A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light? If you have a personal favorite theory, that is in someway related to the Electric Universe, this is where it can be posted.
User avatar
purplepete
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by purplepete » Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:41 am

Howdy, all.

Executive Summary - I have summarised what I believe is a much better model of the Universe than the standard model; if you're interested please start here and work your way from left to right:
https://thehonestscientist.com/

Longer story:

I've been searching for good models of the Universe for about 50 years. I started off by reading hundreds of books and questioning family members and teachers, who were able to answer many of my questions but often said I'd have to wait until University until I learned the answer to others. However, by the time I got to University I realised that there was something fundamentally broken at the heart of chemistry, which then led me to work out the atomic model and most of subatomic physics was also broken. It was years later when I came across the Electric Comet videos that I realised astrophysics/cosmology was broken as well, and I had to do a bit of fighting and screaming with my own brain to realise yet another set of ideas I thought were correct were also full of holes.

Now that I've spent several years clearing out the theories with holes and replacing them with theories without holes (well, perhaps with smaller holes ;-)) I think I've made it to the point where I can actually contribute something to the field, or, to be precise, highlight the work of other people in the field and how I believe that strengthens EUT, using the skills I build up in TRL and CSIRO. Although Wal and David especially have built on the work of Velikovsky, Peratt and numerous others to present an exceptionally good unified model of how the cosmos works on the large scale, I see issues with the foundations of EUT, in that it is built on top of theories of chemistry and subatomic physics that I know to be problematic. Here are some of what I believe to be the fundamental issues:

- There is no clear definition of what electricity is. Yes, moving ions/electrons will result in a flow of electricity, but that is not the electricity itself - we've known for a while that electrons don't move fast enough in wires to account for the actions of electricity, and even if they were that wouldn't explain A/C. Some conventional physicists (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHIhgxav9LY) are finally starting to admit this and head in the right direction but are still using misdirection with discussion about "fields" without explaining what these are.
- Perhaps even more fundamental than electricity, there is no explanation of what charge actually is. What makes an electron negative or a positron positive? Do unlike charges really "attract" and if so how do they do this at a distance? If like charges repel then how do a bunch of protons stay close together in a plum-pudding nucleus - what causes the magic "strong force"?
- If the plum-pudding model of the atom is correct, then what gives similar elements vastly different properties in terms of magnetism, radioactivity, melting/boiling points, etc? The Structured Atom Model (https://structuredatom.org/) presents a very good case for the atom having to have a structure to explain this, but is hamstrung by its acceptance of the conventional model of charged particles, although they're happy with allowing an electron to expand to thousands of times its size to get around some holes in the theory.

I believe that there is a model that explains all of the above, and fits in neatly under EUT, and that model is the one that Miles Mathis has come up with. I know that many of Miles's works have been discussed in the forum, but it is extremely difficult to get an overall view of his model and check whether it is consistent as it is spread across hundreds of self-published papers, spread over time and often with no clear thread holding them together. Also Miles has a lot of other, shall we say, interesting views of the world - I have no intention of commenting on any of those; only his theories as they relate to science and mathematics.

As such I have spent some years compiling what I consider to be the essential bits of his theory and how they then fit into EUT, mainly leading up from virtual nothingness to the level of molecules, with electricity thrown in. EUT sits on top of that, although Miles's model is still needed to explain a few things that EUT has trouble with at a larger scale (e.g. the sunspot cycle, planetary tilt and relative distance from the Sun).

I then use Per Bak's theories of Nature as being ultimately simple at its core with complexity arising from this as glue to hold everything together, in addition to explaining why I consider these theories to all have merit, especially in comparison with the existing model. If you go to
https://thehonestscientist.com/
you can see this, working from left-to-right. I have been as succinct as I can in the explanations - I don't want some treatise of several hundred pages that no-one is going to be able to sit through. I've had several friends go through it and taken on-board many suggestions re explanatory graphics and the occasional rewording to make things clearer, and also added a section about Consensus Science and why I believe it needs fixing, in addition to a page on most of the things broken in Quantum Mechanics after someone versed in that field challenged some of the ideas, however they are extra - the key sections are "KISS", "Per Bak", "Miles Mathis" and "Electric Universe", and then in "Universe Building" I endeavour to make it even clearer how everything fits together by showing how this combination can result in the Universe we see today based on a bunch of disparate particles to being with, time, and a few simple rules and assumptions.

There's still a lot of stuff in the middle (like Life and Consciousness) to be worked out - maybe in another 50 years I'll have made a small dent there...

I hope you will find this useful. Constructive criticism or suggestions are welcome here or via email to honestscientisttas at-sign gmail dot com.

crawler
Posts: 686
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by crawler » Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:19 pm

U should also look at the work of....
Conrad Ranzan -- (DSSU).
Reg Cahill -- (Process Physics).
Demjanov -- (twin media MMX to measure the aetherwind).
Ivor Catt -- & Forrest Bishop -- (electricity).
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

jacmac
Posts: 790
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by jacmac » Wed Dec 15, 2021 5:51 pm

You have taken on a very large and complex task crawler; trying to model the universe.
It is not a simple task, although the complications involved just might be hiding a simple foundation
as Per Bak proposes. It is good to see the Electric Universe (EU) play an important role.
I offer some comments from my perspective which may be helpful, or at a minimum encourage dialogue.

After more than ten years following this forum and the EU I am 100% sure of two things:
The "gravity does everything" standard model is nonsense.
And the EU is the right path to seek understanding.

KISS and Per Bak are basically the same message.
Somewhere ?? I read " how the sun works must be very simple; there are so many of them".

Miles Mathis (MM) is certainly WAY WAY over my "pay grade" and could have everything figured out.
Awhile back I could not follow his paper on "Pi=4 when there is motion"; and was put off by his material.
You have prompted me to read some of his papers and I am now more interested.
I agree with his idea that the solar sun spot cycle comes from the planets.
He seems to explain why and how; while I just guess and point out that the largest sun spot is the size of Jupiter, and the Jupiter orbit of 11.86 years and the recurring Jupiter/Saturn conjunction of about 20 years seem to average out so close to the average
of the sun cycle that it needs to be seriously studied. That is what MM is doing.

From your EU section you said:
When plasma moves it creates an electric current (moving charges) that........ forms a magnetic field around it. This in turn attracts more plasma. This self-organising nature.....
This description of the organization and pattern of Birkland currents is ok but, the SELF ORGANIZING ability of plasma is it's ability to create double layers(DL) as in charge separation, which enables plasma to do work (in the physics sense). This ability is evident in the
three part structure of the sun; where the chromosphere (the DL) separates the photosphere from the corona.
This, I think, is very important in the EU scheme of things and is seriously overlooked by the main EU proponents,
Wal Thornhill and Don Scott, and by most of the EU community.

I will end where we both started with simplicity.
The EU community has not explained the three part structure of the sun, describing it all as a discharge to the heliopause.
The electric circuit that does the discharging is still not complete.
I suggest progress will be found by looking at the self organizing ability of plasma.

Plasma seems to like to collect on bodies in space when the plasma density permits, and to then form
a spherical double layer trapping the plasma closest to the inner solid body; the plasma we call the photosphere .
This gives us our sun, one of millions of stars that give us heat, light and life itself.

Stars form because that's what plasma (charged particles) does; it self organizes into Birkeland currents (flux tubes and galactic scale filaments),
double layers (chromospheres), and at the smallest scale the biological cell (life).

Jack

Cargo
Posts: 530
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by Cargo » Thu Dec 16, 2021 5:54 am

I find it odd to speak of Plasma as if it is one thing that can move and control. When instead it should be thought of as a State. Many different things can be in the plasma state, and they may or may not follow the same thinking in regards being a Plasma.

'When plasma moves' and 'attracts more plasma' doesn't make sense to me. Try saying that with other states of matter.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes

jacmac
Posts: 790
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by jacmac » Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:15 pm

Cargo:
Many different things can be in the plasma state,
and they may or may not follow the same thinking in regards being a Plasma.
What makes a thing a plasma, by definition, is the presence of charged particles; otherwise it would be a gas.
I find it odd to speak of Plasma as if it is one thing that can move and control.
It is the ability of charged particles to "move and control" that is found in electromagnetism of which I speak.
That charged objects can attract or repel other charged objects is not, to my knowledge, in doubt.

User avatar
purplepete
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by purplepete » Sun May 22, 2022 3:02 am

crawler wrote:
Sun Dec 12, 2021 8:19 pm
U should also look at the work of....
Conrad Ranzan -- (DSSU).
Reg Cahill -- (Process Physics).
Demjanov -- (twin media MMX to measure the aetherwind).
Ivor Catt -- & Forrest Bishop -- (electricity).
Thanks very much for these, crawler, I'll put them on my list of areas to research.

Also apologies to all for not getting back here sooner; life has interrupted research for a while; hopefully I can be a bit more responsive in this area in the future.

User avatar
purplepete
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by purplepete » Sun May 22, 2022 3:39 am

jacmac wrote:
Wed Dec 15, 2021 5:51 pm
Miles Mathis (MM) is certainly WAY WAY over my "pay grade" and could have everything figured out.
Awhile back I could not follow his paper on "Pi=4 when there is motion"; and was put off by his material.
You have prompted me to read some of his papers and I am now more interested.
I agree with his idea that the solar sun spot cycle comes from the planets.
He seems to explain why and how; while I just guess and point out that the largest sun spot is the size of Jupiter, and the Jupiter orbit of 11.86 years and the recurring Jupiter/Saturn conjunction of about 20 years seem to average out so close to the average
of the sun cycle that it needs to be seriously studied. That is what MM is doing.

From your EU section you said:
When plasma moves it creates an electric current (moving charges) that........ forms a magnetic field around it. This in turn attracts more plasma. This self-organising nature.....
This description of the organization and pattern of Birkland currents is ok but, the SELF ORGANIZING ability of plasma is it's ability to create double layers(DL) as in charge separation, which enables plasma to do work (in the physics sense). This ability is evident in the
three part structure of the sun; where the chromosphere (the DL) separates the photosphere from the corona.
This, I think, is very important in the EU scheme of things and is seriously overlooked by the main EU proponents,
Wal Thornhill and Don Scott, and by most of the EU community.

I will end where we both started with simplicity.
The EU community has not explained the three part structure of the sun, describing it all as a discharge to the heliopause.
The electric circuit that does the discharging is still not complete.
I suggest progress will be found by looking at the self organizing ability of plasma.

Plasma seems to like to collect on bodies in space when the plasma density permits, and to then form
a spherical double layer trapping the plasma closest to the inner solid body; the plasma we call the photosphere .
This gives us our sun, one of millions of stars that give us heat, light and life itself.

Stars form because that's what plasma (charged particles) does; it self organizes into Birkeland currents (flux tubes and galactic scale filaments),
double layers (chromospheres), and at the smallest scale the biological cell (life).

Jack
Thanks very much, Jack.

There are still areas of Miles's research which are over my head as well; it took me a couple of years to work out what the fundamentals were and how important his ideas are if they are correct, as even more so than PC/EU theory they could lead to revolutionary advances in pretty much every aspect of science, which is why I felt the need to summarise his work as best I could and how it fits together (as much for my own understanding as to present to others). Also Miles puts his money where his mouth is, with his February 2020 prediction of the current solar cycle at http://milesmathis.com/goody.pdf so far proving to be remarkably accurate, completely at odds with predictions made by the "acknowledged experts".

