Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Sol88 said:
You say tomato I say tomato :)

Meta Galactic

Atomic to the galactic, as above so below :)
Click to expand...

Atomic to the galactic and nowhere near cosmological.
Meta Galactic:
met⋅a⋅gal⋅ax⋅y  /ˌmɛtəˈgæləksi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [met-uh-gal-uhk-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ax⋅ies. Astronomy. the complete system of galaxies; the Milky Way and all the surrounding galaxies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1925–30; meta- + galaxy
Related forms:
met⋅a⋅ga⋅lac⋅tic  /ˌmɛtəgəˈlæktɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [met-uh-guh-lak-tik] Show IPA , adjective
Click to expand...
Actual astronomers call the set of all galaxies in the universe either the universe or the cosmos.
So "meta galaxy" = an unspecified set of galaxies (in Perrat's abstract) or just the galaxies local to the the Milky Way or bad terminololgy.

However if he does mean the universe or cosmos or even cosmological scales then he is wrong. Any astronomer (of undergraduate physics student) knows that EM effects in plasma balance out over small scales.


One more time for the especially dumb:
  1. The maximum known Debye length occurs in the IGM (intergalactic or intracluster medium).
  2. This is 10,000 metres or 10 kilometres.
  3. A "few tens of Debye lengths" is thus a few hundred kilometres.
But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent who is currently ignoring basic physics: multiply this by a factor of a million. What scale would this fictitious EM effect extend over? A few hundred million kilometers rounded up is 1000 million kilometers. This is 0.0001 light years or 6.7 AU and fits comfortably within the Solar System.

Only truly ignorant people would think that this scale is cosmological.
 
Sol88 said:
Tusenfem wrote

bugger how did I not see that :blush: what do you think they are implying then with the statement? I mean if it's in equilibrium, then against what?

And the the 'ol shock waves to heat the GAS to PLASMA emitting X-ray energies! wHoOh boy!!!

Tusenfem?
Click to expand...
From the article:
The X-ray images of the cluster helped astronomers measure the temperature and density of the gas. These provide clues about the gas pressure and cluster’s total mass. The hottest, densest gas lies near the cluster’s center, while gas temperature and density steadily decline away from the center.
Click to expand...
My guess it is the pressure within the gas that is in equilibrium with the gravitational force as is normal with all gases. Note that the temperature of the gas declines as the distance for the cluster increases (cold gas is entering the cluster).

Good old shock waves do heat gas to plasma and plasmas do emit X-rays. That is basic physics.
 
Another little factoid that I have come across:
Sol88 previously wanted to explain the super-massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way (and other galaxies) as a plasmoid.
It turns out that the virial theorem causes a problem with that idea:
A plasmoid is a finite configuration of magnetic fields and plasma. With the virial theorem it is easy to see that any such configuration will expand if not contained by external forces. In a finite configuration without pressure-bearing walls or magnetic coils, the surface integral will vanish. Since all the other terms on the right hand side are positive, the acceleration of the moment of inertia will also be positive. It is also easy to estimate the expansion time τ. If a total mass M is confined within a radius R, then the moment of inertia is roughly MR2, and the left hand side of the virial theorem is MR2/τ2. The terms on the right hand side add up to about pR3, where p is the larger of the plasma pressure or the magnetic pressure. Equating these two terms and solving for τ, we find
d939b50362cf2e41cd8eb554f676e9b2.png
where cs is the speed of the ion acoustic wave (or the Alfven wave, if the magnetic pressure is higher than the plasma pressure). Thus the lifetime of a plasmoid is expected to be on the order of the acoustic (or Alfven) transit time
Click to expand...
ETA: Perhaps someone with more knowledge might tell us what the typical (or minimum and maximum) values of cs are and then we can plug in the 44 million kilometer size of the "plasmoid" and figure out how long it lasts.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
bugger how did I not see that what do you think they are implying then with the statement? I mean if it's in equilibrium, then against what?
Click to expand...

Equilibrium between gravitational force and gas pressure
 
Sol88 said:
But it's not gas is it Tusenfem it's plasma!
Click to expand...

Dear Solly, from Peratt's book Physics of the Plasma Universe, on page 28, equation (1.8), Perry talks about the Bennett pinch (with which you are probably slightly familiar), he writes:

Peratt said:
In the steady-state, the balance of forces is:

[latex]$$\nabla p = \nabla(p_e + p_i) = {\bf j} \times {\bf B}$$[/latex]

By employing Eq. (12), [latex]$$\nabla \times {\bf B} = \mu_o {\bf j}$$[/latex], and the perfect GAS law p = N k T, we arrive at the Bennett relation

[latex]$$ 2 N k (T_e + T_i) = \frac{\mu_o}{4\pi} I^2$$[/latex]

where N is the number of electrons per unit length along the beam, Te and Ti are the electron and ion temperatures, I is the total beam current and k is Boltzmann's constant.
Click to expand...

So, you were saying about gas pressure and plasma pressure ............

I hope we can put this stupidity to rest now about whether or not a plasma behaves as a gas, when even your own GOD Peratt uses a perfect gas law to describe a plasma.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Witout wanting to sink my teetch back into this thread too much yet to the detriment of other things on my plate at the moment;

http://www.physorg.com/print160726282.html
Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis
May 5th, 2009 in Physics / General Physics

As modern cosmologists rely more and more on the ominous “dark matter” to explain otherwise inexplicable observations, much effort has gone into the detection of this mysterious substance in the last two decades, yet no direct proof could be found that it actually exists. Even if it does exist, dark matter would be unable to reconcile all the current discrepancies between actual measurements and predictions based on theoretical models. Hence the number of physicists questioning the existence of dark matter has been increasing for some time now.

Competing theories of gravitation have already been developed which are independent of this construction. Their only problem is that they conflict with Newton’s theory of gravitation.

“Maybe Newton was indeed wrong”, declares Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University's Argelander-Institut für Astronomie (AIfA). “Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity”.

This is a problematical hypothesis that has nevertheless gained increasing ground in recent years, especially in Europe.

Two new studies could well lend further support to it. In these studies, Professor Kroupa and his former colleague Dr. Manuel Metz, working in collaboration with Professor Dr. Gerhard Hensler and Dr. Christian Theis from the University of Vienna, and Dr. Helmut Jerjen from the Australian National University, Canberra, have examined so-called “satellite galaxies”. This term is used for dwarf galaxy companions of the Milky Way, some of which contain only a few thousand stars.

According to the best cosmological models, they exist presumably in hundreds around most of the major galaxies. Up to now, however, only 30 such satellites have been observed around the Milky Way, a discrepancy in numbers which is commonly attributed to the fact that the light emitted from the majority of satellite galaxies is so faint they remain invisible.

A detailed study of these stellar agglomerates has revealed some astonishing phenomena: “First of all, there is something unusual about their distribution”, Professor Kroupa explains, “the satellites should be uniformly arranged around their mother galaxy, but this is not what we found“. More precisely, all classical satellites of the Milky Way - the eleven brightest dwarf galaxies - lie more or less in the same plane, they are forming some sort of a disc in the sky. The research team has also been able to show that most of these satellite galaxies rotate in the same direction around the Milky Way - like the planets revolve around the Sun. [.....]
Click to expand...


Which again points to Lerners observation of a large scale magnetic field, such as would be constant with the fields used in Peratts model.

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/2007yearendreport.htm
Conventional cosmology hypothesizes that the universe, on a large scale, is isotropic. Yet this year, evidence has shown large-scale anisotropies in measurements other than that of the CBR. Michael J. Longo showed that spiral galaxies tend to spiral more in one direction than another, possibly implying a large scale magnetic field in region some 350 Mpc across. The alignment of the spins seems to point in direction close to that defined by anisotropies in the CBR.
Click to expand...


And some more dubious but interesting material (some not plasma cosmology, but some is based on cosmologically relevent hypothesis):

Cosmology in Crisis—Again!
The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy
Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System

I recommend reading the references to the science journals Thornhill references, rather than the main material in his articles, which is far from perfect but not without valid points scattered throughout.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Witout wanting to sink my teetch back into this thread too much yet to the detriment of other things on my plate at the moment;

http://www.physorg.com/print160726282.html

Which again points to Lerners observation of a large scale magnetic field, such as would be constant with the fields used in Peratts model.

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/2007yearendreport.htm
Click to expand...
You seem to have forgotton the logical fallacy that has pointed out to you many times before: Evidence against theory A is not evidence for theory B.
So we can ignore all of Lerner's stuff. BTW absolutely no plasma cosmology on that web page :jaw-dropp !

How about a paper from Lerner that shows the match of plasma cosmology to the CMB power spectrum?

As for Peratt's model - you must think that astronomers do not know their basics. Peratt certainly did not in his papers.
The mass in spiral galaxies is not distributed in arms as predicted in Peratt's model and thus his model is wrong.
How many times does this simple point have to be presented to you before you understand it?

Perhaps another time in other words will make it clearer to you:
Peratt's computer simulation of plasma only interactions produces maps of particle positions where there are spiral structures with no particles in between the arms. His model thus predicts there will be no matter in between the arms of spiral galaxies.
This is wrong. The density of metter in between the arms of spiral galaxies is measured as ~20% less than that of the arms. Therefore his model is wrong.

To make it even simpler for the learning challenged :
Take a photograph of a spiral galaxy. The image will have a certain contrast between bright areas and darker areas. If the bright areas are bright enough then the darker areas will look empty - even if there are actual stars there. A similar situation is the fact the sunspots are actually brighter than electric arcs but look dark against the brighter surface of the Sun.
Why do arms appear in the photographs of spiral galaxies? It is because there are arm-sharped volumes of high star formation containing lots of bright young stars.
What is the actual mass distribution in a spiral galaxy?
  • A flat, rotating disc of (mostly newly created) stars and interstellar matter
  • A central stellar bulge of mainly older stars, which resembles an elliptical galaxy
  • A near-spherical halo of stars, including many in globular clusters
  • A supermassive black hole at the very center of the central bulge
Click to expand...
Question: Would an astronomer compare an optical photograph of a spiral galaxy with a proposed map of the positions of plasma particles and expect a match?
Answer: No competent astronomer (or anyone else with any sense) would.

Zeuzzz said:
And some more dubious but interesting material (some not plasma cosmology, but some is based on cosmologically relevent hypothesis):

Cosmology in Crisis—Again!
The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy
Newton’s Electric Clockwork Solar System

I recommend reading the references to the science journals Thornhill references, rather than the main material in his articles, which is far from perfect but not without valid points scattered throughout.
Click to expand...
As for anything from the EU crank Thornhill (specially his regurgitation of the electric gravity woo) - you really make me laugh :D !
 
Last edited:
tusenfem said:
Dear Solly, from Peratt's book Physics of the Plasma Universe, on page 28, equation (1.8), Perry talks about the Bennett pinch (with which you are probably slightly familiar), he writes:



So, you were saying about gas pressure and plasma pressure ............

I hope we can put this stupidity to rest now about whether or not a plasma behaves as a gas, when even your own GOD Peratt uses a perfect gas law to describe a plasma.
Click to expand...


Dude, GAS is NOT PLASMA, otherwise why not make things real easy and do away with the fundamental state of a matter and just use the three we have been used to solids, liquids and GAS!

to parse from thunderpants

This is one example where understanding the difference between hot gas (which does not contain charged particles) and plasma (which does contain charged particles and can be electrically active) could provide some illumination: sunspots are not the result of gas convection modified by magnetism, sunspots are electrical structures.
Click to expand...
LINK

Lets through a curve ball to you, Tusenfem, I have this plasma flow that I'm modeling using gas laws and a DOUBLE LAYERS pops up or indeed an instiblity say a diocotron instability, what happens to the ideal gas laws then, dude?
 
Zeuzzz said:
Witout wanting to sink my teetch back into this thread too much yet to the detriment of other things on my plate at the moment;

http://www.physorg.com/print160726282.html
Click to expand...
Exaggerations in journalism plunge JREF thread into crisis. Or not.

There's a number of interesting and challenging problems in galaxy formation right now that are the subject of much active research. These may be solved by better understanding the laws of physics we know or by adjusting the ones we have but describing the standard model of cosmology as something in 'crisis' is a big exaggeration and you're certainly not going to be replacing the more general idea of a big bang with some model that correctly predicts even less.

Noone's denying there are any challenges and mysteries in cosmology or there would be no active research, but the simple fact is that the big bang is on stronger footing today than it has ever been.
 
Reality Check said:
As for anything from the EU crank Thornhill (specially his regurgitation of the electric gravity woo) - you really make me laugh!
Click to expand...

How interesting that on Thundercrap of the Gods or whatever webshite I just visited there are absolutely no equations, math or calculations on e.g. the E-MOND idea. I clicked on several links, and finally got to an "explanation" on this page, well (turning on Ricky Ricardo voice) Lucyyyyyyyyyyy, you got some 'splainin' to do!.

If that is what goes on for science in the PC/PU/EU/ES/EC community, then so be it, no wonder they are the laughing stock of mainstream science.

Then there is the part on the "electric gravity" (somewhere near the end of the page) that Sol88 already talked about, which was also easily debunked many pages ago.

Come up with something new, guyz! Show us something, apart from regurgitating the same old unfounded crap.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Witout wanting to sink my teetch back into this thread too much yet to the detriment of other things on my plate at the moment;

http://www.physorg.com/print160726282.html

A detailed study of these stellar agglomerates has revealed some astonishing phenomena: “First of all, there is something unusual about their distribution”, Professor Kroupa explains, “the satellites should be uniformly arranged around their mother galaxy, but this is not what we found“. More precisely, all classical satellites of the Milky Way - the eleven brightest dwarf galaxies - lie more or less in the same plane, they are forming some sort of a disc in the sky. The research team has also been able to show that most of these satellite galaxies rotate in the same direction around the Milky Way - like the planets revolve around the Sun. [.....]
Click to expand...

Which again points to Lerners observation of a large scale magnetic field, such as would be constant with the fields used in Peratts model.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

First off, I have no idea why he says dwarf galaxies should be isotropic. The Milky Way itself is obviously not - it's a flat disk - and the shape of the dark matter halo, while probably more or less spherical, is not very well constrained. And even if it's perfectly spherical, the visible satellites may not be, depending on how they formed.

Many gravitationally bound structures are flat disks or annuli - the solar system, most galaxies, the rings of Saturn. The mechanism for that is well understood and has nothing whatsoever to do with magnetic fields.
 
Sol88 said:
Dude, GAS is NOT PLASMA, otherwise why not make things real easy and do away with the fundamental state of a matter and just use the three we have been used to solids, liquids and GAS!
Click to expand...

Oh dear, now you are saying that Peratt is wrong, explaining the Bennett pinch in his book? I guess that means that a Bennett pinch can also not create a star, a black hole and all those other stuff that the PU/PC/EU/ES/EC are so high on, using a plasma pinch. Ouch, Peratt, you are an idiot, you don't even know your plasma physics, you use a frakking gas law to describe a plasma pinch. Sheesh, I guess I will throw away your book now, just like Sol is going to do now after such stupidity.

Sol88 said:
Lets through a curve ball to you, Tusenfem, I have this plasma flow that I'm modeling using gas laws and a DOUBLE LAYERS pops up or indeed an instiblity say a diocotron instability, what happens to the ideal gas laws then, dude?
Click to expand...

Let's lose the thundercrap, okay?

You have a plasma flow, sure why not, happens all the time. I hope you can describe the plasma flow whilst not using gas dynamics.

A double layer pops up, wow! And why exactly does a double layer pop up, you only have a flowing plasma, no reason at all to have a DL pop up whatsoever.
No, wait, a diacotron instability pop up, even better!!!!!!! What the frak for? Why is it popping up? Is there something you did not tell me about your plasma flow?

In Alfvén's laboratory there was, naturally, a plasma flow in the double plasma machine, a slow flow, but still a flow. And you know what? Nothing happened to it, it just glowed there and remained there, unless I turned off the gas supply. The flow is initialized by the fact that you need to do experiments in a vacuum chamber, and thus there is a vacuum pump connected to the double plasma machine.

Now, what I did then was put a voltage over the plasma column, and a cathode sheet would develop, which could be pulled into the plasma column, where it turned into a double layer.

So: either you got a plasma flow and nothing happens, nothing "pops up" or you have a plasma flow with a voltage drop and then you can have a double layer (but notice the extra thing you need, a voltage drop). Now, I will not even go into the diacotron instability, which is dependent on energetic electron beams, which most definitely do not just "pop up" in a plasma flow.

Are you going to get any more crazy, Sol88, are you going to throw me more curve balls, that clearly show you have not even any idea whether you have a ball in your hand that you can throw.
 
tusenfem said:
Oh dear, now you are saying that Peratt is wrong, explaining the Bennett pinch in his book? I guess that means that a Bennett pinch can also not create a star, a black hole and all those other stuff that the PU/PC/EU/ES/EC are so high on, using a plasma pinch. Ouch, Peratt, you are an idiot, you don't even know your plasma physics, you use a frakking gas law to describe a plasma pinch. Sheesh, I guess I will throw away your book now, just like Sol is going to do now after such stupidity.



Let's lose the thundercrap, okay?

You have a plasma flow, sure why not, happens all the time. I hope you can describe the plasma flow whilst not using gas dynamics.

A double layer pops up, wow! And why exactly does a double layer pop up, you only have a flowing plasma, no reason at all to have a DL pop up whatsoever.
No, wait, a diacotron instability pop up, even better!!!!!!! What the frak for? Why is it popping up? Is there something you did not tell me about your plasma flow?

In Alfvén's laboratory there was, naturally, a plasma flow in the double plasma machine, a slow flow, but still a flow. And you know what? Nothing happened to it, it just glowed there and remained there, unless I turned off the gas supply. The flow is initialized by the fact that you need to do experiments in a vacuum chamber, and thus there is a vacuum pump connected to the double plasma machine.

Now, what I did then was put a voltage over the plasma column, and a cathode sheet would develop, which could be pulled into the plasma column, where it turned into a double layer.

So: either you got a plasma flow and nothing happens, nothing "pops up" or you have a plasma flow with a voltage drop and then you can have a double layer (but notice the extra thing you need, a voltage drop). Now, I will not even go into the diacotron instability, which is dependent on energetic electron beams, which most definitely do not just "pop up" in a plasma flow.

Are you going to get any more crazy, Sol88, are you going to throw me more curve balls, that clearly show you have not even any idea whether you have a ball in your hand that you can throw.
Click to expand...

yeah now I'm gunna get real crazy, are you stating you need electricity to form a double layer?

'Cos the god of PC once said
Summary:As the rate of energy release in a double layer with voltage ¿V is P ¿ I¿V, a double layer must be treated as a part of a circuit which delivers the current I. As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory. A simple circuit is suggested which is applied to the energizing of auroral particles, to solar flares, and to intergalactic double radio sources. Application to the heliospheric current systems leads to the prediction of two double layers on the sun's axis which may give radiations detectable from Earth. Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object (one example is the double radio sources). It is tentatively suggested that X-ray and ¿-ray bursts may be due to exploding double layers (although annihilation is an alternative energy source). A study of how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts such as double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects, and circuits is made. It is found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century (e.g., double layers, Langmuir, 1929; pinch effect, Bennet, 1934).
Click to expand...

What kind of voltage drop do you calculate for a double radio source?

or are they not double layers, Tusenfem?

perhaps you could fill the lurkers here , Tusenfem, on what happens when my flow of plasma "runs" into another plasma of a different temperature? after all "space plasmas" are all of different temperatures and densities!
 
Last edited:
Sorrry Tusenfem, more thunderpants for the dogs crap!

Hot Gas vs. Electric Currents

In previous Picture of the Day articles, we complained that charged particles streaming from stars like the Sun are called a "wind" instead of an electric current. Ions accelerated by a magnetic field are referred to as "jets" instead of the collimated transmission of electrical energy through space, while changes in the density and speed of charged particles are almost always deemed to be "shock waves" and not the mark of double layers that can store and dissipate electricity, or even explode.
Click to expand...

snip

Perhaps the lack of knowledge regarding electricity in space can account for the opinion that gases colliding produce x-ray and other energetic emissions. After all, perception comes through training and education, so without exposure to the theories of Kristian Birkeland and Hannes Alfvén regarding the behavior of electricity flowing through plasma no perception of its behavior can exist in the mind's eye.

Alfvén said: "The cosmical plasma physics of today . . .is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulas which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong . . . several of the basic concepts on which theories of cosmical plasmas are founded are not applicable to the condition prevailing in the cosmos. They are 'generally accepted' by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods; and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them. . ."
Click to expand...



As cells of cosmic plasma move relative to each other, they generate currents and magnetic fields that cause them to produce jets that pinch and bead.
Click to expand...

Do we fully understand astrophysical double layers?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Dude, GAS is NOT PLASMA, otherwise why not make things real easy and do away with the fundamental state of a matter and just use the three we have been used to solids, liquids and GAS!
Click to expand...
Dude:
There is the state of matter known as gas
There is the state of matter known as plasma.
The state of matter known as plasma is not the state of matter known as gas.
The state of matter known as plasma shares many of the same properties are gas (such as pressure) and the theory explaining its properties shares many of the equations that describe the properties of gas, e.g. the ideal gas law that Peratt uses.

Thus the common usage of the word "gas" to describe the properties of plasma.

I hope that you are not turning into an ignorant troll and can understand this simple distinction :D !
Plasma is not gas.
Plasma acts like gas.

One more time for the simple minded:
Dude, GAS is NOT PLASMA! No one is claiming that the gas state of matter is the plasma state of matter.
Dude, PLASMA acts like a GAS and plasma properties can be described using gas laws.
 
Perhaps DD you could point out which bit they are mistaken about

Thunderbolt of the gods

Plasma: The other 99.9%

Oct 31, 2005
Plasma: The other 99.9%

How do you see the Solar System? The simple view is gas giants and rocky asteroids and planets moving through nearly empty space. The sophisticated view illustrated above, shows the heliospheric current sheet, a component of the interplanetary plasma we call the Solar Wind, awash throughout the Solar System.

Over 99.9% of the universe is made of plasma, including the Sun and
all stars, and most of the space in between. So if you don't know the
basic properties of plasmas, then you might not understand the
properties of most of the universe.

Did you know...

1. Plasmas are formed by adding energy to gas, causing it to
ionize (an atom looses one or more electrons). For example, if
hydrogen ionizes, it produces equal numbers of negatively charged
electrons and positive ions (in this case, protons). Even a one percent
ionized gas may be considered to be a plasma, and have the properties
of a fully ionized plasma.

2. Plasmas are affected by electromagnetic forces 1039 times
greater than the force of gravity. So strong is its influence that it
creates the ballerina's skirt shaped heliospheric current sheet (see
diagram), the largest structure in the Solar System, extending out
beyond the orbit of Pluto.

3. Plasma is not always electrically neutral. In general it is quasi-neutral,
meaning that localized regions of charge separation may occur. And
objects that comes into contact with a plasma will charge negatively,
such as dust, spacecraft and the surface of the Moon.

4. Plasma is a better conductor of electricity than copper. Its conductivity and response to electromagnetic influences distinguishes it from a gas. Indeed, metals can be classified as plasma, too, because they contain free electrons.
5. Moving plasma can self-generate electromagnetic fields.

6. Plasma can store energy in magnetic fields.

7. Plasmas form double layers between regions of different densities, temperatures or magnetic field strengths. A double layer:
(a) consists of two layers of opposite charge
(b) tends to form cellular structures with the double layer as the "cell wall." (eg. magnetosphere, photosphere, heliosphere)
(c) can form in filamentary current channels known as "Birkeland currents" (see below);
(d) can explode, as discovered in mercury rectifiers used in high-power direct-current transmission lines;
(e) can accelerate charged particles, in opposite directions up to velocities approaching the speed of light.

8. Relative movement of different plasma regions produces electric currents within them.

9. Electric current in plasma produces "pinched" filaments known as Birkeland currents. Birkeland currents form the cosmic power lines and the "wires" of cosmic circuits. An example is found in the ionosphere where these filaments carry up to a million amps, and power the aurora. Those in the Sun's prominences have been estimated to carry up to 100 billion amps (1011 A).

10. Birkeland currents collimate "jets" of matter and charged particles. Astronomical "jets" were so named by astrophysicists because they look somewhat like fluid jets produced in the laboratory. Yet astronomical jets look nothing like a supersonic jet coming out of a nozzle, with all the attendant fluid instabilities. Heated gas should quickly disperse in space but the magnetic pinch of a Birkeland current can maintain filaments of glowing matter over thousands of light years.

11. Synchrotron radiation from pinched current filaments can be in the form of x-rays and gamma rays.

12. The pinch effect can be used in nuclear fusion reactors.

13. Plasma phenomena scale in size over at least 14 orders of magnitude. So the same phenomena may be seen in a dense laboratory plasma and a tenuous space plasma.

14. Parallel plasma filaments attract one another with a force inversely proportional to their distance apart. Compare this with gravity, which attracts matter with a force inversely proportional to the SQUARE of the distance. That makes pinched Birkeland currents by far the most effective way of condensing rarefied dust and gas to form molecular clouds and stars.

So since the Universe is 99.9% plasma, the important question is not IF the properties of plasma are important in cosmology, but HOW come we focus on the puny force of gravity?
...............................

"The space data from astronomical telescopes should be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics, circuit theory, and of course modern plasma physics." Hannes Alfvén, Double Layers and Circuits in Astrophysics, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, December 1986
Click to expand...

so which of those 14 points is incorrect?
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Dude:
There is the state of matter known as gas
There is the state of matter known as plasma.
The state of matter known as plasma is not the state of matter known as gas.
The state of matter known as plasma shares many of the same properties are gas (such as pressure) and the theory explaining its properties shares many of the equations that describe the properties of gas, e.g. the ideal gas law that Peratt uses.

Thus the common usage of the word "gas" to describe the properties of plasma.

I hope that you are not turning into an ignorant troll and can understand this simple distinction :D !
Plasma is not gas.
Plasma acts like gas.

One more time for the simple minded:
Dude, GAS is NOT PLASMA! No one is claiming that the gas state of matter is the plasma state of matter.
Dude, PLASMA acts like a GAS and plasma properties can be described using gas laws.
Click to expand...

Cool so we are sweet then, PLASMA is NOT a GAS :D Farkn finally! :rolleyes:
 
Sol88 said:
Sorrry Tusenfem, more thunderpants for the dogs crap!
...snip Sol88 obsession with the Dunderbolts dogs crap!...
Do we fully understand astrophysical double layers?
Click to expand...
The answer is easy: Science by definition never fully understands anything and so the answer is no.

We do know a lot about astrophysical double layers such as they are unstable without an external source of energy to maintain the charge separation, e.g. the solar wind from a star.
Also:
Double layers are very thin (typically ten Debye lengths), with widths ranging from a few millimeters for laboratory plasmas to thousands of kilometres for astrophysical plasmas.
Click to expand...

And of course (the "EM effect" is now double layers):
One more time for the especially dumb:
  1. The maximum known Debye length occurs in the IGM (intergalactic or intracluster medium).
  2. This is 10,000 metres or 10 kilometres.
  3. A "few tens of Debye lengths" is thus a few hundred kilometres.
But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent who is currently ignoring basic physics: multiply this by a factor of a million. What scale would this fictitious EM effect extend over? A few hundred million kilometers rounded up is 1000 million kilometers. This is 0.0001 light years or 6.7 AU and fits comfortably within the Solar System.

Only truly ignorant people would think that this scale is cosmological.
 
@ RC, i wrote
perhaps you could fill the lurkers here , Tusenfem, on what happens when my flow of plasma "runs" into another plasma of a different temperature? after all "space plasmas" are all of different temperatures and densities and they move relative to each other as well as "run" into each other
Click to expand...

Care to have a crack at that very simple problem using just GAS laws?
 
Reality Check said:
The answer is easy: Science by definition never fully understands anything and so the answer is no.

We do know a lot about astrophysical double layers such as they are unstable without an external source of energy to maintain the charge separation, e.g. the solar wind from a star.
Also:


And of course (the "EM effect" is now double layers):
One more time for the especially dumb:
  1. The maximum known Debye length occurs in the IGM (intergalactic or intracluster medium).
  2. This is 10,000 metres or 10 kilometres.
  3. A "few tens of Debye lengths" is thus a few hundred kilometres.
But let us be generous to any weird EU/PC proponent who is currently ignoring basic physics: multiply this by a factor of a million. What scale would this fictitious EM effect extend over? A few hundred million kilometers rounded up is 1000 million kilometers. This is 0.0001 light years or 6.7 AU and fits comfortably within the Solar System.

Only truly ignorant people would think that this scale is cosmological.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the width of a double layer or the surface area of a double layer, RC?
 
Sol88 said:
@ RC, i wrote
Care to have a crack at that very simple problem using just GAS laws?
Click to expand...
You cannot use GAS laws. You can use some gas laws though since many of the proporties of a PLASMA are those of a gas. See Perrat's use of the ideal gas law.
Actually you can get current-free double layers or shockwaves or nothing at all.

ETA:
after all "space plasmas" are all of different temperatures
Click to expand...
is slightly wrong. They tend to be of similar temperatures over large volumes (see Astronomers Observe Formation of Largest Bound Structures in the Universe). But if you have an energy source such as a super massive black hole large temerature differences are possible.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
yeah now I'm gunna get real crazy, are you stating you need electricity to form a double layer?

'Cos the god of PC once said

What kind of voltage drop do you calculate for a double radio source?

or are they not double layers, Tusenfem?

perhaps you could fill the lurkers here , Tusenfem, on what happens when my flow of plasma "runs" into another plasma of a different temperature? after all "space plasmas" are all of different temperatures and densities!
Click to expand...

double radio sources are not double layers, just the fact that they both have the word "double" in them does not mean they are the same.

Noticed tho that you fail to address any of my points, and just come up with another useless quote from some PC webshite.

Why don't you tell us first how you describe your plasma flow, before you come up with other questions? Show us first that you understand the basics of your starting point, then we might discuss further. Read some real plasma physics books (e.g. Peratt if you have not thrown it away already, because Tony used the perfect gas law for a plasma).

Sol88 said:
Hot Gas vs. Electric Currents
Click to expand...

This does not even make sense, this sounds like one of the election signs here in Austria from the stupid right wing party.

Sol88 said:
Alfvén said:
Alfvén said: "The cosmical plasma physics of today . . .is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulas which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong . . . several of the basic concepts on which theories of cosmical plasmas are founded are not applicable to the condition prevailing in the cosmos. They are 'generally accepted' by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods; and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them. . ."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Well, cleary that cannot have any link to me, having worked at Alfvén's laboratory with plasmas, so I do not feel addressed by this quote.

Sol88 said:
Do we fully understand astrophysical double layers?
Click to expand...

yes, read my PhD thesis.
For the rest, in all of the quotes there was no mention of DLs so I do not know why the quotes or the question is relevant.

Question: Do you, Sol88 know even the basics of plasma physics, or let me make it a bit easier, the basics of MHD?
 
Sol88 said:
Dude, GAS is NOT PLASMA, otherwise why not make things real easy and do away with the fundamental state of a matter and just use the three we have been used to solids, liquids and GAS!
Click to expand...

Forgot to mention here that you are totally right!
Gas is not necessarily a plasma
Plasma however is a gas

It is like
Apple is a fruit
A fruits is not necessarily an apple
 
Sol88 said:
Perhaps DD you could point out which bit they are mistaken about
Thunderbolt of the gods

Plasma: The other 99.9%

so which of those 14 points is incorrect?
Click to expand...
I can answer that:
Firstly the Dunderbolts book advertisement web site is wrong about about the Matterhorn being blasted out and then dropped into place.

The 14 points on their web page are almost correct standard plasma physics on mostly stellar scales.
Point 2 is wrong when it states "Plasmas are affected by electromagnetic forces 1039 times greater than the force of gravity.". It is the neighboruring ions in plasma where EM forces dominate garvity. As soon as you consider plasma on larger scales the EM effects start to balcimand out. Read their point 3.

The woo starts with
"So since the Universe is 99.9% plasma, the important question is not IF the properties of plasma are important in cosmology, but HOW come we focus on the puny force of gravity?"


This is a lie.
  1. Only 3.99% of the Universe is plasma.
  2. Only 20% of the matter in the universe is plasma.
  3. By their weird logic 100% of the matter in the universe has mass and therefore HOW come we focus on the puny force of EM?
The proper answer is the one that all competent scientists know - EM forces dominate at small scales in plasma. Quasi-neutrality means that on cosmological scales EM forces in plasma are dominated by gravity.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
so which of those 14 points is incorrect?
Click to expand...

Lemme see, what this thundercrap is saying.

1. is okay, though crappy should talk about what the properties of a plasma are, it is not complete as it stands

2. is totally misleading, yes the EM force between two electrons is so much stronger than the gravitational force, however, because of the properties of a plasma (not mentioned in 1) there is shielding of charge and thus depending on the situation the (quasi)neutral plasma is more influenced by gravity than EM forces. A typical case of "a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing"

3. is also misleading, as there is no mention on the size of the charge separation in a normal plasma, namely the DeBye length (one of the properties that should have been mentioned in 1, but crappy probably does not know about this, or disregards this because otherwise his misguided ideas will not work)

4. This is highly dependent on the properties of the plasma, whether or not it is more conductive than copper, again misleading

5. I will concur this point

6. misleading again, first of all there must be some driver creating magnetic fields and then there can be processes in which energy is stored in magnetic fields

7. I do not think that "different magnetic field strength" is a way of producing a double layer, the magnetosphere, photosphere and heliosphere are NOT double layers, and they do not explode (no matter what crappy writes)

8. this is a non-item

9. too simplistic, Birkeland currents are field aligned currents, and there is no need to pinch them

10. utter nonsense

11. a non-item, probably found on the web on a page written by Iantresman, and this is not a characteristic of a plasma

12. a non-item, just an application is not a characteristic of a plasma

13. a non-item, naturally there are things in plasmas that scale, however, not in the way that EU proponents would like them to

14. misleading once more, only if there is a NET CURRENT flowing in a plasma filament will two of those filaments attract eachother (or repulse depending on the direction of the currents). The attraction between two currents, should be kept apart from pinching because in a pinch there is only ONE current, misleading the audience again

So, let's see there was only 1 point where I concurred, there were several non-items and lots of misleading descriptions.

If Peratt would read this he would turn in his grave, coz it would most definitely kill him, this much misleading, or maybe not, when I think about his research. Definitely Alfvén turns in his grave, glad he did not have to live to see this.
 
tusenfem said:
double radio sources are not double layers, just the fact that they both have the word "double" in them does not mean they are the same.

Noticed tho that you fail to address any of my points, and just come up with another useless quote from some PC webshite.

Why don't you tell us first how you describe your plasma flow, before you come up with other questions? Show us first that you understand the basics of your starting point, then we might discuss further. Read some real plasma physics books (e.g. Peratt if you have not thrown it away already, because Tony used the perfect gas law for a plasma).



This does not even make sense, this sounds like one of the election signs here in Austria from the stupid right wing party.



Well, cleary that cannot have any link to me, having worked at Alfvén's laboratory with plasmas, so I do not feel addressed by this quote.



yes, read my PhD thesis.
For the rest, in all of the quotes there was no mention of DLs so I do not know why the quotes or the question is relevant.

Question: Do you, Sol88 know even the basics of plasma physics, or let me make it a bit easier, the basics of MHD?
Click to expand...

Double radio lobes attached to DRAGNs

In more powerful (Type II) sources, it appears that the jets remain at least mildly relativistic (and supersonic) out to great distances from their host galaxies, to form the 'claasical" double-lobed structures like that shown above for 3C405 (Cygnus A). In the Type II sources the ends of the jets move outwards more slowly than material flows along the jet. The plasma arriving at the end of their jets is then deflected back around them to form the lobes, large "bubbles" in the medium surrounding the galaxy.
Click to expand...

Large "bubbles"? or double layers?
 
tusenfem said:
And that would be the width as in the distance between the negatively charged sheet and the positively charged sheet, just so you don't get confused, solly
Click to expand...

Cool, what about surface area of the double layer? Lets take the Earths puny little DL how many m2 would that cover? or better still lets take the heliosphere how many m2 does that cover?

What happens to all those electron and ions arriving from outside the sun's DL as well as the + & - from inside the DL?

Can GAS do any of these things, tusenfem?
 
Sol88 said:
Cool so we are sweet then, PLASMA is NOT a GAS :D Farkn finally! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Yes we are clear: PLASMA (the state of matter) is NOT a GAS (the state of matter) as any idiot knows :D Farkn finally! :rolleyes:

But plasma is a gas (i.e. a an ionized gas that has specific properties including properties of a gas such as pressure that can be decribed by gas laws). This is also something that any idiot knows :D Farkn finally! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom