Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

[upriver]

I dont believe that there is any periodicity associated with the suns linear travel.

However, the sun does not travel in a straight line. It spirals, on more than one scale, and there are definite effects from those periodicities.

Yes, and that takes place inside the heliosphere. It spirals and wobbles like a top.

I mean as the heliosphere travels through the local fluff(Apex Cloud).. The voltage doesn't change periodically because of the heliosphere traveling through the local fluff.

[Robertus Maximus]

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.

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

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.

Voyager 1 and Voyager 2

Voyager 1 encountered the Termination Shock (TS) at a distance of 94 AU in December 2004, however, between July 2007 and April 2010 the radial component of the solar wind speed observed by Voyager 1 in the heliosheath decreased linearly from 60 km/s to 0 km/s at a rate (−18.8 ± 1.5) km/s/yr as Voyager 1 moved from 103.9 AU to 113.2 AU. The radial velocity remained near 0 km/s from April 2010 to February 2011 as Voyager 1 moved from 113.2 AU to 118.0 AU, this region was labelled the ‘stagnation region’ by mission scientists.

Although the radial velocity had fallen to zero (in some cases the flow actually took on negative values) Voyager 1 found that the azimuthal component had grown- taking on values comparable to solar wind radial velocities (26 km/s at the distance of Voyager 1).Puzzlingly, the magnetic field strength recorded by Voyager 1 did not increase as mission scientists had expected.

Voyager 2 encountered the TS at a distance of 84 AU in August 2007 and is now (2016) at a distance of 112 AU. Since encountering the TS Voyager 2 has not experienced a deceleration region or stagnation region of the solar wind, the flow has remained remarkably constant averaging 150 km/s. Voyager mission scientists admit that the ‘observations of steady speeds are not predicted by models and are not understood’.

Why such a marked difference if both spacecraft are immersed in an HS shaped by a ‘subsonic interstellar wind’?

Slow Solar Wind and the IBEX Ribbon

The origin of the IBEX Ribbon is considered to lie outside of the HS at approximately 140 AU, from mainstream papers we find that the ‘…ribbon is possibly consistent with an external source of particles (Heerikhuisen et al. 2010; Chalov et al. 2010), that lies beyond the heliopause, and “sits” in a “background” of ENA (energetic neutral atoms) emissions, referred to as globally distributed flux (GDF), that is created by the CE (charge exchange) interactions from the inner heliosheath (Schwadron et al. 2009; McComas et al. 2009; Funsten et al. 2009; Fuselier et al. 2009).’, and ‘The ribbon flux is notably superimposed on a slowly varying ENA flux that is referred to as the globally distributed flux (GDF) and is likely a separate emission population.’ (3)

Observations by IBEX show that the ribbon appears narrowest at energies of 0.7 and 1.1 keV, which are energies associated with characteristic Slow Solar Wind (SSW) speeds of 370 and 460 km/s, respectively. What is the SSW doing at 140 AU?

Of course, the SSW as we understand it, within the HS, is probably not really present at 140 AU but I have suggested that the SSW is slow as it represents the interaction of an incoming electron current with an outgoing electron deficient current- the origin of this interaction now appears to extend at least to the IBEX Ribbon itself.
At higher energies the IBEX Ribbon, which is approximately aligned with the ecliptic equator, broadens and eventually merges with the GDF. At higher energies the GDF is approximately aligned with the galactic equator and eventually forms the Cassini Belt.

The Cassini Belt and IBEX Ribbon

From its vantage point orbiting the planet Saturn the Cassini spacecraft discovered a belt of ENA emissions in the outer HS. The emissions were found to be organised on galactic coordinates, ‘Contrary to theoretical expectations (Axford 1973), the ENA emissions are moderately well organized in Galactic coordinates, following roughly the Galactic equator with a 30 degree tilt in latitude, rather than in ecliptic coordinates. In principle, the heliosheath is dominated/ formed by the influence of the shocked solar wind from inside the heliopause. On the other hand, the apparent symmetry in Galactic coordinates point toward an external source of influence in the formation of the ENAs inside the heliosheath, possibly lying beyond the heliopause.’

At certain energies emissions from the IBEX Ribbon and Cassin Belt are similar: ‘As a result, the qualitative similarities between the IBEX intensities in the highest TOF channel (E = 4.29 keV) and INCA (E > 5 keV) are striking, almost identical in both the formed structure (position in the sky, width, etc.) and ENA intensity range. Whether this is viewed as the evolution of one structure from the ribbon shape into the belt shape as a function of energy or as two separate structures that overlap in energy (and could in fact originate at different radial distances along the LOS) remains a matter for further inquiry.’ (3)

The energy levels of ENAs associated with the Cassini Belt are typical of the Fast Solar Wind (FSW). We now see both types of solar wind reflected in ENA emissions from the outer HS and perhaps beyond. The IBEX Ribbon reflects the SSW and is approximately centred on the ecliptic equator, the Cassini Belt reflects the FSW and is approximately centred on the galactic equator.

Given the currently accepted distances of the IBEX Ribbon and Cassini Belt it is difficult to see how they could be one structure, rather the energies concerned indicate ENAs associated with the Fast Solar Wind (FSW) form a torus in the heliosheath organised on galactic coordinates. That is not to say that the two structures are unrelated their relationship is clearly a dynamical one, ‘…such as the bimodal nature of the solar wind, i.e., the co-existence of a fast and slow solar wind, that is reflected in a hardening of the IBEX spectra at >1 keV toward the ecliptic poles. However, the GDF spectra can generally be described by a single power-law function (with the exception of the high northern and southern latitudes; e.g., Dayeh et al. 2011), a fact that provides further evidence that the GDF and the ribbon are distinct features that originate from different source plasma populations (heliosheath and outside the heliopause, respectively).’ This evidence points ‘…toward an external source of influence in the formation of the ENAs inside the heliosheath (i.e. Cassini Belt), possibly lying beyond the heliopause (i.e. IBEX Ribbon).’ (3), moreover, both structures evolve over the solar cycle.

Solar Cycle 23 and 24

Both the IBEX and Cassini spacecraft observed the outer HS during the descending phase of solar cycle 23 (SC23) through to Solar Minimum, while the new solar cycle (SC24) began in 2010.

Cassini conducted observations of this region in 2003, shortly after Solar Maximum. I have previously described the changes that occurred in the Cassini Belt over this period. By the time of the first all sky map from IBEX SC23 was approaching Solar Minimum. What changes in the outer HS did IBEX record?

IBEX recorded changes as the solar cycle progressed from minimum to maximum conditions; at Solar Minimum (2009) we find concentrated high emissions from the IBEX Ribbon, as if current was arriving from a concentrated HT ‘pinch’. As the solar cycle progressed to Solar Maximum (2013) emissions from the IBEX Ribbon steadily fell but not in all areas of the Ribbon; ‘…From 2009 to 2012, ENA fluxes are declining at all energies in both the northern and southern portions of the Ribbon. However, in 2013, while the northern Ribbon ENAs continue to show declining fluxes, especially for the highest two energies, the southern Ribbon ENA fluxes appear to have flattened out or even slightly recovered. Thus, the evolution of the Ribbon fluxes in the two hemispheres has become quite different in 2013. We note that this difference cannot be simply explained by the difference in the survival probability corrections, which diverge between the north and south in 2012–2013 as these corrections are only a few percent different, especially at the higher energies were the Ribbon flux evolution becomes so different.

‘Perhaps this divergence can be explained by significant differences in the distance to the Ribbon source regions in the north and south, especially at higher latitudes/energies. The southern portion of the Ribbon is almost certainly closer to the Sun than the northern portion for several reasons: (1) the Ribbon does not extend to as high latitudes in the south as in the north, (2) the southern portions of the Ribbon are largely on the upwind, and thus compressed, side of the heliosphere, while the northern portions wrap back around the north pole on its downwind side, and (3) the heliosphere is compressed in the south compared to the north, owing to the inclination of the strong external field surrounding the heliosphere (McComas et al. 2009c; Schwadron et al. 2009; Opher et al. 2009).’ (4)

At higher energy levels we also see a reduction in ENA emissions, at Solar Maximum the FSW has all but disappeared in the inner HS and this reduction is reflected in emissions associated with the FSW detected by IBEX.

The GDF and Cassini Belt change over the solar cycle ‘…our current understanding is that the GDF evolves with increasing ENA energy to form the identified belt at high energies. The belt possibly corresponds to a “reservoir” of particles that exist within the heliosheath, moving in a great circle along the nose to tail direction, passing through the ecliptic poles, constantly replenished by new particles from the solar wind.’ (3) In galactic coordinates the ‘reservoir’ of particles would form a torus- the Cassini Belt- at the inner edge of the outer HS ‘moving in a great circle’ in direct response to changes in the strength of emissions in the IBEX Ribbon.

Over SC23 and SC24 IBEX Ribbon intensities fell asymmetrically, researchers attribute this to the compression of the HS- but what if we are actually witnessing changing intensities of a Birkeland Current? In a pinched HT we would expect to see features associated with twisting currents, did IBEX reveal such features and could they have been misinterpreted by researchers based on preconceived ideas?

Does the Heliotail Exist?

A comet-like HS was expected to have ‘nose’ and ‘tail’ features but observations of the Cassini Belt show no asymmetry between the ‘nose’ and the ‘tail’ regions. This led to the suggestion of a ‘tailless’ HS by Krimigis et al. (2009), which explained the Cassini INCA ENA measurements using a modified ‘diamagnetic bubble’ concept that, as we have already seen, was proposed by Parker (1961).

Despite the evidence provided by Cassini, researchers continue to discuss the structure of the HS as if it is actually comet-like. All-sky maps produced by IBEX continue to be labelled as the ‘heliotail’ by researchers simply because it is viewed as being ‘downwind’ of the heliospheric ‘nose’; but observations of this region reveal emissions that are generally no different to other regions of the HS and as with the IBEX Ribbon the ‘heliotail’ structure is ordered on ecliptic coordinates.

‘Unlike the IBEX Ribbon, which may well come from ENA emissions beyond the heliopause (e.g., from a “secondary ENA source; McComas et al. 2009b; Heerikhuisen et al. 2010; Chalov et al. 2010; Schwadron & McComas 2013), emissions from the heliotail are almost certainly coming from the region beyond the termination shock, but still inside the heliopause, just as they do for the rest of the globally distributed flux (McComas et al. 2009b; Schwadron et al. 2011).’ (5)

Researchers have also identified two ‘lobes’ in the ‘heliotail’. Furthermore, IBEX observations demonstrate ‘the twisting or tilting of the two lobed slow solar wind plasma sheet toward the direction of the external magnetic field. This tilting shows that even within a relatively short heliotail observed over several hundreds of AU with ENAs, the effect of the magnetic tension force, T, of the external magnetic field is strong enough to start squeezing the tail and rotating it toward alignment with the external field configuration.’ (5)

The two ‘lobes’ are present in data returned by Cassini: ‘Also, indicated in Figure 10(b) (by red contour lines and semi-transparent blue fill) are the offset heliotail “lobes” identified in the 4.3 keV IBEX skymaps by McComas et al. (2013). In terms of the brighter features, the belt roughly overlaps the ribbon in the “nose” hemisphere, but the belt is clearly present in the “tail” hemisphere where the ribbon is absent. For the dimmest features, both of the IBEX “lobes” fall rather well into the INCA “basins,” although the basins extend considerably further in latitude (up to 60 degrees north or south) versus the lobes (not much beyond 30 degrees north and south).’ (3)

So, the IBEX ‘lobes’, regions of reduced ENA emissions match the reduced ENA emission areas found by Cassini- INCA ‘basins’. When the HS is viewed in galactic coordinates do the IBEX ‘lobes’ form part of a ‘heliotail’? I suggest that they do not, rather: ‘…The minima of the ENA emissions (ENA basins) in ecliptic coordinates reside in the center of the image (e.g., see Figure 1) and reappear beyond the belt at 120 degrees to about −170 degrees in longitude at the respective edges of the image. These ENA basins roughly coincide with the Galactic north and south poles (Figure 2), with a ∼30 degree tilt with respect to the Galactic equator.’ (3) (my emphasis)

As we find with the HS ‘nose’ we find a twisting and ‘draping’ of the magnetic field due to a pinch in the ‘tail’ region of the HT. The slight differences between the ‘nose’ and ‘tail’ are due to an asymmetry in the pinch i.e. the angle of the IBEX Ribbon. The ‘lobes’ or ‘basins’ are simply regions away from either the IBEX Ribbon and Cassini Belt, in galactic coordinates, we are looking ‘up’ and ‘down’ the ‘X’ of the pinched HT into a region of depleted ENA emissions as this alignment is asymmetric it gives the impression of a ‘tail’.

Summary

We have seen that the comet-like model of the HS suggested by Parker is based on assumed conditions no longer supported by data gathered during the space-age; multiple lines of evidence now suggest that the interstellar magnetic field is relatively strong.

In-situ measurements by the Voyager spacecraft do not sit well with the comet-like HS model. The azimuthal solar wind recorded by Voyager 1 suggests that Voyager 1 exited the HS at the ‘waist’ of the pinched hourglass shaped HT. Voyager 2 measuring a steady solar wind speed from the general direction of the IBEX Ribbon appears to be recording the ‘pinch’ current. Observations from Voyager 2 may continue to surprise mission scientists for as long as the spacecraft continues to function.

When IBEX Ribbon emissions are high we find Solar Minimum conditions in the inner HS.

When IBEX Ribbon emissions are low or fragmented we find Solar Maximum conditions in the inner HS.

Global properties of the entire HS change over the solar cycle, these changes are reflected in emissions in both the IBEX Ribbon and Cassini Belt.

The IBEX Ribbon straddles the ‘waist’ of the pinched hourglass shaped HT. At the centre of the pinch we find a torus of trapped particles aligned to galactic coordinates- the Cassini Belt.

Observations of the IBEX Ribbon over the 22 year Hale cycle will be required to build a complete picture of the Sun’s interaction with its environment.

Hourglass shaped planetary nebulae tend to exhibit a preferred alignment- based on galactic coordinates the HT would display a similar alignment.

The Stellar Cycle of M2-9

It is known that bipolar planetary nebulae, the stellar equivalent of the HT, show a ‘preference for a particular alignment’ many ‘have their long axes aligned along the plane of our galaxy’ (https://www.eso.org/public/unitedkingdom/news/eso1338/), we would expect the Sun’s environment to display a similar alignment.Observations of one such planetary nebula, M2-9, reveal changes over an 18 year period that may be analogous to the solar cycle, comparable to the HT if it were in glow mode.
(See: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0706/m2 ... orradi.gif)

References:

1.Parker. E. N. 1961. The Stellar Wind Regions. American Astronomical Society February 1961

2.Krimigis. S. M. et al. 2009. Imaging the Interaction of the Heliosphere with the Interstellar Medium from Saturn with Cassini. Science 326:971, November 2009.

3.Dialynas. K. et al. 2013. A Three-Coordinate System (Ecliptic, Galactic, ISMF) Spectral Analysis Of Heliospheric ENA Emissions Using Cassini/INCA Measurements. The Astrophysical Journal 778:40, November 2013.

4.McComas. D. J. et al. 2014. IBEX: The First Five Years (2009-2013). The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 213:20, July 2014.

5.McComas. D. J. et al. 2013. The Heliotail Revealed By The Interstellar Boundary Explorer. The Astrophysical Journal 771:77, July 2013.

[Solar]

Sticking with the plasmoid motif expressed above now have a look at this newer “Slingshot” approach:


Slingshot mechanism in Orion: Kinematic evidence for ejection of protostars by filaments: A. Stutz, A. Gould (+17mb paper)

Despite the static images cosmic filaments are known to meander, oscillate, undulate, kink, knot and move about. This slingshot theory posits that some “older” stars have been “kicked out” of the main filament.

Solar, Could they be interpreting the data in the wrong way? In their figure 10, when they talk about distance from the filament, they mean distance off to one side or the other. So if they are seeing radial velocity of an object off to the side of a filament, that could be motion AROUND the filament. Not necessarily motion away from the filament?

Looking again at this picture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Int ... omplex.gif
Imagine you are an observer stationed in the lower right corner of this image. You would see a different radial velocity for the LIC , than for the sun. It could be that the cloud is "undulating" to the upper left, and will leave the sun behind. OR... the sun may not actually continue on a straight path, but spiral along the "cloud surface"

That could be true Celeste. I've tried locating evidence of this before. It is something being considered:

Although rotation of the filament cannot be excluded, the data are also consistent with the main filament being comprised of several velocity-coherent sub-filaments. Furthermore, this velocity gradient perpendicular to the filament resembles recent results toward Serpens south that are interpreted as signatures of filament formation within magnetized and turbulent sheet-like structures.
(…)
…we cannot conclusively differentiate whether it has formed out of (pre-existing) velocity-coherent sub-filaments and or whether magnetized converging gas flows, a larger-scale collapsing cloud or even rotation played a significant role during filament formation.
(…)
While in principle rotation of the filament is a possible explanation for the observed spectral signatures, Kirk et al. (2013) showed that for an accreting filament, infall motions would quickly dominate the kinematics, even if the filament were initially rotating.
(…)
Furthermore, the observed velocity structure of the gas indicates a dynamic origin of the filament. However, we cannot resolve yet whether it is comprised of individual velocity-coherent sub-filaments or whether other processes like magnetized converging gas flows, a larger-scale collapsing cloud or even cloud rotation play a significant role in the formation process. - Filament Fragmentation in High-Mass Star Formation

@ Seasmith

Yes, for my taste Salutatory Conduction along the axion in the human body has parallels with regard to the propagation of electric forces and stars along filaments. Specifically the dynamic associated with the Nodes of Ranvier where there is interaction with the “extracellular space” which is at a different electric potential. In the comparison, the extracellular space surrounding the axion would correspond to the Sun’s equatorial heliosphere “current sheet” interactions with the local interstellar medium - which is likewise at a different electric potential than those regions inside the heliosphere.

The Bipolar Nebula (or Butteryfly) configuration is premier for understanding the comparison and this relationship can be carried on to galaxies and their bipolar discharges and disc at the larger scale:

SaltatoryConduction

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words but I don’t time to show photos where I’ve superimposed a bipolar nebula over an axion with the central star of same centrally placed at the “node” of Ranvier aligning the “wings” of the nebula along the axis of myelinated sections of the nerve channel. In this relationship stellar and/or galactic “disk” would correspond to areas of equatorial interaction with the surrounding medium which, via periodic bidirectional pulsations, reinvigorate longitudinal propagation of the electrical forces along the filament length. Likewise with stars and galaxies along celestial filaments; particularly the bipolar configuration.

For those interested in making their own superimposed comparative image here is the free Open Source photo editing program GIMP. Get a photo, or drawing, of The Node of Ranvier such as this one. Then use a photo of a bipolar nebula such as the stunningly beautiful M2-9: Wings of a Butterfly Nebula.

Then, adjust the “opacity” or transparency of one of the photos so that you can see through it. Then overlay the transparent photo atop the second and freely rotate so that the axes align. Or, just pause the above YouTube video at seven seconds while their animated ‘star’ is centralized at the “gap” known as The Node of Ranvier.

There appears to be a microcosmic analogy in the electrochemical discharging function of nerves 'firing' along axions that could have relevance to Robert's latest use of the "diamagnetic bubble" approach. I prefer Robert's latest approach because the diamagnetic aspect speaks to an earlier reference where, imho, there *also* needs to exist 'electrodynamic reaction' of circuital 'components'. Once formed, some electrodynamic aspects of stars are intrinsic; some aspects are extrinsic.

[Robertus Maximus]

Elliptical Galaxies, Population I and Population II Stars

In an article published posthumously ‘Electric Discharge as the source of Solar Radiant Energy’, Ralph Juergens states:

‘Since we are postulating that stars are powered by electric currents flowing from the stars to their surroundings, we should examine the stars of the galaxy and the nature of their galactic environments.

‘One of the most significant discoveries of the past few decades was that of Walter Baade of the Mount Wilson and Palomar staff. He was the first to recognize that the stars of the local galaxy fall into two general classes: Population I stars, of which the Sun is an example, are found mainly in the flattened disk of stars that dominate the outer part of the galaxy; they range in color from red to blue, with giant stars at both extremes, the blue ones being by far the brightest. Population II stars are found in globular clusters — "satellite systems which surround our Milky Way, apparently hedging it about in all directions" (16) - and in great numbers in and about the galactic nucleus; the brightest stars of Population II are less brilliant than the blue giants of Population I and they are red in color, but brighter than the giant red stars of Population I.

‘It was soon noticed in studies of our own and other galaxies that Population I stars are present only in regions where there is dust. This dust is richer in metals than the typical interstellar gas, and the Population I stars seem to have a higher admixture of metals than those of Population II. Therefore, the consensus among astronomers is that the two populations represent two different age groups, the older stars of Population II having been formed from an earlier blend of ingredients, before metals were as abundant in the universe as they are now. The basic difference in the two populations is accepted to be one of metal content. But the primary observational fact is this: "where there is no dust, there is no Population I." (17)

‘The Sun as a Population I star ought to be typical of its group. By examining its operation we might be able to draw some conclusions about the state of electrification of the dusty galactic disk. We start by considering the Sun surrounded by a sphere of space through which it draws energy from, and discharges current to, the galaxy.’

A new study (see: http://astronomynow.com/2016/11/22/spir ... -galaxies/) has confirmed the findings of an earlier study (see: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101631.htm), that elliptical galaxies are more spiral-like than was previously believed.

Typically, elliptical are found embedded in regions of what astronomers refer to as ‘hot gas’, that is plasma with plentiful free electrons.

Now, could it be that ‘old’ elliptical galaxies are actually ‘young’? Likewise can we consider that Population II stars are actually ‘young’ and Population I stars are ‘old’?

Juergens continued:

‘We have just speculated that cosmic dust may be filtering free electrons out of the interstellar gas and preventing them from flooding in upon the Sun. It is interesting to entertain the idea that the two populations of stars may differ fundamentally in the matter of current carriers in the cathode drop.

‘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. Population II stars, existing in regions where dust is not available to immobilize free electrons, may draw intense currents of electrons from their surroundings.’

This is what we find with the Sun, a dominant electron deficient current travelling outward. Was Juergens correct, do stars (and galaxies) embedded in clouds of ‘hot gas’ draw intense currents directly from their surroundings?

I would suggest that, once again, Juergens is correct. Stars and galaxies are products of their environment.

[nick c]

'Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy' Part I

‘Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy’ Part 2

[upriver]

Elliptical Galaxies, Population I and Population II Stars


This is what we find with the Sun, a dominant electron deficient current travelling outward. Was Juergens correct, do stars (and galaxies) embedded in clouds of ‘hot gas’ draw intense currents directly from their surroundings?

I would suggest that, once again, Juergens is correct. Stars and galaxies are products of their environment.

So your saying the solar wind is electron deficient?

And I agree that stars are a a product of their environment.

[Robertus Maximus]

So your saying the solar wind is electron deficient?

And I agree that stars are a a product of their environment.

Following Juergens, relative to stars embedded in ‘hot gas’ the Sun is probably not drawing as intense electron currents from its surroundings, rather being in a spiral arm incoming electrons are likely being intercepted by interstellar dust which appears to hinder the demands of the discharge.

In an earlier post I wrote: ‘In driving electrons toward the Sun the tenuous LISM is ‘trying’ to force the charge density of the Sun to match that of its own, given the sheer size of the Sun this is almost a Sisyphean task and the solar discharge continues unabated.’

Likewise, being a product of its environment we can consider that the Sun is just as equally ‘trying’ to meet the charge density of that environment. Being highly negatively charged the Sun emits an electron deficient current i.e. ions, protons of the ‘solar-wind’ to its environment to compensate for the ‘lack’ of free electrons even though the LISM carries an even greater negative charge.

[seasmith]

~
Extragalactic circuits, transmission lines, and CR particle acceleration

If your panties wad up every time you read the phrase 'black hole', just substitute Galactic Center,
the rest is all electric.

http://www.epj-conferences.org/articles ... _13005.pdf

[Robertus Maximus]

~
Extragalactic circuits, transmission lines, and CR particle acceleration

If your panties wad up every time you read the phrase 'black hole', just substitute Galactic Center,
the rest is all electric.

http://www.epj-conferences.org/articles ... _13005.pdf

Mainstream astronomy is not going to give up on Black Holes and Dark Matter etc. Here’s a purely electric galaxy alternative I have found, it is similar to Ralph Juergens' model- I’m not too sure if it’s already been posted elsewhere. See https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl ... .ip52yr599 and for a pdf download: https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3096

[Robertus Maximus]

Earth’s leaking atmosphere as a Solar Wind analogy at Solar Minimum

Previously on this thread I mentioned that it was possible, from this article (http://phys.org/print387182978.html) that we could use the findings of the Cluster mission as a Sun-Earth analogy; now, just to recap and add a few more thoughts.