BTW I recently was made aware of the work of John Nelson of the RCA back in the 1940s-1970s who was employed to study sunspots in order to help predict magnetic storms that could affect shortwave radio, who also achieved exceptionally good results once relative angles of the planets to the Sun and each other were taken into account. His work was published in "Cosmic Patterns - Their Influence on Man and His Communication", but is virtually unknown - it should be a fundamental textbook in both astronomy and electrical engineering courses. John made no comment on why he thought his model worked, but Miles's model fits it quite well as a base, just as I believe it fits PC/EUT as a base as well.

You have a very good point WRT double-layers - when I did my initial write-up of PC/EUT my knowledge of DLs was lacking - well, it still is, but I'm getting there, thanks to a lot of extra work being published by people WRT the findings in SAFIRE, and Bob Greenyer's presentations on behalf of the MFMP (Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project). Plus several Thunderbolts videos over the past several months, and Don Scott's "The Interconnected Cosmos" book. As such I'll need to update that section of the website with a lot more on the importance of DLs, once I can increase my grok level ;-).

BTW I should point out that Wal Thornhill is writing a book that he believes will address how EUT extends into the microscopic world that won't require Miles's model, but based on his Future Science in our Electric Universe presentation (available in the Thunderbolts YouTube channel) where he presents a number of his ideas that I believe will be expanded upon in the book I'm not so sure. Happy to be proven wrong, but it's going to be hard to come up with a model that is as simple as Miles that nevertheless has the ability to explain all of the complexity of the Universe.

jacmac
Posts: 790
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by jacmac » Sun May 22, 2022 2:34 pm

purplepete, Here are a few follow up comments. I look forward to more discussion....
This paper, from 2001, indicates the complexity of coming up with an explanation
Of the solar cycle. (one needs only to read the abstract)
http://bobweigel.net/csi763/images/0/02/Smith_1.pdf

Miles Mathis may have a good (or even the best) approximation of what is going on but it is very difficult to include everything.
For example: The Heliospheric current sheet (HCS) is variably wavy and the planets pass into and through it as they orbit the sun.
They are then in alternating polarity areas of the suns magnetic field. And they each do this at different times in their respective orbits
which are at small, but different ,angles relative to the solar equatorial plane. So, each planet's relationship and /or influence
with the sun changes often and in varying amounts (probably); contributing more complexity. :idea:

Over the years ,it seems to me that people have tried to use the planet position relationships to mathematically
model the solar cycles. But one big problem is that the actual cycles themselves vary in length and magnitude.
And the magnetic fields at the "surface" of the sun are constantly at very mixed polarity and the overall solar polarity remains somewhat mixed
as the sun, as a whole, changes its dominant polarity.
This tells me that the whole affair is an organic process and the planets being local to the sun and electrically connected to it
provide the most logical explanation of the solar cycles. Getting close might be the best we can get to answers.

My guess is that outside the solar system influences are also present, but they would manifest in longer time variability events.
Ben Davidson, for example, presents a lot of reasons and evidence for recurring Nova events .
But I am too old to prepare for big changes on earth. :)

Lloyd
Posts: 5201
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon May 23, 2022 4:14 am

purplepete wrote:
Sun May 22, 2022 3:39 am
Happy to be proven wrong, but it's going to be hard to come up with a model that is as simple as Miles that nevertheless has the ability to explain all of the complexity of the Universe.
Then prepare to be happy. Charles Chandler has a simple model that explains most of the complexity of the universe.
See his Electric Astrophysics at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031
He developed his model around 2013 or 2014 after having a series of involved discussions with me and Michael Mozina and Brant Callahan on this forum. Charles and Brant stopped posting on this forum a year or two ago, but Michael and I still do. I didn't have a good understanding of electromagnetism etc, but I asked a lot of questions and organized the discussions. The other 3 guys had all the knowledge and experience. All 3 of them agreed that the Sun is a cathode, not an anode, contrary to the EU position.

Speaking of Double Layers, that's what Charles determined is the arrangement of the Sun's interior. He found that there must be 3 interior layers, PNP I think. The opposite electric charge between layers is what holds the Sun together. Likewise re planets, but fewer double layers.

