It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New discoveries are confirming electric sun theories.

page: 10
114
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
It is significant because as you get closer to the sun the density of electrons increases, this increases the oscillation frequency of the electrons, so they have far more energy to break free and separate from their protons the closer to the sun they get.


Wait, the plasma is already ionized, what kind of "separation" do you want? And in the electric field that you are postulating, electrons will flow in the direction opposite to protons.


It does not accelerate charges of opposite signs in the same direction.


Good we can agree on that.


Generally the -ve is thought to be going into the sun, and the +ve ions repelled away from the sun, they go in opposite directions. However neutral atoms ejected from general solar activity could travel either direction over the e-field with no overall effect.


Oh man, this totally doesn't work! There is indeed a neutral component in the solar wind and there are various mechanisms to explain why it its correlated to the charged component, but here's a newsflash -- the neutral component does NOT compensate for the excessive positive charge that we should be observing flowing out of the Sun according to you theory -- which in fact we do not observe!




posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Generally the -ve is thought to be going into the sun, and the +ve ions repelled away from the sun, they go in opposite directions. However neutral atoms ejected from general solar activity could travel either direction over the e-field with no overall effect.


Oh man, this totally doesn't work! There is indeed a neutral component in the solar wind and there are various mechanisms to explain why it its correlated to the charged component, but here's a newsflash -- the neutral component does NOT compensate for the excessive positive charge that we should be observing flowing out of the Sun according to you theory -- which in fact we do not observe!


We do observe positive charge flowing out of the sun, it is made up mainly of protons. The average atom in the solar wind is a neutral due to even amounts of electrons and protons, but any scientist will tell you there is an abundance of ions in the solar wind. In fact most places online define the solar wind as an 'ion stream'. If you were to take a certain area of the solar wind you would find that on average most particles are moving away from the sun. If you were to average the speed of all the negative charges, the electrons, they would be travelling at a faster speed towards the sun than the average for the positive ions. Its due to this that on average the negative ions are attracted, and the positive repelled.

What if feel you are not understanding buddha is the fact that not all ions in the wind are going to definitively attracted or repelled, they could be travelling in any particular direction. A negative charge would be attracted to the sun if it was positive, but as there are positive ions being emmitted from the sun, some of the electrons will get attracted to these and form neutral atoms and change direction. The same can be said about protons but using a +ve charge. however, there would be a net current flow of negative particles towards the sun, and a net value of positive ions leaving the sun, both of which cancel out, and thats why you dont get an ever increasing charge. It effectively reaches a charge equilibrium, with both sides staying at a constant potential, one with a net positive charge, and one with a negative. its hard to explain.

In other words; The -ve ions attracted always equal the number of +ve ions emmitted.

[edit on 16-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
We do observe positive charge flowing out of the sun, it is made up mainly of protons. The average atom in the solar wind is a neutral due to even amounts of electrons and protons, but any scientist will tell you there is an abundance of ions in the solar wind. In fact most places online define the solar wind as an 'ion stream'. If you were to take a certain area of the solar wind you would find that on average most particles are moving away from the sun. If you were to average the speed of all the negative charges, the electrons, they would be travelling at a faster speed towards the sun than the average for the positive ions. Its due to this that on average the negative ions are attracted, and the positive repelled.


Well Zeuzz, does the above paragraph really make sense? You are telling me that the electron component of the solar wind is moving towards the Sun, right? That contradicts the observations.



What if feel you are not understanding buddha is the fact that not all ions in the wind are going to definitively attracted or repelled, they could be travelling in any particular direction. A negative charge would be attracted to the sun if it was positive, but as there are positive ions being emmitted from the sun, some of the electrons will get attracted to these and form neutral atoms and change direction. The same can be said about protons but using a +ve charge. however, there would be a net current flow of negative particles towards the sun, and a net value of positive ions leaving the sun, both of which cancel out, and thats why you dont get an ever increasing charge.


The above is broken on many levels. Try to concentrate on what's happening in the "acceleration zone" that you claim exists around the Sun.
In particular, you articulated the fantastical idea, again, that the electron component is flowing towards the Sun! Just "wow"...


In other words; The -ve ions attracted always equal the number of +ve ions emmitted.


Again, look at this implausible notion of the "opposite wind"!



