The Sun

[tolenio]

Hello,

I would suggest that even though some do not know the nomenclature they can still see patterns within the data.

My job required me to see/find trends in large amounts of business data and I find scientific data little different, I simply do not have the grasp of the nomenclature, I simply see the trend.

My concern is that a good ideas go ignored while everybody focuses on nomenclature.

I appreciate your approach which brings the idea and nomenclature together for discussion

Thank you.

Later,
Tom

[tolenio]

Hello,

I believe it is more than charge exchange for it appears I can track what appears to be solar wind plasma around the planet after the "exchange" occurs and as it interacts with upper atmosphere while moving towards weak areas in the planets magnetic field.

As far as I know electricity has no magnetic polarity other than that it produces while flowing, meanwhile solar plasma does have solar magnetic polarity attached to it. If I am incorrect please correct me.

I do not believe a charge exchange would behave in the same manner I observe, while plasma would. If it can please explain.

What do I observe... Plasma interacting with the upper atmosphere, warming the atmosphere and making it more dense (plasma makes gas more dense). This then is viewed as barometric pressure variances and warm fronts creating weather patterns and storm fronts. As the magnetically polarized plasma is repulsed by the magnetosphere it moves towards areas with the weakest magnetic intensity and storm fronts follow that plasma movement.

A good example of this is the weak magnetic field variance in South America as illustrated by the WLLN lightening movies.



Would a charge exchange like the one you describe be able to occur in/or about the Indian Ocean and move eastwards over the course of 15-20 days?

I also monitor VLF natural radio and you can track the occurance of whistlers with this moving plasma in my observations.

Thank you,
Tom Olenio

[seasmith]

~
What may cause the 'cracks' in the heliosphere

The amount of energy extracted out from the
heliospheric current by a particular
magnetosphere may not vary greatly along its
orbital path (if heliosphere was homogenous
in all directions), except in the case when two
planets line up producing ‘magnetospheric
eclipse’. In such case heliospheric current will
change, hence modulation.

The heliosphere is not homogenous in all directions, it is distorted by galactic magnetic field created by
the presence of cosmic rays. The strength of solar magnetic field varies considerably at the head side. As
individual magnetospheres enter this particular area then their contribution to the overall feedback
(mainly provided by Jupiter) will vary.

-[img]solarcurrent.tiff[/img]

It has been recently discovered that this particular area
is prone to incursion by strong of cosmic rays and does
not abruptly stop at the termination shock but most
likely extend much closer to the centre of the solar
system, which again may significant effect on the
possible feedback as the major magnetospheres enter
the area.

http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/

I appreciate your approach which brings the idea and nomenclature together for discussion

~

[MGmirkin]

Hi,

Lets look at plasma polarity and how plasma would behave based on the repulsive attractive nature of magnetism.

The magnetosphere is a magnetic bubble. We know that solar wind plasma leaks into this magnetic bubble and that solar wind carries with it magnetic polarization.

Not quite sure what we're saying here? Magnetic repulsion between currents?

Almost feels like we're conflating concepts a bit?

When you say "plasma polarity," what do you mean, precisely? Are we talking charge separation and electrostatic potential, or...? Most plasmas are quasi-neutral, meaning they have roughly an equal number of positive and negative charges. However, that doesn't mean that they are COMPLETELY neutral either. There can be variations in electron / ion densities above and beyond pure neutrality, thus there can be weak electric fields within a plasma. Likewise there can be currents within the quasi-neutral plasma. Much the same as there can be currents within the quasi-neutral material of a power line. IE, no excess of charges (static electricity building up at any one point) or charge imbalance, but still a current, yes?

Magnetic fields are only generated in plasma where there is a current in the vicinity. A magnetic field in plasma is generally the force felt between currents (of whatever size / intensity). http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wmfield.html

As such "magnetic polarization" sound a bit too much like both "magnetic monopoles" (don't exist; magnetic fields are generally dipolar and continuous) and "frozen in" field lines (plasma doesn't "carry" magnetic fields along with it, currents are required to sustain magnetic fields in plasma) for comfort.

That said, I'm assuming what we're saying is that specific species of charged particles may behave in a concerted way (a current; be it bulk motion of electrons in one direction, bulk motion of ions in the same direction, or bulk motion of both but with opposite signs moving in opposite direction in the same current / circuit). Such currents may tend to follow magnetic field strength and direction (field-aligned currents).

One might point to recent discoveries at Mars in support of the notion that field aligned currents do in fact penetrate planetary atmospheres or magnetospheres (in Mars' case, crustal "remnant" magnetism or "mini-mgnetosphere") and follow said "field lines" (the ambient strength and direction of the magnetic field) over crustal magnetic anomalies.

I'm still not sure whether the currents would flow to/along the regions of the strongest magnetic field or the regions of weakest magnetic field?

Anyway, it does seem an interesting route of inquiry (quibbles on terminology and such aside).

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

...through cracks in the earth's magnetosphere.

Tolenio,

I'm not really getting your allusion to "cracks" in the magnetosphere.

I suppose appropriate questions would be: Does the Earth's "magnetopshere" also constitute a Langmuir sheath? If so, would such a sheath include double layers? If so, can such double layers develop "cracks" or must they be relatively homogeneous across their length and breadth (or else collapse or suffer instabilities)? (Or, if a Langmuir sheath but without a double layer, if that's possible, can such a sheath develop "cracks?" It's not precisely a solid or rigid body, per se.)

Unfortunately I'm not specifically trained in the area, so I can't ANSWER the questions, per se. Know just enough to get me into trouble. Not quite enough yet to get back out of it. *Wink* But, sometimes errors make good instructional tools and/or learning experiences, nonetheless.

Do we need "cracks" to get plasma into the atmosphere? Or can current filaments simply impinge on the atmosphere and/or follow "field lines" (strength and direction of the ambient magnetic field in the local region of 3D space), as they seem to @ Mars in the southern hemisphere over crustal magnetic anomalies?

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[Solar]

Do we need "cracks" to get plasma into the atmosphere? Or can current filaments simply impinge on the atmosphere and/or follow "field lines" (strength and direction of the ambient magnetic field in the local region of 3D space)...

Right. That is what NASA is interpreting as "cracks" because it facilitates the injection of solar wind plasma into Earth's atmosphere. But it is electrically induced 'charge exchange coupling".

I think Tolenio is correct in considering that because of the scalability factor; the same process may occur with regard to the plasma of the interstellar medium (interstellar neutral helium) being injected into the heliosphere aka "charge exchange coupling". However, the density of the Birkeland currents of the ISM would be extremely tenuous.

I do not believe a charge exchange would behave in the same manner I observe, while plasma would. If it can please explain.

I would think that they’re both working together. As a ‘system’. When you say that you can track “what appears to be the solar plasma” as it interacts with the Earth’s atmosphere, and that it appears to move “towards weak areas in the planet’s magnetic field, it seems that this would require a method of ‘transport’.

Wind, rotation of the planet, a combination of both, charge imbalance. But why a seeming preponderance for gravitating towards areas of lower magnetic activity? Without an electrical cause; this preponderance would not occur. The kinematics of wind would probably induce a random dispersal.

With plasma, the ability to become ‘cellular’ into regions is well established. The outer ‘skin’, if you will, of a plasma ‘cloud’ will take the form of a “double layer”. This would electrically separate regions of differing plasmas. With a charge imbalance; charge exchange with the surrounding atmosphere could slowly dissipate the plasma ‘cloud’ or region.

What do I observe... Plasma interacting with the upper atmosphere, warming the atmosphere and making it more dense (plasma makes gas more dense). This then is viewed as barometric pressure variances and warm fronts creating weather patterns and storm fronts. As the magnetically polarized plasma is repulsed by the magnetosphere it moves towards areas with the weakest magnetic intensity and storm fronts follow that plasma movement.

How would the difference in barometric pressure, if its fluctuations are caused by interactions from ‘plasma pressure’ on the atmosphere, account for storm fronts on the night side of the Earth? The side facing the sun would experience the brunt of the solar wind ‘plasma pressure’. Do your observations show a preponderance of storm fronts beginning on the Earth’s dayside?

Would a charge exchange like the one you describe be able to occur in/or about the Indian Ocean and move eastwards over the course of 15-20 days?

The equatorial region of the storms you cite fall directly within the Earth’s Plasma Bands - “Bright, blue-white areas are where the plasma is densest.” - Sun Earth Connection (scroll down)

Not only does the more dense plasma regions appear to support you ideas, but note also that:

…the ionosphere—the region of electrically charged gas…
…two known bands of plasma, or electrically charged gas, that hover high above the tropics.
…The connection between surface and space is indirect, by way of the atmospheric tides and an intermediate layer of air that picks up electrical charge during daylight hours.

I would think that if charge exchange did not occur, in order to neutralize charge imbalance between the solar plasma and the Earth’s atmosphere, those storms would simply never end.

Below the plasma bands, a layer of the ionosphere called the E-layer becomes partially electrified during the day. This region creates the plasma bands above it when high-altitude winds blow plasma in the E-layer across the Earth's magnetic field. Since plasma is electrically charged, its motion across the Earth's magnetic field acts like a generator, creating an electric field. This electric field shapes the plasma above into the two bands. Anything that would change the motion of the E-layer plasma would also change the electric fields they generate, which would then reshape the plasma bands above.

Also see MGmirkin’s recovered thread from forum 1.0 Of Lightning, Plasma Torus(es), & the Sun

[tolenio]

Hello,

When I discuss plasma and magnetic polarity I am not discussing the positive and negative ions of the charge, but rather the bit of the sun's magnetic field that is carried with the solar wind plasma.

Now I respect both the EU and NASA findings and will not discard either in totality, but there could be a middle ground between the two.

From what I understand of the solar wind it is comprised of charged particles with solar magnetic field embedded in the plasma.

For the sake of argument let us assume that is correct. Let us also assume that the earth's magnetosphere is imperfect, or periodically imperfect and some amount of solar wind plasma leaks inside the magnetosphere.

So you have the solar magnetic field of the plasma interacting with the eath's magnetic field or magnetosphere. Since the magnetosphere is a relatively closed system the solar plasma is trapped and will move based on how the solar magnetic field associated with the plasma interacts magnetically (replusion or attraction) with the magnetosphere.

I contend that it will be repulsed to the weakest areas of the magnetosphere's magentic field intensity assuming a same polarity of the magnetic fields.

As this movement occurs the plasma will heat upper atmosphere and make it more dense. This warm air then interacts with cool air creating wind. Upper atmosphere winds will then sheer at the edge of the moving plasma creating plasma eddies which follow the path of least resistance (phi) and form smaller, secondary plasma clouds that continue to move creating weather patterns of their own.

You can then move the whole scenario up to the solar model with imperfections in the heliosphere and interstellar plasma leaking.

What this reminds me of is the torroidal magnetic fields used to operate fusion reactors at MIT. Plasma is introduced into a torroidal magnetic field and fusion occurs.

The instellar plasma must be much greater for there is sufficent engergy for whole scale fusion, but the amount leaking into the magnetosphere is minor and simply amounts to atmospheric warming and weather fronts.

Watch this MIT video;

http://techtv.mit.edu/videos/306-fusion-research-at-mit

I contend the same principle involved in planetaryweather are the same principles involved in solar fusion and solar weather.

Later,
Tom

[tolenio]

Hello,

If my contention is correct we would need a variable to act on the magnetosphere to create periodic imperfections that allows for solar plasma leakage into the magnetosphere.

My gut tells me it is related to the interaction of the Moon's magnetic field and the Earth's magnetosphere.

When you move up to the solar model it would be planetary magnetic fields interacting with the heliosphere.

Has any research ever been done to correlate solar indices and planetary orbits? Such as the 10.7cm solar radio flux, or the ~11 year sunspot cycle...




If you look at the four inner planets you get extremely near approach to perfect co-linearity of these four planets at about 6.385 years.

http://www.mathpages.com/HOME/kmath161/kmath161.htm


Is the solar cycle simply the time between certain planetary alignments and how those alignments may create imperfections in the heliosphere, allowing more interstellar plasma to enter the heliosphere and increase solar activity, or reduce it?

Main line folks have already looked at it, but as I say I think there is a middle ground between main line concensus and EU theory.

http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldT ... xcerpt.htm

Data correlation between planets' changing magnetic polarities and sun spot activity.

David W. Allan, Ranae Lee and Jeff Lorbeck
December 20, 1999

In general terms, we see these integer harmonic relationships between the main planet periods and the solar magnetic period of 22 years. The inference is that 22 years is in a harmonic relationship with the periods of the planets. According to our new unified field theory the electron flow in the solar system along diallel, gravitational-field lines will be impacted directly by these harmonic relationships as the planets increase and decrease their susceptibility to electrons from the sun -- since it is the source. This will then cause a repeat in the direction of electron flow through the center of the sun with a 22 year period. The planets being nominally out of phase on the 11 year half cycle will induce a reversal of the magnetic field.

It seems like a relatively simple analysis if you apply my contention. Rotating axial magnetic fields can induce flaws in other rotating axial magnetic fields, flaws allow for entrance of plasma, pulsing plasma then powers/ehnances the system. Since Mars has no moon it may explain what happened to its magnetic field. Equalibrium may be the death nell for a magnetic field.

Later,
Tom

[The Great Dog]

The Great Dog has been trying to follow the line of reasoning in this thread but has not been able to grasp the primary thesis. There are too many conflicting scent trails. Please try to consolidate the principle arguments. Perhaps if there were a bulleted list that synopsizes the overall smell of the concept.

The Great Dog is always interested in new trails through the forest.

[Solar]

Rotating axial magnetic fields can induce flaws in other rotating axial magnetic fields, flaws allow for entrance of plasma, pulsing plasma then powers/ehnances the system.

But is it enough? We’re obviously dealing with an integrated hierarchical electromagnetically connected circuital system. I suspect that the relationship of the planets and the effects of their aggregate magnetospheres could affect the larger heliosphere within which they exist. But I think this would be slight considering the scale.

But, as can be seen with the work of Merv Opher et al:

…the plane of the local interstellar field is 60° to 90° from the galactic plane. This finding suggests that the field orientation in the Local Interstellar Cloud differs from that of a larger-scale interstellar magnetic field thought to parallel the galactic plane.

The solar system is basically attached to and moving along the magnetic field line(s) of the galaxy at approximately 60° to 90°. That is going to generate the flow of electric currents. The electromagnetic Z-pinch compression of the former plasma cloud from which our solar system was formed makes the Sun (as well as other stars in our galaxy) the focus of galactic electrical discharge.

Obviously, the solar system itself will have plasma dynamics that may seem unique to itself. But that would seem to cast off the importance of the integrated whole

For currents to continue to flow, they must eventually form into circuits. These invisible circuits are of crucial importance in understanding the cosmos. If external electrical currents power stars and galaxies, the power source is probably not located in the stars. – Holoscience: Electric Stars

The Voyager data culled by M. Opher is commensurate with the above for the production of an inflow of electrical forces centered on the Sun. I think the planets were formed as a result of the initial phase of the Sun shedding some of its angular momentum in order to achieve relative balance with the current density for our local region. The planets were either electrically birthed from the Sun, or formed as eddy currents, or a combination of both, along with the possibility for planetary capture.

Is the solar cycle simply the time between certain planetary alignments and how those alignments may create imperfections in the heliosphere, allowing more interstellar plasma to enter the heliosphere and increase solar activity, or reduce it?

Near perfect co-linearity is not arriving at the 11-14yr co-linearity needed to correlate with the sunspot cycle; whether the alignment passes through the sun or not. Besides, as hungry as astrophysical egos can be such a staggering correlation would’ve been found long ago.

It also seems that a co-linear alignment would have been opportune in explaining “The Explosion that Shattered Solar Theory”, a monumental event occurring some 5-6yrs after the web publication of the Allen Times UFT that you’ve mentioned. I didn’t see that on the site, do you know if this was looked into?

[tolenio]

Hello,

I can only offer you the Pareto Principle in regards to cause and effect. Mathmatically expressed the Pareto Principle simply equates to phi;

The Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 rule,[1] the law of the vital few and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.

And do not be confused 20% is not the bottom threshold.

In regards to "somebody would have thought of it already", tell that to Galileo Galilei. Even when somebody thought of it consensus rejected it. Never underestimate the ignorance of mankind's consensus or its destructive power.

Later,
Tom

[tolenio]

Hello,

Please replace "planetary alignments" with "planetary configurations".

The word "alignment" conjures up the wrong mental images.

Look towards planetary configurtions that most closely match those of October 1st, 1957 for solar maximum.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar

Later,
Tom

[Grey Cloud]

Hi folks,
Damned interesting thread. Re the planetary configuration / alignment, I would also factor in the constellations which the planetary line-up point to. I.E. draw a line though the planets and see which constellation is at each end. And personally, I wouldn't bother too much with Neptune, Uranus and beyond but I would include the Sun and Moon.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Tom,
Does that Solar System Live do BCE dates or do you know of a similar applet that does?

[tolenio]

Hello,

It has been a long time since I looked at the various applets and I do recall they all have their limitations. Quite a while back I was looking at the climb in temperature from galactic winter, to early galactic spring here on Earth using Greenland ice core data and ran into issues with the applets rendering planetary configurations.

http://www.mos.org/soti/icecore/images/000.gif

In my research I find galactic seasonality in our ~225 million year galactic orbit. It all depends on our location in the galactic orbit, our location in the three phase oscillation of our solar system, and how the declination of our solar system's heliosphere to the declination of the galactic magnetic field interact, keeping in mind knock-on and knock-off effects of plasma as related to orientation of flowing plasma to magnetic fields.

We are coming into galactic summer, but it will not peak for ~66 million years. This again is the same principle we are discussing in this thread only scaled to the galactic level.

Later,
Tom