The Sun's Density Gradient

[Michael V]

Charles,

Let me get this absolutely clear. Do you actually believe that an electrical current is the movement, or flow, of electrons and/or protons?

Michael

[CharlesChandler]

Yep.

In practical terms, the ampere is a measure of the amount of electric charge passing a point in an electric circuit per unit time with 6.241 × 10^18 electrons, or one coulomb per second constituting one ampere.

Do you disagree with this?

[Lloyd]

Quasars per Your Accretion Disk Model

You said: Further still, if we were to entertain the idea that redshift does not equal velocity, to explain the rare (i.e., 20 out of 20 billion) exceptions, we would then be confronted with an even bigger problem: the typical cases, in which all of the stars in a galaxy have the same redshift. Do you really expect me to believe that all of the stars in a galaxy have precisely the same degree of ionization? Or the same degree of anything except overall velocity?

* Actually, I believe EU theorists only claim that high redshift does not correlate with distance or velocity, but low redshift values do correlate, at least somewhat. In the case of the high-redshift quasar in front of a low-redshift galaxy, obviously one of the redshifts does not correlate with distance. That image should also give a good indication of the size range and luminosity of quasars. See http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/ ... galaxy.htm
* Another fact that suggests that redshift does not entirely correlate with distance is the Finger of God arrangement of galaxies that a sky map produces, when it's based on the assumption of redshifts correlating to distances. See http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/ ... rs-god.htm. This means that clusters of galaxies and quasars tend to take oval shapes, in which the ovals point toward Earth. See more at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/00sub ... tm#Quasars.
Mathis on Redshift
* Here's what Miles Mathis says about redshift in this paper: http://milesmathis.com/tired.pdf.

At any rate, it wasn't until I looked closely at Reber's diagram that I realized how to correct it. If you are looking at a way to explain redshifts without Doppler, you don't look at linear velocity, you look at [photon] spin velocity. Since spin is what causes waves and determines wavelength, any change in wavelength not caused by Doppler will have to come from a change in spin velocity or radius. And once I had anal[y]zed the mechanism of Bremsstrahlung, I understood the mechanism of redshift. Zwicky was right to begin with: the redshift is caused by photons interacting with interstellar media (not just electrons, it could be any ions) [That backs up Thornhill's idea that quasars are positively ionized]. The important thing is not the material, it is the mechanism. Just as an electron has its outer spin damped or stripped in Bremsstrahlung, a photon has its outer spin damped or stripped in a similar close pass with [an] electron or other ion. It is not c [light-speed] or the angle to the observer that is affected in this interaction, it is the outer spin radius [of each photon]. A collision at this spin radius slows the spin velocity, which increases the spin radius, which increases the wavelength. The photon has been redshifted. Because the photon is so much smaller than the electron, this energy shift is much much smaller than Bremsstrahlung. It requires millions or billions of interactions to create any measurable shift.
- Alert readers will perk up here and ask me, “haven't you said that we can have both photons and antiphotons? To lose energy, this photon must be interacting with anti-matter. Reversed spins cause an energy loss, right? If the spins were the same, the photons would actually gain energy from the interaction, right? So why don't we see blueshifts sometimes? Can't photons interact with matter, or anti-photons with anti-matter?”
- Good question. We don't see blueshifts because this isn't Doppler. With Doppler, the reverse of a redshift is a blueshift. But we don't have Doppler here, we have a collision of spins. If the spins of photon and electron, say, are reversed, then we get a spin damping and a redshift. But if the spins are the same, we get a spin augmentation. The photon gains energy. But it doesn't show this gain by a blueshift, it shows it by exhibiting what I call “reverse Bremsstrahlung.” In the previous paper, I showed that in Bremsstrahlung, the electron didn't emit the photon, it became the photon. The electron lost its outer spin, and an electron that loses its spin is, by definition (in my theory), a photon. An electron is just a photon with extra spins. That is what my particle unification was about. All the fundamental particles, including photon, electron, meson, proton, and neutron, are just different spin levels of the same particle. So if our photon in this Hubble problem encounters matter with the same spin as itself, it will gain a spin. The photon won't blueshift, it will become an electron. This is why we don't see blueshifted light from this mechanism. We don't see energy gains as blueshifts, we see them as electron production.

* Being a layman without much knowledge on the subject, I'll have to look up info on your statement that it should be easy to show high redshift coming from ionization, if it's true. I'll ask Miles about it and maybe Thornhill or Scott or Gmirkin (since he has a good memory). Oh, I see Miles may have already answered above, where he said "It requires millions or billions of interactions to create any measurable shift." Maybe it's hard to get so many interactions in a normal lab setting. Okay, I found something from a 1966 abstract at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1966ApJ...146..615B, which says: "The ions which require more highly excited conditions ... have systematically larger redshifts...." The authors were associates of Arp, who developed the idea that quasars are ejected from AGNs, active galactic nuclei, based on evidence that they are closely associated with galaxies usually via visible bridges of matter.
Your Pulsar Model, M.V. Discussion, Iron Sun Model, Solar Radiation, Electric Sun Model
* I like your further explanation of your pulsar model in your recent post at http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... =90#p62898. The discussion with Michael V is also informative.
* By the way, can you comment on Brant's Iron Sun Model and Kanarev's Solar Radiation Claims described at my earlier post at http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... 3&start=90? I especially like Kanarev's strong evidence that the Sun recycles photons from the aether, much like Mathis' finding. What do you think?
* Have you seen Scott's article at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12 ... tron-flux/? He says:

NASA’s observation (#3 above) that the direction of the solar wind actually reverses (begins to flow sunward) out near the heliopause is further confirmation that the analogy between the behavior of the Sun’s surrounding plasma and what is observed in laboratory “gas” (plasma) discharge tubes is a valid one.

* He also said 100 times more electrons are found there than needed for Juergens' model. How much would you charge to give a somewhat detailed analysis, or critique, of that article, or the main ones in the Essential Guide to the EU?

[upriver]

"I especially like Kanarev's strong evidence that the Sun recycles photons from the aether, much like Mathis' finding. What do you think?"

If you think about it, photons are aetheric energy given form....

I have done a little bit of work on the suns density gradient that leads me to believe there is a solid surface just below the photosphere. The optical thickness becomes 1 for all wave lengths at the bottom of the photosphere.

Brant

[Michael V]

Charles,

Michael V: Do you actually believe that an electrical current is the movement, or flow, of electrons and/or protons?

Charles: Yep. Do you disagree with this?

Oh yes, I disagree. Frankly, I am aghast.

Michael

[Michael V]

Brant,

Earth = 5515 kg m-3
Mercury = 5427 kg m-3
Venus= 5204 kg m-3
Mars = 3934 kg m-3
Moon = 3346 kg m-3

This gives us at least some clue as to the density of planetary cores. If we let the Sun's planetary core density be the same as Earth's and we put all the Sun's mass in the planetary core, then it would have a radius of 440,000,000m. Even if we take the Sun's planetary core to be iron with a density of 7874 kg m-3 and again put all the mass in the planetary core, it would have a radius of 390,000,000m.
The actual overall density of the Sun is 1408 kg m-3 and the radius is 696,000,000m, so the depth of the atmosphere should be 256,000,000m to 306,000,000m (give or take).

Even if we pooh-pooh the above estimates, it remains difficult to reasonably imagine anything other than a very deep atmosphere. The proposition of a solid surface "just" below the photosphere is not going to be easily defensible.

Michael

[CharlesChandler]

EU theorists only claim that high redshift does not correlate with distance or velocity, but low redshift values do correlate, at least somewhat. In the case of the high-redshift quasar in front of a low-redshift galaxy, obviously one of the redshifts does not correlate with distance. That image should also give a good indication of the size range and luminosity of quasars. [...] Another fact that suggests that redshift does not entirely correlate with distance is the Finger of God arrangement of galaxies that a sky map produces, when it's based on the assumption of redshifts correlating to distances. This means that clusters of galaxies and quasars tend to take oval shapes, in which the ovals point toward Earth.

OK, previously I had only given redshift a passing glance, but if we simply must... For my own benefit, I had to lay out the relationships amongst the different levels of arguments. Perhaps you guys already had all of this sorted out, but I didn't.

• Redshift = ?
  • Velocity (i.e., the Doppler effect).
  • Gravity, as tested in the The Pound–Rebka experiment (and others), and as challenged by many.
  • Photon spin attenuation, as asserted by Mathis.
  • Interaction of photons with ions, as challenged by me, but as supported by Bahcall, J. N. (cited by Lloyd).
  • Aether theories?
  • Some combination of the above.
• Redshift = Distance?
  • Now enter the Big Bang theory, which states that everything is consistently expanding, which would mean that we would be able to reliably determine distance on the basis of redshift.
  • As an absolute rule, this is challenged (convincingly) by the "Fingers of God" phenomenon, and (possibly) by a few cases in which objects of high redshift appear to be in front of low redshift objects, or where objects of very different redshifts appear to be interacting.
  • So does that mean that the Universe is still expanding, but not as consistently as the BBT maintains? In other words, is it that nobody can account for the velocity exceptions, while there might still be a rule there? Is there any other way of determining distance at the intergalactic scale? For example, in cases where we see light from a star directly as well as a refraction by an object in the foreground, is there a detectable phase shift from which we could calculate the height of the deflection triangle, and then know all of the distances? I'm new to this branch of the literature, so I have only questions.
  • We should also note that at least with respect to "tired light" (and possibly some of the aether theories), if the contention is that redshift is a subtle effect that can only amount to a measurable quantity over a great distance, then redshift still equals distance, not because velocity = distance as the BBT maintains, but because only over long distances can the proposed interactions relax the frequency.
• Redshift = Age?
  • If redshift does equal distance (by whatever means), one of the implications is that redshift equals age, since the light that we're receiving is coming from far away, and traveling that distance took time. (This assumes that the speed of light is constant.)
  • The implication is that studying high redshift objects is a study of the early Universe, while low redshift data tells us about the present Universe. Differences in characteristics are then evidence of evolutionary processes (e.g., star formation).

Depending on how all of this works out, some or all of my contentions concerning the peculiar~elliptical~lenticular~spiral evolution of galaxies gets blown up. Note that it wouldn't matter to me whether quasars were 6 billion years old, or 3 billion, or 1 billion. I'm not making specific enough contentions about the amount of time that it takes for a peculiar to evolve into a spiral that a compression in the time frame would make a liar out of me. I'm just saying "that" an evolution occurs, involving many repititions of an implosion/explosion cycle, wherein magnetic pressure eventually gets everything rotating, and on the same plane. I don't know how many cycles it would take, or how long a cycle would last. Ignorance is bliss! I'm just saying that I have identified forces which could affect the transformation. But if redshift does not equal distance, then we don't know the age of the light that we're seeing, and we don't have any data on the evolution of galaxies, and that piece becomes pure speculation. It doesn't mean that it's wrong -- it just means that it does not, and cannot, be supported by early Universe observations, nor could any other galactic evolution theory.

Can you comment on Kanarev's Solar Radiation claims? I especially like Kanarev's strong evidence that the Sun recycles photons from the aether, much like Mathis' finding. What do you think?

I'm really not qualified to agree or disagree with Kanarev. I'm still not convinced that photons have mass (no matter what Einstein said), and if they don't, Kanarev solved a non-problem with some non-existent aether. But that's a totally uninformed opinion. (You asked... )

NASA’s observation (#3 above) that the direction of the solar wind actually reverses (begins to flow sunward) out near the heliopause is further confirmation that the analogy between the behavior of the Sun’s surrounding plasma and what is observed in laboratory “gas” (plasma) discharge tubes is a valid one.

I don't see the direct connection between conditions at the heliopause and at the Sun. If the solar wind is positive, at the heliopause there will be a negative double-layer. If there is nothing to keep the charges separate, they will recombine there, and nothing flows toward the Sun. So an abundance of electrons outside of the heliosphere doesn't mean that the Sun is powered by them.

Furthermore, and regardless of how much charge and voltage is available, if he's saying that electrons are flowing in from the interstellar space to power the Sun, we would expect these electrons to get accelerated to 99% of the speed of light on final approach. At such speeds, we'd expect them to get pinched into a discrete channel, and at the surface of the Sun, we'd see one or a couple very large spicules. Instead, in coronagraphs we see the solar wind emerging from broad regions on the Sun's surface, and then they are getting pinched as they move out into interplanetary space. So the negative charge at the heliopause is so powerful that it strips positive ions from the Sun, and accelerates the ions to relativistic speeds toward the heliopause? Why didn't the far lighter electrons just zip inward? And how could the Sun have a net charge in excess of what could be contained by gravity? If these questions cannot be answered, he doesn't have a model. ("Plasma is good like that" isn't an answer, and neither is a laboratory experiment using high voltages between solid electrodes.)

How much would you charge to give a somewhat detailed analysis, or critique, of that article, or the main ones in the Essential Guide to the EU?

Nobody's here for the money. We may be crazy, but we're not stupid.

I really don't want to derail the Essential Guide effort. This degree of formalization is a vital step, and they're doing a great job. I can say that in general, I think that there is a disconnect between known plasma behaviors and the application to cosmology. Nevertheless, for my own benefit and potentially for theirs, I can start up a document with unanswered questions. It might take me a while.

Michael V: Do you actually believe that an electrical current is the movement, or flow, of electrons and/or protons?
Charles: Yep. Do you disagree with this?
Michael V: Oh yes, I disagree. Frankly, I am aghast.

Electricity doesn't exist? Do you actually expect me to believe that the electric company has been ripping me off all of these years???

The proposition of a solid surface "just" below the photosphere is not going to be easily defensible.

Here I agree.

[Michael V]

Charles,

Michael V: Do you actually believe that an electrical current is the movement, or flow, of electrons and/or protons?

Charles: Yep. Do you disagree with this?

Michael V: Oh yes, I disagree. Frankly, I am aghast.

Charles: Electricity doesn't exist?

So, we have established that you believe that when an ammeter measures 1 Amp in a copper wire, there are 6.24x1018 electrons travelling along the wire and passing by any given point each second.

Do you have any proposal for the nature of electrostatic charge or electric and magnetic (E and B) fields?

As an aside, but to help flesh out the context of your position, do you also accept SR and more specifically E=mc2?

Michael

[Lloyd]

EU Model Critique
* That would be great, Charles, if you get some critical questions about the EU Model written up and posted. You already have a bunch of them posted in scattered places, so someone could collect those. Maybe I'll try to do that sometime, if you don't yourself. But other questions about the EU Essential Guide and Don's article etc would be good to have too. Some folks don't seem to like to hear such questions, but you can't have science without such questions. Can you?
Electric Current
* Mathis would seem to agree with Michael V to some extent, as he says electric currents mainly involve movement of photons, not larger particles, which latter are mainly just along for the ride. I've only found this out lately. He says the larger particles are made from photons and the charge field consists of photons. Photons can differ in the number of stacked spins they have and in their wavelengths or something.
Galaxy Formation
* Your galaxy formation theory seems plausible, except that I think it's important to take Arp's findings into account. He shows that quasars tend to be found as companions to galaxies and that small galaxies also tend to be seen as similar companions, so he has developed a fairly thorough theory about galaxy development. I saw one case where elliptical galaxies are companions to a larger galaxy between them. So his findings may support your theory, aside from what you previously said about quasars. I haven't read his material thoroughly enough to notice if his findings agree with your theory or conflict with it. But here are some good net sources to start with.
- Where's the Bridge? And Other Redshift Anomalies
http://astronomy-mall.com/Adventures.In ... dshift.htm
- A Different View of the Universe: A review of: Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies by Halton Arp 1987; Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science by Halton Arp 1999 http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... iverse#r14
- Galaxies and Quasars linked by a bridge of matter: http://lempel.pagesperso-orange.fr/les_ ... _02_uk.htm
- "This was the first example of multiple quasars very close to galaxies, which, of course, would be very much less likely to occur by chance than single quasars close to galaxies." -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, 1987: http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2009_0 ... chive.html. NGC 1073. Originally photographed by Hubble in 1950. Arp and Sulentic observed it's 3 quasars in 1979.
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episte ... age617.jpg

[Michael V]

Lloyd,

Electric Current
* Mathis would seem to agree with Michael V to some extent, as he says electric currents mainly involve movement of photons, not larger particles, which latter are mainly just along for the ride. I've only found this out lately. He says the larger particles are made from photons and the charge field consists of photons. Photons can differ in the number of stacked spins they have and in their wavelengths or something.

Without going into too much depth of the failings of Mathis' theories: consider a tennis ball, spin it about its axis, now we may also imagine it rolling over the poles of that axial spin, but how exactly can these additional "stacked spins" attach in any way to the ball. Maybe it's something to do with every object in the universe, and the space between those objects, expanding at some incredible rate. Is any of that reasonable? No, not in the slightest.

How about electrons flowing through a wire at some incredibly slow speed, but bumping into each other so that the electrical energy travels along the wire at c or close to it. This is fairies at the bottom of the garden logic. But just to be 100% absolutely no doubt whatsoever certain, let's consider electrostatic charge, magnetic fields, electric fields - do these consist of electrons, or even massive protons, travelling at c? NO they do not. This leaves ONLY two choices:
- There is some real material that is the cause of these affects, although it is invisible to us and interacts in a variable manner with the atomic structures that we are familiar with.
OR
- Action at a distance. You may argue that this is simply a placeholder for an unknown cause, but regardless, it completely destroys the argument for electricity as a flow of electrons, which we already know to be absent of credibility.

Clearly, plasmas contain kinetic electrons and protons; logs float in the current of a river, but no-one ever proposed that the logs are the cause of the current - the "flow of electrons" suggestion really is that ridiculous.

Flawed logic relativity and action at a distance theories will not provide any understanding.

Michael

[Lloyd]

* Micheal, Mathis is replacing his expanding matter, expanding photon, expanding space universe with a spinning universe, which is why it's starting to make a lot of sense to me now. Expansion seemed very implausible to me, but a spinning universe seems very plausible.
* Stacked spins don't seem plausible off-hand, but his model seems to work well at explaining atomic and subatomic structure etc, so I think it's possibly close to correct. He thinks a photon would be able to rotate about a point on its surface, because there's nothing to interfere at that micro-scale. I think vortices may explain the same motion better, but I haven't thought the problem through. He says the photo-electric effect etc shows that photons have mass. He considers photons to be the charge field and the basis of particle and atomic structure.
* He agrees with you about electrons and protons not carrying electric current or traveling at light-speed, c.
* What's your model for the aether, electric current and atomic structure? Will it explain the structure of the Sun etc?

[CharlesChandler]

Do you have any proposal for the nature of electrostatic charge or electric and magnetic (E and B) fields?

As an aside, but to help flesh out the context of your position, do you also accept SR and more specifically E=mc2?

I have to insist that I'm not qualified for such low-level theoretical questions, but if you want my layman's opinion on E=mc2, you can find it here: Einstein's Pseudo-Science.

You already have a bunch of them posted in scattered places, so someone could collect those. Maybe I'll try to do that sometime, if you don't yourself.

I'll do it. I'll start with this thread, then time permitting I'll go through the one from a year ago. I have this funny feeling that some of my objections have been answered, but I didn't realize the significance at the time, and each new discussion we stir up the same stuff. So it will be good for me to pull it together, as this will force me to think about it some more.

But other questions about the EU Essential Guide and Don's article etc would be good to have too. Some folks don't seem to like to hear such questions, but you can't have science without such questions. Can you?

I've been corresponding with Jim Johnson on typos and theoretical issues in the Essential Guide and related topics, and he's a great guy, so no worries there. We're all going to learn something, and that's what it's about.

Arp has developed a fairly thorough theory about galaxy development.

I took a look at those links, and I added them to a webpage that I started on The Redshift Controversy. I'll keep adding to that as I see more information. I'd like to find a concise statement of Arp's galaxy development theory, so I'll look for that too.

Meanwhile, I found that my reworked model of polar jets generalized easily into an explanation of Bipolar Nebulae. What I considered to be the toughest problem was to explain the near-perfect symmetry of the outflow. This seems to be an expected property of a "natural tokamak":

The perfect symmetry of the ejecta cannot possibly be the result of random chunks of matter spiraling in — it can only mean a perfectly regulated inflow, which only a natural tokamak could accomplish. The extreme angular velocities will generate sufficient magnetic fields to separate protons from electrons. The protons are consolidated by the magnetic force, but distributed by the electric force, with a particle density set by the angular velocity, which is the same all of the way around the tokamak. In other words, the reactor meters its own fuel.

[GaryN]

The perfect symmetry of the ejecta

I'm just wondering Charles, how is it determined that there is an outflow?

[Michael V]

Charles,

Thankyou kindly for your reply and the link to your website. With regards to E=mc2, I am afraid you have rather missed understood the concepts involved. Good luck with your theorising.

Michael

[Michael V]

Lloyd,

I am in the process of writing some papers which I hope will answer some of your questions.

I the mean time I would refer you to the "What Is Electricity" thread.

Michael