Positive and Negative Flows in Both Directions

[comingfrom]

Hi folks, the EU paradigm came together very nicely for me.
So many things make much more logical sense to me now, from particle physics to astrophysics.
And from the behaviour of the weather on Earth, to the behaviour of galaxies.

One aspect of an electric Universe still has me grasping for concepts, and grappling with my understanding of basic electric theory. And that is, how both positive and negative charges flow both ways.

This conflicts with our knowledge of man-made electricity, which I think might the reason it is counter-intuitive for us.

I opened this thread in the hope that some may be able to assist us with these concepts.

My understanding thus far is, that positive and negative currents flow both ways, towards the center of the galaxy and out towards the edge of the galaxy.
A positive current is only mostly positively charged particles, flowing in a "pinched rope", which is at the same time pulling a stream of negatively charged particles in the opposite direction, within the structure of the current. Birkland currents having a structure of opposing charged layers rotating in opposite directions, and particles of opposite charge flowing in opposite directions, at the same time acting locally upon each other, which keeps the stability of the structure of the current.

And in this way, multiples streams of both positive and negative charged currents connect all the bodies in space. Interstellar currents connect the Stars, feeding them with excess charge, which the Stars in turn discharge and feed to their planetary and cometary satellites.

I don't know if I got this right in my model yet, and I see I am not the only one struggling to get a grip on these concepts, so I'm hoping some of you might be able to help, or point to useful resources about the direction of flow, structure of currents, etc.

`Paul

[SDK]

Hi Paul. May be this will help a bit for the demonstration and acceptance of parallel magnetic fields.

We all probably know that an induced coil gives off opposite magnetic field on the approach of a permanent magnet of a given orientation.

Now imagine having two coils on a closed steel core of a simple insulating transformer. At each increase of the current sine wave on the primary, which imparts magnetic field of one polarity into the transformer core, you necessarily get opposite magnetic field imparted to the core by the secondary coil response and both of these parallel fields of opposite polarity are contained simultaneously in the transformer core. So, you do not have to go to the arrangement of the Birkeland parallel and opposite magnetic flux orientations. The transformer core gives you its image in everyday electrical AC components. If I wanted to be a real beast, I would point to even more complex magnetic counter polarity of magnetic flux in standard three phase distribution transformers. There you get three such magnetic counter polarities simultaneously and on top of that phase shifted 120 electrical degrees. Yet, each of the three secondary coils is smart enough to consistently pick its Amp/Volt value and electrical degree phase value and orientation from that "mess". How is that for a "miracle"?

With kind regards, Slavek.

[jacmac]

Paul,

I wish to say something about the terms used in describing electric currents. By HISTORIC CONVENTION, going back to Ben Franklin, the direction of current flow is in the direction of the movement of the positive charges.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current

A flow of positive charges gives the same electric current, and has the same effect in a circuit, as an equal flow of negative charges in the opposite direction. Since current can be the flow of either positive or negative charges, or both, a convention is needed for the direction of current that is independent of the type of charge carriers. The direction of conventional current is arbitrarily defined as the same direction as positive charges flow.

So, for example, in a situation where only the electrons move, the direction of current flow can be said to be opposite the electron flow direction even if the positive charges do not actually move.

In my 5 plus years of reading posts on this forum some of my main problems and frustrations have been when people talk only of "current flow" without being more specific as to what they mean. I think you are trying to be more specific but your choice of words can be misleading(to me), and especially perhaps in other contexts.

When you say "positive current" or "positive charged current" for example, I think I know what you mean but I AM NOT SURE. For example, if 51% of moving charged particles in a "current" are positively charged then the current could be said to be "positive", but I think you mean a positive current is the movement of the positive charges. Perhaps flow of positive charges would be better.

I am only bringing this up because I have seen many threads go off on long detours while people talk past each other using different terms for the same things. The movements of charged particles in plasma in "space" can be , and usually are, very complicated. I think it is very important to use conventional terms, and their meanings, when presenting or discussing these ideas.

Good luck with the anatomy of a Birkeland current
I look forward to more discussion on this topic.

Jack

[comingfrom]

Thanks Jack, I am saying, there must be both positive and negative flows in both directions, in an Electric Universe. And I am looking for confirmation of this, or a correction.

~~
And thank you, Slavek. I think I am following you. Do you know of any diagrams which show the opposing polarities and flows in a Birkeland currents. I think I can envision them, along with the Marklund convection, which sorts the heavier elements to the central vortices of the current.

Besides the flows in filaments like that, I imagine that in sheet currents, such as the Solar wind, and interstellar and intergalactic winds, the larger positive ions would have electrons "in tow".

~~
Here is a nice little 1 minute YouTube video, but it doesn't give us the internal anatomy of the current

~Paul

[SDK]

Hi Paul.

I am coming from the “physical” bottom up, as opposed to just about all of you guys here trying to go from the top down. In fact, I have had no idea of Birkeland currents until some two weeks ago, never mind, that it came with empirical confirmation, which is the icing on the cake for me. I have concerned myself with the structure and the mechanical influence of gravitation and whatever may be related to it, and there is a lot, deducing such structures on what I consider to be one fractal level below magnetism, magnetic phenomena being field macrostructure of the universe. The oldest term for this micro structuring and level of organization of the existing I know off is the label “underworld” in the ancient concept of what would be considered mass less, or immaterial, although it is IMO quite material a substrate to the macro, we call the material world. That label has eventually been reassigned many times and also renamed (for example as vacuum, morphological field, zero point energy, space etc. etc.) so many times, that I have lost the track of all of them. I have eventually described this as best I could some 20 years ago on my now defunct site as a substructure of the magnetic fields, which by default of fractal sequences had to have quite similar geometries and at least some common properties, most of all being a stringy, vortex like phenomena. Learning about Birkeland currents and their vortexing, stringy and bundling geometries of magnetic structures has actually brought to me quite a satisfaction.

You are asking for a diagram, yet that diagram is, albeit not in a picture schematic, given by a comparison to a marine hemp rope http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc ... ec_themis/. The bundling is evidently not concentric, but a twisted rope like, which is absolutely fine with me. From that, one can, if needed, put together his own diagram of paths of electrical exchange (BTW, I am not a subscriber to Thompson’s electron theory concept, as much as its math may be useful). I have actually also figured out in the past that electric current in conductors also consists of a system of what may be called Birkeland currents, although up to now I had nothing, which would clear my dilemma, whether the “DC” electrical current is a one way street, or a two way passage as just about every other field structure.

But currents of what?
As far as I can tell, we are looking at bundled flows of what may be probably best termed ether, comparable to individual threads within the strands of the marine rope bundle, although not structured as per the old “soup” like ether. That percept has given us an image of calm waters carrying vibrations, compared to the ocean of water particulate. Dead wrong! One look at a map of ocean currents tells us quite explicitly, that such an idea is not even wrong and those maps show only the bulk of them.

I have also started questioning the mainstream ideas and theories and came to the conclusion, that one can’t untangle that virtual knot. So I went after whatever documentation of the empirical, no matter how preposterous some might appear and the source, and into the history of “scientific” tree of so called discoveries, supplemented by my own experimentation. That seems to have done the job to a great degree. In my own way, I could confirm the percept, that all attractions work as a gross rubber bend principle, with one huge reservation. Those rubber bands possess internal dynamics, not just the static potential “stretched”, or the dynamics of stretching and releasing, and are compositions of radial, as well as orthogonal forces, which can be further separated into an almost incomprehensible omnidirectional sets of structures within fields exerting field interactions and of which we recognize only the bulks as some averages, or mean vectors.

This thread is concerned with Birkelan’s currents and I can only honor it, for I have also engaged in moderation of a somewhat similar forum and I appreciate, what a bitch it is. Yet, the way I see as the path to understanding of the principles includes all compartments of physical science, and other sciences are not too far. One has to question all basic concepts, at least from the times of the Greek philosophers, for whatever is built upon them, when incorrect, is again incorrect. IMHO, there is no good reason to concern oneself with their conceptual superstructures and discuss them in whatever fashion, except for the fun of it, unless one sweeps away the dirt at the very basic level. Unfortunately, that is a very ungrateful and tedious procedure, difficult especially for those, who have accepted some, if not most of them, as the unquestionable truth. As I progress through the Thunderbolts forum, and it is a very good name, same as a forum, I will probably comment on some such misperceptions where in line with a given thread, as I am sure I will run into them.

With kind reards, Slavek.