Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Solar » Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:01 pm

Robertus: Thank you for the clarity.

The confusion was mine. I’m sure interested parities relate to the concept of the filament of an electric current interacting with, or electro-dynamically ‘coupling to’, the Sun via the Heliosphere. That’s the basic premise.

The specifics of what that dynamic *might* look like from the standpoint of probe data (IBEX), models (Opher et al), and the filamentary orientation of “molecular clouds of gas and dust” (P. Firsch, Redfield et al) can be a little disorientating. The reason obviously being that one has to constantly shift perspectives between being inside of the heliosphere and then outside of the heliosphere while changing orientations between galactic, ecliptic, axis of rotation, direction, and the potential discharge axis: of the “basins” (when adopting that approach).

I think had forgotten to orient to galactic coordinates in one doc while comparing two other docs in conjunction with applying the “tilt” of the “heliotube” (as the discharge axis) relative to the Cassini Basins when used in context of the M2-9 configuration. When I read the concept of a ‘change in orientation’ in your previous post (for some reason [too many docs open]) it threw me into my own personal little “gimble lock”. Pft!

At the same time I was actually also reading the doc associated with with the hypothesis of the “mysterious” alignment of *some* bipolar nebula that you've mentioned. Note that - this observation has the important caveat “if it holds” - so it's also on the back burner. Glad to see you’ve mentioned that.

I also forgot to thank you for posting the 1970’s Ralph Juergens "ring current" information (here). I had no idea that existed. Do you know if he, or anyone else, furthered this concept??

The dynamics occurring at the nose area of the heliosphere with IBEX Ribbon etc I relate to as one phase of 'structural electrodynamic excitations' whereas the "jet"-like qualities *near* the rotation axis go by other names ("Flames" in my head). These two 'structures' impress as two manifestation associated with the "reconfiguration of currents" for which stars (imho) are also the foci of. When "heliotube" was used for both sets of features that also threw me off a bit.

No need to change the approach and/or diagrams being used; the bandage worked fine.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:27 am

Solar wrote:...the 1970’s Ralph Juergens "ring current" information (here). I had no idea that existed. Do you know if he, or anyone else, furthered this concept??

Solar,

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any further mention of a “ring current” by Ralph Juergens. I don’t know if Juergens or anyone else pursued this concept but I still keep a look out for any snippets of his work that may not be widely known.

A recent ‘find’ was a letter to the editor of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies journal SIS Review part of which is below. We find ourselves in the middle of a correspondence in which it appears that Drs Robert Bass and Thomas Van Flandern have been discussing the merits of Juergens’ concept of an isothermal Sun:

Late in 1974 I wrote to Bass of my reasons for insisting that the Sun is in all likelihood an isothermal body, "with no thermonuclear reactions in the middle". He did not respond directly, but six months later wrote to Dr Thomas C. Van Flandern of the U. S. Naval Observatory, in part: "To my amazement, Juergens has shown that from his model of stars as isothermal gas bodies, he can derive the standard mass-luminosity relation and the usual predictions about main-sequence stars. I have not (as yet) been able to find any evidence that would rule out Juergen's [sic] electrostatic model of the Galaxy."

It could be that in the interim Bass has found reason to revise his opinion of my work, but if so, he has not communicated that fact to me.

RALPH E. JUERGENS
Flagstaff, Arizona,
December 26, 1978


In my opinion Juergens’ work from the 1970’s is required reading- including any snippets you can find- it is just a pity that not all of his ideas found their way into print before his untimely death; the model he was developing seemed so much more than simply “the Sun is fuelled externally”.

Thankfully, Dr Earl Milton managed to collate some of Juergens’ ideas and again, Milton’s work ought to be required reading, especially Electric Stars in a Gravity-Less Electrified Cosmos again from SIS Review.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby paladin17 » Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:57 am

First of all, thanks to all the participants of this thread. It's been incredibly interesting to follow. I haven't read the latest pages yet, but I wish to add to the discussion the question of Parker spiral.

Some months ago I've tried to model the exact trajectories of solar wind particles (and IMF lines), and learned that we don't have any decent model to do that. Basically our models work fine at, say, from 0.3 to 2 a.u., but after that the data starts to diverge quite noticeably. E.g. see that paper for some discussion: https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.06314 (in particular, Table 1 at page 3).
Yet I think the spiral is of crucial importance to the whole solar cycle issue, since it ties together the solar rotation, the current [sheet] and the magnetic field. So I've made a deliberately oversimplified sketch, which looks like this: https://imgur.com/78jpwIm (too big to attach here, sorry).

I'm not entirely sure my picture of the current directions is correct, so be careful about it.
But as far as I understand, the [oversimplified version of the] situation looks like this: during solar minimum (e.g. in 1996) we have a flat current sheet with circular currents - in that particular case running counter-clockwise if viewed from the north pole of the Sun. And the heliosphere is divided into two hemispheres with opposite magnetic polarities (in 1996 the magnetic north was in the north). So any Birkeland currents are free to move into or out of the Sun along the IMF lines.

Then the current sheet starts tilting and the coronal holes migrate towards the equator, and we get the solar maximum (e.g. in 2002). The currents still run along the sheet in circular fashion (?), but the sheet itself is perpendicular to the solar equator.
And here's where the Parker spiral kicks in. Basically, at large distances (roughly - starting from the orbit of Saturn) the current sheet and IMF lines look almost circular (if viewed from the north) which reminds me of Don Scott's model of a filament. E.g. Neptune's receiving the solar wind from the direction, which is almost tangential to its orbit.
Then the coronal holes continue their motion and end up at the opposite poles, and we get the next minimum (e.g. in 2008, in this case the magnetic north was in the south). Etc.

So that's what interests me: what role does the spiral play in the solar cycle? Could it be the missing "gear" that should connect the solar rotation with the external filament?
If the whole System at solar maximum looks like a bunch of nested cylinders of plasma with opposite magnetic polarity, separated by cylinders with currents running in a highly complex paths (if one takes into account all the winding around) at least about a 100 a.u. long (at Neptune anyways). To me it doesn't look like the Sun itself can generate all that. But I'm still struggling to see how exactly should the external filament be shaped to produce these oscillations (from solar min to solar max).
User avatar
paladin17
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Mon Jun 17, 2019 7:02 pm

The subject of this thread has far exceeded what I had originally set out to do- a defence of Ralph Juergens’ Electric Sun hypothesis- and I too wish to thank all contributors.

Admittedly, my illustrations have not been great but I had hoped that they conveyed my general idea and with a little more digging around readers may have reached a similar idea to that proposed on this thread.

I will admit- my idea has evolved over time from the original post in 2014- but the proposition is still the same, Alfven and Juergens Circuits: a Reconciliation?

To my mind Alfven’s electric solar circuit is a self contained closed system. That proposed by Juergens is an open circuit- in Juergens’ model the Sun was always connected to the Milky Way Galaxy- all I attempted to do was to reconcile the works of both visionaries.

I have stated, either in private or in public that I believe from an Electric Universe point of view, our understanding of the heliosphere needs a complete revision- hence my proposal of the heliotube, because, as you point out: ”… it doesn't look like the Sun itself can generate all that.” nor does it to me.

With this in mind, I would suggest that the hourglass ‘tube’ with a disc perpendicular to the long axis at the pinch of the hourglass is a feature of ALL stars, of whatever mainstream astrophysical classification. The disc itself is a product of the plasma environment- in some instances the disc will take the form of spiral ‘arms’, ‘waves’ or ‘flux-tubes’.

With reference to the solar cycle- the heliospheric current sheet takes the form of a ‘spiral galaxy’ at solar maximum and a ‘disc’ at solar minimum- these forms are widely found around other stars of varying ‘types’ and ‘ages’.

That said, I feel we have natural experiments closer to home, for example- Saturn. Saturn’s magnetosphere displays a highly warped ‘heliotube’ structure (magnetospheric lobes) with a disc (ring system) at the pinch of the ‘heliotube’ structure. The rings themselves will periodically show a faint spiral structure. I predict the same will be true also of the asteroid belt and the ring systems of Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune. Jupiter also displays hemispheric activity reversals over the Hale magnetic cycle as I wrote about here: https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=477&start=210#p127926

The cometary shapes of planetary magnetospheres are a product of their plasma environment, otherwise their magnetospheres would resemble the ‘heliotube’(not wanting to go wildly off in a philosophical direction but the pinched hourglass-disc structure appears to be a building block of the plasma universe, from the smallest to the largest scales).

I have been unable to work out the exact form of the arriving Birkeland Currents, I think our viewing perspective from Earth’s orbit clouds the issue, plus all of our information comes from the mainstream and we have to filter out their preconceived ideas- given time I hope I can get there- unless someone already has!

Regards,
Robert
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:35 am

Voyager 2’s Jupiter Tales

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8TA7BU2Bvo&feature=youtu.be

Following a successful encounter with Jupiter in July 1979, Voyager 2’s trajectory directed the spacecraft to an encounter with Saturn in August 1981. Between October 1980 and up to Voyager 2’s Saturn encounter the spacecraft returned measurements of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field and Plasma; it was subsequently claimed that during this period Voyager 2 was immersed in Jupiter’s magnetotail but was this really the case?

The observations by Voyager 2 occurred over a period covering the maximum and declining phase of Solar Cycle 21, it has been suggested on this thread that during periods of maximum solar activity current primarily arrives at the Sun’s equatorial regions resulting in the appearance of sunspots and equatorial coronal holes (ECHs), with this in mind is it possible that Voyager 2 did not encounter Jupiter’s magnetotail- but something else entirely?

In 1983 Lepping et al. published a paper discussing Voyager 2’s measurements of Jupiter’s magnetotail, identifications of the tail “…depend on the presence of (very low frequency, 1.2 kHz) nonthermal continuum radiation. MAG (magnetometer) identifications depend on the high probability of tail lobelike fields being present which, at the time and distance of the sightings, was demonstrated by near-alignment of the field with the Jupiter-spacecraft line.” (1)

Having defined the criteria for suspected tail encounters Lepping et al. then went further by dividing such encounters into “tail” and “core” events as it appeared that Jupiter’s magnetotail exhibited some unexpected features: “…Anomalous magnetic fields, not aligned with the nominal tail axis, also exist within the tail, especially in the low-density, "central" (core) region, indicating some complexity of internal structure.”(2)

Analysis of the data revealed: “Two outstanding features…First the events appear to occur nearly periodically; Lepping et al. [1982] compute an average period of 26.5 days between events... Second, the occurrence of "toward" and "away" tail fields (with respect to Jupiter) obeyed a distinct pattern…Voyager 2 was observing northern lobe fields during the tail encounters almost exclusively until about day 130 of 1981 when a crossover to almost purely southern lobe fields occurred. The reason for this crossover is not clear…”(3)

Voyager 2 began collecting data of Jupiter’s magnetotail from 1980 November 5 until 1981 August 18 during this time 8 ‘confirmed’ and possibly 11 Jovian magnetotail encounters occurred, yet suspiciously, their frequency match the solar equatorial rotation period. Furthermore, the early Jovian magnetotail encounters were of the same magnetic ‘northern’ polarity then there was a distinct switch to ‘southern’ polarity. Yet “…the spacecraft never crosses the orbital plane of Jupiter and moves slowly with respect to that plane over the many months of interest here. So latitudinal change of the spacecraft in itself is not a likely candidate for this crossover.” (4) Plus, the closest Voyager 2 came to the Sun-Jupiter line was 320 Jupiter radii, nearly 23 million km during the third event!

One possibility was considered: “Either a large twist or tilt of the tail about the X axis could explain it… However, Jupiter's rotational axis is tilted only approximately 3 degrees with respect to its orbital plane, so this is not expected to cause a significant long-term average tilt of the tail. Effects in the tail due to the tilt of the magnetic dipole of Jupiter would be expected to be periodic and not likely to cause a single occurrence. Other large-scale twisting or tilting of the tail could arise from an as yet unexplained feature of the solar wind interaction with it.” (5)

During the observation period Voyager 2 travelled from 5,000 to 9,000 Jupiter radii along the X axis (Sun-Jupiter-Saturn radial line) and over 3,000 Jupiter radii in the Y axis (direction of planetary orbital revolution, azimuthal line), Voyager 2 did not record continuous measurements of Jupiter’s magnetotail but rather discrete regular filamentary events in the heliosphere, can this really be considered as definitive evidence of Jupiter’s magnetotail?

The final explanation was that Jupiter’s magnetotail resembled a string of sausages caused by regular variations in the pressure of the solar wind: “From our findings we know that the solar wind pressure structure causes near-periodic tail variations resulting in the tail engulfing Voyager 2 approximately every 25 days. In particular we believe these variations primarily are manifested as periodic expansions and contractions, based mainly on the variations of the magnitude of the magnetic field within the tail. Also, except for occasions when major segments possibly break off due to field line merging, we assume that the tail is generally much longer (probably many times the observed 9,000 Rj) than the radial peak-to-peak scale length of the solar wind pressure variations, which average 13,000 Rj; Grzedzielski et al. estimate the Jovian tail length to be 7-15 AU, i.e., 15-32 x 103 Rj. Therefore it is not likely that the tail ever assumes a uniform or simple configuration. It is likely to have a quasi-periodically variable width like a string of sausages, where the narrow cross sections are associated with high-pressure solar wind regions and the large cross sections with low-pressure regions.”(6)

“Apparently supporting our finding of a 25-day periodicity in the tail's motion is a report by Pyle and Simpson [1977] that Pioneer 10 plasma data (communicated to them by J. Wolfe, principal investigator) revealed that the solar wind "disappeared" in two intervals, separated by 24 days in early 1976, when the spacecraft was downstream from Jupiter by about 4.5 AU. They didn’t speculate on the origin or mechanism for these solar wind dropouts but suggested they may have been due to the recurring interaction of a solar wind "corotating interaction region" with the Jovian magnetotail. It is possible that the Pioneer 10 plasma dropouts were signatures of the central, very low density portions of an expanded tail, as described above.”(7)

The 'Pioneer event' is somewhat misleading the solar wind “disappearing” and the low density central ‘core’ of the inferred Jovian magnetotail are not the same; plus since the ‘Pioneer event’ the solar wind has, on occasion, been found to “disappear”.

Indeed, it is evident that the ‘core’ poses a problem since: “There is no evidence yet available that significant energetic particle pressure exists within the distant tail, but its presence appears necessary to explain the existence of the core regions, since B (magnetic) and N (thermal plasma) are so low in the cores.”(8)

Summarising their findings the researchers confidently concluded:
“1. Jupiter's distant tail was detected out to at least 9,000 Rj by PWS, PLS, PRA, and MAG experiments onboard Voyager 2.
“2. Auto- and cross correlation analyses determine an approximate periodicity of the tail encounters of 25 days, indicating that solar wind structure is responsible for controlling tail motion. (The average time between event centers for 1981 was 26.5 days.)
“3. All core events lie within a cone angle of---12 degrees with respect to the sun-Jupiter axis and are most prominent and long lasting for the several events near the time when Voyager 2 was closest to the aberrated tail axis (day 105, 1981); recent observations of post-Saturn events may increase the cone angle moderately [Scarf et al., 1983].
“4. Most prominent events display the expected bipolar and lobelike nature of the tail field, but some anomalous B directions exist in the core and especially in the tail regions as a whole, indicating complexity of internal structure.
“5. Magnetic field variance analyses indicate that field line draping around the tail boundary is common and that transverse field variations occur within the tail and/or tail current sheets. It is interesting in this regard that Kurth et al. [1982b] point out the presence of large-scale waves (with periods of 2.5 days) within the tail.
“6. A considerable flux of plasma is observed within the tail, as is evidenced by only moderate changes in V and N across a tail boundary, as determined by the MAG and wave data. However, V and N drop precipitously to very low values upon entering the core.”(9)

Voyager 2 at Saturn

Following Voyager 2’s encounter with Saturn the spacecraft detected two instances of: “…very weak broadband emission with a lower cutoff near 3.5 kHz was labelled 'Jovian continuum radiation'…” (10), it was similar broadband emission which had previously been determined as evidence of the existence of Jupiter’s magnetotail.

During Voyager 2’s Saturn encounter the Kronian magnetosphere appeared more complex and to have expanded to almost twice the size of that measured by Voyager 1 in November 1980: “The existence of this huge region affected by a strong interaction between the solar wind and Saturn's magnetosphere could have been related to the nearby presence of the Jovian tail…During this period, the Voyager 2 plasma probe measured very low densities, and the combined results are consistent with a post-Saturn encounter with the wake region surrounding the central part of the extended Jovian tail.” (11)

Following Voyager 2’s Saturn encounter the spacecraft’s modified trajectory of nearly 90 degrees directed Voyager 2 ‘ahead’ of Saturn; on 1981 September 27 and 1981 October 17 Voyager 2 again encountered the Jovian ‘magnetotail’ at a distance of 8,870 and 8,900 Rj respectively. Researchers noted: “It is of interest to note that this apparent tail encounter occurred roughly one week after passage of a shock like interplanetary disturbance…”, in fact both events were preceded by heliospheric ‘shock’ events- coincidence? Not according to the researchers: “It appears likely that low and variable solar wind pressures that frequently develop a week or so after passage of an interplanetary shock could allow the Jovian tail to expand and move from the normal direction…”(12)

The McIntosh Archive

The McIntosh archive is a collection of solar synoptic maps: “In 1964, Patrick McIntosh, a scientist at NOAA’s Space Environment Center in Boulder, began creating hand-drawn synoptic maps of solar magnetic features. In all, he compiled 45 years or nearly four complete solar sunspot cycles of maps, representing a unique record of the large-scale organization and variation of the Sun’s magnetic field.”

https://www2.hao.ucar.edu/mcintosh-archive/four-cycles-solar-synoptic-maps

Using maps from the McIntosh archive we can follow the development of solar features of the period in question, from Carrington Rotation 1702 to CR 1714.

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/space-weather/solar-data/solar-imagery/composites/synoptic-maps/mc-intosh/ptmc_level3/ptmc_level3_gifs/

During this period it is evident that a number of Coronal Holes are to be found at low solar latitudes, as previously mentioned such ECHs are features of solar maximum. Coronal Holes are known to exhibit structure, an umbra and penumbra, with the highest solar wind speed in the central ‘core’. Given the connection of the ‘Jovian’ phenomena with the rotation of the solar plasma, is it possible that Voyager 2 encountered solar and not Jovian features?

Ulysses

Eleven years after Voyager 2’s Saturn encounter the Ulysses spacecraft made a close approach to Jupiter on its way to the Sun’s polar regions, it was shortly after the solar maximum of Solar Cycle 22. Just as Voyager 2 found some 11 years earlier, Ulysses detected a periodic change in the solar plasma by Jupiter’s orbit, this time, however, the event was attributed to solar rather than Jovian features.

“The Ulysses spacecraft discovered that the interplanetary magnetic sector structure went through a major restructuring in mid-1992. The observed recurrence period changed from about 25.4 days to about 26.2 days .Another interesting discovery is that the solar wind speed, energetic particle fluxes, and interplanetary magnetic field all varied quasiperiodically with a similar 26.2-day period during Ulysses' midlatitude passage out of the ecliptic in 1992-1993.”

“A standard interpretation of the periodicity manifested in the observations is as follows: a stable coronal hole rotating with a sidereal period of about 26 days was the source of high-speed solar wind whose interaction with slower solar wind produced a corotating interaction region (CIR) in interplanetary space. The CIR caused the quasiperiodic changes of the absolute value of the magnetic field. Shock fronts in the CIR accelerated solar wind particles, causing the large modulation of the low-energy particle fluxes; at the same time the propagation of galactic cosmic rays was influenced by the sector structure, resulting in a small modulation of high-energy particle fluxes. In addition to directly accelerating solar wind particles from thermal energies to energies of about 1 MeV, CIR shock fronts also further accelerated low –energy particles injected in to the interplanetary medium by solar flares or the bow shocks of coronal mass ejections. The diffusion of energetic particles to high latitudes explains the persistent 26–day modulation of energetic particle fluxes far from the CIR. Our analysis supports the validity of this standard interpretation by confirming the existence of a persistent X-ray coronal hole in the southern hemisphere”. (13)

Jupiter’s Tail or a Tall Tale?

It is now common knowledge that Jupiter’s magnetotail extends beyond the orbit of Saturn, many more recent papers on the subject quote the works of Lepping and Scarf et al. as evidence. Multiple spacecraft have conducted measurements of Jupiter’s magnetotail- in the case of New Horizons- out to a distance of 2500 Rj; yet; “Despite all of the prior work, Jupiter’s global interaction with the solar wind is still surprisingly uncertain”. (14)

If our knowledge of Jupiter’s interaction with the solar wind is uncertain how can we be sure that Voyager 2 did detect the Jovian magnetotail en-route to Saturn?

Whilst many of the features attributed to Jupiter’s magnetotail cannot be conclusively ruled out as being Jovian in origin- why did they occur over an averaged 26 day period and why did they follow interplanetary ‘shocks’?
Is it possible that Voyager 2 never encountered Jupiter’s magnetotail but rather the spacecraft periodically measured a 0.6AU wide filamentary current or currents that were associated with solar ECHs during the declining phase of Solar Cycle 21? Given our knowledge of Jupiter’s distant magnetotail really is “uncertain”- this may be a distinct possibility.

References:

1. Lepping. R. P. et al. 1983, Structure and Other Properties of Jupiter’s Distant Magnetotail, Journal of Geophysical Research Vol. 88 No. A11 (November 1, 1983)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JA088iA11p08801
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Scarf. F. L. et al. 1983, Voyager Plasma Wave Measurements at Saturn, Journal of Geophysical Research Vol. 88 No. A11 (November 1, 1983)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JA088iA11p08971
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Bai. T. and Hoeksema. J. T. 1997, Solar origin of the 26-day periodicity observed by Ulysses, Journal of Geophysical Research Vol. 102 No. A5 (May 1, 1997)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/96JA03844
14. McComas. D. J. 2017, Jovian deep magnetotail composition and structure, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics Vol. 122 (February 15, 2017)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JA023039
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby crawler » Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:32 pm

I am surprized that there has been no mention of the 500 kmps background aetherwind blowing south to north throo the solar system, say 15 deg off the ecliptic (Michelson Morley Miller & Co)(Demjanov)(Cahill).
And no mention of the say 617 kmps aetherwind flowing into the Sun (due to aether being annihilated in mass).

I am not surprized that there has been no mention of the centrifuging of aether, as it appears that i alone believe in this phenomenon. Aether is sucked in to spinning bodies near their equator, & hencely aether is spat out along the spin axis at the two poles. Similarly for orbiting bodies, here the aether is spat out nearer the common orbit axis.
These inflows/outflows might contribute to sunspots (& other things).

I dont know how the aetherwinds might affect magneto stuff & plasma stuff & electric stuff, aetherwinds are more of a gravity thing. But now u know.
crawler
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Solar » Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:15 am

Robertus Maximus wrote:A re-reading of a number of scientific papers has resulted in a re-appraisal of my proposed alignment of the ‘heliotube’. The revised alignment much better fits Cassini INCA observations.
From the revised alignment we can now see that what researchers called ‘Cassini Basins’ approximately correspond to the ‘inside’ of the heliotube, whilst the IBEX Ribbon better fits the ‘pinch’ region of the heliotube. (Source)


Have a look at this. I searched but did not find previous references to the paper below. For a shortcut begin at Section 3 Analysis subsection “3.1. Global ENA Spectral Indices” and onward:

Imprint of the Sun’s Evolving Polar Winds on IBEX Energetic Neutral Atom All-sky Observations of the Heliosphere - E. J. Zirnstein et al

Notice the ‘crescent-shape’ (or concave) leading edge of ENA Spectral Indices when plotted along Ecliptic Latitude -50 - 0 - +50 (deg) for Figures 4 and Figure 5. They’ve tried to exclude The Ribbon but it is still visible in the latitude Time Averages. From 2009-20015 there is a persistent ‘dip’ at 0 deg but also a persistent ‘leading edge’ at -50 - +50 deg. They have indicated, with a question mark, that ‘leading edge’ as possibly having connection to The Ribbon (Figure 4).

This is a pretty interesting relationship. During, or near, Solar Minimum the N/S FSW projects a wider ‘discharge cone’ which would seem to correlate with larger Coronal Holes. Simultaneously the ‘latitudinal belt’ of ENA emissions becomes more narrow. Conversely: During, or near, Solar Maximum the ‘discharge cone’ of the FSW narrows its ‘focus’ becoming more ‘jet-like’ to some extent which would seem to translate to smaller Coronal Holes. Simultaneously the ‘latitudinal belt’ of SSW ENA emissions widens N/S covering more of the sky.

Though beautiful none of this would seem to add up to the induction of a circular Ribbon some “2–3 times greater than the surrounding globally distributed flux” at the nose of the heliosphere. This would seem to suggest a secondary interactive dynamic ‘out there’. Nonetheless, "the fast–slow solar wind boundary is actually caused by a decrease in the ENA spectral index". That means that the blue oval at the center of Figure 5 could be considered another type of "basin" which might indicate that the SSW is moving outward faster through that oval region.

That might suggest that primarily (not exclusively) that the SSW might be 'leaking' out into the ISMF region as portrayed via This Image. A possible plasma coupling dynamic where the heliosphere 'electrodynamically couples to' and interacts with the numerous "clouds and cloudlets" that can constitute a single filament.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Solar » Sun Jul 07, 2019 10:48 am

crawler wrote:I am surprized that there has been no mention of the 500 kmps background aetherwind blowing south to north throo the solar system, say 15 deg off the ecliptic (Michelson Morley Miller & Co)(Demjanov)(Cahill).
And no mention of the say 617 kmps aetherwind flowing into the Sun (due to aether being annihilated in mass).

I am not surprized that there has been no mention of the centrifuging of aether, as it appears that i alone believe in this phenomenon. Aether is sucked in to spinning bodies near their equator, & hencely aether is spat out along the spin axis at the two poles. Similarly for orbiting bodies, here the aether is spat out nearer the common orbit axis.
These inflows/outflows might contribute to sunspots (& other things).

I dont know how the aetherwinds might affect magneto stuff & plasma stuff & electric stuff, aetherwinds are more of a gravity thing. But now u know.


No offense Crawler (start a separate thread) but it's supposed to be a courtesy to at least try and correlate a post with the topic of the thread. It's called "Netiquette". It's important because it helps people find and discuss consistent topics as opposed to jumping around from one unrelated thread topic to the next searching for the pertinent information of their inquiry. Without "netiquette" the internet itself would be an disorganized and absolutely useless unstructured chaos.

Quite a lot of individuals, myself included, have long been familiar with "gravity" as a manifestation of the 'influx' of The Aether and quite a lot of individuals here and elsewhere research more than one Aether Theory.

Aether (why wasn't the post placed there?)

J.C. Maxwell's original set of dynamic ether equations

The Aetherometry Model

Ether the only path to unifying cosmic forces (I referenced R. Cahill, Roland De Witte, Harold Aspden on pg2. That was four years ago.)

I'm not sure if this forum Search Result for "Aether" will show the 403 results going back to 2008 but any forum discussing Electrical Forces are bound to have threads discussing The Aether.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby crawler » Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:03 pm

Solar wrote:
crawler wrote:I am surprized that there has been no mention of the 500 kmps background aetherwind blowing south to north throo the solar system, say 15 deg off the ecliptic (Michelson Morley Miller & Co)(Demjanov)(Cahill).
And no mention of the say 617 kmps aetherwind flowing into the Sun (due to aether being annihilated in mass).

I am not surprized that there has been no mention of the centrifuging of aether, as it appears that i alone believe in this phenomenon. Aether is sucked in to spinning bodies near their equator, & hencely aether is spat out along the spin axis at the two poles. Similarly for orbiting bodies, here the aether is spat out nearer the common orbit axis.
These inflows/outflows might contribute to sunspots (& other things).

I dont know how the aetherwinds might affect magneto stuff & plasma stuff & electric stuff, aetherwinds are more of a gravity thing. But now u know.


No offense Crawler (start a separate thread) but it's supposed to be a courtesy to at least try and correlate a post with the topic of the thread. It's called "Netiquette". It's important because it helps people find and discuss consistent topics as opposed to jumping around from one unrelated thread topic to the next searching for the pertinent information of their inquiry. Without "netiquette" the internet itself would be an disorganized and absolutely useless unstructured chaos.

Quite a lot of individuals, myself included, have long been familiar with "gravity" as a manifestation of the 'influx' of The Aether and quite a lot of individuals here and elsewhere research more than one Aether Theory.

Aether (why wasn't the post placed there?)

J.C. Maxwell's original set of dynamic ether equations

The Aetherometry Model

Ether the only path to unifying cosmic forces (I referenced R. Cahill, Roland De Witte, Harold Aspden on pg2. That was four years ago.)

I'm not sure if this forum Search Result for "Aether" will show the 403 results going back to 2008 but any forum discussing Electrical Forces are bound to have threads discussing The Aether.
Well said. But i think u missunderstood my wordage. When i wrote.....I dont know how the aetherwinds might affect magneto stuff & plasma stuff & electric stuff, aetherwinds are more of a gravity thing. But now u know....... my meaning was that aetherwind (or at least any change in the wind) must affect magneto plasmo electro stuff. And when i said i dont know how, this is koz i aint a scientist, but there must be a how, & in effect that is a question.

The background aetherwind must hav an effect, koz even if it is fairly constant, it is not perpendicular to the ecliptic, & even a non-scientist like myself can see that a this must introduce changes per spin & per orbit.

And then we come to the centrifuging of aether by spinning or orbiting bodies, which introduces an equatorial inflow & polar or axial outflow (with attendant accelerations of aether). Even a non-scientist like myself can see that this must introduce changes based on the alignments of major bodies. And based on the alignment of the Sun's axis. And must affect sunspots. And hencely plasma activity.

My wordage was minimal, just enough to introduce my serious ideas & questions & allow serious responses.

Thanx for the links, i will read them properly later, including your own aether ideas. I dont see aether as contradicting any EU theory. But praps any EU theory that duznt include aether might be deficient. However there are many aether ideas around. I am still struggling to understand Ranzan's contractile aether.

I notice that Solar once said................
Agreed. It doesn't seem as if the author of this thread appreciates the fact that there are quite a lot of individuals who are WELL acquainted with the basic principle of an original Aether Lattice and all subsequent ideas about same. Its been said many times that the people here are well read and this is true. How anyone can make a post and refer to contrasting contributions as "hijacking" is beyond me. Posting some thoughts for consideration to those interested in this topic. By way of Reason and Logic The Aether concept precedes this era and *all* current reinvented interpretations:
Last edited by crawler on Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:36 pm, edited 6 times in total.
crawler
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby crawler » Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:05 pm

duplicate..........................
Last edited by crawler on Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
crawler
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby crawler » Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:05 pm

duplicate.......................
Last edited by crawler on Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
crawler
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 10:33 am

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Solar » Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:06 pm

For those interested in Bob Johnson further elucidating some of the benefits of a plasmoid approach there is yet another video sitting at the internet archive:

Bob Johnson SIS Autumn Meeting, 25 October 2014

The first fifty minutes is the same persentation as given in 2013. Jump to the end of the presentation at 51:00 minutes; the interesting Q&A session begins.

Enjoy
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1357
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Tue Jul 09, 2019 6:08 pm

Solar wrote:
Robertus Maximus wrote:A re-reading of a number of scientific papers has resulted in a re-appraisal of my proposed alignment of the ‘heliotube’. The revised alignment much better fits Cassini INCA observations.
From the revised alignment we can now see that what researchers called ‘Cassini Basins’ approximately correspond to the ‘inside’ of the heliotube, whilst the IBEX Ribbon better fits the ‘pinch’ region of the heliotube. (Source)


Have a look at this. I searched but did not find previous references to the paper below. For a shortcut begin at Section 3 Analysis subsection “3.1. Global ENA Spectral Indices” and onward:

Imprint of the Sun’s Evolving Polar Winds on IBEX Energetic Neutral Atom All-sky Observations of the Heliosphere - E. J. Zirnstein et al

Notice the ‘crescent-shape’ (or concave) leading edge of ENA Spectral Indices when plotted along Ecliptic Latitude -50 - 0 - +50 (deg) for Figures 4 and Figure 5. They’ve tried to exclude The Ribbon but it is still visible in the latitude Time Averages. From 2009-20015 there is a persistent ‘dip’ at 0 deg but also a persistent ‘leading edge’ at -50 - +50 deg. They have indicated, with a question mark, that ‘leading edge’ as possibly having connection to The Ribbon (Figure 4).

This is a pretty interesting relationship. During, or near, Solar Minimum the N/S FSW projects a wider ‘discharge cone’ which would seem to correlate with larger Coronal Holes. Simultaneously the ‘latitudinal belt’ of ENA emissions becomes more narrow. Conversely: During, or near, Solar Maximum the ‘discharge cone’ of the FSW narrows its ‘focus’ becoming more ‘jet-like’ to some extent which would seem to translate to smaller Coronal Holes. Simultaneously the ‘latitudinal belt’ of SSW ENA emissions widens N/S covering more of the sky.

Though beautiful none of this would seem to add up to the induction of a circular Ribbon some “2–3 times greater than the surrounding globally distributed flux” at the nose of the heliosphere. This would seem to suggest a secondary interactive dynamic ‘out there’. Nonetheless, "the fast–slow solar wind boundary is actually caused by a decrease in the ENA spectral index". That means that the blue oval at the center of Figure 5 could be considered another type of "basin" which might indicate that the SSW is moving outward faster through that oval region.

That might suggest that primarily (not exclusively) that the SSW might be 'leaking' out into the ISMF region as portrayed via This Image. A possible plasma coupling dynamic where the heliosphere 'electrodynamically couples to' and interacts with the numerous "clouds and cloudlets" that can constitute a single filament.

Thanks Solar, I missed this one, I’ll take a look.
Solar wrote:Though beautiful none of this would seem to add up to the induction of a circular Ribbon some “2–3 times greater than the surrounding globally distributed flux” at the nose of the heliosphere. This would seem to suggest a secondary interactive dynamic ‘out there’. Nonetheless, "the fast–slow solar wind boundary is actually caused by a decrease in the ENA spectral index". That means that the blue oval at the center of Figure 5 could be considered another type of "basin" which might indicate that the SSW is moving outward faster through that oval region.

You could be on to something, I think we are looking at more of a “interactive dynamic ‘out there’” although it may be primary rather than secondary(?) Very briefly, if you keep my updated illustrations (galactic coordinates) in mind, then the IBEX Ribbon appears to link the two ‘lobes’ of the Heliotube, maybe from our perspective what we see as an incomplete ‘circular’ Ribbon is actually snaking filament?

I’m reading a couple of papers at the moment and I hope to post a new piece soon, if the papers are saying what I think they are saying- then they may go some way to tie up the many loose ends???
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby paladin17 » Wed Jul 10, 2019 7:12 am

For those of you interested: we've launched a "pre-alpha" early access version of our visualization tool. Available at plasmascape.com. It was announced by me at EU meeting in Bath a couple of days ago, but I want to keep you guys posted too.
Some important updates of the tool are expected in August.
User avatar
paladin17
 
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:47 am
Location: Minsk, Belarus

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:42 am

Statistics, Functions and the Solar Cycle

Does a form of statistical analysis reveal the circuit powering the solar discharge?

Principle Component Analysis: SBMF

An analysis of the Solar Background Magnetic Field (SBMF) found some interesting statistical correlations, according to the authors: “The correlation clearly shows the main dipoles located at the poles and two other dipoles – one located on the equatorial plane and the other located at latitudes above +/-40 degrees– which have smaller magnitudes than the polar ones. This indicates that in this respect, the classic assumption about the single dipole magnetic field of the Sun forming the solar dynamo needs to undergo some revision.” It was further found that: “…each of them are, in fact, independent components varying in time and in latitude.”(1)

It is the evolution of the two main Principle Components (PCs) that map out the Solar Cycle: “These two main temporal PCs are found to vary strongly from cycle to cycle following the spherical harmonics of the Bessel function, roughly resembling sine (n= 1 and m= 1) and cosine (n= 1, m= 0) functions with a period of about 10 yr. At the solar minimum, each of the waves starts from a different hemisphere where the background magnetic field has opposite polarities but travels to the same hemisphere.

“This implies that these two waves have opposite magnetic polarities. One of the PCs supposedly following a cosine starts in cycle 21 with a negative polarity and crosses zeros in the years 1980, 1990 and 2000, confirming previous findings. The second PC (supposedly sine) starts in cycle 21 with a positive polarity at some phase ahead of the cosine function, which we discuss below.

“Both waves continue to travel into the hemisphere, which later becomes the dominant one for the given cycle, for example to the Northern hemisphere in cycles 21 and 23 and to the Southern one in cycle 22. The sine wave [with the negative (Southern) magnetic field magnitude] travels slightly out of phase with the cosine wave having a positive (Northern) magnetic field magnitude.

“Comparison of the wave phases allows us to establish that the sine wave travels ahead of the cosine wave with a shift in phase of about 90 degrees, or 2.5 yr, which is the same magnitude as derived by Cadavid et al. (2008). As a result of this phase shift, the two temporal SBMF waves defined by the two PCs reach maximum magnitudes at different times, while approaching the same magnitude somewhere between their maxima.

“Furthermore, the magnitudes of the maxima reached by each of the waves are noticeably different. This results in a double maximum in the SBMF for each given cycle, defining the double solar activity maxima first reported by Gnevyshev & Ol (sic)(1987) that are confirmed for each solar cycle.

“After the maximum, the two waves have different temporal patterns. In the odd cycles (21 and 23) the magnitude of the wave with the positive polarity (cosine) drops very steeply in the Northern hemisphere towards the equator and then moves smoothly in the Southern hemisphere. Then in the even cycle 22 it repeats its motion in the Southern hemisphere in the opposite direction: from the South to the equator and back to the North. In contrast, the wave with the negative polarity (sine) has a much smoother decrease in magnitude, staying in the Northern hemisphere in cycles 21 and 23 until approaching the solar minimum and beyond, and then moving to the Southern hemisphere in cycle 22, mirroring the pattern of the previous cycle but with opposite signs.

“Again in cycle 22 both waves reach their maxima with a phase difference of about 2.5 yr, with the magnitude of the positive-polarity wave being slightly higher than that of the negative one. At certain times before and after the two waves reach the same magnitude, there are strong increases in their cyclic residuals that could be a reflection of some turbulent processes accompanying the wave interaction in the given hemisphere. The crossings of the equator occur at even periods of about 10 yr (1980, 1990 and 2000), which were the periods of solar activity maxima in cycles 21–23.”(2)

Principle Component Analysis: SMF

In the same paper an analysis of the Sunspot Magnetic Field (SMF) was also conducted, here too interesting patterns also emerged.

“The auto-correlation of the excess magnetic fluxes in sunspots reveals a well-defined period of 2.5 yr, with the negative coefficient confirming the change of sign of this residual. This resembles very closely the phase shift between the two main PCs of the SBMF detected in the present study. The physical nature of this latitudinal periodicity is yet to be uncovered, in spite of some previous attempts at interpretation.

“This indicates that the latitudinal variations of the solar poloidal magnetic field supposedly defined by the SBMF modulate the latitudinal variations of the toroidal magnetic field defined by the SMF. In the other words, the SBMF seems to regulate the areas of magnetic flux tubes appearing at given latitudes on the solar surface as sunspots.
“The periodicities found in the PCs of the SMF show close links with the variations of the PCs of the SBMF, possibly reflecting physical processes affecting the appearance of sunspot groups on the solar surface (rotations, twists induced by propagating dynamo waves, etc.).

“The variations of the EOFs for the SMF in latitude are also shown to be linked to those of the SBMF. The positions of the maxima and minima of the positive polarity in the EOFs of sunspots follow the patterns of the one of the EOFs (sine), while the sunspot EOFs of negative polarity follow the patterns of the other EOF from the SBMF (cosine). This indicates that the latitudinal variations of the SBMF modulate the latitudinal variations of the SMF. In other words, the SBMF regulates the appearance of magnetic flux tubes on the solar surface…” (3)

From the analysis by Zharkova, Shepherd and Zharkov we notice a number of observations related to the Solar Cycle:

1. Solar Maximum occurs when both magnetic polarities are located in the same hemisphere- a dominant hemisphere- which varies between odd and even numbered cycles.
2. Solar Minimum occurs when each magnetic polarity is isolated in either the northern or southern solar hemisphere respectively.
3. It can be seen, from Figure 3 in the original paper, that the latitudinal plots of the two PCs follow a Bessel or cylindrical function.
4. The Solar Background Magnetic Field appears to have a controlling influence over the Sunspot Magnetic Field.

Dr Don Scott

A recent paper by Dr Don Scott developed a more complete description of a Birkeland Current, expanding on earlier work by Lundquist.(4)

From Figure 2 of that paper we, again, encounter plots of magnetic components associated with a Birkeland Current; the plot is not just similar to Figure 3 of Zharkova et al, it is almost identical!

We can even assign the ‘Axial Magnetic Field’ component of Scott (2015) to the ‘sine’ component of Zharkova et al (2012) and get a match; likewise, we can do the same with the ‘Azimuthal Magnetic Field’ and ‘cosine’ components.

The paper by Zharkova et al documents a declining trend in the BSMF intensity: “Furthermore, it can be clearly noted that the magnitudes of the maxima of the positive and negative waves steadily decrease by about 50 per cent from cycle 21 to cycle 22 and further by 50 per cent to cycle 23, approaching in the cycle 23 half of their magnitude in cycle 21. Moreover, the magnitudes where these waves intercept, or have the same magnitudes, is reduced by 30 per cent from cycle 21 to 22 and then by 50 per cent from cycle 22 to cycle 23…” Again, a similar trend is evident in Figure 2 of Dr Don Scott’s paper; this trend is resulting in actual measurable changes at the Sun that were particularly evident during the minimum of Solar Cycle 23/24 (5).

We can now ask, are Birkeland Currents in the Local Interstellar Medium mapped by the Solar Cycle?

The Solar Cycle: an earlier proposal

In April 2016 I wrote: “Cassini is a NASA/ ESA Saturn orbiting spacecraft that has been observing not only Saturn and its moons but the edge of the heliosphere since 2004.

“The Interstellar Boundary Explorer or IBEX is a NASA Earth orbiting spacecraft that has been exploring the edge of the heliosphere since 2008.

“Both spacecraft have made interesting observations of this boundary region, pertinent to my proposal, some of the major discoveries according to the IBEX Principle Investigator, Dave McComas include: the discovery of an Enhanced/ Energetic Neutral Atom (ENA) Ribbon and its connection to the interstellar magnetic field, the discovery of rapid (6 month) time variations in the heliosphere’s interstellar interaction and connection to decreasing solar wind output, the discovery that the very local interstellar medium is rotating ahead of the heliosphere. Furthermore, according to researchers ‘the Ribbon shows the most complicated time variations, with a levelling off in the southern hemisphere and continued decline in the northern one; these may be consistent with the Ribbon source being significantly farther away in the north than in the south.’ Perhaps this is due to the helical nature of the local Birkeland current.

IBEX also discovered that the structure of the FSW and SSW extend to the edge of the heliosphere and recorded changes over a five year period of what was called the ‘IBEX Ribbon’ for part of solar cycle 24. I propose that these changes at the edge of the heliosphere are directly related to the sunspot and Hale solar magnetic cycles.

“The 2D diagram above shows the approximate orientation of the Sun, Cassini Belt and IBEX Ribbon in relation to the Galactic equator.

“From this diagram we can see that the Cassini Belt is orientated normal to the galactic equator- the ENA detected in this region are a direct result of the interaction of the FSW with the LISM organised by the galactic Local Interstellar Magnetic Field (LISMF). Observations by Cassini reveal interesting regional changes in the intensity of ENA since 2004 and can be viewed in this document: http://www.helas.gr/conf/2015/talks/S_1/dialynas.pdf

“During the descending phase of solar cycle (SC) 23 a concentration of ENA is found in the region called the ‘tail’ by researchers. The region of higher intensity gradually spreads over the high ecliptic latitudes eventually encompassing the whole belt by 2005- the early stage of Solar Minimum. This persists until 2009.

“Following a spike in ENA intensity in the ‘nose’ in 2010 the region of higher intensity gradually spreads across the lower ecliptic latitudes back towards the ‘tail’ this coincides with the ascending phase of SC 24.

“The onset of Solar Maximum again occurs with the region of high ENA recorded in the ‘tail’.

“Therefore, ENA concentrations in the Cassini Belt in the ‘tail’ and ‘nose’ correlate with the descending and ascending phases of alternate Solar Maxima respectively, whilst high ENA concentrations globally distributed across the Cassini Belt correlate with Solar Minimum.

“I suggest that this occurs because- as IBEX researchers have pointed out, the IBEX Ribbon has a direct connection to the galactic LISMF- the IBEX Ribbon either is or is influenced by the local Birkeland current. The heliosphere is directly influenced by this primary or secondary current which takes approximately 22 years to cycle past the heliosphere. Twice during this cycle the current will cross the intersection of the galactic equator and ecliptic equator, this corresponds to Solar Maximum. When the current is at high galactic latitudes then this corresponds to Solar Minimum. The global heliospheric magnetic field N-S or S-N alignment then becomes dependent on whether the main current is at high northerly or southerly galactic latitudes.” (6)

In light of the study by Zharkova et al. (2012), this proposal now requires a slight modification as it now appears that the Solar Cycle is more than a simple geometrical alignment.

The terminology used in the paper by Zharkova et al. (2012) is somewhat confusing when extended to actual solar magnetic polarities, in a later paper the terminology was changed or dropped altogether but for our purposes a slightly modified usage fits observations of actual solar magnetic fields.

For our purposes let us assign the ‘sine’ PC of Zharkova et al. to that component of the Solar Cycle closely related to a nearby Birkeland Current, this component carries a magnetic north or away sign; the ‘cosine’ PC then carries a magnetic south or toward sign.

From Dr Don Scott’s Birkeland Current model (Figure 2) we see that as the axial magnetic field strength falls with distance from the central current, the azimuthal magnetic field strength increases. When both axial and azimuthal fields are of approximately the same magnitude we find- following Zharkova et al. - both magnetic polarities are located in the same solar hemisphere this corresponds to Solar Maximum conditions. As the axial magnetic field strength continues to fall the two magnetic polarities temporarily occupy separate solar hemispheres this corresponds to Solar Minimum conditions. As the cycle progresses the axial magnetic field magnitude continues to fall followed by the out-of-phase azimuthal magnetic field. When the two fields next overlap it is in the opposite solar hemisphere and we have returned to Solar Maximum conditions. At this point the axial magnetic field begins to strengthen and travels to the opposite hemisphere, as before the two magnetic polarities briefly occupy separate solar hemispheres only this time the magnetic polarities have reversed! Gradually, the out-of-phase azimuthal magnetic field reaches the same intensity as the axial magnetic field in the opposite solar hemisphere and we see a return to Solar Maximum conditions.

IBEX Ribbon and Cassini Belt

It is now widely accepted that the source of the IBEX Ribbon “…is outside the heliosphere”. (7)

“The ribbon appears in IBEX-Hi and IBEX-Lo at energies 0.2–6 keV and is most pronounced between 1 and 3 keV. It is almost circular (wrapping nearly 300° around the sky), narrow (20°–40° in width depending on the energy), and its center lies in the vicinity of the pristine magnetic field direction of the LISM, whose field lines are draped around the heliosphere. The ribbon intensity is, on average, a factor of 2–3 times higher than that of the more diffuse, GDF ENA flux and varies as a function of energy… The ribbon center was found to shift systematically with energy…The intensity of ENA emission around the ribbon varies with time. McComas et al. found that temporal variations of ENAs are correlated with the supersonic SW (solar wind) latitudinal structure around solar minimum. These authors found that the slow SW (400 km s−1) primarily affects low energy (1.1 keV) ribbon ENAs observed at low latitudes, intermediate- speed SW affects ENAs (1.7 keV) observed at midlatitudes, and high-speed SW (760 km s−1) is most reflected in high energy (2.7 keV) ENAs observed primarily at high latitudes…Furthermore, they attributed the magnitude of the center shift in the highest IBEX energy channel to another process of ENA generation that is yet to be recognized.” (8)

Despite the source of the IBEX Ribbon being outside of the heliosphere, variations in Ribbon intensity are connected with the Solar Cycle, which is traditionally restricted to ‘inside’ the heliosphere.

Figure 2 from Dayeh. M. A. et al. (2019) shows that the Ribbon intensity varies over the Solar Cycle from high intensities around Solar Minimum to low intensities around Solar Maximum, for the Cassini Belt the situation appears more complex but nevertheless the Solar Cycle does appear to be reflected in the activity of the Cassini Belt.

“…the apparent symmetry in Galactic coordinates point toward an external source of influence in the formation of the ENAs inside the heliosheath, possibly lying beyond the heliopause.” (9)

However, it could be that the “…belt possibly corresponds to a “reservoir” of particles that exist within the heliosheath, moving in a great circle along the nose to tail direction, passing through the ecliptic poles, constantly replenished by new particles from the solar wind.” (10)

So, it would seem that both the IBEX Ribbon and Cassini Belt are influenced by an external source yet both structures change over the Solar Cycle. Dialynas. K. et al. mused: “Whether this is viewed as the evolution of one structure from the ribbon shape into the belt shape as a function of energy or as two separate structures that overlap in energy (and could in fact originate at different radial distances along the LOS) remains a matter for further inquiry.” (11)

In what sense are the IBEX Ribbon and Cassini Belt connected? Are they one entity or two separate entities? From the work of Zharkova et al. and Dr Don Scott perhaps we can propose an answer. Both objects are manifestations of nested Birkeland Currents, focussed at the Sun and powering the solar discharge. One, the IBEX Ribbon can be aligned with the Heliotube and appears to be connected with a sine function of the Bessel function, whilst the Cassini Belt appears to be connected with a cosine function of the Bessel function; the two are intimately connected forming an apparent tube-torus structure.

Looking at Figure 5, from Scott (2015) I am reminded of the Hale Magnetic Cycle, to my mind, the 11 sub-figures mimic the rotation of the Sun’s magnetic field as the two background magnetic polarities exchange places.

Charles Bruce

Writing in 1975 Charles Bruce commented on earlier research into the properties of electrical discharges: “The current in an electrical discharge builds up rapidly to a peak value, and then decays on a slower time-scale. Anomalous wave-forms sometimes shown by high-current lightning strokes arise from self-extinction by the pinch effect.” (12)

It should be clear that this wave-form is similar to the rapid rise and gradual fall of the smoothed sunspot number, which parallels solar X-ray activity and is indicative of an electrical discharge. Are sunspots evidence of a pinch effect in the Heliotube?

From earlier posts, using research by Akasofu, it was seen that sunspots are not adequately explained by the ‘rising flux tube’ model. Sunspots emerge in unipolar magnetic regions, it is only later at unipolar magnetic region boundaries where sunspots of different polarity interact as ‘flux tubes’.

With Zharkova et al’s, Dr Don Scott’s and Charles Bruce’s work a picture emerges of the sunspot and Solar Cycle emerges.

Solar Minimum- stable discharge

Experiments with Dense Plasma-Focus devices show that between the two electrodes and perpendicular to the magnetic field, vortex filaments form in contrarotating pairs. The filament pairs eventually form a current sheath which gradually moves down the barrel of the DPF device.

The DPF device current sheath structure bears a striking resemblance to the structure of the Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS), particularly at Solar Minimum; observations by a number of spacecraft were explained in terms of a ‘magnetic carpet’. (13, 14) At Solar Minimum the SBMF displays a ‘simple’ dipole structure whilst the HCS is confined to solar equatorial regions.

Laboratory experiments with metallic spheres forming a magnetic dipole confirm the stability of just such a discharge:

“Observations indicate that the general features of the steady state are those of a glow discharge. The dark space near the sphere, the intense glow region, and the less intense glow extending to large distances are normal visible features of a glow discharge. The radial variations of the temperature, electron and ion densities and the electric field are also typically characteristic of a glow discharge.

“However, visual observations indicate that the magnetic field causes additional phenomena. First, the visible plasma is confined to lower latitude regions and strongly suggests that a significant portion of the plasma is trapped in the dipole magnetic field and undergoing motions characteristic of such plasma, namely, gyrating, mirroring, and drifting.” (15)
Heliotube 4RMinP.gif
Solar Minimum with PC colours as in Zharkova et al paper

Solar Maximum- unstable discharge

At Solar Maximum the ‘magnetic carpet’ is no longer confined to the Sun’s equatorial, conventionally, it is considered to be highly tilted, however, we have seen that Solar Maximum occurs when both PCs occupy the same solar hemisphere or dominant hemisphere. Individual sunspots appear at mid-solar latitudes and drift toward the solar equator where they form sunspot pairs before eventually fading. This suggests that due to the asymmetric PC arrangement the current sheath configuration is now unstable and the contrarotating vortices self-pinch at one of the electrodes i.e. the Sun; again, experimental evidence suggests this is so:

“Let us now turn our discussion to the instabilities that occur.

“Our interest is directed to the bright arcs that cause large fluctuations in the stable configuration. Visual evidence indicates that the arcs arise in the equatorial plane, traverse a field line, and strike the sphere. The frequency of occurrence of the arcs increases with applied voltage. The region of precipitation of the arcs is normally between 55 degrees and 75 degrees. Little or no precipitation occurs near the poles. The precipitation points are shifted to lower latitudes as the applied voltage is increased.

“An individual arc is very intense and short in duration. If the stable belt is very faint, an arc can totally quench the discharge. Once this occurs, the belt reappears and grows in intensity until another arc occurs.” (16)
Heliotube 4RMaxP.gif
Solar Maximum with PC colours as in Zharkova et al paper

The Solar Cycle: revisited

The Solar Cycle now appears to be more than a simple geometrical alignment, however, that is not to say that the original premise is not important, it still is. It is the alignment of the Sun’s rotational axis to the long-axis of the Heliotube that defines the Solar Cycle, recall that the SBMF appears to have a controlling influence on the SMF. With an increase in voltage experimental evidence shows that a discharge becomes unstable, likewise, with both PCs in one hemisphere we find an unstable dominant solar hemisphere, the instability is not permanent due to the two PCs being out of phase and eventually the system settles to a brief period of stability.

It is, in all probability, that the LISM is more complex than my original ‘Heliotube’ suggestion hints at- or the ‘Heliotube’ is a far larger entity of multiple nested structures- a ‘Matryoshkatube’ perhaps? (17)

Zharkova et al. have predicted gradually weakening Solar Cycles in agreement with Dr Don Scott’s Birkeland Current model but due to the complexity of the LISM such predictions must only be conditional; as the Sun’s characteristics and appearance are defined by its environment- the only certainty is uncertainty.

References:

1. Zharkova. V. V. et al. 2012, Principal component analysis of background and sunspot magnetic field variations during solar cycles 21–23, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 424, 2943–2953 (2012)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258681236_Principal_component_analysis_of_background_and_sunspot_magnetic_field_variations_during_solar_cycles_21-23
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Scott. D. E. 2015, Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model, Progress in Physics. Vol. 11, No. 2 (2015)
http://www.ptep-online.com/2015/PP-41-13.PDF
5. Tokumaru. M. et al. 2009, Non-dipolar solar wind structure observed in the cycle 23/24 minimum, Geophysical Research Letters. Vol. 36, L09101
6. https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=16299&start=90#p115142
7. Dayeh. M. A. et al. 2019, Variability in the Position of the IBEX Ribbon over Nine Years: More Observational Evidence for a Secondary ENA Source, The Astrophysical Journal. 979:84, 2019 July 10
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab21c1
8. Ibid.
9. Dialynas. K. et al. 2013, A Three-Coordinate System (Ecliptic, Galactic, ISMF) Spectral Analysis of Heliospheric ENA Emissions Using Cassini/INCA Measurements, The Astrophysical Journal. 778:40, 2013 November 20
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/40
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Bruce. C.E.R. 1975, The Role of Electrical Discharges in Astrophysical Phenomena, Electrical Discharges in Astrophysical Phenomena. Vol. 95, 1975 October
13. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007JA012684
14. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JA014271
15. Quinn R. G. and Fiorito R. B. 1967, Investigation of Laboratory Plasma Instabilities in a Dipole Magnetic Field, Journal of Geophysical Research. Vol. 72, No. 5, 1967 March
16. Ibid.
17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matryoshka_doll
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests