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 Michael Mozina » Thu Jun 02, 2016 11:40 am

upriver wrote:I believe that everything that we see is flowing away from the sun. Including the polar plumes...
The only thing flowing towards the sun are the impulsive inflow. But I dont think that supply steady enough current...


Space weather... Learn how to use this.
http://iswa.ccmc.gsfc.nasa.gov/iswa/iSWA.html

This also..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2434rAbImf0


http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/sdo/2 ... 700-hq.mp4

Keep in mind that the coronal loops come up and through the surface of the photophere, travel far out into the corona, and flow back into photosphere, leaving their telltale N/S magnetic field alignments on that surface. Current in flowing in all kinds of directions in and around the sun.

I'd say "most' of what we see is flowing away from the sun at say the distance of say Mercury, but in terms of the solar atmosphere, it's pretty much current flow chaos. :)
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Wed Jun 08, 2016 10:22 am

Are Solar Active Longitudes Birkeland Current 'Footprints'?

The video of the changing Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) is very interesting. I am currently working my way through ‘The Heliosphere through the Solar Activity Cycle’ by Balogh, Lanzerotti and Suess, which in the words of the editors provides ‘a more integrated approach to the important questions concerning solar activity and the state of the heliosphere’. With a focus on the data returned by the Ulysses mission, the following comments have, so far, caught my attention:

‘The presence of a north-south asymmetry in the heliosphere at solar minimum was discussed in Section 4.5. The asymmetry involves a displacement of the magnetic equator/the cosmic ray equator/the HCS southward by about 10 degrees. The Ulysses and in-ecliptic observations by the WIND spacecraft provide convincing evidence of such an “offset”, which was inferred prior to Ulysses from studies of how the sector structure varied annually as earth travelled between +/-7.25 degrees in latitude over the solar cycle…

‘…the HCS rotates from being nearly equatorial to being nearly aligned with the Sun’s rotation axis…A special effort was made to follow the apparent rotation of the solar dipole and the reversal in the dipole polarity or the sign of the polar cap fields. The Ulysses orbit did not prove optimum for such observations and the south polar cap still had not reversed by the time Ulysses reached the north polar cap. Nevertheless, the Ulysses observations were consistent with the timing of the polar cap reversals based on the disappearance and reappearance of polar crown prominences. Although the reversals seem simply to result from a rotating dipole as seen in the heliosphere…

‘The largest variation of the HMF (Heliospheric Magnetic Field) properties is the change in current sheet inclination. From one minimum to the next, the HCS effectively rotates through 180 degrees. At minimum, the HCS has its lowest inclination and gradually rotates to higher latitudes during the ascending phase until it is essentially aligned with the Sun’s rotation axis at maximum…

‘An important Ulysses goal was to establish how the HMF responds to the changing solar magnetic field over the cycle. It has already been noted that there has been little change in the average strength of the HMF in cycle 22. But, the solar magnetic field reverses over each sunspot cycle and this process must somehow be reflected in the HMF. It had long been known that the HMF was that of an equatorial dipole magnetic field at the Sun at sunspot minimum and that of a tilted dipole during the declining phases of the solar cycle…What about the time around sunspot maximum, when the photospheric field seemed to be dominated by a relatively chaotic distribution of sunspot groups? When Ulysses magnetometer data was extrapolated back to the Sun, it was found to derive from a dipole field with its axis lying in the equator and corotating with the Sun. This implies that the solar magnetic field reverses more by rotation in latitude rather than by the dipole strength going through zero…The significance is that the solar dipole undergoes reversal by a process different, or more complex, than that suggested in the traditional Babcock-Leighton picture of the 22-year Hale cycle.’


(The prior assumption that magnetic field reversal occurred by the dipole strength going through zero proved to be incorrect, this should be a lesson for the Earth sciences which assume that the Earth’s magnetic field has undergone reversals in the past. Such reversals are assumed to be initiated by a weakening dipole this premise should be questioned).

I find it almost impossible to believe that given the scale involved that such a structure and cycle can be generated by an internal ‘dynamo’. Both the asymmetry and mode of HMF reversal displayed by the HCS suggest a cause external to the Sun; almost as if the Sun is acting as a focal point for incoming current which does not precisely align with either the solar poles or equator but can be “offset”. Does such a current leave ‘footprints’ on the solar surface?

From Usoskin et al (2007) we read: ‘The subject of solar active longitudes has a long history. Carrington (1863) had already noticed that sunspots were not distributed randomly over solar longitudes but were concentrated in certain longitudinal zones of enhanced solar activity. Such zones are particularly evident during the declining phase of the solar cycle.

‘When found in different indices they were given different names, for example: ‘active longitudes’ (Vitinskij,1969), ‘activity sources’ (Bumba and Howard,1969), ‘Bartels active longitudes’ (Bumba and Obridko,1969), ‘streets of activity’ (Stanek, 1972), ‘sunspot nests’(Castenmiller et al., 1986), ‘hot spots’ (Bai, 1990), ‘helicity nests’ (Pevtsov and Canfield, 1999), or ‘complexes of activity’ (Benevolenskaya et al., 1999).