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Well Zeuzz, does the above paragraph really make sense? You are telling me that the electron component of the solar wind is moving towards the Sun, right? That contradicts the observations.


yes, a small component is of the negative ions are moving towards the sun; because the sun is at a high voltage which attracts electrons.

What observations? as far as i know the very few devices in space that can measure particles, an they do this at a single time frame, and so does not determine the direction of the particles involved. Infact the field around the spaceship is significant enough to make any reading of the direction of the particle negligable as the field would just interfere with the particles. The problem of the observer as it is often referred to in Quntum physics. If you know of any such experiments please post them here.



Again, look at this implausible notion of the "opposite wind"!


I have described it previously, please state what the actual implausibility is with it

[edit on 16-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
yes, a small component is of the negative ions are moving towards the sun; because the sun is at a high voltage which attracts electrons.


This is getting better by the minute! What "component"? You are saying that a part of electrons is going in the outward direction while the other in the inward! The same electric field seems to be having an opposite effect on same sign charges! Doesn't it strike you as just a little bizzare?



What observations? as far as i know the very few devices in space that can measure particles, an they do this at a single time frame, and so does not determine the direction of the particles involved.


I found a few sources yesterday, I let you find your own as I don't have time now and you'll better believe the data you personally acquired.


The problem of the observer as it is often referred to in Quntum physics.


Oh please don't clutch straws, dragging a completely irrelevant principles from the Quantum mechaincs into an essentially classical problem, only to try to patch all the holes in your hypothesis!

In an electric field, in a particular locality, electrons can't be drifting in opposite directions. Really, they can't.


[edit on 16-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

This is getting better by the minute! What "component"? You are saying that a part of electrons is going in the outward direction while the other in the inward! The same electric field seems to be having an opposite effect on same sign charges! Doesn't it strike you as just a little bizzare?


But it is not having an opposite effect on same charges. Where did you get that idea from?

As i have repeadedly said, the electrons are not all attached to atoms some mill around and are free, that is why you call the solar wind a plasma. The free electrons will move towards the sun in the e-field, the ones in atoms will have no preference since they are largely neutral. But of course some electrons get attraced to the positive ions along the route as they attract each other, but there are always free electrons in the solar wind, that are effected independantly from other ions.

When spaceships use electric fields to propell themselves you dont say, no it doesn't work because the high voltyage is having "an opposite effect on same sign charges". that would be stupid. Maybe you should contact NASA and tell them they have made a fatal mistake in their plans.

This is an example of a similar opposite effect (with a cathode, not an anode) employed to propell a satelites.
whyfiles.org...

An ion thruster moves ions by electrostatic repulsion. Xenon propellant enters from the left. A cathode emits electrons which slam into the xenon atoms knocking loose an electron and creating positive xenon ions. The ions are pushed by gas pressure through holes in the positive grid. Then the electric field between the positive and negative grids accelerates the ions and sprays them out the back. The beam is neutralized by electrons. Otherwise the ions would be attracted back to the negative grid, canceling out the thrust.
Courtesy NASA.

All charged up...
An ion thruster does two simple things. It creates charged particles -- or ions -- and accelerates them opposite to the intended direction of travel. Ion thrusters expose atoms (xenon, in this case) to electrons, which knock electrons from the atoms making charged xenon ions. Ions respond to magnetic and electric fields, and these ions are attracted to a positive grid at the back of the firing chamber. The grid's electric field accelerates the ions into a ghostly blue beam traveling at about 60,000 miles per hour.




The problem of the observer as it is often referred to in Quntum physics.


Oh please don't clutch straws, dragging a completely irrelevant principles from the Quantum mechaincs into an essentially classical problem, only to try to patch all the holes in your hypothesis!


I was just trying to draw a similarity, i know that it has little relevanace to the actual observer in QT. But it is definately true that the e-filed of the space ship would effect the motion of subatomic particles when they are being measured, which means that the person taking the measurement has interferred with the result. which is definately a similar process.



[edit on 16-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 16 2008 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
But it is not having an opposite effect on same charges. Where did you get that idea from?



From my interpretation of this statement of yours:

yes, a small component is of the negative ions are moving towards the sun




When spaceships use electric fields to propell themselves you dont say, no it doesn't work because the high voltyage is having "an opposite effect on same sign charges". that would be stupid. Maybe you should contact NASA and tell them they have made a fatal mistake in their plans.


You are a very sharp fella. Actually, I noticed that a while ago
I'll skip the rest of your quote and comment directly:

you see, in a spaceship, the electrons are not ejected from the same ion drive as the positive ions. What's more interesting, there is a significant difference between the arrangement of electrodes in the ion drive and the spherical shells that you are describing with regards to the Sun. To escape, the Sun, in your theory, the electrons would have to battle the same potential difference that you are saying is as powerful as to accelerate the positive ions to tremendous speeds! Since the electrons in the solar wind are pretty energetic themselves, that's pretty much impossible.


I was just trying to draw a similarity, i know that it has little relevanace to the actual observer in QT.


Fair enough.


But it is definately true that the e-filed of the space ship would effect the motion of subatomic particles when they are being measured


No! You just told us that the fields around the sun are so damn mighty! Why should I assume that the craft is comparable to that? I am frankly too lazy to do the actual calculations right now, but I'm making an educated guess that the charge of the craft will be equalized by the virtue of it being bathed in rarified plasma, which will take care of any charge disparity.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Pioneer 10 mystery confirms electric sun theory




Researchers say Pioneer 10, which took the first close-up pictures of Jupiter before leaving our solar system in 1983, is being pulled back to the sun by an unknown force. The effect shows no sign of getting weaker as the spacecraft travels deeper into space, and scientists are considering the possibility that the probe has revealed a new force of nature. Dr Philip Laing, a member of the research team tracking the craft, said: “We have examined every mechanism and theory we can think of and so far nothing works.” “If the effect is real, it will have a big impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation,” said Dr Laing, of the Aerospace Corporation of California.


No they have not examined every "theory and mechanism" and no new magical forms of physics are required. (Astronomers do like their intangible forces heh!) A space craft will become a negatively charged body in space, electrostatic protection for all spacecraft is vital to protect instruments. So the slow drift electrons will most definitely be repulsed by a negatively charged craft. The currents are enormous, no singular craft is capable of detecting them, as in my original post the Birkeland current found between the Sun and Earth (prediction confirmed!) was only verified with a fleet of spacecraft. These interstellar currents are far greater in size.


After launch, a spacecraft accepts electrons from the surrounding space plasma until the craft’s voltage is sufficient to repel further electrons. Near Earth it is known that a spacecraft may attain a negative potential of several tens of thousands of volts relative to its surroundings. So, in interplanetary space, the spacecraft becomes a charged object moving in the Sun’s weak electric field. Being negatively charged, it will experience an infinitesimal “tug” toward the positively charged Sun. Of most significance is the fact that the voltage gradient, that is the electric field, throughout interplanetary space remains constant. In other words, the retarding force on the spacecraft will not diminish with distance from the Sun. This effect distinguishes the electrical model from all others because all known force laws diminish with distance. The effect is real and it will have a fundamental impact on cosmology and spacecraft navigation because Pioneer 10 is now 7.4 billion miles from Earth, maybe 90 percent of the way to the heliopause.

www.holoscience.com...

I maintain that the standard model has by far, more problems than the electric model. The only assumption that the electric model presents is the inflow of electrons.
The number of problems that the standard model presents are numerous, many explained not with observational data but with ad hoc assumption and mathematical acrobatics, a standard today in mainstream astronomy, a core group of astronomers know this and have spoken out.

How anyone can deny the validity of Kristian Birkelands Terella experiments is beyond me, (I think it's called denial) it clearly demonstrates many of the solar phenomena including the corona, plasma torus, sunspots and coronal loops etc... Is that a coincidence? I don't think so. The evidence is mounting.
Tim Thompson has been the only outspoken critic to challenge the theory, and has been answered in full.
The recent findings are a surprise to the solar scientists, actually they seem to be in a constant state of surprise. No surprises for the electric theorists only validation.

Still awaiting the explanation for the solar wind and corona ? of course that won't happen because there is none that can be tied to the standard model.

How do you create magnetic fields without electric current? You can't, this is a very basic and fundamental flaw that permeates all cosmology including solar physics.

Also it's more than simple electrostatics, this already been pointed out and ignored or misunderstood it seems.


[edit on 17-1-2008 by squiz]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
The only assumption that the electric model presents is the inflow of electrons.


First, the electric model is not really a model because well, there is no mathematical model. It is impossible, therefore, to establish internal constraints of it.

Second, the inflow of electrons is by far not the only hole in that electric sun notion. As I said before, the low density of plasma in the outer regions of the Sun won't allow to generate same amount of fusion energy as is created in the very dense and hot core of the Sun.

And the inflow... Look, the magnetosphere of the Earth is shaped by the flux of charged particles. You know very well it's tear-drop shape, which is assumes under the pressure of the solar wind coming from the Sun. There is not "inflow" to correct for that, obviously. So it's an impossiblity.

In addition, the opposite direction of fluxes on positive and negative charges in your theory would create quite a bit of relative momentum of the two, which would cause rescattering with resulting generation of X-rays directed towards the Sun. This was never observed.

And well, there is no mysterious source of electrons in Kuiper belt...



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by squiz
The only assumption that the electric model presents is the inflow of electrons.


First, the electric model is not really a model because well, there is no mathematical model. It is impossible, therefore, to establish internal constraints of it.


What maths would you like to see? It all really speaks for itself, most of it is basic electrical engineering material applied to the cosmos. We already know the equations for E-fields, how much force it takes to attract an electron, the voltage needed to achieve acceleration, all of these can be worked out and applied when more is known. And judging by the mess modern astronomy is in due to their mathematical abstractions and limiting parameters, i'm glad that plasma cosmologists are not getting distracted and are instead focussing on the actually proveable maths of plasma experiments and tests. A formula on paper is all very well, but it may not hold any relation to reality whatsoever.

"Mathematics is a game played according to certain simple rules with meaningless marks on paper." - David Hilbert

Most mathematics courses do not teach reasoning of any kind. Students are so baffled by the material that they are obliged to memorize in order to pass examinations. And then the mathematicians use this to then go on and create wonderful models that are mathematically fine on paper, but cant be disproved in the real world.
Its like dark matter, which has never been detected or verified. So how can you prove it doesn't exist? you cant. I prefer to stick with the good old experimental method, what we really do know for sure, and by experimental standards, dark matter doesn’t exist, and never did.



second, the inflow of electrons is by far not the only hole in that electric sun notion.


What is this hole you are referring to?

In the ES model one of the most important factors is the current density in amperes per square metre measured at the stars surface. The higher the current density the hotter the arc discharges on its surface will become, and so the brightness therefore depends on the strength of the current density on the star, and the stars surface area. Wheres the flaw? seems a pretty reasonable concept to me.



As I said before, the low density of plasma in the outer regions of the Sun won't allow to generate same amount of fusion energy as is created in the very dense and hot core of the Sun.


your point is correct in the context you put it in, but I think based on a misunderstanding.
Here you are confusing what is meant when we say a star is powered externally. All of the energy is not created on the surface, the surface is the place where the particles in the solar current enter the sun. Of course, due to the high velocity and substantial kinetic energy gain particles suffer above the photosphere the possibility of Pinch fusion on the surface is very likely. This may be one contributing factors as to why the corona glows, along with the increase in current density.

But of course fusion is likely happening throughout the sun, not exclusively on its surface.

Thornhill has used a electrical dipolar mechanism to postulate that the sun is isodense.


the electric star model makes the simplest assumption – that nothing much is going inside the sun. In the plasma that makes up the sun the nucleus of each atom, which is thousands of times heavier than the electron, will be gravitationally offset from the centre if the atom. The result is that the atom becomes a small electric dipole. These dipoles form to create a radial electric field which causes electrons to diffuse outwards in enormously greater numbers than simple gravitational sorting allows. That leaves positively charged ions behind which repel one another. That electrical repulsion balances the compressive force of gravity without the need for a central heat source in the star. An electric star will be roughly the same density throughout, or isodense.


This model passes occam's razor far better than the current model.

I should point out that the strength of electrostatic attraction between a proton electron pair is 39 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational attraction. So the necessary offset of the electron from the nucleus can be sub-microscopic and yet produce an extremely strong electrical force to counteract gravitational collapse.

But I also like a lot of O' manuel and Mozina's work, where they have established that the sun is a plasa diffuser that sorts atomic elements by weight, lightest at the top, heaviest at the bottom. From this they have come to the conclusion that the sun has a much bigger iron core than previously thought. Infact, there have been some video evidence of iron structures on the surface of the sun. Some of their papers can be seen here;
THE SUN: A MAGNETIC PLASMA DIFFUSER THAT CONTROLS EARTH'S CLIMATE
On the Cosmic Nuclear Cycle and
the Similarity of Nuclei and Stars
- Journal of Fusion Energy


Rather than evolving in one direction by fusion, nuclear matter on the cosmological scale cycles between fusion, gravitational collapse, and dissociation (including neutron-emission). This cycle involves neither the production of matter in an initial “Big Bang” nor the disappearance of matter into black holes. The similarity Bohr noted between atomic and planetary structures extends to a similarity between nuclear and stellar structures.


The topic of similarities between atoms and star systems is another intersting topic too; as the nucleus has a net positive charge and objects orbiting around it, which is very similar to ES concepts. But that’s for another time...

Either of these models could fit with the electric model, what really matters with electric stars is what happens outside the star, what we know for sure. I think that both have their good points, and certain parts of both of them are likely true.


Buddha, could you just outline the main problems that you have with this model in a straightforward way, you seem to be picking the fine minutia out of all the posts without really coming up with any substantial reasons to dismiss it, so just outline your main problems with it so I can respond directly.


[edit on 17-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeuZZ
What maths would you like to see? It all really speaks for itself


Right, so far I see that it predicts that Earth is bombarded by protons on one side and by electrons on the other, which we so totally don't observe. Any math that would describe the behavior of plasma (with realistic characteristics) in the Sun's vicinity, and how it accelerates in the field that you describe (and you would have to describe it mathematically). Energy release rates. Tons of stuff.



all of these can be worked out and applied when more is known


Well for starters we don't have the opposite fluxes of electrons and protons. In addition, it's should be doable to estimate the wattage produced in the outer layers of the Sun, under different assumptions (hint: you'll never get enough to reconcile with observables).


"Mathematics is a game played according to certain simple rules with meaningless marks on paper." - David Hilbert


Please don't do this anymore. When you claim that the standard model of the Sun has problems describing neutrino fluxes (which in reality it doesn't as recent discoveries show) you are referring to a concrete mathematical result. Have courage to face same criteria when trying to justify your theory.


Students are so baffled by the material that they are obliged to memorize in order to pass examinations.


Again, your mileage may vary. And it doesn't mean that there aren't people who know, use, and enjoy math very much... Basically, what you are doing here is a feeble attempt to avoid the unpleasant necessity of due scientific diligence. Talk is cheap. Math is hard, admittedly.

I resign from this discussion. Shamanism has its allure, but only to the degree, and I won't allow shamans to program my GPS (which is based on math). I expressed a few points that in my opinion as a physicist disprove the electric theory you are fond off. Who am I to deny you cheap thrills of a shortcut to a perceived discovery? Science porn... Of better quality than usual, I must say.



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Second, the inflow of electrons is by far not the only hole in that electric sun notion. As I said before, the low density of plasma in the outer regions of the Sun won't allow to generate same amount of fusion energy as is created in the very dense and hot core of the Sun.


Wrong again, see my post regarding the CNO cycle I've already posted twice.
Also I'll post this again, we are running in circles with this debate, already been there.


For a start, the calculated density at the center of the Sun is about a hundred times too low to ignite a thermonuclear process. At the indicated temperature of 13,000,000 0K, protons wouldn't have enough energy to overcome their mutual repulsion. The response is to invoke quantum-mechanical tunneling. That permits fusion only when the protons approach each other head-on, which occurs only in a miniscule proportion of cases. But for as long as an interior energy source is insisted on, there is no alternative, and so the conclusion is drawn that the requisite conditions must exist "somehow."......

.....The Z-pinch effect of currents in arc-mode plasmas is extremely powerful. In the photosphere it would be strong enough to fuse nuclei. The Fraunhofer spectrum of the photosphere contains over 27,000 absorption lines that indicate the presence of 68 out of the 92 naturally occurring elements. A problem with the standard model is how heavier elements are transported from the core, where they're supposed to be created, to the surface. Another is where the elements heavier than iron come from, since they can't be produced by thermonuclear fusion. The electrical model says simply that we seen them in the photosphere because that's where they're being made. The simplest way of producing heavy nuclei in laboratories is by using electric fields to accelerate protons or other light nuclei. It's practically 1920s vacuum tube technology. The accelerated particles can be made to fuse with just about any element in the Periodic Table.




And the inflow... Look, the magnetosphere of the Earth is shaped by the flux of charged particles. You know very well it's tear-drop shape, which is assumes under the pressure of the solar wind coming from the Sun. There is not "inflow" to correct for that, obviously. So it's an impossiblity.


Your kidding me, read my very first post, you know what the aurora is don't you?
Actually there is inflow of something in the sun, which also goes against your impossible scenario.


Mysterious clouds of gas falling towards the Sun have been spotted with the ESA-NASA SOHO spacecraft. They go against the fast-moving streams of gas that pour out continuously into space, in the solar wind. In the new issue of Astrophysical Journal Letters, the scientists who found them suggest that the inflows are due to frequent local adjustments to the Sun's magnetic field. The discovery promises a better understanding of the sources of the solar magnetism that envelops the Earth, quarrels with our own planet's field, and to some extent protects us from cosmic rays coming from the stars.

source



In addition, the opposite direction of fluxes on positive and negative charges in your theory would create quite a bit of relative momentum of the two, which would cause rescattering with resulting generation of X-rays directed towards the Sun. This was never observed.


Perhaps a link to this information? No one is stating this, your making straw man arguments here.
No, we should expect to see constant eruptions of X-rays from the sun in the electric model, which is what Hinode has confirmed much to their surprise, also linked earlier.



And well, there is no mysterious source of electrons in Kuiper belt...


cosmic rays.



While this is amusing, it's getting a little boring having to repeat things just for you. Much of your above post has already been answered as well Buddha, you talk of not matching up with observables? My god!!.




[edit on 17-1-2008 by squiz]



posted on Jan, 17 2008 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Zuezz / Ionized, I was wondering if you could give your interpretation of this paper, take your time. Low energy electron injection events correlated with radio bursts?
repositories.cdlib.org...

Thanx.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Zuezz / Ionized, I was wondering if you could give your interpretation of this paper, take your time. Low energy electron injection events correlated with radio bursts?
repositories.cdlib.org...


quite an interesting read. They have basically found that when an energetic solar event occurs there are two distinct bursts of electrons, one at about seven minutes and the other at nine minutes, and they also found radio emissions associated with this.

I think that this can be explained quite well by the ES model. As in the solar wind you have three distinct types of particles, +ve ions, -ve electrons and neutral atoms (with even amounts of both). The key thing to remember here is that a proton has much more momentum than an electron due to its size, and so when a proton and an electron attract they will always carry on in the direction the proton was going, and the proton will loose very little speed.

So as the solar wind is moving, the negative electrons will be pulled back towards the sun and so should arrive delayed from the other particles. Also the positive ions will be slightly ahead of the electrons belonging to neutral atoms due to repulsion from the suns e-field.

So you would expect to see an initial burst of electrons travelling with the protons, followed by a delayed burst of electrons, Which seems to be exactly what they have observed.


We find two distinct injections: that of 0.4 to 6–9 keV electrons begins 9.1 ± 4.7 min before the start of the type III radio burst and lasts for 50–300 min, while that of 3 - 300 keV electrons starts 7.6 ± 1.3 min after the start of the type III burst and lasts for a factor of 5–10 times shorter.


The first burst occurs between 4.4 and 13.8 mins and is made of low eV electrons, which is what is expected from neutral atoms or ions. And then the high energy electrons arrive at 6.3 to 8.9 minutes after the event, and they arrive in a much shorter time period. I would expect that too, as the sun is having a constant effect on ions and so they would stay close together, whereas the electrons that belong to neutral atoms are not effected much by the e-field, and so will be much more disperse and subject to increased Brownian motion. So that would explain the large range of nearly 10 minutes for the initial burst.

That may be able to explain the delay in ES terms. The people who wrote that paper had good data, but they were insistent on using some of the abstract unproved models to explain the acceleration, instead of E-fields.



Haggerty & Roelof [2002] found a median delay of _10 min for 38-315 keV electrons; they and Simnett et al. [2002] suggested acceleration by shock waves associated with coronal mass ejections (CMEs).


'shock waves'. hmmmmm.


Using WIND observations, Krucker et al. [1999] found the injection of the >25 keV electrons were often delayed by of order _10 min after the type III radio burst at the Sun, and suggested the delays may be related to propagation of large-scale coronal transient (EIT or Moreton) waves.


EIT and Moreton are the same sort of device as magnetic reconnection.


This result is, of course, model-dependent; to our knowledge, the
interplanetary potential has never been measured directly


no one has measured the interplanetary potential. Well why doesn't someone do it then? that would be one sure way to find out if there is an electrical field in space. I'm not sure exactly how you would actually measure it in space however, so it may be more complex than it sounds.


For the delayed high-energy electron injection, recent studies suggested acceleration by some propagating phenomena such as EIT waves and their coronal counterparts [Krucker et al., 1999], or upward moving shocks driven by CMEs [Haggerty &Roelof, 2002; Simnett et al., 2002].


More un-testable ideas and conclusions.



The relatively smooth transition across the transition energy range suggests that the prompt electrons may provide the seed particles for the delayed electron acceleration.


It would appear that they have overlooked the possibility that the delayed electron acceleration could be caused by the attraction of the electrons to the sun and the resulting delay on their speed. To give them credit, they did actually awknowledge that a potential out in space could effect their model, but that "to our knowledge, the interplanetary potential has never been measured directly".

As for the radio emissions, that would be expected at regions of activity as Electromagnetic signals of nearly all frequencies are produced in the sun according to the motion of particles at different speeds and locations. Especially the X-rays that we now know are streaming out of the sun. And i wouldn't be surprised if we found gamma rays coming out at the poles like in other stellar objects, like pulsars.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
I am definately believeing alfvens idea of emmission and intake of particles at the poles more every day. It is basically a homopolar motor mechanism, which also would explain the suns rotation.

The reason i say this is that all astronomers now know that the magnetospheres of planets have depressions above the poles where the electric currents from the sun gain entry into the upper atmosphere, and create the aurora's. Using this fact it is common sense to suggest that since the sun also has poles just like every other planet, these depressions on the suns poles are also where the electric current enters the sun, from the galaxy.

looking at some pictures of the corona it does seem to have tendency to produce two opposite electric current type effects, but they are usually along the equatorial plane, and not necissaily at the poles. maybe the outgoing current at the poles is what is causing the attraction along the main equator of the sun which causes these currents.

heres some pics that look like there is a definate current on opposing sides of the sun;



I'm struck by the similarity to this highly charged plasma ball;



And a couple more;



In this one there appears to be very fine currents at the poles, with two large areas of high current density at each opposing side of the poles



And this is a weird one, i dont have a clue whats going on here;



any one have any ideas for how these shapes are created? its got to be something to so with the poles i think, but i'm not entirely sure what yet.

[edit on 18-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 


Well, its obvious that the last picture was caused be a coronal mass ejection on the opposite side of the sun. Do you have a link to the page this picture is on? I would like to know exactly when this CME occured. I wonder if any comets were in the vicinity.



posted on Jan, 18 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeuZZ
 


Thanks very much for that, much clearer now.
I absolutely agree that the sun's magnetosphere / DL /heliopause relationship with the galactic currents would reflect the Earth's magnetosphere in relation to the solar currents. That's certainly what it looks like.

As a more of a visual person, I find it difficult not to recognize the similarity in structure that exist everywhere at all scales, the systems within systems. It makes perfect sense to me logically, philosophically, dare I mention spiritually, and as is it turning out, scientifically that the sun would be part of a system connected to the rest and not an isolated self sustaining island.



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I checked and didn't mention this before:


Tesla said the Sun was charged to 215,000,000,000 volts in a passage
on page 424 in "Wizard" by Marc Seifer in a Ch 44 ref 25 that was
a New York Times, July 11, 1933 article by Nikola Tesla entitled
"Promises to Transmit Force"

Tesla was very popular and wonder if the FBI took all the photos
and film of Tesla so we can't id the people with him.

Seifer moved on to the death beam topic which apparently is used
to occupy Tesla stories away from any saucer project he had.
The initial wobble remained into the 1950s according to researcher
author Lyne.

Some how I feel the great research on Tesla books just helped to uncover
articles and data that some people do not want to be told. Lyne relates
a second source reference that Seifer uses that changed propelling force
to repelling force in order to cover work on the saucer.


Back to the electric universe, this time from noting
2Eric Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened, Random House [1991]
as Lyne (from 'Pentagon Aliens" p44) relates:



Norwegian Astrophysicist Hannes Alfven
recounted how Kristian Birkeland's measurements showed that "...magnetic fields generated by
the aurora are so localized on the ground that they can only have been produced by nearly
vertical currents—aligned along the magnetic field of the earth.."2 As Eric Lerner explained,
Alfven discovered that plasma clouds moving in the magnetic field of the sun, generate electric
currents which flow to the sun, after which giant currents, with trillions of amps, flow out of the
sun along solar magnetic field lines, into the earth's aurora, through the earth, back through the
cloud, and back to the sun at its equator, and so forth, transferring momentum to the earth.
An oscillating electromagnetic dipole is always changing, and if designed properly, produces
an externalized negative pulse radiating from a saucer, which, while affecting ether and ZPR both
within and without the saucer, is not destructive to organic life. The key is 'positive' versus
'negative' radiation. Penetrating positive radiation (such as X-ray) reacts with nuclear mass within
its frequency range, and transmutes it, while 'negative' radiation tends to react with the outer
electronic structure of matter, and does not normally transmute nuclear mass, though the collisions
of high energy electrons with nuclear mass can give rise to X-rays, by penetrating outer electron
cloud barriers and entering into nuclear space, resulting in the excitation and relaxation of atoms,
with the periodic emission of X-radiation.
The Precession Problem
Tesla's original flying saucer was apparently plagued by the problem of precession. It was for
this reason that the Germans named it the "Kreisel Teller" ("Gyrating [precessing] Saucer"),
which exhibited the behavior of a spinning top, especially when hovering, giving rise among
speculators that the saucer's anti-gravity properties were created somehow by gyroscopic action.
The mass of a spinning object in a state of uniform (angular) momentum, possesses uniform
oscillations in axial and planar polarity. The axial polarity is uniformly precessing (rotating), while
the radial polarity is also uniformly oscillating. Is the precessive force exerted parallel to the
rotational axis, or perpendicular to it? Clearly, though we are more aware of the oscillation of the
spin axis, the force of precession could just as well be exerted through the plane of rotation, as a
twisting force directly related to the variations in frequency of toroidal micro-helices formed within
a spinning body, due to the progressive difference in velocity between the mass near the center, and


I missed an Alfen reference
1Hannes Alfven, Existence of Electromagnetic Hydrodynamic Waves, NATURE, vol. 150 [Oct. 3, 1942], pp. 405-6.
in:



Microwaves do not ordinarily penetrate metallic surfaces. Ether and ZPR permeate all mass,
operating in a different way. X-rays are damaging to cell life, while gravity is not, affecting mass in
a non-radioactive way, by conditions created by the natural electromagnetic resonance of all
gravitational bodies. The microwaves measured by Tesla, emanating from the earth, are generated
by its movement through space, as a result of earth's mass and electrical content, cutting through
lines of sun's magnetic field The driving force behind earth's movement through space, is the
giant current passing from the sun, through space, through the earth, and back to the sun, which
imparts momentum to the earth1, by drawing tubes of force into the earth through the Aurora
Borealis (earth's 'brush'), where they are dissolved.

Alfen is on page 65 as well:



The ionosphere, 620 miles above the earth, is at least 176 million volts positive in respect to
the earth's surface at sea level. The earth's surface generally possesses a high negative charge,
maintained by thousands of lightening bolts per second, all over the earth's surface. This creates a
vertical electric field, the potential of which increases from negative to positive, about 50 volts per
foot (as observed by Tesla), or around 150 volts per meter, on a clear day.
Since an electric field is always accompanied by a magnetic field at right angles to it, this also
implies that earth's magnetic field might be a product of this earth-ionospheric electric field, but the
magnetic field is more likely due to the huge current from the sun through the earth, as noted by
Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfen.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   
If you ran a corporation, and your corporation discovered that it could tap the sun directly. Would it give that power freely to everyone?

Probably not.

The knowledge would be propriatary. A false front would be put up to disguise the operation, maybe geothermal, vent a little steam.

You would sell the energy in moderation from each site, for the best prices you could get competing with other energy sources currently in operation. You would spin up quite a few sites, just staying below the radar of your competators in the real geothermal market, but appearing to be much better funded.

OK, Now the real question: Is there an organization which meets these criteria today?



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   

In an electric field, in a particular locality, electrons can't be drifting in opposite directions. Really, they can't.


[edit on 16-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



Yes Buddhasystem, they can. One example is known as electron hole flow theory.

Even in the flow of electrons through a transistor, where the flow is from source to drain, when there is a bias on the gate.
A sub current flows from the drain to the source opposite to the main flow.

Now we have abolished the impossability! I have no idea about if anything like this occurs in the larger and vastly more complex model of the solar system.



new topics

top topics



 
114
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join