NASA and Government Discuss EU

[Jarvamundo]

"To isolate is to ignore the system!"

What purpose would it serve to isolate plasma behavior at point from the holistic phenomena? This is *not* the premise of EU or PC? What does an isolated solar wind particle in motion tell you about the system?

If I tear out all the conductive paths from the walls in my house, throw them on the neutral floor, and stare at it in full contemplation mode, i will be oblivious to the >interactions< that the conductor (or reflector) of energy may encounter as part of a system 'springing to life'. We call these systems circuits. Circuits are the where these relationships can be studied, these same circuits and systems exist in harmonious or transient form in all phacets of reality; in biology, geology, climate, engineering, the sun.

Of course it should be well realised that EU utlises electrical engineering & plasma science, which it'self is rooted in the empirical study of behavior of circuits. Of course the human mind is able to better understand (generally our aim here!) by assigning an experience, phenomena or effect to a symbol representing the component of the system. A collection of these symbols might be called a "circuit diagram". A quick look at a "circuit diagram" one is able to assess the vast body of Electro Dynamics that are found in electrical and plasma systems (circuits); capacitance, resistance, inductance, charge, etc and all the relationships can be assessed; resonance, decay, impedance.

For this reason Peratt, Alfven, Thornhill, Scott, Lerner, Langmuir, Birkeland, Tesla, etc etc all include 'circuit' diagrams in many, if not all of their publications.

To reduce the discussion to arguments of nomenclature and semantics is really ignoring or serving to distract from this fundamentally inclusive strength that is the connected Electric Universe theory, the study of connected circuits. It is my view that EU seeks to explain using this inclusive holistic approach, where as the "theoretical physicist" seeks divide and isolate, which can lead to problems when assessing the relationships. For this reason many of the dubbed "successful" theories of the isolated view are the hypothetical study of a single co-ordinate of existence in isolated space-time, or fall flat on their face when problems of n-body reality are encountered.

I see, EU, with it's roots deep in the study of systems, has cast a different path, a path away from this isolation.

If one is truly here to study EU, it may well help to 'give a little time' and absorb the head space of an engineer studying systems. It could tend to be repeatable advised to study the Electric Sky by Professor (of electrical engineering) Don Scott. But hey we could push this thead #posts to 1,000 and still be no closer to any understanding of the Cosmology. At worst the effort serves complete distraction from this paradigm's strengths.

Regardless if the sun is a super duper fusion gravity blob spewing out windy particles in isolation, or it is a anode in a circuit experiencing arc-mode discharge.... "the circuit" and associated circuit components can and will be used by the EU cosmology as a very effective descriptor of the system.

I fear we are isolating terms in a move to distract from the above holistic nature of the cosmology in study.

To isolate is to ignore.

[Lloyd]

* Oops. Jarva just posted before me here, so read that first.

Nereid said: If we can't agree - even in the limited discussion in this thread! - on what 'electrical currents' are....

* I think we do agree that "Electric current is the rate of charge flow past a given point in an electric circuit".
* So how do we determine if there's a circuit? We follow the line of charge and see if it completes a "circle". If it does, it's in a closed circuit having charge flow. If it doesn't complete a "circle", it's in an open circuit, in which the circuit itself may be moving. Open circuits are potential circuits. When an opening in an open circuit is filled, the circuit becomes closed.
* If the circuit is too large to follow the charge flow, we may be able to determine if it's part of a circuit by testing for a magnetic field. Take a power line, for example. We see power lines next to the highways etc, but we can't see if they complete a circuit. But we can check the line for a magnetic field. If there's a field of the same strength at every point of several points checked, then there's a current [at least that's my understanding, though I'm not an expert].
* In this case I think Dave T pointed out the problem above. We need for spacecraft to be designed to measure the magnetic field or other aspects of electric currents in the proper ways and, apparently, they haven't done that well enough yet. But there may be other ways to determine if there are circuits too, at least to a high degree of probability. For example, how do plasmas behave in the lab when they're part of a circuit and when they're not? A spark indicates a brief current; does it not? Lightning is a spark and a brief current. Lightning has a "signature". Don't pulsars have the same signature as lightning? Seems like I read that.

Solrey said: Even our modern electronics are electrically neutral as a bulk system. Walking around with a cell phone stuck to ones head doesn't produce an electric current by the motion of the phone, nor is there any electrostatic potential between you and the phone, but inside the phone, the battery provides an internal electrostatic potential producing electric current in the conducting material of the circuitry.

* Sounds like a good point. I suspect that every plasma and every charged particle is part of a small circuit, or contains small circuits, if it's not part of a larger circuit [or it could be both]. A rock undergoing stress tends to produce small electric currents. The current may not last long, like that in a weak battery, but it exists for a time. Is there a circuit between a proton and an electron in a hydrogen atom? Is it an open or closed circuit?
* Oh, I almost forgot this: http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch ... crater.htm, the Aug 18, 2005 TPOD [called Clean Craters All in a Row], which states that: "spacecraft have detected electric currents in every plasma they have penetrated".

[webolife]

Lloyd, I'm sorry to be the broken record here, but your definition of electric current is based on a model or analogy of electricity that I think does not actually hold in real wires... the "flow" is more akin to Newton's cradle than to a crap shoot, for example, and while energy/momentum is transferred in one direction thereby [easier but less definitive to say it "flows"], in an electric wire "hole" charge is transferred in the opposite direction simultaneously, so that the effect of turning on the switch at one end of the circuit is that the light turns on "instantly " at the other end. Instantly, that is, not including the time it takes for the filament to heat up... This is not part of the description of plasma currents as far as I've read... am I missing an important reference? So while I read your [and Jarva's] careful use of language of circuitry in describing currents in space, I think the analogy is incorrectly used of wired circuitry... David T or other electrical engineers, help me out here... what am I missing?

[Jarvamundo]

Web i think you're very close, if not already singing my tune?? and have me a little confused?

Except near the electrodes, where there are sheaths containing very few electrons, the ionized gas contains ions and electrons in about equal numbers so that the resultant space charge is very small. We shall use the name plasma to describe this region containing balanced charges of ions and electrons

Langmuir acknowledges the essentially low charge differential of the medium, however the importance here is charge carriers are 'free', ie your cradle balls are "able to swing".

I don't see the problem, web?

An example of successful application of electrical engineering provided by Solrey is filamentation, please explain the filamentary 'tubes' of the heliospheric current sheet *without* talking of a current and induction or a circuit. "What say you". We are left with "Neried: Interesting" and a big gaping hole of explaining observed phenomena..... [crickets]... (grrr)

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/He ... tt1995.pdf

Web, have you had time to study (or briefly scour the nomenclature) of Peratt/Healy's pulsar paper, here the 'transmission line' hypothesis not only uses wired circuity to model the harmonic resonant system, he also physically cuts up a rope of coax and hooks it up to a 'scope. It seems to me that wired 'analogies' of circuitry are a very common means to modeling plasma behavior? I struggle to see how an experiment could be executed without such?

[Nereid]

Perhaps an example might help.

The Sun is composed of matter in the plasma state.

If you are on a planet in the alpha Centuri system, you will see the Sun move.

Is that motion of the Sun an electric current? After all, it's charges moving/in motion, isn't it?

[Jarvamundo]

Yep, i like it... Now what if you are on a planet in alpha centuri and the Sol at some horrible velocity enters your helio(alphalio)sphere?

How can one not be 'connected' as part of the circuit? At what flaming point do you decide "Thats a big dang current", whether it be peeling off double layers or exchanging a glorious thunderbolt? The two can no longer be isolated from eachother. It is a question of scale, relationship and dominance of phenomena in study. We remain forever connected, unless you care to point out 'when' connection appears?

You've explored the connected picture very well here Nereid. impressed.

[mharratsc]

Filamentary morphology of plasma into filaments is indicative of field-aligned currents flowing in the plasma along with a concurrent field.

The way I understand it, there is a circuit involved, a bi-directional current flow- even while there is a net current moving from one body to the other.

