Well, when it flies around the poles and gets zapped by those huge incoming electric currents, I will eat my shoes.
That schematic was drawn based on Ulysses in situ measurements, note the spiraling magnetic fields at the pole. The only way to achieve magnetic fields such as that is with electric currents flowing into the poles.
That schematic was drawn based on Ulysses in situ measurements, note the spiraling magnetic fields at the pole. The only way to achieve magnetic fields such as that is with electric currents flowing into the poles.
Errrrmm, those spiralling magnetic fields are heading out. If the current were heading in, then the field would also be heading in, as it moves helically around the incoming current in the direction of travel.
Ahhh, so now the Sun isn't powered by an external current according to EU 'theory'!
those spiralling magnetic fields are heading out.
Carefully building a strawman so you can tear it down,....
Even the remaining few PC proponents don't believe in this electric sun rubbish.
Anthony Peratt, author of 'The Physics of the Plasma Universe' said this about Dr. Don Scott's book 'The Electric Sky' (about the electric Sun);
"It is gratifying to see the work of my mentor, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén enumerated with such clarity. I am also pleased to see that Dr. Scott has given general readers such a lucid and understandable summary of my own work."
Sounds like an endorsement, and clearly Dr. Scott understands the physics of the Plasma Universe. Unlike yourself, but you are a pro with your knowledge of faerie dust and dirty snowballs.
The Electric Sun/Electric Sky and the EU is a natural extension of the foundation laid by Birkeland, Alfvén, Peratt, et al. as the same physics are relevant.
.......hell you still believe in Chapman's auroral circuit model which was debunked 50-years ago.
"Well, when it flies around the poles and gets zapped by those huge incoming electric currents, I will eat my shoes."
If you think the Sun couldn't do the same at a much higher current density then you are clearly deluded.
We know the power output of the Sun is around 385x10^26 W....
We know the power output of the Sun is around 385x10^26 W....
I think you missed a decimal point there. ~3.8 x 10^26 W. So about 1.3 x 10^17 V.
Since the outgoing portion of your circuit is around the equator, coming out as the solar winds to power the planets in our solar system, the incoming current is in to the poles, as you have stated many times before. Am I wrong? If so, explain why!
Why do the artists insist on showing an orange Sun when we are told that from space the Sun will be white?
SDO does not see at visible wavelengths
Where did I say that? Frankly, I'm not that arsed about plasma physics.
how about the idiot Scott trying to explain the acceleration of the fast solar wind by an electric field?
quotes from Alfven, many out of context
And the electrostatic charge of an airless body, due to plasma
http://electric-c...2013.pdf
In short, jonesdumb continuously applies the incorrect pith ball electrostatics. Your beliefs are irrelevant jonesdumb, your admitted ignorance of plasma physics is what blinds you.
This is the effect of the Sun being at a higher voltage level than is distant space just beyond the heliopause. The outward force on positive ions due to this E-field causes the observed acceleration of +ions in the solar wind.
This from a guy who still thinks Alfvén was opposed to MRx because it violated "his" MHD equations. You live in opposite world jonesdumb. An Alfvén quote from one on his papers;
"Which are somehow invisible to astronauts. Despite them saying otherwise."
What did the Apollo astronauts say about the appearance of the Sun while on the way to the Moon and back? Nothing. Did they photograph it? Where are the photos?
SDO does not see at visible wavelengths, do you have comprehension problems?
AIA will produce a high-definition image of the Sun in eight selected wavelengths out of the ten available every 10 seconds. The ten wavelength bands include nine ultraviolet and extreme ultraviolet bands and ***one visible light band*** to reveal key aspects of solar activity.
It is important to note that the required charge density as shown in figure 6 is everywhere greater than zero. Thus, only positive charges (+ions) are involved in the acceleration mechanism. No participation of electrons in the required charge distribution is indicated.
And no: the image of the sun is not an 'artists rendition'. it's an actual image taken - with a filter - by the solar dynamic observatory (SDO) launched in 2011.The Sun is very interesting through dedicated solar telescopes with built-in filters, for example those manufactured by Coronado (taken over by Meade). You can easily see faculae, spicules, and sunspots, with a choice of filter wavelengths for various optical bands giving access to various phenomena.
In an electric field do the electrons and ions travel at the same speed in the same direction?
So why the hell are the electrons also accelerating outward?
Have you got reading problems, dummy? I even linked you to the instrument description. Tell me what this means in the world of invisible stars:
AIA will produce a high-definition image of the Sun in eight selected wavelengths out of the ten available every 10 seconds. The ten wavelength bands include nine ultraviolet and extreme ultraviolet bands and ***one visible light band*** to reveal key aspects of solar activity.
None of your evidence says anything about particles moving toward the Sun.
SDO does not see at visible wavelengths, do you have comprehension problems?
So the Sun is blue but they show yellow? Then there is the HMI image which matches the visible light photosphere in orange. But the Sun is white I'm told. NASA is F.O.S.
In an electric field do the electrons and ions travel at the same speed in the same direction?
"The Sun is not an isolated point charge within a vacuum. It is a body that exists surrounded by a sea of plasma. So the application of classical (free-space) electrostatic analyses to the solar environment is inappropriate."So why the hell are the electrons also accelerating outward?
First of all, the solar wind is not at all as simple as you'd like to think.
https://ipfs.io/i...ind.html
The last feather in the cap of the solar electric field is the acceleration of iron ions and other heavy +ions. Only e-fields can explain this fact.
Given the complexity, structure, changing magnetic field direction, and energetic electrons there is no way one can say with absolute certainty that 1-in-20,000 of the electrons is not drifting toward the Sun.
Given the complexity, structure, changing magnetic field direction, and energetic electrons there is no way one can say with absolute certainty that 1-in-20,000 of the electrons is not drifting toward the Sun.
Who came up with this 1:20 000 bobbins?
If the Sun is positively charged, and an electric field is accelerating the solar wind, why is the bulk flow of electrons and ions in the same direction at the same speed?
If the Sun is positively charged, and an electric field is accelerating the solar wind, why is the bulk flow of electrons and ions in the same direction at the same speed?
If you had read the papers I linked you could clearly see the SW is nothing like you believe it to be. Per ACE observations the SW is a network of "spaghetti" like structures, i.e. Birkeland currents.
As we know from the quantified structure of Birkeland currents they are counter rotating coaxial tubes of plasma and electric and magnetic fields with clearly delineated boundaries. Your erroneous beliefs of the SW are dated nonsense.
What happens when + and - particles are subject to an electric field?
So show me a paper that observes Birkeland currents in the solar wind.
This is the third time this paper has been linked in this thread alone.
https://agupubs.o...JA012684
....the flux tubes are fossil structures that originate at the solar surface........
The tubes are on‐average aligned with the **Parker spiral**,....
The flux tube texture impacts the flow properties of the solar wind, turbulence in the solar wind, energetic‐particle propagation in the inner heliosphere, and the driving of the Earth's magnetosphere.
jonesdave
"You think the Sun is invisible in space! Lol."
Until PROVEN otherwise, yes. How to do that? Ask someone who has been out into space (not just low earth orbit), which means just the Apollo astronauts. But they said nothing about the Sun and took no photos of it, and experiments to photograph the stars showed nothing. It is totally black out there, just as they said. Maybe once the private sector sends someone out there we'll get the truth.
What did the Apollo astronauts say about the appearance of the Sun while on the way to the Moon and back? Nothing.
...and also the notion that all astronauts have talked about starry skies (and since stars are suns in their own right they should have been - by your 'logic' - be as invisible as our sun from space)
Some basic maths that Scott didn't bother to do:
Electron;
Q (charge) = 1.6 x 10^-19 C.
M (mass) = 9.11 x 10^-31 kg.
Potential difference = 500 000 V.
Ek = QV, so kinetic energy gained = 8.0 x 10^-14 J(oules).
Final speed = Ek = 1/2 mv^2, rearranges to v = SQRT (2Ek/m).
Therefore v = SQRT (2 X 8.0 X 10^-14 J)/ (9.11 X 10^-31 kg).
= SQRT 1.8 X 10^17 m/s, = 4.2 x 10^8 m/s.
Ergo, the electrons will be relativistic. And we still can't detect them. Or be killed by them! Weird sh*t this EU stuff, isn't it!
What Scott has done here, is not realise that he is predicting relativistic electrons.
from A17:
"CC Question 12 for each of you: What do you hope to tell your grandchildren as your most memorable moment of your trip to the Moon?"
"Well, I'll start with that one, Hank. I had two impressions. The-the first is the dazzling beauty of Descartes -the surface. It was just one of the most awe-inspiring sights I've ever seen. And, secondly, on the EVA, when you look away from the Earth -or the Moon - it's Just the utter blackness of space. It really is black out there."
If the EU guys would simply grab a calculator, they could find a lot of these flaws and realize how wrong they are.
"Yep, can't see a bloody thing with a Nikon D4:"
Looking towards Earth, through the atmosphere. Just what I have been saying. Try the D4 looking AWAY from Earth, why don't they?
Try the D4 looking AWAY from Earth, why don't they?
Electron;
Q (charge) = 1.6 x 10^-19 C.
M (mass) = 9.11 x 10^-31 kg.
Potential difference = 500 000 V.
Ek = QV, so kinetic energy gained = 8.0 x 10^-14 J(oules).
Blah, blah
Electron;
Q (charge) = 1.6 x 10^-19 C.
M (mass) = 9.11 x 10^-31 kg.
Potential difference = 500 000 V.
Ek = QV, so kinetic energy gained = 8.0 x 10^-14 J(oules).
Blah, blah
Your maths are meaningless tripe, has no basis in what is proposed.
Your maths are meaningless tripe, has no basis in what is proposed.
Maths isn't science, it's maths.
Maths isn't science, it's maths.
Well, it makes sense that EU would ignore math
Well, it makes sense that EU would ignore math
The strawman brigade keeps 'em coming, seems as if that's all they got.
Well, it makes sense that EU would ignore math
The strawman brigade keeps 'em coming, seems as if that's all they got.
No Birkeland currents mentioned, nor measured.
jonesdave
"Less atmosphere = easier to see."
Empirical science would show that is untrue in space, you and NASA are both frightened of science by experiment and observation.
No Birkeland currents mentioned, nor measured.
jonesdumb would prefer to bury his utter ignorance of plasma physics under his steady stream of logical fallacy and childish commentary. The fact of the matter is that the "magnetic flux tube" is more or less synonymous with the Birkeland currents, the biggest difference being that MFT require the pseudoscientific pipe dream of frozen-in fields whereas the BC's require a physical mechanism such as electric currents in plasma.
And you're right jonesdumb, they didn't mention BC's because the authors are plasma ignoramuses that don't even understand basic plasma physics.
"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century."
Alfvén
Such as Birkeland currents...
Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century."
Alfvén
What was the current?
You seem to forget that the solar wind is constantly monitored. Spacecraft that would detect such currents don't, generally. When they do, you'll hear about it.
The Alfvénic waves are the electromagnetic energy being created by the electric currents in the flux tubes which supports the notion these are BC's.
The author of the paper disagrees with your assertion;
"[67] ...... six science tasks must be accomplished: (1) determine the properties of discontinuities in the solar wind, (2) determine the properties of the individual flux tubes, (3) determine the properties of the flux tube network and determine its evolution, (4) learn the origin of the flux tube texture, (5) reanalyze the solar wind turbulence excluding flux tube walls, and (6) assess the impacts of this flux tube texture for heliospheric physics."
They also state;
"The cellularization of the solar wind into distinct magnetized tubes of plasma will have several impacts on solar wind and heliospheric physics.".
Here is a simple visualization of the solar wind flux tubes;
http://bestanimat...NVA.link
jonesdave
"Less atmosphere = easier to see."
Empirical science would show that is untrue in space, you and NASA are both frightened of science by experiment and observation.
And they got their data from ACE. Guess what ACE sees?
The Alfvénic waves are the electromagnetic energy being created by the electric currents in the flux tubes which supports the notion these are BC's.
Nope, you just made that up.
Here is a simple visualization of the solar wind flux tubes;
http://bestanimat...NVA.link
Nope, you made that up too. That is a plasma ball, you loon. Here is the simple visualization, from the paper...
No energy is created by Alfven waves.
The fact that the SW is a network of BC's is profound on many levels and shows the EU offers a far better explanation.
The Sun is a ball of plasma, and their diagram shows pretty much the same exact thing as the plasma ball animation shows.
It is these very same flux tubes (Birkeland currents) that connect to the Earth and every other planet, comet, possibly every object in the solar system as well.
The sharply defined tube walls indicate double layers/sheaths are pervasive.
Look up the phrases 'quasi-neutral', and 'Debye length'.
Look up the phrases 'quasi-neutral', and 'Debye length'.
jonesdumb obviously missed this again;
"Since the solar wind plasma is filled with magnetic flux tubes from the Sun, it is not a large, homogeneous plasmas."
jonesdumb is like a four-year-old, hands on his ears, no, no, no,!
Where are these currents, dumbass?
Since the solar wind plasma is filled with magnetic flux tubes from the Sun, it is not a large, homogeneous plasmas
Where are these currents, dumbass?
Already shown above, your response was hands on ears screaming, no, no, no!
From the paper jonesdumb doesn't understand;
That's why they're Thunderdolts.
Con't
4. Magnetic field‐line wandering calculations might need to be rethought, not only because the coefficients of diffusion may be smaller than thought, but also because field‐line wandering is confined to within the flux tubes.
5. Because our values of the turbulence amplitudes may be overestimated, our calculations of the solar wind heating by the dissipation of the turbulence cascade may also be overestimated.
6. The measures we have of the intermittency of solar wind measurements may not be measurements of the intermittency of the turbulence.
7. In wave number anisotropy measurements of the solar wind turbulence, the perpendicular‐to‐B
Birkeland currents come from the magnetosphere down into the ionosphere and back out.
The assumption that the turbulence of the solar wind is a homogeneous turbulence may be wrong.
Birkeland currents come from the magnetosphere down into the ionosphere and back out.
da schnied preaching his ignorance once again;
From Alfven;
"This means that it was Dessler who discovered the electric currents which Birkeland had predicted. Dessler called them "Birkeland currents", a term which is now ***generally accepted and sometimes generalized to mean all currents parallel to the magnetic fields***."
So, go get the data.
Let's repeat that;
(4)the currents carried in the flux tube interiors and within the flux tube walls,
(5) the axial plasma flows within the flux tubes, and
(6) the flow vorticity within the flux tubes.
Unlike yourself, this guy understands there must be currents there. There is a confined vortex flow of plasma with and across magnetic fields which will induce EMF. there is no denying these are electric Birkeland currents. They share all the morphology and characteristics of Birkeland current, because the author chose to call them flux tubes doesn't change the facts.
not a mention of Birkeland currents in the solar wind
And you're right jonesdumb, they didn't mention BC's because the **authors are plasma ignoramuses that don't even understand basic plasma physics.***
Unlike yourself, this guy understands there must be currents there.
not a mention of Birkeland currents in the solar wind
You're right, they didn't call them Birkeland currents but, as you pointed out the flux tubes are aligned with the Parker spiral. Consequently, these are field aligned tubes. And as it is also pointed out that there is a flow of plasma coursing through the tubes. When these tubes interact with the magnetosphere they impart energy, so they must be electric currents.
So, they are field-aligned electric currents, in other words Birkeland currents. There is no way around it jonesdumb, you are wrong.
Simply stating something doesn't make it so.
At least now I know, having read Juergens, where Scott gets his misconception of the make up of the solar wind from - Juergens. He thought it was all + ions.
Still waiting for the math, @cantthink69.
Simultaneous acceleration of electrons and ions in solar flares
Note the aforementioned parallel magnetic fields due to the field-aligned Birkeland currents.
jonesdumb's response will be hands over ears, screaming no, no, no!
......claim at Dr. Scott not knowing EM theory.
Simultaneous acceleration of electrons and ions in solar flaresgranville583762> The question is: - what is accelerating electrons and ions
Gamma-rays, neutron and ions and accelerating electrons.
The simultaneous starting times of X rays and γ-ray emission show that electrons and ions accelerated within seconds of each other. The near simultaneous peaking, together with the observation of >400-MeV neutrons, show that the solar flare acceleration process can produce the full intensity and spectrum of electrons (>1 MeV) and ions (>102 MeV) in a time scale of <5 s. These results are in direct contradiction to the widely accepted concept of solar flare particle acceleration https://www.natur...305291a0
Slightly closer as to why electrons and protons travel in the same direction
The question is: - what is accelerating electrons and ions
At the center of this electrical "flaw" is a rather ordinary star, which is induced to absorb great quantities of electrons and spew forth in all directions protons, positive ions, and electromagnetic radiations of every kind.
Instruments carried into space have shown that there is a "solar wind" of protons and other positive ions blowing outward continuously from the Sun. Thus we must assume that the total discharge current is carried by particles of opposite charge moving in opposite directions — electrons toward the Sun, and protons away from the Sun.
It is to do with turbulence within the magnetosphere. And is 30 years old. I would further suggest looking up 'magnetosphere'.
It is to do with turbulence within the magnetosphere. And is 30 years old. I would further suggest looking up 'magnetosphere'.
As it states, it's parallel electric fields accelerating the particles. No pseudoscientific claptrap of MRx or whatever other faerie tales you'd like to believe. Given the observations of the flux tubes (not Birkeland currents according to jonesdumb regardless of the fact) the presence of the field-aligned electric fields can be expected.
The force on the electron and proton is proportional to the field and their mass. Is this borne out in the accelerating forces on the two masses in their relative velocities in the solar wind?
And I would seriously suggest reading that 1988 Hultqvist paper. It isn't saying what you think it's saying. Whatever that is.
And MRx is observed both in the lab and in-situ. It is a slam dunk.
And I would seriously suggest reading that 1988 Hultqvist paper. It isn't saying what you think it's saying. Whatever that is.
Right, so this paper that is titled;
yada, yada, yada.......
And MRx is observed both in the lab and in-situ. It is a slam dunk.
The explosive events the plasma ignoramuses call MRx most certainly does occur, but the pseudoscientific claptrap they believe obviously cannot happen due to the fact it is pseudoscientific claptrap. Not surprisingly you believe the faerie tales religiously.
Field-aligned electron beams observed simultaneously with upflowing ion beams in the auroral acceleration region
Yoshioka, R. et al. (2000)
Field-aligned electron beams observed simultaneously with upflowing ion beams in the auroral acceleration region
Yoshioka, R. et al. (2000)
LOL, jonesdumb points to a paper that supports the contention that electrons and ions accelerated upward while a different population of electrons are directed downward. So there are known physics that describe what jonesdumb says is impossible, and he linked the paper! Yet he still responds;
Hands on ears, screaming no, no, no!
ROTFLMAO!
If your point is that this saves Scott in some way,
If your point is that this saves Scott in some way,
Per the papers, your simplistic POV that electrons and ions cannot be accelerated similarly is false. And ironically you posted the paper that proved you wrong.
As shown, electrons and ions accelerated similarly, but jonesdumb thinks this is only applicable to Earth. Once again the Earth is the center of the Universe and experiences "special" physics not possible elsewhere in the Universe. Never mind the fact that parallel electric fields are pervasive in plasmas, especially current carrying plasmas.
And predictably, jonesdumb responds with hands on ears, screaming no, no, no!
As shown, electrons and ions accelerated similarly, but jonesdumb thinks this is only applicable to Earth
I realise it's a bit complicated, but you'll find that the mechanisms for the accelerations are not something as naive and simplistic as you want to believe
Don't forget, Scott has no electrons in the solar wind at the Sun. Lol.
So show us a situation at the Sun where this would occur.
Another attempt at diversion by the Strawman Brigade. jonesdumb need resort to lies to "prove" his point.
Parallel electric fields, just as with the Earth.
What parallel electric fields? And where does Scott mention them, and use them to suggest that is how electrons are also accelerated?
The explosive events the plasma ignoramuses call MRx most certainly does occur, but the pseudoscientific claptrap they believe obviously cannot happen due to the fact it is pseudoscientific claptrap. Not surprisingly you believe the faerie tales religiously.the problem with your comment is:
Worse yet, if that sentence is correct they have no understanding of electric charges. How can you put a bunch of electrons in and get a bunch of protons and positively charged ions out? #physicscrankscantcount. I don't guess any of these woo merchants ever heard of conservation of electric charge.At the center of this electrical "flaw" is a rather ordinary star, which is induced to absorb great quantities of electrons and spew forth in all directions protons, positive ions, and electromagnetic radiations of every kind.See, there we go again. Thinks the solar wind is protons and + ions. Nutjob.
Sunspots usually appear in pairs of opposite magnetic polarity.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot
No matter which they are, they will accelerate electrons and protons in opposite directions.
No matter which they are, they will accelerate electrons and protons in opposite directions
Obviously @cantcount86 doesn't understand there's no magic paper that claims electrons and protons get accelerated the same direction by the same electric field.
Maybe something a little more recent than 1988.
You know, considering as how we've had a lot of satellite missions since then.
On Earth.
And of course there's also that inconvenient paper by Yoshioka et al.
And the inconvenient fact you've confused the magnetosphere with the solar wind.
Idiot.
Obviously @cantcount86 doesn't understand there's no magic paper that claims electrons and protons get accelerated the same direction by the same electric field.
I point to papers that show otherwise and he changes the subject again.@pseudoscience eu acolyte idiot
Neither is describing magic, just observed phenomenaso you can copy and paste the specific data that shows observed "electrons and protons ...accelerated the same direction by the same electric field"
What parallel electric fields? And where does Scott mention them, and use them to suggest that is how electrons are also accelerated?
He is describing the Sun and the primary circuit, not every aspect possible. Clearly the observed Birkeland currents (flux tubes) fits nicely in the model as one of the foundational elements of the theory is the scalability of plasma processes and these phenomena will be present at all scales. Including emanating from the solar surface as is described above.
Worse yet, if that sentence is correct they have no understanding of electric charges. How can you put a bunch of electrons in and get a bunch of protons and positively charged ions out? #physicscrankscantcount. I don't guess any of these woo merchants ever heard of conservation of electric charge.At the center of this electrical "flaw" is a rather ordinary star, which is induced to absorb great quantities of electrons and spew forth in all directions protons, positive ions, and electromagnetic radiations of every kind.See, there we go again. Thinks the solar wind is protons and + ions. Nutjob.
He doesn't realise that the solar wind is a quasi-neutral mix of + ions and electrons heading in the same direction at the same speed
I've seen an actual physicist do a calculation for this, and it indicates that under this scenario the Sun would build up such a negative charge that it would blow up in next to no time.
The Strawman Brigade strikes again!
That's what you get when a plasma ignoramus starts playing with maths that are irrelevant to the phenomena.
Instruments carried into space have shown that there is a "solar wind" of protons and other positive ions blowing outward continuously from the Sun. Thus we must assume that the total discharge current is carried by particles of opposite charge moving in opposite directions — electrons toward the Sun, and protons away from the Sun.
As already indicated, an implicit assumption of the solar-discharge hypothesis is that galactic electrons flow toward the Sun in a stream moving counter to that of the solar protons. This is clearly incompatible with Parker's hypothesis (20) — the source of the term "solar wind". In his view, which is widely accepted, solar plasma comprising both protons and electrons moves outward in an unending stream from the Sun. Up to now, however, with Parker's assumption implicit in their design, most deep-space probes have sampled only the proton flux, and the drift of electrons has been assumed to correspond to the drift of positive ions.
The Strawman Brigade strikes again!@lyingPOS can'tprovehisargumentwhithhisownlink
A quick google of "solar wind electron measurements" shows that they've been made. It's not a hypothesis; it's a measured fact. Pioneer made them in the bow shock of Venus, Giotto made them while investigating Halley's Comet, Mariner and Viking measured them around Mars, and SOHO's made them in solar orbit.
So when people start claiming "it's never been measured," the only question is whether they're insane, incredibly ignorant, or lying.
The fact that many electrons hover around the vicinity of these accelerating ions is not a contradiction of the ES hypothesis. Only a meager fraction of these electrons are needed to power (to drift toward) the Sun.
@cantthink
Come on Wal we know it's you!
........driven by circuit potentials, not a 'central pith ball' electrostatic potential....
And what 'meager fraction'? Do some maths.
And what 'meager fraction'? Do some maths.
1 in 20,000, as already stated.
Rubbish. 1/20 000th of what, exactly? Let's see the maths as to how this provides the requisite energy for the Sun.
1:20000 is so far short of this it's like a sand grain on a beach.
@jonesdave and @cantdrive85.
Neither of you have the full grasp of all that is happening re the solar products/charge etc status/dynamics.
This situation is obvious from the fact neither of you have considered/treated the particle-pair production (of BOTH Electrons and Positrons) due to high-energy gamma-ray 'flux' effects in/on sun EM processes!
Eg: the sun's 'charge' is NOT a 'static' Positive OR Negative, but a dynamically/regionally fluxing situation depending on how many POSITRONS are 'retained/redirected back' by the sun's magnetic fields.
Anyway, you both have 'one-eyed' SIMPLISTIC view of it all, and hence are BOTH 'partially wrong/right' in one particular ASPECT or another, but not in ALL aspects involved overall.
Try to drop your personal 'one-eyed' FEUDING; and apply your time and energy towards learning the fuller picture; then recognizing/connecting the MANY 'dots' involved in all complex/hybrid plasma phenomena at all scales.
1:20000 is so far short of this it's like a sand grain on a beach.
Forgot the addendum on the last page, 1:40000 of observed extra-solar electrons detected at the heliopause is adequate.
http://electric-c...2013.pdf
Voyager has detected a 100-fold increase in the intensity of high-energy electrons entering our solar system from elsewhere in the galaxy. The original estimate was 100,000 free electrons per cubic m. Thus the updated figure is ~10^-7 /m^3.
BTW, here are those drifting electrons jonesdumb cannot find. Note the three populations of electrons, two populations outward, one population sunward.
https://www.googl...THGPGoEq
By the way, the required number of drift electrons I calculated
By the way, the required number of drift electrons I calculated
Whoa sport, that's your problem right there.
I don't even need to read that to know that it is irrelevant.
I don't even need to read that to know that it is irrelevant.
The Clairvoyant 'Scientist'. A modern soothsayer.
BTW, here are those drifting electrons jonesdumb cannot find. Note the three populations of electrons, two populations outward, one population sunward.
https://www.googl...THGPGoEq
Because the electron density you need isn't there.
And there are your electrons you said didn't exist. Your argument is falling apart in front of your eyes.
Your calculations are meaningless and irrelevant.
.......the core electrons drift sunward along the background magnetic field line,.....
Just to explain this drifting business - the drift is taken from the solar wind's frame of reference. That is based upon the ion flow. In respect to that, the core electrons are drifting sunward as seen from the protons' point of view.
LOL! These are plasma circuits, based on real EE concepts that we rely upon in our modern society.
..the core electrons drift sunward along the background magnetic field line,.....
And which bloody way do you think the magnetic field line is going? Hint: the IMF is dragged along by the solar wind. And that is heading outwards.
..the core electrons drift sunward along the background magnetic field line,.....
And which bloody way do you think the magnetic field line is going? Hint: the IMF is dragged along by the solar wind. And that is heading outwards.
ROTFLMAO! I can't keep up with all the stupid crap you spew. You'd be better off just shutting up and not let me make you look so foolish.
And which bloody way do you think the magnetic field line is going? Hint: the IMF is dragged along by the solar wind. And that is heading outwards.
You'd be better off just shutting up and not let me make you look so foolish.
Let's go back to the car race analogy.
Let's go back to the car race analogy.
Nope, no reason to. It's physically meaningless. There is a sunward drift (business) of electrons. Period.
You have to wonder how these idiots can balance their checkbooks. You got 20000 coming out and 1 going in. For 4.5 billion years. Teh stupid, it burnz. #physicscrankscantcount.
...neither of you have considered/treated the particle-pair production (of BOTH Electrons and Positrons) due to high-energy gamma-ray 'flux' effects in/on sun EM processes!Please do not emotionally kneejerk to saying "Total crap" where KNOWN science is involved...else you'll be no better than @cantdrive; actually even worse, because you claim to be 'defending' known science 'against' the @cantdrive "crank" (as you label him).
Eg: the sun's 'charge' is NOT a 'static' Positive OR Negative, but a dynamically/regionally fluxing situation depending on how many POSITRONS are 'retained/redirected back' by the sun's magnetic fields.
Let's go back to the car race analogy.
Nope, no reason to. It's physically meaningless. There is a sunward drift (business) of electrons. Period.
It is a crap analogy. There is a much better one. An observer is on a bus travelling away from the depot at 50 km/h
Ever looked at the ACE data
Ever looked at the ACE data
Yep, linked to a paper in this thread which described the solar wind to be laced with Birkeland currents, not the homogeneous plasma you believe it to be. Birkeland currents are known to be coaxial and counter-rotating, which implies simultaneous counter flows of ions and electrons. You know, like in electric circuits.
It is a crap analogy. There is a much better one. An observer is on a bus travelling away from the depot at 50 km/h
Another crap analogy jonesdumb, to explain away this "drift business". LOL!
There is an accurate analogy, it is the circuit analogy and it explains it accurately. There is a drift of electrons sunward as the paper states. No bus trips or train rides are necessary to explain this away. Plasmas operate in circuits, and EE are best equipped to explain plasma processes.
It is a crap analogy. There is a much better one. An observer is on a bus travelling away from the depot at 50 km/h
Another crap analogy jonesdumb, to explain away this "drift business". LOL!
There is an accurate analogy, it is the circuit analogy and it explains it accurately. There is a drift of electrons sunward as the paper states. No bus trips or train rides are necessary to explain this away. Plasmas operate in circuits, and EE are best equipped to explain plasma processes.
The ***bulk velocity*** as determined from the measured electron distribution also agrees with that of the protons, as was demonstrated previously. However, velocities of the core and halo components are not, in general, equal but satisfy the zero-current relation NeV0e + NHV0• = NV0 as is necessary to provide zero current. ****Furthermore, the velocities of the core and halo *RELATIVE* to the bulk velocity****, AVe = V0e - V0 and AV• = V0• - V0, are oppositely directed along Qe, with..........
I wonder how the EU'ers will misinterpret the date from the two probes in the article when they become operational. Anyone remember the article?
It would be a welcome relief from playing Whack-a-Troll.
@Da Schneib
Just the area that the probes are going into should go a long way toward explaining most of the solar wind issues, such as how the heliosphere protects the inner planets and allows what we call life to exist. Is this what we can expect from these two missions? Are we fairly certain that most similar class stars have similar structures?
@jonesdave
Thanks for the response. When they talk about, "Alphas" what exactly are those if you don't mind. Also the magnetosphere is within the heliosphere, have we figured out whether that increases/decreases the effectiveness of a magnetosphere. Thanks in advance. I appreciate what you and DS, Cap'n and others do to refute so of the blatantly wrong statements made by some.
^^^^^It is irrelevant to what is being discussed. I do not see how a mathematical treatment of the energy budget of a 1 m/s drift of electrons to the Sun, needs to consider anything like that. At relativistic speeds there will be pair production, and, indeed, subsequent gamma ray production on the nightside of any planet that is unfortunate enough to be in the way of such a stream. At 1 m/s, it hardly seems likely, nor relevant.This exercise is merely to show that the EU claim of drift electrons powering the Sun is a total fantasy, due to the ludicrous densities required. How the kinetic energy of these electrons is converted into photos at the Sun, is just another unexplained mystery of this madness. The whole silly idea doesn't get past first base.Mate, calm down. I was addressing the 'charged body' aspect you two argue about; so it is relevant.mAnd as for the rest, I have long pointed out you're both right/wrong in your respective 'oned-eyed' way. Chill.
691Boat
May 16, 2018@CD85: Make your predictions, man!