Did you miss upriver's links to evidence that the particles do not stream away from the Sun at all times, at all places and is it impossible to have a weak radial electric field accelerate ions while the plasma stays quasi-neutral in large areas because the ions drag electrons with them?

Cheers.

I don't know if this is the actually source, but the date fits.

• 2355 + 490 is mentioned in:
  Radio observations of extended sources suspected of having steep-spectrum cores (1986), See image p.726
  .
• I don't have a source for 0844+319, but it appears to be IC 2402 galaxy Ref, and perhaps based on the Green Bank survey.

Indeed. The important bit is being able to substantiate the claim. The 'scale assumption' is more than just an assumption though, being based on empirical evidence in the laboratory.

With all due respect to tusenfem, his comments on the scaling of plasma guns, is an opinion, and also unsubstantiated.

But you would both be right to be cautious, as Alfvén himself acknowledges, "different plasma parameters obey different scaling laws, translation from one region to another is difficult" [Cosmic Plasma, p.4]

However, I have provided peer-reviewed papers by Peratt and others suggesting that certain plasma features, such as Birkeland currents, plasma pinches, may be scaleable.

But then it should be equally incumbent for critics to provide evidence or specific criticisms that question such papers, beyond opinion or doubt.

Perhaps demonstrates is too strong a word, but yes, Peratt presents a case for intergalactic Birkeland currents.

More replies to follow in a subsequent post.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

And how is this evidence that gravity is not the dominating interaction over cosmic scales?



Let me ask you again: would you like them to jump to unsupported conclusions?


I see the links, but I do not see any explanation about their relevance...
First link: it talks about extragalactic radio jets; where does the paper mention pinches?
Second link: high-energy flux from galactic center, electron-positron jets from galactic center, clouds of hot gas "stirred up" by the activity of the galactic center...
Why don't you explain in detail how these posts of yours answer my question?

Can you aswer my question: what makes you so confident?


Then you should accept this: By the way, you missed this:

This is not an answer.


So, your point was that they don't put the probes were they should?
If I did not misunderstand your point, on what is it based?



Are you saying that the space probes do not actually measure potential differences?

Ah, so they can measure potential differences!

So, what was your point with the bird analogy?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Do those links show that negative charges move in one direction and positive in the opposite direction?

It does not seem so: variation in electron density, clouds moving against the Solar Wind, Alfvén waves...
Can you point out where the evidence is for an electric field that accelerates the particles throughout the Solar System?

By the way:

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

I more mean that I was giving a very direct answer to a question. quite a few people around here have gotten banned for not doing that.

Its terminology time again.
The general method for measuring density of a plasma is to use a langmuir probe. A very simple instrument, just a piece of metal sticking in the plasma and biased electrically. A langmur probe generally measures electrons only. The ion data is very hard to come by with a simple langmuir probe due to the electrons being accelerated by the probe bias much more than the ions. This leads to density measurements being given ae electron densities. This means that unless specifically stated otherwise the ion density is nearly equal to the electron density. All this absteact is saying is 'hey, we found a plasma jet'
And? Yes, we know plasma is affected by magnetic fields, and yes, we know the fields around the sun are very dynamic. considering the ion precipitation into the Earths ionosphere, it isnt suprising that the sun would do it occasionally too.

And Peratt is wrong. a 2 converging magnetic fields facing one another is called a magnetic mirror because it is very good at accelerating charges. This is a non-time varying magnetic field, with field aligned motion. no electric effects are involved.
this says nothing that supports what you are saying. Wave heating has long thought to be the major heater for the corona, and wave resonances are becoming more and more recognized as an acceleration component.

Basically, all of these abstracts say nothing about there being an electron gradient, and certaingly dont say anything about a charge separation in the heliosphere

Uhhh, yes they do have to rampace in a specific direction. they have to go up then back down the circuit.

If motion of the electrons wasnt important, insulators would conduct AC signals.

As to the wavelength and energy transfer out of AC circuits, do you really think that the massive electrical grids covering most of the land surface of this planet are run by a hope and a prayer? The wave length of the AC signal is velociy/frequency, both are well known. Look them up in a basic physics text if you want.

As for the MM experiment, a) how does it apply here, and b)how does getting no result not equal a null result?

Your question is irrelevant to your previous statement, which was whether or not a steady electric field accelerates the solar wind, not creates it.

From the original press release: "Since the spacecraft detected the jet for more than two hours, the reconnection must have been almost steady over at least that timespan [...] Thanks to these additional data, the team could conclude that reconnection in the solar wind is to be looked at as an extended and steady phenomenon [...] The 2 February 2002 event could have been considerably larger, but the spacecraft were separated by no more than 200 Earth diameters, so its true extent is unknown."

So yes, contrary to many claims in this thread, it does appear that at times a steady electric field accelerates the solar wind. I'm interested in how they know it was a reconnetion event if it was so widespread and steady, and not some other phenomenon, but few details are given in the release.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Maybe they only move in opposite directions at the boundaries of the plasma, that would be either very close to the Sun or very far from the Sun, areas that are poorly probed, or the areas that form counter-streams. The net difference in the number of positive and negative charges in the quasi-neutral regions of interplanetary space could be very small locally ("undetectable" by our instruments), and still consist of a large current because of the vastness of the heliopshere.

Cheers.

I was trying not to repeat too often my questions.
So, what does the observation of a magnetic reconnection event have to do with the idea of an electric field throughout the Solar System, producing the motion of the particles in the Solar Wind?
Are you saying that a magnetic reconnection event produces a steady (and "radial", as VanderL put it) electric field throughout the Solar System, an electric field which is otherwise not observed by the space probes?

From the press release:Apparently the jet from the reconnection increased the particle flow in the Solar Wind significantly above average.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

So, your answer is "no".
And your hypothesis is not compatible with the idea of a radial electric field throughout the Solar System determining the motion of the particles of the Solar Wind.

Quantify "undetectable": what is the sensitivity of the instruments, and what would be this "net difference"?
And how does the direction of flow become "undetectable"?

So, where are the observations supporting this large current? Is the Sun charging up?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Please explain.

Too low to detect, it would mean different things for different instruments, I guess a difference of a few electrons per cubic meter is not detectable by any instrument used to date.

Sorry?

It's radiant.

Cheers.

If particles with opposite charges move in opposite direction at the boundaries of the plasma, they do not do it in the bulk of the plasma. Therefore, their motion in the bulk of the plasma is not determined by a macroscopic (or "external") electric field.


Would a single-electron transistor be up to the task?
If you cannot quantify how "undetectable" this supposed net difference is, how can you tell whether the observations could show it or not?



We can even build instruments that measure the speed and direction of a charged particles.
So we can observe whether positive and negative charged particles are moving in the same direction or not.
If you dispute the observations that show that the particles in the Solar Wind are moving in the same direction, you must refute (with quantitative arguments) that the instruments can detect the direction of motion of the particles.


What is "radiant"? The Sun? As in "light" and "electromagnetic radiation"?
Or as in "it's irradiating charged particles": in this case, can you show that there is a net electric current?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Won't the heliospheric current sheet, spiralling outwards from the Sun, have a corresponding electric field?

And I note the following:

• WIND observations of coherent electrostatic waves in the solar wind (1999) Mangeney, A. et al
  ".. there is a small but finite electric potential drop, implying an average electric field generally directed away from the Sun."
  .
• The Radial Electric Field in the Solar Wind (1970) Cuperman, S. & Harten, A.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

And how would this field determine the motion of the particles in the Solar Wind?

(Bolding mine)
How does this show that the motion of the particles in th Solar Wind is determined by a "macroscopic" electric field.

Interesting.
If you read the introduction, it explains that this radial field affects the particles so that the flux of positive charges (heavier) equals the flux of negative charges (electrons, therefore much lighter): the result is electrically neutral Sun and Solar Wind.
If I understand correctly, the heavier ions (protons) would move away from the Sun slower than the lighter electrons. This would yield a charge separation with resulting electric field. This electric field would accelertae the ions with respect to the electrons (or -- better -- decelerate the electrons), so that in a steady state the flow of positive and negative charges is the same.
This sounds a lot like my idea of "internal" electric field, but covering macroscopic distances corresponding to the volume occupied by the plasma.
(I guess that I could have found something similar if I had opened my thermodynamics book, in the chapter dealing with electrolytic solution with more than one ionic species.)

The article, though, seems to neglect the Sun's magnetic field.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

(snip)
Wal Thornhill thinks I am an "intellectual bully", and I've been on his case for 10 years now. In some sense, I'm glad he thinks that way, at least it means I've gotten his attention! His real focus is on mythology & Velikovsky. Thornhill is a "Saturnist"; he believes that the planets used to orbit around Saturn, and in a polar configuration, so that Saturn appeared to hang over the north pole of Earth, with Venus & Mars aligned between Earth & Saturn (I'm not sure where he put Jupiter). All of this changed a few thousand years ago, when everthing fell apart and the solar system re-oriented itself into its current order. Since this is rather strongly dis-allowed by convnentional celestial mechanics, Thornhill has decided that our standard reliance on gravity is mistaken. The universe, and the solar system, must be dominated by more powerful, electromagnetic forces. Velikovsky expressed the same idea in his strange and unphysical booklet, "Cosmos Without Gravitation".

Hi Tim, it's been a while. Let me point your readers to this web archive which is a minor catalog of Grant Science celestial anomalies that are easily solved using an electric universe model. BTW, let's call a spade a spade and term the so-called "solar wind" what it really is, the solar electric current and why is that corona so dang hot, so hot it makes the thermonuclear fusion solar model laughable. Current big banger dark matter cosmology is a demented kluge, one bandaid after another.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/rainbow.../00archive.htm

Here's a teaser from the site about the inane duct tape job on the looping rilles of Europa:

Looping Rilles on Europa
For many years, the looping rilles on Europa were called “fractures”, but the model developed to explain them only highlighted the failure of the underlying interpretation.

The picture above shows a series of “cycloidal” grooves cutting across the surface of the Jovian moon Europa. The longest extends more than 1600 kilometers and each of its many loops averages about 100 kilometers in length. (To envision a cycloid path, imagine a spot on a wheel rim as the wheel rolls along a flat surface (see inset). The path traversed by the spot combines two kinds of simultaneous motion—rotational and linear).

Though NASA scientists never doubted that these prominent features were surface cracks or “flexi”, the unique form posed a great mystery to them. But that situation changed when Randy Tufts, a geologist at the University of Arizona, proposed an explanation. He suggested that the oddly replicated curvature of the cracks was caused by changes in the gravitational tug from Jupiter in the course of Europa’s 85-hour orbit of the gas giant. Because Europa keeps the same face toward Jupiter, a Europan orbit is the same length as a Europan “day”.

Tuft’s suspicions inspired orbital dynamicist Gregory Hoppa, also of the University of Arizona. Assuming an ocean of subsurface water, he produced a computer model of looping cracks in the Europan ice sheet. The fractures were caused by tidal forces acting on the water below, he said.

In September 1999, the journal Science published a report by Hoppa and his colleagues. The graphic beneath the Galileo image, taken from the Science article, illustrates the proposed model of cycloidal fracturing. The arrows represent the amplitude and orientation of the tensile stress; and the numbers below the arrows indicate the hours of the orbit. You can also view a brief animation of the “model” at– http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~hopp...d_69s_240w.gif

Scientists greeted the paper as an “elegant” breakthrough. But was it a breakthrough, or another example of computers simply spitting out the results they were programmed to deliver? Computers are, after all, the generators of virtual reality.

The repeated loops on Europa have no analog in observed fracturing patterns of brittle material. When ice cracks, the fracture typically propagates at the speed of sound. But to match Europa’s slow rotation, the computer model required something never observed—an ice fracture propagating at a walking speed of about 3 kilometers per hour.

Fracturing of ice is chaotic and profoundly affected by variations in thickness, composition and surface relief. But the model allowed for no such influences. On Europa, everything present on the surface before the cycloidal grooves were cut had to be ignored by the computer—even the maze of pre-existing channels traversed by the loops. Was this a reasonable simplification? Consider the way a sheet of glass breaks. The presence of a shallow groove left by a glass cutter is sufficient to control the direction of a break. Fracturing ice could hardly ignore preexisting channels on Europa!

The model assumed a global ocean beneath the ice so that tidal bulging on Europa could reach nearly 100 meters (330 feet) at maximum. That may sound like a substantial distance, but in relation to the radius of Europa, which is larger than our Moon, it is trivial. In Europa’s tidal bulge, tensile stresses on a global ice sheet would be dispersed over hundreds of kilometers. Ice is quite plastic when stresses are applied slowly. There is no reason to believe that across such distances a sheet of ice could not make the imperceptible adjustment required.

Other arbitrary assumptions were needed to make the model “work”, and most strayed far from facts already established. In order for cracks to form, the computer model required a maximum ice sheet thickness of about a kilometer. But some of the surface channels cut by the loops are several kilometers deep. Had the computer program included this fact it would have broken down immediately. But the manipulated data gave the desired result, enabling science writers to complete the circular logic: the model became “a powerful argument that an ocean of water underlies Europa’s crust”.

In the model each loop represents a Europan day. On this reasoning, the longest flexus must have formed in about a half month. But if this is evidence of an ocean today, why are there so few flexi? By now all other features should be obliterated by the effects of the daily cycloidal forces.

To produce the succession of loops, the cracking had to stop after each loop, then resume from that precise point on the next orbit. In fact it is extremely difficult to discern the “rules” the computer was instructed to follow. Delphi Flexus and its neighbor, Sidon Flexus have opposed curvatures, requiring that the “cracks” progress in opposite directions. The computer program must have allowed for this variability even as it required the “tensile stress vectors” to seamlessly extend the fracture from “day” to “day” on Europa.

One thing should be obvious. The forces that created the Europan enigmas are not acting on the Jovian moon now. To simply acknowledge this fact would go a long way toward freeing science from the influence of ideology. But will NASA’s experts pause long enough to entertain a simple electrical hypothesis?

We claim that Europa was repeatedly entangled in discharge streamers emanating from Jupiter. Since ice is more homogeneous than rock, the surface discharges on Europa tended to produce relatively straight rilles following a strong electric field along great circles from the sub-Jovian hemisphere (the hemisphere facing Jupiter) to the opposite hemisphere. That is the general pattern. However, circular motion of an arc can be demonstrated in the lab when a magnetic field lies parallel to a cathode surface. We are confident that something of this sort occurred in Europa’s electrical transactions with Jupiter. Occasionally, the powerful magnetic fields carried by the discharge streamers draped over the moon's surface, inducing a near-surface electric current and magnetic field in the ice. As in the laboratory experiments, this would cause the traveling electric arcs to rotate in cycloidal fashion, producing the distinctive looping furrows.

In response to changes in the strength of the ambient magnetic field, the loops in these cycloidal rilles would, as now observed, display a slowly changing radius of curvature.

What is needed in the case of Europa’s surface mysteries is not an arbitrary computer-generated “solution”, but practical experiments to test a new hypothesis. Can electrical discharges produce the rille patterns seen on Europa? The required experimental work is easily within reach if NASA’s investigators will follow evidence already in hand. The resulting insights could change the direction of planetary science. They could also inspire something our space program lost under the inertia of outdated theory—the passion for discovery.

Xipe Totec

Most of this post has nothing to do with what we have been discussing.

For the solar wind to be a current, the charges have to be flowing in opposite directions. This does not happen with the bulk if the solar wind. It is not a current.

How does a low density resonance heated plasma have anything to do with stellar fusion?

I am sorry you think that derivation from first principles is a kluge, but it seems to work for most things.

The observation was of "an immense jet of electrically charged particles in the solar wind between the Sun and Earth." No information at all is given about any observed magnetic reconnection event, or what caused an unusual one of such magnitude. Such an event was not known to be capable of creating an immense, long duration, steady acceleration of the solar wind, which is what makes it interesting. The observation was too limited to know if the jet was radial or not. There's no mention of an electric field or if they even looked for one, I think I made that comment mistakenly, so I suppose you are right that this article is off topic.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Doesn't there just have to be a ''differential'' in movement between electrons and protons, which I guess includes charges moving in opposite directions, depending on your frame of references?

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

From the press release, it seems that they interpreted as due to a magnetic reconnection event, because it is similar to reconnection events in the Earth's magnetosphere:
It was not extended as the Solar Wind, otherwise it would not be observed as a jet:

In order to accelerate charged particles, there need to be electric fields, but in a reconnection event (even hours-long) these field do not last as long as necessary for the whole Solar Wind.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Do you remember the last link you provided?
A "differential" in the movement produces an electric field, that accelerates the charged particles so that the fluxes end up being equal.
Therefore, in the steady state we end up with a zero net current.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Is this zero current an assumption or a proven fact? What happens at the boundaries?

Cheers.

According to NASA the space probes can measure speed and composition of the Solar Wind.
So I would say that that the zero net current is an experimental fact.

Which boundaries?

By the way, since you are back, you might want to address this post, and in particular: I would appreciate you addressed my points before asking more questions.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

I haven't been away, but apparently you have more time to post than me, and you seem to come back to every single sentence ever posted. Some of your questions seem rhetorical, and other points you make I have already addressed earlier, or were answered by others.

I would greatly appreciate it if you were a little less condescending in the way you phrase your questions and answers, and a little more polite in your requests.

Cheers.

The site you link to tells me that the solar wind is variable:

I don't see why a weak electric field could not go unnoticed.

Cheers.

Then you should point me to the answers, in particular the answer to this question: You said that the "net difference" between positive and negative charges might be too low to be detected: this can be quantified, and needs to be quantified if you want to support such claim.

And I would appreciate clear and specific answers.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

It also says: Which answers your question: Another non-quantitative statement: fluctuations do not imply undetectability.
Anyway, if this electric field is too weak to be detected, how can it be the main responsible for the motion of the particles in the Solar Wind (with speeds of 400 km/s and energies of 500 keV)?

Even the average eletric field from iantresman's latest reference, yields potential differences over the Earth's orbit of only 1 - 2 kV.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Maybe the 1-2 kV is small, but it could be enough, I'll have to check.

Cheers.

Well, at least I'm trying.

Cheers.

You should look up the unit electronvolt eV: it equals the kinetic energy of an electron (the e) accelerated by a voltage of 1 Volt (the V).

In order for the electrons to get 500 keV energy in the Solar Wind, the necessary potential difference in the supposed electric field must be 500 kV; 2 kV would not be enough.


Let me remind you what you said: Point me to the relevant posts, where you addressed my points, such as

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)