Resolving field-aligned current morphology: FAST-THEMIS conjunctions

Resolving field-aligned current morphology: FAST-THEMIS conjunctions

Strangeway, Robert J.
37th COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 13-20 July 2008, in Montréal, Canada., p.3049

Field-aligned currents (FACs) are quite often considered in isolation, somewhat separated from the sources and sinks for the FACs. When observed in the magnetosphere, FACs are viewed as being generated through divergence of perpendicular currents associated with pressure gradients or vorticity, usually without any consideration of how these FACs close in the ionosphere. At intermediate altitudes, on the other hand, the FACs may be identified with closure currents in the ionosphere (usually assumed to be Pedersen currents), but the connection to the sources of the currents in the magnetosphere is not addressed. Finally, for magnetic field observations below the ionosphere, it is typically assumed that the magnetic field perturbations are from Hall currents. With the THEMIS mission we are now in a good position to make connections between these separate viewpoints. In particular, the THEMIS spacecraft provide observations of the magnetospheric plasma and fields, the FAST spacecraft provides data from intermediate altitudes, and the THEMIS ground network provides observations of the ionosphere from below. Coupled with powerful global simulations we can provide definitive answers concerning the sources and sinks of FACs. One example that we have investigated with these resources is the Westward Traveling Surge (WTS) during the March 23, 2007 substorm interval. At THEMIS the passage of the WTS over the spacecraft is related to the magnetic field dipolarization, and hence the passage of an upward FAC. At FAST the WTS is observed as a flow channel bounded by a pair of FACs. The global simulations confirm that both FAST and THEMIS are observing the WTS, and the WTS is associated with a narrow flow channel. The implication is that while the magnetospheric signature of the WTS is an upward current, the ionospheric signature is more structured, with both upward and downward currents being observed, but with net upward current.

Note that the morphology of current flow in a plasma is not dependent on the physical location of the plasma... if a plasma is carrying current, it IS going to become filamentary on more than one level, and pinch, and exhibit Marklund convection, etc. This is rudimentary.

[Nereid]

Yep, i like it...

Glad to hear it.

Instead of the Sun, which is a solo star, how about a binary, alpha Centauri say?

The two stars in a binary seem to be in orbit around their mutual centre of mass (or gravity).

Imagine sitting in a spaceship very close to that centre; you'd see two stars, both moving.

The two stars are composed of plasma (let's assume they're not brown, or even red, dwarfs, the matter in which may not be solely in the plasma state).

Are there, thus, two giant currents?

[Lloyd]

Wikipedia says: Because of collisions between electrons and atoms, the drift velocity of electrons in a conductor is on the order of millimeters per second. However, the speed at which a change of current at one point in the material causes changes in currents in other parts of the material, the velocity of propagation, is typically about 75% of light speed.[118] This occurs because electrical signals propagate as a wave, with the velocity dependent on the dielectric constant of the material.[119]

* Of course, there's a difference between DC and AC, though I don't know how that affects electron flow.
* But, as I mentioned last time, isn't lightning an electric current? And what about a spark? If a bare hot wire in a live electric cord is placed at a small distance from ground, leaving a spark gap, there will be an arc. What does that arc consist of? Isn't it the same as lightning? There's negative and positive lightning. The more common negative lightning carries electrons to ground. Does it not? "Positive lightning is a rare form of lightning which carries a positive charge to the ground.... This type of lightning can strike across very long distances" [because it has a higher voltage, I think]. I believe electrons in lightning move at near light speed. I suppose ions in positive lightning move a bit slower. My guess is that electrons in an arc move at similar speeds.
* But, regardless of the velocity of the electrons and ions, the current normally propagates at near light speed. And cannot currents be detected by measuring magnetic fields, or other means? And, again, how does current-carrying plasma in the lab look, compared to plasma not carrying current?

[webolife]

I agree with all your questions Lloyd.
I'm getting a lot of mine answered by having brought this up.
I agree that lightning is a circuit type electric current. But the "relatively slow" moving space plasmas as "electric current" was what I wanted clarification about. I think this has become a fairly cogent and important thread.

[Nereid]

On a side note, Since David Talbott mentioned the acceleration of the solar wind, I thought linking a peer-reviewed published paper on solar wind acceleration might be appropriate:

Acceleration of the solar wind, Egil Leer, Thomas E. Holzer and Tor Flå, published in Space Science Reviews:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l72q04465w270073/

This paper, beyond discussing the acceleration of the solar wind, also notes that charged particles flow out from the surface of the Sun and INTO the surface of the Sun (noteworthy for discussion of the Electric Sun hypothesis).

Thanks for this Anaconda.

Since 1982, when this review was published, a lot of new research results have become available.

For example, here is a 1999 (revised and republished in 2006) paper, also in Space Science Reviews, on the constraints on solar wind models, from in situ and remote sensing measurements:

Solar Wind Models from the Sun to 1 AU: Constraints by in Situ and Remote Sensing Measurements

There are three major types of solar wind: The steady fast wind originating on open magnetic field lines in coronal holes, the unsteady slow wind coming probably from the temporarily open streamer belt and the transient wind in the form of large coronal mass ejections. The majority of the models is concerned with the fast wind, which is, at least during solar minimum, the normal mode of the wind and most easily modeled by multi-fluid equations involving waves. The in-situ constraints imposed on the models, mainly by the Helios (in ecliptic) and Ulysses (high-latitude) interplanetary measurements, are extensively discussed with respect to fluid and kinetic properties of the wind. The recent SOHO observations have brought a wealth of new information about the boundary conditions for the wind in the inner solar corona and about the plasma conditions prevailing in the transition region and chromospheric sources of the wind plasma. These results are presented, and then some key questions and scientific issues are identified.

[Goldminer]

Consensus astronomy is all about gravity, shock waves, and wind. Wind requires a high pressure area and a low pressure area. The Sun is easily assumed to be a high pressure area, and space a low pressure area. So why don't all the gasses on the Sun just flow out into space, leaving the Sun without any? Well, I guess it must be gravity. So, what blows the wind? It can't be shock waves, they just vibrate matter as the waves pass through.

The EU sees the "wind" as plasma. What moves plasma? A potential difference. What are the chances of finding a potential difference in the solar system, as opposed to finding a high and low pressure difference not overcome by gravity?

[Nereid]

Consensus astronomy is all about gravity, shock waves, and wind.

That might be so (well, it isn't, but that's OT for this thread), but what we're discussing here is mostly (if not entirely) plasma physics as applied to the interplanetary medium (and planetary magnetospheres, etc); i.e. space physics.

The EU sees the "wind" as plasma.

I didn't know that the European Union had a position on the solar wind!

In any case, 'solar wind' is just a term; I think you'd need to look long and hard to find any papers on the solar wind, published in the last several decades, which modelled it as anything other than a plasma.

What moves plasma? A potential difference.

That's one of the things which can move a plasma; there are lots of others ...

[flyingcloud]

we all move plasma
my thoughts move plasma
but it's all electrical;
even if it's chemical,
mechanical,
diabolicle
or coincidental

[mharratsc]

Ms. Nereid posted:

Marsch wrote:

Solar Wind Models from the Sun to 1 AU: Constraints by in Situ and Remote Sensing Measurements

There are three major types of solar wind: The steady fast wind originating on open magnetic field lines in coronal holes, the unsteady slow wind coming probably from the temporarily open streamer belt and the transient wind in the form of large coronal mass ejections. The majority of the models is concerned with the fast wind, which is, at least during solar minimum, the normal mode of the wind and most easily modeled by multi-fluid equations involving waves. The in-situ constraints imposed on the models, mainly by the Helios (in ecliptic) and Ulysses (high-latitude) interplanetary measurements, are extensively discussed with respect to fluid and kinetic properties of the wind. The recent SOHO observations have brought a wealth of new information about the boundary conditions for the wind in the inner solar corona and about the plasma conditions prevailing in the transition region and chromospheric sources of the wind plasma. These results are presented, and then some key questions and scientific issues are identified.

The language used in the above pretty much invalidates their 'analysis' right from the first sentence, ma'am. :\

You could translate the first highlighted part as "the reified schematic representation of a field strength at a particular point in a given 3-dimensional vector field"... such a thing cannot be be anchored in a coronal hole (nor anything else for that matter) and it cannot extend to infinity. Astronomy has taken a word in use for decades in the electronics industry and inappropriately applied it to observations that I don't think are applicable.

Personally, I think they are using the term 'open magnetic field lines' in regards to a 2-dimensional analysis of a 3-dimensional field-aligned current, or Birkeland current... but that's just my thinking on it.

Regarding the second highlight- "extensive" or not, by looking at the "fluid and kinetic" properties of the "wind" (bulk plasma flow) only they are ignoring the electrodynamic nature of the material under observation... and thus any assessments that they may make in the article will be off by quite a wide margin. :\