Something new under the sun

You mean the Planck limit. 10-35 meters?

So you figure 1 billion solar masses will collapse to that?

In how much time?

And why is that the limit?

Do we really understand the physics at that scale well enough to be sure?

Or are you all just waving hands?

:D
Actually you are the one waving hands. Still no explanation of how a plasmoid with a mass of at least 40,000 solar masses in a volume with a radius of 45 AU will not collapse to a black hole?
Remember that these are the minimum parameters for the black hole at the center of our galaxy (Sagittarius A*). The actual mass has been measured at 3.7 million solar masses.

Since you do not know anything about black holes I suggest that you read the Wikipedia article on them. FYI: The singularity at the center of a black hole has zero volume.
 
I missed this point earlier... how the heck would fusion take place in the Sun's corona? That just makes no sense to me.
Hi MM, The comment by Dancing David was sourced from another thread on Z-pinch Sunspots (started by him). BeAChooser got involved because someone thought that he attributed the fusion of the sun to z-pinches which BAC denied. Then I chimed in with that fact that the observed neutrino flux matches the amount of fusion that we expect in the sun.
BAC ended up on this issue stating "Ok, I'm convinced that the sun might be mostly nuclear powered"
My comment later on was
"I have seen BAC on other threads and he does have a tendency to spin questions. He has been fairly reasonable on this thread but at least he has admitted that the sun is "mostly fusion powered".
I suspect (please tell me that I am wrong BAC!) that the electrically-powered sun will reappear from him in the future."
 
You mean the Planck limit. 10-35 meters?

So you figure 1 billion solar masses will collapse to that?

In how much time?

And why is that the limit?

Do we really understand the physics at that scale well enough to be sure?

Or are you all just waving hands?

:D


I gave an answer, I notice you still haven't explained your pet gnomes or elucidated how they work.

The universe does not have to meet our expectations.

If the universe is closely approximated by general relativity then yes all that mass could be in that small an area. There are other things like Bose-Einstein Condenstae that for different reasons allow mass to occupy a very small state. Even observed in a lab.

The time thing in a black hole is something where my mind becomes boggled, the time to create a billion solar mass black hole could vary a lot. As noted because of Eddington's limit they wil be created at much smaller masses, unless they are generated during the beggining of the univserse. But once they are around they will bvegin to get joined together, they will also encounter other potentially massive objects like degenerate stars and regular stars. So over time a black hole could possibly join with other massive objects to become a really big one. Current models indicate that galaxies grow by joining each other, so potentialy a number of black holes could join up over time.

As to the Plank lenth being the potential limit for the size of a singularity, I only have a very weak understanding, there is a constraint that appears in the equations of QM, and it shows in a number of places, since things including space in some way appear to come in discrete sizes in discreet packages, there is this one that is like the smallest for that particular concept of size. But i could not tell you why.

I think that most people who work on the theories and math would agree that we don't really understand a lot of things BAC.
 
Last edited:
Hi MM, The comment by Dancing David was sourced from another thread on Z-pinch Sunspots (started by him). BeAChooser got involved because someone thought that he attributed the fusion of the sun to z-pinches which BAC denied.
I ,misquoted BAC he vaguely alluded that a solar flare might be a z-pinch.
There are many many many posts where BAC has mentioned the association of the sun and a z-pinch.
 
Still no explanation of how a plasmoid with a mass of at least 40,000 solar masses in a volume with a radius of 45 AU will not collapse to a black hole?

Don't tell us you're as incapable of understanding what I posted to David as David was, RC. :D

Remember that these are the minimum parameters for the black hole at the center of our galaxy (Sagittarius A*). The actual mass has been measured at 3.7 million solar masses.

So you think 3.7 million suns is the *actual* mass? Then what pray tell is the meaning of a "minimum" mass? :D

Since you do not know anything about black holes I suggest that you read the Wikipedia article on them. FYI: The singularity at the center of a black hole has zero volume.

I think you and David should get together and discuss this. Because he is adamant that black holes do NOT have zero volume. :D
 
Don't tell us you're as incapable of understanding what I posted to David as David was, RC. :D
So you think 3.7 million suns is the *actual* mass? Then what pray tell is the meaning of a "minimum" mass? :D
I think you and David should get together and discuss this. Because he is adamant that black holes do NOT have zero volume. :D
Please answer the question.
 
Last edited:
Don't tell us you're as incapable of understanding what I posted to David as David was, RC. :D
So you think 3.7 million suns is the *actual* mass? Then what pray tell is the meaning of a "minimum" mass? :D
I think you and David should get together and discuss this. Because he is adamant that black holes do NOT have zero volume. :D
I guess we will have to educate BeAChooser since he seems to be lacking some (all?) fundamental science knowledge. :D

The meaning of a "minimum" mass is the following: Scientists make measurements. Measurements are have errors. Errors range from a small value to a big value. We call the small value the "minimum". We call the big value the "maximum". The measured value lies between the minimum value and the maximum value. The actual value of the thing being measured can be any value between the minimum value and the maximum value but is likely to be close to the measured value.
In this case it is the mass of the super-massive black hole that is being measured. The measured value is 3.7 million solar masses so that is what the actual value will be close to. The minimum value is 40,000 solar masses.

Look up the meaning of Planck length in Wikipedia. Note the following:
This thought experiment draws on both general relativity and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. Combined, these two theories imply that it is impossible to measure position to a precision shorter than the Planck length, or duration to a precision to a shorter time interval than a Planck time. These limits may apply to a theory of quantum gravity as well.
So David and I are both correct - a zero-sized volume has a radius of zero but we can never measure the radius as zero, only to within a Planck length.
 
Last edited:
Surely you jest. ;)

Again the pithy retort rather than an answer to the Three Gnomes of BAC and the questions they engender, you might as well admit it BAC, you don't know how to explain the answers, that is why you engage in anything but answering the questions.

Start with Arp and the sampling error.

Then explain what force holds together your homopolar motor and what could be measured to demonstrate that it is scalable to the level of a galxy.

Then explain how the plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses doesn't collapse under gravity if it is in an area with a radius of 43 AU.

There is an obvious reason that you don't asnwer, you can't becuase you don't actualy understand the theories you present, otherwise you would answer the questions.

No answer means you are just engaging in blind faith and don't understand your own models at all.
It is pretty obvious that you don't have a clue and really you don't know what you are talking about.
 
here is a small sample of what is one the web is you enter 'galaxy homopolar motor' into Google:
Most of them are blatant quotes from Thunderbolts
Homopolar motors and the galaxy..
Thunderbolts:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050415milkyway.htm
A homopolar motor operates on direct current interacting with a strong magnetic field to produce rotary motion.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080103starburstmystery.htm
The Electric Universe model is not threatened by such discoveries because galactic rotation is attributed to a homopolar motor effect* that is driven by electromagnetic forces, which are many times more powerful than gravity.


Electric Cosmos
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/galaxies.htm
The general shape of a rotating disk carrying electrical currents in the shape shown by Alfven defines what is called the homopolar motor - generator. Note that the horizontal disk (the arms of the galaxy) is where the current, I, is least spread out - the current density is greatest. This is where Population I stars are usually found.




So in some we have current in others we have EM forces, so where are they observed BAC, what scale and size would they have to be.

I suppose I will now go look for whatever answer you didn't give before:

Well, gosh BAC here is a sample of what a search for homo polar motor in psts by BeAChooser gives, 11 posts, some are duplicates, and nowhere do youe xplain a model of how the homopolar motor applies to a galaxy.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3503610&postcount=180

And other galaxies display similar evidence of such a homopolar motor structure. For example, British astronomers recently discovered a giant "magnetic bubble" around M82 (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgu...=en&sa=X). Of course, the astrophysicists in question talk about winds and magnetism and miss the real cause ... electric current. And miss the fact they are seeing Birkeland currents which explain the filaments. The diagram of M82 they produced is almost identical to that theorized for galaxies by Eric Lerner in his book.

In fact, NASA's Astronomy Picture Of the Day " The Galactic Center - A Radio Mystery" (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990128.html ) admits that the arcs, threads and filaments which abound in the Milky Way's central region "challenge present theories of the dynamics of the galactic center." But only because present theories don't include Birkeland currents and homopolar motors.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/im...a/sol01_07.jpg

The shape is consistent with a homopolar motor ... the electrical circuit concept that plasma cosmologists (like Alfven) use to explain stars and galaxies. And the concept as envisioned by Alfven included double layers along the axis of rotation of the object with the known property of producing jets. And some plasma theorists also speculate that a plasmoid forms at the center of such an object. The bottom line is that known physics can produce what is seen. Neutron stars aren't needed and prior to the observation the jets and pulsar emissions, had been theoretically dismissed.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3452693&postcount=269
Furthermore, keep in mind that electric universe theorists do not claim that gravity has no effect whatsoever (how refreshing that is compared to the mainstream community that does just the opposite where electromagnetic effects are concerned). So in Peratt's model, electromagnetic effects in a galaxy sized homopolar motor don't have to explain the entire rotation curve. Just the portion that seems to differ from pure Newtonian gravity.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3265588&postcount=31
The jets are plasma (surely you don't doubt that now). The source galaxy is almost all plasma. We KNOW that the magnetic field of the galaxies has the shape of a homopolar motor. We KNOW that electric currents are flowing in intergalactic space and in the plasmas that comprise galaxies. We know that electromagnetism can take plasma filaments and wind them into the shape of galaxies and during that process produce jets of synchrotron radiation that have the characteristics, duration and energy levels of the jets seen coming from galaxies. This was demonstrated decades ago in simulations published in peer reviewed papers in mainstream astrophysics journals by Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Labs that I have linked repeatedly on this forum. The production of jets from the sort of plasmoids that would exist at the heart of the galaxy model postulated by Alfven and Peratt was demonstrated in experiments by Eric Lerner decades ago and I've provided links to that type of data too


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3205444&postcount=44
As has been pointed out earlier on this thread, Alfven's model for galaxies is similar to the one he has for the sun. It's a homopolar motor, also called a unipolar inductor. Here a depiction of it along side the radio emissions from Cygnus A, a powerful radio galaxy.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2931097&postcount=277
what you see is a homopolar motor, a electrical circuit concept first developed by Faraday that plasma cosmologists have applied to explain galaxies and stars. At the center of these objects, plasma cosmologists say there is the equivalent of a plasma focus, a device that plasma physicists have created and studied extensively in labs here on earth.

