The latest news in about the Voyager II space craft encountering the Heliopause

From the story LINK

Did they mention "detecting charged particles that were being pushed back toward the sun by charged particles coming from outside our solar system"


Any thoughts by mainstreamer on how this can occur in electrically neutral space? You would have already read in the old EU LINK thread that one of the hang ups was no particles were "seen" incoming to the Sun. They now appear to have been detected

So how do the observations fit with the Mainstream model in relation to the EU model?

Let the rabid responses begin

Sol

Dunno about rabid, I got all my shots against rabies, FSME, etc. etc.

But if you would know something about termination shocks I do not think you would be surprised. It is where the heliosphere "holds off" the interstellar wind (comparable with the solar wind). There are bound to be particles coming in there.
Seeing them at 85 AU is a far cry from seeing them in a whole circuit with the sun in its center.

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

This fits the Mainstream model quite well, thank you.
This basic educational site has it explained (emphasis mine):
A fine example that the mainstream knows about these things, can explain them very well, and that it doesn't ignore plasma, as is claimed sometimes. What I think you are confusing is that the neutral interstellar particles are the one that can penetrate the heliosphere and can reach the Earth, while most (all?) charged particles are stopped at the heliopause or thereabouts.
See e.g. this article from the proceedings of the international society for optical engineering (hey, engineers who follow the mainstream theory!)
A last mainstream source:

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Sorry my bad, I interpreted charged particles as being charged and not neutral and magnetic fields would be in conjunction with electric fields.

I'll try and read your links tonight so as to have a better understanding.

Still seems the mainstream asserts EM forces when it suits but totaly disregard it in the over cosmological picture, and as a lay person it just dosen't make sense.

Sol

Okay, this has already been written once in several mails, now it is collected in one concise message. Is the sun a ball of hot gas with fusion in the centre or is it a discharge according to Juergens? Well, let’s see what mainstream physics has to say about it.

Total Energy produced by the Sun in 1 second:

From the general mainstream model the fusion in the core of the sun produces 4.3 million tonnes (4.3 10⁹ kg) equivalent of energy per second so with the well known equation E = MC² (Thanks Albert !, E is energy, M is the totall mass and C is the velocity of light 3 10⁸ m/s) we can find the total power P:

P = 4.3 10⁹ x (3 10⁸)² / 1 second = 3.9 10²⁶ Joules/s

With an arbitrary voltage of a billion volts from the Sun and exterior space, according to Juergens in a “double layer” above the suns surface and P = UI (where U is the total potential drop in Volts and I is the total current in Amperes), we can calculate a current

I = P / U = 3.9 10²⁶ / 10⁹ = 3.9 10¹⁷ A.

So, now we come to the circuit around the sun, inflowing current in the equatorial plane and outflowing current along the poles of the sun, this all in accordance with Alfvén’s circuit model (see Cosmic Plasma, page 55, Figure III.7).

Learning from the Earth where the current sheet thickness is on the order of the Earth’s radius, therefore we will assume that the current flowing to the sun has a thickness on the order of the suns radius.

Now we look at what may be observed near Earth if indeed this current flows in the circuit, driving the energy output of the sun as in Juergens’ model.

For a plane current sheet we can estimate the magnetic field by using Maxwell's equations. One equation, Ampere's Law, says that the variation of the magnetic field produced by a current is given by:

curl B = mu₀ (J + epsilon₀ dE/dt),

here curl is an operator that basically takes the derivative of the magnetic field in all three cartesian coordinates. In the case when we have a sheet of current, we can simplify this equation. We assume time stationarity (the sun shines at basically the same rate without major variations so that is no real problem) which means that any time derivative, like dE/dt will be 0. Assuming an infinite sheet in the x and y direction there is only variation in z and the equation simplifies to:

dB/dz = mu₀ J,

and here we can make an estimate of the variation of the magnetic field from one side of the current sheet to the other by changing this differential into a difference dB/dz -> delta B / delta z. The delta B we do not know but the delta z is the thickness of the current sheet, so we find:

Delta B / L = mu₀ J,

where we know L, the radius of the sun (7 10⁸ m), and we can calculate J from the total current I (above) and saying that it flows through a “ribbon” of L wide and a circumference of 2 pi R_Earth-sun (1 AU = 1.5 10¹¹ m),

J = 3.9 10¹⁷ / (2 pi 1.5 10¹¹ 7 10⁸ = 6 10^-4 Amp/m²

and thus with mu₀ = 4 pi 10^-7 we find for the magnetic field near the Earth produced by that current system:

delta B = mu₀ J L = 0.5 Tesla

Now, what magnetic field strengt his measured near the Earth? We measure field in the nano-Tesla range (see e.g. data from the Cluster spacecraft in the solar wind (the middle part in the linked plot), so that means that this model is roughly 1 billion (American) 10⁹ times too strong, give or take a factor of 3!

And then other observations, e.g. by the Ulysses spacecraft over the poles of the sun (here is a plot of the magnetic field strength measured by the mission from start to date), have not shown any signature AFAIK of strong toroidal magnetic fields associated with the outflowing currents.

I guess that basically puts the lid on Juergens’ model.

** started editing to add references and definitions **

__________________
************************************************** *************************
Optimism does not change the laws of physics. (T'Pol)
A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is. (Dao De Jing 27)
************************************************** *************************
Martin ( http://www.geocities.com/DrMartinV )

Thanks tusenfem.

Perhaps if you could edit your post, to add definitions of the terms, as well as add references to Juergens and Alfven.

It would then be a very nice, self-contained post that BAUT members (and others) can link to, in future discussions of EU ideas.

You continue to show an extreme misunderstanding of mainstream science. If I have an electron, and a proton, they are both charged particles. But together, they are electrically neutral. The electrically neutral space of mainstream science is filled with free electrons & free protons, all of which are expected to take part in seriously electromagnetic interactions, all in electrically neutral space. Why would anyone think otherwise? It is not possible to have a serious discussion with you about anything until you make the effort to learn what the mainstream science really is, before deciding that it has to be wrong.

__________________
Don't try this at home - We're what you call "professionals" - MythBusters.

Some of the best physicists the world has ever seen used words similar to 'it just doesn't make sense', refering to quantum theory.

And yet that theory is perhaps the most thoroughly tested of all scientific theories; it is certainly the most accurately tested.

It has been a very long time since 'making sense' was a useful criterion for judging scientific theories.

sol88, this is a science-based discussion forum, and a key fundamental for all ATM discussions is acceptance of the approaches used in modern science.

If you are not prepared to accept this fundamental, I respectfully suggest that BAUT is not a suitable place for you; if you would like to learn more about the nature of modern science, the role of theory, the match between 'reality' and science, etc, then BAUT has an excellent section for just such discussions - General Science.

Well, I for one do not approve of your inquisitorial approach to many ATM posters on here.

Here is an interesting site which addresses the need for freedom in scientific research. http://archivefreedom.org/
From an email exchange with Noam Comsky
http://archivefreedom.org/freedom/Chomsky.html

Makes total sense to this layperson. As near as I can work out (I was an English major, so the kind of big words used in physics are different from the big words I know, and my eyes glaze over at long strings of numbers even though I agree that they're necessary to any well-rounded physics theory), what the mainstream says is "some stuff is electric and some stuff isn't." Which makes total sense to me. After all, it's true of human technology, too, right? The difference between mechanical power and electric power or something. Also, my couch isn't electric. (Thankfully.)

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Without firmness in enforcing the rules, ATM proponents would get away with not addressing the issues.


Why not address the need of knowing what you want criticize?
Why do ATM proponents tend to display the Galileo syndrome?
Why don't they realize that Galileo actually knew very well the mainstream science of its days and could support his ideas with evidence?

__________________
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)

Thanks for the link P.AsmahAnd the mainstreamers have to work within rigid and inflexible rules, this makes even less sense! How do we advance technolgicaly when this is how we go about it??

I like this quote seems to sum it up pretty well for this layperson


And not to try and scare any one too much but WTSHTF, say bye bye to your multi billion dollar funding

This planet can not survive the onslaught of humanity at the present pace and the staggering rate of resource consumption, if we can not find a tech fix out of it well....I'll leave the consequences to your very intelligent minds. There’s plenty of info out there now on the up coming geological energy shortages.

Hence I fear our only hope will be to try out new technologies based on the understanding that the dominant forces in the universe is electric/magnetic. Appears we just need to work on tapping in.

Mother nature was on the right track, Photosynthesis, some basic elements the right temp and a big swag of EM radiation, beautiful

But as Nereid stated I fear our differences stem from the scientific data we are given (and maybe some that is withheld??) and our entrenched point of view/reference, remember I'm not talking aliens using moons as hotels, time travel or any host of ideas that stretch plausibility to the absurd, this is as members on this forum love to point out been known (plasma/EM) for a while (~100yrs) but was relegated to the back burner because of it's insignificance, it's time to abdicate King Gravity from the throne.

This is not to say gravity does not play an important role, it does but it is not the dominant force for getting "work" done.

But back to the case at hand the Electric Sun, the universe today (LINK) had a story on AKARI, the new Japanese infrared sky surveyor mission, the preliminary pictures from the EU point of view look remarkably like an Interstellar Birkeland current with some Z pinching going on, some apparently fairly recently in cosmological terms.

Sol88

Well, that's the thing about science: It is based on objective evidence, logic and math. I'm sorry if those rigid rules are too much to you, but that's reality. Sure, fantasy can be fun to think about, we all have things we wish were true, but until you check your ideas against the hard light of reality, it won't get you anywhere.

The only things I've seen requested around here are (1) if you're presenting an ATM concept, please try to learn something of the well understood science in the field you are going up against and (2) show us something that actually does have some relevant evidence, logic, and math behind it. The "Mainstream = Bad" bit gets old, especially when it is the usual response to any request for actual numbers.

I used to find some of these ATM threads at least somewhat interesting, and the references by Tim and others often made up for the constant bickering, but this argument hasn't changed or advanced in any significant way for months.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

How about a refutation of tusenfem's post? tusenfem, went to the trouble of actually specifying numbers and measured observations (that refutes an electric sun idea), and all you can come back with is an interpretation of a picture? That seems to be an awfully weak response.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

I appreciate the time Tusenfem's took to reply to this thread in such an outstanding mathmatical way.

For me as a non mathmatician I can not refute his equations.

But where then, do these charged particles end up? remembering the article stated they where charged and not nuetral and that they were incomming?

Sol

Then how can you accept an electric sun idea or reject the mainstream ideas if you are a non mathematician and can't follow the math that supports or refutes either idea? We had someone here posting on the sun having a solid surface. No number, no predictions, just based on what he saw in a picture. What proper evidence leads you to think an electric sun idea is even viable?


Incoming in what sense? From the article, it seems to me that incoming simply means they are traveling in the opposite direction from the stellar wind. Those "incoming" particles could hit the sun, hit any of the planets, moons, asteroids, comets, etc. or, miss any massive bodies entirely. What is the quantity of these particles? Are there equal amounts of positively and negatively charged particles or is there a difference? And, as you asked, where do they end up? Do they penetrate to the sun, or do they miss the inner solar system completely? These are the types of questions that should be asked by Electric sun proponents. I really fail to see how such a non-quantatative article could be used either for an electric sun model, or against a mainstream model.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

As I mentioned in reply to another poster, in a different ATM thread, if you would like to start a thread, in the About BAUT section, proposing a change in the (ATM) rules, then please do so.

Unless and until there is a change in BAUT's (ATM) rules, I fully intend to continue challenging ATM ideas, as presented in ATM threads, by BAUT members.

Further, I will continue to do so by seeking specific, concrete answers to direct, pertinent questions about the claims made in the ATM posts. Those questions will be directed at exposing the extent to which the ATM ideas, as presented are
a) internally consistent
b) consistent with (other) scientific theories where the respective domains of applicability overlap
c) (above all) consistent with (good, relevant) experimental and observational results.Interesting.

In what way(s) is any of that inconsistent with BAUT's ATM policies? With the approach that I have declared that I intend to take, wrt challenging ATM ideas (as presented in ATM threads)?