At the above link he has a paper on the sunspot cycle too. It's titled Cycles.

His model accounts for every major feature of the Sun as well as exotic stars, such as quasars, pulsars etc, which I call ring stars, because they're counterstreaming oppositely charged ions in an open circular shape, which he calls natural tokamaks (particle accelerators), which produce powerful magnetic fields.

He figured out the major features of planets too, esp. Earth's, and they're electrical too. Everything is at the above link (except for his paper on tornadoes and thunderstorms, which are also electrically driven. He has another site for that one. I could look it up, if interested).

Mathis' ideas seem good at the microcosmic scale, but less so at the macrocosmic. I posted a bunch of questions for Miles on Charles' site and one of the guys on a Mathis forum that I helped organize reposted the questions to that forum at https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t19- ... mathis#106 . In the post after that at https://milesmathis.forumotion.com/t19- ... mathis#107 I posted the results of a survey of a few members to see how much we agreed about some of Miles' basic ideas.

I never did buy Miles' initial idea about gravity being a result of matter & photon expansion. He later got the idea that it's a result of universe spin, but after that he got another idea, which I don't remember. I think John Kierein's idea makes sense, that, since photons have mass, gravity is due to longwave radiation between galaxies that can penetrate them, pushing photons/matter together from all sides.

There are a lot of things in Miles' photon ideas that don't make sense offhand. For example, how can photons travel in a sinewave motion? I think that would only be possible if there is a sea of smaller photons that act on the larger ones like air acts on baseballs to cause them to curve. Another example is how can photons have stacked spins. I believe he thought of stacked spins when I asked him a question about photons in 2012. He said if a photon gets hit by another photon, it can't go faster than light speed, so it stacks a new spin instead. The first stack is a spin around a point on the inner photon's surface. That makes a photon twice as big, but it's like a spinning fan blade. Actually, that should make it look like a torus. The second stacked spin should cause the torus to spin perpendicular to its axis, forming a sphere. But Miles doesn't discuss the torus phase, as far as I know. If a proton consists of a photon with several stacked spins, and if the proton recycles photons (sucking them in and spraying them out like a sump pump), how can the inner photon move around inside the proton fast enough to divert the incoming B-photons into equatorial and polar streams? So his model needs a lot of work. I think it may be more likely that photons don't stack spins, but the doubling of size is due to two photons joining together and another pair joining them and so on and at some point they spinning group of photons can't hold any more, so as new photons get sucked into the group centrifugal force slings them away equatorially. It's mind boggling to try to understand, at least for me.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by JP Michael » Mon May 23, 2022 5:17 am

I quite like standing wave physics models, especially regarding atomic structure and geometry of matter.

E.g.
Milo Wolff (WSM - Wave Structure of Matter)
Yuri Ivanov (Rhythmodynamics)
Gabriel Lafreniere [LINK]

Have you taken these into consideration as well?

Lloyd
Posts: 5201
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by Lloyd » Tue May 24, 2022 2:13 am

Is that explaining particles or photons as standing waves? What would be waving?

Miles' idea that everything consists of photons is what I think makes a lot of sense, but I think there may be an infinity of sizes of photons up to the level of electrons as the largest size.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by JP Michael » Tue May 24, 2022 5:55 am

LaFreniere explains it on the first page no I'm not going to.

allynh
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:51 am

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by allynh » Wed May 25, 2022 8:43 pm

Sorry, I've come late to this thread.
purplepete wrote: As nothing I’m talking about is certain, I will give a score of C0-C10 to say how confident I am with the model or description of phenomena in question. C0 means I’m nearly certain it’s wrong; C10 means I’m nearly certain it’s correct. C5 means I can’t work it out in either direction, and the other numbers indicate higher or lesser degrees of certainty (not linearly; I may draw a graph some day). Also if discussing experiments or testimony I’ll put down H with a number – H1 means firsthand (i.e. an experiment I conducted myself, or something I witnessed directly), H2 secondhand testimony, etc.
When you think of graphing your system, consider the Fujita Scale.

The Fujita Scale is based on how large an impact each has, the amount of damage, etc...

Have each "C0-C10" based on how large an impact it has on Reality:

- C0 has no impact on Reality,

- C10 would have the largest impact on Reality.

The same with your "H" scale.

This kind of scale is no longer arbitrary, since you can put an actual value on the "impact", i.e., quantify each C or H.

A comment on your KISS page. Remember:

- Occam's Razor can make butchers of us all.

But I digress.

Thanks for linking to your website.

BTW, thanks to JP Michael for reminding me of Lafreniere. It's nice to find it again on The Wayback Machine. I had forgotten to go looking. I harvested so much 15 years ago when I first stumbled onto the Forum and have not gone back into my folders to see what I have.

jackokie
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by jackokie » Thu May 26, 2022 3:16 pm

This thread is an excellent discussion, and I think an example of why a lot of us are here at the forum.

If Birkeland currents run between most of the planets in the solar system and the sun, then as the planets orbit the sun the Birkeland currents must keep up, like spokes in a wheel. What effect could we expect when two planets line up and their Birkeland currents overlap? Could the planets' alignment together with the electrical influence @jacmac mentions account for the sun cycle?

Lloyd
Posts: 5201
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri May 27, 2022 2:28 am

Wikipedia: A Birkeland current (also known as field-aligned current ) is a set of currents that flow along geomagnetic field lines connecting the Earth's magnetosphere to the Earth's high latitude ionosphere. In the Earth's magnetosphere, the currents are driven by the solar wind and interplanetary magnetic field and by bulk motions of plasma through the magnetosphere (convection indirectly driven by the interplanetary environment).

Plasma-Universe: A Birkeland current usually refers to the electric currents in a planet’s ionosphere that follows magnetic field lines (ie field-aligned currents), and sometimes used to describe any field-aligned electric current in a space plasma.[3] They are caused by the movement of a plasma perpendicular to a magnetic field. Birkeland currents often show filamentary, or twisted “rope-like” magnetic structure. (They are also known as field-aligned currents, magnetic ropes and magnetic cables).

Sun's Magnetic Field Impacts Earth's Thunderstorms
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/sun ... nderstorms
During the study period, the HCS [heliospheric current sheet] passed Earth 141 times. The polarity of the Sun’s magnetic field switched from pointing away from Earth to pointing toward Earth 75 times. A switch in the opposite direction occurred 66 times. The researchers found that thunderstorms peaked within 1–2 days of each HCS crossing. Lightning rates increased just after each away-to-toward switch. Switches in the opposite direction coincided with an initial increase (during the “toward” period) followed by a decrease just after the HCS passed by (the “away” period).

Birkeland Current Google Images
https://www.google.com/search?q=birkela ... =657&dpr=1

[COMMENT: The image of Birkeland's terella with currents poking out of the Earthlike terella around each pole seems to be what they're all calling Birkeland currents. Am I right? Plasma-Universe has an image of Filamentation at https://www.plasma-universe.com/filamentation/ and below that image is an image of "Auroral filaments derived from Birkeland currents". What's the difference between the auroral filaments and Birkeland currents? In all of the above, where does it say Birkeland currents connect the planets? Then there's this video: NASA | Voyager Finds Magnetic Bubbles at Solar System's Edge at https://youtube.com/watch?v=5HbJiY1wATQ . The video says the HCS turns into bubbles at the heliosheath. The HCS isn't Birkeland currents, is it? The Google Images show a galactic filament pair that wrap around each other. But most of the filaments don't look like that. None of those are Birkeland currents, are they? The magnetosphere is about 500 km above the surface on the sunward side and trails off to 60,000 km on the dark side, so I guess the Birkeland currents must be confined to the sunward side.]

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests