Observations on the sun

[edcrater]

S1. In some rare pictures, a helical line or lines can be seen attached to the sun. This is assumed to be the Birkeland current supplying it. But in most pictures, eg SOHO, it cannot be seen. Why?
S2. Given that a Birkeland current connects the sun to other stars, what happens when the orbit of one of the planets takes it close to or intersects the Birkeland current? Does this happen often? Has it ever happened? Could this be responsible for any of the catastrophes of the ancients? Is it predictable? Would the banking system be affected?
S3. Is there a mathematical/physical proof/lab test that the energy emitted from the sun can be accounted for solely by arc discharge?
S4. Is there a mathematical/physical proof/lab test that the energy emitted from the sun can be accounted for solely by the establishment's core/high temperature/fusion model?
S5. Oliver Manuel says the sun is formed on the core of a supernova, a neutron star. This idea fits with the core model, though in an extreme way. Helioseismology claims that there is no core, which fits nicely with the PEU model of a plasma ball. Surely there must be some 'forensic' test to resolve such an enormous dichotomy?
S6. Is there a lower limit on mass for a star in the PEU? Thus, could something as small as Uranus or Neptune 'light up' if it were provided with a Birkeland current, say from a passing current vendor?
S7. Van Flandern has planet-fissioning in pairs via a non-electrical process thus: "gaseous or liquid parent bodies would produce pairs of moons by fissioning, whereas solid bodies would produce singlet moons". PEU has it singly by electrical ejection. Could both be right?
Any views?

[KickLaBuka]

Riveting questions. I have little knowledge of plasma physics, but I'd like to discuss your concerns.

S2. I think the stars are connected by sharing magnetic field lines. For the sun, this zone extends beyond pluto. Birkland currents would cause these stars to revolve with respect to each other. I think the catastrophies, valles marineris on mars, and the grand canyon on earth were the result of an intruder passing to close to them. My guess is the same intruder, which is now long gone.

S3. I think radioactive isotope decay is causing the luminosity and the heat energy. Electrical Z-pinches may aide the trigger of certain fusion reactions. The rotation, flow of electrons at the poles, and acceleration of the particles leaving the sun are due to electricity and magnetism.

S5. Oliver Manuel's work in identifying the composition of the sun will change the entire field.

S6. Before I read Professor Manuel's work, I thought planets were just small stars, under such a critical mass. Now that we know the solar system was created by a supernova explosion ~5Gy ago, there must be two types of stars. Those that have undergone a supernova event, and those that have not. I'd really like to discuss this a lot. I don't know if there's enough information to determine critical conditions, because it is difficult to agree on the basics.

S7. Tell me more about Van Flandern

[MGmirkin]

S6. Is there a lower limit on mass for a star in the PEU? Thus, could something as small as Uranus or Neptune 'light up' if it were provided with a Birkeland current, say from a passing current vendor?

My understanding is that in the Electric Universe view there is not a "minimum mass" to stars, as the EU does not generally accept an internal fusion model. IE, EU "stars" are the focus of discharges and are engaged in glow and/or arc discharges.

(Stellar "evolution" in an Electric Universe)
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

However, in the ES model, there are no minimum temperature or mass requirements because the star is inherently electrical to start with. In the ES model (if a brown/red dwarf is operating near the upper boundary of the dark current mode), a slight increase in the level of total current impinging on that star will move it into the normal glow mode. This transition will be accompanied by a rapid change in the voltage rise across the plasma of the star's atmosphere. Maxwell's equations tell us that such a change in voltage can produce a strong dynamic E-field and a strong dynamic magnetic field. If they are strong enough, dynamic EM fields can produce X-rays. Another similar phenomenon can occur if a star makes the transition from normal glow to arc mode.

As we progress leftward in the HR diagram, at first the plotted points move steeply upward; we enter the spectral M range where some arc tufting becomes necessary to sustain the star's electrical discharge.

As current density increases, tufts (plasma in the arc discharge mode) cover more and more of the surface of each star, and its luminosity increases sharply – plasma arcs are extremely bright compared to plasma in its normal glow mode. You can look directly at neon signs but not at electric arc welders. This accounts for the steepness of the HR curve in the M region – a slight increase in current density produces a large increase in luminosity. As we move upward and toward the left in the diagram, stars have more and more complete coats of photospheric arcs (tufting).

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".

In answer to the second part. Yes, if Neptune or one of the other planets were wandering about on its own and happened across an unfortunate Birkeland current, then it might "light up" as a star if it started up into glow mode or into arc mode (depending on how much current impinges on it surface).

As it stands it seems the Sun is currently the focus of this soar system's current. Though it does also seem to offload some current to other bodies (at a minimum, the Earth) via Birkeland currents (field-aligned currents). We know via THEMIS press release that the Earth and sun are engaged in a 650,000 Amp electrical current exchange (this is probably an average or for a single event and may vary?).

(NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries About Northern Lights)
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themi ... ights.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themi ... multi.html
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/2037 ... er_400.jpg

Wouldn't be surprised if similar structures are found elsewhere, if/when NASA decides to go looking... The way things work, it'll probably be discovered "by accident."

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

S5. Oliver Manuel says the sun is formed on the core of a supernova, a neutron star. This idea fits with the core model, though in an extreme way. Helioseismology claims that there is no core, which fits nicely with the PEU model of a plasma ball. Surely there must be some 'forensic' test to resolve such an enormous dichotomy?

I'm not sold on the "neutron star"-core idea. That's just my personal opinion. If N-N repulsion is true, how would a neutron star stay together without exploding? (While I realize this sounds similar to the old "if an electric comet or the Earth is a charged body, why don't it explode" question, they are considerably different propositions, due to scale and percentage.)

Likewise, there is the "island of stability" issue. IE, atoms with high neutron counts are extremely unstable. Neutrons outside the nucleus of an atom (balanced with protons) are also extremely unstable and will decay relatively quickly. So, I wonder how the "neutron star" hypothesis holds up against both of those? IE, isn't it just a giant neutron "atom?" Wouldn't such an atom have an explosive, short half-life? If the core is all neutrons and three aren't any protons to balance things out, wouldn't the neutrons break down?

I think there are still a few unresolved issues there? At least I've not heard an explanation...

Where does helioseismology claim there is "no core"? Like, literally empty? Or no core fusion? Or something else implied? I'd be interested to see that, as it would seem to go against current mainstream theory (it would be amusing to see exactly what they say does / doesn't exit or take place and whether it jives with standard theory).

~Michael Gmirkin

[edcrater]

KickLaBuka - thanks, van Flandern's site is 'metaresearch' and utterly splendid. He is especially expert on celestial mechanics and relativity, and a great read on much else. Enjoy.

MGMirkin - fascinating stuff, thank you. Just a few thoughts:

(a) Your 'stellar evolution' quote appears to suggest that an astronomical body can exist in 'glow mode'. This is new to me, so i clearly have work to do. [I thought only 'dark' mode like gas giants and 'arc' mode like the sun, but I can only claim to have picked the ball and am getting into my stride ........]

(b) Helioseismology appears to detect pressure waves that can only be explained by a 'uniform' body, or one that is reasonably so. [I don't have URL but will post if found.]
But perhaps a very small [km sized] neutron core would be small enough not into interfere with the waves, and thus be hidden.

(c) But on the subject of the alleged neutron core and collapsed matter generally, according to gravity mainstreamers/theoreticians:
"""Apparently, there are three stages of collapsed matter. The degree of collapse depends on the original mass of the star, and accordingly the gravity doing the compressing. The first level of collapse is the white dwarf, which has collapsed matter at density 1 tonne/cc. In this, the electrons and protons are moving freely, unassociated. The second, when electrons are forced onto protons to make neutrons, "neutronium", is seen in neutron stars [and pulsars if spinning]; this is 'further collapsed matter' at a density of 10^8 tonnes/cc. The most extreme form is 'quark soup', the material of a black hole, density currently unknown."""
My comment:
As far as I know, no-one has ever made or reliably recorded ANY collapsed matter in any of these states. It remains theoretical. Thus, it might not exist, and that case white dwarfs need to be rethought {{'glow' mode???}}, and neutron stars and black holes would not exist. Thus any core in the sun could not be neutronium either.

(d) Final thought. Would it be possible to deliberately fly a space-probe through the Birkeland current near the sun, and what would the effect be? Would it prove the existence of the current to non-believers and have yet further consequences for the PEU debate in general?

[edcrater]

As the earth proceeds around its orbit, it must come closer to and then recede from the Birkeland current supplying the sun. Does this affect space weather? How close do we come to it?

Presumably the Birkeland current carries its own magnetic field, independent of the sun's. Does it affect the earth's magnetosphere when we are at closest passage?

[KickLaBuka]

I believe a combination of Oliver Manuel's composition and Ralph Jeurgen's electric sun is required. Rather than graviational pressure, double layers of protons escaping and electrons "finding them" create external pressure on every layer of the sun. H+ is allowed to leave in each case (with the required escape velocity or force), and heavy nutron rich elements are collapsed to the core.

At every scale, the electron shells pressing and holding the major mass is evident in emission. This has implications from particle physics, basic chemistry, and cosmology. If too many electrons are allowed to participate, the field dips at the poles where the momentum is lower, and in each scale, an electrostatic discharge can result--at the poles--causing SN event at every scale. This releases lots of energy, sometimes luminosity, heat, and bi-products are either forced out or held in.

[MGmirkin]

As the earth proceeds around its orbit, it must come closer to and then recede from the Birkeland current supplying the sun. Does this affect space weather? How close do we come to it?

Presumably the Birkeland current carries its own magnetic field, independent of the sun's. Does it affect the earth's magnetosphere when we are at closest passage?

I would assume from Alfven's diagram, that the main current impinges upon the magnetic poles of the sun, following field lines, likewise that it flow out along the equator. More-or-less. So, any probing would probably have to be done there? Just a thought. Don Scott or Wal Thornhill would probably be better folks to ask on that.

~Michael

[KickLaBuka]

we are in the midst of space weather all year. Though we're closer to the sun during the winter, our charge and subsequent magnetic field protect us from most of the sun's emission. Our tilt also protects the temperate zone in winter because we have more charge in front of us. But the higher degree of space weather (more in winter?) is evident in the aororas above our first and second magnetic field line, the toroidal belts. As far as I know, the planets themselves line up perpendicular to the sun's rotation. The sun draws its negative current from the south pole, where its magnetic field lines straighten out. There's more activity there because of the H+ + e- collisions. The positive charge leaving the sun is stronger at the equator, but lines around 30 degrees down and 30 degrees up from the poles has more activity due to its toroidal belts (less resistance to bombardment).

This is just my opinion based on some reading. Take what you like, challenge what you don't like, and we'll all come out on top.

[MGmirkin]

Though we're closer to the sun during the winter

Umm, during whose winter? Northern hemisphere? Southern hemisphere?

I know, I know, the northern hemisphere is accustomed to always speaking in terms of itself and how / when things affect it. Just saying, unless there's been nuclear fallout I'm unaware of there's not a planet-wide winter. ;o] When one half's warm the other half's cool, more or less... Of course, the equator stays relatively tropical year-round.

Minor quibble, I know.

~Micheal

[KickLaBuka]

and good thing you mentioned the difference in winter. How do you think the hemispheres are affected when the sun makes a tighter path around the milky way? are the sun's poles switched, with the result of a flip in the poles of all of the planets which have them? Think about uranus' tight path around the sun. It's gaceous magnetic oddity when it points at the sun during its perihelion may help us to understand how the magnetic poles of the earth have switched over its lifetime. Could this explain the ability for unprotected humans to travel through the cold climates of russia and alaska to stay in a "climatic zone?"

[MGmirkin]

are the sun's poles switched, with the result of a flip in the poles of all of the planets which have them?

Decidedly not, seeing as how the Sun's poles flip every ~11 years at solar maximum, but the planets' poles do not. The implications of that are not entirely clear.

However, in the EU view it seems the sun is the central electrode of the system, with the heliosheath / heliopause acting as a virtual cathode (if I recall correctly), the other "side" of the discharge.

http://www.holoscience.com/news/mystery_solved.html
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=0yfteeje
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=55fx8yeh

The planets seem to not be as affected by such a situation, though the reasons why would seem less clear.

Perhaps it's on account of the sun's magnetic field being primary within the solar system, thus particles' tendency to follow that and interact primarily with the sun rather than following some other path and interacting with the planets individually? The primary currents in Alfven's diagram seem to be flowing into the sun axially along the poles and out along the equatorial plane (more-or-less). So, it would seem like the current would impinge first upon the sun from "above / below", and then be distributed radially to impinge on the planets as solar wind emissions.

Granted, if both ions and electrons are flowing, one would flow one way and the other would flow the opposite way, I think? Whether that would make a difference, I'm not sure. I don't think do, as "current" (strength / direction in electrical diagrams) doesn't care about whether protons are flowing on way, electrons are flowing the opposite direction or both are flowing in opposite directions in the same circuit diagram.

~Michael Gmirkin

[KickLaBuka]

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?

I understand the EU position about the sun being an electrode. Nuclear Chemistry discovered its power, but from the outside, it’s an electrode, and all the EU theories are validated. The sun is undergoing a radioactive decay--five steps occur inside the photosphere. Four more are noticed on lunar rock and earth. The plasma bi-products are arranged by mass in shells, five. Electrons are required for each reaction. The sun is rotating from left to right from our view in a 27.3 day cycle. As the charged shells rotate, current is drawn in from the south pole. Current likes the sun from the north pole, but the greater flux is from the south. The electrons flow in like roots of an onion, and surround each shell as requirements for the reactions. Double layers between onion shells. H+ is always a bi-product and always escapes out radially. It’s just like you said. It's just like that great link described. But the heat and luminosity come from these chemical reactions, forced by excess charge density on the shells.

So we’ve got an onion of charged shells, some amount of electrons supplying the reactions, that come in just like you say, spinning once per 27.3 days, 3x10^43 positive ions flux the solar wind per year. So just outside the sun, at any given radial shell, there are 9.5x10^35 charges at 1.524x10^17 coulombs.

[redeye]

S1. In some rare pictures, a helical line or lines can be seen attached to the sun. This is assumed to be the Birkeland current supplying it. But in most pictures, eg SOHO, it cannot be seen. Why?

I know the picture you are talking about, it looks something like this and this only the helical structure within the flare is more pronounced.

This image actually shows a coronal mass ejection, it is the spiral structure that caused people to refer to it as a birkeland current. It isn't a permanent feature, simply an extremely energetic solar flare.

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?

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!

[KickLaBuka]

I think some of the planets will have magnetic field ropes. Others (venus, mars) don't have magnetic fields and truely are revolved by keplers laws, and our masses for them are accurate. But planets like jupiter and uranus are mostly held by these magnetic field ropes, so our calculations for their masses are far off. Earth is a perfect balance between keplers laws and those of rotating charges.