Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

Gravity being a plasma...

As far as we can tell, gravity does not exhibit charge like behaviour, it is only attractive. The large scale apparent acceleration observed at large Z does not constitute anything like a + / - relationship akin to electric charge.

Every object we have ever seen is only ever attracted to other matter, never apparently repulsed (at matter scales when matter becomes dominant over electrostatic)

Since a plasma constitutes a mix of unbound ions and electrons, I cannot quite see the connection.


In the standard model it is mediated by the graviton, which scientists are keeping an eye out for doing various 'gravitational wave' experiments. So far, not observed.

If what ever mediated gravity has any form of electric charge, we would have observed it years ago.

reply to post by ErosA433

On a related topic as to whether gravity can attract or repel, I remember reading about some research projects that were going to try to find out if antimatter "fell up" as opposed to falling down like regular matter, but I never saw any results. Did anybody ever get conclusive results that you know of one way or the other?

I suppose that gravity is such a weak force, it's probably hard to get enough antimatter to make gravitational measurements on it, especially considering how unstable it is around matter.

reply to post by dragonridr


www.plasmacoalition.org...

Plasma is often called the "Fourth State of Matter," the other three being solid, liquid and gas. A plasma is a distinct state of matter containing a significant number of electrically charged particles, a number sufficient to affect its electrical properties and behavior. In addition to being important in many aspects of our daily lives, plasmas are estimated to constitute more than 99 percent of the visible universe.

Electricity is ions in a sufficient number to effect it's properties. Electricity is plasma, in a gas, liquid, or solid.

A magnetic field is plasma.

I didn't say gravity is plasma, there is no evidence for this, I said we will probably find that gravity is an affect of plasma structures.

My concept is that gravity is a result of momentum and plasma structures.

What would cause plasma clouds to condense into a star?

The moving ions would form plasma structures that spiral out from the center form where the structures build. These spirals build momentum as they gain mass, and condense into a mass with enough density to start the fusion process. The fusion process is the behavior of the plasma.

Arbitrageur
reply to post by ErosA433

 

On a related topic as to whether gravity can attract or repel, I remember reading about some research projects that were going to try to find out if antimatter "fell up" as opposed to falling down like regular matter, but I never saw any results. Did anybody ever get conclusive results that you know of one way or the other?

I suppose that gravity is such a weak force, it's probably hard to get enough antimatter to make gravitational measurements on it, especially considering how unstable it is around matter.

Antimatter has almost the exact same properties as normal matter with the exception of charge. Gravity would still affect antimatter and so would magnetic fields as well. Gravity is a distortion of space time meaning it doesnt care what kind of particle it is it can affect it. As far as the experiments i think you might be talking about this one?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

dragonridr
Antimatter has almost the exact same properties as normal matter with the exception of charge. Gravity would still affect antimatter and so would magnetic fields as well. Gravity is a distortion of space time meaning it doesnt care what kind of particle it is it can affect it. As far as the experiments i think you might be talking about this one?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

How the properties of antimatter differ I thought was an unsolved problem in physics, because if they were exactly the same except charge, then doesn't theory say there should have been equal amounts of matter and antimatter (and apparently there aren't)?

But yes that's the kind of research I was looking for, thanks for the link....it's pretty much what was expected, but it's not a bad idea to confirm expectations with experiment.

Arbitrageur

dragonridr
Antimatter has almost the exact same properties as normal matter with the exception of charge. Gravity would still affect antimatter and so would magnetic fields as well. Gravity is a distortion of space time meaning it doesnt care what kind of particle it is it can affect it. As far as the experiments i think you might be talking about this one?

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

How the properties of antimatter differ I thought was an unsolved problem in physics, because if they were exactly the same except charge, then doesn't theory say there should have been equal amounts of matter and antimatter (and apparently there aren't)?

But yes that's the kind of research I was looking for, thanks for the link....it's pretty much what was expected, but it's not a bad idea to confirm expectations with experiment.

Well theres two thoughts as to why we didnt get full matter annihilation. One being there is a difference between the decay rates of b-masons and anti b-masons. Keck found out anti b-masons decay faster. Meaning there was a small percentage of matter that wasnt converted to energy. The other one that makes sense is similar to what we are discussing local areas of the universe can show bias in one direction or the other. I know you understand spin,the spin of a particle may be used to define a handedness.If a particle is right-handed its spin is the same as the direction of its motion. It is left-handed if the directions of spin and motion are opposite.Only left-handed fermions interact with the weak interaction. In most circumstances, two left-handed fermions interact more strongly than right-handed or opposite-handed fermions implying that the universe has a preference for left-handed chirality, which violates a symmetry of the other forces of nature.This violation leads to slightly more matter surviving the initial matter antimatter annihilations. What we dont understand is why there is this bias in the first place it shouldnt be there.there is no reason we can think of right-handed fermions shouldnt act the same. We think it has something to do with the Higgs.

reply to post by dragonridr


The evidence that anti-matter even exists is weak at best. They think they might have found evidence of hydrogen anti-matter, and maybe helium anti-matter.

Protons in anti-matter are negative, and matter and anti-matter don't destroy each other, they turn other into ions/plasma. Being of opposite polarity, matter and anti-matter protons should bind together.

Looks like we are still talking about plasma.

evidence for anti matter is weak? Quite an interesting statement that is quite ignorant of again, a great deal of evidence.

The nature of anti matter is under examination as although we know it exists, scientists are interested in checking if interactions are coupled with the same strength for matter and anti-matter.

For the existence of antimatter,

The positron is very well established, we do observe a particle with exactly the same properties as an electron but with positive charge, emitted during a magnesium 23 decay followed by a subsequent annihilation and 1.2 MeV gamma emission.

There is also a rather good project that creates actual anti-atoms, that is anti protons with positrons and confines them using a penning trap

Ever hear of a PET scan? Well that there is your none existent matter being used in the medical world... Positron emission tomography. Not bad for there being weak evidence for.

The search is really to see if our model of anti-matter is good or not, to see if there are places for CP and CPT violation during interactions. The big search right now is not in the Bayrons, but in the lepton sector.


I also read about the test to see if anti-matter experience 'anti-gravity' rather than gravity, but I too didn't really know what happened to it or if anything other than a paper proposal was performed.

poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr

 

The evidence that anti-matter even exists is weak at best. They think they might have found evidence of hydrogen anti-matter, and maybe helium anti-matter.

Protons in anti-matter are negative, and matter and anti-matter don't destroy each other, they turn other into ions/plasma. Being of opposite polarity, matter and anti-matter protons should bind together.

Looks like we are still talking about plasma.

You have such a weak understanding of science that from now on when you make a statement i suggest you start providing links it may keep you from saying stupid things. Believe it or not we can create antimatter it does exist and if you understodd anything about physics you would know why. Cern has released huge amounts of data on anti matter and CP-violations.This has been confirmed to 5 sigma.Their data actually blames something called a beauty quark aka BOs for the difference in their decay rates i could go into an explanation but i fear id just be wasting my time. Lets just say they found a charged symmetry violation meaning they dont decay at the same rate.Heres a good place to start and i can attempt to help though my field is biomedical so i may need a refresher course first.

lhcb-public.web.cern.ch...

Mary Rose
The video is saying that the shock front model is incorrect. It is saying the boundary is showing a more complex structure than mere mechanical impact. It is saying that the heliosheath is dominated by the galaxy's magnetic field, which in turn traces the direction of interstellar current flow in space near the sun. . .

I did a search of the Thunderbolts website for more information about interstellar current flow.

It brought up an article, "The Interstellar Medium" dated Jan 11, 2010:

A diffuse cloud of gas surrounds the Solar System. What is holding it together?

It is often stated that space is a vacuum. It is true that the material in space is at a far lower density than any vacuum that can be created on Earth, but matter does exist in the regions between stars and galaxies. The best pumped vacuums on Earth typically reach a 0.1 millimeter spacing between individual atoms.

Between stars, there is one atom per cubic centimeter, while in the Milky Way's galactic halo they are estimated to be ten centimeters apart. The regions of least density are in the intergalactic voids, where it is theorized that there is only one atom for every ten cubic meters.

The Interstellar Medium (ISM), through which the Solar System and all other star systems are moving, consists of a mass of gas and dust primarily composed of hydrogen and helium, with an admixture of dust grains that are less than one-tenth of a micron in size. One micron is equal to one-millionth of a meter, so the dust is almost as small as the frequency of blue light (0.450 microns).

The size of the dust particles means that blue light is scattered when it passed through the ISM, so more red light reaches Earth than it would without the dust. This phenomenon is called "interstellar reddening", and is the same effect that causes reddening of the sunrise and sunset. Dust clouds lit from the side by starlight appear blue, on the other hand, for the same reason that Earth's sky is blue: blue light is scattered by Earth's atmosphere.

What the dust is and where it came from is not known, but astrophysicists speculate that it is ejected from stars. Supergiant stars are often seen with immense clouds of dust surrounding them. However, deep space images also reveal dust lanes thousands of light-years in circumference looping around many galaxies.

One important characteristic of the ISM is that it contains ionized particles, as well as neutral molecules. It is those electrons and positive ions that are critical to understanding the behavior of the ISM and how the Solar System interacts with it.

Although the ISM is extremely diffuse, if charge separation takes place in different regions, a weak electric field will develop. An electric field, no matter how weak, will initiate an electric current. . . .

www.thunderbolts.info...

reply to post by ErosA433

The positron is very well established, we do observe a particle with exactly the same properties as an electron but with positive charge, emitted during a magnesium 23 decay followed by a subsequent annihilation and 1.2 MeV gamma emission.

I really don't see this as solid evidence that there are antimatter galaxies. Or that a positron is anti-matter. Sorry, but the term anti-matter, while being exotic and intriguing, and fun to imagine, being that we all grew up watching star track whose warp engines ran on antimatter, but positive electrons don't exactly foot the bill.

The existence of positrons could have a great deal more to do with other things than anti-matter. It is coming up with an idea, ANTI-MATTER, wow, and then looking for evidence to support the concept, rather than looking at what we observe and measure, and coming up with ideas as to how all of this fits together.

reply to post by dragonridr


See post above.

Insert cheap shot of your own choosing.

reply to post by Mary Rose


This interstellar boundary follows along with the observation that when plasma is created in a laboratory, it forms like a living cell, with a nucleus and a membrane. On the stellar level, the sun would be the nucleus, and pioneer has discovered the membrane. This is just my take, but this is all new information.

While they see dust, I see plasma, and I consider that there could a lot more matter than the plasma we are seeing, we just can't detect it yet.

poet1b
The existence of positrons could have a great deal more to do with other things than anti-matter. It is coming up with an idea, ANTI-MATTER, wow, and then looking for evidence to support the concept, rather than looking at what we observe and measure, and coming up with ideas as to how all of this fits together.

Explain the difference. Seems to me like we found the positron by looking and measuring, and it has the opposite charge as the electron and same mass. Are you suggesting calling it something other than antimatter would help somehow? It would still have the same properties.

reply to post by Mary Rose

One of the ways EU proponents keep people confused is they occasionally insert some true statements in with other statements that contradict observation. I don't see any contradiction with observation in a statement that weak electric fields can cause currents in a space plasma, and mainstream scientists have published papers about this topic. However note that when such electric fields form, and the current flows, the effect of the charged particles moving is to cancel the electric field, unless there is a power source that maintains the electric field. Astronauts could be subjected to weak electric currents that could make them "twitch" (aka " involuntary motor response") and this is in mainstream research:

On the Modeling of Electrical Effects Experienced by Space Explorers During Extra Vehicular Activities: Intracorporal Currents, Resistances, and Electric Fields

If you want to learn more about the REAL electric universe, you can read that and other articles like it. Try searching for:

electric currents in space

at this search site: www.science.gov...

There is a real electric universe, it's just not the one Don Scott and Wal Thornhill are lying to you about (which isn't even the same lie by the way, they both have different lies).

I got over 35,000 hits.

The problem with the electric sun idea is that the sun cannot be powered by a weak electric current because it doesn't have a "weak output", rather the output is known and measured to be quite large, and therefore the amount of current that would be needed to power an electric sun can be calculated, and further we know how to spot such a current because it would emit electromagnetic radiation at various frequencies, and we have telescopes looking at the sky in a wide range of EM frequencies, and we see no evidence of such a powerful current going into or coming out of the sun.

Getting back to the effect of electric currents on astronauts, if the sun was powered by electric current, then the astronaut who repaired the Hubble Space telescope would be dead, as calculated here:

Death by Electric Universe. II. EU's Unsolvable Problem

If the Sun were actually powered by these currents, we would have a lot of dead astronauts.

You can see the calculations explaining why at that link, not that you will understand them, but someone might.

Arbitrageur

poet1b
The existence of positrons could have a great deal more to do with other things than anti-matter. It is coming up with an idea, ANTI-MATTER, wow, and then looking for evidence to support the concept, rather than looking at what we observe and measure, and coming up with ideas as to how all of this fits together.

Explain the difference. Seems to me like we found the positron by looking and measuring, and it has the opposite charge as the electron and same mass. Are you suggesting calling it something other than antimatter would help somehow? It would still have the same properties.

reply to post by Mary Rose

 

One of the ways EU proponents keep people confused is they occasionally insert some true statements in with other statements that contradict observation. I don't see any contradiction with observation in a statement that weak electric fields can cause currents in a space plasma, and mainstream scientists have published papers about this topic. However note that when such electric fields form, and the current flows, the effect of the charged particles moving is to cancel the electric field, unless there is a power source that maintains the electric field. Astronauts could be subjected to weak electric currents that could make them "twitch" (aka " involuntary motor response") and this is in mainstream research:

On the Modeling of Electrical Effects Experienced by Space Explorers During Extra Vehicular Activities: Intracorporal Currents, Resistances, and Electric Fields

If you want to learn more about the REAL electric universe, you can read that and other articles like it. Try searching for:

electric currents in space

at this search site: www.science.gov...

There is a real electric universe, it's just not the one Don Scott and Wal Thornhill are lying to you about (which isn't even the same lie by the way, they both have different lies).

I got over 35,000 hits.

The problem with the electric sun idea is that the sun cannot be powered by a weak electric current because it doesn't have a "weak output", rather the output is known and measured to be quite large, and therefore the amount of current that would be needed to power an electric sun can be calculated, and further we know how to spot such a current because it would emit electromagnetic radiation at various frequencies, and we have telescopes looking at the sky in a wide range of EM frequencies, and we see no evidence of such a powerful current going into or coming out of the sun.

Getting back to the effect of electric currents on astronauts, if the sun was powered by electric current, then the astronaut who repaired the Hubble Space telescope would be dead, as calculated here:

Death by Electric Universe. II. EU's Unsolvable Problem

If the Sun were actually powered by these currents, we would have a lot of dead astronauts.

You can see the calculations explaining why at that link, not that you will understand them, but someone might.

edit on 15-3-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

Interesting article didnt actually think about it that way but yes ionised particles would condense at the sun in an electric model and start at the heliosphere its density would increase all the way to the corona.The reason i threw out this was simply lack of electron flow in sufficient quantities to power the sun. See when you think about it it would actually require more energy than even fusion in the core because it requires energy to bombard the photospheres from all directions of space meaning are night sky would literally have a glow probably be awesome to watch though.

poet1b
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

This interstellar boundary follows along with the observation that when plasma is created in a laboratory, it forms like a living cell, with a nucleus and a membrane. On the stellar level, the sun would be the nucleus, and pioneer has discovered the membrane. This is just my take, but this is all new information.

While they see dust, I see plasma, and I consider that there could a lot more matter than the plasma we are seeing, we just can't detect it yet.

Ionised gas membranes are used in the production of polymers this is chemistry you're confusing two different branches of science. In fact part of my work is on polymers and absorption rates into the body. You have warped science into a theory of half truths by thinking all fields of science are applicable in all situations. There not for obvious reasons.

Now Mary we are aware of current flow in interstellar medium it has to be there by the very nature of electromagnetic particles. Its just in no way large enough to power the sun a charge is determined by its density the stronger the density the higher its potential. In order to power all the suns in our galaxy space wouldn't be black the suns would be our universe would look exactly opposite. Suns would appear as dark spots much like sunspots and the space around them would be glowing. Meaning even telescopes would be useless and there would be no such thing as night and day.

Arbitrageur
I got over 35,000 hits.

You?

Mary Rose
It brought up an article, "The Interstellar Medium" dated Jan 11, 2010

Continuing:

According to a recent press release, there is an unexpected cloud of gas and dust that is encompassing the Sun's heliosheath. Prior to the discovery, conventional understanding did not predict that it would be there because high pressure supernova shockwaves should have blown it away.

However, according to Merav Opher of George Mason University: "Using data from Voyager, we have discovered a strong magnetic field just outside the Solar System. This magnetic field holds the interstellar cloud together and solves the long-standing puzzle of how it can exist at all."

On August 20, 1977, NASA launched the Voyager 2 mission on a multiyear journey to the outer Solar System. Voyager 1 was launched on a faster, shorter trajectory on September 5, 1977. Voyager 1 passed through the Sun's termination shock in December 2004. Voyager 2, traveling a different path, did the same in August 2007. It was data from those "old-timers" that provided the information for Opher's assessment of the ISM.

What is the heliosheath? When Voyager 1 experienced "unusual events" as it approached the boundary between the Sun and interstellar space, Electric Universe advocate Wal Thornhill explained that the spacecraft was entering a "double layer", or Langmuir plasma sheath between the solar plasma and the plasma of the ISM.

It is a well-known principle that electric currents generate magnetic fields. Since Opher's research team has found magnetic fields strong enough to hold tenuous clouds of gas and dust together against the influence of hypothetical supernova explosions, then electric currents must be flowing through the ISM in order to create those fields.

Whenever an electric discharge takes place in plasma, the current flow is compressed inward by induced magnetic fields. This effect is known as a "z-pinch", and is a foundational principle of Electric Universe theory. The compression can be so intense that plasma is squeezed down into solid particles. Indeed, stars and galaxies are thought to owe their existence to massive electric currents forming cosmic z-pinches in the vast clouds of plasma that make up 99% of the Universe.

In conclusion, the ultra-fine dust, magnetic fields, influences on spacecraft, and the heliosheath, itself, are all manifestations of the electric force. Electricity will eventually supplant gravitational theory as the primum mobile of existence. Meanwhile, patient observations continue to support Electric Universe concepts.

Stephen Smith

Arbitrageur
There is a real electric universe, it's just not the one Don Scott and Wal Thornhill are lying to you about (which isn't even the same lie by the way, they both have different lies).

You're resorting to name-calling which is an indication of weakness in your argument.