‘Long-lived active zones were found at different Carrington longitudes in the Northern and Southern hemispheres, and often rotated with a period different from that of the Carrington system (e.g., Vitinskij et al., 1986). Here we call these structures ‘active longitudes’ which better reflects the non-uniform longitudinal distribution of solar activity.

‘Active longitudes on the Sun leave their imprint on all the outer layers penetrated by magnetic fields, including the photosphere, chromosphere, corona and heliospheric magnetic field (HMF).They have been found in the distribution of sunspots (e.g., Vitinskij,1969; Bumba and Howard, 1969; Balthasar and Schussler,1983; Balthasar and Schussler, 1984; Berdyugina and Usoskin, 2003; Juckett, 2006), surface magnetic fields (e.g., Benevolenskaya et al., 1999; Bumba et al., 2000) and the HMF (e.g., Ruzmaikin et al., 2001; Takaloand Murusla, 2002; Mursula and Hiltula, 2004). They influence the distribution of chromospheric faculae (Mikhailutsa and Makarova, 1994) and major flares (Jetsu et al., 1997; Bai, 2003; Zhang et al., 2007).More recently they have been found to modulate coronal emission (Benevolenskaya et al., 2002; Badalyan et al.,2004; Sattarov et al., 2005), total solar irradiance (Benevolenskaya, 2002; Mordvinov and Willson, 2003), and surface helicity (Bao and Zhang, 1998; Pevtsovand Canfield, 1999; Kuzanyan et al., 2000).The active longitudes are undoubtedly related to the generation of the solar global magnetic field.’

From the above we can see that solar active longitudes influence a wide range of solar phenomena, remember that we are talking about longitudinal regions and not latitudinal ones. Ordinarily, we would expect to find that these regions rotated with the Sun but what did the researchers find?

Form Usoskin et al (2005) we read: ‘The question whether sunspots appear randomly in longitudes has been a long-standing issue since the early 20th century. Although the existence of preferred longitudes of sunspot formation (active longitudes) has been suggested long ago, the question of their persistency was still a subject of ongoing debates (e.g., Chidambara1932; Lopez Arroyo 1961; Balthasar & Schussler 1983; Vitinsky et al. 1986; Mordvinov & Kitchatinov 2004).

‘A novel analysis of sunspot group data for the past 120 years revealed the existence of two persistent active longitudes separated by 180 degrees (Berdyugina & Usoskin 2003, BU03 henceforth). In BU03 we have shown, using different filtering techniques, that the active longitudes are persistent on a century time scale. An important conclusion of our previous work is that the active longitudes are not fixed in any reference frame (e.g., in the Carrington system), but continuously migrate in longitude with a variable rate.’


It appears, from data gathered over the past 120 years, that there exist two solar longitudinal regions separated by approximately 180 degrees from which solar activity arises. Furthermore, these regions migrate independently of any underlying solar rotation effects. The regions also showed a tendency to ‘flip-flop’ over the course of the solar cycle i.e. one region tended to be more active than the opposite region at any one time.

With the consensus thermonuclear model in mind the researchers concluded that their findings placed ‘an important constraint on the dynamo theory’, it would seem that the simple hidden solar dynamo, which is theorised to exist some 200,000 km beneath the visible solar surface, is capable of generating incredibly complex behaviour!

Surely, a simpler interpretation is to assume solar active longitudes are the ‘footprints’ of Birkeland Currents?

References:

Usoskin. I.G. et al. 2005. Preferred sunspot longitudes: Non-axisymmetry and differential rotation. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 441
http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2005/37/aa3201-05/aa3201-05.html

Usoskin. I.G. et al. 2007. Long-term persistence of solar active longitudes and its implications for the solar dynamo theory. Advances in Space Research, 40
http://www3.kis.uni-freiburg.de/~sveta/papers/solalon_ASR.pdf
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby celeste » Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:39 am

Robertus Maximus wrote:

Surely, a simpler interpretation is to assume solar active longitudes are the ‘footprints’ of Birkeland Currents?



Specifically, a twisted pair of Birkeland currents, 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 Robertus Maximus » Sat Jun 11, 2016 10:35 am

celeste wrote:
Specifically, a twisted pair of Birkeland currents, correct?

Correct. Furthermore, solar helicity patterns display a rotational – counter-rotational structure, although the authors of this paper are wedded to the idea of near-surface flows and deep convection currents (See: http://www4.nso.edu/staff/apevtsov/personal/publications/papers/cospar_aap_ksb.pdf) they noted that: ‘The vorticity of “main” cells generally follow the solar hemisphere. The “secondary” cells (associated with the main cells) have opposite vorticity.’

This would seem to be in general agreement with Don Scott’s filament model.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby jacmac » Sat Jun 11, 2016 6:39 pm

R. M. said:
With the consensus thermonuclear model in mind the researchers concluded that their findings placed ‘an important constraint on the dynamo theory’, it would seem that the simple hidden solar dynamo, which is theorised to exist some 200,000 km beneath the visible solar surface, is capable of generating incredibly complex behaviour!

Correctamundo !

I assume the 200,000 km deep dynamo model is derived from the Tachocline which is where the solid body rotation is said to be.

As I have suggested above, there is an actual SOLID BODY interior of the sun with The "Tachocline" depth indicating it's size.

With a solid body interior there could be a dynamo effect; but one much smaller than the standard solar model dynamo.

A rotating solid body interior could explain the constant diameter of the photosphere, as the size of the body and it's rotation rate are, no doubt, fixed. With all that goes on from the photosphere on, out away from the sun, there must be something that maintains a very steady quiet sun both in diameter and the basic solar irradiation.

That is what it looks like from here.
Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:34 am

jacmac wrote:R. M. said:
With the consensus thermonuclear model in mind the researchers concluded that their findings placed ‘an important constraint on the dynamo theory’, it would seem that the simple hidden solar dynamo, which is theorised to exist some 200,000 km beneath the visible solar surface, is capable of generating incredibly complex behaviour!

Correctamundo !

I assume the 200,000 km deep dynamo model is derived from the Tachocline which is where the solid body rotation is said to be.

As I have suggested above, there is an actual SOLID BODY interior of the sun with The "Tachocline" depth indicating it's size.

With a solid body interior there could be a dynamo effect; but one much smaller than the standard solar model dynamo.

A rotating solid body interior could explain the constant diameter of the photosphere, as the size of the body and it's rotation rate are, no doubt, fixed. With all that goes on from the photosphere on, out away from the sun, there must be something that maintains a very steady quiet sun both in diameter and the basic solar irradiation.

That is what it looks like from here.
Jack

As I have stated before the Electric Sun hypothesis considers the body of the Sun not to be entirely gaseous, indeed most of the Sun may well be solid. Now, as I understand it in the mainstream fusion model the 200,000km figure is the hypothesised depth at which the radiative zone gives way to the convection zone- it is in this layer that the dynamo effect is assumed to arise.

The point I am trying to convey is that if the properties of the heliosphere arise with this hidden dynamo it is a truly remarkable one! However, if the properties of the heliosphere arise externally can we consider that to be less remarkable?

Given the size of the Sun and its preeminent position at the centre of the solar system we would surely expect any internal dynamo to be unaffected by any external influence; but this is what we do not find!

‘The state of the heliosphere at solar maximum involves profound changes. The simple dipole-like structure is replaced by a more complex structure that is also time-dependent. The solar magnetic dipole gradually weakens and disappears then reappears with the opposite magnetic polarity. This event designates the solar cycle as lasting 22 years, the so-called Hale cycle. The solar field is dominated by smaller scale but much stronger magnetic fields distributed over much of the Sun. Curiously, spacecraft observations far from the Sun show the continuous presence of a magnetic dipole that appears to rotate from one hemisphere to the other that dominates many aspects of the HMF. That means that the HCS is continuously present and changes inclination along with the dipole.’

From this description we find that not only is the magnetic axis not aligned with the rotation axis but the entire magnetic field rotates from heliographic pole to heliographic pole, completing a full cycle over approximately 22 years, remarkably the solar magnetic poles return to approximately the same longitudes after each reversal! How does a chaotic magnetic field structure close to the Sun generate a highly inclined dipole structure farther from the Sun? My answer, it doesn’t- it is the inclination of the rotating current sheet which results in disorderly magnetic fields at the solar surface at solar maximum.

Furthermore, the magnetic neutral line is displaced some 10 degrees south of the heliographic equator!

If we take a closer look at the Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) does it look like a structure that originates at the Sun or one that merely focuses on the Sun?

The HCS is embedded in or adjacent to a region of enhanced proton density- the Heliospheric Plasma Sheet (HPS) otherwise known as the Slow Solar Wind (SSW). Measurements at solar minimum from the ACE and Ulysses spacecraft have revealed that the HCS is remarkably thin and shows little change over 5AU - median thickness are 1,705 1,638 and 1,452km at 1, 3 and 5AU. One study found the HCS to have a thickness of 9,100km at 1AU but this was carried out at solar maximum- (I have suggested that incoming current becomes more filamentary as it rotates away from the heliographic equatorial regions). The median thicknesses of the HPS at 1, 3 and 5AU were found to be 3x106, 2.1x106 and 1.4x106 km.

Using data from the WIND spacecraft researchers have concluded that: ‘The HCS is embedded in a distribution of CSs (Current Sheets) formed by folded flux tubes and IMF directional discontinuities. There must be a single CS (Current Sheet) girding the entire Sun (the conventional HCS) but also a spectrum of smaller-sized local CSs. The further consideration of helicity in magnetic flux ropes adds the complexity of current volumes in those flux ropes as additional parts of the CS system [Crooker, 1999].’

So, a single current sheet formed of folded ‘flux tubes’ from which the broader HCS emerges surrounds the Sun; during the solar cycle this entire structure of ‘flux tubes’ rotates from low to high heliographic latitudes then back again reversing the global HMF in the process (quite impressive for a hidden dynamo).

The ACE spacecraft has collected data on some 65,860 ‘flux tubes’ with some interesting findings, for example:
‘At 1 AU the tubes sizes are larger in slow wind than they are in fast wind.’

‘At 1 AU, the largest tubes are found in anomalously cool solar wind plasma. This is interpreted as fewer flux tubes occurring in ejecta.’

‘The tubes are tilted strongly with respect to each other. This suggests a braiding.’

‘The tubes are on-average aligned with the Parker spiral direction, with a large spread in orientations.’

‘When mapped from 1 AU to the rotating solar surface, the diameters of the flux tubes correspond to granule and supergranule scales.’

‘Magnetic field line are confined to the insides of the individual flux tubes and the tangled network of flux tubes forms a “magnetic ductwork” for the transport of <100 Mev particles.’

‘…the flux-tube walls are plasma boundaries separating plasmas with different composition, these discontinuities were almost certainly born with the plasma in the chromosphere/ corona.’

The ACE measurements were made between 1998 and 2004 during the ascending maximum and descending phase of solar cycle 23 the ‘flux tube’ walls were found to be ‘plasma boundaries’ i.e. double layers separating the ‘flux tubes’ from the heliospheric plasma (FSW). The largest ‘flux tubes’ were found in the SSW, where we find sunspot activity at solar maximum.

At solar minimum it would appear that the HCS is not strictly a ‘sheet’ as the SSW tends to be focussed in two regions at the solar surface separated by approximately 180 degrees as can be seen in Plate 4(a) of this paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98JA00798/pdf

It may be that the HPS has a structure similar to a spiral galaxy with the ‘flux tubes’ found mainly in the ‘arms’ and the HCS in the disk.

Earth’s leaking atmosphere as a solar wind analogy

From this article we find a Sun Earth analogy: http://phys.org/print387182978.html

‘…at Earth's poles the field lines are open, like those of a standard bar magnet (these locations are named the polar cusps). Here, solar wind particles can head inwards towards Earth, filling up the magnetosphere with energetic particles.

‘Just as particles can head inwards down these open polar lines, particles can also head outwards. Ions from Earth's upper atmosphere – the ionosphere, which extends to roughly 1000 km above the Earth – also flood out to fill up this region of space. Although missions such as Cluster have discovered much, the processes involved remain unclear.’

We have ‘hot electrons’ arriving at the poles and ‘cold ions’ depart, an earth wind rather than a solar wind if you prefer.

Can we speculate that both the Earth and Sun are ‘losing mass’ from their upper atmospheres as a result of similar electrical circuits?

In the case of the Earth the circuit is ‘fixed’ powering a dark mode discharge while with the Sun as I have suggested the circuit ‘rotates’ and powers an arc mode discharge.
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby celeste » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:59 pm

Robertus Maximus, Listening intently. More please.
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 » Tue Jul 12, 2016 9:02 pm

Robertus:
The ACE spacecraft has collected data on some 65,860 ‘flux tubes’

‘The tubes are tilted strongly with respect to each other. This suggests a braiding.’

This seems like a possible/probable origin of Medusa's HAIR. Perhaps these flux tubes were at some time visible at a solar eclipse, or under certain setting or rising sun conditions ?
If we take a closer look at the Heliospheric Current Sheet (HCS) does it look like a structure that originates at the Sun or one that merely focuses on the Sun?

I also go for the focus.
There must be a single CS (Current Sheet) girding the entire Sun (the conventional HCS) but also a spectrum of smaller-sized local CSs.

Wiki:
The shape of the current sheet results from the influence of the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium (Solar Wind).

So, the magnetic fields( north and south halves) create the HCS.
Where does the solar wind come from ?
I think it is the return or the feedback portion of an external powered solar SYSTEM.

Robertus again:
At solar minimum it would appear that the HCS is not strictly a ‘sheet’ as the SSW tends to be focussed in two regions at the solar surface separated by approximately 180 degrees

From the above we can see that solar active longitudes influence a wide range of solar phenomena, remember that we are talking about longitudinal regions

Are these "active solar longitudes" what is going on with the "earth facing quiet" that Ben Davidson talks about on his web sites. Has anyone seen mention in any papers on this of the planet positions relative to the positions of the active solar longitudes ?
Can we speculate that both the Earth and Sun are ‘losing mass’ from their upper atmospheres as a result of similar electrical circuits?

Yes, as in feedback loop. These particles are the ones that are not "TRAPPED" in the photosphere according to Dr. Scott. Page 91 THE ELECTRIC SKY
In the case of the Earth the circuit is ‘fixed’ powering a dark mode discharge while with the Sun as I have suggested the circuit ‘rotates’ and powers an arc mode discharge.

Looking at video of the photosphere it seems like the plasma is coming up, rolling over and going down again. (apologies to Bucky Fuller: the plasma comes OUT, rolls over and goes back IN)
So, I am thinking not a DISCHARGE, per se, but an arc mode failed attempt to get OUT by the plasma.

Finally, I agree with celeste,
Robertus Maximus, Listening intently. More please.

Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Sat Aug 06, 2016 6:40 am

I originally posted this thread in a response to criticism from both inside and outside of the Electric Universe community directed at the Electric Sun hypothesis and had hoped to show that the concept as proposed by Ralph Juergens in 1972 has not been falsified by observations since that time. Minor modifications have been applied to the hypothesis which has led some to question its validity and claim there is no one all encompassing Electric Sun hypothesis- these minor modifications I sought to unify, the JMST Electric Sun model would simply become the Electric Sun model.

To my mind there is simply one Electric Sun hypothesis- that proposed by Ralph Juergens. Although Juergens was not the first to speculate on the source of the Sun’s radiant energy- Kristian Birkeland had done so some 70 years previous, nor was he the first to suggest that the Sun was highly charged (1) he did, however, realise the importance of the Sun’s environment and suggested that the photosphere was the bottom of the phenomenon we call the Sun (2).

Like Juergens, I feel that it is the Sun’s environment –not a hidden dynamo, that determines the characteristics of not only the photosphere but the entire heliosphere and this is critical in understanding the Electric Sun hypothesis.

To summarise:
The Sun is highly negatively charged but the LISM (Local Interstellar Medium) carries an even greater negative charge, as a result and relative to its environment the Sun acts as an anode. The electrical pressure/ tension/ voltage is such that the Sun is compelled to accept electrons from the LISM and ultimately- the galaxy. As the Sun collects further negative charge it returns an electron-deficient current to the LISM- the FSW (Fast Solar Wind).

Recently, in the scientific media we have seen reports that Venus is losing oxygen from its atmosphere (http://phys.org/news/2016-06-strong-electric-planets-oceans-atmospheres.html) -an electric wind is sucking oxygen right out of the Venusian atmosphere into space! Of course ‘electric wind’ is just a euphemism for electric current.

Likewise, we find Earth is also losing material from its atmosphere (http://astronomynow.com/2016/07/08/the-curious-case-of-earths-leaking-atmosphere/) with most of the mass-loss occurring at the polar regions- just where we would expect to find any incoming electric current (3).

An interesting finding from the Ulysses mission was an anti-correlation that existed between solar wind speed and oxygen charge state temperature this relationship was so clear that charge states could be used to define the solar wind domains. At solar minimum (1995) Ulysses found the highest oxygen charge state temperature at the Sun’s equator in the SSW (Slow Solar Wind), at solar maximum (2000/ 01) the highest charge state temperature was found during the spacecraft’s north polar pass- when the SSW dominated the heliosphere.

Does this relationship identify an ‘electric-wind’ that is stripping the Sun’s atmosphere of oxygen? We would never see a headline like this in the scientific media as it implies an external electrical circuit. Conventionally, this current is viewed as a ‘mass-loss’ from the Sun, as mentioned previously this ‘mass loss’ is negligible and just like at Earth we find it occurs at regions I consider are the foci of incoming electric current.

In driving electrons toward the Sun the tenuous LISM is ‘trying’ to force the charge density of the Sun to match that of its own, given the sheer size of the Sun this is almost a Sisyphean task and the solar discharge continues unabated.

The authors of this paper (4) note that the sector structure of the HMF is consistent up to and slightly beyond the Termination Shock, if we assume the HMF is the proper magnetic field of the incoming current then this observation is a strong indication that current is indeed arriving from beyond the heliosphere.

I have suggested that current from the LISM arrives in a narrow band appearing to rotate around the circumference of the heliosphere over a period of approximately 22 years on average, figures 3a and 3b from this paper (5) document this rotation and its effect on the solar magnetic field.

Data from the SWOOPS instrument on the Ulysses spacecraft suggested that at solar minimum the heliosphere was pinched-in at low latitudes and took on an hourglass shape (6). Therefore, it would appear that incoming electrons are confined in a ‘sheet’ the HCS (Heliospheric Current Sheet) and HPS (Heliospheric Plasma Sheet) that can ‘compress’ the heliosphere into an hourglass shape; even so this sheet is not strictly a sheet as it has been known to fragment into cylinders (7) and is formed of countless ‘flux-ropes’ displaying a ‘spaghetti microstructure’ (8, 9) it is here that we find the SSW.

The SSW (FSW) is characterised by its velocity of approximately 400 km/s (750 km/s), temperature of 1,600,000K (800,000K) and its coronal (photospheric) composition (10). In both the FSW and SSW ‘mass density and momentum flux’ are carried by the electron-deficient current away from the Sun, whilst electrons ‘carry approximately half of the thermal energy of the plasma’. So, electrons carry thermal (random motion) energy- where do we find the highest solar wind temperature? Counter intuitively it is in the SSW. From this paper (11) we read: ‘Figure 1a shows a noticeable bifurcation of Te (electron temperature) into hot and cold branches at distances around r ≈ 3–4 AU. This appears to be a solar cycle effect, since the lower values are more dominant during 1996 (solar minimum) and the higher values are more favoured during the two solar maximum periods (1991 and 2000) and, to a lesser extent, the post-maximum phase (1994). The higher Te data points at 3–4 AU also exhibited slightly higher electron densities ne than the cooler data points. Thus, the lower values seem more appropriate to be applied to studies of the ambient fast solar wind associated with polar coronal holes at solar minimum.’

Keep in mind that this paper looks at the ‘cool’ FSW, why would we see hot electrons in the ‘cool’ FSW?

We find hot electrons in the FSW during solar maximum precisely at the time that the FSW effectively disappears, when the HCS/ HPS is highly inclined and the SSW dominates the heliosphere. This implies that the SSW is slow and hot because of collisions between an inwardly directed electron current and an outwardly directed electron deficient current, absent an inward electron current and all we find is the FSW.

The Corona, SSW, HCS/ HPS form a continuum that links the Sun to the LISM and galactic power supply.

As I have mentioned before mainstream science views many of the features of the Sun and heliosphere to arise via the action of a hidden dynamo, consider this from the authors of ‘The Solar Activity Cycle: Causes and Consequences’: ‘It is generally agreed that the timing engine in the Sun causes a nearly periodic generation and evolution of magnetic fields in the solar interior and on the solar surface, more explicitly, that a dynamo mechanism generates the Sun’s magnetic field.’

Amid all this certainty we then learn that: ‘The nature of the solar dynamo remains difficult to determine.’

The nature of the dynamo is difficult to determine because it does not exist.

Although I have focussed mainly on the cyclical nature of the incoming current I believe an external source of solar energy rather than an internal one can explain some puzzling features associated with the Sun.

Despite its appearance the Sun is actually asymmetrical and its behaviour asynchronous. Northern and southern hemispheres differ, for example, in radiance, solar wind speed, cosmic ray modulation, we find that sunspots form at high to mid-latitudes then migrate towards the equator whilst prominences and filaments form at the equator and migrate towards the poles, different regions of magnetic polarity form at different times in different hemispheres, active regions arise at specific longitudes 180 degrees apart and at solar minimum the HCS/ HPS can be off-set into one solar hemisphere (the so-called ‘Bashful Ballerina’ phenomenon). Analysis of the solar cycle suggests periods of ‘grand minima and maxima’ but unlike the solar cycle these periods are ‘not driven by cyclical variability, but by a stochastic or chaotic process’ (12).

Although, the Sun being a charged rotating body would generate an intrinsic magnetic field, I believe that the type of phenomena - listed above- are best explained by the Sun being a focus for an external helical current, the focal point of which, on the solar surface, is not precisely fixed either spatially or temporally. Any intrinsic magnetic field, whilst it may contribute to some secondary phenomena (13), is simply overwhelmed by the HMF and given the orientation of the Sun’s rotational axis relative to the galactic equator hemispheric differences would be expected.

The upcoming Solar Orbiter and Solar Probe Plus missions will undoubtedly reveal many new details about the Sun, however, recent findings closer to Earth have revealed how charged bodies are electrically connected to their environment, will these probes reveal just how the Sun is connected to its environment? I suspect they will only confirm it.

References:

(1) Bailey. V.A, ‘Existence of Net Electric Charge on Stars’, Nature, vol. 186, May 14 1960 (Bailey concluded that the Sun carries a net negative charge in the order of 1019 volts).
(2) Juergens. R. E, ‘The Photosphere is it the Top or the Bottom of the Phenomenon we call the Sun?’, Kronos, Vol. 4 No. 4, Summer 1979.
(3) At the reported rate of mass-loss Earth’s atmosphere would take over 150 billion years to completely deplete. (4) Mursula. K. et al, ‘The wide skirt of the bashful ballerina: Hemispheric asymmetry of the heliospheric magnetic field in the inner and outer heliosphere’, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 117 No A08104, August 2012.
(5) Sanderson. T.R et al, ‘Observations of the Sun’s magnetic field during the recent solar maximum’, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 108 No A1, January 2003.
(6) McComas. D. J. et al, ‘The three-dimensional solar wind around solar maximum’, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, No 10, 1517
(7) Wang. Y.M et al, ‘Evidence for Two Separate Heliospheric Current Sheets of Cylindrical Shape during mid-2012’, The Astrophysical Journal, 780: 103, January 2014.
(8) Kahler. S. W. et al, ‘Probing the magnetic polarity structure of the heliospheric current sheet’, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 108 No A8, August 2003.
(9) Borovsky. J.E, ‘Flux tube texture of the solar wind: Strands of the magnetic carpet at 1 AU?’, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 113 A08110, 2008.
(10) Feldman. U. et al, ‘On the sources of fast and slow solar wind’, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 110 A07109, July 2005.
(11) Cranmer. S.R. et al, ‘Empirical Constraints on Proton and Electron Heating in the Fast Solar Wind’, The Astrophysical Journal, 702: 2, August 2009.
(12) Virtanen. I, ‘Asymmetry of the Heliospheric Magnetic Field’, Department of Physics, University of Oulu, Finland, Report No. 84, 2013.
(13) Here, for example, is it possible that an intrinsic magnetic field may account for the phenomenon whereby opposite sunspot polarities lead in opposite solar hemispheres- thus affecting incoming current at the level of the photosphere?
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby jacmac » Sat Aug 06, 2016 11:32 am

Robertus Maximus, from your first post:
Findings from the Voyager 1 spacecraft indicate that the plasma outside the heliosphere is 40 times denser than the plasma inside the heliosphere.

I have been thinking of the sun as the focus, as you have said, of the electrical energy in its local environment(heliosphere). That is, it collects and concentrates all the available charged and neutral particles in its sphere of influence by its nature as a massive turning object within an electric environment. No doubt both the massive turning object and the condensed electric environment (corona, chromosphere, photosphere, etc.) are necessary to keep the sun sustaining itself.

How it all started, who knows ?

The local Interstellar Medium (LISM) is the sea of plasma within which our sun happens, and the source of its energy. Your explanations are compelling and I would hope something I say here might be complimentary in some way.

The chromosphere is the boundary(double layer) between plasmas with different characteristics, and within which we find the lowest temperatures.
The photosphere could be called the TRAPPED plasma and the corona the FREE plasma.(from Dr. Scotts book talking about the trapped electrons in the photosphere).

In many of these layers, or areas, we speak of which might be described as positive or negative, or anode and cathode, there probably are mixtures of both with a NET maximum of one or the other.

The photosphere looks like a mostly positive zone that is trying to get rid of the trapped electrons within its borders but without much success. The electrons are rounded up and pushed out but are turned back by a strong negative zone at the base of the corona (or in the chromosphere itself ?). This is what the quiet sun granules look like IMO. The plasma seems to rise, level off and turn back. This is why the photosphere, to me, is not a DISCHARGE per se, but more of a constant cycling of trapped electrons. I am not sure how this fits with the term Anode Tuft ?

But I digress, I wish to ask Robertus Maximus:
Do you have any ideas about what roll the planets might play in the solar cycle ? The orbits of Jupiter and Saturn are very compelling. Also, I do not think the planets alternating between the two halves of the solar magnetic field, as the heliospheric current sheet passes by, is given enough attention.

Your posts are very informative. Thanks
Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby Robertus Maximus » Mon Aug 08, 2016 12:55 pm

jacmac wrote:But I digress, I wish to ask Robertus Maximus:
Do you have any ideas about what roll the planets might play in the solar cycle ? The orbits of Jupiter and Saturn are very compelling. Also, I do not think the planets alternating between the two halves of the solar magnetic field, as the heliospheric current sheet passes by, is given enough attention.

Jack, many thanks for your comments.

If the solar cycle is due to the geometry of a sunward rotating current from the LISM, then I’m afraid that neither Jupiter nor Saturn play primary roles in the cycle.

From what I understand the origin of the Jupiter connection to the solar cycle dates to 1969 and a paper by Lanzerotti and Shultz. Based on studies of Jovian decametric radio emissions the authors suggested that the heliosphere boundary varied with the solar cycle, being beyond Jupiter’s orbit at solar maximum and closer to the orbit at solar minimum. This implied the edge of the heliosphere was near 5 AU!

This was not unusual for the time (1969) between 1950 and 1970 the consensus was that the heliosphere boundary was somewhere between Earth’s orbit and Jupiter’s orbit. Very few studies placed the heliospheric boundary beyond 5 AU.

It was only through data returned by Pioneer 10 and 11 and Voyager 1 and 2 that it dawned on scientists that the heliosphere extended far beyond the orbit of the then outermost planet Pluto.

Plus, given the information that we now have from the Ulysses spacecraft about the behaviour of the HCS/ HPS and HMF throughout the solar cycle then, at least to my mind, I find it difficult to picture any of the planets having a primary role in the cycle.

However, Juergens did speculate on a secondary role for the planets 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.’ (my emphasis) (1)

So, the planets may play a secondary role by intercepting electrons that are ultimately bound for the Sun.

The influence of the HMF sectors on planetary magnetospheres does need more attention. Again, from the link (http://astronomynow.com/2016/07/08/the-curious-case-of-earths-leaking-atmosphere/) we learn how the different magnetic sectors are affecting Earth’s atmosphere: ‘Plumes seem to occur when the IMF is oriented southward (anti-parallel to Earth’s magnetic field, thus acting as mentioned above). Conversely, leaking outflows from the ionosphere occur during northward-oriented IMF. Both processes occur more strongly when the solar wind is either denser or travelling faster (thus exerting a higher dynamic pressure).’

It would be interesting to see if data existed from spacecraft that have orbited Venus, Jupiter and Saturn that documented any observed subtle hemispheric differences in the respective planetary atmospheres, at least in the case of ‘mass-loss’ from Mars some asymmetry does appear to occur as can be seen in this graphic and animation: http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-mission-reveals-speed-of-solar-wind-stripping-martian-atmosphere

References:
(1) Juergens. R. E, ‘On Cosmic Electricity’, Pensée Vol. 3 No 3: (Fall 1973)

-Robert
Robertus Maximus
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:16 am
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby jacmac » Mon Aug 08, 2016 3:43 pm

Robert,
Thanks for your comprehensive posts. I plan to re-read this entire thread when I find the time.
Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby celeste » Mon Aug 08, 2016 6:04 pm

Robertus Maximus wrote:
jacmac wrote:But I digress, I wish to ask Robertus Maximus:
Do you have any ideas about what roll the planets might play in the solar cycle ? The orbits of Jupiter and Saturn are very compelling. Also, I do not think the planets alternating between the two halves of the solar magnetic field, as the heliospheric current sheet passes by, is given enough attention.

Jack, many thanks for your comments.

If the solar cycle is due to the geometry of a sunward rotating current from the LISM, then I’m afraid that neither Jupiter nor Saturn play primary roles in the cycle.

From what I understand the origin of the Jupiter connection to the solar cycle dates to 1969 and a paper by Lanzerotti and Shultz.


-Robert


https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1207/1207.5436.pdf

Yes, a discovery of some years ago, but not at all disproved. As a matter of fact, the evidence mounts.

Robert, You more than most, should see what is happening here. You've made a case that it is Birkeland currents flowing to the sun, rather than just a "rain" of independent charged particles.

Now let's contrast two ideas:
1. The sun is large and massive. If it "wobbles" around the solar system barycenter in 11 to 12 years, any tiny charged particles flowing towards the sun, should take no time to adapt, and still flow radially towards the sun. No reason for a change in solar activity here.
2. There are huge scale Birkeland currents in space, which look like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... Nebula.jpg
The charged particles here, spiral around in large scale filaments, with a spiraling rate of 10,000 years, and a spiraling width of 6 to 7 ly. If one of the stars in the double helix nebula, is in fact spiraling around a smaller satellite, then does that not change that stars position within the large scale filament? Now we have reason to suspect a change in current flow, as the star gets "jostled about" in the larger scale filament.

Robert, let me summarize a bit of what we know: the sun appears to be traveling along the surface of a large scale filamentary "gas cloud",with a motion relative to that surface. The mainstream has pinned the motion of electrons (radio scintillation screens) to the flow of this cloud. (The work of P.C. Frisch is most valuable here) So the sun's motion relative to this large scale filament does matter.

Remember this mistake we made in the past: The Earth seemed so obviously massive,any little object out there, like the sun, must clearly orbit around our Earth. Well, we are doing it again. The thought is, the sun is so clearly massive, that any individual charged particles, or even a "wispy filament" of charged particles, must have it's center on the sun. Wrong.

Look again at the double helix nebula, and imagine that one of the stars there is orbiting a Jupiter like planet. Will that change the direction or rate of flow of all the current in that filament? Or will that star (as large and massive as it may be), just change its position or orientation in that large scale filament.
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 » Tue Aug 09, 2016 7:20 pm

There is one thing I would bet the ranch on when it comes to HOW THE SUN WORKS. And that is each and every Idea put forward over the last six years that I have been reading on this forum is incomplete. The sun is VERY complicated.
Each part of the solar system is interacting with all the other parts.( Including the Local Interstellar Medium LISM). I am thinking that each part has a stronger influence on aspects of the sun relative to its scale and location. Such as:

1. A solid body interior of the sun gives its electric plasmoid like behavior a place to be in space. It is an anchor.
Also, a solid body could influence the basic quiet sun to stay the same size.
2. Moving out a bit we have the sun spots which seem to be interruptions of the quiet sun and are connected to
currents that extend out to the planet areas. The orbit of Jupiter is a little longer than the average sun cycle.
and the cycle of the conjunction of Saturn with Jupiter is a little shorter than the average sun cycle. The two
largest planets are in the right place and close to the right timing.
3. On a bigger scale yet is the flipping of the solar magnetic field. So perhaps here we can look to the LISM in the
form of a large Birkeland current, a "large scale filamentary gas cloud" for its main influence.

Trying to put some structure to some random thoughts. Scale and location.
Jack
jacmac
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Alfven and Juergens Circuits, a Reconciliation? 2.0

Unread postby upriver » Wed Aug 10, 2016 6:29 pm

jacmac wrote:There is one thing I would bet the ranch on when it comes to HOW THE SUN WORKS. And that is each and every Idea put forward over the last six years that I have been reading on this forum is incomplete. The sun is VERY complicated.
Each part of the solar system is interacting with all the other parts.( Including the Local Interstellar Medium LISM). I am thinking that each part has a stronger influence on aspects of the sun relative to its scale and location. Such as:

1. A solid body interior of the sun gives its electric plasmoid like behavior a place to be in space. It is an anchor.
Also, a solid body could influence the basic quiet sun to stay the same size.
2. Moving out a bit we have the sun spots which seem to be interruptions of the quiet sun and are connected to
currents that extend out to the planet areas. The orbit of Jupiter is a little longer than the average sun cycle.
and the cycle of the conjunction of Saturn with Jupiter is a little shorter than the average sun cycle. The two
largest planets are in the right place and close to the right timing.
3. On a bigger scale yet is the flipping of the solar magnetic field. So perhaps here we can look to the LISM in the
form of a large Birkeland current, a "large scale filamentary gas cloud" for its main influence.

Trying to put some structure to some random thoughts. Scale and location.
Jack


Can you have a liquid or plasma barycenter in a system of solid objects????
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests