'...beyond our present beliefs as our cosmology goes beyond that of Newton...'

Posted by ProjectC 
<blockquote>'Is it likely that any astonishing new developments are lying in wait for us? Is it possible that the cosmology of 500 years hence will extend as far beyond our present beliefs as our cosmology goes beyond that of Newton?'

—Fred Hoyle, The Nature of the Universe

'Electric Sun Verified

NASA's IBEX (Interstellar Boundary Explorer) spacecraft has made the first all-sky maps of the boundary between the Sun’s environment (the heliosphere), and interstellar space. The results, reported as a bright, winding ribbon of unknown origin which bisects the maps, have taken researchers by surprise. However, the discovery fits the electric model of stars perfectly.

>> Voyagers 1 and 2 (V1 and V2 above) reached the boundary of the Sun’s influence in 2005 and 2007, respectively, taking measurements as they left the solar system. Before IBEX, there was only data from these two points at the edge of the solar system. While exciting and valuable, the data they provided about this region raised more questions than they resolved. IBEX has filled in the entire interaction region, revealing surprising details completely unpredicted by any theories. This shows some of the fine detail of the ribbon in the blow-up section. Credit: SwRI.


A normal star will have the same Z-pinch environment as a supernova but at a much lower energy. So instead of a brilliant ring of lights in the sky, astronomers detect a ‘bright ribbon’ of ENA’s, caused by modest excitation of matter from the Sun’s stellar “wind” by the local galactic Z-pinch.

>> This diagram shows a conceptual cross-section along the central axis of the stellar Z-pinch at the Sun’s position. Whether the double layers exist within or outside the heliosphere is unknown. The diameter of the encircling cylinder is unknown. That of supernova 1987A is of the order of a light-year, which would make the diameter of the heliosphere more than 600 times smaller! Note that as a rotating charged body the Sun’s magnetic field is not aligned with the interstellar magnetic field and Z-pinch axis. The Sun’s magnetic field only has influence within the tiny heliosphere but it is modulated by galactic currents. Alfvén’s axial “double layers” (DLs) have been included although their distance from the Sun is unknown. DLs are produced in current carrying plasma and are the one region where charge separation takes place in plasma and a high voltage is generated across them (see discussion below).

The Z-pinch model offers a simple explanation for the “giant ribbon” found wrapped around the heliosphere. The Z-pinch is naturally aligned with the interstellar magnetic field. Solar “wind” ions are scattered and neutralized by electrons from the Birkeland current filaments to form ENA’s coming from the Z-pinch ring, a giant ring about the solar system and orthogonal to the interstellar magnetic field.

The Sun’s heliospheric circuit is connected to the galaxy via the central column and the disk of charged particles. The current path is traced by magnetic fields. The “open” helical magnetic fields discovered high above the Sun’s poles by the Ulysses spacecraft are supportive of Alfvén’s stellar circuit model. And the solar “wind” would seem to connect to the broader disk of charged particles about the heliosphere.'
- Wal Thornhill, Electric Sun Verified, 20 October 2009</blockquote>

'Why are scientists such reluctant Copernicans? The problem seems to be about approval and fear of disapproval, jockeying for power and position.'

<blockquote>'Physicists stick to the many decimal point facts of their laboratories. They also tend to be alpha males who relegate astronomers to be laborers in the fields. Astronomers for the most part are careful to bring back attractive fruit. But it is always been my unstated opinion that Astronomy, covering such a much vaster volume of space and time, really had the ultimate advantage in dealing with fundamental physics. (and I mean that in a deeper, more general and encompassing sense).

At any rate, again decades ago, I gave a lecture to the astronomers at Cornell about my observational findings. At the end Carl Sagan stood up and said, "Well I have heard of people who did not believe in religion and other things, but you don’t believe in anything!" Everyone had a good natured laugh and as we filed out Tommy Gold took me aside and said, "We cannot have low mass electrons floating around in the universe because we would detect them in our laboratories." The best answer I could give was, "All the particles in our galaxy would be the same age so I would expect very few intergalactic ones." And added, "Also perhaps we have detected some, but have not realized it."

Imagine my reaction when reading a book review in Physics Today I caught a glimpse of the words "low mass electrons". It turned out to be "Selectivity and Discord" a book by Allan Franklin [7] about controversial experiments some of which were ultimately accepted and some of which were rejected. The introduction to the chapter on low mass electron-positron states read: ". . . the earliest results were all thought to be in sufficient agreement to support the existence of the electron-positron states . . . . Eventually the results were shown to be incorrect. The consensus is that there are no low mass electron-positron states." Franklin shows enough of the observed peaks observed in high energy heavy element collisions in accelerators to indicate the strength of the evidence. Some of them fit ratios of quasar redshift peaks. I can only remark that low mass electrons from nearby galaxies or quasars would be expected to show peaks at certain preferred values. Low mass electrons from higher redshift objects would have displaced peaks. In addition, this younger material is ejected intermittently in different directions from notoriously variable centers. I wonder why it was not possible just to say we do not have an explanation for these laboratory observations but perhaps it will become clearer as time goes on. Somehow I am reminded of the remark that some scientists would rather be wrong than uncertain. It seemed like a rather bitter controversy with damage done to some participants.

I am also bemused by the fact that neither I nor my astronomical colleagues knew about this rather hot conflict. At this point we might recall history and ask: Why are scientists such reluctant Copernicans? The problem seems to be about approval and fear of disapproval, jockeying for power and position. One thing seems observationally clear, lasting changes come slowly.'
- Halton C. Arp, Is Physics Slowly Changing?

[7] Franklin, A. "Selectivity and Discord", University of Pittsburgh Press p.92 (2002).</blockquote>