The Planeterrella - Polar Light Simulation

Dr Gabrielle Provan of the University of Leicester Physics & Astronomy department demonstrates how Aurora Borealis (or the Northern Lights) are created.
Using a Planeterrella designed by CNRS scientist Jean Lilensten she recreates Kristian Birkeland's 100+ year old experiment. Showing how charged particles within solar winds coming from our Sun collide with atoms in the Earth's atmosphere to create a natural light display.
For more information about the Planeterrella see;
www2.le.ac.uk/d...
For more information about CNRS see;
planeterrella.o...
This film was produced by External Relations, University of Leicester.
Filmed & Edited by Carl Vivian
Produced by Dr Gabrielle Provan

[@Feasco]

Aurora Borealis? At this time of day? At this time of year? Localized ENTIRELY within your vacuum tube?

[@wowalamoiz9489]

Bravo

[@spoons4414]

May I see it?

[@tothm129]

No ​@@spoons4414

[@GregJay]

Wow yes yes, love it electric sun model, Birkland currents electric plasma universe is the next gen science goodbye gaslight cosmology! Beautiful thank you!

[@michaelstiller2282]

Odd finding you here. 😂

[@TMaw345]

For any one who doesn’t know.. a lot more info on this and other neat ideas (and proof) at Greg Jay’s channel

[@GregJay]

@@michaelstiller2282 Michael did you get the invite to my new discord channel?

[@michaelstiller2282]

@@GregJay I was not aware, thanks for the invite.

[@GregJay]

@@michaelstiller2282 You are welcome, I thought this was a comment on one of my videos, Lol oh well,

[@primodernious]

another thing. the ionosphere is the earth magnetic field. if it was not, whats the liklyness that we would have two magnetic field on earth both pointing at the same north in the same alignment? there is no reason why the earths magnetic field can not be the ionsopheric field since the ionosphere also have two polar regions. its more likely that the compass is turning in the direction of the north and south between the north and south pole of the aurora. the earths gravity is a monopole. that means that a mangetic field created in the earths core, would also be a monopole and a compass would not work. its strange how they says that mars don't have much of a magnetic field as it does not have much of an ionsphere either so maybe the two are one. you can't mantle iron into a molten magnet since there is no mechanism for creating just one magnet but rather would create many magnets and not one big. i dont like the earth iron magnet core idea as it does not have evidence by indirectly observing surface behavior as that could be all sorts of things going on inside the earth. i have for a long time felt that the argument for the earth magnetic field is circular in nature and contains no real substance for its origin being in the core. its just assumed that the aurora reside only on the poles themselves but is more likely to travel between the poles. the whole earth from space chould look dimly green, and i think it does. have anyone noticed that if you have a really big magnet that it also turns like the compass but with much stronger force than the compass, and also that the compass does not point to north 100% acurate all the time but move sligthly sideways over time. that means the field is in motion and is not static. i have tested this so i know it works. the movement is small but noticable.

[@lajoswinkler]

"Planeterella"? Isn't the name "terella"?

[@warpman345]

yes you are right, it is called terrela-eksperiment in norwegian.

[@MGmirkin]

It's just the name of this specific one, I believe? The general term, though is terella, yes.

[@janisalnis6422]

how to get green aurora

[@JGunlimited]

What would happen if it wasn't a semi-vacuum (i.e. plenty of gases present)? Would charged particles never make it to the earth?

[@primodernious]

if its a giant circuit a good conductor of electricity would just make a better glow. charged particles is a silly terminology. the reaction between different quatities of electrons result in a current that sometimes superheat the particles and emit light either blue gree or white. actually when electrons collide with equal and opposite force they create a current. in a gas that would be a plasma that emits light. there is no linear travel of electons one way that can go under charged particles as its assumes that charged particles are traveling lineraly one way from source to destination. i know what im talking about sice i have done a lot of experiments with electricty, way more and many that this university ever done.

[@jamesgrist1101]

correct. the electrons need to flow allong a plasma conduit between spheres. Without a gas, no plasma can form.

[@Dan-gs3kg]

@@jamesgrist1101 without matter there is no medium, yet we never see a situation where there is no matter, not even in the LIGO detector going by the engineering papers about the difficulties of creating a strong vacuum. Supposed voids are clouds that absorb light, or are simply rarefied gas that can be seen with image stacking.

[@zekeriasvarg530]

@@primodernious electrons and positive nuclea spiraling each other and both driven by external magnetic pressure u mean?

[@freemasonry666]

Looks like flame of fire

[@Mirk047]

What is the wall thickness of the chamber? What's the camera material?

[@SweetBeanz]

i feel smarter

[@primodernious]

why isnt the small ball spinning? looks like a wrong apperence of the earth as it would look more like the big sphere but with with regions north and south pole where the current shoots from space one side and back into space the other side. there is no reason why the emission of glow is only at the poles as it chould be everywhere in between. i would assume that the plasma does not stop at the poles but is reverted back into space, but that probably would require that the plasma density in space was the same as in the altitude of the aurora and that space was not a hard vacuum like in the experiment. exept from that the demonstation look cool, and i would not mind if people believed this is how it works out there in space, even it is not correct. at least it shows a version of reality far better than much of the other riducules ideas out there. just remeber that the earth is spinning too and not just the sun and it probably does it faster than the sun.

[@CritiqueAI]

But why it is showing on the daylight side of the earth in your simulation?

[@fredriks5090]

we have "daylight" auroras as well in real life, but in order to see them you need to go really far north during winter, as our magnetosphere diverts most of the wind on the daylight side and flings it around towards the nightside. the short answer is, the model is correct but too small to show the real life effect.

[@pavelvedernikov8502]

I want to make one for my wife but judging from the materials used, its not a garage DIY thing

[@mw.4208]

This commentsection is elite

[@CoruscantMe]

Have these guys used the same polarity on both of the electrodes just at different voltages to induce this interaction? That might be more close to objective reality than using a positive and negative polarity on the electrodes.

[@CoruscantMe]

Would be interesting to add the rotations to both spheres too, in proper ratio... Add to the active dynamic balance that sets up.

[@albertooliva2565]

Superfigo

[@ShamusWoosley]

www.thunderbolts.info for the Electric Universe model, proponents of Birkeland's foundational studies.See thunderbolts youtube channel for EU videos, Space News, conference lectures.

[@ytrebiLeurT]

All Terella Experiments failed for a very simple reason: The spheres were not hot... You should repeat the terella experiment with a hot sphere.

[@neilwilkes]

Since when were the Terella experiments by Birkeland a "failure"?

[@Matzegubich]

Make the Input higher and the sphere will be hot

[@mother2310]

@@neilwilkes BIRKELAND FTW

[@neilwilkes]

@@mother2310 what's FTW supposed to mean?

[@neilwilkes]

@@Matzegubich obviously. Same thing would happen to a star if the currents ramped up and the same happens to planets when stars micronova too. Does not "prove" birkeland wrong at all but quite the opposite