Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

Mary Rose

dragonridr
www.webpronews.com...

From your link:

The new paper, published this week in The Astrophysical Journal, proposes that the ribbon is in an area where neutral hydrogen atoms from solar wind cross the galactic magnetic field, stripping away their electrons and changing them into charged ions. The particles then become trapped in the ribbon regions by vibrations in the magnetic field.

From "IBEX—Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun | Space News":

Are the paper and the video talking about the same magnetic field?

edit on 03/06/14 by Mary Rose because: Grammar

No the galactic magnetic field is something thats caused in spiral galaxies through a dynamo effect. basically if you spin a magnetic field it causes gases to line up north and south in the direction of spin. We call this polarization so the galactic medium we are traveling through is magnetically charged much like in a magnet when its particles line up north and south we have a bar magnet..

poet1b
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

I think you have a point, a plasma is not really electrically neutral, but institutionalized science seems to need to see plasma as electrically neutral.

We know so little about plasma, we don't have good definitions of the many types of plasma.

All protons in plasma are described as hydrogen, and it seems that the idea that not all protons, or all electrons, are the same, is something that can not be considered. We have no idea why Oxygen and Nitrogen are so different, even though they are next to each other on the periodic table.

I think it would be much more accurate to describe most plasmas as being electrically balanced, or having a charge which is balanced, but capable of reaction.

My god are you stuck in 18th century science? Everything you say is so outdated as to be almost comical. No science doesnt think protons in plasma are hydrogen. You got this from some misreading on some site somewhere. They got this from a man by the name of William Prout. In 1815 he proposed that all atoms are composed of hydrogen atoms he called them "protyles", based on a misinterpretation of early atomic weights he calculated, This was disproved when more accurate values were measured.This is the problem when people pick and choose what information they want you to see when they are trying to prove their theory. Whenever you deal with science i can make anything seem rational as long as i pick and choose what i want to show you to prove my point also as long as i avoid experiments that disprove my theory.

reply to post by dragonridr


Um again, not what I am saying.

Take a look at what science says about the sun and hydrogen.

I am sorry that you don't get it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Not pot meets kettle, unlike you, I didn't claim you state something that you did not.

I asked a question.

It is spoon meet pot.

Have you ever been to the shoreline, and seen the sand mixed with the water?

O2 is in the water, that fish breath. There are physical reactions.

It is not even worth explaining.

Just doing a drive by to point out one thing.
It was mentioned many times on this thread that the EU theory or at least the Electric sun theory suposes a negatively charged Sun and that this is inconsistant with the observed repulsion of "both" types of charged particles.

This is in fact incorrect. Birkeland predicted the repulsion of both charges by the double layer.

Professor Emeritus of the Alfvén Laboratory in Sweden, Carl-Gunne Fälthammar wrote (1986): "A reason why Birkeland currents are particularly interesting is that, in the plasma forced to carry them, they cause a number of plasma physical processes to occur (waves, instabilities, fine structure formation). These in turn lead to consequences such as acceleration of charged particles, both positive and negative, and element separation (such as preferential ejection of oxygen ions). Both of these classes of phenomena should have a general astrophysical interest far beyond that of understanding the space environment of our own Earth."

Birkeland predicted that in his work and its not "counter to the EU" its actually part of the EU model.

Now back to your discussion....

reply to post by dragonridr


I didn't ask what the cause is.

I asked whether the two are pointing at the same place. Is there agreement on where it is.

poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Um again, not what I am saying.

Take a look at what science says about the sun and hydrogen.

I am sorry that you don't get it.

Im sorry you cant convey your message properly i can only go off what you say. And you said and i quote

All protons in plasma are described as hydrogen, and it seems that the idea that not all protons, or all electrons, are the same, is something that can not be considered. We have no idea why Oxygen and Nitrogen are so different, even though they are next to each other on the periodic table.

So i pointed out once again you were wrong and you say im misunderstanding. So in the future why dont you make your points clear by explaining yourself better so you dont look like a fool when we read comments like this one.

Mary Rose
reply to post by dragonridr

 

I didn't ask what the cause is.

I asked whether the two are pointing at the same place. Is there agreement on where it is.

Oh i see its in the direction of travel of the sun. As the sun moves it creates almost like a subway tunnel through the galactic medium. this ribbon is where they meet meaning the heliosphere and the galactic medium.Not to confuse you but its fasinating because its like an echo return of that tunnel the sun creates.

Dragoon01
Just doing a drive by to point out one thing.
It was mentioned many times on this thread that the EU theory or at least the Electric sun theory suposes a negatively charged Sun and that this is inconsistant with the observed repulsion of "both" types of charged particles.

This is in fact incorrect. Birkeland predicted the repulsion of both charges by the double layer.

Professor Emeritus of the Alfvén Laboratory in Sweden, Carl-Gunne Fälthammar wrote (1986): "A reason why Birkeland currents are particularly interesting is that, in the plasma forced to carry them, they cause a number of plasma physical processes to occur (waves, instabilities, fine structure formation). These in turn lead to consequences such as acceleration of charged particles, both positive and negative, and element separation (such as preferential ejection of oxygen ions). Both of these classes of phenomena should have a general astrophysical interest far beyond that of understanding the space environment of our own Earth."

Birkeland predicted that in his work and its not "counter to the EU" its actually part of the EU model.

Now back to your discussion....

Again you're misunderstanding even Fälthammar was talking about how plasma can develop positive and negative poles or fluctuations in the magnetic field. However in electric universe the star itself would have to have a negative charge because electrons would have to carry the flow.his discussion on plasma only shows why the sun can have coronal discharges but once again the over all sun is neutral in charge. This is directly contradictory to plasma and adding a current to it. Thats because the suns source isnt electrical in nature but is produced from the heat of a fusion reaction.

reply to post by dragonridr


Our sun causes the galactic magnetic field?

reply to post by dragonridr


But I did not say that all atoms were composed of hydrogen.

I said all PLASMA protons are described as hydrogen, which is true, at least when it comes to the sun. You are reading something that isn't there.

What I said has nothing to do with the trivia you brought up.

Again, sorry you can't seem to wrap your mind around what is being posted, and the same with your responses to others.

poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr

 

But I did not say that all atoms were composed of hydrogen.

I said all PLASMA protons are described as hydrogen, which is true, at least when it comes to the sun. You are reading something that isn't there.

What I said has nothing to do with the trivia you brought up.

Again, sorry you can't seem to wrap your mind around what is being posted, and the same with your responses to others.

edit on 6-3-2014 by poet1b because: add last two lines.

Once again no its not its called a proton plasma its not called Hydrogen it can be produced from hydrogen being that is the most plentiful gas in the universe. Its easy to turn Hydrogen into a proton plasma because it only contains one electron. Tearing off that electron gives the simplest ion, the proton.But no one with any understanding of science calls it hydrogen. Because when the electron is removed its no longer hydrogen.

Mary Rose
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Our sun causes the galactic magnetic field?

It causes a tunnel to be created in the galaxies magnetic field because the sun of course has its own which locally is much stronger.But the galaxies magnetic field is formed because of a dynamo effect. If you take a plasma and spin it you get magnetic bands to form because for example protons are heavier than electrons meaning more of them will move to the outside of plasma spinning. There will be more electrons at the center meaning increased electrical potential. ill look later to find a graphic of our galaxies magnetic field fo you can see the dynamo effect.

reply to post by dragonridr


This is the way the typical web site describes the sun.

www.qrg.northwestern.edu...

Scientists think that the core of the Sun is a 15 million degree Celsius plasma, a soup of electrons and protons that are stripped from hydrogen atoms. This "soup," called plasma, makes up 90 percent of the Sun.

and on the same page.

The Sun actually consists of 90% hydrogen and a mixture of other gases.

Um, the sun can't be 90% plasma, and 90% hydrogen, unless that plasma is considered to be hydrogen.

poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr

 

This is the way the typical web site describes the sun.

www.qrg.northwestern.edu...

Scientists think that the core of the Sun is a 15 million degree Celsius plasma, a soup of electrons and protons that are stripped from hydrogen atoms. This "soup," called plasma, makes up 90 percent of the Sun.

and on the same page.

The Sun actually consists of 90% hydrogen and a mixture of other gases.

Um, the sun can't be 90% plasma, and 90% hydrogen, unless that plasma is considered to be hydrogen.

Ok i figured it out english isnt your first language because you have a serious problem with context.People make generalities which is what's going on in your quotes. They're not entirely accurate but they're not entirely inacurate either.The writer of the second one is just talking about the basic model again also correct if you just look at it like what elements created the sun.So the 1st one is specifically talking about the core itself and is entirely accurate 90 percent of the sun is a plasma.So your comparing a generality to a quote thats much more precise neither are wrong depending on context. Bottom line is you're wrong a proton plasma is not called hydrogen ok so please stop you're really starting to embarrass yourself lets just move on ok.

reply to post by dragonridr


I guess your technique is to keep laying it on thicker and thicker. I hope you didn't hurt yourself with those mental backflips in this page.

You keep making these claims that get crazier, but that pretty much describes the state of modern physics.

poet1b
Um, the sun can't be 90% plasma, and 90% hydrogen, unless that plasma is considered to be hydrogen.

Maybe the website creator omitted the word "ion", as in "hydrogen ion" to simplify the explanation on his website, because he didn't want to get into explaining ions for people who don't know what they are. It's a fairly simplified explanation at the link you cited, so you have to read it in context accordingly.

web.visionlearning.com...

Anyway I have no idea what point you're trying to make. If you split a hydrogen atom you get a positive hydrogen ion (or proton) and an electron. Are you trying to say a proton and a positive hydrogen ion are the same, or different, or what? I can't follow your train of thought.

I don't see anything you or Dragonridr saying that really contradicts a proton being a hydrogen ion, nor does the website you cited in my interpretation. Now whether the ionized gas behaves like a plasma or not can be inferred from the graph "Plasma-The 4th state of matter" I posted here. A single hydrogen ion and single electron will not behave like a plasma. There have to be enough charged particles to behave like plasma.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

a proton being a hydrogen ion

This has been my point all along, mainstream science considers all individual plasma protons to be hydrogen, or a hydrogen ion, Hydrogen, being a element that is often positive, and so, an ion.

Dragonrider keeps trying to insist that this isn't true.

If you have an electrically neutral hydrogen atom, and the electron separates from the proton, you have 2 ions, the proton and the electron.

poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

a proton being a hydrogen ion

This has been my point all along, mainstream science considers all individual plasma protons to be hydrogen, or a hydrogen ion, Hydrogen, being a element that is often positive, and so, an ion.

Dragonrider keeps trying to insist that this isn't true.

If you have an electrically neutral hydrogen atom, and the electron separates from the proton, you have 2 ions, the proton and the electron.

edit on 7-3-2014 by poet1b because: add last line

Ok im going to make this easy for you and keep it simple. Yes hydrogen can be used to make protons yes there can be hydrogen ions which is plasma.But a free proton is a particle we call them hadrons maybe this is your confusion. For example the hadron collider actually uses helium. So they make a helium ion then get the protons separated and launch the protons into each other. Being as they were formed by helium they are not hydrogen ions they are helium ions. You can also get protons through radioactive decay which can give us a simple hydrogen atom we call this atomic hydrogen do not confuse this with hydrogen from are periodic chart there not the same, We can do this in a nuclear reactor using uranium 235 for example. So when a scientists says its a hydrogen ion or more commonly used atomic hydrogen hes telling you where it came from not what it is. Science doesn't think like you presumed that protons are hydrogen there much more complicated than that in fact they're a mess.

As far as what a proton just so you know are fermions that have a half spin they are made of 2 up quarks 1 down quark and zillions of gluons, antiquarks, and quarks. this is a great example of what i was telling you earlier. People are not accurate we can find 100s of websites that say a proton is 2 up quarks and one down quark and they stop. They dont get into the guons anti quarks and the quarks. Its simplified for the sake of understanding and keeping out the irrelevant. If you really want an accurate statement for a proton you would have to say this- a proton is a group of zillions of gluons, antiquarks, and quarks that has one more up quark than up antiquarks, and one more down quark than down antiquarks.

See why website simplify things and generalize like i keep trying to point out to you. Now back to the thread you were telling us how science doesnt understand plasmas and you do. You can continue now that we straightened out what you believed to be an error by science.

dragonridr
Ok im going to make this easy for you and keep it simple. Yes hydrogen can be used to make protons yes there can be hydrogen ions which is plasma.But a free proton is a particle we call them hadrons maybe this is your confusion. For example the hadron collider actually uses helium.

According to this video, they use hydrogen as the proton source at the LHC, but I know they have several experiments, do they use helium in other experiments? I know in some experiments they use fairly heavy nuclei like gold ions.

How Does The Large Hadron Collider Work?

So they make a helium ion then get the protons separated and launch the protons into each other. Being as they were formed by helium they are not hydrogen ions they are helium ions.

I'm not sure I follow that, but if you ionize helium you get helium ions, that is correct. Helium ions should have two protons (and depending on the isotope, some neutrons) while hydrogen ions should have one proton.

As I said to poet I am not sure exactly what you guys are debating and why, I'm having a hard time following the debate and I don't know what the point is, if there is one. The only point I can guess to this discussion is this claim by electric sun pseudoscientists:

electric-cosmos.org...

The Sun is at a more positive electrical potential (voltage) than is the space plasma surrounding it - probably in the order of several billion volts.

Now if that was true that the sun had a positive voltage of several billion volts, one way that could happen is if there was a shortage of electrons, which could give the sun such a potential. However if this were the case, I find it difficult to understand why the solar wind would include a relatively electrically neutral balance of positive and negatively charged particles. With a positive voltage of billions of volts, wouldn't the sun be attracting those negatively charged particles (like electrons) and repelling positively charged particles (like protons)? It doesn't seem to be doing that, and attempts by EU folks to explain why it isn't seem to involve a lot of "hand-waving" and don't make much sense.