Yes, Hypercard was simply well-engineered so that anyone from a child to a high-end programmer (familiar with scripts, etc.) could use it from day 1 (more or less). I always like Hypercard. I was sorry to see it go. Newer program have been created that do similar things, but generally not with the elegant ease of Hypercard.
With Hypercard, you could do just about anything from presentations to simple adventure games. It was quite robust.
I might add to the question of "dark matter" (baryonic or otherwise) this little bit: What if our estimations of distance are incorrect? Recently, the distance to the Antennae Galaxies was revised downward by 30% from 65 million light years to 45 million light years.
Consider it like a cone extending away from us, with the point aimed at us, and the "base" pointing away from us. What happens as you mover further away along the axis of the cone? The cross sectional area keeps getting larger and larger...
The estimated distance between us (at the tip of the cone) and the size of the object (the cross sectional area of the cone at a given point) depends upon the distance down the axis of the cone at which we take the cross section.
As you can see from my prior post, making the distance along the axis of the cone 45 million light years instead of 65 million light years has a significant effect on our "calculation" of its size (the cross sectional area of the cone, in this analogy). If the distance is over-estimated, so too is the size. And thus the other calculated values like absolute luminosity, energy output, mass, etc.
Dangerous game, the trust relationships that astronomy has built with its theoretical assumptions. If the assumptions are poorly predicated, the results may be GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).
I might add to the question of "dark matter" (baryonic or otherwise) this little bit: What if our estimations of distance are incorrect? Recently, the distance to the Antennae Galaxies was revised downward by 30% from 65 million light years to 45 million light years.
A bedrock problem in astronomy is simply figuring out how far away things are. Practically everything else about an object â" its true size, its energy output â" all the stuff you have to know to understand it â" depends on simply knowing how far away it is. And even now, the poor quality of many astronomical distances remains a nagging problem.
[...]
Astronomers had estimated that the Antennae are 65 million light-years away. Now Hubble's analysis of red giants in an outlying patch brings them a lot closer, to 45 million light-years.
This matters. As a NASA / European Space Agency press release tells it:
"The previous larger distance required astronomers to invoke some quite exceptional physical characteristics to account for the spectacular system: very high star-formation rates, super-massive star clusters, ultra-luminous X-ray sources, etc. The new smaller distance makes the Antennae Galaxies less extreme in terms of the physics needed to explain the observed phenomena. For instance, with the smaller distance its infrared radiation is now that expected of a 'standard' early merging event, rather than that of an ultra-luminous infrared galaxy. The size of the star clusters formed as a consequence of the Antennae merger now agree with those of clusters created in other mergers, instead of being 1.5 times as large."
Since many characteristics are not observable directly, they are calculated based upon what we CAN see and estimates of the distance.
In the case of the Antennae Galaxies significantly revising down the distance, dropped it out of the "ultra-luminous" and "abnormally large" club and back into the range of "normal luminosity and size" for the type of object it is.
This makes me wonder whether other objects currently labeled as "far away," "super-massive," "ultra-luminous," etc. are in fact closer than their currently estimated distances? If so, then their luminosities, sizes and masses would need downward revision, just like the Antennae Galaxies. Would this resolve the "they're too big for gravity to hold them together" issue? If they're not as big and have less mass, or speeds involved aren't as great as we think?
Apologies for not reading the rules in advance. However, I still feel that response was incommensurate with the "crime," so to speak. The justification for BANNING seemed especially weak (with other lesser remedies available, and statements in the thread of "suspension" rather than "ban"). IE, I posted in the wrong section (according to BAUT moderators). I disagree that the mainstream astronomy section was the incorrect section, or else I would not have posted there. I was specifically referring to the mainstream NASA post (using their image and their descriptions of the Birkeland currents as an electrical discharge; 30 kV battery in space, 650,000 amp current into arctic), and to the lab work of Birkeland. Some may disagree with my interpretation of the two data sets (when compared / merged), but that does not mean that either NASA or Birkeland-related material cited is non-mainstream, in my opinion. However, others are entitled to hold their considered opinions, as I'm entitled to hold mine.
As to having been "notified" on another thread, I'm sorry, but that's a poor justification as well. To be frank, I hadn't visited that thread in a couple days and had not seen any of the newer comments (referenced in the thread that was summarily closed without discussion), prior to posting the new thread. It is unreasonable to assume that a poster will check every old thread on every forum they have ever visited on a regular basis. Even if one assumes a user does check old posts, all of this transpired within an extremely short period of time (24h?)... Is it reasonable to expect that someone checks threads regularly all day for 24h? I don't think so. I may have checked back with the original thread at a later point in time (a few days?), to see if new comments had been added (initial reaction seemed to have been slow in coming from Antoniseb on the first thread, which I happily responded to, and I assumed that additional reaction would also be slow in coming, so I did not check back promptly).
At the time I posted the thread which was closed, locked and moved, there were no private messages to me, to my knowledge. If there were, I missed them (and can no longer check for them due to being banned). Private message(s) would have (in my opinion) been the proper way to handle things (since they are available outside of any one specific thread that may or may not be revisited). IE, message a user privately to direct them to appropriate resources/rules or offer counsel. As far as I know, this was NOT done, and would have been a preferable solution. Likewise, immediately jumping to the harshest punishment (a 1-year ban) seems incommensurate with the "crime" of posting in the wrong section of the forum (an infraction, from an end-user standpoint; one which could have been simply corrected by moving the thread and allowing it to be discussed in the new location).
I might also point out that in the thread that was closed and locked within 48h of being posted, users Nereid and Antoniseb both mentioned that I should try posting in the ATM section in the future. Antoniseb went so far as to say "after your suspension." However, I was not suspended. I was banned for the term of 1 year. For a first infraction, that seems harsh, and not in keeping with the "suspension" comments (one would assume suspension means the lesser 24hr - 72hr block; as opposed to complete ban for 1 year) before closing said thread.
I might also point out that not only does a "block" prevent posting to the forum. It also prevents "viewing" the forum AT ALL. That's simply adding insult to injury. Not to mention the fact there is no apparent way for a user who feels their suspension or ban is unjust or incommensurate with the "crime" to redress grievances. There should be a link or e-mail option on the "you've been blocked" page that allows for a statement or appeal to the MOD(s) in charge of blocking / unblocking users. Else, there seems to be not even a veneer of "fair play" or due process.
Ok. Soooo, I'm not sure where this is really going. Of course there they are "electrical" in nature because they are charged particles (so there will be potential) and are moving (so current, as in electric current). But then I'm kind of a lay person, so I can't really spot if this thread started as one of the crazies post or actually the "Real Thing".
For example, the crazies are saying that "all problems" and "all everything" is caused by electrical nature. That our solar system is more electrical than anything else and all misfortunes can be read by reading the sun's "electrical mood" (yes, including global warming, tsunamis and earthquakes). They are misunderstanding electricity in wall socket with plasmas in space.
Or you could be on trying to explain something that is being researched to a lay person in simple way? But then,
The planets are connected back to the sun via "flux ropes" or "Birkeland currents." Of course the next logical question is, "But from whence does the sun's charge come." A natural question. The likely answer is that "the galaxy powers the solar system / sun, and the sun offloads that current to the planets." But, then, "from whence the galaxy?" Keep in mind that currents tend, by nature, to flow in filaments through light plasma. And what is the structure of the universe? You guessed it! -MGmirkin
Ok, *crazy* post that layman don't get that is made by another crazy physics-wannabe. Good job with the insightful mods here.
PS. Of course, any positive mods for me and negative for the crazies would reinforce the filament nature of the evil-NASA and evil-NSA reaching out trying to prevent people from knowing the truth! The Truth of the filament aliens! -Gnuman99
Okay, time to drop the caffeine from the diet. Ya' seem to be a bit all over the place.
Where to even start responding to this post?
First off let's get one thing straight, electrical currents (similarly moving charged particles like, say, a beam of electrons) flowing through wires and electrical currentsflowing through plasma are equivalent. It's the motion of charge carriers that's the thing to consider in the problem. What are the charge carriers doing? Are they in random motion, or is there some overall similarity in motion? IE, are all he electrons, or a majority of them, flowing in approximately the same direction?
(As of this post: 12-15-07; Wikipedia is subject to change at the whim of editors.)
Current density is a measure of the density of electrical current. It is defined as a vector whose magnitude is the electric current per cross-sectional area. In SI unit, the current density is measured in amperes per square metre or coulomb per second per square metre.
(As of this post: 12-15-07; Wikipedia is subject to change at the whim of editors.)
Electric current is the flow (movement) of electric charge. The SI unit of electric current is the ampere (A), which is equal to a flow of one coulomb of charge per second.
[...]
The amount of electric current (measured in amperes) through some surface, e.g., a section through a copper conductor, is defined as the amount of electric charge (measured in coulombs) flowing through that surface over time.
Specifically, the physical definition of both "current density" and "electric current" are intentionally broad. They are defined with reference to "electrical current" per "cross-secti
Though I don't have a copy of either in front of me at the moment, I believe this topic is covered in either The Electric Sky by Don Scott or The Electric Universe by Wal Thornhill and Dave Talbott. You might want to pick up a copy. Other interesting reads include Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened, and Arp's Seeing Red. Though they're on slightly different topics.
My understanding is that there is a drift of electrons toward the sun. Yes, a drift. It doesn't take much. Electrical motion is often a very slow process (especially in "dark" currents; IE, currents not in "glow" or "arc" mode) on the order of a few centimeters per hour?
But, in the meanwhile, here are some links to a few abstracts / articles that deal with various bodies as unipolar inductors.
Seems the BAUT thread finally went up. Mods must have been sleeping or on vacation or something. At least over there, I can post a few choice images...
Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
Update:
Apparently they thought I was a threat! What kind of threat is still unclear to me.
I've been immediately banned from BAUT without a word to me, or much of an explanation (I might also note that means I can't even log in to send a private message to the admin who banned me to ask why or appeal it). I've only been a member of the site for some odd 48-72 hours and already I've been banned and accused of being part of some "conspiracy" of disinformation, or some such nonsense?
Ridiculous! Utterly and completely.
I came with specific questions, and specific images for discussion, which I believed would be of interest and use to their user base. And they doused me with gas and threw a match, figuratively speaking... Don't burn the heretic
The punishment [from my point of view] certainly did NOT fit the perceived "crime" [from their point of view]. There were lesser remedies available, such as a private message to the user in question stating that I'd put something in the wrong area, that the thread was being moved, that there are specific rules (which they could have quoted and directed a user (me) to to read), they could have opted for a 72 hour suspension, as opposed to a full 1-year ban.
But, no, they decided to go for the harshest punishment FIRST. That seems to reveal quite a bit about their thought processes, or lack thereof.
I'm sorry, but I can't let this kind of knee-jerk reactionary action go unnoticed or unchallenged. It seems typical of some sites to "burn the heretic."
upriver, mgmirkin, and iantresman have all been suspended for one year for violations of rules 6, 11, and 14 as part of a coordinated effort to promote a specific ATM [Against The Mainstream] idea, in the mainstream section of the forum.
This particular idea has already been covered in detail in the ATM section, and the main protagonists refuse, or are unable to supply any supporting math when faced with any questions or criticism.
Post Edit: based on email conversation, I now believe that iantresman was not part of the coordinated effort, and am lifting his suspension.
To respond to a few points above:
Was my only "crime" in their eyes the fact that I placed the post in the wrong section of the forum? If so, a simple move of the thread would have resolved the issue. Most forum software makes that task quite simple. Likewise, the punishment far outweighed the crime. Addendum: I see they have subsequently moved the thread, so that it will no longer be visible to those who find such ideas as Birkeland's verifiable laboratory work "quaint" or "heretical," despite being based on known lab physics. My post simply includes the suggestion that they might be applicable to a wider sphere of science.
I think that it was slightly more than that, insofar as apparently I hold a view slightly different from their "consensus reality." They must find that quite dangerous...
Their other contention relates to "doing the math." Firstly, the presentation of a natural philosophy CONCEPT does not require a mathematical model in its inception. That is an artifact of Einsteinian cosmology, and has generally reversed the flow of scientific progress, in some ways, by assuming that just because someone writes a sound mathematical expression that somehow equates to how things work in reality. Math is a language, and it is equally
Seems the BAUT thread finally went up. Mods must have been sleeping or on vacation or something. At least over there, I can post a few choice images...
Actually I kind this kind of interesting, the explanation I had always heard was that a wave of charged particles boiled off of a sunspot and that it was electrical charge of that wavefront collapsing some field lines and streaming down the magnetic holes at the poles. Knowing that there is actually a continuous event from the sun to the earth is an interesting realization for me. ~ Afidel
You might also find these links to be of interest, then...
I chastise me for forgetting to add this bit earlier!
A few code-words for electrical processes:
Solar Wind: It's not quite so simple or homogeneous as all that. See below.
Flux Tubes: These are tube-like magnetic fields, which generally find a counterpart in a flow of charged particles flowing in/along them (in fact, dynamic magnetic fields in light plasma REQUIRE such an electric current to be sustained; "frozen-in" field lines were repudiated by Hannes Alfven, who was the one who proposed them in the first place, recognized the mistake of not acknowledging electric currents, then spent most of his later life trying to rectify his mistake). A la "Birkeland currents." The terms may be synonymous? They are found persistently in the fast and slow "solar wind."
Ion beams: There are electric currents in that there "solar wind." Ion beams are streams/beams of protons and/or ionized atomic nuclei found in the solar wind. Such a flow of charged particles constitutes an electric current (or just a current, for those who prefer to mince words), by the fairly standard definition.
Strahl: The strahl is the exact polar [no pun intended] opposite of the ion beams. Specifically, it's a contiguous flow / stream / beam of free electrons in the solar wind. Like the ion beams before it, such a flow of like charged particles is also considered an electric current (or just a plain old run of the mill current).
Heliospheric Current Sheet: Yes, that's right, there's a known sheet of current running through the equatorial plane of the solar system, centered at the sun! Look it up! It may not be "huge," but a little goes a long way...
Interplanetary Magnetic Field: Yes, there's a magnetic field pervading the solar system. Look it up! How does one power a magnetic field in a light plasma? Were we paying attention in the flux tubes entry above? If not, let me say it again... Hannes Alfven noted that electric currents are REQUIRED to maintain a magnetic field in a light plasma. Field lines CANNOT be "frozen in" to light plasma. Mercifully, I've already mentioned the heliospheric current sheet. So, that resolves that little quibble.
Yes, perfect timing for the announcements... If one were a conspiracy nut, one could make the case that they released this info to coincide with Birkeland's birthday! IE, re-discovering his "Birkeland currents" to commemorate his 140th {?} birthday [if he were still a live and not turning in his grave for having been forgotten for so long]...
Ahh well, it's a new day in this bright, shiny Electric Universe of ours... Ohh, wait, I forgot... Saying Electric Universe is verboten. Ahh well, always was a non-conformist.
Perhaps we should all just do the Electric Slide... 'Cause... It's ELECTRIC! *Cheesy music starts playing...*
Here's a question for the astrophsycists, if they know of "things electric" (such as the Birkeland currents powering the auroras), has anyone drawn out the solar electric circuit(s)? If so, where are they diagrammed (can you point me to them, I'd love to see them, as they're never discussed in public; so far as I know)?
If not, why not. If astrophysicists realize this is essentially an electrical engineering problem, why has it not been diagrammed as such and "solved," so to speak? Why do scientists and/or news releases always seem to exclaim surprise about all things electrical they discover in the solar system?
Likewise, why do so many scientists, papers, and news releases still talk in terms of "winds," "rains," and "shock fronts," instead of Electrical Engineering terms like "plasma filaments," "Birkeland currents," "double layers," "closed circuits," "inductors," "capacitors," "relaxation oscillators," "plasma sheaths," "dark mode discharge" (Birkeland currents; while between the sun and Earth), "glow mode discharge" (auroras, sun's photosphere), "arc mode discharge" (lightning, solar prominences, coronal loops & flares), "anodes," "cathodes," etc.
It seems like the astronomers' language is still rooted in terms from the Victorian era. Or is there just a language barrier between various disciplines and they're all just talking about the same things (in their own specialized terms)? If so, how do we get everyone to use the same language for the same things, so we can recognize the same things in the same ways, when talking between disciplines?
Just wondering, please don't take offense. It's an interesting topic to me. =o]
Maybe the EE's and astrophysicists just need to sit down at the same table (a really big table, with the best and brightest), compare notes on "how things work in the lab" vs. "how things work in space," and come up with a set of standard terms and definitions? Where they can't agree, perhaps more research is needed... Frankly, I think that such a "meeting of the minds to compare notes across multi-disciplinary lines" should be a yearly thing. If it doesn't already happen. Just to keep everyone on the same page.
I vote "charged particles in an electric field." (Easiest way to accelerate charged particles in the lab...) What's the more technical term? "Voltage drop," I think?
I might also chime in with the term "heliospheric current sheet." Just to prod the conversation a bit.
Do they figure in the giant "battery in space," when talking about climate forcings?
They probably just missed the memo...? It's a bad habit, skipping the staff meetings where they talk about how the solar system is like a giant plasma globe, I know.
"So to sum up your entire post for those that come after me, you are saying "electric universe rules"." -Kagura
No, I think that what he's saying is something to the effect that this shouldn't be news to anybody, but the fact that it is happens to be disheartening.
Take, for instance, an extreme case of his terella in operation: Figure 259
How do you like them "flux ropes?"
This image hows the terella operating in a mode that exposes the electrical currents for what they are. In this shot, the currents are in "arc mode" (akin to sparks or lightning). Whereas the auroras around Earth are akin to a "glow mode" discharge. Birkeland currents in interplanetary space are a "dark mode" discharge (IE, not glowing, but still slowly transferring electric charges in a "dark" current, much like an electrical wire, but in this case a plasma filament). Look it up. Standard plasma physics.
In essence, the solar system can be likened to a virtual "plasma globe." In the "plasma globe" model of the solar system, the sun is the central electrode. The planets are akin to people pressing their fingers to the outer glass because it's cool to watch the filaments connect to the spot you touch. The "magnetic flux ropes" are akin to the plasma filaments connecting the central electrode to the outer glass where fingers touch. The "magnetic flux ropes" are a byproduct of the electrical current (flow of charged particles) connecting the sun to the Earth.
Here's a colorized version of a plasma globe I made for reference: Plasma globe "sun"
I really wish it would let me put images in this thing. Ohh well, I said it better over on BAUT anyway (assuming they don't immediately MOD it out of existence, for being presumptuous enough to mention astronomers' apparent blindspot regarding electricity in space).
In all, what Pln2bz says is quite sage, and I suggest that we listen to him... Rather carefully. He may not be quite as "insane" as some think. It's quite necessary to review the argument based on its merits, and see where it leads. Might just turn science on its ear.
After all, we've just re-learned that Birkeland currents power the magnetosphere. This was confirmed in t he 60s / 70s when we started shooting satellites into space, and it was predicted in the 1900s (appx 1902-1903 was when Birkeland went north; 1908 was when he published Norewgian Aurora Polaris Expedition, to great acclaim pretty much everywhere, except England and America, where an electrically neutral/sterile cosmology had already taken hold, unfortunately, setting us back a
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, Hypercard was simply well-engineered so that anyone from a child to a high-end programmer (familiar with scripts, etc.) could use it from day 1 (more or less). I always like Hypercard. I was sorry to see it go. Newer program have been created that do similar things, but generally not with the elegant ease of Hypercard.
With Hypercard, you could do just about anything from presentations to simple adventure games. It was quite robust.
~Michael
Consider it like a cone extending away from us, with the point aimed at us, and the "base" pointing away from us. What happens as you mover further away along the axis of the cone? The cross sectional area keeps getting larger and larger...
The estimated distance between us (at the tip of the cone) and the size of the object (the cross sectional area of the cone at a given point) depends upon the distance down the axis of the cone at which we take the cross section.
As you can see from my prior post, making the distance along the axis of the cone 45 million light years instead of 65 million light years has a significant effect on our "calculation" of its size (the cross sectional area of the cone, in this analogy). If the distance is over-estimated, so too is the size. And thus the other calculated values like absolute luminosity, energy output, mass, etc.
Dangerous game, the trust relationships that astronomy has built with its theoretical assumptions. If the assumptions are poorly predicated, the results may be GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out).
Cheers,
~Michael
(The Antennae Galaxies Found To Be Closer To Us)
http://digg.com/space/The_Antennae_Galaxies_Found_To_Be_Closer_To_Us
(The "Antennae Galaxies" Fall Into Line)
http://digg.com/space/The_Antennae_Galaxies_Fall_Into_Line
Since many characteristics are not observable directly, they are calculated based upon what we CAN see and estimates of the distance.
In the case of the Antennae Galaxies significantly revising down the distance, dropped it out of the "ultra-luminous" and "abnormally large" club and back into the range of "normal luminosity and size" for the type of object it is.
This makes me wonder whether other objects currently labeled as "far away," "super-massive," "ultra-luminous," etc. are in fact closer than their currently estimated distances? If so, then their luminosities, sizes and masses would need downward revision, just like the Antennae Galaxies. Would this resolve the "they're too big for gravity to hold them together" issue? If they're not as big and have less mass, or speeds involved aren't as great as we think?
Just a thought...
~Michael
Apologies for not reading the rules in advance. However, I still feel that response was incommensurate with the "crime," so to speak. The justification for BANNING seemed especially weak (with other lesser remedies available, and statements in the thread of "suspension" rather than "ban"). IE, I posted in the wrong section (according to BAUT moderators). I disagree that the mainstream astronomy section was the incorrect section, or else I would not have posted there. I was specifically referring to the mainstream NASA post (using their image and their descriptions of the Birkeland currents as an electrical discharge; 30 kV battery in space, 650,000 amp current into arctic), and to the lab work of Birkeland. Some may disagree with my interpretation of the two data sets (when compared / merged), but that does not mean that either NASA or Birkeland-related material cited is non-mainstream, in my opinion. However, others are entitled to hold their considered opinions, as I'm entitled to hold mine.
As to having been "notified" on another thread, I'm sorry, but that's a poor justification as well. To be frank, I hadn't visited that thread in a couple days and had not seen any of the newer comments (referenced in the thread that was summarily closed without discussion), prior to posting the new thread. It is unreasonable to assume that a poster will check every old thread on every forum they have ever visited on a regular basis. Even if one assumes a user does check old posts, all of this transpired within an extremely short period of time (24h?)... Is it reasonable to expect that someone checks threads regularly all day for 24h? I don't think so. I may have checked back with the original thread at a later point in time (a few days?), to see if new comments had been added (initial reaction seemed to have been slow in coming from Antoniseb on the first thread, which I happily responded to, and I assumed that additional reaction would also be slow in coming, so I did not check back promptly).
At the time I posted the thread which was closed, locked and moved, there were no private messages to me, to my knowledge. If there were, I missed them (and can no longer check for them due to being banned). Private message(s) would have (in my opinion) been the proper way to handle things (since they are available outside of any one specific thread that may or may not be revisited). IE, message a user privately to direct them to appropriate resources/rules or offer counsel. As far as I know, this was NOT done, and would have been a preferable solution. Likewise, immediately jumping to the harshest punishment (a 1-year ban) seems incommensurate with the "crime" of posting in the wrong section of the forum (an infraction, from an end-user standpoint; one which could have been simply corrected by moving the thread and allowing it to be discussed in the new location).
I might also point out that in the thread that was closed and locked within 48h of being posted, users Nereid and Antoniseb both mentioned that I should try posting in the ATM section in the future. Antoniseb went so far as to say "after your suspension." However, I was not suspended. I was banned for the term of 1 year. For a first infraction, that seems harsh, and not in keeping with the "suspension" comments (one would assume suspension means the lesser 24hr - 72hr block; as opposed to complete ban for 1 year) before closing said thread.
I might also point out that not only does a "block" prevent posting to the forum. It also prevents "viewing" the forum AT ALL. That's simply adding insult to injury. Not to mention the fact there is no apparent way for a user who feels their suspension or ban is unjust or incommensurate with the "crime" to redress grievances. There should be a link or e-mail option on the "you've been blocked" page that allows for a statement or appeal to the MOD(s) in charge of blocking / unblocking users. Else, there seems to be not even a veneer of "fair play" or due process.
Okay, time to drop the caffeine from the diet. Ya' seem to be a bit all over the place.
Where to even start responding to this post?
First off let's get one thing straight, electrical currents (similarly moving charged particles like, say, a beam of electrons) flowing through wires and electrical currents flowing through plasma are equivalent. It's the motion of charge carriers that's the thing to consider in the problem. What are the charge carriers doing? Are they in random motion, or is there some overall similarity in motion? IE, are all he electrons, or a majority of them, flowing in approximately the same direction?
Consider the Wikipedia (imperfect, but what can you do?) articles on Current density and Electric current:
(As of this post: 12-15-07; Wikipedia is subject to change at the whim of editors.)
(As of this post: 12-15-07; Wikipedia is subject to change at the whim of editors.)
Specifically, the physical definition of both "current density" and "electric current" are intentionally broad. They are defined with reference to "electrical current" per "cross-secti
Though I don't have a copy of either in front of me at the moment, I believe this topic is covered in either The Electric Sky by Don Scott or The Electric Universe by Wal Thornhill and Dave Talbott. You might want to pick up a copy. Other interesting reads include Lerner's The Big Bang Never Happened, and Arp's Seeing Red. Though they're on slightly different topics.
My understanding is that there is a drift of electrons toward the sun. Yes, a drift. It doesn't take much. Electrical motion is often a very slow process (especially in "dark" currents; IE, currents not in "glow" or "arc" mode) on the order of a few centimeters per hour?
But, in the meanwhile, here are some links to a few abstracts / articles that deal with various bodies as unipolar inductors.
From links found at Plasma-Universe.com:
(Cosmic electric currents and the generalized Bennett relation)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Ap%26SS.144...73C
(Unipolar Induction of a Magnetized Accretion Disk around a Black Hole)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AstL...29..153S
(A force - free field theory of solar flares I. Unipolar sunspots)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ChA%26A...5...77Y
(Electric current in a unipolar sunspot with an untwisted field)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990GeoRL..17.2273O
(Sheath-limited unipolar induction in the solar wind)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975Ap%26SS..36..177S
(Establishment of a Lunar Unipolar Generator and Associated Shock and Wake by the Solar Wind)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1967Natur.216..340S
(Unipolar Induction in the Moon and a Lunar Limb Shock Mechanism)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969Moon....1....7S
(The Earth as a unipolar generator)
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0022-3727/11/5/020
(Io, a jovian unipolar inductor)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...156...59G
I might also point out a great repository of peer-reviewed papers on various subjects related to plasma cosmology:
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html
Plasma Physics from Laboratory to Cosmos--The Life and Achievements of Hannes Alfvén
Cosmology in the Plasma Universe: An Introductory Exposition
Introduction to Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology
Birkeland and the Electromagnetic Cosmology
The Evidence For Electrical Currents in Cosmic Plasma
The Role of Particle Be
Update:
Apparently they thought I was a threat! What kind of threat is still unclear to me.
I've been immediately banned from BAUT without a word to me, or much of an explanation (I might also note that means I can't even log in to send a private message to the admin who banned me to ask why or appeal it). I've only been a member of the site for some odd 48-72 hours and already I've been banned and accused of being part of some "conspiracy" of disinformation, or some such nonsense?
Ridiculous! Utterly and completely.
I came with specific questions, and specific images for discussion, which I believed would be of interest and use to their user base. And they doused me with gas and threw a match, figuratively speaking... Don't burn the heretic
The punishment [from my point of view] certainly did NOT fit the perceived "crime" [from their point of view]. There were lesser remedies available, such as a private message to the user in question stating that I'd put something in the wrong area, that the thread was being moved, that there are specific rules (which they could have quoted and directed a user (me) to to read), they could have opted for a 72 hour suspension, as opposed to a full 1-year ban.
But, no, they decided to go for the harshest punishment FIRST. That seems to reveal quite a bit about their thought processes, or lack thereof.
I'm sorry, but I can't let this kind of knee-jerk reactionary action go unnoticed or unchallenged. It seems typical of some sites to "burn the heretic."
My dubious distinction
To respond to a few points above:
Addendum: I see they have subsequently moved the thread, so that it will no longer be visible to those who find such ideas as Birkeland's verifiable laboratory work "quaint" or "heretical," despite being based on known lab physics. My post simply includes the suggestion that they might be applicable to a wider sphere of science.
Seems the BAUT thread finally went up. Mods must have been sleeping or on vacation or something. At least over there, I can post a few choice images...
Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
You might also find these links to be of interest, then...
Solar Wind Origin in Coronal Funnels
Orbiting observatory SOHO finds source of high-speed "wind" blowing from the Sun
Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
Thanks for the references. :)
I chastise me for forgetting to add this bit earlier!
A few code-words for electrical processes:
Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
Yes, perfect timing for the announcements... If one were a conspiracy nut, one could make the case that they released this info to coincide with Birkeland's birthday! IE, re-discovering his "Birkeland currents" to commemorate his 140th {?} birthday [if he were still a live and not turning in his grave for having been forgotten for so long]...
Ahh well, it's a new day in this bright, shiny Electric Universe of ours... Ohh, wait, I forgot... Saying Electric Universe is verboten. Ahh well, always was a non-conformist.
Perhaps we should all just do the Electric Slide... 'Cause... It's ELECTRIC ! *Cheesy music starts playing...*
Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
Okay then...
Here's a question for the astrophsycists, if they know of "things electric" (such as the Birkeland currents powering the auroras), has anyone drawn out the solar electric circuit(s)? If so, where are they diagrammed (can you point me to them, I'd love to see them, as they're never discussed in public; so far as I know)?
If not, why not. If astrophysicists realize this is essentially an electrical engineering problem, why has it not been diagrammed as such and "solved," so to speak? Why do scientists and/or news releases always seem to exclaim surprise about all things electrical they discover in the solar system?
Likewise, why do so many scientists, papers, and news releases still talk in terms of "winds," "rains," and "shock fronts," instead of Electrical Engineering terms like "plasma filaments," "Birkeland currents," "double layers," "closed circuits," "inductors," "capacitors," "relaxation oscillators," "plasma sheaths," "dark mode discharge" (Birkeland currents; while between the sun and Earth), "glow mode discharge" (auroras, sun's photosphere), "arc mode discharge" (lightning, solar prominences, coronal loops & flares), "anodes," "cathodes," etc.
It seems like the astronomers' language is still rooted in terms from the Victorian era. Or is there just a language barrier between various disciplines and they're all just talking about the same things (in their own specialized terms)? If so, how do we get everyone to use the same language for the same things, so we can recognize the same things in the same ways, when talking between disciplines?
Just wondering, please don't take offense. It's an interesting topic to me. =o]
Maybe the EE's and astrophysicists just need to sit down at the same table (a really big table, with the best and brightest), compare notes on "how things work in the lab" vs. "how things work in space," and come up with a set of standard terms and definitions? Where they can't agree, perhaps more research is needed... Frankly, I think that such a "meeting of the minds to compare notes across multi-disciplinary lines" should be a yearly thing. If it doesn't already happen. Just to keep everyone on the same page.
Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
I vote "charged particles in an electric field." (Easiest way to accelerate charged particles in the lab...) What's the more technical term? "Voltage drop," I think?
I might also chime in with the term "heliospheric current sheet." Just to prod the conversation a bit.
Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
You'd think so, wouldn't you?
Do they figure in the giant "battery in space," when talking about climate forcings?
They probably just missed the memo...? It's a bad habit, skipping the staff meetings where they talk about how the solar system is like a giant plasma globe, I know.
C'est la vie!
Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
Maybe a 30 kV flashlight (pumping 650,000 amps into the arctic)?
Heck of a light show! Might burn out the bulb, tho'.
Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
True, the implications are as vast as the galaxy, nay, the universe.
Shocking, indeed! Very amusing! 8^)
Cheers, ~Michael Gmirkin
Another nail in the coffin for the "electrically neutral" solar system, galaxy, universe.
See my other post for a more thorough discussion:
Here
Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"So to sum up your entire post for those that come after me, you are saying "electric universe rules"." -Kagura
No, I think that what he's saying is something to the effect that this shouldn't be news to anybody, but the fact that it is happens to be disheartening.
Specifically, Kristian Birkeland predicted this in his book Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition (section 2, I believe).
Specifically, if one references the images contained in the book, things become clear quite quickly:
Chapter VI: On Possible Electric Phenomena in Solar Systems and Nebulae
Take, for instance, an extreme case of his terella in operation:
Figure 259
How do you like them "flux ropes?"
This image hows the terella operating in a mode that exposes the electrical currents for what they are. In this shot, the currents are in "arc mode" (akin to sparks or lightning). Whereas the auroras around Earth are akin to a "glow mode" discharge. Birkeland currents in interplanetary space are a "dark mode" discharge (IE, not glowing, but still slowly transferring electric charges in a "dark" current, much like an electrical wire, but in this case a plasma filament). Look it up. Standard plasma physics.
In essence, the solar system can be likened to a virtual "plasma globe." In the "plasma globe" model of the solar system, the sun is the central electrode. The planets are akin to people pressing their fingers to the outer glass because it's cool to watch the filaments connect to the spot you touch. The "magnetic flux ropes" are akin to the plasma filaments connecting the central electrode to the outer glass where fingers touch. The "magnetic flux ropes" are a byproduct of the electrical current (flow of charged particles) connecting the sun to the Earth.
Here's a colorized version of a plasma globe I made for reference:
Plasma globe "sun"
So, yeah, it's something like that.
I really wish it would let me put images in this thing. Ohh well, I said it better over on BAUT anyway (assuming they don't immediately MOD it out of existence, for being presumptuous enough to mention astronomers' apparent blindspot regarding electricity in space).
Did I forget to mention NASA's own rather candid admission that there's an electrical link between the sun and the Earth? "Flux rope" pumps 650,000 Amp current into the arctic! (30 kV battery in space) (Noted on this page: Multimedia for the Press Event for THEMIS.)
In all, what Pln2bz says is quite sage, and I suggest that we listen to him... Rather carefully. He may not be quite as "insane" as some think. It's quite necessary to review the argument based on its merits, and see where it leads. Might just turn science on its ear.
After all, we've just re-learned that Birkeland currents power the magnetosphere. This was confirmed in t he 60s / 70s when we started shooting satellites into space, and it was predicted in the 1900s (appx 1902-1903 was when Birkeland went north; 1908 was when he published Norewgian Aurora Polaris Expedition, to great acclaim pretty much everywhere, except England and America, where an electrically neutral/sterile cosmology had already taken hold, unfortunately, setting us back a