‘…at Earth's poles the field lines are open, like those of a standard bar magnet (these locations are named the polar cusps). Here, solar wind particles can head inwards towards Earth, filling up the magnetosphere with energetic particles.

‘Just as particles can head inwards down these open polar lines, particles can also head outwards. Ions from Earth's upper atmosphere – the ionosphere, which extends to roughly 1000 km above the Earth – also flood out to fill up this region of space. Although missions such as Cluster have discovered much, the processes involved remain unclear.’

We have ‘hot electrons’ arriving at the poles and ‘cold ions’ depart, an Earth Wind rather than a Solar Wind if you prefer.

Furthermore, Earth is losing 90 tonnes of material per day, in contrast the Sun is losing some 86 billion tonnes of material per day, the Electric Sun hypothesis interprets this ‘mass loss’ as part of an electrical circuit. Can we speculate that both the Earth and Sun are ‘losing mass’ from their upper atmospheres as a result of similar electrical circuits?

In the case of the Earth the circuit is ‘fixed’ – influenced by Earth’s intrinsic charge. Incoming current can power a glow mode discharge at high latitude regions- the aurora. In fact the ‘wind’ that leaves the Earth is known as the Polar Wind. This ‘wind’ is normally steady (Slow) but elevated periods of solar activity can substantially increase the flow (Fast). See: http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/news/9812/solar1.html and
http://pwg.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/news/9812/solarwind.html

The Sun not only collects electrons from its environment but emits an electron deficient current to its environment, Earl Milton explains why: ‘The solar wind, a flow of electron-deficient atoms (ions) away from the Sun, carries the electric current. That a negatively charged body like the Sun can increase its charge by emitting a proton wind is reasonable only if the space surrounding the Sun is more negatively charged than is the Sun itself!’ (1)

When considering the Sun and Solar Cycle I have suggested the circuit rather than being fixed ‘rotates’ (the Solar Cycle) and powers an arc mode discharge. At Solar Minimum incoming current is concentrated at low solar latitudes where we find the Slow Solar Wind (SSW). Although located at low solar latitudes this situation would be analogous to Earth’s Polar Wind leaving most of the heliosphere occupied by the Fast Solar Wind (FSW).

At Solar Maximum the structured FSW disappears as the incoming current is now filamentary and highly inclined- we can consider the resultant sunspots to be analogous to ‘small’ isolated Polar Winds.

Planetary magnetospheres do not change polarity with the Solar Cycle because they are not, in the main, influenced by the current powering the Sun; planetary magnetospheres are influenced instead by the electron-deficient current from the Sun. (2)

I have previously suggested that the Uranian magnetosphere can serve as an analogy for the Solar Cycle and heliosphere. We can now add the Earth’s magnetosphere, this time as an analogy of Solar Minimum. As plasma phenomena are scalable perhaps by studying the Earth’s electrical environment we can learn how the Sun is powered- the answer may be closer to home than we think.

References and Notes:

1. Milton. Earl. R. 1980. Electric Stars in a Gravity-Less Electrified Cosmos. SIS Review Vol. 5 No 1.
2. Although taking no part in the discharge powering the Sun planetary magnetospheres can act as secondary electrodes, intercepting some electrons headed for the Sun and of course, cosmic rays.

[seasmith]

Robertus Maximus wrote:
Planetary magnetospheres do not change polarity with the Solar Cycle because they are not, in the main, influenced by the current powering the Sun; planetary magnetospheres are influenced instead by the electron-deficient current from the Sun. (2)

Agreed, and what i was expressing in part here:

... to offer a similarity in images; and to suggest a likely rotating electric influx [reflux] at the poles, as a prime driver.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 75#p116575

A driver with which CharlesChandler & co seem to take exception.

[Robertus Maximus]

Agreed, and what i was expressing in part here:

... to offer a similarity in images; and to suggest a likely rotating electric influx [reflux] at the poles, as a prime driver.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 75#p116575

A driver with which CharlesChandler & co seem to take exception.

Yes, in that particular case I see an external cause not a molten iron jet stream.

[Robertus Maximus]

Has STEREO found the Drift Current?

Observations by NASA’s twin STEREO spacecraft (1) observing the Sun have revealed ‘inbound waves’ in the solar corona.

Studies of the Streamer Belt- where we find the Slow Solar Wind (SSW) and Coronal Holes- where we find the Fast Solar Wind (FSW) both revealed ‘inbound features’.

The observations took place in August 2007 ‘during a quiet period near solar minimum with a small amount of coronal activity and no instrumental anomalies.’

In the streamer belt, outbound features such as Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) and what researches called ‘blobs’ were observed, whereas inbound features comprised of ‘myriad diffuse inbound features in the lower corona’. It was also found that: ‘Superposed on the large-scale pattern is a lower-amplitude, more complex background signal that is present at all azimuths.’ The background signal was present in both the streamer belt and coronal holes although the coronal hole regions lacked the large scale structures of the streamer belt.

What the researchers termed waves oscillated 'about once every four hours and are about 10 times the length of Earth'. ‘The inbound fluctuations observed in the coronal hole are wholly new and identification is important to understand the phenomenon being observed. The coherence of individual fluctuations…indicates that the features are not noise. The observed smoothly varying preferred speed versus radius strongly indicates wave motion…’ (2)

From data returned by the STEREO spacecraft NASA produced highly processed movies showing wave motions moving downward through the solar corona toward the Sun.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/na ... -observed/

When viewing the movie (see link above) it is clear that both outbound and inbound activity is concentrated in two regions approximately 180 degrees apart, inbound features can be seen that display a subtle twist. In other regions we see the ‘background signal’.

The STEREO observations were conducted during solar minimum, I have previously suggested that at solar minimum current arrives at the Sun in a structured manner and in the equatorial regions as the Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) displays very little tilt.

I have previously commented on findings from the SOHO mission: ‘During solar cycle 23 SOHO discovered what mission scientists called ‘Mysterious clouds of gas falling towards the Sun’, they were ‘mysterious’ because they ‘go against the fast-moving streams of gas that pour out continuously into space, in the solar wind’. From this European Space Agency (ESA) report we find: ‘About 8000 inflow events have now been logged - most of them since 1998 while the Sun has been at its most active, as judged by the high count of sunspots. The inflows can start at an altitude of up to 2,700,000 kilometres above the visible surface, a distance equal to twice the Sun's diameter. Here the accelerating solar wind, leaving the Sun, has reached a speed of about 120 kilometres per second. Fighting against it, the gas clouds travel in at 50-100 kilometres per second. Typically they appear to come to rest about 700,000 kilometres out.’

‘However, the LASCO instrument aboard SOHO was designed to explore the region from 700,000 to 3,500,000 kilometres from the visible surface, so it is possible that the inflows of gas descended much closer to the photosphere. Of course we are really talking about plasma not ‘clouds of gas’.

‘The report continued: ‘Although the gas feels a very strong pull from the Sun's gravity, this is not the decisive force acting on the inflows. The high rate at which they gather speed initially, and their eventual slowdown, suggest instead that they are firmly under the control of a magnetic force. A few inflows are a backwash from explosive mass ejections, which are sporadic events, but the overwhelming majority occur quite regularly within regions of slow solar wind.

‘‘A downpour of 20 inflows per day, seen on the left side of the Sun, can be followed after a lull of two weeks by a similar downpour seen on the right side. This means that the occurrences persist in a particular region on the Sun, which takes two weeks to move from left to right as the Sun rotates. The regional association can continue for months...’ (my emphasis).

‘The inflow events occurred as the solar cycle was progressing to solar maximum, inflows on one side of the Sun were visible two weeks later on the other side- sunspots can take approximately two weeks to traverse the solar disc! There appears to be a correlation between sunspots and inflow events, almost as if the Birkeland currents, responsible for the formation of sunspots, are causing an avalanche of plasma from the corona toward the photosphere. Plus, the LASCO instrument could only detect inflows on the solar limb, is it possible that there never was a two week lull, rather, the inflows had simply rotated out of the view of SOHO? The evidence from SOHO indicates that close to the Sun a constant flow of plasma toward the Sun is present.’ (3)

We now have observations from two missions studying the Sun, one approaching solar maximum, another during solar minimum. During both periods ‘inflows’ and ‘inbound features’ were observed. Both observations reveal an increase of speed with height, the ESA report noted ‘that they are firmly under the control of a magnetic force’, this strongly suggests an electrical rather than a mechanical cause, is the background signal the ‘drift current’ of a Juergens circuit? Are the active regions visible in the NASA movie a pseudo-Alfven circuit (i.e. Birkeland Currents)?

The upcoming Solar Probe Plus mission (4) is scheduled to approach the Sun far closer than any spacecraft to date and will eventually explore the region where inflow features are found. During this period and at its closest approach, data received from the spacecraft may well confound the standard solar model whilst confirming the Electric Sun model.

References:

1. https://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/
2. DeForest. C.E. et al. 2014. Inbound Waves in the Solar Corona: A Direct Indicator of Alfven Surface Location. Astrophysical Journal, 787:124
3. http://sci.esa.int/soho/28996-soho-s-la ... wrong-way/
4. http://solarprobe.jhuapl.edu/

[Robertus Maximus]

Waves or Currents?

A recent paper (http://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-017-0086) announced the discovery of ‘Rossby-like’ waves on the Sun.

Using observations by the STEREO and SDO spacecraft, researchers have mapped the evolution of coronal brightpoints (BPs) from solar minimum in 2010 and solar maximum in 2013 and have been able to make movies of the observed changes (https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... orecasting).

‘We have observed long-lived, slow-moving, westerly features in the combined observations of STEREO and SDO. Those wave-like patterns closely resemble the diagnostics of Rossby wave trains in the Earth’s atmosphere. The properties determined from these combined STEREO and SDO observations would appear to intrinsically link the formation and evolution of individual solar active regions with the Rossby-like behaviour of the activity bands of the 22-year magnetic activity cycle in each solar hemisphere and to indicate that both are driven by the rotation and the induced global circulation of our star’s convective interior. Furthermore, observations of such propagating patches of strong, well-separated, recurrent magnetic activity should help to reconcile the decades of ‘Rieger periodicity’, ‘active’ solar longitude and ‘active region nest’ observations with their physical underpinning in the rotational forcing of the Sun’s global toroidal magnetic field and the prevalent longitudinal wavenumbers of the underlying wave.’

From the data and movies it can be seen that the evolution of the waves closely follows the sunspot cycle and many other aspects, such as preferred longitudes, of sunspot behaviour.

During the observation period the Heliospheric Current Sheet tilt angle progressed from approximately 10 degrees to 75 degrees coinciding with an increase in wave activity in both latitude and longitude (http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Tilts.gif).

Of course, the researchers speculate that the cause of this phenomenon lies with convective currents deep inside the Sun.

In this thread I have suggested that the solar cycle is caused by a rotating current arriving from interstellar space, interestingly, the researchers theorised that the magnetic field strength of the waves would be on the order of that found in sunspots- is this an indication that the waves and sunspots have the same cause? If so, I view these observations as being yet further evidence that features observed on the solar ‘surface’ originate from without and sunspots and the solar cycle are evidence of a cyclical external current from beyond the heliosphere.

[Robertus Maximus]

Convective Cells or Birkeland Currents?

Studies of solar activity have led researchers to posit the existence of giant convective cells inside the Sun but is this so?

From data returned to Earth from the SOHO (SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory) and SDO (Solar Dynamics Observatory) spacecraft researchers have identified large scale structures on the solar surface and in the corona.
The researchers developed a mechanism they termed ‘magnetic range of influence’ or MRoI to reveal photospheric and coronal features MRoI ‘can be thought of as a measure of magnetic partitioning of the plasma into open and closed regions. When the MRoI is small, the magnetic field is “closed” locally, while if the MRoI is large, the magnetic field at the center is largely unbalanced and the magnetic environment is effectively “open.”’; features 5,000 km across were considered signatures of granules, larger structures peaking at 25,000 km were consistent with the mean size of quiet Sun supergranules whilst features 100–250,000 km in scale were considered to be signatures of giant convective cells.

It was also found that Extreme Ultraviolet brightpoints (EUV, BP) and possibly X-ray brightpoints tend to form recurrently in regions associated with the 100–250,000 km scale structures, these features were dubbed ‘g-nodes’ because of their apparent connection to the giant convective scale.

It was found that the ‘g-nodes’ also termed ‘activity bands’ evolved over the solar cycle but were more closely related to the 22 year Hale magnetic cycle. Over the period studied the g-nodes drifted from high solar latitudes at solar maximum towards the solar equator at solar minimum.

Relating to the sunspot cycle it was found that sunspots appear as the activity bands migrated from high to low solar latitudes. The cycle is somewhat complicated by the fact that the solar hemispheres behave asymmetrically over the solar cycle- effectively we have one Sun with two independent hemispheres!

I have previously suggested that sunspots form due to the arriving interstellar current being highly inclined to the solar equator and more filamentary, from the studies covered here it was found that sunspot activity faded as the activity bands approached the equator. With this observation I may have to revise my original proposal and consider that current arrives initially from the pole-ward direction and migrates to the solar equator and not the reverse as I initially suggested but this may be a minor correction as I picture the arriving current eventually sweeping over the Sun so whether we consider a pole-ward or equator-ward flow may be trivial.

It was also found that polar coronal holes appeared ‘bounded’ above latitude +/- 55 degrees, the latitude at which activity bands began their migration whilst low latitude coronal holes displayed a complex ‘double-helix’ distribution pattern. The heliospheric latitude of +/- 55 degrees is interesting, from an earlier illustration we can see that this is approximately the latitude demarcated by the extent of the Cassini Belt when projected onto my illustration of the Sun.

The 'Heliotube'

We can also see that the latitudinal extent of solar activity mainly occurs in the ‘pinch’ region of what I have termed the ‘heliotube’ if this is so then it may be why we find a double-helix pattern in this area.

In my opinion rather than being evidence of giant convective cells within the Sun these observations suggest that current arriving from the Sun’s local interstellar environment is not only the source of the Sun’s radiant energy but of the sunspot and Hale magnetic cycles.

References:

1. McIntosh. Scott. W, et al., ‘Simple Magnetic Flux Balance as an Indicator of Ne viii Doppler Velocity Partitioning in an Equatorial Coronal Hole’, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 644:L87–L91, 2006 June 10 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/505488)

2. McIntosh. Scott. W, et al., ‘Identifying Potential Markers of the Sun’s Giant Convective Scale’, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 784:L32 (6pp), 2014 April 1 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... /784/2/L32)

3. McIntosh. Scott. W, et al., ‘Deciphering Solar Magnetic Activity. I. On the Relationship Between the Sunspot Cycle and the Evolution of Small Magnetic Features’, The Astrophysical Journal, 792:12 (19pp), 2014 September 1 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... X/792/1/12)