The Sun's Density Gradient

[CharlesChandler]

You explained most of the process of the Sun's formation, but I'm trying to understand the details between the phase where the twisted pair of opposite charge streams are formed into a Birkeland current and the phase where the Sun's core forms.

If you can work that out, great! My model doesn't need Birkeland currents -- it just has spiraling accretion due to a combination of gravity and "like-likes-like" electrostatics. So I just wanted you to know that you're trying to answer a question that your model asks, but mine does not.

If the current gets too fast, the magnetic fields will pinch and eventually cause the pinched part of the streams to stop briefly, and the momentum of the material approaching the pinch will slam it into the stopped material, making two balls of plasma, one of each charge.

There isn't enough information in that video to judge whether or not "focus fusion" would actually work. And even if it does, you still have to establish the applicability to star formation. Those are some pretty huge capacitor banks they've got there, just to get a plasmoid a couple of thousandths of an inch wide. They didn't say how much matter they are getting to condense, but if you scale that apparatus up so that you can make stars with it, you might be talking about voltages and current densities that are just out of this world!

[Sparky]

Charles,

if you scale that apparatus up so that you can make stars with it, you might be talking about voltages and current densities that are just out of this world!

Any info. on what V and I are to scale up?

[Lloyd]

Charles said: My model doesn't need Birkeland currents -- it just has spiraling accretion due to a combination of gravity and "like-likes-like" electrostatics.

* How can there be electrostatic accretion without electric currents?
* What causes the spiraling?
* How does the core form into a large ball of positive plasma?
* How big and dense does a gas cloud have to be to start accreting?
* How does the gas cloud form in the first place?
* If gas clouds are seen to have Birkeland currents within them where stars seem to be forming within the filaments, why not consider that as a candidate for star formation?

[CharlesChandler]

How can there be electrostatic accretion without electric currents?

With the "like-likes-like" principle, as described in this post:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =45#p62381

What causes the spiraling?

I go into greater depth on this on my site (see: Discs), but here's the basic idea.

Matter being drawn inward by gravity and by the "like-likes-like" principle achieves relativistic speeds. This means that the moving electric charges will generate extremely powerful magnetic fields. The significance of that is that in a more-or-less radial inflow, the magnetic fields will clash. (See Figure 7.) With some randomness, the various clumps of matter won't hit the center of gravity — they'll miss to the left or to the right, and then fall into elliptical orbits. While this arrangement satisfies the gravitational and inertial forces, the magnetic pressure between the converging particle streams encourages them to merge, such that everything is moving in the same direction.

http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure ... _1_wbg.png
Figure 7. Radial inflow generates clashing magnetic fields.

The product of all of the forces is a spiraling inflow. If the matter could fall into a circular orbit around the center of gravity, the magnetic pressure would be zero, since all of the matter would be traveling in the same direction. Yet the gravitational force will be unsatisfied. If the matter moves inward in a radial pattern, the force of gravity is satisfied, but there will be magnetic pressure. Splitting the difference between the opposing forces yields spiraling accretion.

Note that this is just as true for the ejecta from an explosion, if the matter has angular momentum. As it moves outward, it maintains its angular velocity, while the revolution period relaxes with distance from the center, resulting in an outward spiral. But in this configuration, neighboring clumps of matter are traveling at an angle to each other, with magnetic pressure between them. This again nudges radial lines of motion into spirals, and spirals into circles. (See Figure 8.)

http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure ... ta_wbg.png
Figure 8. Magnetic pressure encourages ejecta to fall into a more circular orbit.

Then we just have to consider what would happen after many repetitions of this cycle. As the lines of motion get more and more consolidated in top view, everything is also getting squashed down into a solitary plane of rotation. In other words, it becomes an accretion disc.

How does the core form into a large ball of positive plasma?

I'm essentially saying that the spiraling accretion eventually gets going so fast that it instantiates a "natural tokamak" that (at least partially) separates positive from negative charges. The inner layer (i.e., the core) is positive.

How big and dense does a gas cloud have to be to start accreting? How does the gas cloud form in the first place?

Here we get back into the "prime mover" questions, such as:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... =45#p62295
That opened up even more fundamental questions, such as "does electricity exist" and "what is a force". I'm guessing that mjv1121 got that all resolved. Wuh-whew! (I was worried that electricity was going away, like it did when I forgot to pay my electric bill, and my computer locked up.) Anyway, as I said earlier, attempting a complete explanation "from scratch" is an interesting and useful exercise. Just remember that it is a prime mover discussion. In the end, you have to start out with matter and energy already in existence. Then it's just a matter of what conversions can occur, to produce matter in the form that we see it. I'm starting with gravity that gets things moving in the first place. Then the movement generates magnetic fields that polarize the particles, which helps them join together into molecules, and ultimately asteroids. Then the asteroids develop a net negative charge because their electron clouds can absorb more free electrons than the smaller particles in the vicinity. Then the "like-likes-like" principle kicks in, and the asteroids start clumping together into planets. I know that making gravity the prime mover is problematic, but I think that you don't understand that I'm starting closer to scratch than you are. If you're talking about Birkeland currents, you already have aggregation, and you have charge separation in the aggregates, otherwise you wouldn't have currents. So I get to ask you how you got currents that are causing aggregation, before there was any aggregation.

If gas clouds are seen to have Birkeland currents within them where stars seem to be forming within the filaments, why not consider that as a candidate for star formation?

I do consider it to be a candidate. But frankly, if I was going to start at that end, I wouldn't be looking at Birkeland currents as a cause, but rather, as a symptom. The explanation of how pinches in Birkeland currents can produce stars is missing a few pages. But if there is a current, then there is an electric field, and it is well-known that electric fields are good at condensing matter (because they polarize the particles, same as magnetic fields do). If there is an electric field, there will be aggregation, and there might even be observable evidence of a current. But electric fields can cause aggregation even if they don't cause currents, because polarization is the issue, not pinches or high-energy collisions or anything else like that. So I'd be looking at the electric fields, not the currents or tributaries thereof.

[CharlesChandler]

If you guys would consider getting the discussion at least back onto the Sun, even if everybody got tired of arguing over whether or not the density gradient is an issue, there is another facet to the model in question that some of you might find interesting: sunspots.

I agree with the EU that sunspots are electromagnetic, and I agree that "magnetic reconnection" is not an EM theory -- it's a way of making an observation sound like an explanation. So this is our territory. Given the distinctive nature of these phenomena, we should consider these to be goldmines of evidence. But I can't seem to find anybody making contentions that match the specificity of the data. Steve Smith did a TPOD on Sunspot 1112, and echoed the general EU sentiment that sunspots are EM. But contrary to the Electric Sun model, none of the properties of sunspots constitute evidence of a galactic circuit. Rather, the circuit is internal to the Sun itself.

First of all, I should lay out some of the salient data that need to be explained. Except as otherwise noted, this information was pulled from the following sources.

Magnetic Structure of Sunspots
The fine structure of the sunspot penumbra
ircamera.as.arizona.edu/astr_250/Lectures/Lecture_12.htm

• While the Sun's overall magnetic field is roughly 1 Gauss (only twice as powerful as the Earth's), the field along the axis of the sunspot can be over 4,000 Gauss.
• At and above the photosphere, the magnetic lines of force generated by a sunspot splay outward. In the penumbra, the lines of force come out of the sunspot, arc across the photosphere, and dive back into the photosphere. Above the photosphere, the lines of force do more or less the same thing, but on a bigger scale.
• In addition to the general splaying, the magnetic fields near penumbral filaments show a downward deflection on one side, and an upward deflection on the other side, indicative of electric currents in the filaments connecting the sunspot to the surrounding photosphere. These are "field aligned" currents, meaning that the electrons rotate around the magnetic lines of force, generating a solenoidal field that agrees with the sunspot's overall field, while the net motion of the electrons parallel to the magnetic lines of force generates a field that wraps around the filaments. (See Borrero, J. M.; Lites, B. W.; Solanki, S. K., 2008: Evidence of magnetic field wrapping around penumbral filaments. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 481(1): L13-L16)
• Arc discharges are apparent at both ends of the penumbral filaments (especially at the distal ends, away from the sunspot).
• Sunspots typically occur in pairs of opposite polarity, where the axial lines of force emerge from one and descend back into the other. The first sunspot to appear always has the same polarity as the Sun's overall polarity in that hemisphere. The second sunspot to appear always has an inverted polarity.
• Solar flares typically occur in the vicinity of sunspots, but they are not arcs between the sunspot pairs. Rather, the arc discharges are from the individual sunspots into the surrounding photosphere. So while the sunspot pairs have opposing magnetic polarities, they do not have opposing electric polarities.
• CMEs accelerate particles to relativistic speeds away from the Sun, but not because the arc discharge was between the Sun and interplanetary space. The arcs in solar flares are across the photosphere, where the explosive nature of the discharges accelerates particles outward in CMEs. If solar flares were exchanges between the Sun and interplanetary space, they would look like spicules, not flares. The rarity and relative weakness of spicules indicates that the exchange between the photosphere and the overlying atmosphere is relatively insignificant.
• Helioseismic data show a weak downdraft in sunspots, while Doppler data show an updraft. It's possible that both are true, and that the difference is that the helioseismic data reveal the downward motion of atomic nuclei, while the Doppler data reveal the upward flow of electrons. In other words, the two datasets taken together are suggestive of the presence of an electric field, sending protons down and electrons up, meaning that the negative pole in the E-field is below, and the photosphere is the positive pole.

My take on all of this is as follows.

The magnetic lines of force associated with a sunspot are in a solenoidal configuration, with the greatest field density along the axis, and with the lines of force splaying outward at the top of the sunspot. Solenoidal fields are generated by rotating currents.

http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/ ... lenoid.png

Helioseismic data have not revealed any rotation in the plasma itself. This can only mean that what is rotating is the electrons, flowing through the near-perfect conductivity of the plasma, while the protons remain relatively stationary. This begs the question of what got the electrons rotating.

Since the Doppler data indicate an upward flow of electrons, and since there are arc discharges where the penumbral filaments connect with the photosphere, we can confidently infer that sunspots represent a current, with electrons flowing up through the sunspot and outward into the positively charged photosphere. This is confirmed by the orientation of the magnetic fields around the penumbral filaments, which show a left-hand rule field centered on the filament, traveling from the sunspot to the surrounding photosphere.

So... if the general sense of electron flow is up through the sunspot and out into the photosphere, why would the electrons rotate as they go?

The answer is that the electrons are flowing upward in the presence of the Sun's overall magnetic field, creating an ExB force. If the electrons rotate as they go, they'll generate a solenoidal field whose axis agrees with the Sun's overall field.

Once the helical upward flow of electrons is established, the solenoidal field is 4,000 times more powerful than the Sun's overall field. These lines of force have to close on themselves, which means that they dive down through the surrounding photosphere. Where they dive back down, the perceived magnetic polarity is reversed, because these closing lines of force from the sunspot are far more powerful than the Sun's overall field. If a secondary sunspot gets established in the presence of these lines of force, rising electrons will rotate in the opposite direction, to generate a solenoidal field that agrees with the reversed external field.

http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure ... otPair.png

The voltage between the photosphere and a deeper layer within the Sun is explained as the result of a primary charge separation between the core and the radiative zone, where the core is positive, and the radiative zone is negative, and the charge separation, despite the near-perfect conductivity of the plasma, is maintained by magnetic pressure resulting from the rapid rotation of the core (as described elsewhere). Once the initial charge separation is accomplished, a tertiary layer can form, which will be positively charged, and which doesn't need its own charge separation mechanism. In other words, if the core is positive and the radiative zone is negative, and if opposing magnetic fields act as a high-permittivity dielectric between them, we've got this:

+ | -

Before long, we'll have this:

+ | - +

The tertiary layer of positive charge is attracted to the negative charge in the middle, while repelled by the positive core. So it clings to the negative layer without penetrating it. And the negative charge does not recombine with the outer positive layer, because it is equally attracted to the positive layers on either side, leaving no potential gradient through which to flow. So the (effective) dielectric between the positive core and the negative radiative zone supports all three layers. (The "dielectric" here is actually magnetic pressure, but it has the same effect as an insulator in electrostatics.)

Despite the stability of these layers, there will nevertheless be a significant voltage between the radiative zone and the top of the convective zone (i.e., the photosphere). This is because the outer aspect of the convective zone is shielded from the bulk of negative charge in the radiative zone by the depth of its own layer. (In other words, it is attracted to the negative charges below, but also repelled by the positive charges in its own layer.) But if we dropped an insulated cable down through the convective zone, as it got near the radiative zone, we'd see a current flowing from the radiative zone through the wire to the top of the convective zone, where it would find protons in want of electrons.

In a quiescent Sun, we have no such wire. But during the active portion of the sunspot cycle, differential rotation of the equatorial band versus the polar cap of the Sun creates boundary vortexes. (See Zhao, J.; Kosovichev, A. G., 2004: Torsional Oscillation, Meridional Flows, and Vorticity Inferred in the Upper Convection Zone of the Sun by Time-Distance Helioseismology. IOP Publishing, 603: 776) The reduced pressure in the vortexes also reduces the electrical resistance of the plasma, opening up a conduit for the flow of electricity from the radiative zone to the top of the convective zone. The difference in resistance is slight, as there is little resistance to begin with, and the vorticity in the boundary layer is weak. Nevertheless, in the presence of extreme voltages, a slight difference in resistance can certainly result in an electric current.

Lastly, one of the toughest things for the magnetic reconnection theory to explain is the fact that after the supposed reconnection event that causes a solar flare, there is always a huge surge in prominences. So the magnetic fields are the strongest after they have released all of their pent-up energy in a solar flare?

Solar flares are obviously arc discharges, with one end on the edge of a sunspot and the other end out into the photosphere somewhere. Once the discharge channels open up, electrons flow freely from the sunspot into a massive area of the photosphere. This creates a demand for more electrons, which flow up through the sunspot, enhancing the solenoidal field as they go. Hence after the "reconnection" event, the magnetic field density becomes enormous.

[Lloyd]

Good Theories
* Charles, I like all of your ideas about the Sun, including about sunspots. What I need to understand most at this point is how an accretion disk forms and how it can produce a big plasma ball core for the Sun. You said to read your accretion disk paper, so I will. I started to, but found more interesting material from Kanarev and have been reading that for a while.
Iron Sun Model
* Did you ever see my thread on Brant's Iron Sun model? Brant likes aetherometry and he works for a company that works with sonoluminescence and spectro-analysis, or something like that. Here are Highlights of Brant's ABIS Theory (ABIS = Aether Battery Iron Sun) http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... =10&t=4592: [#7 mentions sunspots. I'm not showing this as competition to your theory, but as additional data that may or may not need to be integrated.]
1. Iron Stars form in "Supernovae"; Aetherometry and Helioseismology show the Sun has a thick Solid Iron Shell.
2. The Iron Sun is an Aether Antenna, which converts Aether into Electrons.
3. Neutral Gas flows into the Sun and Transmutes into Metal.
4. The abundant Aether Electrons produce Electric Potential Difference (Voltage) and thus Electric Current.
5. Internal Electric Current flows through the Iron Surface and produces the Sun's Cathode Glow Structure.
6. The Electric Current flows into Coronal Loops that produce Ionized Iron (Plasma).
[See http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/T171_ ... 123108.gif]
7. Sunspots form over Coronal Loop Footprints.
8. White Light Flares occur at Loop Footprints.
9. CMEs are Flux Tubes.
10. The Heat of the Solar Atmosphere is like Earth's Thermosphere.
11. Solar Radiation is Massless Charge Aether, which become Photons when decelerated.
12. The Solar Blackbody Spectrum is from a Solid Surface, not Plasma.
13. Gravity is mainly a Surface Effect of Cosmic Bodies.
* You can see that Brant agrees with you about the corona being like Earth's thermosphere. Other than that, there seems to be not much agreement.
Kanarev's Solar Radiation Claims
* By the way, here are some interesting statements from Kanarev. See http://www.micro-world.su/index.php/eng ... trophysics.

1730. How many photons are emitted by the Sun per second on the internal surface of the sphere with the orbital radius of the Earth?
..... nff=nf *S3=3.11*10^17*2.83*10^27=9.10*10^44 pieces (253)
1731. What is the mass of the photons, which are emitted by the Sun per second on the internal surface of the sphere with the orbital radius of the Earth, equal to?
..... M1f= nff*mf =9.10^*10^44*5*10^36 =4.55*10^9 kg=4.55*10^6 t/s (254)

* Of course, the number and mass of the solar photons at a sphere 1 AU from the Sun are the same as what are emitted at the solar surface, but, since instruments to detect the photons are at the Earth, it was probably most convenient to calculate them for that distance from the Sun. 4.55 million metric tons of photons per second is a lot. The point of the question was apparently that emitting so many photons per second would soon exhaust the Sun's mass, if it weren't getting them from somewhere else. This point, that it gets them from the aether, may be compatible with Brant's theory, though he says the Sun converts aether into electrons, which I guess then give off photons and or join the solar wind or something.

1735. Where do the Sun electrons [get] mass for the emitted photons?
There is only one source: a rarefied substance, which fills space; it is called the aether.
1736. Does it mean that the electron restores its mass after each emission of the photon by absorption of the aether?
This is the only acceptable hypothesis for the present, which helps to get the answers for many other questions concerning microworld.
[Miles Mathis also says that electrons and protons recycle photons, which he calls the charge field.]
1737. Does it appear from the above-mentioned facts that the rarefied substance of physical vacuum, which is called the aether, is the main source of thermal energy?
It is a hypothesis for the present, but an abundance of the subsequent experimental facts will strengthen its reliability, and a day will come when the world scientific society will have to accept this hypothesis as a reliable scientific postulate.

[Lloyd]

Misdated Quasars and Galaxies
* Charles, I read your Discs piece. It seems to make sense, but I think the dating of quasars and galaxies is all wrong. Redshift is likely due to ionization, rather than distance or velocity, so quasars are simply highly ionized structures and are much closer than conventionally calculated. Have you seen the quasar in front of a galaxy TPOD? See http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/ ... galaxy.htm. Arp found that quasars seem to be objects shot out of galaxies, usually along the poles of the galaxy centers. Quasars seem to form into galaxies themselves. I think your model has spherical galaxies changing into elliptical, which become lenticular, then spiral. Maybe quasars precede the spherical phase. BL Lac objects are similar to quasars, but I think are smaller and come in groups. The oldest galaxies that are visible may be only 1 or 2 billion years old and quasars are much younger and closer.

[CharlesChandler]

Redshift is likely due to ionization, rather than distance or velocity, so quasars are simply highly ionized structures and are much closer than conventionally calculated.

If redshift is due to ionization, it should be easy to reproduce in the laboratory. 3... 2... 1... go!

Furthermore, in the billions of galaxies in the night sky, it doesn't surprise me that 20 cases have been found where objects of very different redshifts appear juxtaposed. It wouldn't surprise me if there were 200 cases. Rather, it would surprise me if there were not a handful of cases like this in every billion. Juxtaposition doesn't disprove anything.

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?

I really think that if you're going to challenge the conventional interpretation of redshift, you have to present a new theory that explains the phenomena better. You can't just cite exceptions and call it a theory. I'm not saying that the Big Bang Theory is standing on solid ground, because it isn't. The apparent acceleration of ejecta from the BB defies reasonable explanation, and requires the invention of new forces and/or fancy math to reduce the appearance of a problem, when really, the problem persists. So I think that it's an open issue, and the way scientists have locked down on their answer is not scientific. But you're not going to get closer to the truth simply by trying to get as far away from the existing position as you can. There is a big difference between "doubt everything" and "everything you know is wrong". The first was said by the father of modern philosophy (Rene Descartes), while the second was said by a famous group of satirists (the Firesign Theater).

[CharlesChandler]

BTW, in a previous post (Re: The Sun's Density Gradient), I conceded that my model of axial jets was fundamentally flawed. (I had time-varying magnetic fields accelerating protons in one direction and electrons in the other, which doesn't explain bipolar jets, much less the incredible symmetry in them.) So I went back to the drawing board, and as soon as I did, I realized that 50% of the ejecta from a toroidal explosion will already be focused into axial jets, without the help of any magnetic fields, just because of the geometry of the explosion.

With a ring of confined plasma exploding, we get helium (or heavier elements) accelerated to relativistic speeds out of the tokamak. Stuff that flies outward on the plane of rotation slams into the accretion disc, while everything else gets to escape. We can expect a radial pattern of ejecta, but along the axis of rotation, we can expect a concentration. This is because the inner 180° slams into stuff ejected from the other side of the tokamak, and the vector product of the collision is along the axis of rotation. (See Figure 3.)

http://scs-inc.us/Other/QuickDisclosure ... et_wbg.png
Figure 3. The inner 50% of ejecta from a toroidal explosion merge into axial jets.

Note that the "axial" jet has nothing to do with the rotation itself, and the standard explanation of axial jets (i.e., that gravitational pressure overloads the core) is gibberish. Here Einstein was right — the centrifugal force should prevent the collapse of matter at the center of the accretion disc, and nothing should be able to cause an axial jet. Only if there is an explosion can we get relativistic ejecta, and only if it occurs in a ring configuration can 50% of the ejecta get consolidated into jets.

Once the axial jet gets organized, we can then expect it to stay organized as it streams away from the tokamak. The relativistic speeds of the plasma will generate magnetic fields capable of pinching the charge stream, and until/if/when it gets slowed down by collisions with other plasma, it will stay organized.

Axial jets are, of course, particle streams, not photons. So what focuses the photons? These should radiate outward in all directions, and they're not going to "collide" and merge together due to the incident angle in the collision.

Yet the axial jets can focus photons. They are particle streams, with density gradients that fall off with distance from the axes. And what do we know about density gradients? They can bend light! So if we shine a light into an axial jet, the light will be bent toward the centerline of the jet, due to the mirage effect. At first we might expect the light to just start bouncing off the outer walls of the gradient, not really getting "focused." But as the jet eventually disperses, the density gradient relaxes. So each time light bounces off the density gradient back toward the centerline, and angle of reflection will not be quite as great as the angle of incidence, relative to the axis. This means that eventually, all of the light will be traveling in the same direction.

Hence we can, with conventional physics, explain a pulsar as a natural tokamak in an explosion/implosion cycle, producing axial jets, and where the jets focus light along their axes.

[Michael V]

Lloyd, Charles,

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?

"except overall velocity" - Hubble's famed straight-line correlation graph is not "apparent luminosity vs velocity", it is "apparent luminosity vs distance". The cosmological component of the cosmological redshift is a factor of distance. This is confirmed by Olber's Paradox.

Incidentally, what does "relativistic" mean?

Michael

[CharlesChandler]

"Relativistic" means "some respectable percentage of the speed of light", with significances such as extremely powerful magnetic fields, high energy collisions, etc.

[Michael V]

Charles,

So why are magnetic fields more powerful when electrons travel at a significant percentage of c?

Michael

[CharlesChandler]

Because the strength of a magnetic field varies with the amount of charge and with the speed at which it is traveling. So all moving electric charges generate magnetic fields, but the faster they travel, the more powerful the fields (i.e., Ampere's Law). At speeds approaching c, the magnetic fields are enormous, and approach the strength of the electric fields that are operating on the charges, so then you have to look carefully at both the E and B fields, if you really want to know what the particles are going to do.

[Michael V]

Charles,

I think I understand your misconceptions, but I am not clear on your reference to Ampere's Law - can you explain further please?

So all moving electric charges generate magnetic fields,

Also, this is incorrect on two fronts. Firstly, only free-electrons contribute to the emission of magnetic fields; electromagnetism in general are phenomena associated with the charge emissions of free-electrons. Secondly, kinetic motion is not required, after all electrons are not moving kinetically in a copper wire are they.

At speeds approaching c, the magnetic fields are enormous, and approach the strength of the electric fields that are operating on the charges

Why do you think that voltage drops with free-electron velocity approaching c?

And does e change with velocity at all? I think it might, but what persuades you?

Michael

[CharlesChandler]

I am not clear on your reference to Ampere's Law - can you explain further please?

Here's Ampere's Law:



As concerns the statement that the B field varies directly with the amount of charge and with the speed of the charge, we can just focus on the "I" term, which is current density. In "normal" EM theory we wouldn't typically break the current density into its constituent components (i.e., charges and speeds), but that's what current density is -- it's the amount of charge that passes through a given area in a given period of time. So we can have a large number of charged particles pass through the sectional area slowly, or a small number of particles pass quickly, and we'll get the same current density either way. This isn't useful in "normal" electrical engineering applications, but in plasma physics, where the speed of the plasma can vary, this is an important distinction.

Only free-electrons contribute to the emission of magnetic fields; electromagnetism in general are phenomena associated with the charge emissions of free-electrons.

I maintain that all moving electric charges generate magnetic fields. This includes electrons and protons. The corollary of this is that electric currents can be induced by magnetic fields, and the "currents" can be moving electrons or moving protons. In tokamaks, those are protons being accelerated by time-varying magnetic fields, not electrons. So electromagnetically, protons and electrons are identical, and all of the same principles apply. It's just that in typical electrical engineering applications, we would never think of moving protons -- due to their mass (not to mention the strength of their crystal lattices) they stay where they are, and the electrons do all of the moving. But the topic isn't electrical engineering -- it's plasma physics.

Secondly, kinetic motion is not required, after all electrons are not moving kinetically in a copper wire are they.

Yep.

Why do you think that voltage drops with free-electron velocity approaching c?

I didn't say that it did. I said that B gets stronger, not that E gets weaker.

And does e change with velocity at all? I think it might, but what persuades you?

E doesn't change with velocity per se. If the velocity moves the particle through a potential gradient, it gets into a different field density, but I don't think that this is what you mean. E is not a function of velocity, but B is (if the velocity alters the current density).