In a plasma focus device a plasmoid forms and stores energy at the focus of a discharge. When the plasmoid reaches a critical energy level, it discharges its energy in a collimated jet along its axis in the form of electromagnetic radiation and neutrons. Being unstable outside a nucleus, the neutrons soon decay into protons and electrons. The electrons are held back by the electromagnetic field, and the high-speed protons are beamed away. The process can be repeated over and over at very high frequencies.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2920747&postcount=143
The model that plasma cosmologists have for stars and galaxies once they form is also worth noting. It is called a homopolar motor and was first developed by Michael Faraday in 1831. Alfven developed an electric star model that is a homopolar motor. It can explain many aspects of solar behavior and the plasma currents that are seen streaming into and out of the sun. Alfven also applied the homopolar model to galaxies. Lerner modified that to explain the electromagnetic phenomena seen in the center of many galaxies and in quasars. Now remember, we are talking physics that is well understood and has been around for a long time. And there has been no need to invent magical particles, forces, interactions and events that no one has ever detected. Big Bang has inferred those thing to explain phenomena that plasma cosmology seems able to explain with well established physics
 
Last edited:
No. You were shown an explicit solution to Maxwell's equations which reconnects.


?????? what exactly reconnects? metaphysical lines that dont even exist in reality? your example of a saddle point was clearly a bad one, nothing physical can result from reconnection of metaphysical lines in saddle points, the whole idea that lines that do not physically exist (apart from in the mind of people who use them to model the fields or hills) can cause a huge physical reaction is ludicrous. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, as its obvious you will not change your mind, and neither will I.

You were shown about 20 papers published by an experiment which has measured the characteristics of reconnection in a plasma lab. And yet you still make false statements about it.


If you hadn't noticed, it was me that first quoted the work on magnetic reconnection at MRX, and I had one very simple request from the beggining, which still no-one has answered.

Once i see the actual data from experiments that clearly shows the magnetic field lines reconnecting, not the just the mathematics of the theory, i will reconsider my opinion. So far i have not.

And yes, there are plenty of papers on 'reconnection'. Restricting ADS' search to just Astronomy, and just 2006 to 2008, and to only papers with the words 'magnetic reconnection' in their titles yields >2000 hits! Of course, some will be irrelevant, and many relate to indirect observations associated with various magnetic effects.

The main experiment to test mag' reconnection is at a small laboratory in Princeton, Magnetic Reconnection Experiment: "The goal of MRX is to investigate the fundamental physics of magnetic field line reconnection, an important process in magnetized plasmas in space and in the laboratory." Now they give a very detailed explanation about how the energy is created, and the mechanics of the equiptment and many other things. But the one quite amazing omission from any of those papers is any experimental evidence of magnetic field lines actually 'reconnecting' to create this effect.

The simple reason for that is that things that dont exist in the real world cant reconnect. A field line is a locus that is defined by a vector field, it has no substance and so can have no properties. Field lines can be used to map out fields, but the actual lines do not exist.

Here you have to separate the actual data about what is known from the interpretation of it. I am not saying that 'magnetic reconnection' (or whatever you want to call it) does not occur, there obviously is a process that releases this energy that we can detect, but i dispute that we have to invoke completely new and unknown charteristics of magnetic field lines to explain this. The data is the key, however people interpret it in different ways.

The data is reliable, i am not questioning that. However not every interpretation of the data is equally reliable. I trust their data completely, but I distrust their interpretation of the data because it is at odd with how we previously thought all magnetic fields function.

When modelling with field lines you always have to take into account that these field lines do not 'exist' as such, they are put in by us to understand what is happeneing, so the lines themselves can not 'do' anything, other than inform us of field strengths. You have to distinguish between 1) conceptual constructs that are convenient tools for thinking about and visualizing a process, and 2) the physical process itself. The former (the concept) exists only in one’s mind. It does not exist in three-dimensional space. The latter (the process) concerns the movement or interaction of things that really do exist in our world.

Magnetic field lines can not connect, get tied in 'knots' or get tangled up any more than lines of latitude and longitude can reconnect or get tied into knots.

If you can find the experiment that actually shows and verifys the magnetic lines as they 'reconnect', and how the energy is created by this 'reconnection', please post it here. So far i have found none. In my opinion it flies in the face of the all we know about the established sciences of electrical engineering and magnetics



You seem to also have not responded to my post which shows that magnetic reconnection is based on the idea that an ideal plasma has an infinite conductance and so mag' fields are frozen into it. In reality, this is not the case, plasmas do not behave exactly how ideal models say, which is another assumption which seems to contradict the magnetic reconnection theory.

And you also appear to have ignored the paper published in the IEEE journal of plasma physics, peer reviewed, published recently in 2007, which states that this really is not possible, for a number of different valid reasons. I can either believe you, and a group of astronomers and their plasma based energy releasing experiments at princeton said to 'prove' magnetic reconnection, or the IEEE journal of plasma physics and all its peers, who are experts in electrical engineering and magnetism. The world best infact, the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) is regarded as the world leading organization in its field, and their members certainly dont peer review and publish papers unless they are sure it is correct. The author of the paper has a Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Electrical Engineering, and a Doctorate in Electrical Engineering, so i think he is more than qualified to inform the astronomers about their misuse of the magentic reconnection process.

Again, we are going to have to agree to disagree on the subject of magnetic reconnection, i dont want to spend more posts arguing about it. If you can find me the data that i wanted to see from the beggining which fully validates that magnetic field lines are able to break, be open and then 'reconnect' to each other, then please, post it.

You played a similar little game with the charge of the sun. After being forcefed the necessary basic electromagnetic facts which make it obvious that it's utterly impossible for the sun to have a large charge, you more or less acknowledged that that is the case. You have now flipflopped in another thread and gone back to asserting the charge on the sun can be a billion C, or whatever ludicrous figure your crank ideas require at the moment.


Look. Sol. you appear to be conflating my personal opinions with the most speculative aspects of EU theory. Just because i say "EU proponents think that the charge on the sun could be a million amps", does not mean that i do. I calculated the eletrocstatics involved, and I agreed with you (remeber that?), the value for the charge was far too big. Thats why I said there is probably much more than electrostatics going on, and discounted the idea of electrostatics alone causing this anomaly.

Furthermore, you have failed to produce even a single prediction - not one single prediction - from the "theory" you're constantly babbling about.


Do you mean past predictions by plasma cosmologists that turned out to be true? If so, there are plenty. And you seem to be directly ignoring my previous post where i listed a few that sprang to mind;

Alfven also predicted double radio sources, and that most of the mass in the universe is plasma.

Kristian Birkeland predicted auroral electrojets in 1908. In 1967 Alex Dessler wrote an article arguing that Zmuda et al had indeed detected field align-currents. Alfvén subsequently credited (1986) that Dessler "discovered the currents that Birkeland had predicted" He also predicted that we would observe birkeland currents in space, which turned out true.

In 1913, Birkeland was the first to predict that plasma was ubiquitous in space. He wrote: "It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds."(Ref), which has been confirmed, as 99% of the universe is matter in a plasma state.

In 1916, Birkeland was probably the first person to successfully predict that the solar wind behaves as do all charged particles in an electric field, "From a physical point of view it is most probable that solar rays are neither exclusively negative nor positive rays, but of both kinds"; in other words, the Solar Wind consists of both negative electrons and positive ions.

Wallace Thornhill predicted the flash produced by a small electrical discharge in the deep impact excercise. He said "The electrical energy will be released before impact" and this was confirmed by NASA investigator Peter Schultz, describing the event recorded from the spacecraft: "What you see is something really surprising. First, there is a small flash, then there's a delay, then there's a big flash and the whole thing breaks loose”.

And he also said that "An abundance of water on or below the surface of the nucleus (the underlying assumption of the dirty snowball hypothesis) is unlikely.", which was also confirmed.

There are many more, Nobel prize winner Langmuir also made a couple of predictions that turned out true, as did Anthony Peratt with galaxy shapes and pinch effects in the cosmos, Gerrit L. Verschuur made predictions in the field of CIV, etc,



I will give you until tomorrow to produce a single prediction of "plasma cosmology", if only because I'm looking forward to the opportunity to thoroughly debunk it. Failing that (as I expect), you will go on permanent ignore.


Hows about the ones above that I have already posted?

And please, calm down. Anyone reading your last post would think I had been rude to you previously.
 
Last edited:
This post is a reply to the challenge by Sol, under which the terms areed were:

Using plasma scaleability relationships between large and small size plasmas is the scope of the chosen subject, and comparing some of the similarities that have been reproduced in experiments with EM effects inside plasmas, and structures in the cosmos, thus indicating a level of EM activity and charge separation not accepted by conventional views.



