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.
Lloyd
Posts: 5413
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri May 27, 2022 2:31 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 Earth-like 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 where the magnetosphere is closest to the ionosphere, which latter is mostly over 50 km above Earth's surface.]

jacmac
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by jacmac » Fri May 27, 2022 5:31 am

I have thought the earth (and other planets ) crossing the Heliospheric current sheet (HCS)
might have something to do with the solar sun spots cycle and the solar magnetic field reversal;
so I am pleased to see this report on the changing lightning rate on the earth related to earth crossing the HCS.

One aspect of the report I find a bit odd is the number of reported crossings being different numbers.
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.
If A changes to B 75 times isn't it necessary for B to change back to A each time in preparation for it to change to B again. ??
Perhaps they just missed some changes.

Lloyd
Posts: 5413
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri May 27, 2022 2:02 pm

@JacMac
I think this is the most relevant paragraph from the study. My comment is after.

Geophysical Research Letters
Lightning as a space-weather hazard: UK thunderstorm activity modulated by the passage of the heliospheric current sheet
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 15GL066802
2. Data [last paragraph]
Heliospheric magnetic field (HMF) and solar wind parameters are taken from OMNI data set of near-Earth spacecraft observations [King and Papitashvili, 2005]. Times of near-Earth heliospheric current sheet (HCS) encounters are obtained from the catalog of Thomas et al. [2014]. They manually identified “clean” HCS crossings, in which there is a clear, sharp transition in HMF polarity from a Parker spiral configuration [Parker, 1958] pointing toward (T) the Sun to away from the Sun (A) or vice versa. They excluded polarity reversals which take the form of an extended, slow rotation in magnetic field direction, such as when the HCS is accompanied by a coronal mass ejection [Crooker et al., 1998]. In the 2000.7 to 2007.3 interval used in this study, there are 141 such HCS crossings, approximately 1.5 per solar rotation. Sixty-six of these HCS crossings are transition from T to A polarity (i.e., BY < 0 to BY > 0), while 75 A to T transitions. For both sets of HCS crossings, there is a uniform distribution of occurrence time as a function of both time of day and day of year; thus, there is little risk of aliasing with the known RL and RTH variations.

COMMENT: The 3rd sentence seems to be the key. They manually identified CLEAN HCS crossings. So some of the crossings weren't clean or easily identifiable, so those weren't counted. Right? Now I still have the question, where is clear evidence that Birkeland currents connect the planets? Also, are Birkeland currents the same as lightning or electrical discharges?

User avatar
purplepete
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by purplepete » Thu Jun 02, 2022 4:15 am

jacmac wrote: 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:
Thanks for that link. Whilst the action of the HCS is indeed key in terms of how much impact individual CMEs and the like have on the Earth (and other planets) I'm more interested in the underlying causes of the solar cycle, which this paper does not address; it's more concerned with the result of the cycle.
jacmac wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 2:34 pm 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. :)
Agreed, and Miles's model is basically that the planets are connected to the Sun in both directions (and each other) and cause feedback, with additional variability from extra-solar sources. 2.3 years on his February 2020 prediction of the current solar cycle has been spot on, contrary to all conventional models which were predicting less than half the activity, so that's increasing support for his model.

Under EUT extra-solar variation can come from changes in the local Birkeland current, in terms of the amount of material (and hence charge) that is flowing into (through) the Sun, which could indeed cause recurring nova events, and may be responsible for periodic extinctions. Such influences would indeed cause occasional issues with Miles's current model for the solar cycle (e.g. the Maunder Minimum), given that we don't have the instrumentation yet to record such influences. That doesn't mean Miles's model is wrong, but his solar cycle model could very well be incomplete - just a lot less incomplete than conventional models. Miles's underlying model of subatomic through to molecular structure would not need changing, however.

Also under EUT for most of its existence the Earth orbited (proto-)Saturn which was a brown dwarf at the time, and we've only been in the heliosphere for 50K years or so. Brown dwarf stars are known to nova more often often than stars like Sol, so even if the Earth is in the same Birkeland current as proto-Saturn was and there is a major cyclical change that would have caused proto-Saturn to nova in the past, that might not be the case with Sol anymore. So I'm optimistic that whilst Ben (and others) may indeed be correct in terms of past history of ELEs these cycles may no longer be relevant and we may have a much safer future. Although I still think it would be good for us to inhabit a few different star systems to be on the safe side, including ones that aren't in what appears to be a common Birkeland current as per Gareth's presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdLxP-w1LGg

User avatar
purplepete
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by purplepete » Thu Jun 02, 2022 5:00 am

Lloyd wrote: 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.
Thanks very much for that, Lloyd. There's a huge amount of very tasty looking research presented there so it'll take me a while to go through it and comment on particulars, but after a brief skim I can already see that this model is not as simple or as fundamental as Miles's is. Charles has started at the level of electrons and protons and the electric/magnetic forces. I have no problem with that, but if you start at that level you are failing to provide explanations for what exactly charge is, why it appears electrons and protons repel similar particles but attract each other, and how forces operate "at a distance". As such this model may be missing fundamental properties.

Miles's model has a consistent explanation for this, and that involves only the assumptions of:
  1. Space that is a void with no properties apart from volume (three "dimensions")
  2. A spherical incompressible unbreakable base particle with mass
  3. Movement of this particle through space in both a linear fashion and with rotation
  4. The ability for this particle to build up "layers" of spin in x/y/z planes in addition to axially, which is stable only in discrete steps (making each layer effectively double the size of the next lower layer)
Everything else is emergent from the above.
Lloyd wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:14 am 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).
Thanks, I'll go through these (eventually ;) )
Lloyd wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:14 am 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 agree, which is why on my site I connect Miles's work on the microscopic level to EUT on the macroscopic level. Not to say that Mile's model doesn't extend to the macroscopic level - just that he hasn't done a huge amount of work in that area. He has, however, produced works on the macroscopic including the solar cycle, the relative orbital distance of the planets from Sol and axial tilts based on his model, which aren't well (or at all) explained in EUT.
Lloyd wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:14 am 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.
Yes, I never agreed with Miles's first two ideas to explain gravity either; I'm still mulling over his third idea which I believe is a good explanation for the difference between static and normal friction, but I'm not entirely convinced (yet, at least). I'll check out John's idea. I'm not convinced by Wal Thornhill's explanation for gravity either; I'm yet to find a truly convincing explanation for gravity, which is why I've not addressed that on my website.
Lloyd wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 4:14 am 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.
The photons aren't traveling in a sinewave motion; it's how our instruments measure the spin that make it look like that. I admit that some aspects of the layering idea are not immediately explainable, which is why I include that as part of the basic assumptions for the model. I agree that the first layer of x spin would indeed by a torus, but seeing as particles of that size are basically undetectable except en masse I don't have a huge problem with that. The point of the electron level or higher is that the "inner" particle even moving at c is unable to move fast enough to block smaller particles from moving through it, so the overall action is like a porous spinning sphere, although it may indeed be more torus-like. Smaller particles can collide with each other whilst passing through, and it's the combined effect that results in the tendency for more of the particles to be ejected at or near the equator. There would still be plenty of smaller particles passing through without being affected at all; we just need a small number to be affected in a similar fashion in order to create some directionality in the flow what we can measure as charge, and which can build up to form electricity and magnetism.

It may indeed be the case that this is not exactly what is happening in reality, but the model is predictive and has emergent properties that appear to be much more accurate than the consensus model for describing reality, and as long as it can lead to advances in science I believe that it is worth using until a demonstrably better model comes along.

User avatar
purplepete
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by purplepete » Mon Jun 06, 2022 5:19 am

allynh wrote: 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.
I have enough trouble working out how confident I am; would be very difficult to work out potential impact ;-). Plus H is not a related scale.

User avatar
purplepete
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by purplepete » Mon Jun 06, 2022 8:20 am

JP Michael wrote: Tue May 24, 2022 5:55 am LaFreniere explains it on the first page no I'm not going to.
La Freniere does the same thing that Wal and co are currently doing, in that they're saying that something is existing on top of the aether. That may very well be correct, but that means I have the same objection to La Freniere in that there is then NO explanation as to what the aether actually is. A wave can not exist without an underlying layer, and if you don't start with this layer you're missing something fundamental.

That's why I prefer Miles's model as the aether is actually an emergent property from it, not an assumption below.

La Freniere also doesn't explain what charge is, or how it allows particles with unlike charges to "attract" each other.

User avatar
purplepete
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by purplepete » Mon Jun 06, 2022 9:22 am

jackokie wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 3:16 pm 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?
In Miles's model it's the return current (via not just electrons and ions but also the smaller particles in Miles's model) along with a similar feed from the centre of the Milky Way (plus probably more from the local Birkeland current that Sol and many nearby stars are in) that cause the sunspot cycle of Sol; the electrical influence is what we can measure as the higher-order effects.

But yes, that's basically how Miles's model works, and also explains why the model of JH Nelson (back in the 1950s-1970s) worked, although he didn't try to work out the underlying cause - he just stated that the relative angles of the planets to Sol was a good predictor of solar weather, and backed it up with predictions that were significantly more accurate than consensus models.

As to overlapping currents - we've already seen discussion of this (although using different terminology) in Thunderbolts publications and a few other places; there have been a few "co-incidental" effects recorded when Venus and Earth were in a line from Sol (https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/0 ... tic-tails/, https://phys.org/news/2013-01-planet-co ... -weak.html), ditto the odd comet with Mars (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_iUEGct0es). So we already have some evidence that Birkeland currents between Sol and one planet can affect another planet.

I have no evidence of Birkeland currents between the planets themselves (outside from when the main currents from Sol overlap), but under Miles's model there should be some form of connection - measuring it would be a challenge, however.

User avatar
purplepete
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by purplepete » Mon Jun 06, 2022 9:39 am

Lloyd wrote: 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).
I just wanted to point out that this is an example of how consensus science uses weasel words to distract from alternative models. If you have a bit of training in astronomy or engineering, when you hear the term Birkeland current you will probably think about an electric current, and you may be curious enough to look up who Birkeland was, and how he theorised that there are electric currents joining Sol and Earth, and despite being heckled and ignored was later proven to be correct - and despite this, the core of the theory still continues to be heckled and ignored.

You may not even find the term field-aligned current, as it is often abbreviated as FAC in order to hide the very existence of the word "current", and provide FAC-all useful information. Even if you do look up the words you would be led to assume that this is a current that results from some underlying field, when it is in fact the OPPOSITE that is taking place.

I've been reading Electric Currents in Geospace and Beyond by Keiling et al. As the name suggests this contains a lot of work by authors who freely acknowledge the existence of electric currents around Earth, on Sol, et al, but despite this the only mention of Birkeland's name is in a brief "history of" section, plus a few mentions by authors from Scandinavia. Alfven doesn't fare much better. Everywhere else it's FAC-this and FAC-that. It is also disappointing that many of the authors continue to ignore Alfven's comments later in life about how "frozen in" magnetic fields exist (if at all) in only very limited situations, certainly not in the breadth of situations where they assume them to. There is also absolutely NO discussion of double-layers or how key they are to solar weather, CMEs or the like. It's amazing how many experts on plasma lack even basic understanding of some of the properties that separate a plasma from a gas and their importance.

Lloyd
Posts: 5413
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Jun 06, 2022 8:04 pm

purplepete wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 9:39 am Thanks very much for that, Lloyd. There's a huge amount of very tasty looking research presented there so it'll take me a while to go through it and comment on particulars, but after a brief skim I can already see that this model is not as simple or as fundamental as Miles's is. Charles has started at the level of electrons and protons and the electric/magnetic forces. I have no problem with that, but if you start at that level you are failing to provide explanations for what exactly charge is, why it appears electrons and protons repel similar particles but attract each other, and how forces operate "at a distance". As such this model may be missing fundamental properties.

Miles's model has a consistent explanation for this, and that involves only the assumptions of:
- Space that is a void with no properties apart from volume (three "dimensions")
- A spherical incompressible unbreakable base particle with mass
- Movement of this particle through space in both a linear fashion and with rotation
- The ability for this particle to build up "layers" of spin in x/y/z planes in addition to axially, which is stable only in discrete steps (making each layer effectively double the size of the next lower layer)
Everything else is emergent from the above.
_Miles may have oversimplified the subatomic level as well. His model accounts for repulsion pretty well, but not so well for attraction. See this video for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViZNgU-Yt-Y . It shows some effects of static electricity. There are repulsive effects as well as attractive effects. Static electricity is produced by rubbing one kind of object on another, such as fir on pvc pipe. Apparently, the rubbing removes electrons from one object to the other, leaving one with a deficiency and the other with an excess.
_Why would they be attracted to each other?
_Something that makes sense to me is to regard the protons as having high spraying pressure and the electrons as having low spraying pressure. Low pressure is attracted to high pressure and vice versa. An example is high and low pressure air masses. Two high pressures repel each other & two low pressures repel each other.
_Offhand, it seems that low pressures would repel each other less forcefully than high pressures, so another possibility is that electrons may have reverse pressure, producing suction, but that would make them attract each other. So things seem to be more complex than theory can account for.
_But if you can explain these attractions & repulsions better, be my guest. I'm listening.

jacmac
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by jacmac » Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:06 am

purplepete:
've been reading Electric Currents in Geospace and Beyond by Keiling et al. As the name suggests this contains a lot of work by authors who freely acknowledge the existence of electric currents around Earth, on Sol, et al, but despite this the only mention of Birkeland's name is in a brief "history of" section, plus a few mentions by authors from Scandinavia. Alfven doesn't fare much better. Everywhere else it's FAC-this and FAC-that. It is also disappointing that many of the authors continue to ignore Alfven's comments later in life about how "frozen in" magnetic fields exist (if at all) in only very limited situations, certainly not in the breadth of situations where they assume them to. There is also absolutely NO discussion of double-layers or how key they are to solar weather, CMEs or the like. It's amazing how many experts on plasma lack even basic understanding of some of the properties that separate a plasma from a gas and their importance.
Yes. exactly..... It is willful ignorance or worse.

In discussion of the solar cycle I would remind us that the basic structure, nature, etc. of the sun is the quiet sun.
The solar sun spots are interruptions in the quiet sun.
These interruptions have their own cycle which is basically a sine wave.
The sine wave , in geometry, is a point on a circle as it (the circle) rolls through time, so to speak.
The solar cycle (with all its variability) AVERAGES about 11 years, or 22 for a full cycle.
The planet orbits are circle like. The largest one, with a very strong magnetic field, is Jupiter. It orbits every 11.86 years
The second largest planet ,Saturn, is in conjunction with Jupiter every 20 years.
Why look at the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn ?
The sun spots are electrical events. Planets in conjunctions( and other relationships)
should effect the electrical environment surrounding the sun.
I'm going with the local (to the sun) and the "what's in plain sight"........the planets.

Miles has a very detailed (and complicated ) explanation of how it all works.
He may be correct.
He plots all the planets on the same plane.
We know they are not on one plane.
Their orbits have different inclinations to each other and to the solar equatorial plane.
So, when two planets are in conjunction a second time their north/south positions can be quite different.
They also, move under, into, and above the Heliospheric current sheet at different times as they orbit the sun.
This all probably effects the electrical relationships with the sun.
IT's All VERY COMPLICATED.

The complexity itself is a clue I think.
The solar magnetic field is not all neat and uniform.
For half the cycle there is a predominate polarity, then a lot of mixing, then the opposite polarity dominates for awhile.
It's ALL VERY ORGANIC and sort of chaotic.
Miles:
The Sun is recycling a greater charge field coming in from the galactic core and
the surrounding galactic field. It is taking that field in at its poles and re-emitting it nearer the equator.
From there, it travels out on the Solar plane to all the planets, where it is recycled by them in turn. A
sort of circuit is then created, and the charge returns from the planets back to the Sun.
In other words, they are seeing clear evidence here of a charge or magnetic feedback loop from the
large planets (or all the planets, but mainly the big four)
I think the solar wind in general is a feedback from the quiet sun to the interstellar medium
and Miles has the planets feeding that back to the sun.
It seems like the right amount of chaotic electrical mix up on a repeating orbital scale pattern to give us the sun spot cycle.

User avatar
purplepete
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by purplepete » Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:11 am

Lloyd wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 8:04 pm
purplepete wrote: Mon Jun 06, 2022 9:39 am Thanks very much for that, Lloyd. There's a huge amount of very tasty looking research presented there so it'll take me a while to go through it and comment on particulars, but after a brief skim I can already see that this model is not as simple or as fundamental as Miles's is. Charles has started at the level of electrons and protons and the electric/magnetic forces. I have no problem with that, but if you start at that level you are failing to provide explanations for what exactly charge is, why it appears electrons and protons repel similar particles but attract each other, and how forces operate "at a distance". As such this model may be missing fundamental properties.

Miles's model has a consistent explanation for this, and that involves only the assumptions of:
- Space that is a void with no properties apart from volume (three "dimensions")
- A spherical incompressible unbreakable base particle with mass
- Movement of this particle through space in both a linear fashion and with rotation
- The ability for this particle to build up "layers" of spin in x/y/z planes in addition to axially, which is stable only in discrete steps (making each layer effectively double the size of the next lower layer)
Everything else is emergent from the above.
_Miles may have oversimplified the subatomic level as well. His model accounts for repulsion pretty well, but not so well for attraction. See this video for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViZNgU-Yt-Y . It shows some effects of static electricity. There are repulsive effects as well as attractive effects. Static electricity is produced by rubbing one kind of object on another, such as fir on pvc pipe. Apparently, the rubbing removes electrons from one object to the other, leaving one with a deficiency and the other with an excess.
_Why would they be attracted to each other?
_Something that makes sense to me is to regard the protons as having high spraying pressure and the electrons as having low spraying pressure. Low pressure is attracted to high pressure and vice versa. An example is high and low pressure air masses. Two high pressures repel each other & two low pressures repel each other.
_Offhand, it seems that low pressures would repel each other less forcefully than high pressures, so another possibility is that electrons may have reverse pressure, producing suction, but that would make them attract each other. So things seem to be more complex than theory can account for.
_But if you can explain these attractions & repulsions better, be my guest. I'm listening.
Gudday, Lloyd.

That's pretty much exactly Miles's explanation. The electron is ~2K times smaller than the proton so that means it's recycling a lot less of the smaller particles, so it has a much lower "spraying" pressure in comparison. So if you put two protons next to each other they are spraying each other apart equally (unless they've lined up pole to pole), and ditto with two electrons next to each other. Put a proton next to an electron and there is a disparity. Put a few electrons near a few protons and it looks like the electrons are attracted to the protons because of this; it's not that they're "attracted at a distance", it's just that they're repulsed less, and that's the situation in the vast majority of cases on Earth where matter is pretty dense in comparison to most of the rest of the Universe.

That's a bit like the explanation in a few of the gravity models as well (e.g. de Duillier/Le Sage), except in Mile's model the majority of particles are being recycled through larger particles; it's only at the "base" level that they're bouncing off each other.

FYI in Mile's model at the level of molecules the electrons do very little; they mainly hang around the poles of protons, being just a bit too big to be recycled through the proton, so spin around the "hole" like a ping pong ball spinning around the outlet of a basin filled with water when you pull out the plug. It's the flow of smaller particles ("charge") through the (semi-)stable lined-up atomic structures that results in (chemical) bonds.

User avatar
purplepete
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2021 1:43 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by purplepete » Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:20 am

jacmac wrote: Tue Jun 07, 2022 5:06 am
Miles has a very detailed (and complicated ) explanation of how it all works.
He may be correct.
He plots all the planets on the same plane.
We know they are not on one plane.
Their orbits have different inclinations to each other and to the solar equatorial plane.
So, when two planets are in conjunction a second time their north/south positions can be quite different.
They also, move under, into, and above the Heliospheric current sheet at different times as they orbit the sun.
This all probably effects the electrical relationships with the sun.
IT's All VERY COMPLICATED.

The complexity itself is a clue I think.
The solar magnetic field is not all neat and uniform.
For half the cycle there is a predominate polarity, then a lot of mixing, then the opposite polarity dominates for awhile.
It's ALL VERY ORGANIC and sort of chaotic.
Miles:
The Sun is recycling a greater charge field coming in from the galactic core and
the surrounding galactic field. It is taking that field in at its poles and re-emitting it nearer the equator.
From there, it travels out on the Solar plane to all the planets, where it is recycled by them in turn. A
sort of circuit is then created, and the charge returns from the planets back to the Sun.
In other words, they are seeing clear evidence here of a charge or magnetic feedback loop from the
large planets (or all the planets, but mainly the big four)
I think the solar wind in general is a feedback from the quiet sun to the interstellar medium
and Miles has the planets feeding that back to the sun.
It seems like the right amount of chaotic electrical mix up on a repeating orbital scale pattern to give us the sun spot cycle.
Agreed, it is complicated.

Miles freely admits that his model is a simplification of what is happening - a big problem being that we don't have any data on input from the centre of the galaxy or the main Birkeland currents, and it'll most likely be decades if not centuries before we have probes in the right places to collect this data.

However, based on how well Miles's February 2020 prediction is panning out for the current solar cycle, especially in comparison with the mainstream predictions, it's certainly an order of magnitude better than what we've had access to in the past (except for the models of JH Nelson which the astronomical community have conveniently forgotten about, and which had no underlying explanation for why they worked, just that they did). As such that suggests that Miles's underlying model is quite possibly a lot closer than the mainstream models at explaining reality, with all of the corresponding implications.

jacmac
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by jacmac » Tue Jun 07, 2022 1:11 pm

purplepete:
Miles freely admits that his model is a simplification of what is happening -
I did not mean to imply otherwise. but I must have missed that part, oops.
I agree with you.
Jack

Lloyd
Posts: 5413
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: A (near) Complete model of the Universe

Unread post by Lloyd » Tue Jun 07, 2022 9:22 pm

Pete, I'm starting to check out your website. Why don't you put a link on your site to this forum thread? Maybe on the home page.

I've been with this forum since shortly after it first started in 2007. I was actually following the Thoth online newsletter before that, which is where I was notified that this forum would be starting.

I've probably written more on this forum than anyone else. I also did some interviews and organized a few discussions. I also worked with NaturalPhilosophy.org a few years ago, trying to improve scientific method with them. Tried to do that on this forum a little too. I've also been posting sci news links each week for the past few years on this thread: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... 6965#p6965

So maybe you and I and some others can collaborate to advance helpful scientific knowledge. I've been exploring the idea of making an improved version of Wikipedia too, based on honest science.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests