Observations on the sun

[MGmirkin]

Thats great. And thanks for correcting me about the 11-yr cycle. I’m still confused about that. I understand the sun spots and why they start where they start, and why they fade off where they fade off--van allen belts. I don’t understand which poles change and which fields change… So the sun speeds up and slows down and that reverses some interior magnetic fields within it right? A doughnut perpendicular to the axis of rotation? Would you describe what trends are seen throughout these 11 year cycles?

Well, I think it's been discussed briefly on the "spotless sun" thread in the EU section of the forum, so I won't rehash too much...

http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 9796#p9796

Sunspot minimum is at the "beginning" of each solar 11-year cycle. That's also when the apparent polarity of the sunspots flips in each hemisphere. So, a "grand cycle" or "complete cycle" of the sun (getting back to the same sunspot polarity) is actually about 22 years (2 "apparent" min-max-min cycles or min-max-min(flip)-max-min(flip)).

Now, the overall polarity of the sun apparently flips at solar maximum (when there are the greatest number of sunspots, flares, CMEs, etc.).

So, the major points are:

Solar minimum: Sunspots are at their lowest counts during/after their polarity flip.
Solar maximum: Sunspots, solar flares, CMEs are at their most active. The overall magnetic dipole of the sun flips.
Solar minimum: Sunspots flip polarities in each hemisphere. Lowest activity in terms of spots, flares & CMEs.
Solar maximum: The sun flips back to its original dipole arrangement. Again, with the highest activity
Solar minimum. Sunspot counts fall again. Their polarities flips back to the same as in the first line above and the process repeats.

Just my understanding of things. Right now we're somewhere around Step 1 or step 3... Guess it depends on which polarity of sunspots you're looking at in which hemisphere as your starting point.

~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

I'm not sure what causes a solar flare (or mass ejection) but if it consists of a huge amount of highly charged plasma you would kind of expect it to form a Birkeland current.

This isn't the same as the magnetic flux discovered running between the Sun and the Earth.....actually, it could be, back to the question of what is a solar flare?

(Wikipedia: Magnetic Flux)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_flux

The flux through an element of area perpendicular to the direction of magnetic field is given by the product of the magnetic field and the area element. More generally, magnetic flux is defined by a scalar product of the magnetic field and the area element vector.

[...]

The magnetic flux through a surface is proportional to the number of magnetic field lines that pass through the surface. This is the net number, i.e. the number passing through in one direction, minus the number passing through in the other direction.

(Wikipedia: Birkeland Current)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

(Plasma-universe.com: Birkeland Current)
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.ph ... nd_current

A Birkeland current generally refers to any electric current in a space plasma, but more specifically when charged particles in the current follow magnetic field lines. They are caused by the movement of a plasma perpendicular to a magnetic field. Birkeland currents often show filamentary, or twisted "rope-like" magnetic structure. They are also known as field-aligned currents, magnetic ropes and magnetic cables).

So, it seems that "magnetic flux" is simply the net number of "field lines" passing through a particular surface, denoting magnetic field strength in that region. Whereas Birkeland currents are net differential flows of charged particles following the magnetic field (with the strength of the current being equal to the net flow of charge through the same surface, or whatever surface / area you're measuring current flow through)...

Hope that makes sense...

~Michael

[edcrater]

I'm back from studying, and now understand:

1. In the case of a star, the current comes in through the poles and out through the equator [ref Alfven diagram, and "heliospheric current sheet"]

and

2. In the case of a galaxy, the current flows in along the arms, and out of the poles [ref helical, braided etc, galactic jets].

Curiously, the two cases are opposites, even though they are formed by the same, eternally scalable, z-pinch. Hmmm.

[edcrater]

Don Scott's http://www.electric-cosmos.org/galaxies.htm shows:

1) an Alfven diagram for a GALAXY with the current GOING OUT of the POLES and in at the spiral arms

and

2) an Alfven diagram for a STAR [sun] with the current GOING OUT of the POLES and in at the equator (and there is a note to say the Ulysses has confirmed this)

This makes sense to me, as they are consistent and would be expected of the eternally-scalable z-pinch. So right now I believe """IN EQUATOR, OUT POLES""".

* * * * *

However, the Alfven diagram referenced by Michael GMirkin / Net Talk / 'Observations on the Sun' of Thu Oct 02, 2008 2:47 am with link to:

http://picasaweb.google.com/mgmirkin/Ph ... 0642......

shows current COMING INTO THE POLES. This image carries the caption 'Alfven's diagram of the solar circuit quoted in Don Scott's book "The Electric Sky" (Pg. 112)'. This means that the matter has gone full circle back to Don Scott, but OPPOSITE.

This is the OPPOSITE of the 2 Alfven diagrams referenced 1) and 2) above. I am left in total confusion over a fundamental issue.

Would anyone like to comment?

[Please ignore my post of Nov 02 immediately below, because it has got caught up in the confusion, obviously.]

[MGmirkin]

A good question...

One wonders whether the image from Don's site describes an electron current and the one from the book describes a conventional current? Might have to inquire on this point.

If they describe opposite charges potentially flowing in opposite directions (in the same circuit that is to be expected, more-or-less) then there is no contradiction. If, however, they describe the same charge flowing in opposite directions, there might be an issue?

~Michael Gmirkin

[edcrater]

...there might be an issue?
~Michael Gmirkin

Michael: thanks for your prompt response.

I think clarification is absolutely required, because IF direction is thought not be an issue, we could then say that a galactic jet starts out in space, curves around and unerringly heads towards the center of the spiral, miraculously scoring a bulls-eye every time [and braiding along the way]. It's obvious nonsense, but it is what could be logically inferred.

I feel that there is no wiggle-room in this. According to Alfven's original pictures, galaxy currents go OUT POLAR and star currents go OUT POLAR too, (as confirmed by Ulysses).

I believe we cannot have mutually-exclusive pictures {or even mutually-exclusive LOOKING pictures based on a technical fiddle} in texts accessible by learners [such as I], and maintain credibility with the public we seek to persuade. This is fundamental. Imagine going out and trying to persuade a hostile but intelligent person to our cause, armed with 'opposite' diagrams! If something has been published wrong, never mind. State it, scrub it from the extant material, and we can go forward together in confidence. I hope you will be able to bring clarity soon.

[MGmirkin]

A good question...

One wonders whether the image from Don's site describes an electron current and the one from the book describes a conventional current? Might have to inquire on this point.

If they describe opposite charges potentially flowing in opposite directions (in the same circuit that is to be expected, more-or-less) then there is no contradiction. If, however, they describe the same charge flowing in opposite directions, there might be an issue?

~Michael Gmirkin

Having made a few inquiries privately, here's what I currently understand.

1) Theories are best guesses until concrete data comes in. Theories are sometimes abandoned or modified, as different approaches are taken to the same problem or newer data comes in.

2) That said, The image from Don Scott's site labeled as originating from Alfvén is in fact from Alfvén. The one which I had collected and which appears in Don Scott's book, I had erroneously attributed to Alfvén. Not sure where I got that impression from. Probably someone had said so, and I'd not found contradictory information elsewhere. Now I have. ;o] It's actually Don Scott's own diagram from his book The Electric Sky, and quoted by Thornhill / Talbott in The Electric Universe.

Don Scott departs from Alfvén's diagram in a few ways. Namely, in the direction of the "conventional current" and "electron flow." Whereas Alfvén had conventional current flowing in at the equator and out at the poles, Scott has the conventional current flowing in at the poles and out equatorially. Likewise, equal and opposite, Scott has the electron current flowing in equatorially and out axially (at the poles). Also, Don differs with Alfvén in where he places the double layers. Whereas Alfvén had double layers placed in or around the polar / axial currents, Scott places the double layer approximately in the chromospehere or just above the photosphere. (With the caveat that since nobody has seriously undertaken to study the model or to make observations of the specific regions it addresses from the viewpoint espoused, there is not yet sufficient data to pin things down more specifically, so it's all a "best guess" for the moment based up what *is* known).

I think, though don't quote me as it's just my opinion, that Don feels that is a refinement of or a correction to Alfvén's model, much in the same way that Thornhill has modified / refined Juergens' glow discharge tube analogy by correcting (in his view) where the positive column is and extends to (thus what particle behaviors might be expected in the heliosphere: drift current rather than relativistic electrons, I think), likewise the other various related parts of the "glow discharge" tube analogy.

For the moment, that's my understanding anyway...

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[edcrater]

Michael: Thanks for leaping on the problem and getting to grips with it.

Since there might be more to come, I'll defer comment.

Perhaps someone else would like to weigh in on this; or am I the only one confused?

[seasmith]

edcrater wrote:

...shows current COMING INTO THE POLES. This image carries the caption 'Alfven's diagram of the solar circuit quoted in Don Scott's book "The Electric Sky" (Pg. 112)'. This means that the matter has gone full circle back to Don Scott, but OPPOSITE

.

Ed,

Some scraps from a lost "Plasmoids" thread, i think, where this very issue was discussed for weeks:

quote]... called the Marklund
convection mechanism (for a review, see [14]). When an electric
field is present in a plasma and has a component perpendicular
to a magnetic field, radial inward convection of the charged particles
is possible. Under the influence of the force, both
the electrons and ions drift with the velocity
(3)
so that a portion of the plasma moves radially inward (Fig. 1).
This mechanism provides a very efficient convection process for
the accumulation of matter from plasma...[/b

]http://plasmascience.net/tpu/Perattpdf/ ... ec2000.pdf


As I tried to portray above, there seems to be 2 phases and a birectionality ( ref. mgmirkin too) to the birth and evolution of a galaxy.
(~s~)


Thornhill, in TPOD's previously quoted, seems to have impied the same.[/quote]

(Thornhill):From an electric universe point of view, this is the most active expression of the electric power of the Milky Way. This is where currents are focused from the spiral arms down into a tiny donut-shaped plasmoid. From the center of this plasmoid, electric currents spray out from the axis of the galaxy, then return along the spiral arms, inducing magnetic fields and lighting up the stars. The energy stored in the plasmoid is released in prodigious outbursts of high speed particles and radiation, heralded by explosive flares.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/ ... galaxy.htm

quote]"Stars are formed efficiently in a cosmic plasma discharge known as a Z-pinch. A Z-pinch electromagnetically scavenges diffuse matter over a large volume of space with a force that diminishes directly with distance, not the much weaker square of the distance due to gravity. The Z-pinch forms a string of separate plasmoids, which become stars. It is the Z-pinch effect that generates the intense winds seen coming from star forming regions. As the discharge weakens and becomes unstable the stars are scattered like buckshot from their linear arrangement. The initial linear configuration could explain why some nearby stars tend to have similar axial alignments to that of the Sun."

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/ ... gc4550.htm[/quote]

Perhaps related to the second, inhalational phase, is this about 'Oosterhoff groups

The Dutch astronomer Pieter Oosterhoff noticed that there appear to be two populations of globular clusters, which became known as Oosterhoff groups. ...

To twist it up, maybe like this:
Major cosmic current twist, pinch, spin, di-polarity, extension (bar, wing, spindle, eliptical, spiral, etc.), and globulation.
Then an evolution toward equalibrium, inflow, convection, 'plasma to matter', akkretion, Faraday rotation and polar jets....


ps: had some 3d earthly tornado and hurricane graphics which very clearly showed bi-directional flow, but they must have supernovied ...
s

[substance]

If all the planets are connected to the sun by magnetic flux ropes (Birkeland currents), and I think they will be, then there may be a link between the two. Jupiter has an enormous magnetosphere and is clearly the next largest focal point for energy in our Solar System...shouldn't we expect discharges between these bodies?

Cheers!

Why would you expect discharges if the bodies are in a permanent electrical circuit? A Discharge is only a sudden flow of electricity.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So after all who is right about the direction of the birkeland currents? Alfven or Don Scott? I thought that the current has to come OUT equatorially from stars in order to connect with planets, right? Or am I missing something?

[edcrater]

So after all who is right about the direction of the birkeland currents? Alfven or Don Scott? I thought that the current has to come OUT equatorially from stars in order to connect with planets, right? Or am I missing something?

substance: As Michael inferred, matters are pending. But in the meantime we can examine aspects. You are probably aware of the well-known heliospheric current sheet image below, but it comes with a relevant text [shown below it, with my bolding].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Heli ... t_edit.jpg

Electric current
The electric current in the heliospheric current sheet is directed radially inward, the circuit being closed by outward currents aligned with the Sun's magnetic field in the solar polar regions. The total current.....
It has been noted that:
"It is remarkable that the radial component of the spiral structure implies a current that continually flows towards the Sun. The charge accumulating from this process must be removed elsewhere. This occurs most simply via line currents that originate over the Sun's poles"[9]

This supports the EQUATORIAL IN, POLAR OUT model, just like a galaxy.

Now you can be confused too, if you like?

Incidentally, I loathe the term "heliospheric" in this context. There is nothing heliospheric about this. The HCS is a disk, only 10,000km thick. It should be called the "heliodisk current sheet" or something similar. [[The solar wind is an example of something truly heliospheric, though its velocity varies with latitude, being lower in the equatorial region. It is interesting that the outflowing solar wind is weaker in the region where there is an inflowing heliospheric current. I wonder if there is a connection there?]]

[edcrater]

seamith wrote:

"where this very issue was discussed for weeks:"

seasmith: thanks for your input, and sorry if I'm wasting time and space going over old ground. [But was the matter settled, and how? And if not, why not?]

I'm struggling with your ideas. Are you saying that there might be 2 separate phases, the first phase when the currents flow one way, and then a second phase when they flow the other way? I feel it's necessary to be clear on this because the implications are awesome. It widens what was intended to be simple matter of "this" or "that" into some great new cosmological debate! And yet you refer to hurricanes and tornadoes, so perhaps you mean currents going in opposite directions AT THE SAME TIME! My brain is spinning, possibly similarly to the tornadoes!

I got the impressions from diagrams from all sources that they represented steady-state conditions.

Marklund 'convection'; I think I understand that. It seems to be just the sorting of elements in the filaments [beads on a wire stage]. But I don't see how that process affects [or is affected by] the issue of which way the current goes.

Surely a galaxy with 2 planes of stars moving in opposite directions [if it exists at all] is an extreme rarity? Even 'anomalous'?

If I've misunderstood, sorry, I'll keep working on it.

I've gotta go now. There is a man at the door who has come to adjust my gravity shield. ed.

[Solar]

I'm struggling with your ideas. Are you saying that there might be 2 separate phases, the first phase when the currents flow one way, and then a second phase when they flow the other way? I feel it's necessary to be clear on this because the implications are awesome. It widens what was intended to be simple matter of "this" or "that" into some great new cosmological debate! And yet you refer to hurricanes and tornadoes, so perhaps you mean currents going in opposite directions AT THE SAME TIME! My brain is spinning, possibly similarly to the tornadoes!
...
Surely a galaxy with 2 planes of stars moving in opposite directions [if it exists at all] is an extreme rarity? Even 'anomalous'?

For your consideration:

A flow of positive charge gives the same electric current as an opposite flow of negative charge. Thus, opposite flows of opposite charges contribute to a single electric current. For this reason, the polarity of the flowing charges can usually be ignored during measurements. All the flowing charges are assumed to have positive polarity, and this flow is called Conventional current.
In solid metals such as wires, the positive charge carriers are immobile, and only the negatively charged electrons flow. Because the electron carries negative charge, the electron motion in a metal is in the direction opposite to that of conventional (or electric) current. While it would make more sense to draw current arrows in the direction of what is actually flowing, convention dictates that this not be the case.
In many other conductive materials, the electric current is due to the flow of both positively and negatively charged particles at the same time. In still others, the current is entirely due to positive charge flow. For example, the electric currents in electrolytes are flows of electrically charged atoms (ions), which exist in both positive and negative varieties. In a common lead-acid electrochemical cell, electric currents are composed of positive hydrogen ions (protons) flowing in one direction, and negative sulfate ions flowing in the other. Electric currents in sparks or plasma are flows of electrons as well as positive and negative ions. In ice and in certain solid electrolytes, the electric current is entirely composed of flowing protons. For conceptual simplicity, Conventional current is used to conceal these issues by summing the various currents together into a single value. - Wiki: Electric Current

And:

Huge Newfound Part of Milky Way Rotates Backward

The Milky Way galaxy has "two parts"

The main galactic disk, home to our sun, rotates at an average speed of 500,000 mph. Surrounding the disk is what's now called the inner halo. It orbits in the same direction at about 50,000 mph. The outer halo, a sparsely populated region, spins in the opposite direction at roughly 100,000 mph.

This is only an "anomaly" when contrasted with the accepted paradigm. It's only a "rarity" when compared to the current theory. It's a prime example of how the universe "says" what it's doing (via observation) and the surprises just keep coming for proponents of the standard model. Now, as with other contrary observations, they will have to figure out a way to make the paradigm busting observation 'fit' into the standard model as opposed to rejecting that model. Or it will simply be forgotten. A mere footnote in history.

This factual observation alone should've shaken the standard model to the core yet, if you'll notice in the article, all of this is occurring around the fictitious, amorphous and - as of late - very accommodating "black hole".

So yes, the implications are that two currents are going in opposite directions at the same time but that this is overlooked for the sake of "simplicity".

p/s Ed, you really should try Gravity Shielders Inc. They adjust my G-shield remotely which saves me the cost of a service charge!!

[edcrater]

So yes, the implications are that two currents are going in opposite directions at the same time but that this is overlooked for the sake of "simplicity".

p/s Ed, you really should try Gravity Shielders Inc. They adjust my G-shield remotely which saves me the cost of a service charge!!

Awesome stuff, Solar. I already have several pics, arty things, etc, of the Milky Way, including Canis, Sagdwarf, Magellanic etc, but none of them showed the Halos. So up until your post, I was completely unaware! It seems the establishment are doing a great job of covering up or furiously ignoring - still, they have vast experience. So, the currents that 'contain' the galaxy can have separate parts controlled by separate currents at the same time, and apparently with little separation; wow. And if the MW is typical, then gazillions more might be same.

Thanks for the pos/neg current stuff too. Largely I was aware, but have learnt some new tricks, eg the ice and electrolytes. I just wonder whether the circuit diagrams problem will come down to arrow convention, or whether there is more to it.

Nice idea about the Gravity Shielders Inc. Problem is, here in Thailand, whenever you try and do anything involving 'outside Thailand', you get a message [usually after filling in 3 screens of data], """We note that you are on a server in Asia. At present we are unable .............but are seeking to extend our service in due course."" But never mind, the guy cleaned the swimming pool and gave me an orbit boost all in the same visit.

[Solar]

So, the currents that 'contain' the galaxy can have separate parts controlled by separate currents at the same time, and apparently with little separation; wow. And if the MW is typical, then gazillions more might be same.

That would actually be an awesome undertaking. To see whether or not this pattern is consistent with other galaxies. I'm wondering if elliptical galaxies would be different, the makeup of the plasma with which the Birkeland currents interacts would be the defining factors I would presume.

I quite enjoy seeing people work these things out. Ready for some overload?

The electric current in the heliospheric current sheet is directed radially inward, the circuit being closed by outward currents aligned with the Sun's magnetic field in the solar polar regions. The total current in the circuit is on the order of 3×109 amperes.[4] As a comparison with other astrophysical electric currents, the Birkeland currents that supply the Earth's aurora are about a thousand times weaker at a million amperes. The maximum current density in the sheet is on the order of 10-10 A/m2 (10-4 amps/km2).
It has been noted that:
"It is remarkable that the radial component of the spiral structure implies a current the continually flows towards the Sun. The charge accumulating from this process must be removed elsewhere. This occurs most simply via line currents that originate over the Sun's poles"[9] - "Physics of the Earth's Space Environment: An Introduction" via Plasma-Universe

This supports the EQUATORIAL IN, POLAR OUT model, just like a galaxy.

This needs contrast with information provided by the Voyager data and the work of M. Opher et al:

Interaction of the Solar System with the Interstellar Medium

"Global Asymmetry of the Heliosphere"

The Orientation of the Local Interstellar Magnetic Field - This paper is normally ensconsed behind subscription fees at Science AAAS. For some wierd reason, with Internet Explorer, you can ocassionally get the whole paper but at other times is doesn't show. The following is from that paper:

The orientation of the local interstellar magnetic field introduces asymmetries in the heliosphere that affect the location of heliospheric radio emissions and the streaming direction of ions from the termination shock of the solar wind. We combined observations of radio emissions and energetic particle streaming with extensive three-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic computer simulations of magnetic field draping over the heliopause to show that 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.

And:

A research team led by Merav Opher at Virginia's George Mason University found that, just outside the solar system, this interstellar magnetic field is inclined at a 60-degree angle relative to the plane of the Milky Way...

The solar system takes on its streamlined shape as it strikes the magnetic field at this angle, Opher explained. - "Solar System Is "Bullet Shaped"

Also:

The findings, detailed in the May 11 issue of the journal Science, suggest the magnetic field in the galactic environment surrounding our solar system is pitched at a sharp angle and not oriented parallel to the plane of the Milky Way as previously thought. - "Solar System Sails Sideways Through Milky Way"

Huh?...not "parallel", "pitched at a sharp angle", "inclined at a 60-degree angle" and "strikes the magnetic field at this angle". What aren't they saying? That the solar system is 60-90 degrees...
P-E-R-P-E-N-D-I-C-U-L-A-R
...to the interstellar magnetic field ["lines"]- the "Right-hand rule" applies here in full effect resulting in what? - an inbound current flow!!

How do the currents get to the Sun? Anyway they can but the polar regions and "Helment Streamers" demonstrate that the currents are flowing both ways through the polar regions ("polar plumes" would be more accurate). Probably "in" from the magnetic "field lines" of intestellar meduim as the Solar systems "cuts" through them at this 60-degree angle and "out" from the Sun to compose the heliospheric current sheet. This in relation to the formation of it's own self-organized plasma Langmuir sheet or "bubble":



Look at the arrows for current flow direction in the above image. This is also from Opher's work but I don't have linkage readily available. Downloaded .pdf some while ago. Considering these "Helment Streamers" so called "Coronal Holes" and/or "polar plumes". could well be the Sun's version of it's own "aurora"-like dynamic in relation to the electric currents of the interstellar medium.



Being commensurate with the Earth's "Magnetospheric Cusp":



But scaled to the size of the solar system:



This is just a larger scale version of what is known to electrically occur with the planet Earth with a lot more electrical power of course. This seems to me to be pure "induction". Just as was discussed in the "Superconductivity" thread. Here, electric currents "induce" the porduction of subsurface currents in materials (resulting in the formation of a self-organized magenetic field that will exist within the parent magnetic field) via the penetration of those currents into the material through "pinning sites" aka "defects" in the material. The currents 'latch on to those sites'.

Some currents are entering from the main source, others are exiting, after "induction", from whence they were "induced" to form the magneto-sheath of the material. Very dynamic, very scalable, a very beautiful "equation" and the EU is the only place you can get it. The information is there, the work has already been done, the evidence, the observations etc it just needs to be put together. No new physics required!!

Why do the Sun's poles flip? Because the solar system is perpendicularly "cutting" through the alternating polarity of the magnetic field lines of the intestellar medium just as the work of Opher et al demonstrates via examination (modeling) of the Voyager data . Harold Aspden calls them "space-domains" in which electromagentic polarities alternately reverse in the same way that "magnetic field lines" seperate "magneitc domains" in a regular bar magnet. The same alternating "domains" are occur within the galaxy's "space" and or local "space" for our 'parent plasma cell'.

You know, when you people focus in on a subject you're extremely inspirational.