Heres a couple of plasma/electricity based experiments relevant to this subject. They add a whole new dimension to how we can gain an understanding of the cosmos from various experiments involving plasma scaling and EM forces inside plasmas here on Earth.

I have to start with the work of Kristian Birkeland. He conducted an array of experiments in an attempt to understand phenomenon on the Earth and in space, most notable are his Terrella experiments, involving a highly electrically charged anode in a vacuum box. All this was done over a century ago now, but his results are still a fascinating subject even today. This was basically the starting point for the field of cosmical electrodynamics.

The results of the Norwegian Polar Expedition contained the first determination of the global pattern of electric currents in the polar region from ground magnetic field measurements. The discovery of X-rays inspired Birkeland to develop vacuum chambers to study the influence of magnets on cathode rays. An example of one of his experiments is depicted on the left front of the bank note. It shows a magnetized terrella, simulating the Earth, suspended in an evacuated box. Birkeland noticed that an electron beam directed toward the terrella was guided toward the magnetic poles and produced rings of light around the poles and concluded that the aurora could be produced in a similar way. He developed a theory in which energetic electrons were ejected from sunspots on the solar surface, directed to the Earth, and guided to the Earth's polar regions by the geomagnetic field where they produced the visible aurora. Birkeland was nominated for the Nobel Prize no less than seven times.


http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=4316609&arnumber=4316617&count=41&index=7
Professor Kr. Birkeland: His Life and Work

This paper appears in: Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on

Abstract:

Professor Kr. Birkeland's electromagnetic gun is first discussed. Then, Birkeland's works on comets, zodiacal light, sun-weather relations, and the periodicity of polar storms are summarized. He based most of his ideas on models from the results of laboratory experiments. During the period 1894-1913, Birkeland contributed greatly to the study of solar-terrestrial physics. He introduced many ideas which still remain central to these fields. Although much of this work remained unrecognized for many years, it was truly the foundation of modern space physics.



Some of his striking results with the Terrella can be seen here.

He managed to replicate may aspects of the planets and the sun to a very high degree of accuracy. All this was done using a highly electrically charged (not neutral) metal sphere. He was able to vary the pressure in the box, and he also was able to add various gasses or variable pressure, hydrogen, helium, etc. Unfortunately, nowadays terrella experiments have been replaced by computer simulations, which don’t tend to show many of the electrical anomalies observed with the actual experiments.

Heres some of his material;

The series of experiments that I have made with a magnetic globe as cathode in a large vacuum-box, for the purpose of studying analogies to the zodiacal light and Saturn's ring, have led to discoveries that appear to be of great importance for the solar theory.

We have already several times had occasion to give various particulars regarding the manner in which these experiments were carried out. It is by powerful magnetisation of the magnetisable globe that the phenomenon answering to Saturn's rings is produced. During this process, polar radiation and disruptive discharges at the equator such as that shown in fig. 247a (which happens to be a unipolar discharge) may also occur, if the current intensity of discharge is great. If the magnetisation of the globe be reduced (or the tension of the discharge increased) gradually, the luminous ring round the globe will he reduced to a minimum size, after which another equatorial ring is developed and expands rapidly (fig. 247b). It has been possible for the ring to develops in such a manner that it could easily he demonstrated by radiation on the most distant wall of my large vacuum-tube (see fig. 217).


[Note - All hotlinked pictures herein are from "The Norwegian aurora polaris expedition", which is public source document with no copyright - http://www.archive.org/details/norwegianaurorap01chririch, and I have uploaded them independantly (just to keep the copyright censors here happy so they dont all get taken down :) )]


birkeland1oo6.jpg



We will now pass on to experiments that in my opinion have brought about the most important discoveries in the long chain of experimental analogies to terrestrial and cosmic phenomena that I have produced. In the experiments represented in figs. 248 a-e, there are some small white patches on the globe, which are due to a kind of discharge that, under ordinary circumstances, is disruptive, and which radiates from points on the cathode. If the globe has a smooth surface and is not magnetised, the disruptive discharges come rapidly one after another, and are distributed more or less uniformly all over the globe (see a). On the other hand, if the globe is magnetised, even very slightly, the patches from which the disruptive discharges issue, arrange themselves then in two zones parallel with the magnetic equator of the globe; and the more powerfully the globe is magnetised, the nearer do they come to the equator (see b, c, d). With a constant magnetisation, the zones of patches will be found near the equator if the discharge-tension is low, but far from the equator if the tension is high. Fig. 248e shows the phenomenon seen from below.



birkeland2dr0.jpg



Note the sunspots, plasatorus and other features that replicate very precisely different aspects the sun.

Let us return to our experiments. If the globe is slightly magnetised, the patches of eruption are seen to arrange themselves in zones, with long pencils issuing into space, almost as in fig. 249; only these pencils are bent by the magnetism, which is exactly analogous to what we have assumed regarding the cathode-rays issuing from the sun.
These centres of eruption for the disruptive discharges become more marked by the addition of some Leyden jars parallel to the discharge-tube; but care must be taken not to add too much capacity, as the discharge may then become oscillatory. I have generally employed about 10 to 20 milliamperes as the discharge-current for the globe of 8 centimetres diameter.



birkeland3pt0.jpg


These EM rays eminating from his terrella are highly consistant with the recently discovered X-ray jets found eminating from the sun by Japans Hinode spacecraft. The Sun is Bristling with X-ray Jets - NASA, 2007.

It bears a resemblance to the picture supplied in the NASA article: external image


I have sought by various methods to find a value for the very singular capacity of this globe corresponding to disruptive discharges, a capacity which seems to vary perceptibly according to the conditions of the discharge. In the case of this globe (8 cm. in diameter), this capacity varies about 1/100 of a microfarad, and if I assume that the sun has a corresponding capacity C in the relation of the square of the diameters, I find that C = 3 x 1018 microfarads. […..]



In my opinion some of the most striking resemblances between Birkelands work and the sun was the production of various sun spot like objects on his terella, as well as very accurate creation of the suns polar coronal hole, and the equatorial plasma torus, all of which are clearly visible in the following picture;

As soon as these shells were put on outside the silvered globe, I obtained point-discharges in great numbers; but they were not so intense as I had expected, not even when a large condenser was placed in parallel with the vacuum-tube. It was only after having exhausted my discharge-box for a long time and filled it with hydrogen, and again and again exhausted it, that these point-discharges began to be powerful.



birkeland4ej9.jpg



compare to SOHO's picture of the equatorial plasma torus: external image

And also compare the sphere on the left to the various new pictures revealing the coronal polar hole, which is basically when the corona above the poles greatly diminishes, an effect not currently explainable by standard models. One of the best comparisons in my opinion; external image

Figs. 260 a, b, and c (pictured above) show three photographs of discharges under varied conditions.
The first is of an experiment with a considerable gas-pressure and very slight magnetisation of the globe. It shows an interesting radiation from the polar regions, but the point-discharges, which, it is true, are most numerous in the equatorial regions, have not separated into two zones as they usually did when the surface of the cathode was smooth.
The third photograph is of an experiment in hydrogen gas with a very high vacuum.



And he also simulated with his terrella what may be described as the suns external electric field, or the corona. It shows up as a very definite equipotential circle around the sun, and has very strong resemblances to SOHO’s recent picture of a very similar circular field surrounding the sun.


birkeland6lx9.jpg


compare to soho's picture: external image


He was able to replicate other features of planets as well as the sun. One of the most impressive was his emulation of planetary rings.


birkeland5yc2.jpg



And he successfully seemed to create polar currents. It was this that made him think that the Earth may have incoming currents at its poles, and to this day he is considered the person who predicted and discovered the source of the auroras, thus why the currents that enter planets poles are usually called Birkeland currents (or sometimes flux ropes).


birkeland7nf6.jpg



The thing that makes Birkelands experiments most fascinating in my view is that they are still regarded by most conventional astronomers to be mere co-incidence. Statistically it is astronomically improbable that these effects were just a co-incidence, or that the EM effects he demonstrated are unrelated to the sun and planets in some way. He nearly exactly mirrored many characteristics of the sun and other planets. The implications of his work are still to this day largely ignored by the scientific community, despite the vast amount of contributions Birkeland made to other areas of space science. It seems that even being nominated for a nobel prize seven times was not enough for the scientific community to pay attention to this controversial area of his work. They just couldn't swallow the idea of a sun or planets eminating an external E-field, despite the huge amount of evidence Birkeland presented for this with his experiments which we produced by the E-field and B-field interactions on, and outside, the charged Anode.




Further work on plasma scaling from experimental level to cosmos has been performed by Winston H. Bostick. He was a physicist and former head of the physics department at the Stevens Institute of Technology. His research interests included the plasma focus, plasma vortex phenomena, plasmoids and the simulation of cosmical astrophysics by plasma physics experiments in the laboratory.
Some of his earlier publications can be seen in full online, and show some of the initial discoveries and experiments which influenced his later work on this subject;

Experimental Study of Plasmoids – Electromagnetic Phenomena in Cosmical Physics. Provided by NASA Astrophysics data system.

Possible Hydromagnetic Simulation of Cosmical Phenomena in the Laboratory. – Reviews of modern physics. Provided by NASA Astrophysics data system.

What laboratory-produced plasma structures can contribute to the understanding of cosmic structures both large and small (abstract only)

A review of the literature on experimentally-produced plasma structures is presented to explain various cosmic phenomenon in the universe, leading to a hypothesis for the grand unification of the strong force of the nucleus, the electromagnetic force, the electroweak force, and the gravitational force in a solution based on electromagnetism. Diamagnetic vortex filaments and paramagnetic plasma vortex structures have been experimentally produced, and hybrid combinations of these force-free minimum-energy structures, the Birkeland aurora filaments, are expected to play a role in the formation of phenomena including galaxies, solar flares, comet tails and giant galactic jets. A model of the fermion, the photon, and other onta, in which all mass and momentum consist of E and H vectors, and the quantum mechanical wave functions are transverse waves on the filament, are discussed.



One other separate contribution Bostik made to plasma cosmology was an explanation for the hubble expansion based on the magnetic effects associated with a homopolar motor mechanism for galaxies, first proposed by Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven, which was received well by his peers and published in the journal of Laser and Particle Beams.

The Hubble expansion as ascribed to mutual magnetic induction between neighboring galaxies - Laser and Particle Beams (ISSN 0263-0346), vol. 6. (abstract only)

But the main thrust of his work was on the experimental plasma side, and he made many contributions. Here is a bit of his work in which he conducts some experiments with an electromagnetic plasma gun (similar to the one that Birkeland originally experimented with decades previously) and examines the results of the interacting EM forces of the plasmoids. Also, he is the person who coined the term plasmoid back in 1959, which is still the word used today. If you check the wiki entry on plasmoids, most of the work listed there is his material.

He makes some initial observations from this laboratory experiment;

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n.....104..292B&db_key=PHY&data_type=HTML&format=
A plasma gun has been developed which projects ionized matter (metallic and deuterium ions) at speeds up to 2×107 cm per second. There is some evidence to support the hypothesis that the plasma projected by this gun comes off in an expanding torus which is shaped by its own magnetic field. When the plasma gun is fired into a dc magnetic field, the plasma forms a compact geometrical configuration (a plasma-magnetic entity called a plasmoid) which proceeds across the magnetic field. Plasmoids appear to be plasma cylinders elongated in the direction of the magnetic field. Plasmoids possess a measurable magnetic moment, a measurable translational speed, a transverse electric field, and a measurable size. Plasmoids can interact with each other, seemingly by reflecting off one another. Their orbits can also be made to curve toward one another. Plasmoids can be made to spiral to a stop if projected into a gas at about 10-3mm Hg pressure. Plasmoids can also be made to smash each other into fragments. There is some scant evidence to support the hypothesis that they undergo fission and possess spin.



And he expands on this work in a later publication;


Fig. 1(b), which shows the spatial plasma distribution from two plasma guns fired simultaneously from the pole pieces of a horseshoe magnet, is the laboratory produced paradigm of the bariumcanister type of effect. The diamagnetic plasma vortices that have been studied in the laboratory are in some sense a macroscopic paradigm of the "quantum" phenomenon of Type I superconductivity
(see [27, last entry]).

The plasmas in experiments [8] with two plasma guns fired at one another across a magnetic field take on a different morphological pattern and behaviour when fired into a "vacuum" chamber containing a background gas (air) at about 10-3 ton. The background gas is ionized by the ultraviolet from the plasma guns and is coupled to the moving plasma from the guns by the background magnetic field ( — 3000 G).

Now the plasma from each gun (see Fig. 2(a) and (b)) forms a helical jet, and as these jets approach one another they attach and form a barred-spiral configuration which rotates because of the original angular momentum built into the system by the pointing of the jets. These barredspiral configurations have helical (long-pitch) arms and forked tails as do many of the observed barred-spiral galaxies. The fact that in our laboratory experiments since 1955-1956 we have easily produced these remarkable plasmoids provides the justification of our hypothesis [8] concerning the origin and structure of the barred-spiral galaxies. That is, not only the morphology but the controlling dynamic elements, electric and magnetic fields, are the same in the laboratory as in the galactic phenomena.


bostik1xg8.jpg




bostik2oq0.jpg



>The first picture is a sequential study of two plasmoids fired from sources 10 cm apart across a magnetic field of 4800 G. The Kerr-cell exposure times
are 2x10-6 and the various delay times of the sequence are indicated in microseconds. The pressure in the chamber is 4x10-6s.

>The second picture is examples of barred-spiral configurations produced similar to the first, but with no stereo arrangement.

His work on simulating galaxy structures in the laboratory did receive attention from some media outlets, he even made the front page of the New York Time with the heading: “Physicist 'Creates' Universe in a Test Tube; Atom Gun Produces Galaxies and Gives Clues to Creation”. Despite this, the implications of his work are largely ignored by today’s scientists, not for lack of acceptance, but primarily due to the fact that very few scientists are even aware of this type of plasma scaling material, and having no previous material to study on this subject, it was widely ignored.


So that’s a couple of the experiments and scientific publications on plasma scaling and the striking similarities between the forces, dimensions, shape and rotation of laboratory plasma experiments and objects in the cosmos. Scalability of plasma is a well known effect to plasma physicists, where various force free configurations of plasma show the exact same structure, and obey the exact same laws, over many magnitudes of order size difference. Wiki has some good info; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_scaling


In the laboratory, filamentary structure is a common morphology exhibited by energetic plasmas. X-ray pinhole photographs, optical streak and framing camera photographs, and laser holograms often show a filamentary magnetic "rope-like" structure from plasmas produced in multiterawatt pulse power generators or in dense plasma focus machines. High-resolution etchings of electron beams onto witness plates show nearly identical vortex profiles ranging from a dimension of a few micrometers in the dense plasma focus, to a few centimeters in cathode
electron beams (1), (2), (3), (4). This size variation of four orders of magnitude is extended to over nine orders of magnitude when auroral vortex recordings are directly compared to the laboratory data ( Radio Science, Vol. 8, p.475 ). And with regard to actual current magnitudes, fine-detail resolution of current filaments shows indistinguishable vortex patterns over nearly 12 orders of magnitude, while coarser resolution shows that the phenomena probably transcend at least 14 orders of magnitude, from microampere to multi-megaampere electron beams.


The physics model for plasma galaxy formation has been addressed by various scientists since. Most notable is the work of Anthony Peratt, who was himself a student of Alfven, and he has proposed a model based on various cosmic electrodynamic principles. The following paper gives a good overview of some of the plasma concepts involved, and the whole document can be read, along with many other publications in established science journals on this matter, from the list of publications on this website, recently created by various scientists at LANL (Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Agency Washington, D.C.) Most of the texts are available to view in full, and they all make interesting reading for anyone interested in plasma astrophysics/cosmology and its new found importance to space physics. I have linked to this material before, but no doubt, no-one even bothered to read it.


Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986.(1.7M)
This paper investigates the filamentary electric-current aspect of cosmic plasma. Section II describes the basic model: interactions among galactic-dimensioned fieldaligned current filaments. Section III describes the analysis of the model with three-dimensional electromagnetic particle-in-cell simulations. The Biot-Savart force law for filaments is discussed in Section IV, while synchrotron radiation from pinched filaments is given in Section V. Sections VI and VII cover double radio sources, quasars, and magnetically confined sheet electron beams (jets). The author's conclusions are given in Section VIII. The evolution of cosmic plasma beyond the time frame investigated in this manuscript is presented in a sequel paper (denoted Paper II).



Also in this paper Peratt lists some of the many alternative explanations for various EM radiation in space, explanations that require no initial 'Big Bang'.

The necessity of employing plasma physics to account for the observed electromagnetic radiation from cosmic sources has been pursued by a number of authors. In particular, Sturrock (ref) and Sturrock and Barnes (ref) proposed a magnetized plasma radiogalaxy model in which the tearing modes in current-conducting sheets play an important role in the radiation and morphologies observed. Alfven postulates the existence of two neighbouring double layers of radio lobe dimensions in a heliospheric pinched-current model involving the central elliptical galaxy (ref). The importance of pinched plasma currents, beam instabilities, and filamentation to radiogalaxy processes has been pursued further by Peratt and Green (ref), Browne (ref), and also by Lerner (ref), who points out the close similarities between measured radiation spectra from cosmic sources and that of the dense plasma focus and other pulsed power laboratory devices. Bostick's theory of radio sources is based on his dense plasma focus investigations (ref).


One of the main principles involved throughout is an electromotive force V = iv x B • ds giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media (ie, space plasma). This is produced wherever relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic- field lines exist (Ref1: Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 18, Issue 1, Feb 1990 , (Ref2: American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 1984, p.29 . Also of importance is the Biot savart force, which is related to the inverse square law solution to Ampère's force Law.

An example of this is the (nightside) sunward-directed magnetospheric plasma that cuts the earth's dipole field lines in the equatorial plane, thereby producing a potential supply that drives currents within the auroral circuit. The tendency for charged particles to follow magnetic lines of force and therefore produce field-aligned currents has now resulted in the widespread use of the term Birkeland currents in space plasma physics (Ref1: American Geophysical Union, 1984, p. 22-28.) , (ref2: “Rotationally-induced Birkeland current systems” - American Geophysical Union, 1984, p. 340-349. .



At a very basic level, this small section from his paper gives an overview of the model.


D. Interacting Birkeland Currents Model

It is the purpose of this paper to extend the study of cosmic plasma to the case of galactic-dimensioned (50 kpc in width) Birkeland filaments by means of three-dimensional, fully electromagnetic, and relativistic particle-incell simulations. Fig. 1 is a contrast-enhanced photograph of the Orion nebula but serves the purpose of representing the morphology to be expected by an observer situated within a much larger filamentary metagalactic structure. The simulation model consists of modeling a magneticfield- aligned neutral plasma filament (column) in the presence of a field-aligned electric field. (Strictly speaking, because of the parallel electric field, the portion of the filament simulated is a double layer [35].) To study the evolution of interacting filaments, a second filament (nearly identical to the first) is placed adjacent as depicted in Fig. 3. (As many as six filaments have been investigated by simulation while up to 12 filaments have been studied experimentally. However, because of the r-1 force between filaments, it would appear that a majority of cosmic plasma phenomena are the result of two, or at most three, interactions among the closest filaments.)



And sol, you said I had to list the predictions of plasma cosmology. I’m sure that there’s a few of Birkelands, etc, listed above, but I don’t have all day, so here is a paper written by some independent scientists who evaluate some of the predictions made by one of the founders of plasma cosmology, Hannes Alfven. They seem to come to the same conclusion that I stated for both Birkeland and Bostik above, even though their contributions to science are very far reaching and well known for other areas, much of their material that was not consistant with current scientific opinion does not seem to get any sort of recognition in the slightest. Any scientific reasons as to why this is the case are hardly ever put forward.


http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=199495&isnumber=5186
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PLASMA SCIENCE, VOL. 20, NO. 6, DECEMBER 1992
Alfvkn’s Programme in Solar System Physics
Stephen G. Brush

Abstract- According to some scientists and philosophers of science, a theory is or should be judged by its ability to make successful predictions. This paper examines a case from the history of recent science-the research of Hannes Alfven and his colleagues on solar system physics-in order to see whether scientists actually follow this policy. Tests of seven predictions are considered: magnetic braking, magnetohydrodynamic waves, field-aligned (“Birkeland”) currents, critical ionization velocity and the rings of Uranus, jet streams, electrostatic double layers, and partial corotation (“2/3 effect”). It is found that the success or failure of these predictions had essentially no effect on the acceptance of Alfvkn’s theories, even though concepts such as “AlfvCn waves” have become firmly entrenched in space physics. Perhaps the importance of predictions in such has been exaggerated: if a theory is not acceptable to the scientific community, it may not gain any credit from successful predictions.
 
Last edited:
...
And sol, you said I had to list the predictions of plasma cosmology. I’m sure that there’s a few of Birkelands, etc, listed above, but I don’t have all day, so here is a paper written by some independent scientists who evaluate some of the predictions made by one of the founders of plasma cosmology, Hannes Alfven. They seem to come to the same conclusion that I stated for both Birkeland and Bostik above, even though their contributions to science are very far reaching and well known for other areas, much of their material that was not consistant with current scientific opinion does not seem to get any sort of recognition in the slightest. Any scientific reasons as to why this is the case are hardly ever put forward.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=199495&isnumber=5186
Zeuzzz
There are so many things wrong with this enormous post that I just have to point out a couple.

Plasma physics predicts Birkeland currents. plasmiods, double-layers and all of the other predictions that you attribute to "plasma cosmology". Did you read the title of the paper you quote above? It is "Alfven's programme in solar system physics" - not a mention of cosmology.

One more time - a simulation is not the thing being simulated. The sun is not a metal sphere. Or maybe you think that it is? A bit of plasma (a plasmoid) that looks like a galaxy is not a galaxy in actual fact. It does not prove that a galaxy acts as the plasmoid did. We all know what is missing from the simulation - gravity!
What is the connection between solar physics and "plasma cosmology"?

The experiments that you reference are very interesting but once again you are pointing out well-known facts in plasma physics. Now you need to find papers linking these experiments to "structures in the cosmos" as in what you quoted for the question.

Speaking of interesting experiments here is one that I mentioned earlier:
Go to a abstract and citation database like Scopus and search for "plasma cosmology". I get 14 results (9 papers, a book and 2 reviews) that mention the phrase. They cover the years 1987 to 2007 (20 years!) and have a grand total of 11 citations. None of the results are published in a journal devoted to cosmology and probably were not reviewed by cosmologists.
The number of citations show that the scientific community is totally uninterested in plasma "cosmology". One wonders why:rolleyes:!
P.S. If you expand the search for the 2 words "plasma" and "cosmology" there are more results (230) but most of these are on the role of plasma in BB cosmology and even looking at quark-gluon plasmas.
 
?????? what exactly reconnects? metaphysical lines that dont even exist in reality?

Magnetic field lines reconnect. You were shown an explicit solution to Maxwell's equations in which that happens.

your example of a saddle point was clearly a bad one, nothing physical can result from reconnection of metaphysical lines in saddle points, the whole idea that lines that do not physically exist (apart from in the mind of people who use them to model the fields or hills) can cause a huge physical reaction is ludicrous. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, as its obvious you will not change your mind, and neither will I.

You're a liar, then. You keep repeating that Maxwell's equations do not allow reconnection, you know it's not true, and that makes you a liar.

You seem to also have not responded to my post which shows that magnetic reconnection is based on the idea that an ideal plasma has an infinite conductance and so mag' fields are frozen into it. In reality, this is not the case, plasmas do not behave exactly how ideal models say, which is another assumption which seems to contradict the magnetic reconnection theory.

Again, lies. There was no assumption whatsoever needed for the solution you were shown, and you know it (or you simply have no idea what the words you are using mean).

The author of the paper has a Bachelor's and Master's degrees in Electrical Engineering, and a Doctorate in Electrical Engineering, so i think he is more than qualified to inform the astronomers about their misuse of the magentic reconnection process.

I am considerably better qualified than that on this question, as are thousands of others.

Again, we are going to have to agree to disagree on the subject of magnetic reconnection, i dont want to spend more posts arguing about it. If you can find me the data that i wanted to see from the beggining which fully validates that magnetic field lines are able to break, be open and then 'reconnect' to each other, then please, post it.

You have been shown an explicit solution and experimental data.

Do you mean past predictions by plasma cosmologists that turned out to be true? If so, there are plenty. And you seem to be directly ignoring my previous post where i listed a few that sprang to mind;

I asked you a very specific question. Today was the deadline, and you have failed.

I asked you to produce one single, concrete, and specific astrophysical phenomenon which PC explains in a way different from the mainstream. I did NOT ask you to list the "accomplishments" of PC.

Now, there are many claims in that enormous post of yours, with varying degrees of vagueness. You have failed to do what I asked, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. So here's the deal - either you pick one single, concrete, and specific astrophysical phenomenon out of that list, or I will do it for you. If I debunk it, the terms are the same - you must stop posting about PC.

Do you agree? And if so, will you pick one, or should I? You have until tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz
There are so many things wrong with this enormous post that I just have to point out a couple.


You seem completely incapable of actually reading any of the material i post. Please look at some of the work in my last post.

Plasma physics predicts Birkeland currents. plasmiods, double-layers and all of the other predictions that you attribute to "plasma cosmology". Did you read the title of the paper you quote above? It is "Alfven's programme in solar system physics" - not a mention of cosmology.


Hannes Alfven was one of the original advocates of a plasma cosmology approach, and so you saying that all his amazingly accurate predictions do not validate the very model he was advocating is utterly ridiculous.



One more time - a simulation is not the thing being simulated. The sun is not a metal sphere. Or maybe you think that it is?


It is extremely comparable. The sun is made of highly conducting plasma, just as with the Terrella.


A bit of plasma (a plasmoid) that looks like a galaxy is not a galaxy in actual fact. It does not prove that a galaxy acts as the plasmoid did.


But they are govened by the same laws due to plasma scalability, the whole point of the post (incase you hadn't noticed) Maybe you should read some of the papers i supplied? you obviously didn't.

If this is your view, could you please post your refutation of plasma scalability from force free configurations?


We all know what is missing from the simulation - gravity!


congratulations on not understanding anything being presented here. Of course gravity is not at work in the experiment, EM forces are. And this indicates that galxies, that possess similar rotational properties to the experiments, and many other similarities, are not dominated by gravity pulling everything into a central point, but could be formed by similar EM forces that can account for this spiral shape. This is all without the need of invoking tremendous amounts of hypothetical dark matter or dark energy. A theory which needs no such epicycles as these is the more powerful theory.



What is the connection between solar physics and "plasma cosmology"?


Nothing much. If you read the very first thing i wrote, what the whole point of that post was about:

Using plasma scaleability relationships between large and small size plasmas is the scope of the chosen subject, and comparing some of the similarities that have been reproduced in experiments with EM effects inside plasmas, and structures in the cosmos, thus indicating a level of EM activity and charge separation not accepted by conventional views.

If you want evidence for plasma cosmolgy it would be different material. This falls more under the bracket of Alfvens plasma universe, and plasma atrophysics, which is still very different to conventional understanding of space, and is consistant with plasma cosmology, but is cartainly not any sort of direct proof of it. You still seem confused about the difference between plasma cosmoogy, the plasma universe and plasma astrophysics. Maybe reading some of the material i posted would suffice?


The experiments that you reference are very interesting but once again you are pointing out well-known facts in plasma physics. Now you need to find papers linking these experiments to "structures in the cosmos" as in what you quoted for the question.



Did you see the pictures i posted? linking the phenomenon in the experiments directly with what we see in space? the rings around the Terrella, the equatorial plasma torus, the sunspots, the polar coronal hole, the corona, polar currents, auroral discharges, EM jets, etc.

Are you denying that Birkeland was able to mirror nearly exactly many separate aspects of the sun using a highly eletcriclly charged body eminating an electrical field, and was not able to achieve any effect without sufficient charging? what do you think this implies???

