Observations on the sun

[seasmith]

~
edcrater wrote:

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!

Yes and yes.
I should have put an 's' on flow. Concurrent flows and ebb-and-flow; concurrently. Why not?

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/goes/hurricanes/

The much better cyclonic images were from Scientific American (sciam.com, but i'm not finding them just now.

As Solar has said, current flows are complex. Solar/galactic sructures appear to have a genesis, an evolution of form and an expiration.
[Vedic science has always spoken of cosmic inhalation/exhalation cycles]

Perhaps solar current cycles follow the [dodecahedral ?] pattern of inter-galactic electrtro-magnetic domains, as per Solar.
Perhaps our ambient electro-magnetic flux field is in the circuit of much more vast filamentary flows
Perhaps an harmonic interplay of both, and more.
Kevin sees, and reckon i've had a mere glimpse or two of concurrent alternating rythmic [aetheric ?] flows.



Here's the latest image of our local magnetic enviorn. Looks simple in 2D.



http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulatio ... index.html

[edcrater]

Combo reply to seasmith and solar, [and anyone else please jump in].

Much appreciate the efforts you have put in to advance this. It's all so mind-bending that I needed several glasses of chardonnay to cope with it. So, through the logic-enhanced fog:

seasmith:
1. I am concerned about making comparisons between predominantly mechanical structures such as fluid flow, and plasma structures such as the interstellar medium. [I know, hurricanes are electrical! Having been in a small tornado, I'm a believer! But seriously, isn't fluid density the killer? These are multi-orders of magnitude apart, even if you can see lightning in tornadoes. ]

2. "Solar/galactic structures appear to have a genesis, an evolution of form and an expiration." Ok, I can accept that possibility. I presume we are in the evolution stage and are blessed with temporary stability, at least on our time-scale.

3. Magnetic field complexity - Accepted and understood, in so far as possible.

4. Magnetic / Ionospheric etc movies will not play for me, but never mind, I get the basics.

The gist of what you are working towards is that the currents in the sun can be either way, according to time / phase / situation / etc, and under certain circumstances can be contemporaneous and opposite, right? And that means the whole situation is much more complex than I have been treating it. Ok, accepted, but see below solar reply.

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

I seem to be the experimental Benjy-mouse in the maze at the moment, but as I've got nothing better to do right now..........

1. "an inbound current flow!!" Ok, by your own separate reasoning, you get an equatorial inbound flow. Understood.

2. Helmet plumes - could I just comment that the non-radial nature of these energetic outflows shows that they are not related to the core. Incidental, I know, but just for any nuclear-core people still out there: Keep banging the rocks together, guys!

3. You've covered Voyager data; is Pioneer data relevant, or haven't they reached significant points yet?

4. I can understand that the motion of the solar system through the local interstellar medium [and magnetic fields] is a significant factor on solar system flows. One only has to imagine the multi-lightyear-diameter current flow coming along the spiral arm, zapping the pathetic small blob of the heliosphere with its current and passing on its way.

* * * * * * * * * *

And to a related matter:

The sun radiates electromagnetic energy and solar wind over its whole surface. But I speculate that it either gets its power from a birkeland current or from the heliospheric current sheet.

If it is a birkeland current, it must arrive at a discrete point or points on the sphere, unless it has such a huge diameter that it can encompass the whole sun.

If it is the heliospheric current sheet, it feeds at the equator or at some narrowly-defined latitude or latitudes.

Neither of the above possibilities lends itself to uniform arc-discharge and granulation over the whole surface. [I'm ignoring sunspots and speaking in the broad general case - the big picture.]

How does it do this? By what mechanism can a 'point input' or a 'disk input' or a even 'semi-spherical input' convert itself into uniform spherical arc-discharge? Should we not see non-uniformity, with better and stronger discharge near the 'input points or areas'? Even a current larger than the sun should show something semi-spherically?

Maybe neither of the above possibilities is correct. In that event, what is the mechanism of electric power input?

I have examined Scott's and Thornhill's websites for an answer, and though they are excellent and fulsome in many descriptions, they do not cover this point specifically as far as I can tell. The LANL website does not even feature the sun, which is a surprise as it's the biggest nearest discharging plasma. Other websites are not much use since they do not accept surface discharge anyway.

There is a clue on Thornhill's holoscience website at NEWS/TWINKLE, TWINKLE, ELECTRIC STAR

"Clearly, in the immense volume of the heliosphere an unmeasurably small drift of electrons toward the Sun and ions away from the Sun (the solar wind) can satisfy the electrical power required to light the Sun. It is only when we get very close to the Sun that the current density becomes appreciable and plasma discharge effects become visible."

Thus, the power source is allegedly composed of 'ions away' [the solar wind] which we CAN measure, and something unmeasurably [sic] small, which we obviously CAN'T. That aspect is rather disappointing. I wonder why we can't measure the electron inflow when it is near the sun and significant.

There is another clue on Don Scott's electric-cosmos website, at 'Electric Cosmology - Stellar Evolution', where he discusses a star with half its area discharging and the other half dark.
""A case in point – NASA recently discovered a star, half of whose surface was "covered by a sunspot".  A more informative way to say this would have been that "Half of this star's surface is covered by photospheric arcing."  The present controversy about what the difference is between a giant gas planet and a brown dwarf is baseless.  They are members of a continuum – it is simply a matter of what the level of current density is at their surfaces.  NASA's discovery supplies the missing link between the giant gas planets and the fully tufted stars.  In fact, the term "proto-star" may be more descriptive than "giant gas planet".""

This implies that the local continuum only had enough current to tuft half the star, though the mechanism by which it 'chose' where to tuft is not stated. Was it directional? If so, that would be easy to understand. This is an excellent example of non-uniformity.

Now the relevance of the above to the current debate {hahahaha} is that the surface of the sun seems to be 'bathed' spherically in the [truly] heliospheric medium that carries the electrons in and the ions out, and it all happens spherically rather than 'pointedly' or 'diskly', it you see what I mean. Thus, because of the obvious uniform nature of the spherical 'powerhouse', perhaps we need to look beyond the so-called heliospheric current [badly named, since it is actually a narrow disk].

Maybe the heliospheric [heliodisk] current sheet is minor player in this, just as the auroral current is, being the tiny fraction of the solar wind that is bent by magnetic fields towards our poles. Maybe we have been sidetracked by a possibly low-relevance heliodisk current sheet? Maybe for solar currents, we should be just looking at what is SPHERICAL-IN and SPHERICAL-OUT and ignoring the small fry? Perhaps we should be looking at POWER-IN, POWER-OUT considerations. Maybe the heliodisk current sheet doesn't carry the requisite power to be significant?

Any views?

PS Learning the PC/EU is like taking a degree course in spare time!

[MGmirkin]

Neither of the above possibilities lends itself to uniform arc-discharge and granulation over the whole surface. [I'm ignoring sunspots and speaking in the broad general case - the big picture.]

How does it do this? By what mechanism can a 'point input' or a 'disk input' or a even 'semi-spherical input' convert itself into uniform spherical arc-discharge? Should we not see non-uniformity, with better and stronger discharge near the 'input points or areas'? Even a current larger than the sun should show something semi-spherically?

Maybe neither of the above possibilities is correct. In that event, what is the mechanism of electric power input?

My understanding from Don Scott is that there is a double layer in the chromosphere or just above the photosphere, which may have something to do with it. However, you might also want to refer back to some of Juergens' work on the electric sun hypothesis (some still applies, though some has been modified by Thornhill subsequently to bring it more in line with observations).

Anyway, some of Juergens' work has been reprinted in Thoth:

http://www.kronia.com/thoth.html

The articles entitled "Reconciling Celestial Mechanics and Velikovsianism" (though they sound daunting) actually seem to house some pretty decent material on the electric sun hypothesis. In Vol 1, issues 7-10...
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoth07.txt
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoth08.txt
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoth09.txt
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thoth10.txt

Issue 7's first section of the treatise has a bit at the end about space charge sheaths (Langmuir sheaths, I believe they're commonly called).
Issue 8's middle portion of the treatise Juergens mentions the difference between randomly moving charges (no current, generally) and net motions of charges (current), as well as Earth's charge.
Issue 9's conclusion to the treatise he speaks more specifically about aspects of the sun, up to and including the sun's charge, sun as anode, etc.
Issue 10 covers the topic of space charge sheaths and comet tails.

More Thoth stuff from Wal Thornhill & Don Scott on Electric stars here:
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThotII08.txt
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThoIII05.txt

(I think this is the one I was thinking of... Thornhill summarizes Juergens' views.)
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThoIII06.txt

I mentioned that the light from the Sun does not come from a positive column effect. It comes from the bright granules that form the photosphere. They are an anode phenomenon occurring when the anode is small in relation to the discharge current. As Cobine writes in section 8.12 Anode Phenomena: "The presence of impurities and the evolution of gas may cause local points of high activity which appear as luminous regions." Stars are well constructed to provide gas to the anode discharge. In fact, the chromosphere of the Sun exhibits the same sheath of negative hydrogen ions observed in Earth-based anodes fed with the gas. So the bright granulations are the result of cool neutral gas from below the photosphere (at the temperature seen in the umbrae of sunspots) being injected into the anode glow region, or chromosphere of the Sun by solar lightning, which magnetically compresses and heats the gas to incandescence, ionizes some of it and accelerates it vertically - giving a superficial appearance of convection. It is actually a means to provide more electrons to carry the current load at the anode. The relatively quiet, orderly behaviour of the photospheric granulations as they grow, fade, split and combine is characteristic of anode "tufting" but has no sensible explanation in terms of convection.

Because anode tufting occurs above the true anode surface we do not know the actual size of the Sun. It explains why the photosphere is almost perfectly spherical despite the Sun's rotation (sometimes it is actually prolate!) - its shape is constrained by electrical forces far more powerful than centrifugal rotation effects. It provides an answer to how the diameter of the Sun can change over short intervals of time in response to changes in its electrical environment. Also, if the Sun's differential rotation is driven electrically from outside, it explains how that rotation rate can vary quite markedly and why sunspots seem to plough through the photosphere as if they were evidence of invisible magnetic stirrers, dipping into the Sun.

...

http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThotIV05.txt

Skeptic:
It is up to someone else to see this in light of the "electric sun/star" hypothesis. We already know that the alleged rain of relativistic electrons responsible for the sun's surface temperature and magnetic field, according to the "electric sun/star" hypothesis, has as yet managed to remain undetected.

Thornhill:
By ignoring, or not troubling to find out about Juergens' model, we have here a "straw man", built upon an unspecified model. Juergens was at great pains to describe the model of a cathode-less glow discharge in a plasma. That was the specific model he chose on the basis of its match to all of the observed phenomena we call "the Sun". That includes such things as granulation of the photosphere, chromospheric spicules, anomalous temperatures above the photosphere, anomalous Fraunhofer spectrum, and so on and on.

In a glow discharge, the current is carried through most of the volume, known as the positive column region, by a slow "drift" of electrons superimposed on their higher thermal velocity. It takes place in a quasi-neutral plasma with a low density of ionization. That is what we observe in interplanetary space. It is only very close to the anode that the electric field becomes strong and accelerates electrons to relativistic speeds. So if Thompson wants to find them he will need to get uncomfortably close to the Sun! Of course, we have indirect evidence for that strong electric field in the accelerating positive ions (solar wind) heading in the opposite direction. The solar wind is a natural outcome of the electric Sun hypothesis. It is an embarrassment to the thermonuclear model of the Sun.

http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thothV02.txt
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/thothV03.txt

A bit more printed here:
http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0404-stellar.htm
http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0 ... sphere.htm
http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0 ... tric-i.htm
http://www.kronos-press.com/juergens/k0 ... ric-ii.htm

Not saying it's the final word on things though...

There is a clue on Thornhill's holoscience website at NEWS/TWINKLE, TWINKLE, ELECTRIC STAR

"Clearly, in the immense volume of the heliosphere an unmeasurably small drift of electrons toward the Sun and ions away from the Sun (the solar wind) can satisfy the electrical power required to light the Sun. It is only when we get very close to the Sun that the current density becomes appreciable and plasma discharge effects become visible."

Thus, the power source is allegedly composed of 'ions away' [the solar wind] which we CAN measure, and something unmeasurably [sic] small, which we obviously CAN'T. That aspect is rather disappointing. I wonder why we can't measure the electron inflow when it is near the sun and significant.

We probably could, if they'd go looking for it in that region with the proper equipment for the task... ;o] I believe Thornhill has said as much when responding to some skeptics and/or pseudo-skeptics (added above, now that i've found the reference). IE, Thornhill's model puts the positive column of the "glow discharge tube" analogy in the interplanetary space (within the heliospheric boundary), which would have a minute drift of electrons inward. The only possibly "relativistic" electrons would be those accelerated very close to the sun, where much of the electric potential is concentrated.

I think there's been some confusion springing from skeptics or pseudo-skeptics referring back to Jeurgens' original work, which Thornhill has in some portions revamped and/or 'corrected' slightly, without referring to later works and/or speculations by Thornhill. (Reinterpreted somewhat, and redrawn the "glow discharge tube" analogy diagram somewhat from how Juergens had perhaps used it previously.)

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

This implies that the local continuum only had enough current to tuft half the star, though the mechanism by which it 'chose' where to tuft is not stated. Was it directional? If so, that would be easy to understand. This is an excellent example of non-uniformity.

One would assume that 'tufting' would occur where the greatest amount of current impinges on the surface. Possibly following magnetic field lines (field aligned currents and all), if any... Speculation (educated guess?) on my part of course.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

There is a clue on Thornhill's holoscience website at NEWS/TWINKLE, TWINKLE, ELECTRIC STAR

"Clearly, in the immense volume of the heliosphere an unmeasurably small drift of electrons toward the Sun and ions away from the Sun (the solar wind) can satisfy the electrical power required to light the Sun. It is only when we get very close to the Sun that the current density becomes appreciable and plasma discharge effects become visible."

Thus, the power source is allegedly composed of 'ions away' [the solar wind] which we CAN measure, and something unmeasurably [sic] small, which we obviously CAN'T. That aspect is rather disappointing. I wonder why we can't measure the electron inflow when it is near the sun and significant.

I might also mention that the quote doesn't necessarily fully expound on the solar circuit diagram(s) offered by Scott / Thornhill, insofar as it doesn't say WHERE the ion or electrons flow in or out. Being that it should probably be a circuit (so as to not electrostatically 'balance' with the surroundings and curtail the flow of charges).

Don Scott's model has the ions (positively charged protons or atomic nulei) flowing IN at the poles and OUT at the equator. In the same circuit, opposite charges flow the opposite direction, thus electrons should flow IN at the equator and OUT at the poles.

~Michael Gmirkin

[seasmith]

MGmirkin wrote:

I might also mention that the quote doesn't necessarily fully expound on the solar circuit diagram(s) offered by Scott / Thornhill, insofar as it doesn't say WHERE the ion or electrons flow in or out. Being that it should probably be a circuit (so as to not electrostatically 'balance' with the surroundings and curtail the flow of charges).

I'm certainly not the first to propose that, even just on a toroidal perspective, there are likely opposing concurrent flows in a cycloidal system.
Ie, in a "spiral galaxy" there would flow in one direction via the stellar arms; and an opposite flow through the 'dark' spaces in between.

[seasmith]

~
Likewise for the Heliospheric Current Sheet:

3-Dimensional View of the Heliospheric Current Sheet



and movie:

http://gedds.pfrr.alaska.edu/hcs/HCSMovie.mpg

~

[seasmith]

OOPS,
URL:
http://gse.gi.alaska.edu/recent/3DHCS.html

~

[edcrater]

seasmith:
The picture at the bottom of your 5.02pm post is an electron micrograph of an atom, right? I ask because I seem to remember some gif or animation similar. [[I have a similar picture - http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys314/le ... corral.jpg]]

Your image is supposed to be standing waves produced by opposite flows, if I recall correctly?

Good point about 'dark flow' in the 'dark spaces'! And flowing for dark time too.

I also have to get to grips with Solar's contra-rotating halo. I'm just figuring out where to put the dark matter so this disk goes this way, and that one goes ... er .. erm .........

[edcrater]

Michael:
Thanks for extensive reply, and I am working through the links [more stuff than a body can shake a stick at!]. I must say I am very impressed with Juergens's writing - so clear and precise. And since his time, we have had 30 years of research of ever-greater capacity, with many sun-satellites with several sensors apiece, space-based telescopes, enormous computing power and the brains of the world focussed on the issue (or maybe "should have been"). Yet we still have the outdated unproven nuclear-core model foisted upon us. Amazing. Back soon - er, make that later.

[edcrater]

Huge Newfound Part of Milky Way Rotates Backward

Solar: In this picture, they show the 2 "opposite" flows of the inner and outer halos in the "north". Does the same thing happen in the "south"? That would make 5 separate layers, with either differing speeds or directions? i.e. is it supposed to be symmetrical?

Either way, it's paradigm-busting, yet ignored!

[Solar]

Solar: In this picture, they show the 2 "opposite" flows of the inner and outer halos in the "north". Does the same thing happen in the "south"? That would make 5 separate layers, with either differing speeds or directions? i.e. is it supposed to be symmetrical?

Either way, it's paradigm-busting, yet ignored!

Good question. Some 20,000 stars were observed via the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and their chemical compositions noted. That is quite different from a computer model. Here is SDSS's original announcement:

The Milky Way has a double halo

While the inner halo appears to be "flattened" the outer halo in question ...

... is more spherical, and dominates the population beyond 65,000 light years from the Galactic center. It may extend out to more than 300,000 light years.

That made me wonder how much of the sky can be seen by SDSS from it's location?

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (see http://www.sdss.org for general information) will map one-quarter of the entire sky ... - SDSS Data Release 7

The further out one observes the more sky one can cover so the spectral sky coverage looks like it can get to 180 deg depending on "distance" observed. At "65,000 light years" to potentially 300,000 light years thats a pretty nice chunk of sky. It gets quite large when mapping galaxy distribution

My guess is that one would need two such telescopes in order to get a full picture below what appears to be -30 degrees longitude (south) and beyond. So it appears that the outer halo is spherically rotating at a different speed than the inner halo as a whole spherical 'structure'. If the lower portion (-30 deg longitude and beyond) were rotating in the opposite direction than the upper that would be interesting but there doesn't appear to be any data suggesting that.

I can only tell you my speculations as to what the difference might be between these two 'structures'. I think that they belong to the two elliptical galaxies (like M87) that were brought together via the Z-pinch mechanism exactly as shown by Anthony Peratt's particle-in-cell simulation. When this simulation starts, the two blobs you see are elliptical galaxies. You're looking at them from a 'top-down' view as they "merge" via Biot-Sarvart long-range attraction/ short-range repulsion. The Birkeland currents don't "touch" when they "twist" so it's not a "short circuit". I don't think anyone explains the dynamics of galaxy formation better than Peratt.

Each individual elliptical galaxy has already formed as a result of plasma "clouds" having been intersected by Birkeland currents. Once the Biot-Savart force law kicks into gear they become attracted to each other and the Birkeland currents "twist" around each other until the "pinch" occurs.

On page six of Evolution of the Plasma Univers: II. The formation of Systems of Galaxies Peratt references the Hubble Tuning Fork diagram and explains some of these evolutionary features (E0, S0 etc). It is from his work in this area that I've made the assumption that the inner and outer halos stem from the two original elliptical galaxies that formed the the third 'structure' known as the Milky Way.

Corrections appreciated.

[edcrater]

Solar wrote:
If the lower portion (-30 deg longitude and beyond) were rotating in the opposite direction than the upper that would be interesting but there doesn't appear to be any data suggesting that.

Ok, I think I get it. There is a 'full hollow sphere' of outer halo going the opposite way to the spiral section, and there is another, smaller, 'full hollow sphere' comprising the inner halo, inside the larger sphere, and going in the same direction as the spiral but at much lower speed. The spiral part is inside that.

My mistake in interpretation was that I saw the spiral part as cutting the whole thing into two, and segregating the north from the south. I see it differently now, as concentric spheres containing the spiral part. Also, the halos are MUCH bigger than what laymen conventionally think of as 'the galaxy', and being 100,000 light years diameter.

I don't know whether the 300,000 ly is supposed to be a radius or diameter, but either way, the scale of everything has gone up substantially in my mind.

You probably know this picture:

but as I see it, the halos now present a difficulty to it. The halos from Sloan are actually much bigger than shown in this picture, which means that the halos actually encompass the Magellanic Clouds and NGC 5694.

Solar wrote:
On page six of Evolution of the Plasma Univers: II. The formation of Systems of Galaxies Peratt references the Hubble Tuning Fork diagram and explains some of these evolutionary features (E0, S0 etc). It is from his work in this area that I've made the assumption that the inner and outer halos stem from the two original elliptical galaxies that formed the the third 'structure' known as the Milky Way.

Vast implications here for me to think about. Thanks, Ed.

[edcrater]

I have been putting together some extracts from Juergens [quotes from Thoth archive] in support of the galactic/solar current system.

1. "The fundamental premise of the solar-discharge hypothesis is that a stream of electrons converging upon the Sun from all directions (or possibly, even probably, primarily in the plane of the planets) delivers the energy radiated by the Sun."
2. "Thus we must assume that the total discharge current is carried by particles of opposite charge moving in opposite directions - electrons toward the Sun, and protons away from the Sun."
3. "The focus of the discharge is the Sun itself, an anode serving as both a source for positive and a sink for negative charge carriers. The flow of such carriers between the interstellar medium and the Sun constitutes the electric current that powers the Sun."
4. "Thus it would appear that, if but one in about every 3,000 electrons near the Earth turned out to be a current carrier moving at almost the speed of light toward the Sun, the power delivered would be enough to keep the Sun "burning" at its present rate. This seems a rather subtle stream but it would suffice to power the Sun."
**********************

So, putting these together with the information gathered previously from various posts in this thread and relevant links, it would seem:

In interstellar space, a drift of electrons occurs towards the sun [the anode], which is a cathodeless discharge. This drift is loosely spherically, but as it gets closer, [such as in interplanetary space], it is shaped more by the electric and magnetic fields of the sun, and becomes strong in the heliodisk current sheet [the parker spiral, the 'ballerina skirts', the 10,000km thick one], though retaining its spherical nature too.

At the same time and in the same space, the 'solar wind' of +ions flows out, again spherically, though the solar wind has been found to be reduced in the heliodisk current sheet than elsewhere. Electrons and +ions pass each other going opposite ways, doubtless sometimes meeting, to form neutral atoms .

In the region close to the sun, the heliodisk current sheet does not enter equatorially, but splits to pass around the solar torus, and enters at higher latitudes, perhaps 30 degrees N and S.

The outgoing polar current of +ions, apparently confirmed by Ulysses in 2001, seems to be "concentrated solar wind", i.e. no different to the spherical flow, just focussed.

This 'big picture' ignores the complications of currents in the photosphere, chromosphere, double layers and the role of the torus, etc.

The mental image that I started out with of a helical Birkeland current [narrow diameter, helical, fixed point of entry, from the next fairy-light along] was obviously incorrect. I got the idea from this picture, and had obviously misinterpreted it.

Such Birkeland currents as seen at the sun are likely CMEs and are temporary phenomena.

Assuming the above is correct, and now that I "see" what's going on, I feel I no longer have to worry about current arrow direction conventions.

The problem seems to stem from the difference between current in a wire and current in a plasma. According to electrical convention:

1. In a wire, there are electrons flowing, but no +ions, and the arrow is shown opposite direction to the electron flow. [the way the 'plus' is deemed to go]

2. In a plasma, it's difficult because the current is the sum of electrons going in and +ions coming out of the sun, and this is a spherical phenomenon that does not lend itself to arrows in narrow flows like wires. But there is a narrow flow of +ions going out of the poles of the sun, and that would be consistent with the galaxy model. Indeed, there are references in the texts to 'jetted stars'.

So the patterns for the star and for the galaxy match, which is a relief.

So, there it is, open to challenge. Let's see how it all stands up!

[mharratsc]

I believe I read somewhere that the "magnetic pipe" hitting the Earth was of a diameter =/> the Earth's diameter itself. It stands to reason therefore (from a scalar perspective) that the Birkland current feeding the Sun is probably greater than it's diameter also (and probably a bit outside of our scale of perception from an observational perspective.

The 3-D model of the electromagnetic fields intrigues me- it reminds me of a ying-yang symbol. Three-dimensionally however, is it not inverted on the opposite of the central axis?

Also, some of the references seem to refer to the phase of the current hitting. Take for instance the 11 year solar cycle- is it possible that we're looking at an 11 year phase shift of the Sun's current? Alternating current?? I've heard reference that planets/suns/galaxies are like a homopolar motor, but an AC motor??

The mind boggles I'm probably way off the mark on this, but I figured I would type out what was flitting through my head in case it was amusing to anyone

If anyone can correct my wandering brain cells, feel free- I'm looking to understand this stuff!


Mike H.