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 jacmac » Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:43 pm

This is a bit of a correction from my post above.

I used the planet Aphelion distance numbers as the base of a right triangle.
Oops.
The Aphelion distance would be the hypotenuse of the triangle.
So here are the new numbers(not that different ) for the distances
of the planets from the solar equatorial plane at Aphelion.

These numbers are million miles:

Mercury------2.56
Venus-------- 4.56
Earth--------11.76
Mars---------15.25
Jupiter------53.83
Saturn------ 90.36
Uranus-----210.64
Neptune---316.30
jacmac
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:36 am

Jack,

Do I think that the planets have no connection with the solar cycle? Of course I don’t.

Where I differ from, dare I say it the “consensus” thunderbolts(?) line is that I favour the original proposal made by Ralph Juergens in 1973- that the planets are secondary cathodes in the solar discharge, their magnetotails intercepting electrons ultimately destined to take part in the solar discharge.

The continuous arrival of positively charged cosmic rays on earth suggests that our planet carries and continually renews a strong negative charge. Indeed, experiments performed some years ago by Quinn and Chang (Journal of Geophysical Research, 71, 1966, 253 and 72, 1967, 1611) indicate, in spite of the experimenters' pointed disclaimer, that the earth behaves as a secondary cathode in the solar discharge. By making a magnetized steel sphere the cathode in a laboratory discharge, Quinn and Chang produced miniature Van Allen belts, auroral discharges, and other recognizable "geophysical" effects. I would speculate, therefore, that the earth's negative charge represents that of electrons intercepted on their way to the sun by the earth's tail-like sheath, and that this charge is built up to a point where the earth re-emits electrons into the solar discharge. If so, variations in earth-sun electric currents may be held accountable for such phenomena as geomagnetic disturbances, ionospheric disturbances, high-altitude expansions and contractions of the terrestrial atmosphere, and variations in the cosmic-ray flux reaching the earth.

Planetary magnetotails always point in the anti-solar direction to more electron rich areas of the heliosphere; that way planets are able to collect enough electrons to satisfy their own discharge(we see the same phenomenon with comets).

We can think of the planets as being “grounded” to the Sun via the Interplanetary Plasma the character of which changes over the solar cycle, I’ll come back to the nature of the planetary “connection” in a moment but first the heliosphere.

The main problem I have with the “planetary” approach to the solar cycle is that the solar cycle is much more than sunspots. The changes over the solar cycle happen in the volume of the entire heliosphere, IBEX has followed these changes at the outermost reaches and perhaps, beyond the heliosphere. The Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft monitored changes beyond the planets and Ulysses monitored changes far from the ecliptic at high solar latitudes.

As I see it the nature of whole volume of the heliosphere changes over the solar cycle- we see the Sun as a focal point of this change. As the change is cyclical and as I don’t go along with “internal dynamo” models I have assumed the cause of the cycle to be external- external Birkeland Currents.

As for sunspots themselves not only do they appear at certain latitudes they also preferentially appear at certain longitudes approximately 180 degrees apart- what planetary influence can cause this phenomena?

To my mind preferred longitudes arise as current previously focussed at the poles during solar minimum (appearing as coronal holes) rotates away from the polar regions toward the solar equator and the highly complex solar maximum. I have seen a similar proposal by mainstream solar scientists- in the context of an internal dynamo- the model was dismissed by the scientific consensus as being too simple! So much for Occam’s razor!

As we are now at solar minimum and with plasma phenomena being scalable, I think an analogy is in order; the Sun- tenuous Fast Solar Wind confined to the polar regions, denser Slow Solar Wind at lower solar latitudes. The Earth- tenuous Magnetospheric Lobes confined to the polar regions, denser “Plasma sheet" separating tail lobes at lower solar latitudes.

Now I would like to ask, are the planets really “connected” to the Sun?

We are all familiar with this headline “Magnetic Rope observed for the first time between Saturn and the Sun” (https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mathematical-phys ... rn-and-sun).

A twisted magnetic field structure, previously never seen before at Saturn, has now been detected for the first time, using instrumentation built at UCL and Imperial College.

When the Sun's magnetic field interacts with the Earth's magnetic field (the magnetosphere), a complex process occurs called magnetic reconnection which can twist the field into a helical shape.

These twisted helically structured magnetic fields are called flux ropes or "flux transfer events" (FTEs) and are observed at Earth and even more commonly at Mercury. The conditions that allow FTEs to be generated at a planet worsen with distance from the Sun, however they have been observed at all the planets out to Jupiter.

Sounds impressive but what does a reading of the actual paper tell us about the “magnetic rope”?

“Flux transfer event observation at Saturn’s dayside magnetopause by the Cassini spacecraft”, here is the paper: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 16GL069260

From the paper it is clear that Cassini was inside the Kronian magnetosphere at the time of the observed “connection”, this can clearly be seen from Figure 3 of the paper, furthermore the Saturn- Sun “connection” alluded to in the online article is actually snapping and reconnecting solar and Kronian magnetic field lines, this is the line taken by the authors of the paper.

Thus we have a dilemma, either we agree with the authors that magnetic reconnection is a real phenomenon and thus the Saturn- Sun connection is as detailed in the online article, or Cassini observed something else altogether.

The observation by Cassini actually supports Ralph Juergens’ proposal. Although in the south polar cusp of the dayside Kronian magnetosphere, Cassini was nevertheless in a region of “open” magnetic field lines, that is magnetic field lines that extend into the Kronian magnetotail. If anything, Cassini may have sampled a Birkeland Current filament originating beyond Saturn’s orbit which forms part of the Kronian magnetosphere’s southern tail lobe.

Juergens again, from his 1973 series of debates: “The sun, orbiting at what we might describe as a middle altitude in the electrified galactic atmosphere, finds itself subjected to electrical pressure from its surroundings. (This predicament is compounded by the fact that the sun is also located within a spiral arm of the galaxy, which means, on Bruce's explanation for spiral arms, that it is caught up in an electrical discharge between the nucleus and the atmosphere of the galaxy.) The sun, which but for its fortuitous presence within the galaxy might be just another cold, dark cosmic body, becomes the focus of a secondary electrical discharge-- a relatively small, local discharge within the larger discharge of the spiral arm. This local disturbance arises from the sun's need to adjust its own electric potential to that of its surroundings, and this would seem to mean it must take on negative charge by collecting electrons or by emitting positive ions. And as I see it, the electric currents accomplishing this adjustment in solar potential deliver the energy that the sun must radiate away.

The planets, in this scheme of things, orbit in regions where space potentials are intermediate between those of galactic space and of the sun itself. As the sun collects charge, so too, presumably, must the planets, so that their potentials relative to their surroundings remain practically constant. Thus the earth, like every other cold body in the solar system, must take on more and more negative charge with the passage of time just to hold its own in a steadily changing solar-discharge environment.

At the risk of completely alienating myself, it is my view that it is simply wrong to think of the planets “connected” to the Sun in the same way that we see Io “connected” to Jupiter for example. The planets are independent secondary cathodes “caught up in an electrical discharge”, they are “connected” to the solar discharge via their magnetotails.

As secondary cathodes the planets are influenced by the solar cycle- the discharge between the Sun and galaxy- they are not cause of the solar cycle.

Perhaps the nature of “connections” should be explored on a new thread?

Regards,
Robert
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Aug 28, 2018 7:26 pm

Critique of Ralph Juergens' Electric Star Model
© Charles Chandler
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7875.html

The Electric Star model was inspired by 1 [Birkeland http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7889.html], while 2 [Bruce http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/8051.html] was the first to say that the Sun was primarily an EM phenomenon, and 3 [Juergens http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/8047.html] went on to say that the primary source of energy in the Sun is an electric current between the Sun and the rest of the heliosphere.

The evidence that Juergens was on the right track is accumulating, though it appears that he had the polarity backwards. This we can determine simply on the basis of the gross physical characteristics of electrostatic discharges. If the Sun was positively charged, with a stream of electrons flowing inward from the interplanetary medium, nearing the Sun the electron streams would achieve relativistic speeds, and get pinched into discrete discharge channels that would connect with the Sun at distinct footpoints, like lightning. (See the left pane of Figure 1.) This, of course, is not at all what happens. The discharges actually take the form of "helmet streamers" with "footpoints" (if that term is even appropriate) that cover vast amounts of the solar surface. The flow is outward, and the streamers are pinched away from the Sun, becoming discrete filaments at roughly 2 SR. (See the right pane of Figure 1.)

Figure 1. Solar discharge models. The density of particles in the corona is shown as a halo around the orb.
[See link above for Figure 1.]

The nature of the charging mechanism that creates the potential is another issue, which is discussed elsewhere [http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/5237.html]. Regardless, it's clear that the properties of the Sun match those of a negative discharge quite nicely, while the Sun as an anode receiving electrons from the interplanetary medium would have properties that are entirely absent.

[PS, Here are all of the pages on Charles' site where Juergens is discussed:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:qdl.scs-inc.us+juergens&ei=SgaGW9DUGY77jwTo2r_wBA&start=0&sa=N&biw=1093&bih=485]
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby jacmac » Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:10 am

Robert, thanks for the private note.

Robertus Maximus:
Do I think that the planets have no connection with the solar cycle? Of course I don’t.

Nor do I say the planets are the cause of the solar cycle.
The main problem I have with the “planetary” approach to the solar cycle is that the solar cycle is much more than sunspots.

I agree. I think the planet cycles contribute to the sunspot cycles, which is only part of the complex solar cycle.
Ralph Juergens in 1973
“The planets, in this scheme of things, orbit in regions where space potentials are intermediate between those of galactic space and of the sun itself. As the sun collects charge, so too, presumably, must the planets, so that their potentials relative to their surroundings remain practically constant.

I do not suggest a planet/sun "connection" but a planet/sun INTERMITTENT connection to perhaps adjust electric potential to/with the sun.
Ralph Juergens in 1973
variations in earth-sun electric currents may be held accountable for such phenomena as geomagnetic disturbances, ionospheric disturbances, high-altitude expansions and contractions of the terrestrial atmosphere

And what about the sun end of the earth-sun electric currents...... the sunspots ?
Where I differ from, dare I say it the “consensus” thunderbolts(?) line is that I favour the original proposal made by Ralph Juergens in 1973- that the planets are secondary cathodes.......

I think I would be hard pressed to say what the consensus thunderbolts line is about the planets and sunspots.
As for sunspots themselves not only do they appear at certain latitudes they also preferentially appear at certain longitudes approximately 180 degrees apart- what planetary influence can cause this phenomena?

Excellent question.
I need to do some reading.
Thanks Robert for your detailed posts.
Jack
Ps. I put my ideas here in your Reconciliation ? topic because that's where the conversation is.
jacmac
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:51 am

Lloyd wrote:Critique of Ralph Juergens' Electric Star Model
© Charles Chandler
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7875.html

The Electric Star model was inspired by 1 [Birkeland http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/7889.html], while 2 [Bruce http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/8051.html] was the first to say that the Sun was primarily an EM phenomenon, and 3 [Juergens http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/8047.html] went on to say that the primary source of energy in the Sun is an electric current between the Sun and the rest of the heliosphere.

The evidence that Juergens was on the right track is accumulating, though it appears that he had the polarity backwards. This we can determine simply on the basis of the gross physical characteristics of electrostatic discharges. If the Sun was positively charged, with a stream of electrons flowing inward from the interplanetary medium, nearing the Sun the electron streams would achieve relativistic speeds, and get pinched into discrete discharge channels that would connect with the Sun at distinct footpoints, like lightning. (See the left pane of Figure 1.) This, of course, is not at all what happens. The discharges actually take the form of "helmet streamers" with "footpoints" (if that term is even appropriate) that cover vast amounts of the solar surface. The flow is outward, and the streamers are pinched away from the Sun, becoming discrete filaments at roughly 2 SR. (See the right pane of Figure 1.)

Figure 1. Solar discharge models. The density of particles in the corona is shown as a halo around the orb.
[See link above for Figure 1.]

The nature of the charging mechanism that creates the potential is another issue, which is discussed elsewhere [http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/5237.html]. Regardless, it's clear that the properties of the Sun match those of a negative discharge quite nicely, while the Sun as an anode receiving electrons from the interplanetary medium would have properties that are entirely absent.

[PS, Here are all of the pages on Charles' site where Juergens is discussed:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:qdl.scs-inc.us+juergens&ei=SgaGW9DUGY77jwTo2r_wBA&start=0&sa=N&biw=1093&bih=485]

Lloyd,

Just to be clear Juergens suggested that the Sun was highly negatively charged. With respect to the potential of its environment the Sun functions as an anode. Juergens went on to suggest that the present solar discharge cannot be satisfied by the number of free electrons in the Sun's environment and as a result the Sun sends a positive current to its environment.

As you point out the properties of the Sun match those of a negative discharge quite nicely.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 219
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 Sep 01, 2018 10:03 am

jacmac wrote:
As for sunspots themselves not only do they appear at certain latitudes they also preferentially appear at certain longitudes approximately 180 degrees apart- what planetary influence can cause this phenomena?

Excellent question.
I need to do some reading.

Jack,

I wrote about Active Longitudes here:
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16299&start=45#p113813
"Are Solar Active Longitudes Birkeland Current 'Footprints'?"

You may find the linked papers useful.

Regards,
Robert
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby celeste » Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:05 pm

These just as questions regarding the last few posts:
Don't we see evidence both of helmet streamers AND suspots, where helmet streamers can be explained as material flowing out into pinches, and sunspots as flow inwards and pinching at the sun's surface.
The general picture would be that the sun itself is a secondary anode in a larger scale filament?

All the arguments of planets as secondary anodes, just on a larger scale.

My questions are driven both by the observation that the sun appears to be strung on a larger scale filament, and that the sun does not appear to be " neutralizing", at least on observational time scales.

Might we have inflow as B.C.s flowing in to sunspots, and out into helmet streamers. As if the sun is "strung" on a filament? And if we don't want a current flowing through the sun, but only from or too the sun, then doesn't that force a too a sun that runs down on observational time scales?

I'm aware of the idea of sun as a capacitor, and that continual charging and discharging (solar cycle?), could explain a constant output over time. A discharging sun leads to problems even over observational history, correct?
celeste
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby jacmac » Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:04 pm

A quick post about something on my mind, before more reading.

from upriver Sat Sep 03, 2016 7:04 pm:

According to certain measurement a flux tube eminates from each of these granules.

http://lesia.obspm.fr/turbu/talks/Greco ... _turbu.pdf

A sketch of the flux tube texture of the solar-wind plasma. Each flux tube contains a
different plasma and the flux tubes move independently. An end view (right) depicts
the cross sections of the network of tubes. The scale sizes of the flux tubes correspond
to the scale sizes of granules on the solar surface. (From Borovsky, 2008).

And this from Robert:
From woodgrain to rice-grain

STEREO-A has revealed the corona to be far more complex than previously thought plus a possible connection with the photosphere itself. “…We observed a continuous azimuthal spectrum of radially aligned density structures down to scales of approximately 20Mm at 10RS. With direct radial expansion, such structures would correspond to 2Mm (∼2–3 granule) magnetic domains at the surface of the Sun… This implies source structures in the chromosphere no larger than 300 km, or under half a granule, in scale. If in fact these smallest observable outer-coronal structures are directly connected to individual granules, changes on the granulation timescale ought to be directly observable; contrariwise, if chromospheric and coronal effects dominate the connectivity, the granulation timescale should not be particularly special”. (10)

The ethereal filamentary structures in the outer corona may be directly connected to individual granules in the photosphere, “In the case of the outer corona, these individual dense strands are small enough that they could, in principle, correspond to individual granules or individual intergranular flux concentrations…” (11)- if this is so it would, indeed, appear to be a Juergens type circuit.

transformer symbol(my computer skills so bad....cannot get a picture here)
Transformer
Two coils of wire linked by an iron core. Transformers are used to step up (increase) and step down (decrease) AC voltages. Energy is transferred between the coils by the magnetic field in the core, there is no electrical connection between the coils.

Ok. What is this leading too ??
look at a symbol of a transformer.
A coil...two bars....another coil.
Now imagine a cross section of the sun.
The two bars are the chromosphere. The double layer spacer.
On the inner side the photospheric tuft, Rising up..turning over....going back like the turn of a coil.
On the outer side... the bottom of an "ethereal filamentary structure".....which may be directly connected to
.........................(an)individual granule...coming down... turning back...going up...

"From Wood grain to Rice grain..."

...AND/OR....Flux Tubes the size of.... and eminating from a granule.

I am not so good following the voltages and the polarities, but it all looks like a spherical transformer from here.
The tufts inside.... the chromosphere..... the corona, with it's wood grains, and the solar wind flux tubes outside.

Not a direct connection to the granules....an induction.

I can see it in the symbol for a transformer.
Gotta go now.
Jack
Ps. I know a transformer uses A C...
Last edited by jacmac on Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jacmac
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby jacmac » Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:41 pm

sorry,
The first link does not work the way I moved it.
it works in the original post here;

Re: Filament structure and propagation in a Plasma Globe
Postby upriver » Sat Sep 03, 2016 7:04 pm
According to certain measurement a flux tube eminates from each of these granules.
http://lesia.obspm.fr/turbu/talks/Greco ... _turbu.pdf


The last part gets cut off...the...turbu.pdf
???
jacmac
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby jacmac » Sun Sep 02, 2018 3:44 pm

jacmac
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:00 am

Coronal Hole ‘Magnetic Tornadoes’ and Sunspots

The sunspot cycle often takes precedent when cyclical solar behaviour is studied as the sunspot cycle is the most obvious and visible.

However the solar cycle is more than the sunspot cycle, whole changes in the heliosphere take place, new research sheds more light on the complex process that produces the phenomena we see on the Sun.

Ulysses

From a unique out of ecliptic orbit the Ulysses spacecraft was, for the first time, able to study Coronal Holes. During 1994/95 and again in 2006/08, Ulysses explored the previously uncharted polar regions of the Sun, during both of these periods Coronal Holes existed at both the North and South poles.

When Ulysses visited the Sun’s poles in 2000/01 Polar Coronal Holes had disappeared, instead Ulysses found smaller transient Coronal Holes at all solar latitudes.

The premise of this thread is that the JMST Electric Sun Hypothesis is an accurate description of how the Sun derives its radiant energy with the added concept of rotating Birkeland Currents forming a pseudo-Alfven circuit.

Might observations by Ulysses further strengthen this proposal?

Polar Coronal Holes at Solar Minimum

A recent paper by Khabarova et al. (1) reported results from Ulysses observations of Coronal Holes at Solar Minimum in 1994 and 2007: “We provide observational evidence for the existence of large-scale cylindrical (or conic-like) current sheets (CCSs) at high heliolatitudes…” and described the structures as “tornado-like”. They suggested that other current sheets exist other than the Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS): “It is thought that the heliospheric current sheet (HCS) represents the only long-lived structure that carries an electric current through the heliosphere at low and middle heliolatitudes. Although the HCS is very dynamic, it never disappears, even during its complicated interactions with different solar wind streams such as interplanetary coronal mass ejections and corotating interaction regions. Interplanetary scintillation (IPS) measurements show that the shape of the HCS varies from flat to split, sometimes resembling rose leaves. In the latter case, it can reach rather high latitudes, but temporarily. Despite the tendency of the HCS to maintain a simple wavy form, it may sometimes have large cylindrical parts for a prolonged time. Wang et al. provided evidence for the existence of stable cylindrical current sheets that enclosed low-latitude coronal holes that appear at low heliolatitudes in the maximum of solar activity. This finding is very important for understanding the nature of current sheets in the heliosphere. If the HCS can stably possess a nonplanar form, then long-lived current sheets of the same form and non-HCS origin may exist as well”. (2)

The authors then unwittingly went on to describe Don Scott’s Birkeland Current model: “As we will show below, the CCS is a magnetic tornado-like formation and its internal fine structure may be rather complicated, as secondary embedded current sheets with a varying magnetic field direction occur inside the main CCS…”. (3) Figure 1d in the Khabarova paper depicts the Ulysses spacecraft passing through a “magnetic-tornado” that resembles Don Scott’s depiction of a counter-rotating Birkeland Current.

The authors then noted that: “…features discussed above could hypothetically be attributed to crossings of the HCS, but there was no corresponding IMF sector change…”, and that the “…IMF outside of the tube is directed toward the Sun, but the higher-resolution data analysis reveals a complex system of CCSs with changing direction of the magnetic field embedded in the main CCS…”, thus confirming that Ulysses was crossing nested current sheets in a large “tornado”. (4)

At the time of the south pole crossing Ulysses’ orbit took it from a distance of 3.75AU to 1.9AU at this distance the authors were surprised by the coherence of the structures revealed by Ulysses: “…the stability of the CCS is governed by the magnetic field, which is quite unusual so far from the Sun…”, (5) however, we should not be surprised at all as Juergens had suggested in 1973 that the IMF was the proper magnetic field of the currents powering the solar discharge: “My suggestion on this point would be to explore the possibility that the interplanetary magnetic field is the proper magnetic field of the electric current that supplies the sun with all its radiant energy. (A possible clue to this phenomenon is perhaps to be found in lightning discharges on earth. In high-quality photographs of lightning, I fancy I see, not a zigzag path, but a tightly twisted channel strongly resembling a ravelled strand of rope--as if the lightning channel were being forced into an almost helical shape by the proper magnetic field of the discharge current.)” (6)

At Solar Minimum currents arriving at the Sun take the form of “magnetic tornadoes”, forming coherent structures at the Sun’s poles- Unipolar Magnetic Regions (UMR) and the Polar Coronal Holes.
electric sun minimum.gif
Solar Minimum

Polar Coronal Holes at Solar Maximum

At Solar Maximum the Polar Coronal Holes have all but disappeared and the simple pattern gone, what now emerges is a cycle of Coronal Hole evolution.
electric sun maximum.gif
Solar Maximum

Coronal Holes and Single Sunspots

Single isolated sunspots are quite common, more common than commonly believed. Single sunspots possess the same basic structure as a sunspot pair. Positive polarity single sunspots are only found in positive polarity UMRs, negative polarity single sunspots are only found in negative polarity UMRs.

A sunspot pair (positive and negative polarity) is only found at the boundaries of opposing polarity UMRs.
On the subject of single sunspots and their association with UMRs Akasofu writes: “A theory of the formation of sunspot pairs requires the explanation of the above observed facts mentioned in this paper, as well as the well-known Hale’s law of the sunspot cycle. Obviously, it is not possible to explain the formation of single spots and pairs of sunspots simply by rising magnetic flux tubes that was proposed by Babcock [1961]. Further, the origin of UM regions appears to be different from magnetic fields of decaying sunspots and active regions.

“It is suggested that UM regions play a very important role in the formation of single spots and sunspot pairs, in particular in connection with and the Hale boundary. However, it is beyond the scope of this short paper to discuss the origin of UM regions, except to speculate that they are of internal origin.” (7)

Notice that UMRs play a very important role in the formation of single sunspots, what Akasofu is saying here is the commonly held belief by solar physicists, that UMRs are formed from decaying Active Regions (AR) is wrong, it is the UMR that takes primacy not the decayed AR, this is important as we’ll see.

Coronal Holes are known to be regions of unipolar magnetic polarity, the authors of two recent papers independently reached a very similar conclusion: “We propose a new concept that considers the global complexes of activity as a combination of global and local fields. Traditionally, the complexes of activity have been identified from observations of active regions (ARs). Here, we show that a complex of activity comprises both (AR) and coronal holes (CHs). Our analysis is based on observations of magnetic fields of various scales, SOHO/MDI data, and UV observations of CH. The analysis has corroborated the existence of complexes of activity that involve AR and equatorial CH. Both AR and CH are embedded in an extended magnetic region dominated by the magnetic field of one sign, but not strictly unipolar. It is shown that the evolution of CH and AR is a single process.” (8)

And: “…Harvey and Recely (2002) have shown a systematic movement of mid-latitudinal coronal holes (CHs) to high latitudes at the ascending phase of a solar cycle. As unipolar magnetic regions (UMRs) of opposite polarities approach the poles, existing PCHs decay, and their open fluxes redistribute over the solar surface. This rearrangement is completed with magnetic polarity changes in the polar caps and with formation of new PCHs (Wang, 2009; Petrie, 2015).

“Ensembles of coronal holes (ECHs) usually form in UMRs… As UMRs approach the poles, ECHs appear at increasingly higher latitudes. Gradual accumulation and merger of ECHs in the polar regions lead to formation of PCHs.” (9)

Putting the Pieces Together

At Solar Minimum Birkeland Currents in the form of “magnetic tornadoes” are focussed at the Sun’s poles, their combined effect produces Coronal Holes with the Sun divided into essentially two Unipolar Magnetic Regions. As the arriving current cycles away from the Sun’s poles, “complexes” of activity appear at preferred longitudes (both Coronal Holes and sunspots exhibit this behaviour). As the cycle progresses the simple UMR structure breaks down, Active Regions now appear surrounding “Ensembles of Coronal Holes” which are located in UMRs, at the borders of opposing UMRs sunspot pairs appear. Sunspots serve as a marker, tracing the path of the cyclical current, over time we are able to plot the current cycle in Butterfly Diagrams.

A Reconciliation?

In an earlier post I presented evidence that sunspots were counter-rotating Birkeland Currents. In this post we see that Coronal Holes are formed by a similar process, what researchers call “magnetic tornadoes”, indeed solar researchers describe the internal structure of Coronal Holes in the same way as they do sunspots- that is the umbra or penumbra of the Coronal Hole!

As Akasofu observed it is the UMR that takes primacy, arriving Birkeland Currents form not only Coronal Holes but the UMR in which they are to be found, when current is arriving at the Sun’s equatorial regions during Solar Maximum UMRs and Coronal Holes of different polarities are now in close proximity and secondary filamentary features appear- sunspots. As the equatorial Coronal Holes cycle to the poles, opposing UMRs become increasingly separated from one another and the secondary filamentary features- sunspots- disappear.
We have now reconciled the two features- Coronal Holes and sunspots and we can see why Coronal Holes are present throughout the solar cycle but sunspots are generally not.

As plasma phenomena are scalable perhaps a planetary analogy is in order? We could consider Coronal Holes to be the planetary equivalent of a large “impact” basin with the surrounding rim perched craters as sunspots. Khabarova et al. made their own planetary analogy: “It should be noted that similar tornado-like structures are observed in the terrestrial magnetosphere (Keiling et al. 2012), which may be counted in favor of universality of formation of high-latitude CCSs, occurring in different plasmas…” (10)

The universality of CCs is testament to the fundamental nature of Birkeland Currents- the very same currents which power the solar discharge.

References

1. Khabarova. O. V. et al. 2017, High-latitude Conic Current Sheets in the Solar Wind, The Astrophysical Journal, 836:108 (14pp), 2017 February 10 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/836/1/108
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Juergens. R.E. et al. 1973, On Celestial Mechanics, Pensee, Vol. 3 No 1: (Winter 1973) "Immanuel Velikovsky Reconsidered III"
7. Akasofu. S.I, 2015, Single spots, unipolar magnetic regions, and pairs of spots: 2. The development of sunspot pairs and the Hale boundary, Geophysical Research Letters, No. 42, 2571–2576, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL062887
8. Obridko. V.N and Shelting. B. D, 2015, Coronal Holes in Global Complexes of Activity, Advances in Astronomy, Volume 2015, Article ID 438124, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/438124.
9. Golubeva. E.M. and Mordvinov A.V, 2017, Rearrangements of Open Magnetic Flux and Formation of Polar Coronal Holes in Cycle 24, Solar Physics, 3 November 2017 https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.01044
10. Op cit. (1)
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 219
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 Oct 13, 2018 9:10 am

Sunspot Musings

In the paper by Akasofu, (1) the development of sunspot pairs is reminiscent of Anthony Peratt’s simulation of the formation of spiral galaxies- indeed, if a sunspot pair survive long enough they eventually form a cyclonic structure.

See: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap990204.html

Sunspot pairs only form at UMR boundaries, exhibit counter-rotation and provided they survive long enough, eventually form cyclonic structures- might we find an earthly analogy?

Hurricanes and Cyclones form at Earth’s equatorial regions, across at what we could consider to be a UMR boundary. Don Scott has offered evidence to show counter-rotation in such storms. Are Hurricanes and Cyclones manifestations of meridional Birkeland Currents across Earth’s UMR?

It would be interesting to see if the genesis of Hurricanes and Cyclones occurs at a preferred time of the day or night…

References:

1. Akasofu. S.I, 2015, Single spots, unipolar magnetic regions, and pairs of spots: 2. The development of sunspot pairs and the Hale boundary, Geophysical Research Letters, No. 42, 2571–2576, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL062887
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby celeste » Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:39 am

Robert, Your last two posts address two ways we get smaller scale Birkeland currents, from larger scale Birkeland currents. I’d like to repeat these ideas.

1. When a B.C. flows through a double layer, it must force smaller scale B.C.s in the double layer itself. Why? Because the original B.C. has a radial electric field, as Don Scott has shown. As your example, when a current flowing to Earth, flows through the double layers in the atmosphere, the radial electric field of that gives us the flow in the arms of the hurricane.

2. When a large scale Birkeland current itself becomes the background field for smaller scale B.C. s.
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hvi/upload ... _print.jpg
In the Veil Nebula, we see that the nebula itself has a large scale magnetic field, yet smaller scale B.C.s clearly run along THAT background field. This as in the example of coronal holes, with sunspots on that surface. Here we would view the coronal hole as being caused by the Veil Nebula type filament, and sunspots as being caused by those smaller (shown in blue), filaments running along the Veil Nebulas surface.
celeste
 
Posts: 817
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Sat Nov 17, 2018 7:05 am

The Heliotube and Supernova 1987A

I came across this little interesting little graphic (superior to my own!) which details the basic idea of the ‘Heliotube’, complete with double layers and features I associate with the ‘Cassini Belt’ and ‘Cassini Basins’.

https://videos.dailymail.co.uk/video/1418450360/2014/12/1418450360_3959610159001_Evolution-of-Supernova-1987A.mp4

From an original article about the occurrence of silica in supernovae remnants.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6398599/ALL-glass-Earth-started-life-inside-dying-embers-ancient-star.html
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Thu May 02, 2019 10:43 am

The Maelstrom at the Sun’s North Pole

Observations by the SDO and STEREO spacecraft reveal a vortex feature at the Sun’s North Pole. Further research hints at a similar structure at the Sun’s South Pole while both features show a degree of stability over a number of solar cycles.

Can you see it? https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12550

The Alignment of the Heliotube

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.
Heliotube 3RP.gif
Galactic Coordinates looking toward 270 degrees longitude. For illustrative purposes only, not to scale.

Heliotube 4RPP.gif
Galactic Coordinates looking toward 0 degrees longitude. For illustrative purposes only, not to scale.

Is the Solar Cycle a manifestation of two phenomena?

In 1980 a study by a group of astronomers from the former USSR Academy of Sciences identified a large-scale background interplanetary magnetic field concluding that the “…reversal of the Sun’s dipolar field seems to be controlled by the Galaxy”.

The authors wrote: “Interplanetary magnetic field data from the different satellites obtained during the period 1963-1973 at 1 A.U. and compiled by J. King have been analysed in heliocentric ecliptic coordinates. The peculiarities of the background interplanetary magnetic field (BIMF) are discussed in relation to the orientation of the solar system in the Galaxy and the variable helioefficiency of the planets. The results of the direct cosmic experiments are evidence of the solar activity being a complex phenomenon of the solar system as a whole.

“The main objective of this investigation is an attempt to reconcile interplanetary magnetic field spatial structure with the spatial structure of the variable helioefficiency of the planets. The spatial structure of the variable helioefficiency in the solar system seems to be associated with two important directions: the line of nodes of the galactic equator and ecliptic and the ecliptic projection of the galactic magnetic field direction. This second direction is superficially manifested itself in the variable helioefficiency of Jupiter and Earth (for solar maximum and solar minimum).”

They found: “…This BIMF reveals itself as a weak signal against the background of the uncorrelated noise, created by the well-known sector structure of the IMF, The existence of BIMF with the following features is discussed.”
The features included such observations as: “…the BIMF does not co-rotate with the Sun, …The vortex structure of BIMF seems to occur, i.e., the circulation of the Bt- component over the Earth’s orbit is found not to be equal to zero and equivalent to the current of Jz- 109 amperes within the Earth’s orbit.”

The authors continued: “So, side by side with the well- known sector structure of the IMF, which co-rotates with the Sun and is associated with the large scale background solar magnetic field, the large scale structure of BIMF exists also. This structure is correlated with the magnetic field of sunspots, solar dipolar field and the orientation and motion of the solar system in the Galaxy.” (1)(2)

The large scale structure of the BIMF is “correlated with the magnetic field of sunspots, solar dipolar field and the orientation and motion of the solar system in the Galaxy.” This observation is similar to what has been proposed on this very thread, however, the study suggests that the actual process is more complicated. In my opinion, this may require a revision of our understanding of the heliosphere the authors found that the “… direction of the galactic magnetic field, …seems to determine the structure of the solar magnetosphere, especially in the outer solar system…”, if so it may be that the outer solar system is influenced more by the Local Interstellar Medium than the Sun. (3)

Hinode

Observations by the Hinode spacecraft hint at this more complex solar cycle, researchers found “…that the magnetic flux contribution of the large flux range (>1018 Mx) clearly decreases, while that of the small flux range (between 1015 Mx and 1017 Mx) essentially stays the same.” (4)

“As the number of large concentrations of the dominant polarity decreases, their areas decrease as well.” (5)

“The large magnetic concentrations have a lifetime of about 10 hr, and only several tens of such patches essentially determine the global polar fields.” (6)

“The above results clearly indicate that the magnetic concentrations of the vertical magnetic fields in the polar regions consist of two different components. One corresponds to the large flux concentrations (large in terms of total magnetic flux per patch) with a dominant polarity. The total flux density contributed by this component varies with the solar cycle. The other is composed of the small flux concentrations of both polarities (small in terms of total unsigned magnetic flux per patch). The total flux density of this component does not vary with the solar cycle.”

“Our observations reveal that two different magnetic structures coexist in the polar regions. One clearly represents the single polarity, large flux concentrations that vary with the solar cycle, and the other corresponds to small flux concentrations whose flux seems to be maintained during the whole solar cycle by a local process. Polarity reversal would be due to the variation in the distribution of the large flux concentrations. The generation and maintenance of such large flux concentrations remains an open question.”(7)

“This may not be consistent with the standard flux transport dynamo model, which requires active regions that provide magnetic flux to reverse the polar fields…This suggests that the opposite polarity flux is transported to the polar region via meridional flow and/or a turbulent diffusion process as the solar activity increases.” (8)

From the observations made by Hinode it can be seen that a component of the solar magnetic field does not vary over the solar cycle. The polarity of this component is positive (north) in the northern hemisphere and negative (south) in the southern hemisphere. Is this magnetic component the ‘intrinsic’ magnetic field of a rotating electrically charged Sun? If so, it is masked by the varying magnetic field of the solar cycle of which patches of increased magnetic polarity numbering only “several tens” are sufficient to “…determine the global polar fields.” The direction of rotation of the vortex structure in the northern hemisphere- clockwise- and in the southern hemisphere- anticlockwise- is the same direction as vortices in the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn, both planets show the same hemispheric magnetic polarity as the ‘intrinsic’ solar magnetic field. Furthermore, both vortices appear to contribute in forming a chevron pattern visible on the solar disc. (9)

Figure 8 from this paper: ‘Global Solar Magnetic Field Evolution Over 4 Solar Cycles’ (10) shows vortex patterns at both solar poles during Carrington Rotation (CR) 1728 (October 1982), videos available from links in the supplementary material show both structures present from CR 1513 (October 1966). Interestingly, the vortex rotation at both poles remains stable, regardless of the polarity of the polar region over the course of the solar cycle.

Akasofu and Sunspots

Akasofu’s research has led him to conclude that the popular model of sunspot formation, the rising flux model (RF) is wrong. Akasofu identifies a number of observations that contradict the RF model: “It is accepted that sunspots occur when a magnetic flux tube rises above the photosphere, forming a pair of positive and negative spots at the cross–sections. However, this model has at least three long–standing problems, which contradict with the model, but have been left behind for a long time. They are: (1) the presence of magnetic monopole–like single spots, (2) the delay of the appearance of f–spots after p–spots, (3) the flux unbalance between p–and f–spots. Further, there are two newer observations to solve. They are: (4) positive single spots tend to be present in positive unipolar magnetic regions (vice versa); (5) pairs of spots tend to be present at the boundary unipolar magnetic regions, not elsewhere.” (11)

Akasofu’s research led him to conclude that the possible solution to the unsolved nature of sunspots lies with the following facts: “… unipolar magnetic fields are one of the basic features in solar magnetism …, not just remnants of old active regions, (b) single spots are the basic unit of sunspots, not pairs of spots.

Unipolar magnetic regions (UMR) of the Sun are not only a fundamental feature of the Sun but are also fundamental in understanding the real nature of sunspots, Akasofu takes what is believed by solar scientists to be nothing more than a by product of active regions (UMRs) and turns it into an axiom of solar activity.

The critical point to take from Akasofu’s work is- it is isolated unipolar sunspots that emerge in unipolar regions of the Sun, that are primary phenomena, as the solar cycle progresses isolated unipolar sunspots migrate from mid to low solar latitudes often buffering up to unipolar regions of the Sun with the opposite magnetic polarity. It is only when unipolar sunspots or groups of unipolar sunspots near the polarity inversion line (PIL) that pairs of dipolar sunspots or groups of dipolar sunspots form which resemble the accepted RF model of sunspots.

Solar Maximum- Hurricane Season?

Writing in 1980, Howard and LaBonte suggested that the Sun was a ‘torsional oscillator’: “We find a torsional wave pattern with alternating latitude zones of slow and fast rotation, after subtracting a differentially rotating frame. Amplitudes of the flow pattern average about 3 ms-1. It requires about 22 years for zones to drift from the poles, where they originate, to the equator, where they disappear. The pattern is symmetric about the equator. The zones representing the next solar cycle (No. 22) are seen now at high solar latitudes. Solar active regions are formed in a latitude strip centered on the boundary of fast- and slow-velocity zones. This pattern evidently represents a deep-seated circulation pattern and is the first evidence of the association of mass motions with large-scale characteristics of the solar activity cycle.” (12)

Akasofu commented on Howard and LaBonte’s paper by saying: “Since we are considering only morphologically the formation of sunspots in this paper, it may be noted that there is an interesting observation which shows that an east–west belt of ‘torsional oscillation’ (rotation or anti– parallel flow) on the photosphere shifts from poleward to equatorward during each sunspot cycle… McIntosh showed that there is a counter flow along such a belt and that solar activities are high certain locations along the belt. How such a dynamical belt can stimulate the formation or coalescence of spots at the specific boundary of two unipolar regions is beyond the scope of this paper.” (13)

Now, back to the solar polar vortex- we can see that the ‘arms’ of the vortex form the east-west counter-flow belts and it is along such belts that solar activities are high during solar maximum. Filamentary currents form isolated unipolar sunspots at mid latitudes, sunspots then drift from mid to low solar latitudes where individual or groups of unipolar sunspots of one polarity encounter individual or groups of sunspots with the opposite polarity as described by Akasofu.

We can see that the chevron belt pattern (14) is a feature of two solar polar vortices; in the northern hemisphere and viewed looking down on the north pole, the vortex rotation is clockwise (recall, this rotation direction is the dominant rotational direction for planetary atmospheric storms where the hemisphere contains a north magnetic pole), however, at low solar latitudes the Sun’s atmosphere appears to rotate anticlockwise, the same direction as the heliospheric plasma (and planetary motion). If my suggestion that the observations by Hinode do represent an intrinsic component of the Sun’s magnetic field it does appear that an external cause is influencing a substantial part of the Sun’s ‘surface’ or ‘atmosphere’.

At solar minimum the Sun’s surface consists of essentially two UMRs divided by a single PIL, as energetic particles arrive/depart the Sun along vertical ‘open’ magnetic field lines and as the magnetic field lines are horizontal across the equatorial PIL a torus of energetic particles builds up. The coronal torus does not discharge to the solar surface but gradually disappears during solar maximum- when vertical ‘open’ magnetic field lines are found at the Sun’s equatorial regions.

The Cassini Belt- a Partial Ring Current?

In the early 1970’s Ralph Juergens engaged in a series of exchanges with Professor Martin Kruskal. During one such exchange and in reply to Kruskal, Juergens stated:

“Next we come to his reference to a topological theorem that allows certain precisely located, hypothetical, magnetic lines of force to proceed radially out of the poles of a magnetised sphere, never to bend around and return. With such a theorem, I have no quarrel. But mathematics, as Kruskal, I think, would agree, frequently leads one to conclusions which have no physical reality. My point is that no one has yet been able to demonstrate that magnetism can be unrelated to electric currents. The only current that could conceivably produce the open-ended types of magnetic-flux lines insisted upon by Kruskal would be a ring current circling the sun at an infinite distance. Probably no one--least of all, perhaps, Dr. Kruskal wants to countenance such a heliocentric view of the universe.” (15)

Perhaps, Juergens was not too far off the mark, what if the Cassini Belt is, in fact, a partial ring current (PRC)? Could such a current produce the solar cycle? Given the orientation of the Cassini Belt such a current would pass over the Sun’s poles and would appear as a rotating dipole. Do other examples, which could serve as a guide, exist closer to home?

Saturn’s Rotating Transverse Magnetic Field caused by a Partial Ring Current

All is not what it appears at Saturn, observations by the Cassini spacecraft revealed a rotating PRC that produces a strange magnetic field- one that mimics a rotating transverse dipole. Researchers noted: “Irrespective of the detailed physical scenario, however, the quasi-uniform nature of the observed magnetic perturbations in the ‘‘core’’ region requires that they be produced by a rotating external current system, rather than being due, for example, to a rotating magnetic anomaly at the planet. Specifically, as discussed by Southwood and Kivelson [2007], a quasi-uniform field within the ‘‘core’’ suggests the presence of surrounding currents flowing along the field lines that are directed from north-to-south on one side of the planet (adjacent to the region of positive azimuthal ‘‘core’’ field), and from south-to-north on the other (adjacent to the region of negative azimuthal ‘‘core’’ field), thus producing a roughly unidirectional field transverse to the current in the interior region. Southwood and Kivelson [2007] proposed that these field-aligned currents should flow between the northern and southern polar ionospheres, thus forming two near-complete current loops, one on either side of the planet, in which the current circulates in the same sense as each other, clockwise or anticlockwise as viewed from a particular direction.” Here we see acknowledgement that Saturn’s magnetic field, or at least a part of the magnetic field is “…produced by a rotating external current system”! If some aspects of Saturn’s magnetic field are produced externally can we rule out the possibility the IMF is not also produced externally? (16)

Solar Activity as a Complex Phenomenon

The solar cycle appears to be the product of two phenomena, one that is “controlled by the Galaxy” the other more local to the Sun itself. The solar atmosphere bears a striking resemblance to the Cytherean atmosphere even down to polar vortices and a global chevron pattern. Unlike Venus the Sun’s magnetic environment appears far more complex whilst Cassini observations at Saturn suggest that features of the Kronian magnetic field have an external cause. Our current understanding of the solar cycle may require a new perspective- at what point is solar activity truly ‘solar’ as opposed to “controlled by the Galaxy”, is the ‘solar atmosphere’ an intrinsic feature of the Sun or is it a feature of the heliospheric plasma, is it the top, or the bottom of the phenomenon we call the Sun? (17)

References:

1. Vassilyeva. G. J. et. al. 1980. Large-scale Magnetic Field Structure at the Earth’s Orbit, its Correlation with Solar Activity and Orientation and Motion of the Solar System in the Galaxy. Solar and Interplanetary Dynamics, IAU 1980.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980IAUS...91..167V

2. The term, interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) is rapidly falling out of usage, being replaced by heliospheric magnetic field (HMF), IMF is retained in this post for continuity and clarity.

3. It may be that the outer planets are intercepting electrons headed to the Sun any cyclical behaviour or influence may be a consequence of this. Are the outer planets really denizens of interstellar space?

4. Shiota. D. et al. 2012, Polar Field Reversal Observations with Hinode, The Astrophysical Journal, 753:157 (8pp), 2012 July 10
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/753/2/157

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9.https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/thumbnails/image/f_211_193_171_2048_0.jpg

10. Webb. D. F. et al. 2012, Global Solar Magnetic Field Evolution Over 4 Solar Cycles: Use of the McIntosh Archive, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences, Vol 5: Article 23 (16pp), 2018 July 31
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326718120_Global_Solar_Magnetic_Field_Evolution_Over_4_Solar_Cycles_Use_of_the_McIntosh_Archive

11. Akasofu. S-I. 2018. A new consideration on the formation of sunspots, Physics & Astronomy International Journal, Volume 2, Issue 5, 2018.
https://medcraveonline.com/PAIJ/PAIJ-02-00118

12. Howard. R, LaBonte. B. J. 1980. The Sun is observed to be a Torsional Oscillator with a period of 11 years. The Astrophysical Journal, 239:L33-L36, 1980 July 1
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...239L..33H

13. Op cit. 11

14. Op cit. 9

15. Juergens. R. E. 1973. On Cosmic Electricity. Pensee, Vol. 3 No. 3, IVR V, Fall 1973

16. Provan. G. et al. 2009. Polarization and phase of planetary-period magnetic field oscillations on high-latitude field lines in Saturn’s magnetosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 114, A02225, 2009 February 28
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008JA013782

17. Is the Cytherean atmosphere a feature of Venus or a property of the heliospheric plasma or a product of both?
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 219
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 12 guests