Speaking of interesting experiments here is one that I mentioned earlier:


And heres one i pointed out earlier which negates that pointless excersise you did:

This is a very good point (that i have pointed out before), the actual number of scientists that consider themselves plasma cosmologists as such is very small, this term was coined only recently and is not used by many, but most people who write material highly relevant to plasma cosmology would consider themselves plasma astrophysicists.



since when did a search in google discount scientific ideas? Maybe you should search for plasma astrophysics? most plasma cosmologists material falls under that bracket.

RealityCheck, your level of pseudoskeptisism is quite unbelieveable. Did you read Peratts paper? i suggest you start with the equations in section III, and IV. Get back to me when you have come up with why this is all wrong, i would very much like to hear it.
 
Last edited:
I asked you a very specific question. Today was the deadline, and you have failed.


No you asked a very vague question, of which you were demanding a precise answer. Quite different.


I asked you to produce one single, concrete, and specific astrophysical phenomenon which PC explains in a way different from the mainstream. I did NOT ask you to list the "accomplishments" of PC.


That is not the accomplishments of PC, I was responding to the exact statement that we agreed upon before, which I quoted at the top of the post, plasma scalablity and its application to the cosmos.


Now, there are many claims in that enormous post of yours, with varying degrees of vagueness. You have failed to do what I asked, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. So here's the deal - either you pick one single, concrete, and specific astrophysical phenomenon out of that list, or I will do it for you. If I debunk it, the terms are the same - you must stop posting about PC.


Ok i will do happily, after you comment on the material presented above. what is so vague about it? the similarities look pretty concrete to me (and anyone with eyes :D )


Do you agree? And if so, will you pick one, or should I? You have until tomorrow.


Why should i give a damn about a deadline set by an egotistic pseudoskeptical hypocrite, who obviously has no interest in actually discussing the material presented, and just ignores the main points I make post after post, pedantically picking out the fine minutiae and not addressing the subject at hand?

I think you may be suffereing from a hardening of the categories Sol, and you may be beyond help. Just because you were not aware of something previously does not make it wrong.
 
Last edited:
...
That is not the accomplishments of PC, I was responding to the exact statement that we agreed upon before, which I quoted at the top of the post, plasma scalablity and its application to the cosmos.
...


Zeuzzz, your response in the previous post is at the most a third done. You have listed plasma physics experiments to do with simulations of solar physics. You have listed plasma physics experiments to do with plasmoids and how they look like galaxies under certain conditions, e.g. under timeframes that ignore gravity. You have 2 further tasks to do to answer the question:
  1. How does this scale up to anything larger that a solar system?
  2. What is its application to the cosmos?
 
You have 2 further tasks to do to answer the question:
  1. How does this scale up to anything larger that a solar system?
  2. What is its application to the cosmos?


What do you mean? you want a mathematical relationship? or you want me to copy and paste the part of my last post that looks at a couple of examples of direct plasma scalability over many orders of magnitude?
 
The questions does involve orders of magnitude, yes. And remember i am open to plasma cosmology.

However you haven't demonsrated the scales that would be needed for the transformations, i will read the post more carefully tomorrow, but the same annoying questions apply. What would be the scale of conversion and what evidence is there to support it.

Again, I am not trying to lamblast any one I will ask questions that should have answers. i will look through your post and see where you demonsrate the scales of transformation, such as , if there is a plasmoid that acts like a galaxy, what is the scale of the plasmoid to a galaxy? What currents should be visible in the galactic arms through the magnetic fields involved or whatever carrier of the force there is.

If a plasmoid is accountable for th galactic shape then the same force should apply and be scaled appropriately, although it may not be directly related to the scale.

So is there an explanation of how the plasmoid looks like a galaxy or just that it does? Because the reasons the plasmoid are shaped the way that it is will be crucial to the scaling and then the potential observation of what is scaled up to a galaxy.

So if x current flow or magnetic field is needed to create the shape in the lab, what will be the scaled up energy or force needed to do it in a galaxy.

Gravity can model galaxies reasonably, with a kludge. So the scaling should get a kludge as well, but if the scaling says that x-prime should be so large, there should be some figure that could be observed. Which is what i will be asking about.

And also that is where BAC has failed rather well.
 
What do you mean? you want a mathematical relationship? or you want me to copy and paste the part of my last post that looks at a couple of examples of direct plasma scalability over many orders of magnitude?

Dude you said that it is scalable! Numbers and explanations would be very nice and would be a demonstration of what might be alleged to be a real theory as opposed to staring at the clouds and seeing pictures.

You said that it can be scaled, so what scale are you using and how do you adjust it from the lab to a galaxy?
 
.

RealityCheck, your level of pseudoskeptisism is quite unbelieveable. Did you read Peratts paper? i suggest you start with the equations in section III, and IV. Get back to me when you have come up with why this is all wrong, i would very much like to hear it.

Can you explain the scaling to a galaxy, it is a very relevant question. i have read tha papaer and do not understand it, which is why i ask BAC, what is the force that moves the stars in a flat rortaion curve, it would appear to be magnetism. If so what size does the magnetic field have to be/
Does the internal magneto have to have the same mass as the galaxy or how does it move all the mass of the galaxy?

i am asking these questions because I do not understand how you scale Perrat's model to a glaxy, and BAC has refused to answer my questions.

Do you understand the model well enough to discuss the scaling? What is it that moves the mass is a flat rotations curve? Can it be measured?
 
The scaling of plasma physics on cosmical and laboratory scales generally involves estimates of the diffusion in plasma, inertia forces acting on the currents, the Coriolis force, the gravitational force, the centrifugal force, and the jxB electromagnetic force [Bostick 1958, Lehnert 1959] .

Specification of plasma density, geometry, temperature, magnetic field strength, acceleration field, and dimension set the initial conditions for simulation . The parameters that delineate the physical characteristics of a current-carrying plasma are the electron drift velocity;

[latex]\beta_{z}=\frac{v_{z}}{c}[/latex]

The plasma thermal velocity;

[latex]\beta_{th}=\frac{v_{th}}{c}=\frac{(\lambda_{D}/\Delta)(w_{p}\delta{t})}{c\delta{t}/\Delta}[/latex]

And the thermal/magnetic pressure ratio;

[latex]\beta_{p}=\frac{n_{e}kT_{e}+n_{i}kT_{i}}{B^2/2\mu_{0}}=\frac{[(\lambda_{D}/\Delta)(w_{p}/\delta{t})]^24(1+T_{i}/T_{e})}{(c\delta{t}/\Delta)^2(w_{c0}/w_{p})^2}[/latex]

Where n is the plasma density, T is the plasma temperature, k is Boltzmann's constant, and the subscripts e and i denote electron and ion species, respectively. The parameter [latex]\delta{t}[/latex] is the simulation time step, [latex]\Delta[/latex] is the cell size, and c is the speed of light. All dimensions are normalized to [latex]\Delta[/latex] and all times are normalized to [latex]\delta{t}[/latex].

The simulation spatial and temporal dimensions can be changed via the transformation;

[latex]{c\delta{t}}{\lambda}=\frac{c\delta{t}\acute{}}{\Delta\acute{}}=1[/latex]

where [latex]\Delta\acute{}=\alpha\lambda[/latex] and [latex]\delta{t}\acute{}=\alpha\delta{t}[/latex], for the size/time multiplication factor [latex]\alpha[/latex]. The values of n, T, B, and E remain the same regardless of whether the simulations are scaled to [latex]\Delta[/latex] and [latex]\delta{t}[/latex] or to [latex]\Delta\acute{}[/latex] and [latex]\delta{t}\acute{}[/latex]. One immediate consequence of the rescaling is that, while the dimensionless simulation parameters remain untouched, the resolution is reduced, that is;

[latex]\omega\delta{t}=\omega\acute{}\delta{t}\acute{}[/latex]

Where [latex]\omega\acute{}=\omega/\alpha[/latex] rad/s is the highest frequency resolvable.

To convert simulation results to dimensional form, it is sufficient to fix the value of one
physical quantity (e.g.,[latex]\beta_{\phi}[/latex])

EDIT: What is up with latex editor on this forum? it works out fine on the usual forum i use :confused: I'll copy a pic instead. 1 min.
 
Last edited:
We call the small value the "minimum". We call the big value the "maximum".

Would that be a 2-sigma "minimum" or something else? ;)

The actual value of the thing being measured can be any value between the minimum value and the maximum value but is likely to be close to the measured value.

So the "actual value of the thing" is not necessarily 3.7 million solar masses like you said. I see. :)

The measured value is 3.7 million solar masses so that is what the actual value will be close to.

But there still is a finite probability that the actual value is close to 40,000 suns. Right? :)

And by the way ... they didn't "measure" the mass. They inferred it from "measuring" something other than mass. :)

a zero-sized volume has a radius of zero but we can never measure the radius as zero, only to within a Planck length.

So you are claiming that 10-35 meters is the same as zero meters? Wouldn't that rule out string theory? Or you suggesting that the billion solar masses collapses until it is just quantum foam? What holds it together then, so that it stays a black hole?
 
What do you mean? you want a mathematical relationship? or you want me to copy and paste the part of my last post that looks at a couple of examples of direct plasma scalability over many orders of magnitude?
Peratt is sort of right but also totally wrong. If you were considering just plasma physics you can scale a plasma up to any size that you like. But as Peratt states
The scaling of plasma physics on cosmological and laboratory scales general involves estimates of the diffusion in plasma, inertia forces acting on the currents, the Coriolis force, the gravitational force, the centrifugal force and the j x B electromagnetic force.
He then goes on to ignore everything except the electromagnetic force.

So yes I need the mathematical relationship, including the effect of gravity, the Coriolis force and the centrifugal force.

Also lets have a closer look at the paper which was first published in 1986. This very influential paper :rolleyes: must of course have many citations, e.g. a modest 10 a year would give 210 (ignoring 2008). How many do we find - a grand total of 4. So let us look at the citations. Two are from him so they do not count. One is on z-pinches and the abstract does not mention cosmology (it has 96 citations since 2000). The other is on "renewal-at-π cosmology" which seems to present an alternative to all cosmologies (incliding plasma cosmology).
 
Well, gosh BAC here is a sample of what a search for homo polar motor in psts by BeAChooser gives, 11 posts, some are duplicates, and nowhere do youe xplain a model of how the homopolar motor applies to a galaxy.

You once again demonstrate your unwillingness to actually explore the links that have been provided to you in these discussions. Those links have referenced numerous sources ... including peer reviewed scientific papers ... on unipolar inductor (homopolar) models for various space objects, including galaxies. Some sources were even written by a Nobel Prize winner in physics. You've also shown no willingness to do any internet browsing on your own. You apparently want to be spoon fed.

Browse under the right keywords and you'll get plenty of hits on the subject. This one, for example,

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Homopolar_generator

contains numerous references. Here are other examples of the type of sources that are easily found discussing this topic:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0606489

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1978Ap&SS..54..279A

So if you really want to understand the proposed model, you need only try. Your apparent unwillingness to do that is why I've decide it's a waste of time to respond to most of your posts, David. :D
 
Plasma physics predicts Birkeland currents. plasmiods, double-layers and all of the other predictions that you attribute to "plasma cosmology".

You're hand waving, RC. Plasma physicists do indeed predict all the above types of phenomena. For good reason. Yet, mainstream astrophysicists don't seem to even have those terms in their lexicon. Why is that?

One more time - a simulation is not the thing being simulated.

You mean like that large computer model you touted that uses warm dark matter to create a filamentary universe? :)

And speaking of experiments ... how about this one from the Big Bang community:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ma...&grid=&xml=/earth/2007/12/23/scicosmos123.xml "'Test tube universe' hints at unifying theory, By Roger Highfield, Science Editor ... snip ... 26/12/2007, A "universe in a test tube" that could be used to assess theories of everything has been created by physicists. ... snip ... What is remarkable is that atoms in the liquid, at temperatures within a thousandth of a degree of absolute zero, form structures that, according to the team at Lancaster University, are similar those seen in the cosmos."

I think mainstream astrophysics and cosmology just get sillier and sillier in what they propose as "evidence" to support their gnome filled theory. :D
 
You're hand waving, RC. Plasma physicists do indeed predict all the above types of phenomena. For good reason. Yet, mainstream astrophysicists don't seem to even have those terms in their lexicon. Why is that?
Give me a list of the mainstream astrophysicists that know nothing about plasma physics. I will bet that it is small. They accept that plasma physics is important for plasmas of any size. The effect of plasma physics outside of plasmas is small. Look up plasma in Wikipedia

You're
You mean like that large computer model you touted that uses warm dark matter to create a filamentary universe? :)
You mean the large computer model that includes every known factor to simulate the universe of which warm dark matter is just one?

And speaking of experiments ... how about this one from the Big Bang community:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ma...&grid=&xml=/earth/2007/12/23/scicosmos123.xml "'Test tube universe' hints at unifying theory, By Roger Highfield, Science Editor ... snip ... 26/12/2007, A "universe in a test tube" that could be used to assess theories of everything has been created by physicists. ... snip ... What is remarkable is that atoms in the liquid, at temperatures within a thousandth of a degree of absolute zero, form structures that, according to the team at Lancaster University, are similar those seen in the cosmos."

I think mainstream astrophysics and cosmology just get sillier and sillier in what they propose as "evidence" to support their gnome filled theory. :D
That is not evidence, it is a press release including the usual hype. The scientists state that the structures are "similar" to those seen in the cosmos.
 
Would that be a 2-sigma "minimum" or something else?
It is not stated in the article so we cannot tell. Why don't you contact the authors if it is so important to you? :D

So the "actual value of the thing" is not necessarily 3.7 million solar masses like you said. I see. :)
You do not see. It is very likely to be 3.7 million solar masses since that is what the scientists state. Scientists tend to state the most likely values of measurements or calculations.

But there still is a finite probability that the actual value is close to 40,000 suns. Right? :)
Yes.

And by the way ... they didn't "measure" the mass. They inferred it from "measuring" something other than mass. :)
No they did not "infer" the mass. They calculated the mass using the orbits of stars around the black hole.

So you are claiming that 10-35 meters is the same as zero meters? Wouldn't that rule out string theory? Or you suggesting that the billion solar masses collapses until it is just quantum foam? What holds it together then, so that it stays a black hole?
[/quote]
No I am not. Its mass keeps it as a black hole.
 
You seem completely incapable of actually reading any of the material i post. Please look at some of the work in my last post.
Hannes Alfven was one of the original advocates of a plasma cosmology approach, and so you saying that all his amazingly accurate predictions do not validate the very model he was advocating is utterly ridiculous.
I did read that paper. You apparently think that the title of the paper, "Alfven's programme in solar system physics" contains the word cosmology.

It is extremely comparable. The sun is made of highly conducting plasma, just as with the Terrella.
So what?

But they are govened by the same laws due to plasma scalability, the whole point of the post (incase you hadn't noticed) Maybe you should read some of the papers i supplied? you obviously didn't.

If this is your view, could you please post your refutation of plasma scalability from force free configurations?
So post your support of plasma scalability including forces from the real world - including gravity.

congratulations on not understanding anything being presented here. Of course gravity is not at work in the experiment, EM forces are. And this indicates that galxies, that possess similar rotational properties to the experiments, and many other similarities, are not dominated by gravity pulling everything into a central point, but could be formed by similar EM forces that can account for this spiral shape. This is all without the need of invoking tremendous amounts of hypothetical dark matter or dark energy. A theory which needs no such epicycles as these is the more powerful theory.
So you admit that only EM forces are considered. A partial model is even worse than a wrong model since it wastes peoples time.
Please learn some elementary physics or better English. Galaxies are not "dominated by gravity pulling everything into a central point". They rotate and that accounts for the spiral shape. We do not need dark matter to account for the shape of galaxies. Your "epicycle" is the assumption that plasma physics is the dominant force in the universe.
 
Zeuzz, while we are in the question of "scalability" and its application to cosmology:
Have you considered gravitation scalability and its application to cosmology?
 
You once again demonstrate your unwillingness to actually explore the links that have been provided to you in these discussions. Those links have referenced numerous sources ... including peer reviewed scientific papers ... on unipolar inductor (homopolar) models for various space objects, including galaxies. Some sources were even written by a Nobel Prize winner in physics. You've also shown no willingness to do any internet browsing on your own. You apparently want to be spoon fed.

Browse under the right keywords and you'll get plenty of hits on the subject. This one, for example,

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Homopolar_generator

contains numerous references. Here are other examples of the type of sources that are easily found discussing this topic:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0606489

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1978Ap&SS..54..279A

So if you really want to understand the proposed model, you need only try. Your apparent unwillingness to do that is why I've decide it's a waste of time to respond to most of your posts, David. :D

So, in truth, you are saying "I won't answer the questions."

Why is that BAC?

Why when asked for a direct , short answer you refuse to provide one?

Hmmm?

Again you are using appeals to emtion, instead of answering questions.

I suspect you just don't know what you are talking about.


http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0606/0606489v3.pdf

As in that theory, galactic nuclei
are dark objects where gravity prevents the escape of most radiation.
In this case, collapse is counteracted by rising internal pressure and
black hole singularities don’t occur.
Suppose a supermassive body’s gravity exceeds the opposing nuclear forces
and collapse begins. Falling inward, of course its particles gain kinetic energy,
raising its temperature and pressure. Collapse continues as long as the body can
radiate the acquired kinetic energy.
However, the escape of radiation (including neutrinos) is cut off before the
body shrinks to 1 percent of the photon orbit radius. And contraction stops when
its gravity is counterbalanced by increased radiation pressure. Since there is no
collapse of space-time here, the result is a darkened object of finite dimensions.
Extreme gravity is matched by extreme temperatures and pressures, with massive
particles having velocities very close to the local speed of light.
In wave gravity, the trajectory of a massive particle with nearly the speed of
light approximates that of a light ray in a gravitational field [1]. So the above
equations apply approximately to the escape of all relativistic particles from supermassive
bodies. Rather than energy, the critical factor for the escape of relativistic
particles is the direction of their trajectories. With symmetrical gravitational fields,
it’s always possible for some light or matter to escape along trajectories aligned
precisely with the field direction.

Sooooo :

here is one of your alleged explanations except that it isn't yours.

And in the abstract it just asserts that internal pressure will prevent collapse, now at what radius of concentration is this?

Are they violating GR?

or as they say later 'less that tna 1% of an orbiting photon radius", so we are at a very small scale and so you don't have an extended plasmoid but a 'black hole'?

And this paper just seems to assert without evidence that space/time as expressed in GR is incorrect.

Hmm, still no answer, to which question were you prenteding this was an answer?
 
Last edited:
You're hand waving, RC. Plasma physicists do indeed predict all the above types of phenomena. For good reason. Yet, mainstream astrophysicists don't seem to even have those terms in their lexicon. Why is that?
Because if they are like you they don't answer a direct questions when asked! :p

So what keeps a Lerner plasmoid extended in a volume of space BAC? You presnted this theory, so answer the following questions about it:

Say one that is 40,000 soloar masses in an area with a radius of 43 AU,
What size is the alleged plasmoid?
What force keeps it from undergoing gravitational collapse to an object of such gravitational force that it is called a 'black hole'? IE photons will not exit the event horizon.
You have not answered the question.

So far you linked to one paper, it described an object that was very, very small and then just asserted that the photons could escape the gravitational field if they went the right direction. Which is sort of wrong.

So why won't you answer the direct question about the Lerner plasmoid that you allege is at the center of the galaxy?

You can't, you apparently just wave words around and you don't know what they mean.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzz, while we are in the question of "scalability" and its application to cosmology:
Have you considered gravitation scalability and its application to cosmology?

[....]

So post your support of plasma scalability including forces from the real world - including gravity.

So you admit that only EM forces are considered. A partial model is even worse than a wrong model since it wastes peoples time.
Please learn some elementary physics or better English.


What the hell are you talking about? are you seriously suggesting that Peratt just forgot to include the force of gravity in his model? I have continually asked to to actually read and try to comprehend his work, but its obviously completely above your head.

I'll have one more go. (both papers can be seen in full in the links supplied above)

Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets - Section III and IV contains the relevant relationships and the simulation parameters used in the supcomputer model. As requested I posted above the necissary plasma scaling laws, and i really cant be bothered to post his material in its entirity, so i suggest you actually read what he is saying.

Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies Looks at how these models can create the shapes of various generation of galaxies, and expands on the EM relationships between plasma's addressed in the previous paper.

r HE evolution of cosmic plasma from a filamentary 1 state to the development of double radio sources and quasars was investigated in the first part to this sequel paper (Paper I) [1]. The time frame of this study, based upon scaling simulation parameters to galactic dimensions, spanned some 108-109 years. In this paper (Paper II), the evolution for the next 1-5 x 109 years under the influence of electromagnetic forces acting on the plasma
is investigated. The importance of electromagnetic forces in galactic and stellar evolution derives from the fact that the universe is largely matter in its plasma state. The observed stars are composed of plasmas, as are the interstellar and interplanetary media and the outer atmospheres of planets.

The neutral Hi regions in galaxies are also plasma although the degree of ionization is probably only 10-4. Both the intra- and intergalactic media then consist of plasma, leading to the coinage of the term "plasma universe." Electromagnetic forces can then be expected to play a crucial role in the development of the plasma universe including both the formation of systems of galaxies and the formation of stars within the dusty galactic plasmas.

Although the gravitational force is weaker than the electromagnetic force by 39 orders of magnitude, gravitation is one of the dominant forces in astrophysics when electromagnetic forces neutralize each other, as is the case when large bodies form [5]. Indicative of the analogy of forces for the motion of electrons and ions in the electromagnetic field and the motion of large bodies in the gravitational field is the ease with which a plasma model may be changed to a gravitational model. This transformation requires only a change of sign in the (electrostatic) potential calculation such that like particles attract instead of repel, followed by setting the charge-to-mass ratio equal to the square root of the gravitational constant (a gravitational model cannot be simply changed to an electromagnetic model as the full set of Maxwell's equations are required in the latter). [....]

It is the purpose of this paper to continue the investigation of the dynamics of the denser interacting plasmas pinched within the filaments by means of the electromagnetic and gravitational force laws. That this is possible is due largely to the advent of the particle simulation of dynamic systems in three dimensions on large computers, allowing the computation of up to many millions of charge and mass particles according to their respective force laws. This approach to the study of cosmic plasma is labeled "gravito-electrodynamics" [8].



And for some further reading, and an expansion on the EM forces involved in this galaxy model, may I suggest The role of particle beams and electrical currents in the plasma universe (can be seen in full here

3-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations of spiral galaxies - Galactic and intergalactic magnetic fields; Proceedings of the 140th Symposium of IAU

Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 167-173, 1995


Peratt included standard gravity as a vital variable in his model, and it did have an effect on the shape of the galaxy, although the EM forces in the plasma were shown to dominate the overall morphology.

You are a joke reality check. Every comment you have posted since my previous reply to sols little challenge has been either completely misrepresenting the material presented, or just make arguments on authority. Ever heard of a logical fallacy? If you cant dismiss the message, shoot the messsenger.

If you think this is such a bad scientific model with no merit, then please add your scientific objections to it. For the twentieth time. Hand waving and just saying "this paper only has twenty citations, so therfore it must be wrong" is one of the stupidest reasons to dismiss material I have heard in a long time. There is a good reason why they have not been cited as much as other papers on mainstream scientific subjects, as they contradict the gravity driven Big Bang picture that nearly every scientist in the world has been educated to believe. It seems that many scientists like Peratts work, and many have contributed to this controversial field since his original publications.

I suggest you read some of the articles that have cited peratts work, including some of the recent independant plasma astrophysicists that are expanding on his model. And the two papers I cited above are not the only ones, there are many others if you would care to look at them aswell (i'm not holding my breath). Heres just a couple;

Are rotation curves in NGC 6946 and the Milky Way magnetically supported? Astronomische Nachrichten, Vol.328, Issue 1, p.92-98 (AN Homepage) 01/2007.

The inner disk rotation of NGC 6946 and the Milky Way is dominated by gravity but magnetism is not negligible at radii where the rotation curve becomes flat, and indeed could become dominant at very large radii. Values of the order of 1 μG, or even less, produce a centripetal force when the absolute value of the slope of the curve [B_ǎrphi, R] (azimuthal field strength versus radius) is less than the slope of a B_ǎrphi-profile proportional to R-1. The ∝ R-1-profile is here called the critical profile. From the hypothesis of magnetically driven rotation curves, the following is to be expected: at large radii, a ``subcritical'' profile (slope flatter than R-1); at still larger radii a B_ǎrphi-profile becoming asymptotically critical as the density becomes asymptotically vanishing. Recent observations of magnetic fields in NGC 6946 and the Milky Way are in very good agreement with these predictions.


Magnetic fields and large scale structure in a hot universe. I. General equations. - Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.326, p.13-22

We consider that no mean magnetic field exists during this epoch, but that there is a mean magnetic energy associated with large-scale magnetic inhomogeneities. We study the evolution of these inhomogeneities and their influence on the large scale density structure, by introducing linear perturbations in Maxwell equations, the conservation of momentum-energy equation, and in Einstein field equations. The primordial magnetic field structure is time independent in the linear approximation, only being diluted by the general expansion, so that {vec}(B) R^2^ is conserved in comoving coordinates. Magnetic fields have a strong influence on the formation of large-scale structure. Firstly, relatively low fields are able to generate density structures even if they were inexistent at earlier times. Second, magnetic fields act anisotropically more recently, modifying the evolution of individual density clouds. Magnetic flux tubes have a tendency to concentrate photons in filamentary patterns.


The physics of fast Z pinches - Reviews of Modern Physics, vol. 72, Issue 1, pp. 167-223 - 01/2000
The spectacular progress made during the last few years in reaching high energy densities in fast implosions of annular current sheaths (fast Z pinches) opens new possibilities for a broad spectrum of experiments, from x-ray generation to controlled thermonuclear fusion and astrophysics. At present Z pinches are the most intense laboratory x-ray sources (1.8 MJ in 5 ns from a volume 2 mm in diameter and 2 cm tall). Powers in excess of 200 TW have been obtained. This warrants summarizing the present knowledge of physics that governs the behavior of radiating, current-carrying plasma in fast Z pinches. This survey covers essentially all aspects of the physics of fast Z pinches: initiation, instabilities of the early stage, magnetic Rayleigh-Taylor instability in the implosion phase, formation of a transient quasiequilibrium near the stagnation point, and rebound. Considerable attention is paid to the analysis of hydrodynamic instabilities governing the implosion symmetry. Possible ways of mitigating these instabilities are discussed. Nonmagnetohydrodynamic effects (anomalous resistivity, generation of particle beams, etc.) are summarized. Various applications of fast Z pinches are briefly described. Scaling laws governing development of more powerful Z pinches are presented.


Magnetism in the spiral galaxy NGC 6946: magnetic arms, depolarization rings, dynamo modes, and helical fields - Astronomy and Astrophysics, Volume 470, Issue 2, August I 2007, pp.539-556

Context: The spiral galaxy NGC 6946 hosts magnetic spiral arms, highly aligned magnetic fields between the gas/optical arms. Aims: The origin of the magnetic phenomena and their relation to the interstellar gas are investigated. Methods: NGC 6946 was observed in total intensity and linear polarization in five radio bands between 3 cm and 21 cm. Maps of spectral index, Faraday rotation and depolarization were derived. Results: At the inner edge of the inner gas spiral arm the ordered magnetic field is only mildly compressed and turns smoothly, to become aligned along the gas arm. Hence the field is not shocked and is probably connected to the warm, diffuse gas. At larger radii, two bright magnetic arms between the optical arms are visible in polarized intensity. The field in the northern magnetic arm is almost totally aligned. - In the gas/optical spiral arms, the total (mostly turbulent) magnetic field is amplified to ≃20 μG. Its energy density is ≃10 times larger than that of the ionized gas and is similar to that of the turbulent gas motions in the inner galaxy. The magnetic energy exceeds that of the turbulent energy in the outer galaxy. All energy densities in NGC 6946 are about one order of magnitude larger than those in the Milky Way. Conclusions: Density waves in the inner gaseous spiral arms mildly compress the field. Dynamo action probably generates the magnetic spiral arms. The magnetic field is dynamically important, interacts with the gas flow and possibly determines the properties of the gas spiral arms.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom