Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

[Solar]

Some thoughts:

Reference 1:

Electric Currents Inside the ‘Thickness’ of Double-Layer Shells
(Aspherical Glow Discharge)

Consider Dr. Lowell Morgan’s 2015 discussion of spherical double-layer striations and the induction of currents in an aspherical glow discharge. Jump to 10:45 min

We’ve had experiments were the striations were stable for minutes. An interesting phenomena that may occur, if you look back at the other photos… the discharge isn’t actually perfectly spherical; it’s aspherical to some degree. More or less degree depending upon conditions. Because of that … you’ll have currents flowing azimuthally and altitudinally (?) around inside of these shells. That’s really a unique phenomenon; no one’s ever looked into that. It’s something that’s apparent when, having done this for half a century when I first saw these kinds of things – there must be something like that going on. – Lowell Morgan: The Physics of Plasmas | EU2015

There are dynamics from lab experiment that are applicable to the ‘expanding shells’ and/or ‘fronts’ of the bubbles observed in galactic space. However, as Dr. Morgan notes “no one’s ever looked into that.” The suggestion is that not only are the double-layer ‘sheets’ of galactic bubbles and Supernova ‘rippling’ and folding at their surfaces, but that also within the ‘thickness’ of the striated ‘shells’ electric currents might be flowing “azimuthally and altitudinally”.

The reader may be saying to them self ‘But a galactic bubble is not a double-layer glow discharge’. Yet, these aspherical ‘structures’ *are also* delineated by the existence of their double-layer striations. They do not need to be in glow mode to be electrodynamically effective, as exemplified at the smaller scale in the Milky Way itself:
Circinus X-1: Astronomers Discover X-ray Rings around Neutron Star

X-Ray light “bouncing off of different dust clouds” revealing aspherical striations surrounding a star and companion.
Circinus X-1

Reference 2:

A "Detached Filament" Model

It has been suggested that the Sun is located in a magnetic flux tube in the ISM, and that such a structure would be a conduit for GCRs (Frisch 1997). Cox & Helenius (2003) presented a model of the Local Bubble that placed the Sun in a flux tube that has detached from the walls of the Local Bubble. – THE INTERSTELLAR MAGNETIC FIELD CLOSE TO THE SUN. II. Subsection 5.4.2. Galactic Cosmic Rays and the Local ISMF: P. C. Frisch et al.

Here is the above reference work. If this next reference opens by all means save it. It is the most attractive “Heliotube” theory imho and is consistent with relevant observations garnered from polarization data. Keeper Doc incoming :

In this scenario, a magnetic flux tube, spanning roughly a half-circle along the face of the Bubble surface, separates from the wall except at its anchored ends and, driven by its tension, springs back into the cavity. The tube brings with it material from the inside surface of the Bubble wall, concentrating it during the evolution into a small set of density and velocity structures near the Bubble center, the Local Fluff - Flux-Tube Dynamics and a Model for the Origin of the Local Fluff - Donald P. Cox and Louise Helenius

It has been established that the Solar System resides in a filament, somewhere within the “wall”, or perhaps along the ‘surface’, of the expanding Loop I Superbubble. They can detect these motions while the solar system moves, ‘tilted’ at an angle, as it ‘arcs’ its way ever so subtlety upward, while simultaneously moving in the direction of the Solar Apex and/or “Nose”.

(The nose of the heliosphere is typically defined as the upwind direction of interstellar HeI flowing into the heliosphere (Witte 2004, Mobius et al. 2009).” The Interstellar Medium Surrounding the Sun: Subsection: 3.2.1. Velocity vector of interstellar helium. Priscilla C. Frisch, Seth Redfield, and Jonathan D. Slavin

The Solar Apex versus The "Nose"

It has been established that the Solar System resides in a filament, somewhere within the “wall”, or perhaps along the ‘surface’, of the expanding Loop I Superbubble. They can discern motions of the solar system, ‘tilted’ at an angle, as it ‘arcs’ its way ever so subtlety upward, while simultaneously moving in the direction of the Solar Apex and/or “Nose”. The "Nose" and Solar Apex are two entirely different directions of simultaneous motion.

Looking towards the outside from inside the heliosphere the Solar Apex and the “Nose” are labeled in the following NASA graphic:

Solar Apex & “Nose”

The slightly sideways, and slightly upward, ‘arc’ of motion that the Solar System traverses along its way seems to follow a filament “spanning roughly a half-circle along the face of the Bubble surface.” This orientation of movement is visible in the work of P. Frisch. The magnetic field orientation with respect to the Loop I Bubble appears to have a “polar” configuration consistant with the presence of said Bubble and the solar system appears to be moving along a “flux tube” situated to the Loop I magnetic field orientation.

See Figure 1 already linked above: THE INTERSTELLAR MAGNETIC FIELD CLOSE TO THE SUN. II. –P. C. Frisch et al

Correlations

Referring back to Dr. Lowell Morgan’s 2015 moment discussing the induction of currents in aspherical plasma phenomena such that one has “currents flowing azimuthally and altitudinally (?) around inside of these shells” hopefully the Loop I Bubble and Solar System relation becomes clearer. The point here would also be that Astrophysics (Donald P. Cox and Louise Helenius, P. Frisch etc.) have already theoretically proposed and observed via polarization data the existence of what Dr. Lowell Morgan observed by way of precursor examinations of the SAFIRE experiment. Meaning: The appearance of electric currents inside the relative ‘thicknesses’ of aspherical plasma sheaths such as Loop I as well as along the ‘surface’ of same.

The Sun appears to be embedded in a filament of gas with thickness 0.7 pc - LISM Structure - Fragmented Superbubble Shell?

If the investigator has a basic copy of Photoshop or comparable image editor such as GIMP that allows manipulation (rotation, layering, and opacity changes) of the various Mollweide projection images and a map showing constellations in galactic coordinates (It helps to keep up with the orientations) the Solar system’s trajectory along the “face” of the Loop I bubble, as said Bubble ‘extrudes’ towards the viewer, is magnificent even in two dimensional images.

Evidence suggest that the Sun appears to be following along a filament, as suggested earlier in this thread, but the filament is associated with the Loop I Superbubble and the induction of electric currents within and/or along the surface of striations within asperical plasma phenomena (Dr. Lowell). What aspects of the JMST Electric Sun model are applicable to these evidences?

[celeste]

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?

Solar,
If Don Scott's model is correct, a filament embedded in the shell of a larger filament must twist. You've got the picture of our sun skimming the surface of the Local Interstellar cloud. Which means the smaller scale filament that our solar system is strung on, is embedded in the cloud surface. Not any different than the "striations" within "walls" or "shock fronts".
The logic is the same as in this video where Jim shows why planets rotate. Just change the scale (he is showing a planet effectively "skimming" a cylindrical surface.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFnUdaH ... freload=10
Or, since that video is hard to follow, you may have seen Don Scott's time elapsed video of the Northern lights? He showed that they had counter rotating shells. But the significant point, was that it was taken from Earth's surface, which itself had rotated in that time. Which means that series of concentric rotating cylinders, must have itself (as a whole), been twisting at nearly the same rate as earth.

[celeste]

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:

Jack

Jack,
When you consider that both ideas may be right, it gets interesting. There is, as you suggest, a strong correlation between the solar cycle, and the motion of the sun around the solar system barycenter. That means that the solar cycle is correlated to both mass and orbital radius of the planets. Now they are finding that stellar cycles are correlated to stellar luminosity and rotation.
So what are we to make of that? That somehow a star's luminosity and rotation is correlated to the mass and orbital radii of planets around that star? Well..., yes.
Once again, we have a strange prediction from Don Scott's model. In EU, we already accepted that perhaps the current flow to a star, determines its luminosity and rotation. If Don is right about Titius-Bode's law, it means that planetary orbital radii are determined by the same filament. oddly though, since we can compute a planet's mass from its orbit, if the orbit comes first, the mass of a planet must adapt to that. But if the mass and orbital radius of each planet is determined by the filament, then the sun's orbit around barycenter also is also determined by the filament.

[jacmac]

Celeste,

Jack,
When you consider that both ideas may be right, it gets interesting.

Yes, I agree.
In all my posts suggesting what might be at work with our sun I have offered ideas
which I assume, even if correct, would be just part of the answers.
Gotta run now.
Jack

[Robertus Maximus]

When the Solar Wind Stops

1999 May 11 is a date known as “The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared” (1, 2). During the event Earth’s magnetosphere expanded 5 to 6 times its normal size whilst the polar regions were flooded with what were believed to be electrons directly from the Sun; just how rare was this event and what can it tell us about the nature of the Sun itself?

Studies into the May 1999 “solar wind disappearance event” (SWDE) have found that such events have happened before: 1979 July 31- August 1and since: 2002 March 15. Such SWDE are not rare but cyclical and are more frequent during solar maximum (3) rather than solar minimum.

Observations during such events reveal interesting findings (4). Relative to this thread is the observation that the solar wind does not stop, as such, rather we see a weakening of the radial component and a strengthening of the azimuthal component. During the May 1999 event the radial solar wind speed dropped to approximately 250 km/ sec whilst the azimuthal speed increased to over 100 km/ sec. The same event was also associated with a low in the temperature of the solar wind- some 10,000K.

“The transformation began with a northward excursion of the neutral line (which is usually considered to be at the base of the heliospheric current sheet where slow solar wind originates) at longitudes 220-270 degrees toward and across the helioequator. Not coincidentally, solar activity also increased significantly in May, 1999. We suggest that the northward excursion of the heliospheric current sheet is associated with the source of slow wind.” (4)

The authors report that the SWDE was associated with the growing tilt of the Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) in a region (solar longitude) of known persistent concentrated activity (I have previously looked at the nature of Solar Active Longitudes in this thread) and reaffirmed the relationship between the Slow Solar Wind (SSW) and the HCS. From the viewpoint expressed in this thread- what are we to make of such SWDE events?

I fancy that observations of such SWDEs suggest that we are dealing with multiple circuits of the nature suggested in this thread. Such events occur as the HCS tilts away from the solar equator, the fact that the May 1999 event was located in an active longitude region further suggests that it was the absence of currents associated with the SSW that briefly allowed observations of an ‘exposed’ solar surface witnessed by the increase in the azimuthal solar wind speed. The assumed ‘connection’ between the Earth and the Sun evidenced by the increased number of strahl electrons reaching Earth is, I would suggest, no more than trapped electrons following the Sun’s intrinsic magnetic field, which is normally swamped by the magnetic field of HCS or pseudo-Alfven circuit. Indeed as one commentator noted: “Perhaps we are looking at a fundamentally new kind of solar wind, neither the high-speed flow associated with the polar coronal holes, nor the low-speed flow associated with the heliospheric current sheet (streamer belt).” (2)

That Earth’s magnetosphere expanded 5- 6 times its normal size during the May 1999 event suggests that the potential difference between Earth and the Sun is greater than that of the Earth and the HCS! Elsewhere (An Alternative to Plate and Expansion Tectonics) and following Juergens I have suggested that tectonic activity is powered by an electric discharge, Earth has to source electrons from a less electron depleted region of the heliosphere- a virtual cathode if you prefer. Earth’s magnetotail is not due to ‘pressure’ of the solar wind but is an electrical phenomenon one which usurps electrons taking part in the solar discharge. Indeed, it appears that Earth has to intercept the very galactic electrons powering the Sun!

Taking the May 1999 SWDE observations together- rarefied solar wind plasma, cooler solar wind plasma, increased azimuthal solar wind speed etc. and if for this brief moment we viewed the Sun minus the pseudo-Alfven circuit a question presents itself- without galactic currents powering the solar arc discharge would the appearance of Sun change?

Was the Sun formerly a Red Giant star?

In the Electric Star model the appearance of a star to an outside observer is determined by the potential of the body of the star and the star’s environment; the relationship between the two determines the nature of the ensuing discharge.

At present, the relationship between Sun and its environment is such that the Sun undergoes an arc discharge, Ralph Juergens offered a number of conditions on why this is so: ‘…let us tentatively conclude that the photosphere is tufted for one or more of several possible reasons:
• ‘With respect to its discharge, the Sun is too small an anode.
• ‘In the primary plasma of the solar discharge (the solar corona and the solar wind in interplanetary space) the ratio of random- to drift-current densities is too low; the primary plasma is too "cool," the driving potential of the discharge is too great, or both.
• ‘Neutral gas is plentiful within and readily evolved from the body of the Sun, so that its lower atmosphere is of a density sufficient to permit tufting. (In this connection, let us note that too-ready evolution of gas from an anode would in itself be a threat to discharge stability; a phenomenon akin to tufting would be called upon to ionize excess neutral gas and prevent its quenching the discharge.)’ (5)

It follows that if one or more of the criteria outlined above were not met then the arc discharge and tufted appearance of the Sun’s photosphere would change.

It is clear that an evolutionary Hertzsprung-Russell type sequence of conventional astronomy is not applicable to the Electric Star model but some generalisations can be made.

In the Electric Star model a star following its formative phase is highly electron deficient.

“Red stars are those stars that cannot satisfy their hunger for electrons from the surrounding plasma. So the star expands the surface area over which it collects electrons by growing a large plasma sheath that becomes the effective anode in space. The growth process is self-limiting because, as the sheath expands, its electric field will grow stronger. Electrons caught up in the field are accelerated to ever-greater energies. Before long, they become energetic enough to excite neutral particles they chance to collide with, and the huge sheath takes on a uniform ‘red anode glow.’ It becomes a red giant star.

“The electric field driving this process will also give rise to a massive flow of positive ions away from the star, or in more familiar words—a prodigious stellar ‘wind.’ Indeed, such mass loss is a characteristic feature of red giants. Standard stellar theory is at a loss to explain this since the star is said to be too ‘cold’ to ‘boil off’ a stellar wind. So when seen in electric terms, instead of being near the end point of its life, a red giant may be a ‘child’ losing sufficient mass and charge to begin the next phase of its existence— on the main sequence.” (6)

It may very well be that the Sun is a fairly ‘young’ star however we also have to consider the Sun’s environment. A recent study looking into stellar activity cycles found: “It was shown that active stars lie closer to the Galactic plane but inactive stars tend to be farther away from the Galactic plane.” Furthermore: “It was shown that stars with cycles represent about 30 % of the total number of studied stars.”

Of the stars showing cyclical behaviour it was found: “The fact that the peak of the 11-year periodicity is not very sharp shows that the period of the 11-year cycle is not constant: it changes (for 2 centuries of observations) from 10 to 12 years.” And: “Figure 5a confirms the known fact that the period of the main solar activity cycle is about 11-yr in the XIX century and is about 10 yr in the XX century. It is also known that the abnormally long 23-rd cycle of solar activity ended in 2009 and lasted about 12.5 years. We can see all this facts in Figures 5a, b. Thus, it can be argued that the value of a period of the main cycle of solar activity for past 200 years is not constant and varies by 15-20 %.” (Figures in original paper)

“They found that cycles of sun-like stars show systematic changes. The same phenomenon can be observed for the cycles of the Sun.” (7)

Cyclical behaviour is more closely associated with stars “closer to the Galactic plane” and drops off with distance away from the Galactic plane; in the electric model of the galaxy, electrical phenomena closely associated with the Galactic plane are Birkeland currents. We can infer that where we find Birkeland currents we also find stars that display cyclical behaviour.

But, what if in the past the Sun was at a greater distance from the Galactic plane than at present? Would there have been cyclical behaviour? Would the Sun have appeared differently to observers?

Ralph Juergens had speculated that the solar discharge was in part due to excessive amounts of dust in the Galactic plane: “If, as suggested, the Sun and other Population I stars exist in an environment of electron scarcity, we must suppose that the discharge currents in the cathode-drop regions of these stars are carried predominantly by positive ions travelling outward.” (8)

Current arriving from the Local Interstellar Medium (LISM) would be ethereal, overwhelmed by the positive ion current travelling outward perhaps only revealing itself in its cyclical nature.

Away from the Galactic plane how would a stellar discharge appear? “Population II stars, existing in regions where dust is not available to immobilize free electrons, may draw intense currents of electrons from their surroundings.” (8)

Away from the dust found in the Galactic plane the Sun would have almost certainly experienced a different discharge mode. What of any planets orbiting within the “anode glow” of the discharge? Given the plentiful supply of electrons would any ‘gas-giant’ planets orbiting within the anode glow begin to glow themselves? Would Jupiter appear more star-like? Would planetary orbits alter to reflect different changes in potential? Would planetary orbits have migrated as the mode of discharge changed? And what of the Earth orbiting within such a discharge either as an independent body or as a satellite of a glowing gas-giant?

Reliable observations of the Sun only exist for the last few hundred years, even so changes in the Sun’s behaviour have been recorded, varying from one cycle to the next as well as experiencing extended minima of weak activity. That the Sun has undergone change in recorded human history is clear- could humans have witnessed even greater changes in prehistory?

References:
1 https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... t13dec99_1
2 http://solar.physics.montana.edu/ypop/N ... 91231.html
3 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 000077/pdf
4 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 00082/full
5 Juergens. Ralph. E. 1979. The Photosphere: Is It The Top Or The Bottom Of The Phenomenon We Call The Sun. Kronos Vol. 4 No 4.
6 http://www.holoscience.com/wp/twinkle-t ... e=x49g6gsf
7 https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.08578
8 Juergens. Ralph. E. 1983. Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Concluded). Kronos Vol. 8 No 2.

[Robertus Maximus]

Is the Electric Sun Model Dead?

Bob Johnson presents fresh challenges- but is he correct?

Visit: http://www.sis-group.org.uk/

"The Source of the Sun's Electrical Activity"

Text available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B45V9V ... ZBZlE/view
Slides available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B45V9V ... 1hcDQ/view
Video available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehgJY06 ... e=youtu.be

[comingfrom]

Dead for lack of data?

These guys must put blindfolds on, before observing satellite imagery of Sun.

And what if there are no incoming electrons?
Electricity is charge, isn't it.
So they should be trying to measure incoming and outgoing charge,
to know how electric it is.

Paul

[celeste]

Is the Electric Sun Model Dead?

Bob Johnson presents fresh challenges- but is he correct?

Visit: http://www.sis-group.org.uk/

"The Source of the Sun's Electrical Activity"

Text available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B45V9V ... ZBZlE/view
Slides available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B45V9V ... 1hcDQ/view
Video available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehgJY06 ... e=youtu.be

What fresh challenges? All I see, is what we all should have known along time ago. The main source of current is not in the solar wind. Once we learned that Birkeland currents form when a significant density of charge flows together in one direction, everyone should have abandoned the idea that the diverging solar wind was the place to look for significant charge flow. Once we understood that Birkeland currents form, and in their minimum energy configuration nearly dissappear from view, that should have been the focus. What am I missing?

[Webbman]

at extreme voltages the current requirements are very small. Low current does not necessarily mean low power. Low current means low power losses to heat.

would you expect nature to be inefficient with the distribution of power?

if you think about the potential difference from the earth to the ionosphere it would not be unreasonable to postulate that the potential difference from the solar system to the galaxy would behave similarly but on a higher order of magnitude.

as always energy moves from high potential to equilibrium in all modes of transport, thus the birkland current must have voltages greater than that found in the solar system for energy to move at all.

since all large masses are voltage sinks or grounds, including the sun who is at equilibrium, I would not be surprised to find that the interstellar void has a massive voltage and intergalactic space a higher order of magnitude again.

[Zyxzevn]

Funny.
The sun IS electric.
The currents are clearly visible all over the surface of the sun.

[jacmac]

celeste:

The main source of current is not in the solar wind.

I agree; I have suggested that the solar wind is a feedback current flowing back to the Heliopause.

Webbman:

since all large masses are voltage sinks or grounds, including the sun

Yes. The internal mass of our sun is like a FLOATING voltage sink or ground that is completely surrounded
by the Photosphere/chromosphere/corona complex.
The "ground" of our earth in our power grid circuit functions as a return wire back to the generating station.
The "ground" of the sun does not have that function.

Our electric power circuits on earth have four parts:
1, Voltage generating device
2. Wire to your house(voltage delivery)
3. Consuming device in your house(light bulb)
4. Return wire to generating device
(The ground wire back out, and the earth "ground" itself as a backup to the ground wire....just as the green ground wire in your home wiring is a backup white return wire)

The sun has only three parts:
1. The voltage generation outside the heliopause
2. The consuming activity of the whole solar system
3. The internal large mass core of the sun

They are not the same.
Looking for a four part solar CIRCUIT will not work.
Thus the anode/cathode sun debate has no correct answer.

Jack

[Webbman]

I fully agree but remember that the planets are part of the sun system and aid with power regulation just like a capacitor bank/voltage transformer and sink combination . Whatever way its hooked up the sun is full and the planets are in various lower energy states.

my guess is a parallel connection( to the sun) but each planet is different in size and composition and thus resistance and capacitance. Current travels largely unseen in the solar wind as discharges but also through induction for the iron, nickel and cobalt rich planets. I dont think solar wind discharge is a constant power flow but rather periodic discharge when "electrically necessary". The induction route is more stable/constant.

all serve to stabilize the incoming power, which is why I believe the sun gives birth to planets in the first place. The sun and planets have a parallel connection but smaller satellites of the planets are in series which is why they orbit the planet and not the sun.

like any circuit following around the voltage and current will tell you what's connected to what and how.

[Solar]

Is the Electric Sun Model Dead?

Bob Johnson presents fresh challenges- but is he correct?

Visit: http://www.sis-group.org.uk/

"The Source of the Sun's Electrical Activity"

Text available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B45V9V ... ZBZlE/view
Slides available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B45V9V ... 1hcDQ/view
Video available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehgJY06 ... e=youtu.be

Try not to misunderstand Bob’s presentation. The presentation is useful. It’s a good thing to have counterpoints so that people can weigh the contrast. Other than this thread no one references Juergens’ work. I've not read any of Juergens’ work myself so maybe it’s unfair to comment; but I’m going to regardless.

Space probe mission results, references to scientific literature, to contrast with the fundamental concept of electrodynamics in space plasma is what the main board engages in. As others have stated it’s about “charge”; not just the electron version. Overall the presentation offers the merits of investigating electricity in space while simultaneously stating that there is no current evidence supporting incoming electrons for the EU models thus far proposed.

Like Bob Johnson says, and to his credit, there certainly is merit to investigating electricity in space with regard to galaxies, stars, planets, “fields”, plasmas etc. He not once rejected this principle while recognizing that this principle is not something unique to the EU. The literature abounds with such docs as referenced in this very thread, and others. It’s always best to comb the experimental literature to look for evidence of claims and weigh those claims against the results of in situ probes. Whether any given model works, warrants modification(s), or not, needs to be weighed in contrast to those evidences. That is all that was done in the presentation while the presenter still acknowledges the value of electrodynamics in space plasmas.

It’s not that an “Electric Sun” is a dead concept. It’s that the three or four EU VERSIONS of same, according to Johnson’s research, apparently have no supporting evidence for inbound electrons. That’s actually old news; or am I missing something to??

Meanwhile:

Fig. 3. A cartoon illustrating a flux rope CME expanding and propagating away from the Sun. High energy galactic cosmic rays di ff use into the CME across its bounding magnetic field. – Monitoring Holes in the Sun's Corona

That is an interesting, apparently galactic, circuital relationship intermingling with the local circuit where “There are practically no high- energy galactic cosmic rays inside the CME when it starts out near the Sun. The cosmic rays diffuse into it from the surroundings via perpendicular diffusion across the closed magnetic field lines as it propagates through the heliosphere as shown…” - Babu, Dugad

The point is that there are LOTS of models!! Space probes will hopefully shake them out and reveal the nature of cosmic electric circuits to such extent that everyone will have something to learn.

[Webbman]

satellite data is as reliable as those who own and operate the satellites. ie. not reliable but its all you have really.

[comingfrom]

Thank you Solar,

the cartoon you linked is so much better that the cartoon of Schrodinger's dead cat.
That one is so unscientific, so unnecessary, I found it offensive.
And when I read, "no evidence of electrons" I have to stop reading and wonder.
I have read at least several papers on, or mentining, observed inflows on the Sun,
and we can even see inflows in videos of the Sun.

I think the flux rope cartoon is trying to explain a way that the Sun is receiving from the cosmos,
but it doesn't explain why the flare up occurred in the first place.
In fact, it even states, "There are practically no high- energy galactic cosmic rays inside the CME when it starts out near the Sun."
Most here agree, the standard explanation, magnetic reconnection, is not right.
Alfen's exploding double layers makes more sense to me.

To me, is seems obvious there must be a good inflow of charge into a particular region of the Sun, for the arcs to begin forming.
Why else would that region be discharging into nearby regions?
And if the inflow is great enough, and the arcs become so great, they can eject mass from the Sun.
That's the point when a double layer exploded.

I'm no expert, but I model on observation.
To me, a region on the Sun becoming overcharged must be receiving charge, even if we cannot see it.
And I often see wisps of plasma being drawn down from the corona in the videos.
Often coming in at 45 degrees into the base of where the arcs are rising up.
Surely there must be inflowing charge that carry those plasmoids in.

I think all the cries of "no evidence" come from the satellite data, virtually all of which is taken in the solar wind.
And I think, naturally, we should not expect to find inflows in the Sun's main outflow.

I also think there are "static" regions (layers) in the circuit.
The inflowing charge is captured by the corona first, and the corona is layer that maintains a high charge level.
But any region of static charge cannot continue to to receive charge indefinitely, and discharges to nearby regions (or to the next layer).
What I'm saying is, there might not be continuous filaments directly liking the Sun to the galactic core or nearby stars, but the heliosphere does the first collection of charge from over vast region of space, and absorbing many filaments or currents.
The heliospheric boundary discharges excess charge which it cannot contain, which is then captured by the corona,
which discharges to the photosphere, which discharges the Solar wind.

The Earths magnetoshere is it's charge collector,
pulling in charge and matter from the Solar wind and capturing it in the ionosphere.
The ionosphere discharges into the lower atmospheric layers, causing storm clouds to arise,
and which eventually discharge to the surface of Earth as rain and lightning.

My model, made up from bits borrowed from a lot of other models.
Paul