Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Skwinty · Mar 27, 2009

sol invictus said:
Sure. Now try "corporate science" astrophysics.

110 hits, and at least the first few are random (i.e. documents that happen to contain both terms).

My understanding of corporate science is any science that is funded by corporations. I am not drawing any further inference from that, although some may say that the corporation gets what they pay for.

sol invictus · Mar 27, 2009

Skwinty said:
My understanding of corporate science is any science that is funded by corporations. I am not drawing any further inference from that, although some may say that the corporation gets what they pay for.

Sure.

Now please name one example of a corporation that funds research in astrophysics (that's already an extremely short list) and has any financial or business interest in the scientific results (good luck).

The only possible such examples I can imagine are things like feasibility studies for space missions, but that's not exactly science and has nothing to do with the topics under discussion here.

Skwinty · Mar 27, 2009

sol invictus said:
Sure.

Now please name one example of a corporation that funds research in astrophysics (that's already an extremely short list) and has any financial or business interest in the scientific results (good luck).

The only possible such examples I can imagine are things like feasibility studies for space missions, but that's not exactly science and has nothing to do with the topics under discussion here.

I agree, I was responding to TT, who asked "What the hell is corporate science"

Sol88 · Mar 27, 2009

Tusenfem is a Space physicist / Astrophysicist cobber! How good do you think he's 'ave ago crack at that list went then, in your knowledgeable opinion?

I mean there are a few discrepancies I've noticed between your list and Tusenfems, who shall I take as correct then?

For minimization of word salad errors creeping in at a later date, I put the two side by side so to speak, to be able to use as a handy pocket guide for some explanations that will be needed when explaining a specific point/topic/subject under the general EU/PC banner.

Once we all start reading from the same page of course!

First DeiRenDopa's

Here's my take, to date:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 Space is a PLASMA. NO

2 99% of Space is plasma. NO

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

4 Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s UNKNOWN

5 Plasma is an excellent conductor. UNKNOWN

6 Plasma has known, though difficult mathematical properties. UNKNOWN

7 Plasma is self organizing. NO

8 Plasma can be “cellular”. NO

9 Plasma can be “filamentary”. NO

10 Plasma we can observe in a lab/space NO

11 Plasma we can measure in a lab/space. NO

12 Dust can become a Plasma. UNKNOWN

13 Magnetic fields require an electric current. NO

14 A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current. YES

15 We observe magnetic fields everywhere. UNKNOWN

16 Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field. YES

17 Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines. NO

18 Lots of charges particle = PLASMA. NO (it's a cloud of charged particles - NO)

19 Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects comprise the electromagnetic spectrum. NO

Then Tusenfem's

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
DD wrote
Maybe DAncing D u missed the list
or Tusenfem

Click to expand...

Seen the list, whaddayawantwiddit?

lemme go through it, I put my answers in bold

Quote:
Space is a PLASMA. MAYBE NO, space is space, plasma is plasma, plasma can fill a space though

99% of Space is plasma. MAYBE NO, 99% of all matter in the universe is plasma

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

Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s YES sometimes in special cases

Plasma is an excellent conductor. YES correct

Plasma has known, though difficult mathematical properties. YES plasma can be described by the theories of plasma physics.

Plasma is self organizing. MAYBE self organized is a rather difficult term, it means different things to different people

Plasma can be “cellular”. YES okay

Plasma can be “filamentary”. YES okay

Plasma we can observe in a lab/space YES yes

Plasma we can measure in a lab/space. YES yes

Dust can become a Plasma. YES nah not really, one can have dusty plasmas in which the dust is a minor component. the heavier the particles get the more difficult it is to get them to do collective behaviour

Magnetic fields require an electric current. YES (wrt electron flow thru a plasma, nothing to do with Ferromagnetisim!) in that limited definition of magnetism okay I guess

A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current. YES not exactly only when the positive and negative particles flow at different speed, such that there is a NET charge flow

We observe magnetic fields everywhere. MAYBE not in my magnetic cleanliness room you won't

Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field. YES yes

Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines. YES in general no not in general, there are major exceptions. I guess I have to give the solution because your knowledges it too little to be of any use. When the magnetic field strength is too small then the thermal velocities of the particles can easily overcome the Lorentz force, and thus are NOT magnetized and THUS do not need to follow the field lines. On the other hand, there is the auroral electrojet, where currents are flowing perpendicular to the magnetic field of the Earth!

Lots of charges particle = PLASMA. NO it's a cloud of charged particles. NO, I have given the definition of a plasma (you copied it in another post) a cloud of charged particles is not a plasma per se

We'll have a look at some of Tusenfem's objections to some points in that list.

Space is a PLASMA. MAYBE NO, space is space, plasma is plasma, plasma can fill a space though

Maybe no, what kinda answer is that!

If I reworded it would we all be happy then?

Space is filled with plasma. Yes?

99% of Space is plasma. MAYBE NO, 99% of all matter in the universe is plasma

Maybe no? Howsa 'bout rewording that as well!

99.9% of all matter is plasma, which fills space! Yes

Plasma is self organizing. MAYBE self organized is a rather difficult term, it means different things to different people

To me it meant that if electrons started moving in a plasma they would self organize into filament and cellular structures.

We observe magnetic fields everywhere. MAYBE not in my magnetic cleanliness room you won't

I'm sure we wouldn't, but in Space? Yes

Lots of charges particle = PLASMA. NO it's a cloud of charged particles. NO, I have given the definition of a plasma (you copied it in another post) a cloud of charged particles is not a plasma per se

Maybe no?? per se???? :boggled:

whats with your answers dude?

Please define your use of "per se" in this instance.

The rest of the points are just an exercise in semantics.

DeiRenDopa · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
DeiRenDopa said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Space is a Plasma!

Yes or no?

Before I start, one other general comment, and question.

If you intend to use the items on the list in some way that involves joining them, or linking them with logical connectors, then I think you need say so and be very clear what the scope of each is.

And the question: to what extent should readers consider their answer to one item when deciding how to answer another one?

Now to "Space is a plasma".

Your three quotes represent, I presume, what you understand the IGM, ISM, and IPM to be, right?

And if you define "space" as "IGM+ISM+IPM", then indeed you may say "space is a plasma".

However, as the extracts in your post make clear, only one component of "space" is being discussed - the ("baryonic") matter component; what atoms, ions, and electrons are to be found there, and in what state.

If you wish your readers to stick with this quite specific, and narrow, definition, OK, we'll have to do so (it's your definition).

However, there are already several problems with this definition, within your list alone, and there will likely be many more later.

For example, another item on your list is "Plasma we can observe in a lab/space". As I said earlier, I don't know what you intended to mean by this, but I assumed it was something like "We can observe plasmas in space". Trouble is, of course, if space IS a plasma, then how can we 'observe' it?

Another example: "We observe magnetic fields everywhere". Now presumably "space" is part of "everywhere", so if "space is a plasma" then we cannot observe magnetic fields in space.

You see the problem (well, at least one of them)?

Then if I make some bold assumptions about where you want to go with this list, I can foresee several ways the discussion could get derailed.

For example, the interaction between plasma and photons/EM radiation can be quite complex; further, "space" is bathed in the CMB (EM radiation with a near perfect blackbody SED of temperature 2.7K) and neutrinos.

But anyway, as they say, it's your funeral, so if you wish to define "space" as "IGM+ISM+IPM", then "space is a plasma ... except where it isn't". And where isn't space a plasma? Well, the extract on the ISM gives several hints, and a more detailed look at the ISM shows it can be described as comprising several "phases" (another one of those words which have several different meanings - each quite precise - depending on which part of physics it's used in), at least one of which almost certainly fails to meet the definition of plasma you are using.

Skwinty · Mar 27, 2009

sol invictus said:
Sure.

Now please name one example of a corporation that funds research in astrophysics (that's already an extremely short list) and has any financial or business interest in the scientific results (good luck).

what about the Templeton Foundation.

http://www.templeton.org/funding_areas/natural_sciences/

This was an easy find.

sol invictus · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
Maybe no, what kinda answer is that!
<snip>
Maybe no?? per se???? whats with your answers dude?

I'm not sure I've ever seen such genuine stupidity displayed in so many posts so quickly. The "MAYBE" was you - YOU typed that. The "NO", which was in bold in tus' post, was his response.

Apparently you managed to forget about the bold, and your own words, in the time it took you to click quote.

:dl:

sol invictus · Mar 27, 2009

Skwinty said:
what about the Templeton Foundation.

That's a private philanthropical foundation, not a corporation. There are quite a few of those.

But I'll grant you Templeton may have some bias in how the results of the research they fund turns out (although I have no idea what it would be, exactly). Many researchers refuse to accept funding from them from that reason.

Sol88 · Mar 27, 2009

Apparently you managed to forget about the bold, and your own words, in the time it took you to click quote.

Well <chuckels to self> it appears I did, it appears that last cup is wearing off, it's been a long day

DeiRenDopa · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
Tusenfem is a Space physicist / Astrophysicist cobber! How good do you think he's 'ave ago crack at that list went then, in your knowledgeable opinion?

I mean there are a few discrepancies I've noticed between your list and Tusenfems, who shall I take as correct then?

For minimization of word salad errors creeping in I put the two side by side so to speak.

First DRD's

Then Tusenfem's

We'll have a look at some of Tusenfem's objections to some points in that list.

Maybe no, what kinda answer is that!

If I reworded it would we all be happy then?

Space is filled with plasma. Yes?

Maybe no? Howsa 'bout rewording that as well!

99.9% of all matter is plasma, which fills space! Yes

To me it meant that if electrons started moving in a plasma they would self organize into filament and cellular structures.

I'm sure we wouldn't, but in Space? Yes

Maybe no?? per se???? whats with your answers dude?

Please define your use of "per se" in this instance.

The rest of the points are just an exercise in semantics.

Sol88, do you realise that you either completely misunderstood my two lists, or have made a gross error in writing your post?

The first of my lists is answers to the question "Do participants in the discussion have a unanimous, agreed understanding of these key phrases?" applied to each item on it (I increased the font size so that you'd be sure to notice it this time).

tusenfem's list is answers to the question you asked originally, back in post#1642 ("I base my EU/PC assumptions on the following list, perhaps you could tell which one I misunderstand").

Can you see the difference?

Wrt that initial question, of yours, you now have three full sets of answers (from si, DRD, and tusenfem) plus several partials (three more each on items 1 and 2, one more on item 13).

Now I don't know if it's just sloppiness, or if you still haven't mastered how to use the [ QUOTE ] tags properly, but what you quote (in your post) and what tusenfem actually wrote are quite different!

Perhaps you'd like to try again, to pull together a combined list, one that accurately reflects each of the three+ members actual statements?

tusenfem · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
Tusenfem is a Space physicist / Astrophysicist cobber! How good do you think he's 'ave ago crack at that list went then, in your knowledgeable opinion?

I mean there are a few discrepancies I've noticed between your list and Tusenfems, who shall I take as correct then?

For minimization of word salad errors creeping in I put the two side by side so to speak.

whadevvah!

Sol88 said:
We'll have a look at some of Tusenfem's objections to some points in that list.

Well, if you would have quoted the CORRECT message, maybe you would have read that MY parts were in bold face, which apparently disappeared when you started checking my answers. Here is my original post, only bold face letters are my answers to the list.

Sol88 said:
Maybe no, what kinda answer is that!

Did you see that the Maybe was YOUR word, and that the bolded text starts with NO? I know comprehensive reading is difficult, but I thought we would be above that level in this discussion.

Just one more sign of your ingeneous and malignant way of manipulating discussions, putting words into people's mouths.

Sol88 said:
If I reworded it would we all be happy then?

Space is filled with plasma. Yes?

Most of space is filled with plasma

Sol88 said:
Maybe no? Howsa 'bout rewording that as well!

99.9% of all matter is plasma, which fills space! Yes

Once more the Maybe is YOUR word, the NO is mine.

99% of all visible matter in the universe is plasma.

Sol88 said:
To me it meant that if electrons started moving in a plasma they would self organize into filament and cellular structures.

fine for you that it means that to you

Sol88 said:
I'm sure we wouldn't, but in Space? Yes

Go celebrate your victory!!!

Sol88 said:
Maybe no?? per se???? whats with your answers dude?

Please define your use of "per se" in this instance.

Once more, this is starting to sound like a broken record the Maybe was YOUR word the NO was my word. It would really help if you would read the original messages more correctly, and remember what you write yourself.

From Mirriam-Webster: Per Se: by, of, or in itself or oneself or themselves : as such : intrinsically

There are the three (3) things that need to be fulfilled if you want to categorize your charged particle cloud as a plasma. I gave you those three and you yourself wrote them down (well, copied I guess) too, therefore the "per se".

Sol88 said:
The rest of the points are just an exercise in semantics.

On the contrary, my dear Sol88, e.g. flow of charges can easily be a flow of equal amounts of positive and negative charges in the same direction and at the same velocity, and thus not constituting a current. It is EXACTLY these "semantics" that are the basic problem for the EU/EC/ES/PU/PC proponents. They say something but don't know what it means or have a misguided idea about the meaning. A good example of it is a neutral plasma.

But, whatever. Next time, take more care of quoting my stuff correctly, please.

Sol88 · Mar 27, 2009

But, whatever. Next time, take more care of quoting my stuff correctly, please.

my apologies, I should go to bed :faint:

I'll make an amended list tomorrow and we'll have that as the final draft so to speak, in light of the clarifications you've offered in post 1731

We'll all be on the same page and will avoid misunderstandings in meaning or definition.

Then we can get to the fun part!

DeiRenDopa · Mar 27, 2009

brantc said:
Here is a much cleaner and simpler explanation for the shape of the filaments. He gives all the math.
And this is a fundamentally different explanation which is what I mean by my mind was not going to change by learning the math for what I consider to be the "incorrect" approach. I dont understand all of this but it appears to be simpler as well as the correct approach, and I consider this math worth learning as well as I can. I am not against math used correctly.

Manifestations Of Electric Currents in Interestellar Molecular Clouds.
P. Carlquist and G. F. Gahm
http://www.ee.kth.se/php/modules/publications/reports/1991/3233.pdf

This paper has a few more observations and some better pictures.

The Lynds 204 Complex: Magnetic Field Controlled Evolution?
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...age=619&epage=619&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf

So I guess the question now is where is the power source???

Not that it is crucial to showing the filaments are electrical in nature but that the power source is the next step in the chain the needs explaining.

I think that if there is a feasible power source, that would go a long way towards people accepting the PU modelish.

Here's a post from another thread that may interest you, brantc.

It should also interest Zeuzzz (and it adds, indirectly, to what RC has been saying, in many posts ...).

DeiRenDopa said:
Or maybe I should ask, is MHDEnzo the best present-day realisation of "EU theory"?

Hot off the astro-ph press:

Cosmological AMR MHD with Enzo

David C. Collins, Hao Xu, Michael L. Norman, Hui Li, Shengtai Li

(Submitted on 16 Feb 2009 (v1), last revised 16 Feb 2009 (this version, v2))

In this work, we present MHDEnzo, the extension of the cosmological code Enzo to include the effects magnetic fields through the ideal MHD approximation. We use a higher order Godunov Riemann solver for the computation of interface fluxes. We use two constrained transport methods to compute the electric field from those interface fluxes, which simultaneously advances the induction equation and maintains the divergence of the magnetic field. A third order divergence free reconstruction technique is used to interpolate the magnetic fields in the block structured AMR framework already extant in Enzo. This reconstruction also preserves the divergence of the magnetic field to machine precision. We use operator splitting to include gravity and cosmological expansion. We then present a series of cosmological and non cosmological tests problems to demonstrate the quality of solution resulting from this combination of solvers.

Click to expand...

Based on what y'all have read of MM's posts, both here and in the two other, related, threads, how well would you say MHDEnzo meets his criteria for "EU/PC theory"?

DeiRenDopa · Mar 27, 2009

Sol88 said:
[...]

Space is a PLASMA. MAYBE NO, space is space, plasma is plasma, plasma can fill a space though

Click to expand...

Maybe no, what kinda answer is that!

If I reworded it would we all be happy then?

Space is filled with plasma. Yes?

99% of Space is plasma. MAYBE NO, 99% of all matter in the universe is plasma

Click to expand...

Maybe no? Howsa 'bout rewording that as well!

99.9% of all matter is plasma, which fills space! Yes

[...]

(I attempted to restore the bold as it was in tusenfem's original post; I may not have been entirely successful).

Sol88, you seem to be groping toward something like this:

"The state of (baryonic) matter in the IGM, most phases of the ISM, and the IPM is plasma, and these three between them comprise well over 99% of the observable universe, by volume."

The components of these regions of space that are not baryonic matter - whether in the form of plasma or gas, or ... - include light (a.k.a. photons), neutrinos, cosmic rays, and CDM. In terms of numbers, the photons vastly outnumber every other particle combined*, to the tune of 10^8. In terms of mass, the CDM wins (it comprises approx 85% of the mass) ... and we haven't even considered gravitational energy (what if gravitons exist?) or dark energy (which is the dominant form of mass-energy).

* as far as we know; it's possible that discoveries about CDM and/or neutrinos may change this; however, the ratio of photons to baryons won't

Perpetual Student · Mar 27, 2009

I have been following these threads about plasma cosmology and its cousin the electric universe for some time now. As a non-physicist, I find it interesting that the passionate advocates of these theories have trouble with English grammar, can't spell, tend to make incoherent statements and suffer from illogical thinking. When cornered by their own flawed arguments, they resort to name calling and similar childish tactics. These characteristics certainly taint whatever slight merit their positions might otherwise have.

Tim Thompson · Mar 27, 2009

Electric Currents & Magnetic Fields

Sol88 said:
Without agreement on those FACTS I have no theory ... Which one do you not agree on Tim, wholly or partially?

I have little enough time & patience for all this and I see the list as a farcical waste of time. Either you have a theory of your own or you don't, and "Without agreement on those FACTS I have no theory" is a poor excuse. I see no reason to bandy arguments about until you have something concrete to say about your own theory, for yourself, as opposed to asking everybody else to do your homework for you.

So I will present one concrete point of my own, and you can react as you see fit, if at all.

Sol88 said:
Magnetic fields require an electric current.
A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current.

Given your definition of an electric current, then the statement that magnetic fields require an electric current is not true. Dynamo theory allows for the generation of magnetic fields by motions in a charge neutral plasma, which motions do not correspond to your definition of an electric current. See, for instance, Brandenburg, 2009 for a current review of dynamo theory in astrophysics, or see the book Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics; Soward, et al., editors; CRC Press, 2005.

DeiRenDopa · Mar 28, 2009

Sol88 said:
Io's Atmosphere and the Io Plasma Torus

[qimg]http://www.planetaryexploration.net/jupiter/io/images/io_plasma_torus_wb.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.planetaryexploration.net/jupiter/io/images/jupiter_aurora_01257.jpg[/qimg]

Is that Ok?

Would you agree on the 2trillion watts as a ball park figure?

I'm curious, Sol88 ...

... per your definition of "space" (i.e. IGM+ISM+IPM), this Jupiter-Io stuff is not "in space", is it?

DeiRenDopa · Mar 28, 2009

Sol88 said:
DD, read the list in post 1705!

tell me where my logic has gone out the window.

After you've read the list have a look at these pretty pictures

[qimg]http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/images/planetary_nebula.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.uv.es/jrtorres/index6_archivos/image003.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://astronomersguide.com/images/HD%2044179.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://site.arielministriesnew.net/Copy_of_Hubble_shots/hubble13-Planetary_Nebula_M2-9.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://www.ucl.ac.uk/star/research/stellarenvironment/cieresearch/planetarynebulae/pn[/qimg]

I'm think'n plasma and what it can do according to my list, not gravity! How would a force that is only attractive, be able to cause those structures?

Same question as my last post ...

... per your definition of "space", none of these pretty things are "in space", are they?

Further, if there are plasmas in planetary nebulae (PNe) - as indeed there are - they do not fall within items 10 and 11 on your list, do they? After all, as they are neither "in the lab" nor "in space", whether we observe (or measure) them or not is irrelevant, isn't it?

Reality Check · Mar 28, 2009

Sol88 said:
my apologies, I should go to bed

I'll make an amended list tomorrow and we'll have that as the final draft so to speak, in light of the clarifications you've offered in post 1731

We'll all be on the same page and will avoid misunderstandings in meaning or definition.

Then we can get to the fun part!

Feel free to add to your list but it is a bit of a waste of time since it is not anything to do with cosmology. If you want a lesson on the properties of plasmas then I suggest that you start a separate thread.

As far as I know, scientists (and certainly the posters on this thread) agree that 99% of the visible matter in the observable universe is ionized gas. Plasma is an ionized gas with a specific set of properties so not all ionized gas is plasma.
Scientists also know that only 4% of the observable universe is visible matter. So ionized gas is just 4% of the matter in the observable universe. A large percentage of the 4% will be plasma.

N.B. Even if we ignore the evidence for dark energy then there still is 5 times more dark matter than there is visible matter (plasma). See my signature for the 2 actual observations of dark matter.

Now we can get into what plasmas actually are and what can happen in them. I do not know much about plasmas since my degree was in solid state physics but I will have a go at:

Sol88 said:
To me it meant that if electrons started moving in a plasma they would self organize into filament and cellular structures.

I would not expect plasmas to "self organize into filament and cellular structures". All of the examples that I have seen have included external power sources. Filamentation has been seen in the aurora,lightning, electric arcs, solar flares, and supernova remnants. Cellular structures in plasma seem to need an external magnetic field.

In any case these are effects at a scale that has nothing to do with cosmology. Even galactic jets that are driven by super-massive black holes have lengths of only hundreds of thousands of light years. That is a tiny scale in cosmology terms. Large scale structures in cosmology start at gigaparsec scales (billions of light years).

Zeuzzz · Mar 28, 2009

Perpetual Student said:
I have been following these threads about plasma cosmology and its cousin the electric universe for some time now. As a non-physicist, I find it interesting that the passionate advocates of these theories have trouble with English grammar, can't spell, tend to make incoherent statements and suffer from illogical thinking. When cornered by their own flawed arguments, they resort to name calling and similar childish tactics. These characteristics certainly taint whatever slight merit their positions might otherwise have.

I'm sorry that you think this perpetual student.

If you would be so kind as to point out where I may have done this, that would be greatly appreciated.

I always try to refrain from Ad Homs, unlike some certain other people around here that have a habit of continually calling people crackpots, nutters, cult followers, or other disparaging remarks. Comments like these just makes you look like you dont have an argument to back up.

Sol88 · Mar 28, 2009

Well in light of Tim Thompson answer to having a look at my list by saying

I have little enough time & patience for all this and I see the list as a farcical waste of time.

just compete and utter waste of your time Tim, sorry there sport :dqueen

Have you read the thread title PLASMA cosmology woo or not! My list may have some bearing in this thread.

And DeiRenDopa's complete cock up of the whole exercise with

I see that tusenfem become the third person to have a go at your list, while I was posting; of course that will change my two lists somewhat ...

I think DeiRenDopa may not even be on the same book, letterlone the same page here! :shy:

Can you see the point on understanding the basic concept here DeiRenDopa? :id:

And Reality cheque

I do not know much about plasmas since my degree was in solid state physics but I will have a go at it

I suggest if you are going to pitch in, you should know a little more, just ask Tusenfem or read the list or heaven forbid maybe even ask me.

And Tusenfem me 'ol :duel

, there were not many points on that list we DIS agreed on! I think space as a plasma was one, along with a large collection of charged particles constituting a plasma and I think you threw in something about your magnetic field room having no magnetic fields, which we all agree on :boggled:

But over all not many disagreements in communications, understandings, terms, words, grammar and spelling of my basic understanding of one of the foundational blocks of the :eye-poppi

ELECTRIC UNIVERSE/PLASMA COSMOLOGY paradigm PLASMA :jaw-dropp

So in lite of all that carry on by our "mainstream" coherents, I present a revised list below,

I think it's a little less ambiguous than the first as well as adding a new property to an electron flow thru a plasma. The Bennett or Z pinch.

But basically the same 15 point list. while not my final theory it will help explain some of the points I would like to make on my EU/PC model, to our less versed readers.

So unfortunately Tim Thomson, I strongly believe that the farcical waste of time you think this list is, is indeed not and your post was complete and utter male bovine bowel movement :flamed:

You give me just a yes or no answer there Tim Thompson and I'll give your question a go!

Sol88 · Mar 28, 2009

My Revised EU/PC assumptions

1. 99% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.
2. Plasma is composed of charged particles, mainly negative electrons and positive protons or - & +
3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.
4. Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.
5. Plasma is an excellent electrical conductor.
6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.
7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.
8. Plasma with an electric current flowing through it can
• “self” organize.
• Become filamentary
• Form Cellular structures (double layer)
• Bennett Pinch (Z-pinch and Theta pinch)
• Form very complex instabilities and behavior

9. Dust can behave as plasma.
10. Plasma can be scientifically studied in the lab and in the Universe
11. Plasma can be observed in the lab and in the Universe.
12. Plasma exchanging energy is observable across the known Electromagnetic spectrum.
13. A flow of electrons spiraling along a magnetic field line is a Field Aligned Current, a FAC
14. Magnetic fields influence charged particles.
15. We observe vast magnetic fields in the plasma filled Universe.

sol invictus · Mar 28, 2009

Sol88 said:
My Revised EU/PC assumptions

1. 99% of the observable Universe is plasma.

Still wrong. I don't even know what that means. If you said, "99% of the matter in the observable universe is plasma", that would at least make sense - but it would still be totally wrong.

Sol88 · Mar 28, 2009

Would that constitute a sound enough understanding of plasma to not having to keep backing up the most basic of claims wrt plasma and it's behavior?? :nope:

most probably not according to the high standard of consistency set out here!

So I think my knowledge is sound, seems only my logic may be off!

But we'll see!

Hope my grammar and spelling were ok for you this time Perpetual student! :zzw:

As a non-physicist, I find it interesting that the passionate advocates of these theories have trouble with English grammar, can't spell, tend to make incoherent statements and suffer from illogical thinking. When cornered by their own flawed arguments, they resort to name calling and similar childish tactics. These characteristics certainly taint whatever slight merit their positions might otherwise have.

Please do not let my hopeless spelling get in the way of your understanding of the EU/PC paradigm, never have been real good at writ'n stuff onn paper, Thank frock 4 spall cheuqe eh!

Also

make incoherent statements and suffer from illogical thinking. When cornered by their own flawed arguments, they resort to name calling and similar childish tactics

You may want to Talk to Tim Thompson, DeinDopa, Reality Check and Sol invictus about some of those points before you go :bricks:

Sol88 · Mar 28, 2009

Still wrong. I don't even know what that means. If you said, "99% of the matter in the observable universe is plasma", that would at least make sense - but it would still be totally wrong.

Fixed to read 99% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma, less ambiguous, I think!

I had that written down next to me, it just didn't complete the journey from my eyeballs to my fingers, as noted by Perpetual students observation on my oft spelling and grammar mistakes!

Any others?

sol invictus · Mar 28, 2009

Sol88 said:
Fixed to read 99% of the matter in the observable universe is plasma, less ambiguous!

Less ambiguous - and still completely wrong. Plasma cannot possibly account for more than about 20-25% of the matter in the universe. We don't know for sure what the rest is, but it certainly isn't plasma.

Perpetual Student · Mar 28, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
I'm sorry that you think this perpetual student.

If you would be so kind as to point out where I may have done this, that would be greatly appreciated.

I always try to refrain from Ad Homs, unlike some certain other people around here that have a habit of continually calling people crackpots, nutters, cult followers, or other disparaging remarks. Comments like these just makes you look like you dont have an argument to back up.

Good points! My broad brush was not fair. I would amend my comment to say "many of the passionate..." instead of "the passionate advocates of these theories..."

DeiRenDopa · Mar 28, 2009

Sol88 said:
Well in light of Tim Thompson answer to having a look at my list by saying just compete and utter waste of your time Tim, sorry there sport Have you read the thread title PLASMA cosmology woo or not! My list may have some bearing in this thread.

And DeiRenDopa's complete cock up of the whole exercise with

I think DeiRenDopa may not even be on the same book, letterlone the same page here!

Can you see the point on understanding the basic concept here DeiRenDopa?

And Reality cheque

I suggest if you are going to pitch in, you should know a little more, just ask Tusenfem or read the list or heaven forbid maybe even ask me.

And Tusenfem me 'ol , there were not many points on that list we DIS agreed on! I think space as a plasma was one, along with a large collection of charged particles constituting a plasma and I think you threw in something about your magnetic field room having no magnetic fields, which we all agree on

But over all not many disagreements in communications, understandings, terms, words, grammar and spelling of my basic understanding of one of the foundational blocks of the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE/PLASMA COSMOLOGY paradigm PLASMA

So in lite of all that carry on by our "mainstream" coherents, I present a revised list below,

I think it's a little less ambiguous than the first as well as adding a new property to an electron flow thru a plasma. The Bennett or Z pinch.

But basically the same 15 point list. while not my final theory it will help explain some of the points I would like to make on my EU/PC model, to our less versed readers.

So unfortunately Tim Thomson, I strongly believe that the farcical waste of time you think this list is, is indeed not and your post was complete and utter male bovine bowel movement

You give me just a yes or no answer there Tim Thompson and I'll give your question a go!

Are you expecting me - DRD - to comment on, or respond to, this post in any way?

sol invictus · Mar 28, 2009

Perpetual Student said:
Good points! My broad brush was not fair. I would amend my comment to say "many of the passionate..." instead of "the passionate advocates of these theories..."

Who are the exceptions?

DeiRenDopa · Mar 28, 2009

Sol88 said:
My Revised EU/PC assumptions

1. 99% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.
2. Plasma is composed of charged particles, mainly negative electrons and positive protons or - & +
3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.
4. Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.
5. Plasma is an excellent electrical conductor.
6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.
7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.
8. Plasma with an electric current flowing through it can
• “self” organize.
• Become filamentary
• Form Cellular structures (double layer)
• Bennett Pinch (Z-pinch and Theta pinch)
• Form very complex instabilities and behavior

9. Dust can behave as plasma.
10. Plasma can be scientifically studied in the lab and in the Universe
11. Plasma can be observed in the lab and in the Universe.
12. Plasma exchanging energy is observable across the known Electromagnetic spectrum.
13. A flow of electrons spiraling along a magnetic field line is a Field Aligned Current, a FAC
14. Magnetic fields influence charged particles.
15. We observe vast magnetic fields in the plasma filled Universe.

You may, of course, choose to write "EU/PC assumptions" in any form you wish.

Just as you may choose to ignore what I have written, in response to your request (you may also ask for clarification, if you so wish).

And you may wish to (keep) changing your stated intent, wrt this list.

However, the more you do that sort of thing, the less coherent the relevant parts of this thread will be, wrt them being a discussion.

Sol88 · Mar 28, 2009

sol invictus

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Fixed to read 99% of the matter in the observable universe is plasma, less ambiguous!

Click to expand...

Less ambiguous - and still completely wrong. Plasma cannot possibly account for more than about 20-25% of the matter in the universe. We don't know for sure what the rest is, but it certainly isn't plasma.

Ok lets take it step further shall we? Hold my hand while we go on this voyage of logic, based on an assumption on my list namely point 1 and 12, First point 12.

12. Plasma exchanging energy is observable across the known Electromagnetic spectrum.

And the electromagnetic spectrum consist of...

The electromagnetic spectrum is the range of all possible electromagnetic radiation frequencies.[1] The "electromagnetic spectrum" (usually just spectrum) of an object is the characteristic distribution of electromagnetic radiation from that particular object.

The electromagnetic spectrum extends from below frequencies used for modern radio (at the long-wavelength end) through gamma radiation (at the short-wavelength end), covering wavelengths from thousands of kilometers down to a fraction the size of an atom. It is thought that the short wavelength limit is in the vicinity of the Planck length, and the long wavelength limit is the size of the universe itself (see physical cosmology), although in principle the spectrum is infinite and continuous.

So we have basically from radio to Gamma energies that we can observe the Universe in, agreed?

But another article mentions

The violet and red "ends" of the optical spectrum are not really "ends" at all, but rather simply the limits to the portion of the EM spectrum to which our eyes are sensitive. Beyond red light lies the region known as the infrared, which is also simply known as heat radiation. (The fact that light is just energy may be most obvious in this portion of the spectrum!) The longest wavelength infrared radiation blends into the shortest wavelength radio waves, and the radio region extends out to the longest wavelengths we are able to measure.

Likewise, beyond the violet of the optical spectrum lies a broad region known as the ultraviolet, which blends into the X-ray region, followed by the the shortest wavelength radiation known, the gamma rays. Again, there is no edge or "end" of the spectrum at shortest wavelengths, although we reach a practical limit as to what can be measured. (The shortest wavelength gamma rays are on a par with the size of an atomic nucleus!)

So our "ends" of the spectrum may not yet be quite so black and white and our ability to observe the entire range of EM phenomena in the Universe, may yet be expanded again due to advancement in instrumentation :scarper:

Look at what it did when we put a Geiger counter into orbit/space/Universe or into point 1

1. 99% of matter in the observable Universe is plasma.

and on November 3, 1957 we found out.

Sputnik 2 detected the Earth's outer radiation belt in the far northern latitudes, but the significance of the elevated radiation was not realized. In Australia Professor Harry Messel intercepted the signals but the Soviets would not provide the code and the Australians would not send the data. In 1958, with Sputnik 3 they began to cooperate and confirmed the findings of the US Explorer satellites.

Still may not be fully realized today!

Something screwy with the cut and paste from that site? Looks like it's adding the information in the hyperlinks or some such thing! :boggled:

But as you can see there been some form of disagreement in science wrt plasma, starting sometime around 1900 with K.Birkeland

Abstract
Birkeland was a Norwegian physicist, born in Oslo. In 1900, he identified and then simulated the charged electron-magnetic flux tube connection between the Sun and Earth that produces the aurora. He studied the zodiacal light during expeditions to the Sudan and Egypt. Birkeland committed suicide in a depression associated with the rejection of his auroral theories by his contemporary established...

adsabs.harvard.edu

Any how that's a whole different thread there but basically he (K.Birkeland) said

In 1913, Birkeland may have been 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 (a plasma see point 1) of all kinds. We have assumed that each stellar system in evolutions throws off electric corpuscles into space. It does not seem unreasonable therefore to think that the greater part of the material masses in the universe is found, not in the solar systems or nebulae, but in "empty" space. (Ref. See notes)

My bolding

It's totally reasonable

So my logic goes if the EM spectrum MAY extend beyond known (observable) RADIO and GAMMA energies then the same 99% of plasma that we can see in space will increase stepwise with our increase in observational tools. We will just see more of the same 99% :eye-poppi

i.e It's still there we just can not see it, it's "dark" to our observation!

Logical?

Sol88 · Mar 28, 2009

DRD wrote:

However, the more you do that sort of thing, the less coherent the relevant parts of this thread will be, wrt them being a discussion.

We shall see, shall we not!

List needed clarification so the TERMS were standard as per YOUR request!

(you may also ask for clarification, if you so wish).

If you think that will aid this thread, then no worries cobber!

DeiRenDopa · Mar 28, 2009

Sol88 said:
Ok lets take it step further shall we? Hold my hand while we go on this voyage of logic, based on an assumption on my list namely point 1 and 12, First point 12.

And the electromagnetic spectrum consist of...

So we have basically from radio to Gamma energies that we can observe the Universe in, agreed?

But another article mentions

So our "ends" of the spectrum may not yet be quite so black and white and our ability to observe the entire range of EM phenomena in the Universe, may yet be expanded again due to advancement in instrumentation

Look at what it did when we put a Geiger counter into orbit/space/Universe or into point 1 and on November 3, 1957 we found out.

Still may not be fully realized today!

Something screwy with the cut and paste from that site? Looks like it's adding the information in the hyperlinks or some such thing!

But as you can see there been some form of disagreement in science wrt plasma, starting sometime around 1900 with K.Birkeland adsabs.harvard.edu

Any how that's a whole different thread there but basically he (K.Birkeland) said My bolding

It's totally reasonable

So my logic goes if the EM spectrum MAY extend beyond known (observable) RADIO and GAMMA energies then the same 99% of plasma that we can see in space will increase stepwise with our increase in observational tools. We will just see more of the same 99%

i.e It's still there we just can not see it, it's "dark" to our observation!

Logical?

(bold added)

No.

Sol88, you may wish to take tusenfem's advice and get yourself a science degree, from a good university, with a major in plasma physics. That way you will avoid a great deal of wasted effort, in trying to draw scientifically-sound conclusions from the sorts of sources you seem to favour.

Wrt this post of yours that I'm quoting, there is a very, very, very good reason why going much further into the radio region (i.e. to lower frequencies) won't tell us much about anything other than conditions in the solar wind/IPM (HINT: plasma frequency) ... and that's just one point ...

sol invictus · Mar 28, 2009

Sol88 said:
<snip>

i.e It's still there we just can not see it, it's "dark" to our observation!

Logical?

That was so incoherent I can only guess at what you are trying to say. Is it that maybe dark matter is a plasma which somehow only affects the part of the EM spectrum we cannot detect, because the wavelength is too long?

If so, that's completely impossible. All plasmas affect EM radiation very strongly across all wavelengths. One of the only things we know for sure about it is that DM is NOT plasma.

Sol88 · Mar 28, 2009

Tim Thompson wrote:

So I will present one concrete point of my own, and you can react as you see fit, if at all.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Magnetic fields require an electric current.
A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current.

Click to expand...

Given your definition of an electric current, then the statement that magnetic fields require an electric current is not true. Dynamo theory allows for the generation of magnetic fields by motions in a charge neutral plasma, which motions do not correspond to your definition of an electric current. See, for instance, Brandenburg, 2009 for a current review of dynamo theory in astrophysics, or see the book Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics; Soward, et al., editors; CRC Press, 2005.

How so Tim Thompson ?

My understanding of galactic magnetic fields (the biggest we've observed)

The Origin of Galactic Magnetic Fields

The origin of the first magnetic fields in the Universe is still a mystery (Widrow 2002). Protogalaxies probably were already magnetic due to field ejection from the first stars or from jets generated by the first black holes. However, a primordial field in a young galaxy is hard to maintain because a galaxy rotates differentially (the angular velocity decreases with radius), so that the magnetic field lines get strongly wound up (in contrast to observations, see below) and field lines with opposite polarity may cancel via magnetic reconnection. This calls for a mechanism to sustain and organize the magnetic field.

I propose a flow of charged particles arising from charge separation as the mechanisim! as per my list! See points 3, 6 and 7

3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.

and

6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.

and

7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.

My understanding of dynamo theory, from the link above

The most promising mechanism is the dynamo which transfers mechanical energy into magnetic energy (Beck et al. 1996, Rüdiger & Hollerbach 2004, Brandenburg & Subramanian 2005). With a suitable configuration of the fluid or gas flow, a strong magnetic field with a stationary or oscillating configuration can be generated from a weak seed field. In astronomical objects like stars, planets or galaxies, an efficient dynamo needs turbulent motions and non-uniform (differential) rotation and is called alpha-Omega dynamo. It generates large-scale regular fields, even if the seed field was turbulent ("order out of chaos").

So you need suitable configuration of gas or fluid for an efficient dynamo, which needs turbulent motions and non-uniform (differential) rotation of said suitably configured gas or fluid to turn mechanical energy into magnetic energy! Simple

Ok that could work, but why would point's 3,6 and 7 not work more efficiently than an alpha-Omega dynamo?

or see the book Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics

Fluid Dynamics are not the same as plasma dynamics which this thread is on!

DeiRenDopa · Mar 28, 2009

Sol88 said:
DRD wrote:

However, the more you do that sort of thing, the less coherent the relevant parts of this thread will be, wrt them being a discussion.

Click to expand...

We shall see, shall we not!

Indeed.

Perhaps we have already seen ...

List needed clarification so the TERMS were standard as per YOUR request!

Then please re-read what you wrote - from post 1642 onward - and my responses.

In particular, notice how you went from "I base my EU/PC assumptions on the following list" (bold added) to "My Revised EU/PC assumptions"; do you understand just how different these two are?

You might also take some time to read post 1712, slowly and carefully, paying particular attention to the two questions at the head of each of my lists:

Do participants in the discussion have a unanimous, agreed understanding of these key phrases?

And

In light of the clarifications Sol88 has provided, does Sol88 appear to understand these terms/phrases in a manner consistent with their common use by physicists?

You may also wish to consider the possibility that (seriously, and deliberately?) mis-representing what others have written will very likely contribute to a breakdown in communication.

(you may also ask for clarification, if you so wish).

Click to expand...

If you think that will aid this thread, then no worries cobber!

What is it that you are requesting clarification of?

tusenfem · Mar 28, 2009

Dsjeeeeezeuzzzzzzzzzzzzz could you put any more platitudes in this thread, Sol88.
So, you have a 12 point list now, which you think describes the plasma universe or something or other, and some of the points are not even correct. Ah well, who cares at this point.

And actually, reading some more here on this page, I find that one of your greatest mistakes is to think that charge separation is the generaration mechanism for electric fields in the universe. However, that is incorrect, 90% of all electric fields are created by moving magnetic fields (if not more). Charge separation can only occur in very special cases in plasmas, e.g. through double layers. However, charge separation is one of the minor minor powers in cosmological plasma physics.

Now, I am sure you are going to present us a mathematically well developed theory which describes why plasma cosmology as adhered by the EU/ES/EC/PU/PC gang is superior to the mainstream description.

I take it from your last rant that you now actually believe that electromagnetic radiation is plasma too?

What kind of "radiation" do you think the Earth's radiation belts consist of?

Even the guy from the encyclopedia that you quoted gets his stuff wrong. Birkeland never proposed that there were "flux tubes" coming from the Sun to the Earth. He only posited that electric corpuscules came from the Sun, which got caught by the Earth's mangetic field and create the aurora (read for a great scientific biography of Birkeland the very nice book Nothern Lights: The True Story of the Man Who Unlocked the Secrets of the Aurora Borealis written by Lucy Jago.

Although, earlier than Birkeland the connection between sunspots, solar flares, magnetic fields and their connection to aurora on the Earth was already discussed half a century before Birkeland (read the fantastic book The Sun Kings by Stuart Clark[/quote] which starts with the great magnetic storm of 1859 (150 years ago this year and basically the start of sun-earth-system physics).

So, now, let us look at real plasma physics, show us your model Sol88.

DeiRenDopa · Mar 28, 2009

sol invictus said:
Perpetual Student said:

Good points! My broad brush was not fair. I would amend my comment to say "many of the passionate..." instead of "the passionate advocates of these theories..."

Click to expand...

Who are the exceptions?

iantresman is the only one I can think of who might be such - of those who have posted in this section of the JREF Forum - but I do not know if PS has read any of his posts or not.

Ziggurat · Mar 28, 2009

Sol88 said:
I propose a flow of charged particles arising from charge separation as the mechanisim!

Except "charge separation" is not a mechanism. It's an effect, and it has to be driven by something else. And that something else needs to provide energy in order to do it, because it costs energy to separate charges. What would be driving this charge separation?

as per my list! See points 3, 6 and 7

Those points don't address what's driving your proposed charge separation. And it can't be electricity: electricity always opposes the separation of charges. So what else is there? Magnetism? Well, that won't work either, because you're claiming that charge separation drives the currents which create those magnetic fields, so you don't have a magnetic field until after you get charge separation. Unless you think it works like a galaxy-sized perpetual motion machine, but if you believe that, there's no point in any further discussion. So I'll assume you just didn't think far enough to realize that you don't actually have a mechanism to drive your charge separation.

Sol88 · Mar 28, 2009

Tim Thompson wrote:

So I will present one concrete point of my own, and you can react as you see fit, if at all.

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Magnetic fields require an electric current.
A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current.

Click to expand...

Given your definition of an electric current, then the statement that magnetic fields require an electric current is not true. Dynamo theory allows for the generation of magnetic fields by motions in a charge neutral plasma, which motions do not correspond to your definition of an electric current. See, for instance, Brandenburg, 2009 for a current review of dynamo theory in astrophysics, or see the book Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics; Soward, et al., editors; CRC Press, 2005.

How so Tim Thompson ?

My understanding of galactic magnetic fields (the biggest we've observed)

The Origin of Galactic Magnetic Fields

The origin of the first magnetic fields in the Universe is still a mystery (Widrow 2002). Protogalaxies probably were already magnetic due to field ejection from the first stars or from jets generated by the first black holes. However, a primordial field in a young galaxy is hard to maintain because a galaxy rotates differentially (the angular velocity decreases with radius), so that the magnetic field lines get strongly wound up (in contrast to observations, see below) and field lines with opposite polarity may cancel via magnetic reconnection. This calls for a mechanism to sustain and organize the magnetic field.

I propose a flow of charged particles arising from charge separation as the mechanisim! as per my list! See points 3, 6 and 7

3. Charge separation can occur, generating Electric fields.

and

6. A flow of charged particles is an electric current.

and

7. Electric currents generate magnetic fields.

My understanding of dynamo theory, from the link above

The most promising mechanism is the dynamo which transfers mechanical energy into magnetic energy (Beck et al. 1996, Rüdiger & Hollerbach 2004, Brandenburg & Subramanian 2005). With a suitable configuration of the fluid or gas flow, a strong magnetic field with a stationary or oscillating configuration can be generated from a weak seed field. In astronomical objects like stars, planets or galaxies, an efficient dynamo needs turbulent motions and non-uniform (differential) rotation and is called alpha-Omega dynamo. It generates large-scale regular fields, even if the seed field was turbulent ("order out of chaos").

So you need suitable configuration of gas or fluid for an efficient dynamo, which needs turbulent motions and non-uniform (differential) rotation of said suitably configured gas or fluid to turn mechanical energy into magnetic energy! Simple

Ok that could work, but why would point's 3,6 and 7 not work more efficiently than an alpha-Omega dynamo?

or see the book Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics

Fluid Dynamics are not the same as plasma dynamics which this thread is on!

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Master Poster

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Master Poster

Illuminator

Philosopher

Master Poster

Master Poster

Illuminator

Muse

Master Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Philosopher

Illuminator

Master Poster

Philosopher

Master Poster

Philosopher

Philosopher

Master Poster

Philosopher

Philosopher

Master Poster

Illuminator

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher