Hi mharratsc
Just so forum readers can find this TPOD at a later time
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/ ... listic.htm
I also found this TPOD interesting for a couple of different reasons:
First, I note that the study stated that
“the energy that is used for particle acceleration is at the expense of heating” and “the gas, which is therefore much colder than theory predicts.”
Why is this important?
Because a major theory of the Sun's energy output is, as expressed by Leif Svalgaard, a many times over published helio-astrophysicist, is that irradiance is dictated by the Sun's "temperature" and as the temperature and irradiance have been steady over several solar cycles, solar maximum and minimum don't have an impact on climate, here, on Earth.
But if the above is true:
“the energy that is used for particle acceleration is at the expense of heating”,
then increased accleration of electrons and ions, charged particles, plasma, from the Sun during solar maximum (and other expressions of increased electrical activity due to increased electrical current into the Sun, as per the 'Electric Sun' hypothesis), would not necessarily cause the "temperature" observed & measured in the near-space around the Sun to increase. Actually, it might suggest the "temperature" could go down (but likely doesn't due to overall increased plasma activity, i.e. , electrical currents, which balance out the the "cooling" effect of increased acceleration).
I should also note that "temperature" and radiation release (photons in varying energy excitation states as expressed in visible light, X-rays and so on) is controlled by resistence. So, if resistence does not change appreciatively, then "temperature" and radiation levels would not change either, even if increased electric current is present, although as a caveat, increased electric current, current desnsity, also increased magnetic field compression, which would cause increased resistence.
All in all, this little snipet of imformation just furthers my conviction that Svalgaard is wrong about "temperature" (of the Sun) being a determining factor of whether the Earth receives more energy or not. Leif Svalgaard strictly maintains that solar maximum and minimum make no difference to the total energy budget that the Earth receives from the Sun, holding that since irradiance only varies .1% over solar maximum and minimum, the energy budget does not change -- he completely discounts any electrical energy in the form of electrons and ions as being inconsequential, therefore, not needed to be incorporated in climate models.
The second reason this article is interesting is to me, is as an offering of peace and reconciliation towards "modern" astronomy.
How so?
Because Hannes Alfven spoke of double layers "exploding" (double layers are part and parcel of Birkeland currents as the Langmuir sheath that surrounds Birkeland currents, whether in near-space around the Earth and the solar system and, also, in space beyond the solar system).
These "exploding" Birkeland currents, it seems to me would release energy and electrons and ions in a chaotic fashion that might cause "some sort of shock wave" action, however, the chaotically moving electrons and ions would quickly reform in quasi-neutral formations (new sets of Birkeland currents and continue on their overall "flow pattern" due to emf (electromotive force).
It seems that at least partially, there is some cause to talk of shock waves if, indeed, something is "exploding", and none other than Hannes Alfven speaks to "exploding" double layers. In fact, Alfven suggested that exploding double layers are a very important dynamic process in an Electric Universe.
As "modern" astronomers should not totally discount electromagnetic forces in discussion of the dynamics of the Universe, Electric Universe proponents and theorists should not be guilty of the same thing and totally discount mechanical aspects where there is some evidence to suggest they are operating. Yes, electromagnetic forces are many times stronger than gravity or mechanical forces, but those forces still exist and need to be taken into account to generate a more complete understanding of the Universe's processes and dynamics.
Perhaps, also, in this way a "peace offering" can be made that begins the process of reconciliation between "modern" astronomy and the proponents and theorists of Electric Universe