The Sun ...

SeaSmith recently said: It seems MM is moving ever more in line with EU solar circuit ideas, and further from Mainstreams' (and CC's ) internal generator models:

This charge recycling theory immediately explains the limit at 30 degrees they are finding in the sunspot motion. The Sun isn't creating an E/M field in its core or body, by some nuclear means, as the mainstream believes.
   The Sun is recycling a greater charge field coming in from the galactic core and the surrounding galactic field. It is taking that field in at its poles and re-emitting it nearer the equator.
   From there, it travels out on the Solar plane to all the planets, where it is recycled by them in turn. A sort of circuit is then created, and the charge returns from the planets back to the Sun.

I replied: MM says the Sun recycles photons received from the planets and the galactic core. It shouldn't be too hard to determine how much light/energy the Sun receives from all sources. Then it could be determined if the amount of light/energy the Sun puts out is the same as what it receives. If it puts out more than it receives, then Charles' theory and MM's theory could both be right. Charles says a lot of the Sun's energy was stored in electric double layers within the Sun, which is similar for the planets.

I invite you guys to think about this. Imagine being in a spacecraft near the asteroid belt, but not near any large object. In every direction you only detect very weak photon radiation, except that the Sun looks like a very bright star, maybe brighter than Venus. All of the radiation of photons from every direction, not counting those from the Sun, would be extremely feeble. I bet the energy of that radiation is known, just as the energy of the radiation from the Sun is known. Since the radiation put out by the Sun is obviously huge in comparison to what the Sun receives, most of the energy it puts out has obviously been stored. Chandler has the best theory on how the energy is stored in the Sun, IMO.

What do yous think? And anyone feel free to discuss this with MM, if you like. I'm thinking of doing so myself, but I never know lately if I'll have time for anything.

I'm repeating part of the above quote:

  The Sun is recycling a greater charge field coming in from the galactic core and the surrounding galactic field. It is taking that field in at its poles and re-emitting it nearer the equator.

Since the field coming in is surely extremely weak, while the field being emitted is extremely dense, the received field can only make up a very small part of the emitted field. The rest must come from stored energy. And that means we should review MM's accretion model. What I remember of it is that it sounded to me very similar to CC's model of accretion. I'll try to reread it soon. Here's the link: http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf.

  From there, it travels out on the Solar plane to all the planets, where it is recycled by them in turn. A sort of circuit is then created, and the charge returns from the planets back to the Sun.

It's hard for me to believe that such a circuit exists in which most of the charge between the Sun and the planets stays within the solar system, recycling the radiation. If that were the case, the bodies would have to radiate mostly along the ecliptic plane and mostly only toward the other solar system bodies, making them probably invisible from outside the solar system. So I think this aspect of MM's model needs much rethinking along the lines of CC's model, in which accretion stores energy in stars from all of the matter in a collapsing molecular cloud.

Here's about the most relevant part of MM's Star Formation paper.

How does this capture of ions initiate collapse? Why would a plasma capture ions at all? If the electrons and protons were prone to rejoin, why wouldn't the original electrons join, instead of new ones? And if they did join, wouldn't the photons just knock them apart again? Well, all that does happen, but because the gas remains ionized, it has a way of capturing other free ions. The plasma cannot tell incoming ions from its own ions, and since free electrons and protons attract one another, the plasma tends to gain weight, as it were. The charge field inside the plasma also tends to the same effect, since the spinning protons and electrons are recycling the charge field whether they are part of molecules or not.

I want to interject at this point that, when MM says protons and electrons attract each other, I guess he means that the particles tend to move with the photon streams that enter each particle, so the photon streams are what move the particles closer together. The electrons move much more easily than the protons and neutrons. Do you all agree about this? In case this isn't clear, I mean photon streams enter proton poles and mostly electrons are carried along toward the proton poles.

(Continuing:) This means the charge field itself is denser and more magnetic inside the plasma than outside, so it tends to capture ions even without the ions being attracted to one another. We have a doubled weight gain. Normally, this would make the plasma tend toward a molecular gas, since the electrons and protons would eventually join. But the high-energy photon traffic from the galactic core continues to knock the protons and electrons apart. So, up to a certain point, the plasma can continue to gain weight. Only when the photon traffic can no longer ionize the entire plasma, do we have a limit to the weight gain. When this limit is reached, the plasma partially collapses, and it will now contain a portion of molecular hydrogen. The plasma portion continues the previous process of capture, however, and the weight gain continues. It continues until the entire original field has gained enough mass that gravity really does kick in and overpower the charge field repulsions. At that point we have the big collapse that we were trying to explain from the beginning. So you see that once again, we have a unified field explanation. We require both gravity and charge to explain star formation.

LLoyd wrote:Since the field coming in is surely extremely weak, while the field being emitted is extremely dense, the received field can only make up a very small part of the emitted field. The rest must come from stored energy. And that means we should review MM's accretion model. What I remember of it is that it sounded to me very similar to CC's model of accretion.

Hi Lloyd, I’m flooded with responses and questions of my own.

Stars emit much more energy than they receive? If the sun is surrounded by 19x its mass in photonic matter I’m not at all comfortable with that assertion. I’m nowhere near understanding planets or suns as energy storage bodies.

“… we should review MM's accretion model”.

Miles presented his hypotheses, not a full model. In http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf

Miles concludes:
I present these ideas as hypothesis only. I make no claims to having found the right answer. I suspect I am on the right track, but the right answer may vary from mine in important ways. That said, I think anyone can see that my proposals are already far more consistent than the mainstream proposals. The gravity-only theory of collapse was a non-starter from the get-go, and I have to believe most people know that, or can see it once it is pointed out. Gravity by itself has no chance of explaining star formation, not even with a million tacked-on pushes. We simply must look for some sort of unified field solution, one that includes charge. If my ideas are not correct, some set of equally simple ideas will be correct.

The main point being that the unified field will be found essential to any complete star formation theory; but it is unclaimed territory, an opportunity to develop ideas without the usual ‘Miles says’.

You also focus on the heliospheric ‘circuit’, the higher-level opposite-end of star formation. Like Nevyn, I would prefer to understand the lower level. What creates higher molecular matter? Aside from the chicken-and-egg answer, fusion in star cores. I personally believe that this is the key question in star formation, not plasma accretion. Matter actually grows in the presence of the recycling charge field, the accumulation of ions and electrons is part of Miles’ suggestion that plasma clouds grow, but the process is not, IMO, limited to plasma clouds.

Lloyd wrote:I want to interject at this point that, when MM says protons and electrons attract each other, I guess he means that the particles tend to move with the photon streams that enter each particle, so the photon streams are what move the particles closer together. The electrons move much more easily than the protons and neutrons. Do you all agree about this? In case this isn't clear, I mean photon streams enter proton poles and mostly electrons are carried along toward the proton poles.

I agree. The attraction is apparent. Passing ions and electrons occasionally collide with our observed ions and electrons, sometimes merging photon recycling charge flows, thus accumulating matter without plasma cloud collapse.

With respect to the heliospheric circuit. From The Cause of the Solar Cycle. http://milesmathis.com/cycle.pdf ,

Miles wrote wrote:“Since charge density increases as it comes back toward the Sun, Saturn's charge will increase more than Jupiter's.  This is one of the most important things I discovered in my previous papers and calculations, and although it is logical on a close look at the field mechanics, it wouldn't be expected in a cursory mathematical analysis.  That is why it is so important.”

Would someone be so kind as to explain to me why Saturn’s charge density increases as it comes back toward the Sun? I suppose it is part of my longstanding problem reconciling photon speed-of-light straight paths with implied curved paths. How can photons possibly travel in curves (spins included)?

Planet's Charge Density Increases toward the Sun
It was probably in his Saturn paper that MM said to the effect that the Sun's radiation acts like funnels, so that radiation coming in the opposite direction tends to get funneled into the Sun.


Pretend the Sun is at the center of the radiation at "A". If "B" is radiation from Saturn, its weak radiation gets funneled toward the Sun by its stronger radiation. Think of Saturn's photons bouncing back and forth within the (funnel-shaped) radiating lines while traveling fairly sunward.

It seems somewhat plausible to me, at least that it may help to concentrate weaker radiation sources somewhat, but it seems unlikely to be very significant. But I remain open-minded about it.

Stars Storing "Charge"

Airman said: Stars emit much more energy than they receive? If the sun is surrounded by 19x its mass in photonic matter I’m not at all comfortable with that assertion. I’m nowhere near understanding planets or suns as energy storage bodies.

The statement that "Protons recycle 19 times their mass in photons per second" does not suggest that "the sun is surrounded by 19x its mass in photonic matter". Over 99% of the protons of the Sun are below the surface and nearly all of the photons inside it are recycled over and over with very few new photons entering the Sun. If a circle of protons is passing their photons from one to the next they can still emit 19 times their own mass per second in photons using the same photons repeatedly. See? I mean the statement doesn't say a proton recycles 19 times its mass in NEW photons per second. They can be the same photons. In reality, most are used (recycled) photons, with just a few new ones added and a few used ones thrown out each second.

If you can picture a battery storing charge (within matter), as in MM's battery circuit paper, why not a star storing charge in a similar way? CC found that stars and planets seem to have electric double layers, which separate the charges, like in the battery example. So can you picture charge-separated electric double layers inside stars and planets (positive ions in one layer and negative ions in the next)? The double layer boundary in the Earth is likely the Moho layer.

Lloyd, Thanks for answering.

Planet's Charge Density Increases toward the Sun. I searched on Saturn, and found that Saturn only appears on Miles’ Homepage twice. Neither paper mentions the charge increase returning to the sun. I started looking for the source of the “funneling” and see you told me this once before at TB, “Streams of photons emitted outward from an object serve as guides for incoming photons which funnel down between emitted photons”. In The Polar Aurorae, http://milesmathis.com/aurora.pdf , Miles does briefly discuss the mechanics of funneling charge into the poles. I’ll keep looking.

Stars Storing "Charge":

This 19x business applies to our corner of the universe, as demonstrated by the difference between observed versus predicted gravitational behaviors of galaxies. I believe it applies to our sun as well. Photons do channel from one proton to the next through the stacked spins, but they generally have a one-way path from incoming beginning to emitted end. Photons are prevented from travelling ‘backwards’ by the continuing push of incoming photons. Moving forwards, they find voids left by recently emitted photons. The only constant loops occur in neutrons. Also, most photons can slip between most solar matter without interaction.   

Charge is mass. In the Unified Field Theory, a planet’s charge is its mass times density. I presume that’s also true for stars. By Einstein, there's obviously an energy equivalence.

When I began studying MM I believed that the incoming charge field equaled the emitted field. At one time you considered the incoming charge field to be much greater than the emitted field as the basis for push gravity, and I was more than willing to agree with you. More recently I began to believe that the balance can be slightly different, based on the production of neutrons, which led to my belief in ‘growing’ or ‘evaporating’ matter. I’m anxious to add new ideas too.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but CC considers charge in the traditional sense, as positive or negative, ions or free electrons - charge separation. I have no problem with that. However, I believe that double layers can only be formed as boundaries where charge fields meet. They are not caused by charge separation. A Moho double layer extending just below the surface of the entire planet would directly interfere with the Earth’s recycling charge field. I don’t know what evidence CC is basing his theory on, but Miles has created his recycling theory without the need for internal boundaries.

Funneled Charge
Airman, I hope I didn't send you on a wild goose chase. MM may not have used the word funnel in the paper/s I'm thinking of. What he did was say that the charge toward the Sun from the planets is calculated as increasing, because of going into the solar radiation, while the charge outward is calculated as decreasing with distance. I may have initially read his explanation of funneling in a different paper and remembered the concept in reading one of the gas giant papers. It looks like it may be in this paper: http://milesmathis.com/uran4.pdf.

Galaxy Rotation & CDM

This 19x business applies to our corner of the universe, as demonstrated by the difference between observed versus predicted gravitational behaviors of galaxies. I believe it applies to our sun as well.

I believe the predicted motion in this part of the galaxy agrees with the observed motion. Doesn't it? So dark matter isn't needed here. I think it's just in the outer part of the galaxy. I believe MM said anyway that the rate of charge emission by particles should vary depending on location. And that would affect gravity. John McVay seemed to agree about that. He's in engineering and favors catastrophism, such as the theory that Saturn and Earth came from outside the solar system and gravity was much weaker then. CC has a much better developed galaxy formation theory and I think MM's theory can supplement CC's.

Curved Photon Paths?

Photons do channel from one proton to the next through the stacked spins, but they generally have a one-way path from incoming beginning to emitted end. Photons are prevented from travelling ‘backwards’ by the continuing push of incoming photons. Moving forwards, they find voids left by recently emitted photons. The only constant loops occur in neutrons. Also, most photons can slip between most solar matter without interaction.

MM shows the charge field entering the poles of particles, planets and stars and exiting above and below the equators. But those are curved lines. How could photons follow curved lines like that? I read that light only penetrates so many meters in ocean water, maybe around 200 m for UV, the deepest. So obviously photons don't go into solid or liquid or dense plasma bodies without hitting matter. It's said that neutrinos can go through the Earth without hitting anything, but MM says they're field waves, not particles.

Gravity vs Radiation

Charge is mass. In the Unified Field Theory, a planet’s charge is its mass times density. I presume that’s also true for stars. By Einstein, there's obviously an energy equivalence. - When I began studying MM I believed that the incoming charge field equaled the emitted field. At one time you considered the incoming charge field to be much greater than the emitted field as the basis for push gravity, and I was more than willing to agree with you. More recently I began to believe that the balance can be slightly different, based on the production of neutrons, which led to my belief in ‘growing’ or ‘evaporating’ matter. I’m anxious to add new ideas too.

If growing means expanding, that would be easily detected by everything getting closer together at a constantly increasingly rapid rate. Evaporating and coalescing matter should be constantly occurring in large bodies where the photon traffic is very heavy.
- My earlier gravity idea was based on an Earth-centered perspective. But it also included the possibility that the incoming photons are different from the outgoing ones. Short-wave radiation comes in and long-wave radiation goes out. Things do crash into the Sun, as comets have been seen almost to do so, so there's gravity, but the E-field pushes out the solar wind apparently. Or is that E-field long-wave radiation too? Anyway, you can't believe the Sun is receiving as much radiation as it's emitting, can you? What's wrong with my battery comparison? Double layers of positive and negative ions are separated via accretion into thick layers in planets and stars. Earth has 3 layers. The Sun has 5. The evidence is in CC's papers.

Double Layers

Correct me if I’m wrong, but CC considers charge in the traditional sense, as positive or negative, ions or free electrons - charge separation. I have no problem with that. However, I believe that double layers can only be formed as boundaries where charge fields meet. They are not caused by charge separation. A Moho double layer extending just below the surface of the entire planet would directly interfere with the Earth’s recycling charge field. I don’t know what evidence CC is basing his theory on, but Miles has created his recycling theory without the need for internal boundaries.

The Moho layer is detected by instruments. Earth's crust is known to be largely negative and the ionosphere positive. Further internal layers would explain earthquakes, vulcanism, continental drift etc.
- If we can analyze protons, photons etc accurately, we may be able to understand how the apparent attractions and repulsions work in detail. I'm wondering if the positive and negative ions can "attract" each other by their suction action at their proton poles. If protons are trying to suck in photons, but ions are in the way, the photon pressure will push the opposite charged ions toward each other. Right? It's almost my bedtime.

Lloyd, I could never keep up with you in a straight discussion. Please forgive my overdue reply.

Moho Layer Charge.

If you can picture a battery storing charge (within matter), as in MM's battery circuit paper, why not a star storing charge in a similar way? CC found that stars and planets seem to have electric double layers, which separate the charges, like in the battery example. So can you picture charge-separated electric double layers inside stars and planets (positive ions in one layer and negative ions in the next)? The double layer boundary in the Earth is likely the Moho layer.

From the battery circuit paper and our previous discussions, I imagine that we are actually talking about a relatively small charge (mass and energy) differential, yet sufficient to drive a photonic current. The charge separation is dependent on the battery’s internal resistance. This is a large factor in our current (the pun works) discussion.
What is the internal resistance? I don’t think it is a charge path increase, as Miles talks about in Anderson Localization, but instead, in the battery, it is a barrier, sufficient to prevent photon flow. But the battery is designed with strict limits in capacity and performance. For example, we cannot simply build bigger batteries in order to store enough energy to power cities. Materials have their limits. The photons available for release from the ions within the battery are a tiny representative slice of the full photonic E/M energy spectrum found in nature. Most photons from above or below will pass through our battery without interaction, while a few will interact. The amount of photons blocked is not yet clear. Nevertheless, I agree, charge separation, as in a battery, is real energy storage.
Likewise, charge separation occurs in planets and stars, which block some portion of charge flow and set up voltage potential differentials. I question your tagging the Moho charge boundary as a “double layer”. A DL is a boundary between plasma fields. Rarified objects. I cannot imagine where to begin to translate DLs into the planet except on a microscopic scale, not all encompassing. Miles has rarely talked about plasma, and please correct me, never about DLs. The planet absorbs and emits photons. This DL CC suggests, doesn’t appear to be all that effective in blocking solar or planetary charge recycling. If multiple DL exists, they will remain for future discussion.

Funneled Charge.

Airman, I hope I didn't send you on a wild goose chase. MM may not have used the word funnel in the paper/s I'm thinking of. What he did was say that the charge toward the Sun from the planets is calculated as increasing, because of going into the solar radiation, while the charge outward is calculated as decreasing with distance. I may have initially read his explanation of funneling in a different paper and remembered the concept in reading one of the gas giant papers. It looks like it may be in this paper: http://milesmathis.com/uran4.pdf .

No problem. I started re-reading uran4 this morning. Re-reading has never been a waste of time.

Galaxy Rotation & CDM.

I believe the predicted motion in this part of the galaxy agrees with the observed motion. Doesn't it? So dark matter isn't needed here. I think it's just in the outer part of the galaxy. I believe MM said anyway that the rate of charge emission by particles should vary depending on location. And that would affect gravity. John McVay seemed to agree about that. He's in engineering and favors catastrophism, such as the theory that Saturn and Earth came from outside the solar system and gravity was much weaker then. CC has a much better developed galaxy formation theory and I think MM's theory can supplement CC's.

I don’t know if our neighborhood behaves consistently with predictions or not. I always thought otherwise. I agree that there must be variations in the charge field, and if the heliosphere is passing through some plasma cloud as celeste suggests, then I would say that we are in a denser charge field. I’m all for bridging theories, but I just don’t see the connection.

Curved Photon Paths?

MM shows the charge field entering the poles of particles, planets and stars and exiting above and below the equators. But those are curved lines. How could photons follow curved lines like that? I read that light only penetrates so many meters in ocean water, maybe around 200 m for UV, the deepest. So obviously photons don't go into solid or liquid or dense plasma bodies without hitting matter. It's said that neutrinos can go through the Earth without hitting anything, but MM says they're field waves, not particles.

Yes, I am forced to believe that the curves reflect average directions while photons are redirected within the planet. While it is certainly possible for a photon to travel through a planet without hitting matter, it is highly unlikely. If we use your ‘200m for UV’ measure, then each photon would be redirected tens or hundreds of thousands of times or more. The earth is storing a great deal of energy. I do believe that the earth’s (and the sun’s) incoming charge balances its emitted charge, though we do need to include the redirection time into account.
 
Gravity vs Radiation.

If growing means expanding, that would be easily detected by everything getting closer together at a constantly increasingly rapid rate. Evaporating and coalescing matter should be constantly occurring in large bodies where the photon traffic is very heavy.
- My earlier gravity idea was based on an Earth-centered perspective. But it also included the possibility that the incoming photons are different from the outgoing ones. Short-wave radiation comes in and long-wave radiation goes out. Things do crash into the Sun, as comets have been seen almost to do so, so there's gravity, but the E-field pushes out the solar wind apparently. Or is that E-field long-wave radiation too? Anyway, you can't believe the Sun is receiving as much radiation as it's emitting, can you? What's wrong with my battery comparison? Double layers of positive and negative ions are separated via accretion into thick layers in planets and stars. Earth has 3 layers. The Sun has 5. The evidence is in CC's papers.

Growing does not mean expanding gravity theory. I mean a slow accumulation of matter such that the earth may have doubled its radius in the last 65-80 million years. Thanks for "Evaporating and coalescing matter should be constantly occurring", though we agree the charge field is varying.
I am still thinking about push gravity, and that 19x seems like an excellent source. I asked Miles about that and he ignored it by giving me the intro into recycling.
“Short-wave radiation comes in and long-wave radiation goes out”. I think you’re backward to Miles’ theory (shortwave = infrared). Radiation (charge emission) from the earth tends to moderated by the matter the photons last interacted with. Incoming charge at the  earth is generally higher energy than emitted charge.
If charge is redirected almost a million times within the earth, then it is probably redirected a billion times or more within the sun. But yes, the incoming, dwell and emitted probably fit a simple formula.  
I answered Battery and DL above.

Double Layers.

The Moho layer is detected by instruments. Earth's crust is known to be largely negative and the ionosphere positive. Further internal layers would explain earthquakes, vulcanism, continental drift etc.
- If we can analyze protons, photons etc accurately, we may be able to understand how the apparent attractions and repulsions work in detail. I'm wondering if the positive and negative ions can "attract" each other by their suction action at their proton poles. If protons are trying to suck in photons, but ions are in the way, the photon pressure will push the opposite charged ions toward each other. Right? It's almost my bedtime.

No question, the Moho exists. But is it correct to refer to it as charge separation or DL?
Protons and electrons do attract each other via gravity. Unlike Nevyn, I believe photons can also be attracted and held together by gravity.
Sorry if I missed any questions.

Lloyd, I’m very grateful for this discussion. My answers, and, I hope, my understanding, are slowly improving as a result.

Airman, how about if we analyze CC's paper on Accretion at
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/5972.html

alongside of MM's paper on Star Formation at
http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf?

I'll copy the most relevant parts of MM's paper below, then maybe we can compare that to CC's model.

Okay, I went ahead and copied both of them, so we can compare them. Notice that both discuss the effects of external magnetic fields and of conditions that cause increasing ionization.

Now, if we look at the differences between the two, maybe we can bring both models into harmony, with each adding pieces of the puzzle that can fit together well.

MM on Star Formation at http://milesmathis.com/starform.pdf.

1_In the vicinity of baryonic matter, these photons are recycled by the spinning protons and electrons (and other particles), and that is how they interact.

2_And since photons move in straight lines very quickly, they can link together molecules or ions, even molecules or ions with a very tenuous density.

3_Stars form in galaxies because the plasma requires the magnetic input from the galactic core.

4_Which just means the cold gas needs to be bombarded by the right photons.

5_We must assume that given the distribution of radiation sources in our galaxy, the Jeans mass is the mass at which the plasma achieves an efficiency of capture of ions to initiate collapse.

6_How does this capture of ions initiate collapse?

7_Why would a plasma capture ions at all?

8_If the electrons and protons were prone to rejoin, why wouldn't the original electrons join, instead of new ones?

9_And if they did join, wouldn't the photons just knock them apart again?

10_Well, all that does happen, but because the gas remains ionized, it has a way of capturing other free ions.

11_The plasma cannot tell incoming ions from its own ions, and since free electrons and protons attract one another, the plasma tends to gain weight, as it were.

12_The charge field inside the plasma also tends to the same effect, since the spinning protons and electrons are recycling the charge field whether they are part of molecules or not.

13_This means the charge field itself is denser and more magnetic inside the plasma than outside, so it tends to capture ions even without the ions being attracted to one another.

14_We have a doubled weight gain.

15_Normally, this would make the plasma tend toward a molecular gas, since the electrons and protons would eventually join.

16_But the high-energy photon traffic from the galactic core continues to knock the protons and electrons apart.

17_So, up to a certain point, the plasma can continue to gain weight.

18_Only when the photon traffic can no longer ionize the entire plasma, do we have a limit to the weight gain.

19_When this limit is reached, the plasma partially collapses, and it will now contain a portion of molecular hydrogen.

20_The plasma portion continues the previous process of capture, however, and the weight gain continues.

21_It continues until the entire original field has gained enough mass that gravity really does kick in and overpower the charge field repulsions.

22_At that point we have the big collapse that we were trying to explain from the beginning.

23_So you see that once again, we have a unified field explanation.

24_We require both gravity and charge to explain star formation

25_Well, the more curvature it contains pre-collapse, the more likely it is to collapse in a defined fashion, as about a center.

26_This may be another explanation of the Jeans mass.

27_Smaller clouds may indeed collapse given the right conditions, but if they don't have enough curvature to begin with, the collapse may defeat itself.

28_In other words, the collapsing particles miss one another in the collapse, and simply disperse.

29_For the collapse to form a pre-stellar object, we may require a certain amount of initial curvature, which would require a certain size.

30_Otherwise the object is not able to find its own center, and the collapse isn't able to get any feedback.

CC on Accretion at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/5972.html.

.1_Gravity only accounts for 1/5 of the force necessary to cause a dusty plasma to collapse into a star.

.2_There are 3 fundamental forces operative at the macroscopic level: gravity, the electric force, and the magnetic force.

.3_If gravity provides 1/5 of the force, the other 4/5 can only come from the electric and/or magnetic forces.

.4_There is no known configuration of magnetism that could create a body force on a dusty plasma.

.5_But there is very definitely a way that the electric force could do the job.

.6_Dusty plasmas do not have a net charge, but they do have local charge separations.

.7_(That's why we call them "plasmas" and not "gases.")

.8_There are a couple of charging mechanisms.

.9_The less common is high speeds in the presence of an external magnetic field, which sends positive & negative charges in different directions.1

.10_But particles can become charged even at rest.

.11_Any dust particle with more than a couple million atoms is capable of hosting a net negative charge, while the surrounding plasma has a net positive charge.

.12_This [positive charge] plasma [surrounding each dust grain] is known as a Debye sheath.

.13_The charge separation occurs because at any given temperature, the velocity of free electrons is at least an order of magnitude greater than that of atomic nuclei, since the electrons are so much lighter.

.14_Consequently, the surface of a nearby dust particle is impacted by many more electrons than atoms.

.15_The electrons are absorbed into the electron cloud of the dust particle, which distributes the charge, and covalent bonding holds the electrons in place.

.16_The net result is that the dust particle develops a negative charge, leaving the surrounding atoms positively charged.

.17_Once the charges have been separated, the Debye sheath is attracted to the dust particle by the electric force.

.18_When a positive ion impacts the dust particle, it might just grab its missing electron and bounce off,

.19_or if the ion is moving slow enough, it might get attached to the dust particle and held in place by covalent bonding,

.20_in which case the dust particle has just gained another atom.2

.21_Since the negative dust particle and its positive Debye sheath are net neutral, we might just think that they form a self-satisfying plasma cell that does not interact electrically with its environment.

.22_If we take a second look at how two plasma cells interact, we find the missing body force.

.23_It is simply one of the implications of the inverse square law as it applies to the electric force.

.24_The grains themselves are negative, so they repel each other, while they are attracted to their positively charged Debye sheaths.

.25_Yet between two negative dust grains, there will be a concentration of positive plasma, attracted to the combined negative field.

.26_The implication is that the attraction of the negative dust grains to their Debye sheaths is no longer omnidirectional —

.27_it's now toward that concentration of positive charge — and that's in the direction of the other dust particle.

.28_Since the positive ions are closer, the net force is attractive.

.29_the Debye sheaths are in the medium between the dust grains, where they pull both negative charges toward each other.

.30_1 charged particle per thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion would generate an equivalent electric force [to that of gravity], and 5 charged particles would supply the force necessary to cause the collapse of a dusty plasma.

.31_Interestingly, Debye sheaths typically have at least 1 charged particle per billion.

.32_The "like-likes-like" principle accounts for the missing force in every respect.

.33_It is easily 5 times more powerful than gravity.

.34_dusty plasmas are famous for collapsing when there has been a supernova nearby, and this is tough to explain just in terms of gravity and pressure.

.35_Ejecta from the explosion will add mass to the cloud, increasing the force of gravity.

.36_But the thermalization of their relativistic velocities will add a lot more hydrostatic pressure, and the net effect should be the expansion of the cloud.

.37_We know that UV radiation from the supernova ionizes the dust cloud.

.38_More ionization means more powerful Debye sheaths, increasing the "like-likes-like" force.

.39_Recent research has shown that a spherical dusty plasma first resolves into filaments, and then the filaments collapse into a star.8,9,10

.40_In the more general sense, the Universe is full of filaments of various sizes and shapes.11,12

.41_Both gravity and gas pressure object to this form, so this is a prime candidate for EM treatment.

.42_[In] a random distribution of charges, [] there is repulsion [] between like-charged dust grains, and between like-charged +ion clouds, where lines of force from like charges collide with each other.

.43_Now look what happens if the spherical dusty plasma is stretched into a filament, as in Figure 5.

.44_There is no repulsion anywhere in that configuration!

.45_All of the electric lines of force close on the nearest neighbor, which is oppositely charged.

.46_So it's all attraction and no repulsion.

.47_From this we can conclude that the net attractive force in the linear configuration is much greater, and thus the chances of accretion are much greater.

.48_So it makes sense that spherical dusty plasmas don't tend to collapse, but if the plasma resolves into filaments, the chance of collapse is much greater.

.49_So then we just have to look for things that would encourage filaments to form, and then the rest happens automatically.

.50_We have already recognized that supernovae are important triggers for star births, and we acknowledged that the UV radiation increases the degree of ionization, which increases the "like-likes-like" body force.

.51_It's possible that irregular jets from the supernovae are creating turbulence in the dusty plasmas, and the velocity differences are stretching the plasma into filaments.

.52_Once formed, they'll snap together. like grabbing a balloon and stretching it into an oval. the rubber [snaps back].

[Here's more from:]
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15340&p=100395#p100371

.53_To understand why dusty plasmas collapse, we have to take a close look at the precise conditions in which they collapse, because they don't just do this at random.

.54_Rather, dusty plasmas only collapse when there is a nearby supernova, or when two clouds collide.

.55_So what is that going to do? It will strip the halos off of the nuclei.

.56_The following illustration shows the resting condition on the left, with neatly-organized positive halos around each negative dust grain.

.57_(This is the condition in which there is a slight repulsion between the cells.)

.58_On the right, the halos have been stripped off of the dust grains by the collision of two clouds, or by a cloud absorbing the ejecta from a supernova.

http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Images/Charles/Galaxies/LLL_Supernova.png

.59_So I went back and recalculated the electrostatic forces, and found that when the halos get stripped, the net force goes from slightly repulsive to insanely attractive.

.60_This is because with the halos stripped, all of the repulsion between halos is gone.

.61_With the halos in the space between the nuclei, there is nothing but attraction.

.62_The nearest neighbors to all of the positive halos are negative nuclei, and opposites attract.

.63_And the force is way, way more powerful than gravity.

.64_Since we know that dusty plasmas [] normally they don't collapse, and since we know that cloud collisions are the trigger, and since the maths show a massive body force when the halos get stripped off of the nuclei, there is little doubt that this is the force that causes dusty plasmas to collapse into stars.

OK Lloyd,
In starform, Miles shows that accretion can only make sense when gravity and the charge field work together. What makes you think CC will accept a bastard of the charge field?
Funny, I can't access the full editor.

I hope you can regain access to your editor.

I don't expect to be able to convince CC that MM's model is entirely or mostly right. My hope is just to see if you and I can make better sense of accretion or star formation by combining parts of both models. I feel that CC's model is very complete, but that MM's model can improve it at the foundation to explain charge forces.

Debye Cells
CC's statements 11 to 17 are what I'd like to analyze first. He explains that dust grains in space tend to gain negative charge and then attract positive charged sheaths.

From statement 42 on he explains how Debye cells would tend to form into filaments. He doesn't quite explain how the filaments lead to implosion of a molecular cloud.

MM's statement 11 says protons and electrons attract each other. CC and the mainstream agree with that. But MM has better clues I think about how it happens. Hopefully, you and I may be able to develop his clues further into a clearer explanation. Right?

One of MM's ideas is that photon streams carry free elctrons along, so, when the streams enter a proton, an electron rides along and partly plugs that pole.

I mentioned the idea that protons are constantly producing a low photon pressure inside, which should draw in photons from high photon pressure areas.

P.S. I just added 12 more CC statements 53 to 64 from a recent update on the TB forum.

CC's statements 11 to 17 are what I'd like to analyze first. He explains that dust grains in space tend to gain negative charge and then attract positive charged sheaths.

.11_Any dust particle with more than a couple million atoms is capable of hosting a net negative charge, while the surrounding plasma has a net positive charge.
.11_A. Why begin with dust particles comprised of millions of atoms? Why not start with electrons combining with ions to create the first neutral atoms? Would these neutral atoms not then accumulate to millions of atoms? And how do large numbers of neutral atoms acquire a negative charge, except by acquiring extra electrons?

.12_This [positive charge] plasma [surrounding each dust grain] is known as a Debye sheath.
.12_A. Molecular DL creation with an implied dipole moment. Is ‘positively charged dust’ ever created? Would it be free to drift in the ion cloud without interaction?  

.13_The charge separation occurs because at any given temperature, the velocity of free electrons is at least an order of magnitude greater than that of atomic nuclei, since the electrons are so much lighter.
.13_A. How can the charge separation form in the first place? This doesn’t sound like a DL at all. If the electron is so much faster, it could easily join with any surrounding ion to create a neutral object.

.14_Consequently, the surface of a nearby dust particle is impacted by many more electrons than atoms.
.14_A. OK, CC is describing formation of the dust particles and why they tend to be negative. But in standard theory wouldn't the electrons be much more likely to be impacting positive ions instead. And where are all the electrons coming from?  

.15_The electrons are absorbed into the electron cloud of the dust particle, which distributes the charge, and covalent bonding holds the electrons in place.
.15_A. The electrons are “absorbed” by neutral dust, forming negative dust ions. Wouldn't the accumulated negative charges break up the dust? Or is that a separate limit?

.16_The net result is that the dust particle develops a negative charge, leaving the surrounding atoms positively charged.
.16_A. What surrounding atoms? The surrounding plasma is comprised of positive ions. How did the positive ions become positive atoms? And the surrounding plasma could not have been the source of electrons.  

.17_Once the charges have been separated, the Debye sheath is attracted to the dust particle by the electric force.
.17_A. Electric force should cause motion. What is an attracted Debye sheath? Why is the Debye sheath needed at all? What prevents the surrounding ions (or atoms?) from engulfing the dust and neutralizing its charge?

OK Lloyd, your turn. Anyone else is of course free to add comments as well. I believe that with Lloyd's method, each numbered comment can become its own discussion. Just copy the whole set or just a portion, and add your own .X_Y., where Y is your initial.

I'll try to reply tomorrow.

Now it's tomorrow.

Airman, since I can't answer your questions well myself, I'm just presenting the following as maybe an answer to all of your questions. I just want to see if you can understand CC's idea and if it makes sense to you in a general way.

It looks like CC's second reference may be a source of much of his information. Here's the reference and the abstract for the paper referenced.

2. Thomas, H. et al., 1994: Plasma Crystal: Coulomb Crystallization in a Dusty Plasma. Physical Review Letters, 73: 652-655

Abstract

A macroscopic Coulomb crystal of solid particles in a plasma has been observed. Images of a cloud of 7−μm "dust" particles, which are charged and levitated in a weakly ionized argon plasma, reveal a hexagonal crystal structure. The crystal is visible to the unaided eye. The particles are cooled by neutral gas to 310 K, and their charge is >9800e, corresponding to a Coulomb coupling parameter Γ>20 700. For such a large Γ value, strongly coupled plasma theory predicts that the particles should organize in a Coulomb solid, in agreement with our observations.

Regarding Molecular Clouds, where stars often form, Wikipedia says:
The concentration of dust within molecular [cloud] cores is normally sufficient to block light from background stars so that they appear in silhouette as dark nebulae.[9]

I inserted "cloud", which I think they forgot to include, because dust within molecular cores wouldn't make sense, but within molecular cloud cores would.

I presume that the dust particles mentioned in the abstract were seen to have negative charge and the "weakly ionized argon plasma" had positive charge.

Do you have reason to believe that MM would disagree with CC's conclusions about how the dust and plasma become ionized in molecular clouds?

If you'd like to have CC confirm answers to your questions above, I encourage you to PM him via the TB forum. I'm reluctant to ask him too many questions myself, since they may take too much of his time. But I think he'd be willing to answer a new person.

Hi Lloyd,

By the way, I erased the second sentence of your 3 Nov, 12:18 PM message yesterday. My tablet cannot see the full editor here while my laptop can. There's no need to ask anyone for help.

In this exercise, my problem is in trying to come up to speed in understanding standard accretion theory, and CC's, well enough to distinguish them, then compare with MM's. Being an optimist, it will likely end up as a lesson in humility. I'll need to read up some before I can ask CC any questions. For the time being, election results and a trip tomorrow are taking over.

Thank you for sharing your personal background yesterday at TB. You've been honest, supportive and a dynamo. I hope all is well for ya.

Hi guys, was on a vacation for awhile. I'm back here and will post more often.

I haven't read this entire thread yet but would just hazard to say one thing about CC's models -- he may be spinning his wheels trying to describe the Sun with molecules/energies/charge charateristics that MM's Charge Field may not fully reconcile with. It is huge task for one person that doesn't have a UFT to account for "everything" fully known and simply "extraordinary" about the Sun in terms of sheer energy and effects. Just my humble opinion.

If I had my last dollar to place a bet, I'd throw it on MM's pile of papers - just because he has a certain precision with his framework and goes for the long ball.

There might be tie up with Mathis and Ken Shoulder's findings on EVOs which describes phenomenon not accounted elsewhere. A lot of people dismiss him as "crank" like Tesla later in life. I do think he tapped the charge-field in his experiments with EVOs.
--------

Reference essays by Ken Shoulders available for download from: http://www.svn.net/krscfs/
[3 ] What's an EVO
[4 ] Charge Clusters In Action
[5 ] Permittivity Transitions
[6] EVOs and Hutchison Effect
[7] EVO Life Cycle
[8] Short Range Electron Attractive Force
[9] Electric Charge Non-Conservation
[10] Which Mass
[11] Energy Conversion From The Exotic Vacuum Revised
[12] What is the Universe Made of
[13] Energy
[14] EVO Oscillation-The Friendly Enemy
[15] ICCF-10 Low Voltage Nuclear Transmutation
[16] An EVO Clutch and Microphone
[17] EVO Propulsion Basis 2
[18] Large-scale propulsion using EVOs
[19] Propulsion Using Zero Point Quantum Pressure
[20] Superluminal Particle Measurements
[21] Dark Matter Messengers
[22] A Leak From Our Universe to Another
[23] Disruptor
[24] Black Holes as EVOs
[25] EVOs as WIMPs
[26] Electromagnetic Pulse Source Using Fluidized Electrons
[27] Electromagnetic Pulse Source Using Fluidized Electrons-Appendix I
[28] Equalizer Two
[29] Projectiles From the Dark Side
[30] The Good The Bad And The Ugly
[31] Transmission of EVOs Through Metal
[32] Shielding From The Inevitable
[33] Elements of Support for New Technology
[34] Exploring
[35] Electric Gun Effects
[36] Electron Condenser

CC's and MM's Sun-Battery Models

Cr6, if you get time to read the statements from MM's paper and those from CC's paper, that I posted on the previous page, I hope you may see the similarities between the two. MM even says in his paper that protons attract electrons. CC and everyone else say that too. Just because they don't know how they attract doesn't mean they're wrong. I think by adding MM's explanations about attraction to CC's model, it may be made more complete and it may help improve MM's model as well.

So far, I think everything that CC uses in his model is based on solid evidence rather than imagination. I think what's novel about his CFDLs, i.e. double layers, is that solids and liquids can be DLs and that they can form by implosions in galactic molecular clouds. I mean after molecular clouds implode by the means that both of them discuss, the implosion smashes everything together into CFDLs, which release all that energy slowly, like a battery.

I think MM may even support a battery-type situation, since he says 85% of the Sun's energy is produced by nuclear fusion. Isn't that correct? 85%? And wouldn't that also be like a battery? So I don't think it's really plausible that the Sun could be receiving nearly as much energy, i.e. charge photons, as it's giving off.

The implosion force would be due to charge photons, wouldn't it? I guess the implosion is the hardest part to understand now. Do yous agree?

I'd like to try an experiment one of these days, if yous like.

LloydK wrote:CC's and MM's Sun-Battery Models

Cr6, if you get time to read the statements from MM's paper and those from CC's paper, that I posted on the previous page, I hope you may see the similarities between the two. MM even says in his paper that protons attract electrons. CC and everyone else say that too. Just because they don't know how they attract doesn't mean they're wrong. I think by adding MM's explanations about attraction to CC's model, it may be made more complete and it may help improve MM's model as well.

So far, I think everything that CC uses in his model is based on solid evidence rather than imagination. I think what's novel about his CFDLs, i.e. double layers, is that solids and liquids can be DLs and that they can form by implosions in galactic molecular clouds. I mean after molecular clouds implode by the means that both of them discuss, the implosion smashes everything together into CFDLs, which release all that energy slowly, like a battery.

I think MM may even support a battery-type situation, since he says 85% of the Sun's energy is produced by nuclear fusion. Isn't that correct? 85%? And wouldn't that also be like a battery? So I don't think it's really plausible that the Sun could be receiving nearly as much energy, i.e. charge photons, as it's giving off.

The implosion force would be due to charge photons, wouldn't it? I guess the implosion is the hardest part to understand now. Do yous agree?

I'd like to try an experiment one of these days, if yous like.

As you may know, I support Dr. K's theory on the Sun's energy source -- a thermo-element.  There are patents around these as well.
As I've mentioned before, the CFDL's while theoretically "sound" and sensible -- for me at least, can't account for the fact that the Sun has provided the earth/solar system with a very steady stream of photons-energy-light for millions of years.  CC's CFDL's don't appear to be all that "stable" if they really involve the energies he's entertaining.  Life is on earth because of the sun and has not been killed over millenia.  CFDL's give me the impression that a mal-charged CFDL could "erupt" a force to kill off everything at any moment.  Thermo-elements appeal to me due simply to Occam's razor and the fact that life has been here for a very long time -- they are steady in their effects -- fusion is not that predictable in the wild.

I was trying to pitch to MM the thermo-element "sun" energy source with Dr. K's papers (filament paper).  He wasn't too enthused only because Dr. K added in discussions on Black Holes and such -- which is really "out there".  Basically, with CFDL's I see more former planets burnt to a crisp over millions of years.

Cr6, your statements are too vague for me to understand well. Where is the thermo-element in K's solar model? And what is it?

I don't see what's unstable in a CFDL Sun. I don't know how thoroughly you read CC's model. His CFDLs are solid for the most part, I think, at least the positive layers. I need to check on that.

I don't have time now to discuss much. Later.

Here's Dr. K's site.

Have CC try to answer any of the questions at length in the paper below with a CFDL. CFDL's are too "wild" to account for all of the documented effects seen with the Sun.
There is no "Fusion-engine" in the Sun. I guess overall we have different concepts of "stable" when it comes to the Sun's creation of energy radiating on the Earth for millions of years. Any type of "fusion/fission/nuclear explosions" etc. -- can not power the Sun nor make it "stable".


The dynamic sun
published: KFKI-1996-02/C
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Scripts/dyn_sun.html

Cr6 wrote:Here's Dr. K's site.
The dynamic sun
published: KFKI-1996-02/C
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Scripts/dyn_sun.html

Have CC try to answer any of the questions at length in the paper below with a CFDL. CFDL's are too "wild" to account for all of the documented effects seen with the Sun.
There is no "Fusion-engine" in the Sun.  I guess overall we have different concepts of "stable" when it comes to the Sun's creation of energy radiating on the Earth for millions of years.  Any type of "fusion/fission/nuclear explosions" etc. -- can not power the Sun nor make it "stable".

Does K say heat separates charge in stellar interiors? It sounds like K's and CC's ideas of charge separation are similar. CC though says in the core the charges are separated by gravity, which is a known effect, I think, called electron degeneracy pressure, which means that pressure pushes electrons out of the core. The electrons then combine with iron and nickel I guess, above the core. CC says heat keeps charge separated in the upper layers of the Sun. How's K's charge separation different from CC's? How is it more stable? CC's is stable because the "degrees of freedom" are removed from the positive matter because of having no electrons. Tides produce waves on the negative layer below the positive photosphere, and the waves allow charge recombination, making for stability. Why don't you ask CC to explain this? He says he's committed to answering all questions about his model.

K thinks the universe is expanding, but redshift, which is used as evidence for expansion, obviously doesn't correlate with distance, because there is a high redshift quasar visible in front of a low redshift galaxy. Since the quasar isn't as distant as the galaxy, or it wouldn't be visible in front of it, high redshift cannot indicate distance. There are also numerous high redshift quasars associated with low redshift galaxies, in which clear bridges of matter are seen between quasars and associated galaxies. CC explains that quasars emit high velocity jets and it's velocity that the redshift is measuring, not distance.

Well. CC has a lot of insights and I respect his research but I do think Dr. K has it. Much like M.Mathis has it.  Dr. K has had to carry water for traditional mainstream theories (black-holes/red-shift) but his Sun model (thermo-element) answers his own questions and his answers are quite complete. His theory explains a wide variety of phenomenon in a more complete and detailed way.
---------
CC's model isn't covering things like Solar Loops that in-depth which are a remarkable phenomenon in themselves. The CFDLs appear to be similar to the old-flux tube model:
http://www.the-electric-universe.info/Scripts/solar_loops.html

Some further inconsequence in the magnetic explanation are as follows.

   the magnetic field of the solar loops and coronal loops is hundred times weaker than that of the sunspots, but the dynamo should have the same "drive": the differential rotation for the production of all solar filaments,
   the number of the coronal loops - which appear contemporarily - is about 200, therefore, these visible loops would not fit into the volume of 200 Suns. Their dynamo-made deep sections should be 100 000 times longer , they would not fit even into the volume of a red giant! Moreover, the whole set of millions of solar loops and coronal loops and many other filaments appearing during one solar maximum should be preproduced and stored by the solar dynamo during the solar minimum !

They would not fit into a sphere of a diameter of a lightweek.

   the coronal loops lie mostly in north-south direction and not in the shown omega-direction (Fig. 2),
   the Fe XIV-ions of the coronal loops should be the result of a filling of hot plasma of a temperature of 1.8 MK into the "magnetic tube", but this model seems to have no holes in the wall of the "magnetic tube" therefore no "filling" is possible (the shown two holes of the sketch 2 are only for the cut of a short section of the whole length of 30 billion kilometres and not due to the magnetic theory). No model of this "filling" is shown. Sometimes two loops are near to each other and they together elevate a large cloud. How can two closed tubes elevate a cloud between them ? This process would be similar to parallel copper tubes with warm and cold water which would transport 10 litres of water between them for a distance of 1 kilometre in spite of their closed wall !