Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

tusenfem · Mar 26, 2009

Sol88 said:
Perhaps you could help me? Aren't you a plasma physicist?

whatevah! look at post 1638, there is your answer.

Sol88 · Mar 26, 2009

OK, I'm sorry Tusenfem, It's no use gettn narkie at each other, does nuthn for the thread, so truce ay!

Perhaps you could help me? Aren't you a plasma physicist?

No mate that's fair dink'm :catfight:

that won't achive anything, so I sorry I'm sure you get as frustrated as I do but lets keep it focused.

What say ye there bro?

Sol Invictus asked:

Zeuzzz or "Sol", can you enlighten us? Where did you first hear about EU/PC, and why did you become so obsessed with it? Are you interested in learning "mainstream" physics too? Or is it just that you draw some enjoyment from feeling like an iconoclast?

Anyway so I'll tells, I base my EU/PC assumptions on the following list, perhaps you could tell which one I misunderstand;

The biggie first!

Space is a PLASMA.

99% of Space is plasma.

Plasma contains + (positive) & - (Negative) charges.

Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s

Plasma is an excellent conductor.

Plasma has known, though difficult mathematical properties.

Plasma is self organizing.

Plasma can be “cellular”.

Plasma can be “filamentary”.

Plasma we can observe in a lab/space

Plasma we can measure in a lab/space.

Dust can become a Plasma.

Magnetic fields require an electric current.

A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current.

We observe magnetic fields everywhere.

Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.

Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines.

Lots of charges particle = PLASMA.

Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects comprise the electromagnetic spectrum.

That’s a few that rattle round this noggn, where am I going wrong?

If I've offended you, Tusenfem and you decline to answer I'll understand.

Sol88 · Mar 26, 2009

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

What happens when you pass en electric current thru a plasma? At this stage forget about field lines. Be it lightning or a plasma globe filament.

tusenfem said:
Nuthing!?!?!

Some or all of the following may happen, depending on the situation:

plasma heating (basically always happens because of the resistivity of the plasma)

instabilities (depending on the flow velocity of the electrons or ions carrying the current, instabilities may or may not arise)

double layers (although this partly fits into the instabilities category, depending on the local plasma density or on the flow velocity of the particle carrying the current, see instabilities, double layers may or may not be created)

filamentation (depending on the strength of the current and on the properties of the plasma filamentation may or may not occur)

That is basically all that can happen in a plasma. Unless you mean an only partially ionized plasma, then you can get ionization too.

No that's how I understand it as well, so where are we going wrong?

Ok lets add field lines, perhaps I have some confusion in that department? Same deal except the current has to follow a field line.

DeiRenDopa · Mar 26, 2009

Sol88 said:
DeiRenDopa said:

We need to be clear about this, so let's put it to bed before moving on, shall we?

Do you accept that my post was limited to illustrating a logical inconsistency?

If you don't accept that, then we need to work out why ... because that's what I intended.

Click to expand...

No I do not, your post wrt this subject is very limited!

Clear on what exactly? logical inconsistencies?

OK, so let's try it once again, a little bit slower this time.

Suppose we have this statement:

JoeSixpack was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results.

Suppose we are wish to show that it is false.

There are many ways we could do that.

One way would be to find a counter-example.

This is particularly easy in this case, because the statement is absolute ... there are no qualifiers, nothing limiting the scope of the claim.

If we could find some results of JoeSixpack that have been published, then we would have just such a counter-example.

Note that we can replace "JoeSixpack" with "tusenfem", or "Zeuzzz", or "Sol88", or "DeiRenDopa", or .... "Arp"; in each case a single example of the publication of that person's results would show the statement to be false.

Now suppose we discover that SevenpackSam wrote these two statements:

A) JoeSixpack was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results.

B) "On the nature of shoes, ships, and sealing wax" is a paper, by JoeSixpack, that was published yesterday.

This is a logical inconsistency.

Note that the logical inconsistency is independent of SevenpackSam ... it could be tusenfem who wrote the two statements, or Zeuzzz, or Sol88, or DeiRenDopa; all that is required is the two statements themselves.

Do you understand that this is a logical inconsistency?

Now suppose we find that "Sol88" presents these two statements:

A) Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results.

B) "The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319" is a paper, by Arp, that was published in ApJ in 2005.

Do you acknowledge that this is a logical inconsistency?

That I gave a link to Arp's work after I said he was denied telescope time?

I hope the above clarifies what I am pointing out; if it doesn't, please say so and I'll try again to make it clear.

Sol88, we need to come to agreement on this, because it is the only mutually agreed basis we have, so far, for any discussion here.

This is your beef against the merits of the EU/PC?

To be clear: I am trying to establish an agreed basis for having a discussion on this topic; I have not even begun to look at "EU/PC", whatever that might be.

For avoidance of doubt here are all three papers I could dig up in chronological order on H.Arp after he was denied Telescope time

[...]

Interesting.

You may be interested to know that my ~30s search using ADS turned up 18 published papers by Arp, in the period 1998-2009, along with ten conference or workshop presentations.

You may also be interested to know that this rate of publication makes Arp a quite active astronomer.

sol invictus · Mar 26, 2009

Sol88 said:
Say whaaa? Tripper!

Do you know what's being discussed here?

If you mean, "do you understand my posts", the answer is no. I find I often find it difficult to understand wrong statements.

If you mean, "do you understand the physics being discussed in this thread", the answer is a (qualified) yes.

The first image you posted shows magnetic field lines circling around a current. They are perpendicular to the current - the opposite of a Birkeland current - and the picture was probably intended to illustrate the B fields due to current flowing down a wire surrounded by vacuum.

Sol88 said:
Space is a PLASMA.

99% of Space is plasma.

I love it when people contradict themselves in two consecutive statements...

Plasma contains + (positive) & - (Negative) charges.

Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s

Plasma is an excellent conductor.

Plasma has known, though difficult mathematical properties.

True.

Plasma is self organizing.

Hmm...

Plasma can be “cellular”.

Plasma can be “filamentary”.

Plasma we can observe in a lab/space

Plasma we can measure in a lab/space.

Dust can become a Plasma.

Yes, OK.

Magnetic fields require an electric current.

False. Where's the current in your refrigerator magnets? Where's the current for the B fields in the radio waves broadcast in 2005 that are currently arriving at Alpha Centauri?

A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current.

We observe magnetic fields everywhere.

Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.

True.

Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines.

False. Charged particles experience zero magnetic force if they follow B field lines. If they don't, they feel a force transverse to their motion that causes them to travel along a curved path.

Lots of charges particle = PLASMA.

False. All matter contains charged particles - and at much higher density than most plasmas.

Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects comprise the electromagnetic spectrum.

I suppose that's true in some vague sense, but it's equally true if you remove the "Plasma/".

tusenfem · Mar 26, 2009

Sol88 said:
N

Lots of charges particle = PLASMA.

Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects comprise the electromagnetic spectrum.

where am I going wrong?

Ah, let's see, start at the end? Here you are wrong:

1. Just lots of charged particles is not a plasma
2. Effects are not an electromagnetic spectrum, a spectrum is a specific word used in physics

and then the greatest weirdness: Space is a PLASMA

Space is space and is not a plasma.

tusenfem · Mar 26, 2009

Sol88 said:
Ok lets add field lines, perhaps I have some confusion in that department? Same deal except the current has to follow a field line.

Add field lines (what kind of field lines? I assume magnetic).

The current follows a field line, which means that the electrons at least are magnetized.

The only thing that needs to be added than is that there will be effects of magnetic pressure in the possible instabilities.

Sol88 · Mar 26, 2009

DRD

Do you acknowledge that this is a logical inconsistency?

Quote:

That I gave a link to Arp's work after I said he was denied telescope time?
I hope the above clarifies what I am pointing out; if it doesn't, please say so and I'll try again to make it clear.

Sol88, we need to come to agreement on this, because it is the only mutually agreed basis we have, so far, for any discussion here.

All right I may have made a cock up, As far as I knew it was telescope time. :eye-poppi

But are you saying he was denied puplication rights as well?

Now suppose we find that "Sol88" presents these two statements:

A) Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results.

B) "The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319" is a paper, by Arp, that was published in ApJ in 2005.

Sol88 · Mar 26, 2009

Cool

tusenfem
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ok lets add field lines, perhaps I have some confusion in that department? Same deal except the current has to follow a field line.
Add field lines (what kind of field lines? I assume magnetic).

The current follows a field line, which means that the electrons at least are magnetized.

The only thing that needs to be added than is that there will be effects of magnetic pressure in the possible instabilities

Could that be called a Birkeland current?

Sol88 · Mar 26, 2009

Ah, let's see, start at the end? Here you are wrong:

1. Just lots of charged particles is not a plasma
2. Effects are not an electromagnetic spectrum, a spectrum is a specific word used in physics

and then the greatest weirdness: Space is a PLASMA

Space is space and is not a plasma.

Click to expand...

Ok now we are getting somewhere, this is were I'm getting confused! :blush:

Say we have a "cloud" of charged particle a light year cubed? whats that called?

Sorry in effects I meant to say, when plasma/electricity and magnetic fields DO something we see the effects in the electromagnetic spectrum.

What would I see in the EM spectrum of a current following a magnetic field line thru a plasma?

How many charged particle per cubic cm would constitute a plasma?

tusenfem · Mar 26, 2009

Sol88 said:
Could that be called a Birkeland current?

Not in my definition. I am for the strict definition that Birkeland currents are a specific kind of field aligned currents in the Earth's magnetosphere. For all the rest of field aligned currents I use the term "field aligned currents." Only grudgingly I added the extended definition into the Wiki page.

tusenfem · Mar 26, 2009

Sol88 said:
Say we have a "cloud" of charged particle a light year cubed? whats that called?

That would just be cloud of ionized gas. There are special conditions for an ionized gas to be called a plasma. From Plasma physics for dummies (a BAUT thread):

tusenfem said:
There are three criteria that a plasma needs to obey, which will be stated here, but some of the defintions will first get clear in the following sections.

DeBye shielding
By looking at the Coulomb potential of a charge $q$, which is placed in a ``plasma'' and at the way the charge carriers behave because of this extra charges, it is found that the field of this extra charge gets shielded off by the original charge carriers. This happens over distance of the DeBye length $\lambda_{\rm D}$. In order for a plasma to be quasineutral, the physical dimension of the system, $L$, must be large compared to $\lambda_{\rm D}$:

\lambda_{\rm D} << L,

otherwise there is not enough space for the collective shielding effect to occur, and we have a simple ionized gas. This requirement is often called the first plasma criterion.

Plasma Parameter
This has to do with the density of the plasma and the DeBye length. Since the shielding effect is the result of the collective behaviour inside a DeBye sphere of radius $\lambda_{\rm D}$, it is necessary that this sphere contains enough particles. The number of particles inside a DeBye sphere is $(4/3)\pi n_{\rm e} \lambda_{\rm D}^3$. The term $n_{\rm e} \lambda_{\rm D}^3$ is often called the plasma parameter, $\Lambda$, and the second criterion for a plasma reads:

\Lambda = n_{\rm e} \lambda_{\rm D}^3 >> 1.

The mean potential energy of a particle due to its nearest neighbour, which is inversely proportional to the mean interparticle distance, and thus proportional to $n_{\rm e}^{1/3}$, must be much smaller than its mean energy,
$k_{\rm B} T_{\rm e}$.
\item Plasma Frequency \\
A typical oscillation of the plasma happens when both species (i.e.\ the positive and the negative) are moved wrt. eachother. The equations of motion for the distributions will show that the plasma starts oscillating {\it collectively} around the zero point at the so called plasma frequency:

\omega_{\rm p} = \sqrt{\frac{n_{\rm e} e^2}{m_{\rm e} \epsilon_0}}

Some plasmas, like the Earth's ionosphere, are not fully ionized. Here we have a substantial number of neutral particles and if the charged particles collide too often with neutrals, the electrons will be forced into equilibrium with the neutrals and the medium does not behave as a plasma anymore, but simply like a neutral gas. For the electrons to remain unaffected by collisions with neutrals, the average time between two electron-neutral collisions, tn, must be larger that the reciprocal of the plasma frequency:

\omega_{\rm p} \tau_{\rm n} >> 1

This is the third criterion for an ionized medium to behave as a plasma.

Then, and only then, can you claim to talk about a plasma.

Sol88 said:
Sorry in effects I meant to say, when plasma/electricity and magnetic fields DO something we see the effects in the electromagnetic spectrum.

yeah, but that is like saying if I turn the switch I see light. it does not mean anything.

Sol88 said:
What would I see in the EM spectrum of a current following a magnetic field line thru a plasma?

NOTHING! a current flowing though a plasma does not necessarily need to show a signature.

The least the current will do is heat the plasma, so I guess you will at least see a change in the emission of the plasma, in whatever way the plasma is emitting its thermal signature.

Then again, it can become wild and all kinds of plasma waves may be excited.

Sol88 said:
How many charged particle per cubic cm would constitute a plasma?

Read above, it does not just depend on how many particles or how big, three requirements are set for something to be called a plasma.

Sol88 · Mar 26, 2009

Tusenfem wrote:

I fail to see why the discharges in a plasma ball are equivalent to Birkeland currents.
These discharges are equivalent to lightning, they do not flow along the magnetic field, they just search the path of least resistance inside the ball and discharge.
It is a complete mystery to me that proponents of EU don't understand how a plasma ball works.

Then I added:

It's no mystery!

Though they may not be following a magnetic field line as per magnetosphere/steller/Cosmic/Galactic understanding, they do show a very distinct property of ELECTRICITY flowing in a plasma!

Added few pics starting with the basics see POST 1616

Sol invictus jumped in and said this

You're wrong.

A Birkeland current is a current that flows along magnetic field lines. The image you posted shows precisely the opposite (and at least the first image has nothing to do with plasma, by the way).

Maybe you did not see this

Now insert a field line going FROM somewhere TO somewhere and that is my understanding of a Birkeland current, on any scale!

Though you did later admit

The first image you posted shows magnetic field lines circling around a current. They are perpendicular to the current - the opposite of a Birkeland current - and the picture was probably intended to illustrate the B fields due to current flowing down a wire surrounded by vacuum

.Yes that was it's purpose, as it does when any current flows. I do realize the Birkeland current also has one "down the guts" so to speak. That's the one the electron are spiraling around, no?

Now insert a field line going FROM somewhere TO somewhere and that is my understanding of a Birkeland current, on any scale! [/QUOTE]

Which was clarified by Tusenfem in later posts

What happens when you pass en electric current thru a plasma? At this stage forget about field lines. Be it lightning or a plasma globe filament.
Nuthing!?!?!

Some or all of the following may happen, depending on the situation:

* plasma heating (basically always happens because of the resistivity of the plasma)
* instabilities (depending on the flow velocity of the electrons or ions carrying the current, instabilities may or may not arise)
* double layers (although this partly fits into the instabilities category, depending on the local plasma density or on the flow velocity of the particle carrying the current, see instabilities, double layers may or may not be created)
* filamentation (depending on the strength of the current and on the properties of the plasma filamentation may or may not occur)

That is basically all that can happen in a plasma. Unless you mean an only partially ionized plasma, then you can get ionization too.

I did forget to mention the plasma ball gets hot when you put your full palm on it, uncomfortably so actually! And I in no way suggested the plasma ball was powerful enough to form double layers, though I spose you crank up the power and scale the plasma ball and it would? Fair call?

Then we added some MAGNETIC field lines on Tusenfem wrote:

tusenfem
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ok lets add field lines, perhaps I have some confusion in that department? Same deal except the current has to follow a field line.
Add field lines (what kind of field lines? I assume magnetic).

The current follows a field line, which means that the electrons at least are magnetized.

The only thing that needs to be added than is that there will be effects of magnetic pressure in the possible instabilities.

So then begrudgingly we call them Birkeland currents' or to give no credit were credits due "field aligned current" FAC's

tusenfem
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Could that be called a Birkeland current?
Not in my definition. I am for the strict definition that Birkeland currents are a specific kind of field aligned currents in the Earth's magnetosphere. For all the rest of field aligned currents I use the term "field aligned currents." Only grudgingly I added the extended definition into the Wiki page.

So where did that argument take us?

Sol88 · Mar 26, 2009

That would just be cloud of ionized gas. There are special conditions for an ionized gas to be called a plasma. From Plasma physics for dummies (a BAUT thread):

Originally Posted by tusenfem
There are three criteria that a plasma needs to obey, which will be stated here, but some of the defintions will first get clear in the following sections.

DeBye shielding
By looking at the Coulomb potential of a charge $q$, which is placed in a ``plasma'' and at the way the charge carriers behave because of this extra charges, it is found that the field of this extra charge gets shielded off by the original charge carriers. This happens over distance of the DeBye length $\lambda_{\rm D}$. In order for a plasma to be quasineutral, the physical dimension of the system, $L$, must be large compared to $\lambda_{\rm D}$:

\lambda_{\rm D} << L,

otherwise there is not enough space for the collective shielding effect to occur, and we have a simple ionized gas. This requirement is often called the first plasma criterion.

Plasma Parameter
This has to do with the density of the plasma and the DeBye length. Since the shielding effect is the result of the collective behaviour inside a DeBye sphere of radius $\lambda_{\rm D}$, it is necessary that this sphere contains enough particles. The number of particles inside a DeBye sphere is $(4/3)\pi n_{\rm e} \lambda_{\rm D}^3$. The term $n_{\rm e} \lambda_{\rm D}^3$ is often called the plasma parameter, $\Lambda$, and the second criterion for a plasma reads:

\Lambda = n_{\rm e} \lambda_{\rm D}^3 >> 1.

The mean potential energy of a particle due to its nearest neighbour, which is inversely proportional to the mean interparticle distance, and thus proportional to $n_{\rm e}^{1/3}$, must be much smaller than its mean energy,
$k_{\rm B} T_{\rm e}$.
\item Plasma Frequency \\
A typical oscillation of the plasma happens when both species (i.e.\ the positive and the negative) are moved wrt. eachother. The equations of motion for the distributions will show that the plasma starts oscillating {\it collectively} around the zero point at the so called plasma frequency:

\omega_{\rm p} = \sqrt{\frac{n_{\rm e} e^2}{m_{\rm e} \epsilon_0}}

Some plasmas, like the Earth's ionosphere, are not fully ionized. Here we have a substantial number of neutral particles and if the charged particles collide too often with neutrals, the electrons will be forced into equilibrium with the neutrals and the medium does not behave as a plasma anymore, but simply like a neutral gas. For the electrons to remain unaffected by collisions with neutrals, the average time between two electron-neutral collisions, tn, must be larger that the reciprocal of the plasma frequency:

\omega_{\rm p} \tau_{\rm n} >> 1

This is the third criterion for an ionized medium to behave as a plasma.
Then, and only then, can you claim to talk about a plasma.

So what numbers come up when you run them bad boys thru your abacus?

How many charged particle per cubic cm would constitute a plasma?

Click to expand...

Read above, it does not just depend on how many particles or how big, three requirements are set for something to be called a plasma.

Could space be considered on the whole, a tenuous plasma using the above criterion?

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Sorry in effects I meant to say, when plasma/electricity and magnetic fields DO something we see the effects in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Click to expand...

yeah, but that is like saying if I turn the switch I see light. it does not mean anything.

Good analogy!

What would I see in the EM spectrum of a current following a magnetic field line thru a plasma?

Click to expand...

NOTHING! a current flowing though a plasma does not necessarily need to show a signature.

The least the current will do is heat the plasma, so I guess you will at least see a change in the emission of the plasma, in whatever way the plasma is emitting its thermal signature.

Then again, it can become wild and all kinds of plasma waves may be excited.

Wild and excited, whoo tell me more! Sorry just seems a left field statement, but I do understand what you mean

I'm thinking along the lines of electrons spiraling along a field line. :idea:

DeiRenDopa · Mar 26, 2009

Sol88,

May I ask you to spend some time on learning how to quote others' posts correctly?

The way you've been doing it can - and very likely has - resulted in mistakes such as attributing some text to one JREF Forum member when it was actually posted by another.

Thank you in advance.

(I've edited your post - the parts where you quote - to reflect who actually wrote what)

Sol88 said:
DRD

DRD said:

Do you acknowledge that this is a logical inconsistency?

Sol88 said:

That I gave a link to Arp's work after I said he was denied telescope time?

Click to expand...

I hope the above clarifies what I am pointing out; if it doesn't, please say so and I'll try again to make it clear.

Sol88, we need to come to agreement on this, because it is the only mutually agreed basis we have, so far, for any discussion here.

Click to expand...

All right I may have made a cock up, As far as I knew it was telescope time.

Thanks for that.

However, it is still not clear to me that you have understood what a logical inconsistency (of this type) is, nor that you understand my example.

For example, you seem to be saying that you assumed "results" could only obtained by someone (JoeSixpack say) through that person's (JoeSixpack's) own, dedicated, use of telescope time.

Is that so? Did you make that assumption?

In any case, shall I go over what this kind of logical inconsistency is, once more?

I really, really need you to acknowledge that you understand this (and please, this has nothing to do with Arp) before I can continue.

But are you saying he was denied puplication rights as well?

Now suppose we find that "Sol88" presents these two statements:

A) Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results.

B) "The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319" is a paper, by Arp, that was published in ApJ in 2005.

Click to expand...

I have made no statement - in my posts on this kind of logical inconsistency - on the publication rights, or telescope time, of anyone.

The logical inconsistency comes in a pair of posts written by a "Sol88"; shall I quote them for you, and provide links?

Sol88 · Mar 26, 2009

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Space is a PLASMA.

99% of Space is plasma.
I love it when people contradict themselves in two consecutive statements..

Ok ok the 1% is solid matter, gas, or liquid the substance of which gravity IS a property.

Quote:

Magnetic fields require an electric current

Click to expand...

.
False. Where's the current in your refrigerator magnets? Where's the current for the B fields in the radio waves broadcast in 2005 that are currently arriving at Alpha Centauri?

Classic

What bloody fridge magnet? Ever seen one is the cosmos?

And in case you've never done it, this experiment you can do at home Making a permanent magnet

Quote:

Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines.

Click to expand...

False. Charged particles experience zero magnetic force if they follow B field lines. If they don't, they feel a force transverse to their motion that causes them to travel along a curved path.

So whats a Birkeland current then? Curved path you say, like synchrotron?

Quote:

Lots of charges particle = PLASMA.

Click to expand...

False. All matter contains charged particles - and at much higher density than most plasmas.

Not all matter is a plasma though is it? See Tusenfem's mathematical definition of a plasma.

But the rest we agree on then? Progress!!! we are making some now

Sol88 · Mar 26, 2009

The logical inconsistency comes in a pair of posts written by a "Sol88"; shall I quote them for you, and provide links?

Sure why not I've been to busy seeing if I'm a total nutter or not, so far so good though!!

Perhaps you'd care to me here and run over some of the points I've listed in post 1642 maybe you think they may have some bearing on this thread.

Am I in trouble for my illogical consistencies or something Miss?

edd · Mar 26, 2009

Sol88 said:
Ok ok the 1% is solid matter, gas, or liquid the substance of which gravity IS a property.

I'm confused. Are you meaning to imply that plasma does not exert a gravitational pull?

DeiRenDopa · Mar 26, 2009

Sol88 said:
DeiRenDopa said:

The logical inconsistency comes in a pair of posts written by a "Sol88"; shall I quote them for you, and provide links?

Click to expand...

Sure why not I've been to busy seeing if I'm a total nutter or not, so far so good though!!

In post#1511, you quoted this (extract): "Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results"

In post #1545, you gave a link to a paper published in 2005; the paper has "H. Arp³" as an author, with ³ being "Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, 85741 Garching, Germany" (so it's the one and only, not merely someone with the same name).

A pretty open and shut example of a logical inconsistency, right?

Perhaps you'd care to me here and run over some of the points I've listed in post 1642 maybe you think they may have some bearing on this thread.

Sure thing ... in a later post ...

Am I in trouble for my illogical consistencies or something Miss?

We need an agreed basis for a discussion, as I proposed earlier.

You accepted that need, and agreed that logic should be at least one aspect of that basis.

Next: can we take the "conspiracy card" off the table and out of play, permanently, or not? I would like a clear, unambiguous reply if you please.

tusenfem · Mar 26, 2009

oh Sol, to quote "the Fonz": Sit on it.

Sol88 said:
Tusenfem wrote: I fail to see why the discharges in a plasma ball are equivalent to Birkeland currents.

Then I added:
Though they may not be following a magnetic field line as per magnetosphere/steller/Cosmic/Galactic understanding, they do show a very distinct property of ELECTRICITY flowing in a plasma!

Sol, you still cannot get it into your tiny brain, obviously. A Birkeland current (one of the pivotal entities in EU/EC/ES/PU/PC, henceforth EU...) is a FIELD ALIGNED CURRENT, so your comment that the discharge in a plasma ball may or may not follow a magnetic field line, means you are not talking about field alignend currents. I know it is a difficult theme, if the current follows the magnetic field it is a birkeland current, if the current does not follow the magnetic field it is not a birkeland current. Very difficult to keep that straight.

The discharges show that electrical phenomena can occur in a plasma.

Sol88 said:
Added few pics starting with the basics see POST 1616

And useless pics they were, too. One of a current in a wire with the magnetic field around it, one pic of a bow shock, mmmmmmm

Sol88 said:
Sol invictus jumped in and said this: A Birkeland current is a current that flows along magnetic field lines.

Maybe you did not see this:Now insert a field line going FROM somewhere TO somewhere and that is my understanding of a Birkeland current, on any scale!

Just putting in a magnetic field does not do anything, don't you think there is some kind of condition on the magnetic field in order that it creates field aligned currents? Your understanding of Birkeland currents is, at the least, flawed.

Sol88 said:
Though you did later admit .Yes that was it's purpose, as it does when any current flows. I do realize the Birkeland current also has one "down the guts" so to speak. That's the one the electron are spiraling around, no?

Sol Invictus did not admid anything, you are making things up here.
dunno what you mean with "one down the guts" I guess you mean that you think you believe that it might be that Birkeland currents are flowing along the magnetic field, or someting of the kind.

Sol88 said:
Now insert a field line going FROM somewhere TO somewhere and that is my understanding of a Birkeland current, on any scale!

So once more, do you think that putting a field line in creates a Birkeland current? Are there any conditions on the magnetic field?

Sol88 said:
Which was clarified by Tusenfem in later posts

Tusenfem's post being about what can happen when a current flows through a plasma did not clarify anything about the discussion above. You are making things up as they come along.

Sol88 said:
I did forget to mention the plasma ball gets hot when you put your full palm on it, uncomfortably so actually! And I in no way suggested the plasma ball was powerful enough to form double layers, though I spose you crank up the power and scale the plasma ball and it would? Fair call?

Sure your hand gets warm, do you know why? Because a current flows from the glass ball through your hand and body to ground. That is why your hand heats up, or do you have another reason why?

I don't know if DLs form in the discharges. It could actually well be that the form. Do you know how DLs are created? I suppose you do, because next to Birkeland currents these are the other pinnacle of EU... Double layers can do anything in EU...

Sol88 said:
Then we added some MAGNETIC field lines on Tusenfem wrote:The only thing that needs to be added than is that there will be effects of magnetic pressure in the possible instabilities.

So, here I gave away the answer a bit, about the condition on the magnetic field and field aligned currents, did you see that Sol88? (I did not copy the answer here in this post tho, you have to search for yourself). And actually what are your concluding now from this "summary"

Sol88 said:
So then begrudgingly we call them Birkeland currents' or to give no credit were credits due "field aligned current" FAC's

This is not a question about "givin credit where credit is due"! Birkeland currents are a specific kind of current in a planetary magnetosphere, which was proposed by Kristian Birkeland at the beginning of the 20th century and which were shown to exist in the early 1960s by satellite measurements. Any other use of the term Birkeland current is misleading in my opinion, it's just field aligned currents.

Sol88 said:
So where did that argument take us?

Well, this "summary" shows us that you have learned nothing, that you have no idea about plasmas and magnetic fields. Which is kind of strange because as such a big proponent of EU... you should know everything about plasmas. Did you ever read a book on plasma physics, or did you just skim over the wiki pages? Go to a library and read a book Sol88, for all I care you can read the old and new testament of EU, Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma and Alfvén & Fälthammar's Cosmic Electrodynamics. Maybe you will learn from the oldies, I think anything we try to teach you is useless.

tusenfem · Mar 26, 2009

Sol88 said:
So what numbers come up when you run them bad boys thru your abacus?

If that is all you can ask, sheesh, you have not understood anything, nitwit.

Sol88 said:

Could space be considered on the whole, a tenuous plasma using the above criterion?

Click to expand...

Why not put in the numbers, do some frakking work

Sol88 said:

Good analogy!

Click to expand...

so, you agree that you made a stupid remark, thank you.

Sol88 said:

Wild and excited, whoo tell me more! Sorry just seems a left field statement, but I do understand what you mean

Click to expand...

I would love to tell you, but your feeble mind would not understand, and quite possibly explode with all the interesting information I could give you.

Sol88 said:

I'm thinking along the lines of electrons spiraling along a field line.

Click to expand...

Yah, and???????????????????????????????????????
Typical EU... behaviour, just drop a few words, and hope other people do the work for you.
Explain yourself, Sollyboy, show us what you are thinking, show us what you (mis)understand.

Click to expand...

DeiRenDopa · Mar 26, 2009

Per your request, Sol88 ...

Sol88 said:
[...]

Sol Invictus asked:

Zeuzzz or "Sol", can you enlighten us? Where did you first hear about EU/PC, and why did you become so obsessed with it? Are you interested in learning "mainstream" physics too? Or is it just that you draw some enjoyment from feeling like an iconoclast?

Click to expand...

Anyway so I'll tells, I base my EU/PC assumptions on the following list, perhaps you could tell which one I misunderstand;

General comment: taken as a whole, the list comes across as confusing ... at many levels.

For example, many items have standard definitions, when used in one part of physics or another (sometimes the definitions are a little different), so the extent to which you have misunderstood a term depends on whether you are using a standard (physics) definition of it or not.

The biggie first!

Space is a PLASMA.

Not the most auspicious way to start, perhaps.

Do you intend this to be a definition?

Are you saying that you can replace the word "Space" with the word "a PLASMA" everywhere - in physics textbooks, in papers published in ApJ, ...?

In any case, I can't see how this could be anything other than a misunderstanding, and a biggie misunderstanding at that.

99% of Space is plasma.

Same as above

Plasma contains + (positive) & - (Negative) charges.

Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s

Plasma is an excellent conductor.

Given how badly you blew the biggie, I'd expect you misunderstand all these too ... even though they seem OK (as stated).

Plasma has known, though difficult mathematical properties.

As above, with the added wrinkle that I strongly suspect you have (hopelessly?) tangled theory and observation/phenomenology to boot

Plasma is self organizing.

Plasma can be “cellular”.

Plasma can be “filamentary”.

Given your posts in this thread to date, I'd bet you misunderstand all three.

However, taking the standard meaning of quotation marks (as an indicator of your explicit intention to use a non-standard meaning for the words between them), the last two are empty (so it would be impossible to misunderstand them).

Plasma we can observe in a lab/space

Plasma we can measure in a lab/space.

Do you mean "we can observe plasmas in a lab" and "we can observe plasmas in space" (sort of thing)? If so, then OK.

However, if we use your first point ("Space is a PLASMA"), then you have either a logical inconsistency, or a tautology ("Plasma we can observe in a PLASMA" - huh?)

Dust can become a Plasma.

What's with the capital ("P")?

If Ms Dust marries Mr Plasma, I guess she could become a Plasma ...

Magnetic fields require an electric current.

Bzzz - you don't even get to go on "Who wants to be a millionaire", much less win anything.

A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current.

OK, with the same caveat as above (I strongly suspect you are just quoting words you don't understand at all)

We observe magnetic fields everywhere.

Depends.

If you mean "we have observed", then obviously false; again, I think there lurks great confusion over the distinction between theory and observation just beneath the surface.

Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.

OK (same caveats as above)

Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines.

Lots of charges particle = PLASMA.

You blew your second chance at being selected to play ...

Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects comprise the electromagnetic spectrum.

Huh?

That’s a few that rattle round this noggn, where am I going wrong?
[...]

With the biggie wrong (the first two) in mind, it doesn't really much matter how many of the rest you got right or wrong ... if the foundations of your ideas are so confused (even illucid), it becomes a dead cert that a great deal of the rest of it will be wrong.

Sorry if this seems harsh to you, but I feel that you deserve a straight, honest answer.

Reality Check · Mar 26, 2009

Sol88 said:
Ok ok the 1% is solid matter, gas, or liquid the substance of which gravity IS a property.

You are still wrong: The correct statement is 99% of the visible matter in the observable universe is plasma.
This of course ignores the fact that only 4% of the observable universe is made of visible matter. There is the other 22% that is dark matter.

It also does not mean anything. By the same logic: 100% of matter in the the universe is matter. Thus any cosmological theory has to have gravity (which effects matter) dominant. Since PC theory does not have this, PC theory is wrong.

sol invictus · Mar 26, 2009

Sol88 said:
Ok ok the 1% is solid matter, gas, or liquid the substance of which gravity IS a property.

That's the 1% of space? Huh? And "gravity is a property" only of that 1%?? What in the world are you talking about?

Classic What bloody fridge magnet? Ever seen one is the cosmos?

You said, "Magnetic fields require an electric current". I gave you two counterexamples (and I have infinitely many more). I have no idea what your response was supposed to mean.

And in case you've never done it, this experiment you can do at home Making a permanent magnet

And?

So whats a Birkeland current then? Curved path you say, like synchrotron?

No, that's more or less the opposite of what I said. You'll need to go back and re-read what I wrote.

Not all matter is a plasma though is it? See Tusenfem's mathematical definition of a plasma.

That was my point. What you said before was wrong.

Sol88 · Mar 26, 2009

whoaa there big boy, back the truck up!

oh Sol, to quote "the Fonz": Sit on it.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

Tusenfem wrote: I fail to see why the discharges in a plasma ball are equivalent to Birkeland currents.

Click to expand...

Then I added:
Though they may not be following a magnetic field line as per magnetosphere/steller/Cosmic/Galactic understanding, they do show a very distinct property of ELECTRICITY flowing in a plasma!

Click to expand...

Sol, you still cannot get it into your tiny brain, obviously. A Birkeland current (one of the pivotal entities in EU/EC/ES/PU/PC, henceforth EU...) is a FIELD ALIGNED CURRENT, so your comment that the discharge in a plasma ball may or may not follow a magnetic field line, means you are not talking about field alignend currents. I know it is a difficult theme, if the current follows the magnetic field it is a birkeland current, if the current does not follow the magnetic field it is not a birkeland current. Very difficult to keep that straight.

The discharges show that electrical phenomena can occur in a plasma.

If ya going to have a go Potzy, get ya facts straight first! I NEVER said MAY or MAY NOT follow a field line wrt a plasma filament inside a plasma globe!!!

And you are correct sunshine, we were NOT talking about FAC's I was stating the properties of a current flowing thru a plasma are, as you agreed,

Quote:
What happens when you pass en electric current thru a plasma? At this stage forget about field lines. Be it lightning or a plasma globe filament.
Nuthing!?!?!

Some or all of the following may happen, depending on the situation:

* plasma heating (basically always happens because of the resistivity of the plasma)
* instabilities (depending on the flow velocity of the electrons or ions carrying the current, instabilities may or may not arise)
* double layers (although this partly fits into the instabilities category, depending on the local plasma density or on the flow velocity of the particle carrying the current, see instabilities, double layers may or may not be created)
* filamentation (depending on the strength of the current and on the properties of the plasma filamentation may or may not occur)

That is basically all that can happen in a plasma. Unless you mean an only partially ionized plasma, then you can get ionization too.

Then I said If a field line was add to the equation you could call it a FAC, which you also agreeded to

Ok lets add field lines, perhaps I have some confusion in that department? Same deal except the current has to follow a field line.
Add field lines (what kind of field lines? I assume magnetic).

The current follows a field line, which means that the electrons at least are magnetized.

The only thing that needs to be added than is that there will be effects of magnetic pressure in the possible instabilities.
So then begrudgingly we call them Birkeland currents' or to give no credit were credits due "field aligned current" FAC's

Quote:
tusenfem
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Could that be called a Birkeland current?
Not in my definition. I am for the strict definition that Birkeland currents are a specific kind of field aligned currents in the Earth's magnetosphere. For all the rest of field aligned currents I use the term "field aligned currents." Only grudgingly I added the extended definition into the Wiki page.

So I am under NO misunderstanding on the hows and whys here, though you seem to be confused!

I mean you seem very slow today me 'ol mate, do you understand what the first picture in that post represents?

Replace the wire with a flow of electrons thru a plasma? Whats different than what a stated here,

It's no mystery!

Though they may not be following a magnetic field line as per magnetosphere/steller/Cosmic/Galactic understanding, they do show a very distinct property of ELECTRICITY flowing in a plasma!

I'll reiterate they do show a very distinct property of ELECTRICITY flowing in a plasma!

Do you UNDERSTAND? Separate for a minute your FAC/Birkeland current rant and read the question?

If we add a field line to that same flow of electrons thru a plasma, very basically we call it a FAC!!! And all we have done is added a field line!!!

dunno what you mean with "one down the guts" I guess you mean that you think you believe that it might be that Birkeland currents are flowing along the magnetic field, or someting of the kind.

On the money my friend! Is that not wot a Birkeland current does?

I realize there is more to, like that field line is connect to something as you suggest

Just putting in a magnetic field does not do anything, don't you think there is some kind of condition on the magnetic field in order that it creates field aligned currents? Your understanding of Birkeland currents is, at the least, flawed.

I understand the conditions well enough thanks!

don't you think there is some kind of condition on the magnetic field in order that it creates field aligned currents?

Like the ones that connect the Sun and the Earth!!!!

Or Jupiter and Io?

You totally missed the point with your knicker twisting EU idiots don't know the difference between a plasma ball filament and a FAC rant. I made a clear distinction between a flow of electricity thru a plasma in general and it's characteristics!

You add a field line to a plasma ball filament and that's a field aligned current!

Or are you just blow'n smoke??

Sol88 · Mar 26, 2009

Quote:

Classic What bloody fridge magnet? Ever seen one is the cosmos?

Click to expand...

You said, "Magnetic fields require an electric current". I gave you two counterexamples (and I have infinitely many more). I have no idea what your response was supposed to mean.

I gave you a fact "Magnetic fields require an electric current" and you said my fridge magnet requires no electric current.

False. Where's the current in your refrigerator magnets?

How's that fridge magnet made to be magnetic? Dim wit

Typical answer by someone who has no understanding of what we are actually talking about to spout nonsensical rubbish like that!

Unless you are suggesting the magnetic fields we observe in the Universe are caused by your rouge fridge magnets. Are you?

Sol88 · Mar 26, 2009

The biggie first!

Space is a PLASMA.
Not the most auspicious way to start, perhaps.

Do you intend this to be a definition?

Are you saying that you can replace the word "Space" with the word "a PLASMA" everywhere - in physics textbooks, in papers published in ApJ, ...?

In any case, I can't see how this could be anything other than a misunderstanding, and a biggie misunderstanding at that.

Space is a plasma! Fact or fiction?

We need this cleared up as a matter of urgency for this discussion to be able to continue in any scientific manner

From wiki

Intergalactic
Main articles: Intracluster medium and Cosmic microwave background

Intergalactic space is the physical space between galaxies. Generally free of dust and debris, intergalactic space is very close to a total vacuum. Some theories put the average density of the universe as the equivalent of one hydrogen atom per cubic meter.[12][13] The density of the universe, however, is clearly not uniform; it ranges from relatively high density in galaxies (including very high density in structures within galaxies, such as planets, stars, and black holes) to conditions in vast voids that have much lower density than the universe's average.

Surrounding and stretching between galaxies, there is a rarefied plasma[14][15] that is thought to possess a cosmic filamentary structure[16] and that is slightly denser than the average density in the universe. This material is called the intergalactic medium (IGM) and is mostly ionized hydrogen, i.e. a plasma consisting of equal numbers of electrons and protons. The IGM is thought to exist at a density of 10 to 100 times the average density of the universe (10 to 100 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter). It reaches densities as high as 1000 times the average density of the universe in rich clusters of galaxies.

The reason the IGM is thought to be mostly ionized gas is that its temperature is thought to be quite high by terrestrial standards (though some parts of it are only "warm" by astrophysical standards). As gas falls into the Intergalactic Medium from the voids, it heats up to temperatures of 105 K to 107 K, which is high enough for the bound electrons to escape from the hydrogen nuclei upon collisions. At these temperatures, it is called the Warm-Hot Intergalactic Medium (WHIM). Computer simulations indicate that on the order of half the atomic matter in the universe might exist in this warm-hot, rarefied state. When gas falls from the filamentary structures of the WHIM into the galaxy clusters at the intersections of the cosmic filaments, it can heat up even more, reaching temperatures of 108 K and above.

Wiki

Just a question of density then eh? The IGM (Space) is a plasma! Fair call boys?

Now the ISM!

From wiki

Interstellar medium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Interstellar" redirects here. For other uses, see Interstellar (disambiguation).
The distribution of ionized hydrogen (known by astronomers as H II from old spectroscopic terminology) in the parts of the Galactic interstellar medium visible from the Earth's northern hemisphere as observed with the Wisconsin Hα Mapper (Haffner et al. 2003).

In astronomy, the interstellar medium (or ISM) is the gas and dust that pervade interstellar space: the matter that exists between the stars within a galaxy. It fills interstellar space and blends smoothly into the surrounding intergalactic space. The energy that occupies the same volume, in the form of electromagnetic radiation, is the interstellar radiation field.

The interstellar medium consists of an extremely dilute (by terrestrial standards) mixture of ions, atoms, molecules, larger dust grains, cosmic rays, and (galactic) magnetic fields.[1] The matter consists of about 99% gas and 1% dust by mass. Densities range from a few thousand to a few hundred million particles per cubic meter with an average value in the Milky Way Galaxy of a million particles per cubic meter. As a result of primordial nucleosynthesis, the gas is roughly 89% hydrogen and 9% helium and 2% elements heavier than hydrogen or helium by number of nuclei, with additional heavier elements ("metals" in astronomical parlance) present in trace amounts.

The ISM plays a crucial role in astrophysics precisely because of its intermediate role between stellar and galactic scales. Stars form within the densest regions of the ISM, molecular clouds, and replenish the ISM with matter and energy through planetary nebulae, stellar winds, and supernovae. This interplay between stars and the ISM helps determine the rate at which a galaxy depletes its gaseous content, and therefore its lifespan of active star formation.

Though is a bit ambiguous on the gas thing, could we call the interstellar medium a plasma too Tusenfem?

And last but not least the Interplanetary medium

Again from wiki

Composition and physical characteristics

The interplanetary medium includes interplanetary dust, cosmic rays and hot plasma from the solar wind. The temperature of the interplanetary medium is approximately 100,000 K, and its density is very low at about 5 particles per cubic centimeter in the vicinity of the Earth; it decreases with increasing distance from the sun, in inverse proportion to the square of the distance.

The density is variable, and may be affected by magnetic fields and events such as coronal mass ejections. It may rise to as high as 100 particles/cm³.

Since the interplanetary medium is a plasma, it has the characteristics of a plasma, rather than a simple gas; for example, it carries with it the Sun's magnetic field, is highly electrically conductive (resulting in the Heliospheric current sheet), forms plasma double layers where it comes into contact with a planetary magnetosphere or at the heliopause, and exhibits filamentation (such as in aurora).

The plasma in the interplanetary medium is also responsible for the strength of the Sun's magnetic field at the orbit of the Earth being over 100 times greater than originally anticipated. If space were a vacuum, then the Sun's 10-4 tesla magnetic dipole field would reduce with the cube of the distance to about 10-11 tesla. But satellite observations show that it is about 100 times greater at around 10-9 tesla. Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) theory predicts that the motion of a conducting fluid (e.g. the interplanetary medium) in a magnetic field, induces electric currents which in turn generates magnetic fields, and in this respect it behaves like a MHD dynamo.

Could I interpret the IGM, ISM and the IPM as "space"?

Space is a Plasma!

Yes or no?

Reality Check · Mar 26, 2009

Sol88 said:
I gave you a fact "Magnetic fields require an electric current" and you said my fridge magnet requires no electric current.

How's that fridge magnet made to be magnetic? Dim wit

Typical answer by someone who has no understanding of what we are actually talking about to spout nonsensical rubbish like that!

Unless you are suggesting the magnetic fields we observe in the Universe are caused by your rouge fridge magnets. Are you?

Hi Sol88: I see you still have not worked out the function of the Quote button in this forum so I will answer:

Your "Magnetic fields require an electric current" fact is wrong.

Magnetic fields do not need electric currents to exist. Bar magnets are an example of ferromagnetism (I added the wikipedia link since you seem never to have heard of this). There are no electric currents in bar magnets, i.e. no flow of electrons.

You may have noticed the absence of a connection from your fridge magnet to any power plugs

.

Perpetual Student · Mar 26, 2009

"Intergalactic space is the physical space between galaxies. Generally free of dust and debris, intergalactic space is very close to a total vacuum. Some theories put the average density of the universe as the equivalent of one hydrogen atom per cubic meter.[12][13] The density of the universe, however, is clearly not uniform; it ranges from relatively high density in galaxies (including very high density in structures within galaxies, such as planets, stars, and black holes) to conditions in vast voids that have much lower density than the universe's average."
"Surrounding and stretching between galaxies, there is a rarefied plasma[14][15] that is thought to possess a cosmic filamentary structure[16] and that is slightly denser than the average density in the universe. This material is called the intergalactic medium (IGM) and is mostly ionized hydrogen, i.e. a plasma consisting of equal numbers of electrons and protons. The IGM is thought to exist at a density of 10 to 100 times the average density of the universe (10 to 100 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter). It reaches densities as high as 1000 times the average density of the universe in rich clusters of galaxies."

Perhaps we are dealing with a reading comprehension problem here. The above clearly states that IGM is a plasma that fills intergalactic space. That would make space distinct from the plasma!

Sol88 · Mar 26, 2009

Plasma contains + (positive) & - (Negative) charges.

Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s

Plasma is an excellent conductor.

Click to expand...

Given how badly you blew the biggie, I'd expect you misunderstand all these too ... even though they seem OK (as stated).

DRD, WTF!!! Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

Plasma is self organizing.

Plasma can be “cellular”.

Plasma can be “filamentary”.

Click to expand...

Given your posts in this thread to date, I'd bet you misunderstand all three.

However, taking the standard meaning of quotation marks (as an indicator of your explicit intention to use a non-standard meaning for the words between them), the last two are empty (so it would be impossible to misunderstand them).

Agree or disagree? I understand the meaning, do you?

Dust can become a Plasma.
What's with the capital ("P")?

If Ms Dust marries Mr Plasma, I guess she could become a Plasma ...

Ehh!!! Ms dust and Mr plasma, you been hittn the pipe ol mate?

Can dust become a plasma? DRD

A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current.

Click to expand...

OK, with the same caveat as above (I strongly suspect you are just quoting words you don't understand at all)

Ok A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current. waiving caveat I do not understand, that is electricity!

Quote:

Magnetic fields require an electric current.

Click to expand...

Bzzz - you don't even get to go on "Who wants to be a millionaire", much less win anything.

Buzz???? Like the one your gettn from your crack pipe?

Quote:

We observe magnetic fields everywhere.

Click to expand...

Depends.

Depends on what? Do we or do we not detect magnetic fields in space?

and last off all

Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.

Click to expand...

OK (same caveats as above)

Ok, but with some sort of caveat as well!

So the only thing we did NOT agree on was the space is a plasma!

See post 1667

And put ya pipe down for a bit!

DeiRenDopa · Mar 26, 2009

It's a tight call here, do we have failures of logic (the agreed basis for our discussions) or of mis-aligned definitions?

Probably a bit of both; let's see ...

Sol88 said:
sol invictus said:

Sol88 said:

Classic What bloody fridge magnet? Ever seen one is the cosmos?

Click to expand...

You said, "Magnetic fields require an electric current". I gave you two counterexamples (and I have infinitely many more). I have no idea what your response was supposed to mean.

Click to expand...

I gave you a fact "Magnetic fields require an electric current" and you said my fridge magnet requires no electric current.

False. Where's the current in your refrigerator magnets?

Click to expand...

How's that fridge magnet made to be magnetic? Dim wit

Typical answer by someone who has no understanding of what we are actually talking about to spout nonsensical rubbish like that!

Unless you are suggesting the magnetic fields we observe in the Universe are caused by your rouge fridge magnets. Are you?

We have another example of a logical contradiction:

The statement "Magnetic fields require an electric current" is absolute (there are no qualifiers).

So a single counter-example is sufficient to show the statement is false.

"There is no electric current in a fridge magnet" is just such a counter-example ... let's see how:

A fridge magnet generates (or has - we'll get to definitions later) a "magnetic field", right?

A fridge magnet has no electric currents, right?

So the magnetic field of a fridge magnet is an example of a magnetic field that does not require an electric current.

So it is a counter-example.

And so the logical inconsistency is demonstrated.

Now for definitions.

In si's world (and tusenfem's, and RC's, and ...), "magnetic field" and "electric current" (and many, many other terms) have specific, precise meanings (I referred to this in my post, responding to your request).

If you do not know, or share, those definitions, then it is likely (or almost certain) that situations will arise when you are 'talking past' si (and tusenfem, and RC, and ...).

Your response, I guess, shows this fairly clearly ... you had a very different definition of 'magnetic field' in mind than the standard, textbook definition that si used (and tusenfem, and RC, and DRD, and ...).

Do you see how the absence of an agreed definition of a key term can lead to misunderstanding?

(there's more, of course; it would seem - for example - that you had a very different expectation wrt 'require' than si did)

Here's one positive that you may wish to take away from this: when engaging in a discussion based on science, it is critically important to ensure that everyone is working from the same definitions of the key terms in that discussion.

Can you see how important this is?

Oh, and congrats on the improvement in using the quote tags, keep up the good work (you've still got some other aspects of use to learn ...)

Reality Check · Mar 26, 2009

Sol88 said:
Space is a plasma! Fact or fiction?

We need this cleared up as a matter of urgency for this discussion to be able to continue in any scientific manner

Wiki

Just a question of density then eh? The IGM (Space) is a plasma! Fair call boys?

This is easy: Space is not a plasma. Space is a volume. Plasma is an ionized gas with specific properties (not all ionized gas is a plasma).

The IGM (Space) is mostly ionized gas as the article states. It also contains neutral (not ionized) hydrogen which is definitely not a plasma. I do not know how much of the ionized gas in the IGM is plasma but I would not be surprised if all of the ionized gas is plasma.

A note about the article: As an EU proponent the "cosmic filamentary structure [16]" may excite you. This is an actual image of comic filaments! But...

They are not the filaments predicted in EU, i.e. pairs of filaments 35 kpc wide with an average length of 350 Mpc. They are a spider web of interconnecting filaments that are not paired.
The actual image is from a computer simulation by the Grand Challenge Cosmology Consortium which is simulating the universe using the standard model (no PC involved).

Sol88 · Mar 26, 2009

Magnetic fields do not need electric currents to exist. Bar magnets are an example of ferromagnetism (I added the wikipedia link since you seem never to have heard of this). There are no electric currents in bar magnets, i.e. no flow of electrons.

Dude you are missing the point here, but as I'm a slow learner could you explain this statement from your quoted wiki page

All permanent magnets (materials that can be magnetized by an external magnetic field and which remain magnetized after the external field is removed) are either ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic, as are the metals that are noticeably attracted to them.

How is the external magnetic field made?

So drop the fridge magnet thing eh!!

We see no permanent magnets in space aka ferromagnatisim

Sol88 · Mar 26, 2009

DRD

We have another example of a logical contradiction:

The statement "Magnetic fields require an electric current" is absolute (there are no qualifiers).

So a single counter-example is sufficient to show the statement is false.

"There is no electric current in a fridge magnet" is just such a counter-example ... let's see how:

A fridge magnet generates (or has - we'll get to definitions later) a "magnetic field", right?

A fridge magnet has no electric currents, right?

How is a fridge magnet made....with an electric current!

Your argument is a strawman!

DeiRenDopa · Mar 27, 2009

Most of this falls under the "definitions are critical" comment I made in my last post; much of the rest comes from the 'biggie misunderstanding' re the first two items (I'll get to responding to your post on that in a bit).

Sol88 said:
DeiRenDopa said:

Sol88 said:

Plasma contains + (positive) & - (Negative) charges.

Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s

Plasma is an excellent conductor.

Click to expand...

Given how badly you blew the biggie, I'd expect you misunderstand all these too ... even though they seem OK (as stated).

Click to expand...

DRD, WTF!!! Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

OK, this is as good a time as any to introduce something else that's important - spelling and punctuation.

Sure, most times minor spelling errors or punctuation mistakes don't matter.

However, there are plenty of times that they do; if only because they cause a breakdown in communication (i.e. the reader takes away a meaning quite different than the writer intended).

Perhaps the most important place where it is critical to get spelling and punctuation right is with definitions.

Now when it comes to 'plasma', you used three different forms: "PLASMA", "Plasma", and "plasma".

The standard convention has it that you therefore are referring to three different things, and it is via the standard convention that your readers will interpret what you write.

Now I expect that you did not intend such a distinction; you intended the three forms to refer to the same thing - did you?

Further, you wrote "Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s" (bold added).

Now I understood you to mean "Charge separation occurs in lab plasmas", but you could very easily have actually meant "plasma's", with the word, or words, this modifies omitted (e.g. "Charge separation occurs in [a] lab plasma’s [double layer]").

Further, given the very large number of spelling mistakes, errors of grammar and punctuation, use of idiosyncratic terms, etc, in your posts (to date), an intelligent reader would be well advised to keep several possible meanings in mind, pending your clarification (e.g. "plasmas" and "plasma's").

However, the real biggie - that stands in my way of either agreeing or disagreeing with your statements - is in the first two items.

You see, at the very least those two statements open the very real possibility that you have in mind a definition of "plasma" that is not only non-standard (i.e. not found in standard physics textbooks), but also so complex (or complicated, or confusing, or ...) as to make every other statement that you make - with 'plasma' or 'space' in it - equally complex (or worse).

Now I spent a lot of words saying what I had said the first time round (in a mere one line) ... but if I had to guess, I'd say my attempt at clarification very likely has failed, big time (i.e. you understand almost nothing of what I have written).

Thoughts?

Plasma is self organizing.

Plasma can be “cellular”.

Plasma can be “filamentary”.

Click to expand...

Given your posts in this thread to date, I'd bet you misunderstand all three.

However, taking the standard meaning of quotation marks (as an indicator of your explicit intention to use a non-standard meaning for the words between them), the last two are empty (so it would be impossible to misunderstand them).

Click to expand...

Agree or disagree? I understand the meaning, do you?

[...]

OK, let's be reduced to grunts; No.

Sol88, if I may offer some advice?

You're far too anxious to get to the main game.

However the evidence for deep, deep gulfs between you and everyone else (who has responded to your posts) is overwhelming ... miscommunication abounds.

So try to take it easy, step by step, definition by definition ... establish mutual understanding on a small thing, and build on that to get to mutual understanding on something a little bigger ... and so on.

Does that sound like a plan?

Reality Check · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
Dude you are missing the point here, but as I'm a slow learner could you explain this statement from your quoted wiki page

How is the external magnetic field made?

So drop the fridge magnet thing eh!!

We see no permanent magnets in space aka ferromagnatisim

The external magnetic field is made (as the article states) from the magnetic moments of the electrons in the atoms in the metal. These electrons are not in an electric current.

You have not learned about the Quote button yet so I have no idea what the topic in this sub-thread is. All I can see is that you were totally wrong when you stated that "Magnetic fields require an electric current".
ETA: A bar magnet is a counter-example because it does not require an electric current either in creation (which you did not mention) or operation. Thus bar magnets disprove your statement. Now if you had said "Some magnetic fields require an electric current" then you would have been right or probably right if you had said "Magnetic fields in plasma require a flow of charged particles". But you made an absolute statement about all magnetic fields.

You are right. We should drop this "fridge magnet thing" now that you know that magnetic fields do not need an electric current. It has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

Perhaps you can give us what all other PC proponents have failed to do and give us the set of theories that make up PC.
For example:
What is the one and only theory that predicts the CMB in PC?
What does this theory give for the temperature of the CMB?
What does this theory give for the thermal spectrum of the CMB?
What does this theory give for the power spectrum of the CMB?

DeiRenDopa · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
DRD

DeiRenDopa said:

We have another example of a logical contradiction:

The statement "Magnetic fields require an electric current" is absolute (there are no qualifiers).

So a single counter-example is sufficient to show the statement is false.

"There is no electric current in a fridge magnet" is just such a counter-example ... let's see how:

A fridge magnet generates (or has - we'll get to definitions later) a "magnetic field", right?

A fridge magnet has no electric currents, right?

Click to expand...

How is a fridge magnet made....with an electric current!

Your argument is a strawman!

Sol88, please pay attention.

"Magnetic fields require an electric current" - that's what you wrote.

Does this statement contain, as an utterly inescapable component, the idea of 'creation'?

Perhaps it does to you ... but clearly to everyone else who has commented on what you wrote, it doesn't.

Now what do you take away from that? Well, if I were you, I'd take away that I had failed to communicate the essential 'AND THAT INCLUDES CREATION!' element (CAPS for emphasis, no other meaning intended)

But let's get back to definitions, shall we?

Remember what I said about the importance of having clarity and mutual understanding of the meanings - and definitions - of key terms?

Well, this is an excellent example of why that is important.

Oh, and I'm not making any argument ... all I'm trying to do is show you how what you write is all too easily understood - by readers (your intended audience) - in a very different way than you intended.

You see, there's a really, really important feature of absolute statements (such as yours, about magnetic fields requiring electric currents), and that is that any reader can interpret them with any qualifiers they wish, and they'd be right!

Btw, can you make a fridge magnet with another fridge magnet? with another magnet? Can you make a magnet (not necessarily a fridge magnet) just by letting some liquid iron (with appropriate impurities) cool slowly, out in the back paddock? That is, in the back paddock where there are no electric currents? (of course, I could go on, and on ... I could even end up with an extraordinarily contrived example ... it matters not a jot ... all I need is a single counter-example!

).

DeiRenDopa · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
[snip]

We see no permanent magnets in space aka ferromagnatisim

You see, Sol88?

You did it again!

Can you see how (and why)?

HINT: your original statement was absolute, yet it seems you had 'space' in mind.

Sol88 · Mar 27, 2009

DRD wrote

But let's get back to definitions, shall we?

Remember what I said about the importance of having clarity and mutual understanding of the meanings - and definitions - of key terms?

That's what I did and and the posters more or less agreed with me on my understanding and definitions of these subject. For clarification here is the list again.

Space is a PLASMA.

99% of Space is plasma.

Plasma contains + (positive) & - (Negative) charges.

Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s

Plasma is an excellent conductor.

Plasma has known, though difficult mathematical properties.

Plasma is self organizing.

Plasma can be “cellular”.

Plasma can be “filamentary”.

Plasma we can observe in a lab/space

Plasma we can measure in a lab/space.

Dust can become a Plasma.

Magnetic fields require an electric current.

A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current.

We observe magnetic fields everywhere.

Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.

Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines.

Lots of charges particle = PLASMA.

Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects comprise the electromagnetic spectrum.

Then some one throws in the 'ol fridge magnet thing, again, and off we go on the see you don't know how magnets work, so how could you know anything else!

And the 'ol space is a volume filled with plasma/PLASMA/Plasma or any other PLASMA it's still a PLASMA/Plasma/plasma and space is still filled with it (PLASMA/Plasma/plasma)

This is my understanding of a PLASMA/Plasma/plasma

Definition of a plasma

Although a plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles, a definition can have three criteria:[8][9][10]

1. The plasma approximation: Charged particles must be close enough together that each particle influences many nearby charged particles, rather than just interacting with the closest particle (these collective effects are a distinguishing feature of a plasma). The plasma approximation is valid when the number of charge carriers within the sphere of influence (called the Debye sphere whose radius is the Debye screening length) of a particular particle are higher than unity to provide collective behaviour of the charged particles. The average number of particles in the Debye sphere is given by the plasma parameter, "Λ" (the Greek letter Lambda).
2. Bulk interactions: The Debye screening length (defined above) is short compared to the physical size of the plasma. This criterion means that interactions in the bulk of the plasma are more important than those at its edges, where boundary effects may take place. When this criterion is satisfied, the plasma is quasineutral.
3. Plasma frequency: The electron plasma frequency (measuring plasma oscillations of the electrons) is large compared to the electron-neutral collision frequency (measuring frequency of collisions between electrons and neutral particles). When this condition is valid, electrostatic interactions dominate over the processes of ordinary gas kinetics.

So does that give us

clarity and mutual understanding of the meanings - and definitions - of key terms?

Yes or no?

Sol88 · Mar 27, 2009

And on the fridge magnet thing so it never rears it ugly head again in our discussions

reality check wrote:

Your "Magnetic fields require an electric current" fact is wrong.

Magnetic fields do not need electric currents to exist. Bar magnets are an example of ferromagnetism (I added the wikipedia link since you seem never to have heard of this). There are no electric currents in bar magnets, i.e. no flow of electrons.

Of which this statement is extremely important from the link

All permanent magnets (materials that can be magnetized by an external magnetic field and which remain magnetized after the external field is removed) are either ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic, as are the metals that are noticeably attracted to them.

So the metal is subjected to a magnetic field to "make" it magnetic even AFTER the magnetic field is removed!

My original statement was

"Magnetic fields require an electric current"

Click on the hyperlink of external magnetic field and you get this

A magnetic field is a vector field which can exert a magnetic force on moving electric charges and on magnetic dipoles (such as permanent magnets). When placed in a magnetic field, magnetic dipoles tend to align their axes parallel to the magnetic field. Magnetic fields surround and are created by electric currents, magnetic dipoles, and changing electric fields. Magnetic fields also have their own energy, with an energy density proportional to the square of the field intensity.

Get it!!

wonder how all that remnant surface magnetism we see on Mars, our Moon...etc etc came about?

So for clarification of facts I said nothing about the special properties of ferromagnatisims ability to retain it's magnetism after the ELECTRIC CURRENT has been turned off!

As per "Electric currents make Magnetic fields" or "Magnetic fields require an electric current"

Your choice.

Your "Magnetic fields require an electric current" fact is wrong.

Magnetic fields do not need electric currents to exist.

or is that your final answer?

Are we sweet of the not all magnetic fields need an electric current (down a wire or thru a plasma!) to manifest?

Or ya going to call the logical inconsistencies contained in that whole red herring carry on sound scientific evidence against the EU/PC idea?

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Illuminator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Master Poster

Philosopher

Illuminator

Illuminator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Illuminator

Illuminator

Philosopher

Philosopher

Master Poster

Philosopher

Philosopher

Master Poster

Master Poster

Illuminator

Illuminator

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Philosopher

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Philosopher

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Master Poster

Philosopher

Philosopher