pillars of Creation, or those artists' conceptions of smooth dusty disks with planets casually sweeping all the dusty and grainy material up from their orbits (which, stupid me, I thought might be hard to do because everything at that radius should be orbiting with the same period!) That model is like a freeway with all the cars going round at the same speed - orbital velocity - in each lane. How does the planet catch up and accrete the stuff moving ahead of it? Behind it? Make sense? If a planet's gravity "pulls" a particle, in an aligned, similar orbit, toward it self, that force vector should accelerate the particle or clump radially outward to a slower, higher orbit unless it's really close.

If you are in orbit behind the space station and want to catch it, or let it catch you if you use it as the reference center, you cannot do it by pointing your nose at the center of the station and firing your engine! You'll miss every time! (That would make a great con game at the carnival, attracting gravity suckers and fleecing them good!) Orbital mechanics don't work like that, and neither should dust grains co-orbiting with a planet or a meteorite. They can't all get swept up, clearing that lane. A planet might clear up some of the dust moving more quickly past, in a lower (closer to the star) orbit - to widen up the chances a bit, but not as likely right in its own orbital position. Maybe gravity from clumps of mass in say, circular orbits could provide sufficient perturbation to create more chaotic orbital motions in the dusty disk and let them sweep up more of the fine grainy dust. But if that model works, why do Saturen's 'shepherd' moons - which DO perturb the delicate ring structure through which they pass, ever so slightly - not sweep up all the ring material and turn themselves into bigger, rounder moonlets? It's all Newtonian gravity at work, right? -Maybe a little tweaking from the forces of electromagnetics to stabilize things a tad, no?

Maybe after a while in the star formation process, a lot of the ionized matter reunites - electrons to ions and ionized molecules - and a more neutral matter environment ensues. Maybe things settle down somewhat after a couple million years and planetary systems stabilize out on their own, and the Bennett pinching moderates or even separates. The star becomes a local cathode through its heliosheath and collects the drift current in its arm of its galaxy, telling its family of rocks, "We'll keep a light on for ya!"

[Jarvamundo]

Thanks jj, an enchanting post. thanks for taking the time to do so. Give me sometime to absorb and re absorb the specifics a few times. The picture i have received is rotational velocity of matter is inherited as an evolutionary byproduct of the pinch process (just loving it).

I often think about the planets being in a form of EM equilibrium... or newtonian dominance, where as the unusual orbits of 'electric' comets are obviously not at this point. How is the evolution of matter into these stable orbital systems influenced by EM. ie as you have put it... when does EM hand over the reigns to 'newtonian gravity'... what is the relationship there? The detail of this evolutionary process intrigues me... just understanding what a 'comet' or saturns moons feels will help measure this..... we need some data...

Will speak to you more as i absorb and analyze, thanks again for another well painted picture.

PS: Yes! It's totally unnatural (for the untrained human brain) to know to 'put the brakes on' to catch the orbiting satellite in front of you!