Magnetic fields and Electric Currents

[Michael Mozina]

Astronomers end up speaking a completely new language of their own creation that is based on trying to eliminate the need for acknowledging electrical current in plasma

Euphemisms are a way of dealing with unpleasantness without having to face the implications.

Definition: Solar Wind.... "The outflow of charged particles from the solar corona into space."

Definition: Electric Current....."the movement of electrically charged particles, atoms, or ions

How has this equivalence and its implications escaped modern Astronomy?

Beats me. I realize now however that there is an intentional self defense mechanism at play. It's actually pretty incredible the lengths that astronomers will go to in an effort to avoid even discussing the overall electrical properties of the plasma of the solar system, let alone a galaxy, or a supercluster or a moving filamentary structure of flowing galaxies and clusters.

It's pretty obvious even with the Parker solar Probe folks that the term "magnetic switchback" is the "accepted" term to avoid dealing with changes in current flow direction.

Their model is *so* overly simplistic as to be painful. They have to "dumb it down" to magnetism alone, lest their whole dark universe come crumbling down upon them, and they'd be forced to embrace circuit theory in space as Alfven suggested.

At the macroscopic level, there are effectively *three* fields that have an effect on the movement of plasma, and dust and objects embedded in plasma, gravity (however you choose to define it (GR/Newton/Future QM version of choice), the magnetic field and the electric field. It's really just an *electromagnetic* field, but astronomers insist on ignoring the electrical parts entirely so they need a new language to try to describe it.

Think about it for a moment. Here you have a room full of 21st century physicists cannot simulate in the lab something as rudimentary as a sustained planetary aurora or a solar corona. Birkeland did that much in his lab in the very early 20th century.

Terms like "magnetic reconnection" and "magnetic switchbacks" give astronomers an acceptable (to themselves) way of attempting to discuss charged particle trajectories, but alas they refuse to embrace the fact that it's the particle movement and current alignment which drives the magnetic field configurations in the plasma.

Any hope I had that the Parker Solar Probe might beat the Europeans to embracing reality went away when I read the term 'magnetic switchback' in their first round of papers.

The only way that we have here on Earth to heat plasma to millions of degrees, and sustain it at very high temperatures over hours and days is with electrical current and a lot of it. For whatever reason however, astronomers look a solar surface that is full of "magnetic ropes" (AKA Bennett Pinches in plasma according to Alfven), and they refuse to embrace the electrical aspects of the process, so attempt to dumb it all down to magnetism alone. Astronomers and astrophysicists *still* can't simulate the "easy" things (aurora,corona) with magnetic reconnection yet in a real lab experiment.

Go figure.

[Orion]

The total source of all energy input into the cosmos is fixed. Energy is always in motion per Catt. There were no capacitors or inductors in the beginning (no matter) to limit the velocity of the energy to c.

This initial energy (light) in its specific patterns, velocities, direction formed matter in its different states over time, radiation and so forth. The connection between the linked events from the initial light energy through its many transition states to its current different forms is the circuit. This circuit has many branches. The initial total energy was distributed throughout all space, it had to be since the current cosmic web is distributed throughout all space. This implies many circuits.

The velocities of the energy input must have exceeded the speed of light by many orders of magnitude, it had to, we do observe object in all directions for great distances. This implies signals that have not diverged over these distances which means they conform to the theory proposed in my paper "Signal Observability at Hyper Light Velocity", https://vixra.org/pdf/1901.0339v2.pdf.

[Orion]

This post was a duplicate of above by mistake.

[Orion]

Please check out current research on the "Breit-Wheeler pair creation process".

• 1. See this poster on the "Monte-Carlo simulations on the two-photon Breit-Wheeler process", link: https://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/exhilp/wp-con ... Jansen.pdf.

• 2. See this paper "Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion: Nonlinear Breit–Wheeler pair creation with bremsstrahlung γ rays", T G Blackburn and M Marklund 2018 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 60 054009

,, link: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10. ... aab3b4/pdf . Notice, Figure 1. An ultrarelativistic electron beam, produced by laser wakefield acceleration (not shown),
strikes a high-Z target. The bremsstrahlung γ rays so produced are separated from the charged
components of the cascade by magnetic deflection, and collide downstream with an intense laser
pulse. Here they produce electron–positron pairs via the nonlinear Breit–Wheeler process.

This is just the tip of the iceberg in efforts today to verify a 85 year old theory on matter creation from pure energy. These colliding packets of energy overlap to form standing temporary Electric and or Magnetic fields which make particle anti-particle pairs. The final resulting real stable particles that survive many events which we observe in our universe today stores the energy in the form of magnetic spin. The collection of stable particles, elements, ions, plasma result in a local magnetic field with strength and orientation similar to that in the Birkeland Current described by Scott.

[Orion]

This reply is to provide some evidence that things are moving in space much faster than the speed of light. Example is the velocity of muon travel from cosmic rays.

According to [1] Dr. Franz Muheim in “Muon Lifetime Measurement”, https://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~muheim/teachi ... fetime.pdf, “The source of muons are cosmic rays, mainly protons, collide and interact with atomic nitrogen or oxygen nuclei and produce showers of particles. These secondary particles also ….produce a cascade of more particles… and some of them produce muons…. Muons …. can travel a long distance and reach the surface of the Earth…..

The muon has an average lifetime of 2.197 x 10-6 s….Why do muons produced in the upper atmosphere, say at 10 km, reach the sea level before they decay?”

I (Orion) propose a simple answer. The velocity v of the muon is (distance traveled) / (time of flight).

v = 10,000 m / 2.197 x 10-6 s = 4,551,661,356 (m/s).

This assumes that the time of the muon creation collision is short compared to its average flight/decay time.

Now the velocity v of the muon during its lifetime is 15.2 times that of light or c measured on earth, where c = 3 x 108 m/s.

According to [1] the muon has about 200 times more mass than an electron. An electrons rest mass according to wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass, is 9.109x10-31 kg. So the Energy of the Muon is 200 x (9.109x10-31) x (3x108)2 = 1.64x10-11 (kg.m2/s2).

Now if we assume that the muon is a fast moving electron with velocity v and not c we derive the Energy of the muon to be (9.109x10-31) x (4,551,661,356)2 which is 1.89x10-11 J.

Note that these assumptions for the muon being an unstable state of the fast moving electron do not invoke the supposed relativity time dilation or space warping.

[Orion]

According to Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon, in Muon sources, "When a cosmic ray proton impacts atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere, pions are created. These decay within a relatively short distance (meters) into muons (their preferred decay product), and muon neutrinos. The muons from these high-energy cosmic rays generally continue in about the same direction as the original proton, at a velocity near the speed of light. Although their lifetime without relativistic effects would allow a half-survival distance of only about 456 meters ( 2.197 µs × ln(2) × 0.9997 × c ) at most (as seen from Earth) the time dilation effect of special relativity (from the viewpoint of the Earth) allows cosmic ray secondary muons to survive the flight to the Earth's surface, since in the Earth frame the muons have a longer half-life due to their velocity. From the viewpoint (inertial frame) of the muon, on the other hand, it is the length contraction effect of special relativity which allows this penetration, since in the muon frame its lifetime is unaffected, but the length contraction causes distances through the atmosphere and Earth to be far shorter than these distances in the Earth rest-frame. Both effects are equally valid ways of explaining the fast muon's unusual survival over distances."

According to Steve Kliewer, in “The Compact Cosmic Ray Telescope aboard the Kuiper Airborne Observatory”, Muons, https://cosmic.lbl.gov/SKliewer/Cosmic_Rays/Muons.htm, “Muons lose energy at a fairly constant rate of about 2 MeV per g/cm2. Since the vertical depth of the atmosphere is about 1000 g/cm2, muons will lose about 2 GeV to ionization before reaching the ground. The mean energy of muons at sea level is still 4 GeV. Therefore the mean energy at creation is probably about 6 GeV.

The atmosphere is so tenuous at higher altitudes that even at 15,000 m it is still only 175 g/cm2 deep. Typically, it is about here that most muons are generated. Muons arrive at sea level with an average flux of about 1 muon per square centimeter per minute. This is about half of the typical total natural radiation background.”

(Orion) Thus, the flux of muons at 10,000 m is about the same as at sea level. This means that a longer living secondary muon would travel farther than sea level. Also, a larger mass as input to create the secondary muons would impart more energy into the secondary muons which would also increase the muon velocity and flight travel.

The Wiki physicist believes that at the speed of c the secondary muons could only travel on average 456 meters. They must invoke special relativity on muon mass increase and lifetime dilation to get anywhere near the 10,000 m flight path for the muon.

My assumptions or challenge to modern physics (relativity) is that the muon might be an unstable electron. The experimental data presented holds well with Galilean observers in Euclidean Space Geometry.

The error of the Special Theory of Relativity has been disproved by Stephen Crothers in, “Galilean and Einsteinian Observers”, https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _Observers .

The original topic and thought is that something created these huge Birkeland Currents described by Scott and we observe them. I am challenging the idea that magnetic fields can only exist if there are moving mass charges that create them. There is a significant community of scientist that are making progress in proving that colliding photons or laser energy can create temporary standing magnetic fields and make new mass by converting energy into mass. These new mass(s) can store the magnetic energy locally from the lasers beams. The sum of all of the magnetic masses can equal the Birkeland Current magnetic fields.

The plasma electric field may have been created by a secondary colliding set of laser beams that created local standing Electric Fields that shears the charges off of atoms and causes local currents to align with the Birkeland Currents Electric fields. The result is a sustained circuit of plasma energy flowing along the Birkeland Current transmission line with voltage potential difference at both ends, large sustained magnetic fields, and expected radial dependent field alignment.

[Empodecles]

Spherical Capacitors

If you look at a spinning planet, solar system & galaxy in simple terms its just a Faraday Motor it its basic operation
What part do Planets & Stars have as spherical capacitors operating in a rotating magnetic & electrical field?

Not much talk about this.........

Empodecles

[Empodecles]

As a follow up on spherical capacitors embedded in a rotating disk, has anyone done any research on the position of the planets in correlation with major sunspot activity??

[paladin17]

As a follow up on spherical capacitors embedded in a rotating disk, has anyone done any research on the position of the planets in correlation with major sunspot activity??

There seems to be no such correlation.

[Cargo]

If so, it would imply either a 'draining' or 'draw' effect. Major sun activity cycles are almost completely driven by helo-external influences. Depending on which and what severity of cycle the Sun is in, there may be more or less chance of seeing a 'plant causes sun activity' event. Because on the whole, the planets are all very tiny compared to the Sun. Well, expect maybe a long time ago, Jupiter and Saturn could have been much bigger.

Predominantly the Sun activity has to do with the Sun state in the local galactic space. Because it's capacitance is dependent on/related to that. The planets capacitance is fed by the local Sun(s).

[moses]

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08 ... -confirmed

It is by no means certain that galactic currents are responsible for sunspots.
Mo

[Cargo]

That makes sense and is perfectly timed for the coming conjunction of J-S in a few weeks. EXCELLENT!

I concur it's there. And believe Jupiter and Saturn both used to be/are Stars. They just don't glow as much any more. Could they glow again?

[paladin17]

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08 ... -confirmed

It is by no means certain that galactic currents are responsible for sunspots.
Mo

Unfortunately, such exercises in numerology have no predictive power.

[Brigit]

by Cargo » Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:27 pm

Major sun activity cycles are almost completely driven by helo-external influences. Depending on which and what severity of cycle the Sun is in, there may be more or less chance of seeing a 'planet causes sun activity' event.

by moses » Wed Dec 02, 2020 7:25 pm

https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/08 ... -confirmed

It is by no means certain that galactic currents are responsible for sunspots.
Mo

Tallbloke and his colleagues have worked on a huge part of the puzzle for a very long time -- that is, do the planets modify solar activity?

There are ways to test this. The first is to make long term observations of main sequence stars -- widely distributed across the sky -- which are similar to our sun, and compare their starspot cycles. This would also reveal the intensity of the flares and CMEs of other Sun-like stars in comparison with our own. Perhaps no one has ever thought that was a priority, because no telescopes have been devoted to this mission. As far as I know, telescope time is very competitive and this has not been done.

What we do get are occasional remarks by astronomers about the violence of stellar outbursts on other stars like our Sun. We would not survive.

This is a good indicator that the planets in some way do modify solar activity.

[Brigit]

If the sun is embedded in a galactic Birkland current, then so is the Heliosphere.

In that event, the planets and the sun are embedded in the heliosphere, which is embedded in a Birkland current, which is a current that varies in power across time.

That variance across time would supply changing amounts of charged particles to the heliosphere. The heliosphere, which is a plasma double layer, collects those charged particles, in this model. As a double layer does in an ion accelerator, the heliospheric plasma double layer accelerates those charged particles sunward. This supply of charged particles externally powers the electric sun.

One way to test this is to consider whether the changing sunspot cycle is also reflected in the changing electrical phenomena on the gas giants and other planets in the solar system.

As Steven Smith said in "Saturn's Electric Surprises",

Many things about Saturn changed since Voyager 2 flew by many years ago. Saturn's magnetosphere expanded by more than a million kilometers, contracted, and then started expanding again. Those strange spokes that were seen hovering over the B ring disappeared and then re-appeared. The so-called 'Dragon Storm' on Saturn's equator broke up and moved toward the poles, and then moved down to the lower latitudes. The most likely explanation for the storms on Saturn is that they're like sunspots.

Just as the Sun changes its behavior over the course of the 22-year cycle, the electrical output that connects it with its family of planets varies.

If Saturn's Dragon Storm and ring currents are driven by the same Birkland current that drives the Sun, they should get stronger and closer to the equator as the cycle oscillates -- and that is just what happened over the last three decades.