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 celeste » Mon May 06, 2019 7:19 pm

Robertus,
With your last post, I see we are getting to the same idea. If we see counter rotation at the poles of planets, that is not the planetary dipole magnetic field doing that, is it? That is the magnetic field of the current flowing to the planet, which must DOMINATE, right down to the cloud layers. Also, since we can match the differential rotation of the sun (faster rotation at equator than at he poles), to the larger scale current flowing through the solar system, then it is that magnetic field,(external magnetic field to the sun), that must dominate, right down to the solar surface. (We see more solid body rotation, below that surface).

So, the logic has been very backwards, correct? Saying that the rotation of the sun, matches the interplanetary magnetic field is technically correct. But what a change, if instead of saying “the interplanetary magnetic field co rotates with the sun”, we say, “the surface of the sun co rotates with the interplanetary magnetic field”.

The solar cycle matches the motion of the sun around solar system barycenter. So yes, the slight shifting of the sun radially in that larger scale solar system filament, takes it into or out of that central current peak of the filament. (See Don’s model for how fast current changes with distance from that central peak). But yes, the sun is also in a larger scale current filaments (not even getting to galactic scale yet). The sun is traveling along the local interstellar cloud, and then inside the larger scale Local Chimney.

Our thinking has been almost as bad as the mainstream’s “frame dragging”, where for example, the Earth’s spin causes the wrapping up of the space time around it. The sun’s rotation does not cause the winding we see of the
Magnetic field out at 1 au. adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980IAUS...91..167V
The only way to explain that, is current through the ecliptic plane, as Don Scott and Michael Clarage have modeled.
But that means then it’s not the sun’s magnetic field at all that we are seeing out here, but the field of the larger scale current flowing through the solar system.

Robertus, you know we are at least two scales removed from the galactic. Rather than look at all at where we are in the galaxy, you might look at where we fit, and how we are moving relative to the LIC, and then the local chimney.
celeste
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Tue May 07, 2019 12:19 pm

celeste
Thank you for your insightful comments- always appreciated.

celeste wrote:Robertus, you know we are at least two scales removed from the galactic. Rather than look at all at where we are in the galaxy, you might look at where we fit, and how we are moving relative to the LIC, and then the local chimney.

I take this to be a reference to my highly detailed MS Paint illustrations? (just kidding) My main aim with these illustrations is to keep the readers’ mind focussed on the orientation of the Sun with respect to the galactic plane- it’s something I feel is important as it is generally overlooked in discussions about the Sun, solar system etc.
celeste wrote:With your last post, I see we are getting to the same idea. If we see counter rotation at the poles of planets, that is not the planetary dipole magnetic field doing that, is it? That is the magnetic field of the current flowing to the planet, which must DOMINATE, right down to the cloud layers. Also, since we can match the differential rotation of the sun (faster rotation at equator than at he poles), to the larger scale current flowing through the solar system, then it is that magnetic field,(external magnetic field to the sun), that must dominate, right down to the solar surface. (We see more solid body rotation, below that surface).

So, the logic has been very backwards, correct? Saying that the rotation of the sun, matches the interplanetary magnetic field is technically correct. But what a change, if instead of saying “the interplanetary magnetic field co rotates with the sun”, we say, “the surface of the sun co rotates with the interplanetary magnetic field”.

Our thinking has been almost as bad as the mainstream’s “frame dragging”, where for example, the Earth’s spin causes the wrapping up of the space time around it. The sun’s rotation does not cause the winding we see of the
Magnetic field out at 1 au. adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980IAUS...91..167V
The only way to explain that, is current through the ecliptic plane, as Don Scott and Michael Clarage have modeled.
But that means then it’s not the sun’s magnetic field at all that we are seeing out here, but the field of the larger scale current flowing through the solar system.

Agreed. Keep in mind this was Ralph Juergens’ view- that the IMF was simply the magnetic field of the current supplying the Sun with its radiant energy, for example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234540414_Helical_Magnetic_Structure_of_White_Light_Polar_Plumes
When Juergens developed his hypothesis the heliosphere was thought to end somewhere out by Jupiter! For this post I read a number of papers which I didn’t include, simply for length, which got me thinking- so much so, that I would consider the consensus model of the heliosphere to be completely wrong.

What mainstream solar physicists call corotating interaction regions (CIR)- (I am looking into the possibility that they are oblique double layers) break down in the outer solar system somewhere around 20AU and the situation beyond 20AU is far from clear, despite what we are told. This may be because the ‘pinch’ current is more pinched than we may believe.

Some researchers have suggested the existence of ‘vortex streets’ to explain observations of north-south plasma flows made by the Voyager spacecraft. The postulated vortices are found in the plane of the solar system beyond 20AU- keep my illustrations in mind- are these indicative of concentric north-south Birkeland Currents?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2000JA000106
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/9

celeste wrote:The solar cycle matches the motion of the sun around solar system barycenter. So yes, the slight shifting of the sun radially in that larger scale solar system filament, takes it into or out of that central current peak of the filament. (See Don’s model for how fast current changes with distance from that central peak). But yes, the sun is also in a larger scale current filaments (not even getting to galactic scale yet). The sun is traveling along the local interstellar cloud, and then inside the larger scale Local Chimney.

I’m still not completely sold on this idea, the 22 year cycle is only approximate and a large degree of asymmetry exists between each solar hemisphere- there may be another process going on here that I’m missing. That said, if ‘vortex streets’ are evidence of concentric Birkeland Currents (as in Don Scott’s model) then I may have to concede that point.

It will be interesting to see if the Parker Solar Probe- at closest approach- measures any ‘anomalies’ that would contradict consensus solar dynamo models.

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 celeste » Tue May 07, 2019 2:13 pm

Robertus,it is the asymmetry between the sun’s poles, that tells us we should be looking into the solar system scale filament, correct?

If the solar system is “strung” on a filament that runs through the ecliptic poles with many reversals on the solar system scale, , then a tilted and slightly off axis sun is going to see a radically different current magnitude and direction at each pole. If we forget that, and want to think of the sun being merely in a galactic scale current, running through the galactic poles,then the sun’s diameter (or even the solar system diameter), are not significant, correct?
Last edited by celeste on Tue May 07, 2019 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
celeste
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby celeste » Tue May 07, 2019 2:30 pm

Robertus, Sorry if that was too obtuse. If we want to say, for the sake of argument, that there is a Birkeland current running through the solar system, as both Don Scott and Michael Clarage have illustrated/modeled, then how can both of the sun’s poles see the same current direction/magnetic field direction, since the sun is tilted in this system?

At that point, I would defer to you. Consider that, and tell me what you reason from there.
celeste
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Wed May 08, 2019 11:29 am

celeste wrote:Robertus,it is the asymmetry between the sun’s poles, that tells us we should be looking into the solar system scale filament, correct?

If the solar system is “strung” on a filament that runs through the ecliptic poles with many reversals on the solar system scale, , then a tilted and slightly off axis sun is going to see a radically different current magnitude and direction at each pole. If we forget that, and want to think of the sun being merely in a galactic scale current, running through the galactic poles,then the sun’s diameter (or even the solar system diameter), are not significant, correct?

celeste wrote:Robertus, Sorry if that was too obtuse. If we want to say, for the sake of argument, that there is a Birkeland current running through the solar system, as both Don Scott and Michael Clarage have illustrated/modeled, then how can both of the sun’s poles see the same current direction/magnetic field direction, since the sun is tilted in this system?

At that point, I would defer to you. Consider that, and tell me what you reason from there.

celeste,

I am proposing that the Sun is influenced by a local Birkeland Current as you rightly point out “strung on a filament”. Now, if filamentary currents arrive at the Sun’s rotational poles- Don Scott has shown such an arrangement in one of his well known illustrations- then it would appear as if the Sun were “strung on a filament”. But is this picture too neat and tidy? Rather than being like fixed power lines we use for electrical power transmission would not a filament, although structured and organised, be more fluid? My question is when we look toward the edge of the heliosphere what do we see?

A few years ago I posted this: The Heliosphere and the Solar Cycle
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16299&start=120#p115766

Please ignore my original two illustrations, instead refer to the revised illustrations in my recent post, plus I have now provided a link to the Dialynas paper, which is important to my proposal:

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, November 2013. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/40

As I understand it is still unclear if the IBEX Ribbon and Cassini Belt are manifestations of one evolving object or two separate objects- either way I see them being intimately connected to the solar cycle. Now, in your mind’s-eye picture a filamentary current snaking around the Heliotube and/or Cassini Belt something similar to what we see in this series of images: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0706/m2-9motivo_corradi.gif

As the Sun's rotational axis is not aligned parallel to the Heliotube interior, the arriving current, when focussed on the Sun’s ‘surface’ would appear to migrate from high to low solar latitudes taking the form of ‘active longitudes’ as I wrote about here: Are Solar Active Longitudes Birkeland Current 'Footprints'?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16299&start=45#p113813

So, the solar cycle is due to the present relationship between the orientation of the Heliotube and the rotational axis of the Sun, just think of the complexity displayed by the entire heliosphere at solar maximum! Don Scott's illustration is only applicable for a brief time at solar minimum. Now, what if this relationship changes? What if the nature of the discharge or orientation of the Heliotube changes- even slightly, over centuries or millennia? Could it cause lengthy periods of increased sunspot activity, or no sunspots? Perhaps it could cause wholesale changes is the appearance of the Sun?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16964

Hope this, in some way, answers your question.
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 celeste » Fri May 10, 2019 9:02 pm

Robertus,
I agree absolutely with your last paragraph. That’s the trick. When you realize that the sun isn’t (and can’t be), the center of filaments on all scales. The sun does orbit the solar system barycenter, and the mainstream knows this, and its apparent relationship to the solar cycle. Yet in observations of the Local interstellar cloud, (scaling up), the mainstream also knows we are changing radius in that “filamentary gas cloud”. On the smaller scale, the mainstream does know that our sun moves in and out in relationship to solar system barycenter, yet they see us “leaving” the Local Interstellar “filamentary” gas Cloud in the future. But since we don’t see stars outside of “star forming filaments”, May we be moving in and out on longer time scales as well?
As you see, I absolutely agree you have the right approach.
celeste
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Solar » Tue May 28, 2019 8:45 am

Robertus Maximus wrote:As I understand it is still unclear if the IBEX Ribbon and Cassini Belt are manifestations of one evolving object or two separate objects- either way I see them being intimately connected to the solar cycle. Now, in your mind’s-eye picture a filamentary current snaking around the Heliotube and/or Cassini Belt something similar to what we see in this series of images: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0706/m2-9motivo_corradi.gif

As the Sun's rotational axis is not aligned parallel to the Heliotube interior, the arriving current, when focussed on the Sun’s ‘surface’ would appear to migrate from high to low solar latitudes taking the form of ‘active longitudes’ as I wrote about here: Are Solar Active Longitudes Birkeland Current 'Footprints'?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16299&start=45#p113813

So, the solar cycle is due to the present relationship between the orientation of the Heliotube and the rotational axis of the Sun, just think of the complexity displayed by the entire heliosphere at solar maximum! Don Scott's illustration is only applicable for a brief time at solar minimum. Now, what if this relationship changes? What if the nature of the discharge or orientation of the Heliotube changes- even slightly, over centuries or millennia? Could it cause lengthy periods of increased sunspot activity, or no sunspots? Perhaps it could cause wholesale changes is the appearance of the Sun?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16964

Hope this, in some way, answers your question.
Regards,
Robert


That's possible Robertus. I don't mean to distract but I keep trying to play this out and it presents some interesting results. As Celeste has pointed out there are plenty of observations of stars, including the Sun via it's heliosphere, "interacting" with "molecular clouds" - filamentary; or not. The image .gif image of M2-9 is interesting because the "tubes" are intact: M2-9 Butterfly Nebula

But here is another image of M2-9 that looks quite different:

M2-9 Butterfly Nebula (from further away)

Maybe my imagination has gotten the better of me but.... I'm trying to imagine what the environment of a star passing through the double-layer "wall" of a "molecular cloud" would look like. If that occurs the Rotten Egg nebula would make sense from a 'ballistic' point of view because it might infer that only approximately one-half of its "tube" is beginning such and interaction and/or has pierced a cloud "wall":

Rotten Egg Nebula

How can that "tube" remain so stable?? Do all stars have "tubes" like M2-9? It seems to me that these "molecular clouds" may be more of an important factor in reference to "stellar evolution" than not. Here is an interesting paper:

This morphology is typical of an evolved H ii region in the Champagne phase (Tenorio-Tagle 1979): the ionising flux of a hot young star originally embedded near the edge of a molecular cloud produced an expanding spherical H ii region which pierced the cloud surface producing a flow of ionised gas (e.g.,
Yorke et al. 1983). Gas physical conditions and kinematics of the giant outflow Ou4 Romano L.M. Corradi


Celeste: that is a beautiful summary fully in context with the G-Cloud thread. When the configuration of Ou4 is given due consideration the question is what is something like The Cat's Eye Nebula doing? It has the same configuration as the Ou4 remnant.

The point of this is that -*if*- "the solar cycle is due to the present relationship between the orientation of the Heliotube and the rotational axis of the Sun" - what influences and/or controls how that tube is oriented and/or if it is even present? Certain "planetary nebula" configurations look as if they are the distorted remnants of that M2-9 "tube".

So much of this seems backwards. For example, when looking at this image of NGC-6302 the tendency is to consider things from the perspective of the star sending out it's discharge... but LOOK AT THE illuminated "clouds" much further out seeming to point in the wrong direction. I would submit that those clouds were formerly much closer to that star a *may* have been the source from which that star (calmly) drew its electric currents during the "fair weather" activities of a perfectly normal star. Now it has entered a much larger "cloud" and is 'reacting' to that condition.

Someone tell me i'm not (yet) insane please.
"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 celeste » Tue May 28, 2019 4:31 pm

Solar wrote:
Maybe my imagination has gotten the better of me but.... I'm trying to imagine what the environment of a star passing through the double-layer "wall" of a "molecular cloud" would look like. If that occurs the Rotten Egg nebula would make sense from a 'ballistic' point of view because it might infer that only approximately one-half of its "tube" is beginning such and interaction and/or has pierced a cloud "wall":

Rotten Egg Nebula

How can that "tube" remain so stable?? Do all stars have "tubes" like M2-9? It seems to me that these "molecular clouds" may be more of an important factor in reference to "stellar evolution" than not. Here is an interesting paper:

This morphology is typical of an evolved H ii region in the Champagne phase (Tenorio-Tagle 1979): the ionising flux of a hot young star originally embedded near the edge of a molecular cloud produced an expanding spherical H ii region which pierced the cloud surface producing a flow of ionised gas (e.g.,
Yorke et al. 1983). Gas physical conditions and kinematics of the giant outflow Ou4 Romano L.M. Corradi


Celeste: that is a beautiful summary fully in context with the G-Cloud thread. When the configuration of Ou4 is given due consideration the question is what is something like The Cat's Eye Nebula doing? It has the same configuration as the Ou4 remnant.

Someone tell me i'm not (yet) insane please.


Well Solar, if you ARE insane, then so are they:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -0938-3_41
They are going to suggest that when a nice spherical bubble collapses, it leads to jets directed towards the wall.

So, it seems to me too, that these “molecular clouds” are important in stellar evolution. But I’ll go farther:
The entire life cycle of a bubble in the cavitation experiments, appears to match stellar evolution in detail.
Too much to get into in this thread, but focus on the formation of bubbles near a Venturi, then look at dynamics of the Pleiades near the pinch in the local chimney, or compare the “multipeaking and rebounding” of bubbles before they collapse with a flash of light and oppositely directed jets, to the “radial velocity pulsations” of red giant stars before they end up as supernova remnants, and the whole dynamic is repeated IN DETAIL, on each scale.
celeste
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby jacmac » Tue May 28, 2019 7:03 pm

Robert has said on May 7:
What mainstream solar physicists call corotating interaction regions (CIR)- (I am looking into the possibility that they are oblique double layers) break down in the outer solar system somewhere around 20AU and the situation beyond 20AU is far from clear, despite what we are told. This may be because the ‘pinch’ current is more pinched than we may believe.

I suggest to look at the "pinch" current being LESS pinched than we think.
From Michael Clarage:
The forces that govern the initial formation of a solar system could well be different from the forces that govern its growth.

"Why is it Difficult to Observe Electric Currents in Space"
From:http://mclarage.blogspot.com/

The operational forces that govern may well be less pinched as we get away from the formation of the solar system and into the ongoing sustaining forces.
Thus, a more relaxed Birkeland current, contributing as it does, but with more influence by the very nature of a sun to self organize and light up as it concentrates the plasma at its disposal.

Globular star clusters come to mind.
jacmac
 
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Thu May 30, 2019 11:12 am

Solar wrote:How can that "tube" remain so stable?? Do all stars have "tubes" like M2-9? It seems to me that these "molecular clouds" may be more of an important factor in reference to "stellar evolution" than not.

In 1968, in a paper for The Electrical Research Association, ‘Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution’:
https://www.catastrophism.com/texts/bruce/era.htm
Charles Bruce wrote (all references, sections and subsections refer to the original text, bold text is my emphasis):

(3.5) Planetary Nebulae
(3.5.1) Two-Armed Structure
As mentioned in the introduction one of the most surprising conclusions to which the theory led was that two-armed nebula should exist on a stellar atmospheric scale quite analogous to their counterparts on a galactic scale and that photographs of them very probably existed in view of the existence of such photographs as that of Hubble's Variable Nebula. It was almost equally surprising that even those who had worked on planetary nebulae for many years were unable to refer the writer to them until Merrill wrote that the likeliest place to look for them was in a paper published 42 years earlier by Curtis at Lick Observatory and there indeed they were found.


The prediction derived, first, from the explanation given for the spectrum of P Cygni, and its success naturally helps to confirm that explanation and, second, from the observation that stars like g Cassiopeiae exist in which there are not only emission lines displaced to the violet, but pairs of emission lines, one displaced to the violet, the other to the red. These could obviously be explained if double nebulae existed as in the diagram. If the two arms were in the line of sight then the two discharge-generated jets would give rise to the two emission components.

Merrill’s suggestion immediately led to the confirmation of the success of this prediction, as will be seen from the examples in Fig.4, taken from Curtis' paper.

(3.5.2) Gas Movements

A more detailed study (Ref. 2.32, Figs.4 and 6) of the gas movements in two of the ten nebulae which had entirely baffled Campbell and Moore showed that they are at once separable into two jets, straight in NGC 2392, the type nebula of the group of ten and spiral, as its photograph suggests, in NGC 6543. Both spiral and barred-spiral discharge channels occur on a stellar as well as a galactic scale, but so far no irregular stellar nebulae have been photographed so far as the writer is aware. It may be that the small scale does not allow for the development of irregular nebulae…

(3.8) g Cassiopeiae

(3.8.1) Rotating Four-Armed Nebula

McLaughlin, one of the leading authorities on these emission-line stars, five years ago wrote that "the behaviour of g Cassiopeiae violated almost all my generalizations" so its vagaries would appear to form a good test for the application of the discharge theory. A full account of this application will be found in a paper published in the following year, so only a few of the main agreements between theory and observation need be outlined here, for far from proving a difficult subject, this star provided a number of confirmations of the theory's predictions in addition to that discussed in Section (3.6.1). The general conclusion reached was that g Cassiopeiae is the central star of a four-armed nebula which rotates in a period of 4 years, the arms being in the plane of sight so that there is a partial eclipse of the star by one of the arms of the nebula every year, each of which reduces the star's light, by about a fifth of a magnitude (Fig.6). From a study of the past behaviour of this star D.R. Barber has found evidence that outbursts occur in each pair of arms successively in an overall period of 11 years, the intervals between successive outbursts being 7 and 4 years respectively.

(3.9.2) Current Wave-Shape

All atmospheric discharges will have similar current wave-shapes. A relatively rapid rise to peak current will be followed by a somewhat slower decline and a long tail, the form we are familiar with in the lightning discharge. This is for example the wave-form shown by the broadening of the Ha line in solar flares. It is also a well-known feature of the spectra during the initial stages of novae and efforts have been made by many investigators to explain it in terms of a rapid acceleration of the luminous gas followed by an almost equally rapid deceleration. As this part of the wave-form coincides with the period during which the line-broadening, dlal2, is that of the Zeeman effect, it is at once explained by the rise and fall of the current in the discharge.

(3.9.3) Pinching of the Discharge

Attention was recently directed to another interesting link-up between discharge phenomena on the terrestrial, stellar and galactic scales, and this proved yet another example of the elucidation of terrestrial discharge phenomena from a study of their cosmic counterparts. Many novae, such as N. Aurigae, 1891 and N. Herculis, 1934 (Fig.7) have been practically extinguished soon after maximum magnitude or peak current. The light of both stars fell abruptly by nine magnitudes. This can only be accounted for by pinching out of the discharge. Photographic evidence of the occurrence of this phenomenon has been obtained in a lightning flash and in a galactic discharge (Fig.3).

This suggestion led to a search of the literature for oscillographic evidence of pinched lightning discharges which brought to light the oscillogram shown in Fig.8 (Ref. 2.39), in which the lightning current wave is shown on two different time scales. The cause of the pinching is discussed in a recent note it results from the increase in pressure due to both the temperature rise and the aggregative force of the discharge. In the lightning discharge the combined effect will be to raise the pressure to well over 100 atmospheres. It has been found that the voltage gradient required to maintain a discharge increases as the square root of the pressure so that while the initial field may be adequate to maintain the leader stroke or the initial stages of the nova or galactic discharges, it may be inadequate to maintain the discharge in these later high pressure stages.

(3.9.4) Two Discharges

In R Monocerotis (Hubble's Variable Nebula, Fig. 2a) and in others of the cometary nebulae the originating nova outburst had taken the form of a single discharge. Most planetary nebulae, however, as we have seen in Section (3.5.1) are two-armed as are their counterparts on a galactic scale. In an E.R.A. report in 1958 (Ref. 2.42) the writer explained how this will come about on the electrical discharge theory. Though there will in all probability be one initial and main discharge, it is quite probable that conditions will approach breakdown elsewhere in the stellar or galactic atmosphere, and that the ultra-violet and thermal radiation from the initial discharge will trigger off other discharges in both hemispheres. Those in the same hemisphere as the major discharge will be electromagnetically attracted to it; those in the opposite hemisphere will be repelled to the diametrically opposite point in the atmosphere.

In confirmation of this expectation Pearson found that the observations on N. Aquilae, 1918 could best be explained on the hypothesis of two diametrically opposed gas jets and in the "Encyclopaedia of Astronomy" of Rudaux and de Vancouleurs it is stated as a generalization that "In fact, it is known that the gases are not expelled uniformly by a nova, but primarily in two favoured and diametrically opposed directions". This is also confirmed by the detailed descriptions of individual novae given in Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin's "Galactic Novae".

The main difficulties in the way of recognizing planetary nebulae as later stages of novae have been: (1) the much lower gas velocities in the nebulae, and (2) the relatively small number of planetary nebulae. However, the difference in the velocities is simply explained by the reduction in the discharge temperature toward the end of the discharge. The discharge-generated gas jet has become a pale shadow of that generated in the high current phase, when to judge from its velocity, the discharge temperature must on occasions have reached millions or hundreds of millions of degrees. Secondly, the final stage of a planetary nebula will be invisible, when the discharge ceases, so we do not expect to find as many planetary nebulae as there have been novae in our galaxy.

Astronomical observations have certainly advanced since this paper, Charles Bruce recognised that the bi-polar or double “tube” structure (or ‘arms’ as he called them) is a fundamental feature of the stars- this feature is found everywhere from what mainstream astrophysicists call ‘young’ stars to ‘old’ red giant stars.

The structure of the Rotten Egg Nebula bears a morphological resemblance to Hubble’s Variable Nebula, rather than being a single discharge as Bruce suggests perhaps it is the idiosyncratic nature of a stars' local interstellar medium that influences the development of a double “tube” structure?

Observations of ‘g Cassiopeiae’ a rotating four armed nebula suggest a four magnetic sector structure with a period of 11 years- as we see with the Sun? More recent observations of gamma Cassiopeiae suggest a greater degree of variability: “Be stars vary in brightness, and spectrum, on several different timescales. There are variations on time scales of weeks to decades, which are connected with the formation and dispersal of the disc. These variations may be cyclic in nature; according to one theory, this is due to a spiral wave which slowly circulates around the disc.” (https://www.aavso.org/vsots_gammacas)

The typical discharge waveform, “A relatively rapid rise to peak current will be followed by a somewhat slower decline and a long tail, the form we are familiar with in the lightning discharge” matches the pattern of sunspot activity. I have previously tried to ‘fit’ this pattern to a geometric relation but I have been far from satisfied with the result- Bruce’s insight offers an alternative. Even the The Gnevyshev Gap at solar maximum may have an explanation in- “This can only be accounted for by pinching out of the discharge”.

If we are looking at scaleable plasma phenomena it appears that such bi-polar ‘tube’ or 'arm' structures are very stable.
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 Jun 01, 2019 3:26 am

jacmac wrote:Robert has said on May 7:
What mainstream solar physicists call corotating interaction regions (CIR)- (I am looking into the possibility that they are oblique double layers) break down in the outer solar system somewhere around 20AU and the situation beyond 20AU is far from clear, despite what we are told. This may be because the ‘pinch’ current is more pinched than we may believe.

I suggest to look at the "pinch" current being LESS pinched than we think.
From Michael Clarage:
The forces that govern the initial formation of a solar system could well be different from the forces that govern its growth.

"Why is it Difficult to Observe Electric Currents in Space"
From:http://mclarage.blogspot.com/

The operational forces that govern may well be less pinched as we get away from the formation of the solar system and into the ongoing sustaining forces.
Thus, a more relaxed Birkeland current, contributing as it does, but with more influence by the very nature of a sun to self organize and light up as it concentrates the plasma at its disposal.

Globular star clusters come to mind.

Jack,

Ordinarily, if we could take the discharge in isolation, I would tend to agree but we have a problem the Sun does not exist in isolation. According to the Electric Sun hypothesis to an external observer the appearance of a star is determined largely by its environment, although this is not the whole story- we also have to consider the ‘age’ of a star.

A young electron deficient star will draw huge currents from its environment bloating its atmosphere- appearing to an external observer as a red giant (this assumes electrons are plentiful in the ‘new’ stars environment); red stars are largely found where there is an abundance of what mainstream astronomy calls “hot gas”. Over time, again assuming no large changes have occurred in the star’s environment, we could expect the original formation pinch to lessen as Michael Clarage points out.

However, the Sun is not in an electron rich environment, according to Juergens the Sun responds with an energetic positive ‘return’ current to compensate for the incoming electrons being absorbed by interstellar dust.
Now, observations of the Sun and its near environment reveal a large degree of hemispheric asymmetry much of which we are blissfully unaware of. It is known that polar coronal hole size is asymmetric- a large northern polar coronal hole and a smaller southern polar coronal hole, for example. Solar physicists are puzzled as to why the smaller polar coronal hole has a stronger magnetic field, from the Electric Sun hypothesis could it be that the pinch is asymmetric or unstable?
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 celeste » Sat Jun 01, 2019 6:25 pm

Yes, the pinch has to be asymmetric. All pinches must be. If we have galaxies strung on filaments, and yet current along spiral arms, how do we balance that. If the solar system is strung on a filament, and we have an equatorial current sheet, how do we balance that. Heck, even in a lightning discharge, where we get a cloud to ground discharge, what powers the outward propagation of thunder. Yes, current into and out of a pinch is not symmetric, or electricity wouldn’t be able to POWER anything.
celeste
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Solar » Sat Jun 01, 2019 8:49 pm

That's timely. Have been looking into this asymmetry feature as of late. Currently reading this paper (have not finished):

NGC 6309, a planetary nebula that shifted from round to multipolar: G. Rubio et al

According to this paper the “structural components” of NGC 6309 have different ages: the ring and the bipolar flows approx 4000 yrs, the expansion of the halo approx 46,000yrs, the blobs approx 150,000yrs. The "structural components" are very interesting. Have a look at The Cat's Eye Nebula and notice that the structural components consist of several radial oscillations that appear as "shells", the bipolar emission, and within these there exist an almost figure eight curling discharge pattern.

Now have a look at PKS285-02: A Young Planetary Nebula

Things are definitely moving. In context now have a look at the rather fantastic:

Portrait Of NGC 5189

The 'tips' of the polar discharge seem to have been flung wildly about the central star(s). Currently the way I'm relating to these differences is that there appears to be a sort of gimble-like relationship occurring. I've not come across anything yet that suggest that either the path and/or the rotation axis of any of the stars have changed direction and/or axis of rotation. If no changes in those features occurred then maybe *some* of the "structural components" can rotate independently ...

Inertial Guidance System: ProfWaterLewin

That might be a bit rich because there's always the chance that the quadrupolar/multipolar features are pulsed plasma phenomena i.e. separate ramps in current density from periodically "interacting" with molecular clouds. But something definitely appears to have moved in order to get more than one bipolar discharge. If its a cluster perhaps more than one star bore the burnt of currents therefore more than one angle from which a polar configuration might have been impressed on a neighboring star. Lastly, consider also that during the changing of the poles for a given solar cycle the Sun was said to have "Two Poles". Maybe the encounter with a molecular cloud occurred at some point during a pole flip so more than one polar discharge may have been presented?

Anyways yes this is a recognized feature: Special Issue "Asymmetric Planetary Nebulae VII"

By the way Celeste: If you have any docs on dual jets during cavitation could you PM. There's something very interesting in that realm.
"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 Jun 02, 2019 5:16 pm

Robertus, here are some concepts that are causing me confusion:

Robertus Maximus wrote:“So, the solar cycle is due to the present relationship between the orientation of the Heliotube and the rotational axis of the Sun,”

(...)

“If we are looking at scaleable plasma phenomena it appears that such bi-polar ‘tube’ or 'arm' structures are very stable.”


Robertus these two statements seem to be in tension with one another but I guess in terms of stellar evolution the “present relationship” is what is only relatively “stable”(?)

The second part that is causing some confusion is the term “heliotube” and what it is referring to. It was used to characterize “something similar to” M2-9 (here). The term “heliotube” was also used in reference to polarization measurements of the Intersellar Dust filament interacting with the heliosphere (here).

The drawings that have been used in reference to the term “heliotube” obviously look more like the epicenter of M2-9 (here). In another post

Robertus Maximus wrote:"‘Cassini Basins’ approximately correspond to the ‘inside’ of the heliotube, whilst the IBEX Ribbon better fits the ‘pinch’ region of the heliotube." here)


Although that is more consistent with the M2-9 comparison (I very much like that 'inside' relation) I’m kind of lost as to what specific feature is meant by the term “heliotube”? Or, is the term used to connect all features as part and parcel of one filament?

The concept that:

Robertus Maximus wrote:So, the solar cycle is due to the present relationship between the orientation of the Heliotube and the rotational axis of the Sun, just think of the complexity displayed by the entire heliosphere at solar maximum! Don Scott's illustration is only applicable for a brief time at solar minimum. Now, what if this relationship changes? What if the nature of the discharge or orientation of the Heliotube changes- even slightly, over centuries or millennia? Could it cause lengthy periods of increased sunspot activity, or no sunspots? Perhaps it could cause wholesale changes is the appearance of the Sun?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16964

Hope this, in some way, answers your question.
Regards,
Robert


Depending on the meaning of "heliotube" are the different discharge event eras (interesting precessing angles) shown with PKS285 an example of the above 'change in orientation' relative to rotation axis??

PKS285-02: A Young Planetary Nebula

The concept 'change in orientation': I took this took mean a change in orientation due to an accompanying change in the orientation of the entire global magnetic field. Since I'm not really sure what, or which part of these dynamics "heliotube" refers to, can you bandage my ignorance please? :oops:
"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 » Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:58 am

Solar wrote:Robertus, here are some concepts that are causing me confusion:

Robertus Maximus wrote:“So, the solar cycle is due to the present relationship between the orientation of the Heliotube and the rotational axis of the Sun,”

(...)

“If we are looking at scaleable plasma phenomena it appears that such bi-polar ‘tube’ or 'arm' structures are very stable.”


Robertus these two statements seem to be in tension with one another but I guess in terms of stellar evolution the “present relationship” is what is only relatively “stable”(?)

The second part that is causing some confusion is the term “heliotube” and what it is referring to. It was used to characterize “something similar to” M2-9 (here). The term “heliotube” was also used in reference to polarization measurements of the Intersellar Dust filament interacting with the heliosphere (here).

The drawings that have been used in reference to the term “heliotube” obviously look more like the epicenter of M2-9 (here). In another post

Robertus Maximus wrote:"‘Cassini Basins’ approximately correspond to the ‘inside’ of the heliotube, whilst the IBEX Ribbon better fits the ‘pinch’ region of the heliotube." here)


Although that is more consistent with the M2-9 comparison (I very much like that 'inside' relation) I’m kind of lost as to what specific feature is meant by the term “heliotube”? Or, is the term used to connect all features as part and parcel of one filament?

The concept that:

Robertus Maximus wrote:So, the solar cycle is due to the present relationship between the orientation of the Heliotube and the rotational axis of the Sun, just think of the complexity displayed by the entire heliosphere at solar maximum! Don Scott's illustration is only applicable for a brief time at solar minimum. Now, what if this relationship changes? What if the nature of the discharge or orientation of the Heliotube changes- even slightly, over centuries or millennia? Could it cause lengthy periods of increased sunspot activity, or no sunspots? Perhaps it could cause wholesale changes is the appearance of the Sun?
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16964

Hope this, in some way, answers your question.
Regards,
Robert


Depending on the meaning of "heliotube" are the different discharge event eras (interesting precessing angles) shown with PKS285 an example of the above 'change in orientation' relative to rotation axis??

PKS285-02: A Young Planetary Nebula

The concept 'change in orientation': I took this took mean a change in orientation due to an accompanying change in the orientation of the entire global magnetic field. Since I'm not really sure what, or which part of these dynamics "heliotube" refers to, can you bandage my ignorance please? :oops:

Solar,

My reason for introducing the term ‘helio-TUBE’ was to offer an alternative to the currently accepted model of the helio-SPHERE the motivation being observations by IBEX and Cassini. Perhaps Local Planetary Nebula would be better? I’m open to suggestions.

I realise my illustrations are not the best but they now seem to be causing some confusion, perhaps I should do away with them altogether! What I have tried to do is to draw (no pun intended) the readers’ attention to the orientation of the Sun and solar system relative to the galactic plane. Now, I do realise that conditions in the LISM will have more relevance but we still should keep in mind the afore mentioned positional relationship simply because if we assume current is arriving at the Sun it may be arriving from directions we consider to be unlikely.

Estimates put the distance to the Cassini Belt to somewhere around 140AU the IBEX Ribbon is believed to be farther away still, given that Voyager 1 left the heliosphere at a distance of 122AU the heliotube is considerably larger, obviously this does not correspond to the dimensions of my illustrations, here I am relying on the reader’s imagination hence M2-9 to help that imagination along- hopefully- but I could have chosen from a number of planetary nebulae images. It is known that the Cassini Belt is organised on galactic coordinates and from our perspective that the IBEX Ribbon traces an incomplete circle across the sky- as I have illustrated- but to my mind I see the IBEX Ribbon snaking around the ‘heliotube’ it is only from our perspective that the IBEX Ribbon appears as an incomplete circle. Perhaps, my imagination is running a little too wild? The actual dimensions of the heliotube are unknown maybe if the associated plasma environment was in glow mode we would have a better idea, one reason I suspect this not to be the case is the amount of interstellar dust in the LISM.

With this in mind, when I speak of a positional relationship it concerns the angle between the rotational axis of the Sun and the orientation of the long axis- internal- to the heliotube- the two are not aligned.

Over longer timescales the situation is further complicated by the Sun’s undulating motion around the Milky Way galaxy. It is known that planetary nebulae are ‘mysteriously’ aligned, the alignment is believed to be caused by strong magnetic fields. From this can we speculate that if the Sun is at that part of its orbit which takes it slightly above the galactic plane then the external orientation of the heliotube will change? This will then alter the present internal axial Sun/heliotube angle with a change in the direction of arriving current. If the Sun finds itself in an environment with less interstellar dust the relationship may be of secondary importance as the appearance of the Sun will change.

As an example, if the solar cycle is a product of the orientation of the long axis of the heliotube and the rotational axis of the Sun then if that angle were reduced from the present angle then external current preferentially arrives for a longer period at the Sun’s poles then we have extended solar minimum type conditions.
Solar wrote:“If we are looking at scaleable plasma phenomena it appears that such bi-polar ‘tube’ or 'arm' structures are very stable.”[/i]

Perhaps ‘stability’ is the wrong word? The morphology of such structures appears scalable and fundamental, for example if we look at what is proposed on this thread and take the following elements: the Sun, the heliotube and the heliospheric current sheet and compare these with the Milky Way galaxy: central plasmoid, Fermi bubbles and spiral arms- we see a similar fundamental(?) arrangement- now, I hope I’m not confusing matters further- I’m not claiming the elements I’ve selected are the same in both cases, rather we see similar ‘stable’(?) scalable patterns.

Anymore bandages? Just let me know.
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 3 guests