It does. Thanks.

__________________
Es gibt keine Tatsachen, es gibt nur Interpretationen. (There are no facts, only interpretations.) Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

And for a recent review of where exactly the solar dynamo is located, this paper, compares the different models and tries to make a case for a shallow "shear layer" at 0.95 solar radius. He argues that young sunspots are moving faster than older ones which implies that they originate close to the surface (where everything moves faster, if I understand correctly). This is exactly where the EU model expects the generation of the magnetic fields; at or near the surface.

Cheers.

Here is another piece of interesting information which shows that electric fields high up in our atmosphere can produce gamma-rays. The existence of strong electric fields this high up in the atmosphere is in line with the EU model, shown in this article.

Cheers.

I also note a papers suggesting that gamma ray bursts (GRB) are produced from a plasma z-pinch discharge. See Polarization in Gamma-Ray Bursts Produced by Pinch Discharge (2005) by Mei Wu, Li Chen, Ti-pei Li [Abstract]

This should come as no surprise since even terrestrial lighting show signs of emitting gamma and x-rays, see Lightning between Earth and Space (see last illustration), and, What Comes Out of the Top of a Thunderstorm.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

It's been a bit quiet in this part of UT. Maybe I should throw in some numbers, for some of you seem to like them.

Okay it is just two numbers, but from an independant source and confirming the EU model.

Read complete story here

gerards regards

__________________
Es gibt keine Tatsachen, es gibt nur Interpretationen. (There are no facts, only interpretations.) Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Hi Gerard,

Here's another important clue that shows why it could be important to include EU ideas into the equations:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arc...223columbia.htm

It could even be dangerous to assume Earth is electrically neutral.

Cheers.

Thanks to Ian:

This mystery is easily solved in the EU model. Magnetic fields are invoked, and as usual the electric currents that create the magnetic fields don't get mentioned.

Cheers.

As the article says "The strange behavior of this protostar reveals that something else might help gravity turn a bunch of gas and dust into a star." Indeed.

• Plasmas generate x-rays with ease. Even terrestrial lightning generates x-rays.
• Plasma accelerate material (eg. jets, and Z-(Bennett)-pinches)
• Magnetic fields implies electric currents

See for example:

• Cosmic electric currents and the generalized Bennett relation, by Per Carlqvist, [Abstract]
• Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies, by Anthony L. Peratt [Abstract]
• Electrodynamic Forces in Stellar Formation, by Jafelice, L. C.; Opher, R., [Abstract]
• Interstellar clouds and the formation of stars, by Alfven, H.; Carlqvist, P., [Abstract, and in full]

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Nice story VanderL
The more powerful the instruments become the more details seem to elude mainstream theories.

gerards regards

__________________
Es gibt keine Tatsachen, es gibt nur Interpretationen. (There are no facts, only interpretations.) Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

I don't know how far from neutral you think the Earth might be, but since the Earth is spinning at 1500 km/hr, any charge it has would result in a magnetic field aligned with the rotational poles. Our inability to measure that magnetic field puts a fairly strong limit on how far from neutral the Earth may be.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I don't know how far from neutral you think the Earth might be, but since the Earth is spinning at 1500 km/hr, any charge it has would result in a magnetic field aligned with the rotational poles. Our inability to measure that magnetic field puts a fairly strong limit on how far from neutral the Earth may be. [/b][/quote]
This might be a stupid question: isn't that the magnetic field my compass needle responds to?

regards

__________________
Es gibt keine Tatsachen, es gibt nur Interpretationen. (There are no facts, only interpretations.) Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Compasses point to slowly migrating magnetic poles that are a substantial distance away from the rotational poles. So no this isn't a magnetic field generated by a charged rotating Earth.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I don't know how far from neutral you think the Earth might be, but since the Earth is spinning at 1500 km/hr, any charge it has would result in a magnetic field aligned with the rotational poles. Our inability to measure that magnetic field puts a fairly strong limit on how far from neutral the Earth may be.[/b][/quote]
I think it might be a little more complicated than that. I don't know whether the Earth is charged, but if it is, it is not in a perfect environment.

• There Earth is not perfectly spherical, and even a slightly oblate charged sphere would produce complex magnetic field lines. See "Magnetic fields of spherical, cylindrical, and elipsoidal electric charge superficial distributions at rotation" PDF
• Charge distribution would probably be uneven.
• Additionally, nearby influences (charges, electric currents) can affect the generated magnetic field. See for example, section 5 in The Myth of Magnetism
• And we have to factor in the inflences of the Earth's magnetophere, auroral circuit, heliospheric current sheet, etc.

David P. Stern considers this question too, on his excellent education Web site on the Earth's magnetic field and magnetopshere; see Q46: Earth magnetism from rotating electric charges?

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

From your list:
- The Earth may not be a perfect sphere, but the complex magnetic field lines from the Earth's variation from spherical would not result in the magnetic field being nearly as far from aligned with the rotational poles as it is.
- If the charge distribution were VERY uneven, first, we would detect it easily, and second, it would tend to distribute itself to even up again.
- Nearby influences such as charges or electric fields? where are they? We should be able to detect them easily enough.
- Magnetosphere [etc]: Are you saying these are why the Earth's magnetic field wanders and changes intensity?

Generally speaking, none of the factors you've mentioned impact my statement that the lack of a magnetic field oriented on the rotational axis of the Earth places strong limits on how far from neutral the Earth's charge can be. Also, none of them can provide a sufficient fudge factor to allow us to call the known magnetic field of the Earth to be a result of such a charge imbalance.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I have a question about the EU model, I am sure you have probable discussed it somewhere in this mammoth of a thread and if so I beg your pardon.

Is is possible that in the EU model that the dark matter is just the effecto of neuttral charge between the positive and negatively charged bodies? We are unable to obseve these effects, but an analogy would be that the neutrally charge regions of space represent neutrons with similar mass distribution as that of the atom.

Is this way off?

Hi rousejohnny,

I don't normally speak for the EU people, but just briefly, I think that the EU idea concerning dark matter is that we don't know much about it. There are several EU ideas that seem to be invoked here including:

- If there IS dark matter, it could well be a perfectly normal but denser than expected amount of neutral plasma.
- There is no EU reason that dark matter WIMPs couldn't exist, so if we find them it doesn't shoot down the EU idea.
- It may be that the electromagnetic forces in the galaxy are strong enough to account for the higher velocities that stars seem to be orbiting with, and so there would be no need for any Dark Matter to account for the excess speed of rotation.

If I've misrepresented the EU ideas about this I apologize.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I agree with that! Before you know it, we'll be co-authoring a paper ;-)

Regards,
Ian

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

If we do so, it will be one of those opposing viewpoints papers that explains both sides of an argument. I think that there is good evidence that there is not sufficient neutral plasma to account for the missing mass, nor sufficient EM forces to propel stars around the galaxy rapidly. I did, however, want to represent as cleanly as I could what the EU arguments were to rousejohnny's question.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

If we do so, it will be one of those opposing viewpoints papers that explains both sides of an argument. I think that there is good evidence that there is not sufficient neutral plasma to account for the missing mass, nor sufficient EM forces to propel stars around the galaxy rapidly. I did, however, want to represent as cleanly as I could what the EU arguments were to rousejohnny's question. [/b][/quote]
The speed of the galaxy should not be a problem. What would be the speed of objects in the galaxy if they started out 1 meter per sec and speed up at an ever increasing rate of acceleration beginning 3 or 4 billion years years ago? Pretty fast I would imagine. The EM would just have to account for the incremental increases of the acceleration over an X amount of time. How much EM energy would be required to cause the increasing acceleration?

This news item is about the X-rays from Jupiter's poles. The mechanism to produce the X-rays from highly ionized oxygen atoms (among others) is 10 million amp currents (enough to power Io's electric arcs, aka as volcanoes?). This finding fits with the EU model, and shows electric currents are important in accelerating particles. It would be another step forward when it is realized that nature produces it's X-rays and all other radiation mainly through this mechanism, and is not caused by extremely high temperatures. One mechanism to explain a lot of different phenomena. The question of how these currents are generated becomes increasingly important, maybe the EU model isn't such a bad idea.

from the article:
The difference in auroral displays between Jupiter and other celestial bodies (apart from which ions are available) is the strength of the currents.

Cheers.

This will never be shown because it is not true. I don't see for whom it would be a step forward if it were. However, if you can be shown that most xrays in the universe are thermal in origin, would that convince you that the EU model is wrong?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

We've discussed the origin of X-rays before (a long time ago) and it is certainly true that by far the easiest way to produce X-rays is through accelerating particles in an electric field. It doesn' need million of degrees of hot gas to produce X-rays.

Science in general?

I'm not sure about this, the current models rely on thermal X-rays, the EU model doesn't exclude thermal X-rays, it just tells us that "non-thermal" X-rays must be ubiquitous because nature doesn't do things the hard way. There are many examples that magnetic fields are doing something in X-ray sources. The EU model claims that the magnetic fields don't come without electric currents.

Cheers.

But this is exactly what the standad (i.e., non EU) theory says. So what's the difference?

The difference is that the EU hypothesis rests on the infertile assumption that the electric fields come from electrostatic charge separation. But standard theory recognizes that it is a heckuvalot easier to generate a magnetic field in a neutral plasma, and then let the time variability of the magnetic field induce an electric field, which then accelerates the electrons.

The bottom line is that the EU rests on some strange fantasy view of the universe, whereas the standard explanation actually rests on what we know. It's "fantasy" (EU) vs "knowledge" (standard), and "knowledge'"usually wins (except in politics).

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Charge separation is not something that happens because some energetic process is actively separating the charge, it is a given. You are looking at the EU assumption the wrong way; currents flow because the charge is already separated in the Universe, this energy is converted/released and shapes the Universe we see. This article describes it in more detail, but basically we measure the consequences of already separated charge, not processes that fuel this source of energy.

Cheers.

I found the 'Electric Sun' theory explained on http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm . To be honest I find it quite a bizarre idea that the radiative energy output of the sun should be due to a corresponding particle flux attracted by the sun. Surely, such a huge amount of high energy particles coming from space should be more than obvious (maybe even catastrophic), but all that is observed is in fact only a rather small amount of particles leaving the sun i.e. the solar wind. In my opinion, the 'Electric Sun' model fails aready here, never mind the apparent absence of a quantitative theory for this.

Even without the assumption of nuclear fusion within the sun, the radiative output as well as the 'coronal heating' and solar wind can in fact be explained without assuming any cosmic currents. It is simply due to the recombination of charged particles in the solar atmosphere. The usual argument is that this energy source (which is essentially due to the gravitational energy of the sun) should have lasted only for a million years or so, but this assumption is based on the incorrect generalization of the classical energy conservation law to radiative (i.e. quantum mechanical) processes (see my webpages http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/sun.htm , http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/conservation.htm ). Basically what happens is that the high plasma density in the solar atmosphere not only leads to a broadening of the usual discrete lines to a continuum but also a corresponding increase of the radiative emission intensity by several orders of magnitude. I have not been able yet to exactly quantitatively confirm this for the overall solar radiative output, but the enhancement effect does agree almost exactly with the observed emission in the radio region of the sun as well as some airglow emission lines in the earth's atmosphere (see http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/research/solradio.htm and http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk/papers/airglow2.htm (see Chpt.3.4 for the explanation of the radiative enhancement mechanism)). Although these are obviously plasma effects as well, it involves only quasi-neutral plasmas and no large scale electric fields are involved here.

__________________
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

Two questions come to my mind: how did the particles become charged?
and

How can the potential energy from the sun's gravitational force, directed inward, make the solar wind particles gain kinetic energy to move outward?


gerards regards

__________________
Es gibt keine Tatsachen, es gibt nur Interpretationen. (There are no facts, only interpretations.) Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

What is the source (=astronomical object, not physical mechanism) of most of the X-rays in the universe? If we can agree on that, we can move on to mechanisms.

BTW, do any EU proponents have a view on how SNR (supernova remnants) generate EM?

That's not an easy question to answer, are strong point sources producing more X-rays than diffuse clouds of "hot" plasma? This short article shows where the problem is in finding the mechanism of X-ray production. The mainstream mechanism relies on heating/shocking of neutral particles by some inferred energetic event, while Plasma or EU needs only electric currents, which are visible by their filamentary structure, also in X-rays.


I'm not sure what you mean with this question, in the EU model supernova remnants are the result of a very strong discharge, possibly as a result of the "fissioning" of an electrically highly stressed star (possibly resulting in a binary system). The remnant is dissipating the electric energy,
this article compares a supernova with what it looks like in the lab. The different shapes of SN remnants depend on the viewing angle, as explained here.

Cheers.

Two questions come to my mind: how did the particles become charged?
[/b][/quote]
Protons and electrons are particles that are charged by their very nature, protons positively and electrons negatively. On a larger scale the charge only becomes apparent if the two kinds become separated to a certain degree, but if there are as many protons as electrons in a given volume, the latter is overall neutral as positive and negative charges cancel out. Still the charge of the individual particles is important on a very small scale because individual atoms and their radiative transitions are affected by it.

__________________
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

How can the potential energy from the sun's gravitational force, directed inward, make the solar wind particles gain kinetic energy to move outward?
[/b][/quote]
The point is that there is not only a gravitational force, but also a pressure gradient that acts in the opposite direction. Overall the situation is therefore stationary and the sun does not collapse under its own weight (for the same reason our atmosphere does not fall towards the earth). The particles have velocities in all directions and a certain amount of particles have an energy high enough to escape from gravity (this holds also for the earth's atmosphere for instance). The point is that in each gas elastic collisions produce some particles that have a higher energy than the average energy (as given by the gravitational potential energy) and these particles can escape the gravitational field. This obviously leads to some energy loss ie. cooling of the gas, but this is only small because only a relatively small number of particles can escape (the cooling due to the emission of radiation is much more important).

__________________
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk
http://www.plasmaphysics.org.uk