Electro wrote:I hadn't seen your article on ball lightning but the idea did cross my mind. It was also suggested by Bob Johnson in an Electric Universe conference. Current free double layers were somewhat responsible, if I recall correctly, for a possible dissipative system in our sun.
http://mikephilbin.blogspot.ca/2017/08/ ... n.html?m=1
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=7915
Electro wrote:I have considered the idea of ball lightning (or plasmoid) for quite a while. However, ball lightning on Earth only lasts a few seconds and is not showing the slightest evidence of being something that can be maintained for long. Of course, a star is much larger, and in a vacuum, which might make a difference, but we simply don't know that. Stars seem to be forming from z-pinches. Bob Johnson talks about kinks... The mechanism for ball lightning seems different from pairs of Birkland currents pinching. The structure in my picture seems like a long-lived process, not something that occurs only when there is charge separation.
JeffreyW wrote:Okay, that is fine. A plasma accelerated by an electrical field. Though I am wondering, if the Sun is electrically powered, then why are all the charged particles moving out of the Sun and not towards it?
This is very important because it means that via the conservation of mass, if something loses mass, then it becomes less massive. Since the charged particles are not replenished, they are all moving away from the Sun, not towards it, then it means the Sun is becoming less massive, which is predicted by GTSM.
The Sun is now a G2V star. It will become a G3V and then a G4V for its next stages of evolution.
This is impossible in EU, because they do not have stars evolving.
Electro wrote:I agree with most of what you're saying. But still, there are filamentary structures everywhere In galaxies when we look for them. We tend to see stars aligning on the filaments like what is referred to as beads on a string. To me, that's enough evidence for links between celestial objects. And since those filaments aren't dissipating rapidely, like lightning would, seems to me that there's a pretty good chance there's power keeping those stars in arc mode. And, as long as the current density and voltage are stable, which might be for millions of years, who knows, stars might not change or "evolve" much, as they would be in thermodynamic equilibrium. BUT, as soon as that current is either reduced or killed, then the stars could undergo their slow cooling phase (evolution toward planet formation). As long as the current is stable, stars might simply act as capacitors or transistors in a stable arc mode.
We don't see the current coming into our sun, but it probably is in dark mode, with a low density and voltage to keep the sun stable. The tremendous heat and matter coming out of the sun must be compensated somehow. If there is no nuclear reactor at the core, there has to be another source of matter and energy. I don't believe any other mechanism could sustain a star for millions or billions of years. A dissipative system needs input from its environment. It's an exchange. But what exactly is compensating the sun with what it's losing? Of course, for a star to be cooling and evolving, it has to be losing more than it's acquiring, but still, it would be cooling down much faster than what you are proposing, being in the cold vacuum of space. Anyway, it's my opinion. I still haven't really grasped the exact mechanism at play in dissipative structures. I need to read more on them.
JeffreyW wrote:
EU doesn't mention AGN and their extreme importance in star birth. Birthing galaxies make stars by the billions. We know this because billions of stars are found in single galaxies, just like trees produce leaves.
D_Archer wrote:JeffreyW wrote:Okay, that is fine. A plasma accelerated by an electrical field. Though I am wondering, if the Sun is electrically powered, then why are all the charged particles moving out of the Sun and not towards it?
This is very important because it means that via the conservation of mass, if something loses mass, then it becomes less massive. Since the charged particles are not replenished, they are all moving away from the Sun, not towards it, then it means the Sun is becoming less massive, which is predicted by GTSM.
The Sun is now a G2V star. It will become a G3V and then a G4V for its next stages of evolution.
This is impossible in EU, because they do not have stars evolving.
There is also energy in (ie charge moving into the sun, these are photons), all matter recycles charge, in at the poles and mostly out at the equator (Miles Mathis/charge recycling). The charge out takes with it ions and electrons, charge photons is also the same as heat, so heat out means cooling, in the future we might be able to figure out that in total star like bodies lose more heat (charge photons) than they receive over time, you would have a net heat loss. You already have a mass loss with the solar discharge, there is also other particles that come into to the sun like cosmic rays (this was discussed in another thread recently), but i think in all less comes in than goes out, supporting a shrinking/cooling model like GTSM.
Regards,
Daniel
Electro wrote:JeffreyW wrote:
EU doesn't mention AGN and their extreme importance in star birth. Birthing galaxies make stars by the billions. We know this because billions of stars are found in single galaxies, just like trees produce leaves.
Actually, EU does mention this. They have currents entering by the spiral arms and going through the very energetic galactic center "plasmoid", lighting up the stars in their path.
A dissipative system is a thermodynamically open system which is operating out of, and often far from, thermodynamic equilibrium in an environment with which it exchanges energy and matter. A dissipative structure is a dissipative system that has a dynamical régime that is in some sense in a reproducible steady state.
Electro wrote:D_Archer wrote:JeffreyW wrote:Okay, that is fine. A plasma accelerated by an electrical field. Though I am wondering, if the Sun is electrically powered, then why are all the charged particles moving out of the Sun and not towards it?
This is very important because it means that via the conservation of mass, if something loses mass, then it becomes less massive. Since the charged particles are not replenished, they are all moving away from the Sun, not towards it, then it means the Sun is becoming less massive, which is predicted by GTSM.
The Sun is now a G2V star. It will become a G3V and then a G4V for its next stages of evolution.
This is impossible in EU, because they do not have stars evolving.
There is also energy in (ie charge moving into the sun, these are photons), all matter recycles charge, in at the poles and mostly out at the equator (Miles Mathis/charge recycling). The charge out takes with it ions and electrons, charge photons is also the same as heat, so heat out means cooling, in the future we might be able to figure out that in total star like bodies lose more heat (charge photons) than they receive over time, you would have a net heat loss. You already have a mass loss with the solar discharge, there is also other particles that come into to the sun like cosmic rays (this was discussed in another thread recently), but i think in all less comes in than goes out, supporting a shrinking/cooling model like GTSM.
Regards,
Daniel
And I agree with that too. That's not the problem for me. Stars do cool down over time, it's inevitable.
If GTSM agrees that star birth is an electrical process, through z-pinch, it shouldn't be against the idea of an external power source. In plasma cosmology, we do witness such evidence with very clear images of the process. In the following picture, this is not star birth. It's a star being powered. There is a z-pinch, but it may have formed thousands or millions of years ago. It clearly shows that a z-pinch occured within plasma streams, but that it's an ongoing process with current passing through. It's not a perpetual motion machine. Just like on Earth, if you cut the power, it dies. Stars may be big, and plasma does have a tendency to sustain itself, but I just cannot believe that it would be able to do so for billions of years, no matter the size. Mainstrean scientists had to come up with the nuclear fusion model. And frankly, I don't think our sun has lost heat and matter in the past 50 000 years for "intelligent" humans to notice. That time span surely isn't negligeable for a structure without a power supply. We know that the sun goes through cycles though. I don't remember seeing this mentioned in GTSM. But don't get me wrong guys. I do fully agree with GTSM, but mainly after the power source has either died or diminished. Only then can the real evolution take place.
Plasma cosmology, and/or EU WITHOUT the mythological/catastrophism and holliow planet crap, give us a real picture of the Universe, showing that the Big Bang/Einsteinian gravity model is not the answer. That gravity is a very weak force, one of many electrical manifestations.
I will not make more comments on this subject, since you do not seem to agree the slightest bit with me, but I will say this again. GTSM, unified with Plasma Cosmology, would make a hell of a complete cosmology!![]()
As for the dissipative system, according to Wikipedia:
A dissipative system is a thermodynamically open system which is operating out of, and often far from, thermodynamic equilibrium in an environment with which it exchanges energy and matter.
It's the whole idea of a process, at least as it should be in GTSM to be realistic, which can sustain itself for such a long period of time. The input is not necessarily equal to the output, but nonetheless must be present. Otherwise, forget about billions of years. It'll never happen.
Electro wrote:I see that you do not agree with the EU concept. Mainstream does not recognize currents in space. But, the same mainstream sees stars as nuclear furnaces, and gravity (with dark matter) as the main driving force of the Universe. So, in my opinion, my guess, or your guess, is as good as their's. And, your dissipative star model, is no less speculative than the EU model.
For a theory of star formation and evolution to be valid, you have to inevitably consider the big picture, the puzzle, the cosmology. If one piece of the puzzle, let's say GTSM, does not fit with the puzzle, it probably should be discarded. Otherwise, it makes no sense whatsoever. Not saying it's your case, coz we'll never know. But you need to link your idea to something, be it Big Bang or EU, or any other new or existing cosmology, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is unclear in your case.
As an example, I've spoken recently with a Stephen Goodfellow about his theory of gravity. He was basically saying that the sun was a hollow sphere with a hydrogen shell and its interior was composed of "non-space"... Gravity was simply induced by zero pressure inside the sun, pulling everything towards it. He was comparing this idea to manifestations seen on Earth in whirlpools, tornadoes and the like. So, the first question that popped in my mind was, what about the Earth and other planets? Are they hollow too? He could not answer. Well, the theory just died right there.
Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests