Solar Wind - Positive Charge

[jfmorales]

If I understand correctly, a requirement of both electric sun and electric comet theory is that the solar wind is positively charged. It seems like this ought to be easily measurable, so I Googled and got this reference on a skeptical website: http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/mc ... rwind.html. He says "There are many experiments in space which directly measure the solar wind, and have found it to be ionized, but electrically neutral. In other words, the same number of positive and negative particles are emitted (see, for example, here, or here)." If you click his references, they go to other pages that also claim the solar wind is a plasma with overall neutral charge, but they don't really provide the specific information on how or when this was measured. Has anyone found more authoritative information on this subject: how or when was the charge of the solar wind measured, and where are the details reported? Thanks for any leads!

[Zyxzevn]

There are many problems with the mainstream solar model, and with the mainstream comet models.
A comet shows clear indications of electrochemistry.
And the sun shows clear indications of electrical fields.
But somehow these are forbidden in mainstream astronomy.

There many electric universe based models, some are very old, even from before 1900.
And this makes it easy to pick a strawman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
As I understand it, the solar wind has both positive and negative components, fluctuating in density.
The charges separate due to the magnetic field of the sun and earth.


The solar magnetic field is a brake for plasma, so it can not penetrate it so much.
Unless it leaves at the poles, where the magnetic field is in line with the flow.
This is why the speed at the solar poles is higher.

Oversimplified, my electrical model is that the solar wind is more positively charged in the planetary plane,
and more negatively in the poles. This keeps the system as a whole mostly neutral.
So when a comet moves vertical of the planetary plane, it will move through different charged layers.
This causes eletro-chemical reactions, causing one or more tails depending on the material.

Magnetic fields are also responsible for the difference. A magnetic field stops the solar
wind and channels it towards the poles. This causes the auroras.
So in this model, a comet-tail also gets an aurora. It has no magnetic field protecting it.
This causes a glow. And maybe a tail.

For something like a comet to glow brightly it needs to radiate light.
And to do that it needs charged matter, like free electrons or protons.
Without that it just reflects the sun, and can be mostly invisible.
We would not see it, as we do not see the meteors between Mars and Jupiter.

In the standard comet model, there is no relation with the solar wind.
Some may be step away from that due to evidence, but many still claim that the
snowball theory is correct.

[Michael Mozina]

Oversimplified, my electrical model is that the solar wind is more positively charged in the planetary plane,
and more negatively in the poles. This keeps the system as a whole mostly neutral.

FYI, this is a highly important point/issue as it relate to solar wind in *all* EU/PC solar models. The total net particle flow will appear to be pretty close to "net neutral" in all EU/PC solar models, including Alfven's homopolar generator model and Birkeland's cathode model as well as the anode solar model.

[D_Archer]

There s

If I understand correctly, a requirement of both electric sun and electric comet theory is that the solar wind is positively charged

No, this is a misunderstanding (it is not about pos/neg), the solar wind for electric sun and comet theory is (needs to be) an electrical field. An electric field is linear motion of charged particles. The solar wind is definitely made up of charged particles and needs be understood as being a plasma, because the electrons are smaller/lighter they move ahead of the protons, anything the solar wind encounters, electrons will reach a surface (comet/planet) first, they build up, any discharge event is where the ions recombine. Activity is a plasma recombination event.

Regards,
Daniel

[jfmorales]

Thanks, zyxzevn, Michael, and Daniel. It's a useful reminder that there are more than one theory of the electric sun. I had in mind the version that seems to be espoused by Wal Thornhill and Donald Scott. And I may not have understood it correctly, but a long series of videos and articles have left me with the impression that currents of positive ions are supposed to be entering our Sun at the poles and emanating outward along the plane of the ecliptic. I can't easily find all the references that left me with that impression, but there are some in the article http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblo ... comets.htm, where Michael Goodspeed states:
"In the Electric Universe model, a comet is an electrically charged body. During its long period in the outer reaches of the solar system, it acquires a strong negative charge with respect to the Sun. Then, as it approaches the inner limits of its orbit, accelerating through the electric field of the Sun, it will begin to discharge to the plasma surrounding it, producing the familiar bright coma and tail."
In the same article, Wal Thornhill is quoted as saying "The electric field near the comet nucleus is expected if a comet is a highly negatively charged body, relative to the solar wind."
It would be nice to pin down whether Thornhill and/or Scott believe that the solar wind is positively charged, at least along the plane of the ecliptic, and if so, what they make of sources that claim that the solar wind has been measured as being electrically balanced.

[D_Archer]

Thanks, zyxzevn, Michael, and Daniel. It's a useful reminder that there are more than one theory of the electric sun. I had in mind the version that seems to be espoused by Wal Thornhill and Donald Scott. And I may not have understood it correctly, but a long series of videos and articles have left me with the impression that currents of positive ions are supposed to be entering our Sun at the poles and emanating outward along the plane of the ecliptic. I can't easily find all the references that left me with that impression, but there are some in the article http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblo ... comets.htm, where Michael Goodspeed states:
"In the Electric Universe model, a comet is an electrically charged body. During its long period in the outer reaches of the solar system, it acquires a strong negative charge with respect to the Sun. Then, as it approaches the inner limits of its orbit, accelerating through the electric field of the Sun, it will begin to discharge to the plasma surrounding it, producing the familiar bright coma and tail."
In the same article, Wal Thornhill is quoted as saying "The electric field near the comet nucleus is expected if a comet is a highly negatively charged body, relative to the solar wind."
It would be nice to pin down whether Thornhill and/or Scott believe that the solar wind is positively charged, at least along the plane of the ecliptic, and if so, what they make of sources that claim that the solar wind has been measured as being electrically balanced.

I think pos/neg is used just to simplify things for people to understand, it is not a model and it does not describe the actual mechanics involved.

I think EU can do a lot to explain this better. For your understanding i think it might be better to say that from the sun out (closer to the sun), space is highly charged because it contains a lot of ions/electrons, the ion/electron density is high, thus charge is high. Further out where asteroids come from the charge density is lower, when an asteroid gets closer to the Sun the charge density increases from its former surroundings and activity ensues (because the charge poor asteroid can absorb more charge materially because it was so charge poor). See you do not need positive/negative to describe this, pos/neg is used in electrical engineering to know how to connect wires/batteries etc, it does not say anything physically (or it does not say anything about the actual physical mechanics involved). I think it is better to speak of high and low charge.

We can also say what charge physically is, probably photons, as indicated also be experiments with water from Gerrald Pollack, where the EZ layers because of light, water absorb light (=photons) and thus charge(=photons).

Regards,
Daniel

[Cargo]

There is no such thing as a Wind.

[D_Archer]

There is no such thing as a Wind.

Def: a current of air blowing from a particular direction.

Solar "wind" is a current of plasma.

Regards,
Daniel

[Cargo]

Plasma is a state of matter, it is not a thing that blows. All things in space are in the plasma state. Not gas like 'air'.
A current of air is nothing like a current of electricity.

While it may help some minds to imagine this electric current in the plasma state to be a like wind, it completely destroys the physical reality of the situation. imho.

[seasmith]

Cargo » Fri Mar 30, 2018 9:31 am

Plasma is a state of matter, it is not a thing that blows. All things in space are in the plasma state. Not gas like 'air'.
A current of air is nothing like a current of electricity.

Are you referring to electric filamentary current, sheet current, line current, electrolytic current, radiant current, seepage current, displacement current or what ?

Or are you saying there is no electricity in the air ?
Ever hear of electric weather ??

Your real name isn't Higgsy, is it ?

[Cargo]

How dare you suggest such a thing? I am horrified by the mention of that name.

As far as your 'current' question, that would be D All the Above.

And the topic is 'wind' in 'space', not wind on our planet.

[seasmith]

And the topic is 'wind' in 'space', not wind on our planet.

As above, so below my friend.
EU phenomena scales across the five phases of matter, or the theory being proposed is found wanting.
∞

[Cargo]

Thank you, and I do not doubt it(EU) to the very Core of the Planet as well. But there is a domain for language, and terms like 'solar wind' are so outdated and outlandish that they need not be used anymore. With understanding the state or context of the matter in question, there is no reason to think that the in/out of the solar plasma enabled currents can be thought of as a simple wind/push and such.

I think it's already been shown through decades of simple photography that comet tails are not blown by the wind.

[Cargo]

Here's a hilarious pop science view of the wind.

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/ ... space-wind

It's no wonder that science has been retarded for almost 100 years now with articles like this.

[jacmac]

seasmith,
Do you mean four phases of matter, or have I missed one ?
Jack