Anode Sun vs Cathode Sun

[Lloyd]

Bob's Video Link
Sparky, here's the link for Bob's video talk from a few posts up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWpPetpI50U.

Bob, See Our Cathode Models?
Bob, do you have a little time to look into our group's cathode Sun models? It seems that you favor your plasmoid model as a possible way to verify that stars are powered by galactic electric currents. However, the 3 cathode models that our group discussed involve either a possible small current connecting stars, or no current connecting them. All agree that most matter in space is ionized, but we don't see the current as that substantial, as for star formation. Michael Mozina thinks the Sun is an electric generator that produces a current that connects a galactic current that joins, but does not power, the stars. This has the advantage of having a source for the electric currents, namely the stars. Charles Chandler thinks the Sun's electric currents end at the heliopause, I think, but the Sun is a sort of battery which was initially formed from electrical and gravitational nebular collapse, which agrees in part with Thornhill's model of how atoms within stars are compressively ionized, with the negative ions moving upward from the interior. Again, Charles' model also has a source for interplanetary and some interstellar electric currents. Brant Callahan's model also has the Sun as a battery, but I'm not sure if he thinks it produces a small galactic current. I suspect he does.

Combined Cathode and Plasmoid Models
Charles accepts a plasmoid model like yours to explain exotic stars, like pulsars and galactic centers, I believe. He thinks the same type of electro-gravitational nebular collapse would produce the exotic stars too, but the higher rotational velocity would lead to the formation of a natural tokamak, rather than primarily compressively ionized matter. If you have a bit of time to discuss this, Charles will likely be happy to explain in detail why he doesn't think your plasmoid model will work for the Sun. And, if you're able to show him that his reasons are faulty, he'll likely then be quite willing to consider aspects of your model that he may not understand yet and would be a very good collaborator for you.

Galactic Currents, Strong or Weak?
I think the kind of calculation you did to show that the anode model doesn't seem to work may also help show that strong star-forming galactic currents may not be feasible. Since brightness is generally related to energy etc, the fact that galactic filaments etc are not very bright seems to suggest that the currents are not very strong. It seems to be questionable if a z-pinch can really condense neutral matter very much. It can produce some neutrons, which can decay at least partly into hydrogen, but I don't know about producing much more density than that. I discussed that a bit on another thread [Plasmoid Sun thread]. The density of a fusion experiment found that a density close to that of water, probably, was achieved in microscopic volumes for nanoseconds of duration and this condensation interfered with the current, if I remember right. As ions the charges are either electrically or magnetically repelled, which generally prevents condensation.

Collaboration Available
I'm an amateur, so what I'm saying is subject to considerably faulty misconceptions. But I believe Charles is somewhat of an expert on matters of electronics etc and may be of much help in your research efforts.

[CharlesChandler]

Bob,

Can you post the entire transcript of your presentation, or send it to me? Our workgroup (i.e., me, Lloyd, Michael Mozina, and Brant Callahan) is in the process of developing formalized presentations of the various models. Frankly, I have a hard time remembering what people said, when I have to stitch together statements made on multiple websites, and in a wide variety of threads. So we're developing documents that lay out the logic, such that there will be a central reference for each model. How can we evaluate models when an assertion was made on one website, embellished in a conference presentation, with a follow-up on somebody else's website, a bit of supporting evidence mentioned in 3 different threads, and criticisms in 2 other threads? The whole issue might only be a page of text, but to follow the logic, you have to read a book's worth of material. This is ridiculously casual, for the amount of labor that people are pumping into these endeavors. So we want each model laid out. (BTW, we're not necessarily convinced that any of our models are the final word -- otherwise, we'd have no interest in anybody else's models! ) So I'm in the process of reconstructing Don Scott's model from various sources, and I want to list your counterpoints in the relevant sections. And then, I'll list Scott's responses... in the very same section!

Cheers!

[CharlesChandler]

Most of the images from the link are stars, i believe. I see currents flowing.

I totally agree that the Universe if full of filaments -- it actually seems to prefer them, instead of broad, diffuse matter. I also agree that gravity doesn't favor filaments, and hydrostatics hates them. So this is definitely evidence of electromagnetism. But I disagree that filaments are evidence of electrodynamics (i.e., z-pinches). I'm convinced that they are evidence of electrostatics. The "like-likes-like" principle establishes a body force that can pull dusty plasmas together into stars, planets, etc. (See Accretion for more detail.) And it loves filaments. (See Galaxies for more detail.)

[Lloyd]

Charles, speaking of filaments, can you comment on the images in the Call for Criticisms thread that I posted at http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... 404#p80404 regarding stars found within filaments?

[Sparky]

Thanks...I'm up to speed now.

Sparky, here's the link for Bob's video talk from a few posts up:

[CharlesChandler]

We now have a transcription of the earlier section of Bob Johnson's presentation, starting from the beginning, to which Lloyd's transcription of the latter half has been appended:

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=7915

[bobinski]

I'm putting together a pdf of the slides & text from my talk which I'll put up on google docs in the next day or so; if anyone wants a copy please email me at bob.johnson.gsf@gmail.com

Just so everyone is aware of the background to my talk:

I started by looking for evidence for the circuit that the anode Sun model predicts; I expected to find it, I just felt that it was 'missing' from the TB & Holoscience sites.

When I didn't find the predicted electron velocities I then checked what evidence Juergens used when he formulated the model in 1972 (modified in 1979) and was dismayed to discover that he had apparently been rather selective in his use of the papers he quoted.

The plasmoid Sun idea arose 'spontaneously' from Bostick's work, the tokomac research, and consideration of the formation of both CCDL and CFDL in plasma; the oscillation of the solar cycle between radially inflowing and outflowing plasma seemed to tie in nicely with Alfven's circuit and his earlier work on the co-rotation mechanism.

Please note that the two parts could be considered independently; the oscillation model is not dependent on the Sun itself being a plasmoid.

I discussed the plasmoid model as a possible alternative because I didn't want to stand up and undermine the anode Sun model without offering something in it's place; as I indicated in my talk, it may not be right! Whether it's a better model than the alternatives you guys are discussing is something you're probably better placed than I am to decide because you've spent a lot longer than I have investigating the problem.

One last point: Charles Bruce considered that the filamentation around established stars is a low-current remnant of the high-current formative phase which we see clearly in star-forming regions. I think that idea is attractive. Suppose there is a remnant current flowing past the Sun. The question is, what happens at the heliopause? Is the Sun powered by this remnant or not? If so, where is the evidence?

[bobinski]

Text & slides of my talk are now available at

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByVDJsY ... sp=sharing

You shouldn't need a password.

[Lloyd]

Charles, why do you say on your site that the Saturn Theory violates physics? If you believe that, I think you still don't understand the theory. Will you tell us which parts you think violate physics?

[CharlesChandler]

Charles, why do you say on your site that the Saturn Theory violates physics? If you believe that, I think you still don't understand the theory. Will you tell us which parts you think violate physics?

Where did I say that? In the guidelines to the theoretical science section, I say,

So there is not one theory here — there are many. Some people are attempting to develop rigorous scientific theories that solve problems within the existing paradigms, while others freely entertain wild speculation that clearly violates well-known principles of physics, potentially causing more problems than they solve. Telling the difference isn't always easy. On such a frontier, it's up to the individual to decide what is right. But there is no guilt by association out here, because there is no association.

Did you think that I was alluding to Saturn Theory there? Anyway, the last time I checked, I had found a way, within my framework, of accepting that planets might not be now precisely where they were born, and could have come from elsewhere. My whole problem with that was with the delicate balance of forces necessary to achieve a stable orbit in the Newtonian model. The chances of a planet getting "captured" are effectively nil, since a stable orbit requires precisely the right direction and speed, and if the planet didn't already have it (because it is coming in from elsewhere), how it is going to get it? That would require a change in its momentum, such as from a collision. The chance of a celestial collision is extremely slight. The chance of the vector product of that collision putting one of the bodies into a stable orbit is effectively nil. But then we talked about the stabilizing forces in Debye sheaths, where the "like-likes-like" force pulls bodies together, but only up to a point. If they get too close, the mutual attraction to the shared Debye sheath goes away, because it has been squeezed out, and the repulsion of like charges takes over. Hence there are pushes and pulls that constitute a stabilizing force, putting the planets into stable orbits, nicely spaced throughout the solar system.

I "think" that my only remaining objection is just with the age of the solar system, in its current configuration. We talked about the contentious nature of dating systems, and I acknowledge that we don't know the age with the degree of precision that scientists assert. But I still think that the Earth is at least a couple million years old. I'm not sure why exactly I think that. Maybe it's just been drilled into my head so many times that I can't think any other way. But every question in geophysics has to be re-opened to go with a young Earth model. Mountain building, magnetic striping in the sea floor, the sedimentary layers revealed by the Colorado River cutting into the Grand Canyon -- all of this stuff requires mechanisms that can operate on extremely short schedules. There is no reason to believe that without the Sun in precisely the same place the whole time, these processes would have run so steadily the whole time. So all of it had to happen after the Earth achieved its current position. Is that correct? If so, I have a lot of questions. I'm not saying that there aren't answers -- I'm just saying that there is a lot to think about there.

[Lloyd]

CC's Saturn Theory Quote
Charles, here's the quote I was referring to, which I found under "Changes" a day or two ago.

Rational Astronomy (new page)
Rationalists are attempting to build a model of the Universe that is fully compliant with all of the reliable data, and which does not venture outside of the realm of conventional physics. This approach acknowledges the existence of inertial, gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear forces, and no other. It rejects mainstream constructs that defy physical substantiation, such as dark matter and dark energy. It also rejects fringe theories that assert the presence of particles and/or forces that cannot be proved to exist (e.g., aether), or that clearly violate provable principles of physics (e.g., Velikovsky's Saturn Theory). Essentially, all mysticism, mainstream and otherwise, is neglected.

I thought you had said that the elements of Cardona's Saturn Theory that I mentioned here lately were plausible by your model, so I wanted to see if you changed your mind, or if the above quote is older or from someone else.

Formation of the Continents
Gordon and I think there's considerable evidence that the continents, which are made of sedimentary rock, were laid down all at once (over a period of weeks or so) recently, say over 10,000 years ago, before the Saturn System entered the Solar System. Cardona thinks continental drift occurred numerous times over maybe millions of years, maybe with a few hundred miles of spreading each time, but we think it only occurred once, because there's very little sedimentary rock or sediment on the seafloors. And I think it occurred via Shock Dynamics, i.e. a large impact off of east Africa broke up the supercontinent and pushed the plates apart very quickly. But it's also possible that Saturn flaring stopped Earth's rotation suddenly, causing the continents to split apart, as Cardona thinks. And it's also possible that Earth was oval-shaped (due to a magnetic pinch squeezing of the Earth) and that it changed from oval to spherical, causing the continental drift, as Fred Jueneman speculated.

Sedimentary Rock Sources
Cardona says some of the sedimentary rock came from Saturn flares, but we thought ALL of it may have come from there. Or maybe it came from the Saturn system colliding with a meteor stream or something in space. I think Gordon says some of the strata came from vulcanism. Anyway, the accumulation of sediment was accompanied by water, which laid the sediment down in layers. Wherever the strata are parallel, they must have been laid down all at once, over days or weeks, by water deposition. Wherever they're not parallel, the strata were laid down at different time intervals of unknown length. Most of the strata in the Grand Canyon are parallel. The top layers in the Grand Canyon area were eroded away during a breach in the banks of Grand and Hopi Lakes, but the continuation of those strata are found nearby in Colorado etc and those strata are also parallel. So nearly all of the strata in the Grand Canyon, over a mile deep, must have been laid down at once.

Geochronology
So the scenario seems to be something like this.
1. ????,000 BP: Formation of Earth in the Saturn System in the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy or enroute from there to the Solar System.
2. ????,000 BP: Evolution of life on Earth
3. ???,000 BP: Evolution of humans
4. xx,300 BP: Formation of Earth's supercontinent by Saturn flare detritus, and/or meteor stream impact, and/or vulcanism, without destroying all life (unless Earth was somehow seeded with life after the supercontinent formed).
5. xx,200 BP: Breaking up of the supercontinent by shock dynamics, and/or Saturn flare braking, and/or Earth-rounding.
6. xx,000 BP: Sudden catastrophic erosion of the Grand Canyon, due to breaches of Grand and Hopi Lakes; the erosion had to occur within a few hundred years after the supercontinent formed, because the sediments needed to be soft enough to erode quickly, the way the Grand Canyon apparently did erode.
7. 10,000 BP: Saturn System entered the Sun's heliosphere.
8. 5,000 BP: Saturn System broke up near Jupiter and the planets took their present orbits.
8a. 5,000 BP: Petroglyphs showed Saturn just before leaving the southern sky.
8b. 5,000 BP: Ice age began and buried mammoths, rhinos etc near the north pole, after an airburst showered them with micrometeorites and filled the air with dust.
9. 4,000 BP: A large planetoid approached Earth over North America, produced a huge airburst that destroyed all life on the continent and melted much of the ice sheet and surface rock, electrically carved the Great Lakes, deposited a layer of black carbon out west, slung sand blobs that formed the Carolina Bays and the Nebraska sand dunes and produced meteor impacts in the Southwest.
10. 2,000 BP: Dust and debris in the inner solar system cleared out, turning the Sun from reddish to yellowish.

Star-Formation by Electric Discharge?
Charles, I'm trying to understand how your model explains accretion of nebulae into star systems. So far, I can follow it from plasma to chondrules, but I don't understand the implosion process of the nebula into planetoids. Can you explain that?
- Below I copy part of your paper on Debye Sheaths and the abstract you posted on Nebular Lightning. I break them down into statements and I insert comments and questions. I discuss electric discharge a little and I wonder if such discharges could cascade into a star-system-forming nebular implosion, since your paper and the abstract seem to suggest that electric discharges do cascade into increasingly bigger discharges. Do you disagree?
- PS. Since I think you suggested that supernova shockwaves can produce implosions, and since you posted on your site that abstract about giant lightning in nebulae, and since terrestrial lightning produces shockwaves, could such giant nebular lightning produce shockwaves that lead to implosions and accretion etc? Would nebular lightning shockwaves be due to the same sort of charge separation you describe for sonic boom shockwaves?

(CC in Blue; LK in Red; Paper in Green)
DeBye Sheath[s]
Figure 1. Debye sheath.
>>[See if the illustrations help. http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/C ... th_wbg.png]
- Dusty plasmas do not have a net charge, but they do have local charge separations. (That's why we call them "plasmas" and not "gases.")
>>[How does the plasma form to begin with?
>>Mathis thinks electrons and protons form from photons.]
- Any dust particle with more than a couple million atoms is capable of hosting a net negative charge, while the surrounding plasma has a net positive charge.
- This plasma is known as a Debye sheath.
>>[Do you mean the layer of positive ions around the dust particle is the Debye sheath?]
- The charge separation occurs because at any given temperature, the velocity of free electrons is at least an order of magnitude greater than that of atomic nuclei, because the electrons are so much lighter.
- Consequently, the surface of a nearby dust particle is impacted by many more electrons than atoms.
- The electrons are absorbed into the electron cloud of the dust particle, which distributes the charge, and covalent bonding holds the electrons in place.
- The net result is that the dust particle develops a negative charge, leaving the surrounding [medium of sparse] atoms positively charged [meaning it has a shortage of negative ions].
- Once the charges have been separated, the Debye sheath [of surrounding positive ions] is attracted to the dust particle by the electric force.
- When positive ions impact the dust particle, they might just grab their missing electrons and bounce off [by becoming neutral charge], or if they are moving slow enough, they might just get attached to the dust particle and held in place by covalent bonding, in which case the dust particle grows by polymerization.5
>>[How do dust grains form in the first place, if it requires millions of atoms in a dust grain to collect electron clouds?
>>Could light pressure and electron movements cause millions of atoms to aggregate into a dust grain?
>>Wouldn't electron clouds form around aggregates of just a few atoms too?
>>Isn't the linear motion of a single electron a tiny electric discharge?
>>And don't those electron motions tend to cascade into increasingly larger discharges, which help to aggregate matter as per the Nebular Lightning abstract below?]
- The consolidation of matter into growing dust particles does not increase the gravitational body force on the entire cloud.
- When we calculate the force of gravity between two objects, it's convenient that we can [pretend that we] compress the masses into their centroids, and then pretend that the centroids are point sources, because the results are the same as if we had calculated the force from each atom to each other atom.
- Physical aggregation does the same thing, and with the same result: no change in the overall body force.
- Like-Likes-Like [Three-way Electric Attraction] Principle - Figure 2.
- The concentration of [or change to] positive plasma between two negative bodies creates an attractive force.
- The increase in [dust grain, not cloud] body force due to aggregation is actually coming from the local charge separation, and it is simply one of the implications of the inverse square law as it applies to the electric force.
- Since we have both positive and negative charges, we have both attractive and repulsive forces [like charges repel; opposites attract].
- Each dust grain, along with its Debye sheath, is net neutral.
- The grains themselves are negative, so they repel each other, while they are attracted to the positively charged Debye sheaths.
- Yet the positive ions [in the Debye sheath] are closer [than the adjacent dust grains], so the attractive force is stronger than the repulsion between the dust grains.
- In other words, if the negative and positive charges were compressed into point sources, everything would cancel out, and there would be no body force on the entire cloud.
- But the Debye sheaths are space charges, not point sources, and they exist in the medium between the dust grains, where they pull both negative charges toward each other.
- This is a manifestation of what Feynman called the "like-likes-like" [3-way electric attraction] phenomenon, and it's the same principle as covalent bonding in a molecule (just on the macroscopic [or larger microscopic] level).6,7
- Atoms [ions] repel each other, but they are attracted to electrons, and there are more electrons between the atoms [ions] than beyond.
- So the like-charged atoms are pulled together, as if they were attracted to each other (when really they are attracted to the shared opposite charge).
- Remove the electrons and the molecule [of atoms] falls apart.
- Hence we can think of Debye sheaths surrounding dust grains as if they were [like] electron clouds surrounding atoms in a molecule (except that the polarities are reversed).
- Nevertheless, this is the force responsible for all structured matter, and now we're seeing that it is influential even at the macroscopic level [of micrometeors].

Nebular Lightning & Meteoric Chondrules
Gamma-ray bursts and other sources of giant lightning discharges in protoplanetary systems - McBreen, B.; Winston, E.; McBreen, S.; Hanlon, L.; 2005
-Abstract: Lightning in the [original] solar nebula is considered to be one of the probable sources for producing the chondrules [spherulres similar to Martian blueberries and tektites] that are found in meteorites.
- Gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) provide a large flux of γ-rays that Compton scatter and create a charge separation in the gas because the electrons are displaced from the positive ions.
>>[Look up Compton scattering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering]
>>[What causes GRBs? Aren't they caused by electric discharge?
>>If so, it's a circular argument.]
- The electric field easily exceeds the breakdown value [at which electric discharge occurs] of ≈1 V m-1 over distances of order 0.1 AU.
- The energy in a giant lightning discharge exceeds a terrestrial lightning flash by a factor of ~10^12 [one trillion].
- The predicted post-burst emission of γ-rays from accretion into the newly formed black hole or spin-down of the magnetar [Plasmoid actually] is sufficiently intense to cause a lightning storm in the nebula that lasts for days and is more probable than the GRB because the radiation is beamed into a larger solid angle.
>>[What's a solid angle?]
- The giant outbursts from nearby soft gamma-ray repeater sources (SGRs) are also capable of causing giant lightning discharges.
>>[What causes SGRs? Are they electric discharges?]
- The total amount of chondrules produced is in reasonable agreement with the observations of meteorites.
>>[How many is that per what volume?]
- Furthermore in the case of GRBs most chondrules were produced in a few major melting events by nearby GRBs and lightning occurred at effectively the same time over the whole nebula, and provide accurate time markers to the formation of chondrules and evolution of the [original] solar nebula.
- This model provides a reasonable explanation for the delay between the formation of calcium aluminium inclusions (CAIs) and chondrules.
- JF - Astronomy and Astrophysics VL - 429 SP - L41 EP - L45 UR -
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005A%26A...429L..41MER

[CharlesChandler]

Here's the quote I was referring to, which I found under "Changes" a day or two ago. [...] I thought you had said that the elements of Cardona's Saturn Theory that I mentioned here lately were plausible by your model...

I forgot that I said that there, so I updated the page, removing the objections. I still have questions, but I am no longer convinced that the Saturnian model necessarily violates any laws of physics. Objections sometimes reveal the ignorance of the listener, not the speaker.

I'm trying to understand how your model explains accretion of nebulae into star systems. So far, I can follow it from plasma to chondrules, but I don't understand the implosion process of the nebula into planetoids. Can you explain that?

I don't yet have a model that explicitly addresses the formation of planets. I "think" that my conception of planet formation is similar to the mainstream's, in which the accretion disc keeps collapsing until the central star ignites, halting further collapse, and leaving some of the matter stranded, later to condense for its own reasons into planets. For me, this as an undeveloped assumption.

The formation of the star is directly addressed, and it doesn't necessary have to be from an accretion disc -- it can be from a dusty plasma that is imploding from all directions, with little to no rotation. The actual amount of rotation in our solar system is actually pretty slight, so mandating that things only condense from accretion discs is requiring something that appears to be a trivial side-effect. The condensation is caused by some sort of inward body force, and IMO, the rotation is from charged particles moving in the presence of a galactic magnetic field, and picking up a bit of Lorentz force. The body force is commonly considered to be gravity (with the help of CDM), but I think that it's the electric force, in the "like-likes-like" configuration. Aggregates in space, such as dust particles, asteroids, etc., pick up a negative charge, just from the electron temperature. Thereafter, the positively charged plasma around them is attracted to them, and they are attracted to concentrations of positive plasma between themselves and other charged bodies. This is the force that initiates the implosion. Note that as the implosion nears completion, the positive plasma gets squeezed out, and leaving nothing but negatively charged bodies, which repel each other. So the process completes not because the "like-likes-like" force carried it all of the way, but rather, because the momentum that had built up is still present, even after the like is no longer liking the other like. It could also be said that once the force acting on the particles is no longer attractive, the excess charge can be easily stripped off, since the binding energy for excess charge is so much lower than for mandatory electrons. When the imploding matter actually achieves the centroid, it's purely on the basis of its momentum, in spite of the hydrostatic pressure, and in spite of the remaining negative charge it might still have.

I wonder if such discharges could cascade into a star-system-forming nebular implosion, since your paper and the abstract seem to suggest that electric discharges do cascade into increasingly bigger discharges. Do you disagree?

The paper that I cited (for other reasons) says that, but there aren't any discharges in my model until the star ignites. Anyway, there can certainly be avalanches of charges that can ultimately lead to larger discharges. That's how terrestrial lightning works. But I don't see a way of getting a discharge to form condensed matter.

Since I think you suggested that supernova shockwaves can produce implosions, and since you posted on your site that abstract about giant lightning in nebulae, and since terrestrial lightning produces shockwaves, could such giant nebular lightning produce shockwaves that lead to implosions and accretion etc?

It isn't the shockwave from a supernova that causes the collapse of a dusty plasma. Rather, the UV radiation increases the degree of ionization, which increases the "like-likes-like" force. So I'd say that a shockwave from a giant discharge would similarly not contribute, but the UV radiation could, if such discharges actually occur.

Would nebular lightning shockwaves be due to the same sort of charge separation you describe for sonic boom shockwaves?

A sonic boom is a purely aerodynamic phenomenon, caused simply by cascading atomic collisions. In the Chelyabinsk discussion, I was talking about a detached shock front, which is due to charge separations, but which is different from a sonic boom. The charge separation inside the detached shock front forms into a teardrop shape in the coma of the bolide, whereas the sonic boom propagates outward, like the wave from a motorboat.

How does the plasma form to begin with?

Starting out with just neutrally charged atoms, random low-speed collisions will form molecules, and then molecules will chink together into solid particles, held together just by covalent bonding. Some small molecules are capable of being negative ions, but larger molecules are better at this, and aggregates of a million atoms or more are much better. The reason is that in an atom or small molecule, an extra electron experiences electrostatic repulsion from the other electrons, so the binding force is weak. But in a larger aggregate, the electron cloud can accommodate an extra electron if the entire cloud just shifts over a little bit. So negative charges of 1 part per million in aggregates are relatively stable, but negative molecules are not.

The "plasma" that is present is, of course, ionized matter, which is caused primarily by UV radiation in space.

Do you mean the layer of positive ions around the dust particle is the Debye sheath?

Yes.

Could light pressure and electron movements cause millions of atoms to aggregate into a dust grain?

I'm not convinced that light pressure is real, but if it was, I'm not sure that it would help.

Isn't the linear motion of a single electron a tiny electric discharge?

You could say that I guess. "Breakdown voltage" at the macroscopic level maps to "binding energy" at the atomic level (sorta). But I'm not sure of the utility of the metaphor.

What causes gamma-ray bursts? Aren't they caused by electric discharge? If so, it's a circular argument.

To my knowledge, gamma rays are only caused by nuclear reactions. When associated with electrostatic discharges, I think that it's relativistic electrons slamming into stationary atoms at the ends of the discharge channels, instantaneously creating the temperatures and pressures necessary for nuclear fusion. So electrostatic discharges can cause nuclear reactions. Maybe they're saying that a discharge causes fusion that releases gamma rays that ionizes matter, which causes another discharge? But UV ionization isn't really going to cause any kind of large-scale charge separation -- it's all local to the particles that got ionized. So I wonder where they're going too.

The electric field easily exceeds the breakdown value [at which electric discharge occurs] of ≈1 V m-1 over distances of order 0.1 AU.

This is the tid-bit that I found relevant, and which was the reason for citing this source.

What's a solid angle?

I don't know.

What causes soft gamma-ray repeater sources? Are they electric discharges?

I don't know.

[Goldminer]

Unsticking Scotch tape causes emission of gamma rays.

[Sparky]

Unsticking Scotch tape causes emission of gamma rays.

errrr, i thought it was xrays?

[D_Archer]

Unsticking Scotch tape causes emission of gamma rays.

errrr, i thought it was xrays?

Why not gamma? The report was for x-rays, that is proven, but did they even check for gamma?

Anyway, normal slow radioactive decay also produces gamma, you do not need highly energetic processes to produce it.

Regards,
Daniel