The Parker Solar Probe

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

The Parker Solar Probe

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed Aug 01, 2018 3:14 am

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/07/31/s ... canaveral/
The convoy arrived at the launch pad before dawn Tuesday, and a heavy-lifting crane hooked to the 63-foot-tall (19-meter) fairing to hoist it atop a Delta 4-Heavy rocket, capping assembly of the launcher ahead of a predawn blastoff scheduled for Aug. 11.

The 45-minute launch window Aug. 11 opens at 3:48 a.m. EDT (0748 GMT), kicking off a 43-minute flight across the Atlantic Ocean before deployment of the 1,424-pound (646-kilogram) Parker Solar Probe spacecraft from the Star 48BV upper stage.

“I’m very happy to say that Solar Probe is in the fairing and … is on top of the Delta 4-Heavy,” said Nicky Fox, Parker Solar Probe’s project scientist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, which developed the mission for NASA. “It was hoisted up this morning … I think it’s fair to say that Parker Solar Probe is go for the sun.”
This should be a very interesting mission, particularly since the FIELDS experiment is capable of measuring electric fields.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Some falsifiable predictions

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:35 am

Assuming that the Parker Solar probe can actually measure (as opposed to derive from magnetic field orientations) the electric field around the corona, that should allow us to make some specific "testable" predictions related to this mission based on "Electric Cosmology" theories. :)

I specifically use the term "theories" because there are of course several solar models to choose from within the EC paradigm. Birkleland's cathode solar model would predict that the sun's surface has a "negative" charge with respect to space, pretty much all around the surface, whereas Juergen's model would predict the opposite. Alfven's "homopolar generator" model would tend to create complex current flow and field alignment patterns depending on the specific location of the solar probe with respect to the Parker spiral, and the poles. Coronal loops should also contain much stronger electric fields than the corona itself in virtually all EC solar models.

It seems like this mission might allow us to finally differentiate between the three basic solar wiring configurations that have been bantered about in this community. It also allows us of course to 'test' the standard solar model which doesn't really predict much of anything with respect to electric fields.
Last edited by Michael Mozina on Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Interpreting Mainstream "lingo"

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:15 am

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/20 ... solar-wind
The debate about the origins of the slow solar wind hinges on a distinction between what’s known as the closed and open corona. The closed corona refers to regions of the Sun where its magnetic field lines are closed — that is, connected to the solar surface at both ends. Bright helmet streamers — large loops that form over magnetically active regions, shaped like a knight’s pointy helmet — are one such example. The plasma, or ionized gas, travelling along the closed loops of a helmet streamer is for the most part confined to the area near the Sun.
Real "magnetic field lines" are *always* closed of course, and magnetic fields form as a full 3D continuum in real life, so we're going to have to do some 'interpretation' when it comes to the actual physics that is described by NASA, and interpret Parker solar probe mission "lingo".

To convert their oversimplified magnetic "lingo" to circuit theory, "Birkeland currents" are either "open or closed", not simple magnetic field lines. The Birkeland currents are "closed" when they originate and terminate at the solar surface, and they are "open" when they originate at the solar surface and they terminate/connect in "space" (the heliosphere).

There are no AU sized "magnetic lines" in the corona without current and electric fields in plasma.

Furthermore, any change in magnetic field topology simply 'induces' (induction) plasma particle movement in the plasma conductor, just like it occurs in any conductor when you vary the magnetic field topology.

I'm going to have to do so research on how the FIELD gear on the Parker Solar Prob actually 'measures' electric fields.
All those years ago, Mariner 2 detected two distinct streams of solar wind: a slow stream travelling at approximately 215 miles per second and a fast stream zipping through space at twice that speed. Then, in 1973, the origins of the fast solar wind were identified. X-ray images of the corona taken from Skylab — the U.S.’s first manned space station — revealed that the fast wind spews from coronal holes, which are dark, comparatively cool regions on the Sun.
In Birkeland's cathode solar model, the "fast" wind is mostly composed of the electron "beams/rays" that come from the cathode surface (more strongly in dark areas), whereas the "slow" solar wind is composed both types of charged particles as the faster electrons slam into protons and other particles in the solar atmosphere and transfer some of their momentum to the atmosphere.

Cosmic rays represent the inbound flow of mostly positively charged particles from "space".

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: The Parker Solar Probe

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Wed Aug 01, 2018 4:49 pm

I expect a lot of bullshit coming from NASA, as they have to bullshit their way through reality.

It is clear to me that they have no clue about electromagnetism, every time I read about
magnetic field lines and reconnection, my pants fall off due to how stupid they are.
They should not work for NASA but for Disney! :oops:

On the plasmacosmology wiki I identified 7 major errors with the Sun's mainstream model. (at the chapter "Sun" )

Errors: :ugeek:
1. Magnetic reconnection
2. Magneto hydrodynamics
3. Only Zeeman effect / No electric fields
4. Gaseous plasma sun (all the way)
5. Sun has no surface
6. Sun breaks laws of thermodynamics
7. Sun's corona has very low pressure

---

Today I had this idea:
Electric fields can be extremely high in plasma, when we have accelerated particles.
We see particles with Giga-electrovolts or more bumping into each other in particle accelerators.
And they hit each other at very close distance (<size of atoms).
Electrical field = Volts / distance.
On the surface or in layers of the sun something similar is probably happening.
Now the speculation: :mrgreen:
Such extreme electrical fields may break the nucleus apart, allowing nuclear fusion to happen.

---

Anyway, I wanted to add 2 more videos to this thread.

Sky Scholar - The Parker Satellite Explained! "NASA Touches the Sun!"
Robitaille explains that there is a large chance that the satellite will burn, as his calculations give a much higher plasma pressure. So he fairs that the Satellite will burn up quickly.

I also wonder if the satellite is resistant against electrochemical reactions and solar flares.
Maybe we see a nice comet before it blows up. 8-)

ThunderboltsProject - NASA Probes Our Electric Sun | Space News
Donald Scott talks about the electric sun, and how the NASA will likely try to bending the findings
towards a magnetic reconnection theory.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Re: The Parker Solar Probe

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:49 am

There definitely is a possibility that NASA underestimates the effects of current on their heat calculations. The first few "swing by's" of the sun aren't all that close compared to later passes. NASA should have time to adapt their plans to actual conditions to some degree, but the fact that they ignore the current does "worry me".

They significantly underestimated the current generated by their "tether" system in orbit around Earth. They literally fried the tether. Now they're attempting to orbit around an electrode while ignoring the fact that it's an electrode. :(

I really need to understand how they intend to measure the electric fields and be sure it's not just "estimating" the electric field from the magnetic fields.

Were the spacecraft to traverse a bundle of coronal loops in the corona, I do think it would destroy the electronics of the spacecraft, but I doubt the first few passes that come close to the sun will do in the spacecraft. NASA should have time to adapt their plans should that be necessary.

I personally don't think that plasma density is going to be an issue, but I'm worried about the electrical short circuit potential if there's a solar flare that is directed at the spacecraft while it's near the corona. I'm sure they planned for some amount of buffeting by the solar wind, but treating the solar wind as a purely "neutral" environment is a dangerously naive belief.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Some testable predictions of a Birkeland solar model

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:30 am

Well, since I tend to favor Birkeland's cathode model, I should mention several testable predictions of the model to see how it does over the next few years.

1) Cathode ray "bundles" should come out of the sun at high speed compared to slow solar wind processes. This particle flow is currently referred to as "strahl" electrons by the mainstream. They also refer to these as electron beams.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sune ... trahl.html

2) High speed electrons from the surface are expected to ionize and heat the solar atmosphere, and they should transfer some of their kinetic energy into protons in the corona, thereby generating slower speed solar wind of both types.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

3) Some Birkeland currents and bundles of currents flowing through the atmosphere are "surface to surface" discharges called "coronal loops". The current flow and the resistance to that current flow heat those filaments to millions of degrees.

4) Some Birkeland currents in the solar atmosphere are part of "surface to heliosphere" circuits.

5) The basic direction of particle flow (regardless of charge) from the sun should typically/generally be directed away from the sun with the exception of mostly positively charged cosmic rays which are coming into the sun. Birkeland specifically predicted that both types of charged particles flow from the sun. There will be local variations of course that don't follow the basic rule, particularly when discussing surface to surface discharge processes.

6) The overall magnetic/electric alignments should be congruent with continuous flow of electrons which are moving away from the sun, and a continuous flow of positively charged particles into the sun (cosmic rays).

Michael Mozina
Posts: 1701
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA
Contact:

Do experiments even matter to astronomers?

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:18 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

One doesn't have to look very far to "explain" a continuously heated full sphere corona based on simple empirical physical principles which are based upon the use of continuous electric fields. The heat source of the corona has been 'explained" and even replicated in a lab now in fact for over 100+ years.

On the other hand, nobody has ever created a sustained full sphere heated corona in a lab based upon "magnetic reconnection". At "best" case they're able to use a strong electric field and current flow in plasma to generate a strong magnetic field which is then released by varying the electric field or current flow, and the changing magnetic field temporarily induces movement in plasma while the field is changing over time. There's no possible way for such a process to generate a "continuous" heating process, let alone to generate and sustain that heating process over an entire spherical area.

I honestly cannot think of a more *obvious* example where the mainstream seems to willfully and intentionally ignore the lab results with respect to their beliefs and claims. It's not as though they even care about the shortcomings of their model, nor do they care that the most "common" way that nature generates plasma on Earth is via electric fields and electrical current. Instead they seem to simply bury their collective heads in the sand and "pretend' that their 'magnetic reconnection" claim is a viable explanation for this full sphere, continuously heated coronal phenomenon. Why? Where is their laboratory evidence that "reconnection" can even *sustain* a heating process in plasma? I can't even think of single real experiment where they have heated plasma successfully for say an hour in a lab based on "magnetic reconnection", let alone *days* at a time.

Does the mainstream *ever* give any value to actual laboratory experiments? If so, it's news to me. They seem to ignore every null result of their own claims, while ignoring every other "working" model ever produced. :(

User avatar
neilwilkes
Posts: 366
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England
Contact:

Re: The Parker Solar Probe

Unread post by neilwilkes » Sat Aug 04, 2018 7:17 pm

I do admit the claim that the probe will "touch the sun" in the NASA blurb made me look closely - it will get to 9 solar radii at it's closest point so it won't even get close to the corona, plus it is not going over the north/south poles but instead will be broadly equatorial.....
One thing I will predict is a lot of "surprises" :D
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.

User avatar
nick c
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: The Parker Solar Probe

Unread post by nick c » Sun Aug 05, 2018 2:24 pm

Not going over the poles is a missed opportunity.
However, the expression "touching the Sun" is open to interpretation. What is the Sun? What we call the surface (the photosphere) is actually the boundary of visibility to the human eye. The Sun is enclosed in an enormous plasma sphere that extends beyond the orbit of Pluto and we all know that plasma has three modes of visibility or non visibility to the human eye; dark mode (invisible), glow mode, and arc mode.

User avatar
The Great Dog
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: The Parker Solar Probe

Unread post by The Great Dog » Sun Aug 12, 2018 12:40 pm

There are no other dogs but The Great Dog

celeste
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: The Parker Solar Probe

Unread post by celeste » Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:58 pm

Actually, we should see plasma bending of light, and plasma redshift, which will both show up as orbital velocity/ energy anomalies. Basically, if there is any plasma redshift, it will show up as radial velocity anomalies between us and the spacecraft. If there is bending of light, it will show up as a position error, across our field of view.
When we have the right theories for BOTH redshift and bending of light, we should be able to explain how the actual orbit of the spacecraft differs from the data.

What you should have put together already: Wal Thornhill suggested in his comet model, that the outer solar system was more negatively charged. Ari Brynjolfsson suggested that free electrons in a plasma should cause redshift. So if they were both right, we should see more redshift as a spacecraft traveled to the outer solar system. The mainstream of course interprets redshift as velocity data, so we should have seen for a spacecraft leaving the solar system, an anomalous sunward directed acceleration for the spacecraft. And that is what the mainstream saw! Do you see how this stuff should work?

celeste
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: The Parker Solar Probe

Unread post by celeste » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:09 am

Sorry, last post should have said lower plasma density ( including electrons) shows up as sunward acceleration, the sudden onset is what tells us where specifically the double layers are. Sorry for the confusion. The flyby anomaly showed us which of Earth’s polar directions had more electrons

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: The Parker Solar Probe

Unread post by Aardwolf » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:48 am

I think it may get zapped like a bug in a electrocuter, which is likely to get blamed on a heat shield failure.

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: The Parker Solar Probe

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:29 pm

When will the probe be active?
I think there is a lot to detect during its path.
Maybe we can spot some birkeland currents or other plasma phenomena.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

User avatar
The Great Dog
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: The Parker Solar Probe

Unread post by The Great Dog » Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:43 am

I think it may get zapped like a bug in a electrocuter, which is likely to get blamed on a heat shield failure.
That's doubtful, since the concentration of charged particles near the Sun is low. There's insufficient charge density to "zap" the probe. Since it will be 4 million miles from the Sun, it will be immersed in plasma that is about 600 atoms per cubic centimeter in density. A vacuum, in other words.

Parker, Eugene N. Dynamics of the Interplanetary Gas and Magnetic Fields. Astrophysical Journal. Vol. 128 (November 1958): 664.

TGD
There are no other dogs but The Great Dog

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests