Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Zeuzzz · Feb 13, 2009

Yay! This is gonna be fun. Glad this had been revived.

This thread I started a while a go about Mag reconnection and (the seemingly non existant) physical processes that accompany it may be a good reference, if we're going down this road again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120782&referrerid=6535

I'll be back

And lets try to keep it civilized people, Ad Homs and accusations are not needed.

* "When presented with two possibilities, scientists tend to choose the wrong one."
* The stronger the evidence, the more attitudes harden.
* "The game here is to lump all the previous observations into one 'hypothesis' and then claim there is no second, confirming observation."
* "No matter how many times something has been observed, it cannot be believed until it has been observed again."
* "If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.
* "When looking at this picture no amount of advanced academic education can substitute for good judgment; in fact it would undoubtedly be an impediment."
* Local organizing committees give in to imperialistic pressures to keep rival research off programs
* "It is the primary responsibility of a scientist to face, and resolve, discrepant observations."
* Science is failing to self-correct. We must understand why in order to fix it.

Halton Arp

Tim Thompson said:
Birkeland deserves credit for what he actually did, not for what you imagine that he did.

He did a lot more than he himself realised, I think the issue here is. In terms of plasma scaling and laboratory simulations of space.

Dancing David · Feb 13, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
As far as I know, most of the acceleration takes place in the Transition region, and the base of the corona. By the time the solar wind reaches Mercury, it has long since stopped accelerating.

Factually false statement. Birkeland never modeled the solar wind, either in a laboratory or in a publication, so far as I know. Feel free to cite specific references if you think otherwise.

Birkeland (about 1903) postulated that the sun emitted a wind of charged particles and that this wind was responsible for auroral phenomena. He used a plasma gun to generate the plasma that encountered his terella, but never said anything about how the solar wind was accelerated, nor did he describe the solar wind beyond the general observation that it was a plasma of both positive & negative charge carriers (Birkeland came to reject the idea of current streams by 1916, realizing that such a stream would be unstable against electrostatic repulsion and dispersion).

It was in fact R.C. Carrington & R. Hodgson who first suggested the idea that a solar emission of some kind was responsible for magnetic storms at the Earth ("Description of a Singular Appearance seen in the Sun on September 1, 1859", R.C. Carrington, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (20):13-15 (1859); On a curious Appearance seen in the Sun", R. Hodgson, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (20):15-16 (1859)). They had both independently observed a bright white light solar flare, and noted that it was followed by an exceptional magnetic storm. Neither Carrington nor Hodgson was willing to connect the flare and the storm, but they made careful note of the possibility.

Sir Oliver Lodge asserted that "a torrent or flying cloud of charged atoms or ions" connected the Sun to Earth ("Sunspots, Magnetic Storms, Comet Tails, Atmospheric Electricity and Aurorae", Oliver Lodge, The Electrician (46):249, 1900). But Lodge was aware of G.F. FitzGerald, who had already come to the same conclusion, and in fact estimated the speed of such clouds at about 300 km/sec, which we now know to be quite a reasonable estimate (The Electrician (30):481, 1892).

But none of these people talked about how the solar wind was actually accelerated away from the sun. It was Eugene Parker who seems too have been the first to suggest that the Sun's variable magnetic field was the ultimate source of energy to drive the solar wind ("The Hydrodynamic Theory of Solar Corpuscular Radiation and Stellar Winds", E.N. Parker, Astrophysical Journal, 132: 821, November 1960). Even the legendary Alfven knew quite well that the electric field that accelerates the solar wind must come from the variable magnetic field of the sun, and that is exactly what he shows in figure III.20 in his book Cosmic Plasma (D. Reidel publishing, 1981, page 76), as well as equation 39 on the prior page.

Birkeland deserves credit for what he actually did, not for what you imagine that he did.

Great history post, thanks.

tusenfem · Feb 13, 2009

The whole story about Birkeland can be read in the excellent book "The Northern Lights" by Lucy Jago.

Zeuzzz · Feb 13, 2009

Ziggurat said:
Driven by an external power source. What's the power source for an electric sun? Where does all that energy come from? "Currents" isn't an answer. The only proposed answer I've seen is the potential energy from a massive net charge on the sun. But the charge required to provide enough energy to do that is simply ridiculous. It would indeed explode from Coulomb repulsion. I've been through the numbers: the net charge would literally explode off the sun and reach relativistic speeds in less than a second.

Zig, I dont think many people (maybe with a few exceptions) think that charges of the magnitude are likely anymore. There are various theories on all of these points. As I understand them at the moment:

What's the power source for an electric sun?

>Ohmic disspation due to the current circuits within and outside the sun.
>IECF fusion resulting from the glow discharge produced by the charge separation/double layer
>Z-pinch/magnetic confinement fusion in particular area of high current density where current circuits interact.
>Does not rule out the possibility of Nuclear fusion, depending on how you model the core and how gravity/EM functions internally.

The Earth does not explode, and we know that it possesses a significant net negative charge compared to the atmosphere, and possesses complex birkeland current systems in the upper atmosphere. Any atmospheric scientist will inform there is a constant huge voltage difference between the Earths surface and the very upper atmosphere. The sun will also contain one, but much larger, and also it will have many additional plasma characteristics as it is in a far richer plasma environment (hotter, denser, etc), leading to the possibility of a plasma double layer, or verious related plasma phenomenon that could explain many of the enigmas assosciated with the sun.

The main Problems with the current model of the sun, as I see them, are as follows:

* Temperature of the halo-like corona is 300 times that of surface, violating the inverse square law for radiation
* Rotates faster at equator, faster on surface
* Solar wind accelerates (somehow) upon leaving the Sun
* Sunspots reveal cooler interior
* Sunspots travel faster than surrounding surface
* Sunspot penumbra (interior walls) reveal structured filaments and move much faster than slow convection should allow

The heliospheric current circuit of 10⁹Amps could also flow into the sun, based on MHD considerations first derived by Alfven. We only found the similar currents of 10⁶ amps flowing from the sun into the Earths poles a few years ago and they were right next to us, theres no reason why we should exclude the possibility that the heliospheric current circuit enters the sun from the galaxy. Infact it would be illogical to say it didn't.

Dancing David said:
And where does that charge come from and why doesn't it balance out?

How does charge separate to huge voltages of up to 300,000V (from the surface of the Earth up to 30km) to cause large sprites/lightning?

And what maintains the magic charge separation?

What maintains the half a million coulomb negative charge on the Earths surface? We dont really know. No-one really knows. But we know its there due to lightning storms and negative and positive lightning considerations. Explanations for the why charge separates so much to create small lightning storms is severaly lacking, apart from vague convective/gas ideas.

Plama and electric behaviour on the other hand could be an explanation. Double layers do exactly this, separate charge. Large birkeland currents that create self sustaining helical structures possess charge. As usual, the answer will not lie with convection, gas laws, friction or fluid equations, the answers will be found with plasma behaviour, electricity, charge separation and circuits.

[sorry of this does not makje any sense, i dont have time to proof read fully]

Zeuzzz · Feb 13, 2009

tusenfem said:
The whole story about Birkeland can be read in the excellent book "The Northern Lights" by Lucy Jago.

That looks very interesting, thanks! My uni has this in its library too by the looks of things, will be having a look for sure.

Ziggurat · Feb 13, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
What's the power source for an electric sun?

>Ohmic disspation due to the current circuits within and outside the sun.

That is NOT a power source. That is how power can get dissipated, but it says nothing about where that power comes from. Charge separation can store energy, but how much charge do you think is separated, where is it, and what potential is it at? The answers given so far have been simply ridiculous. And if your answer is "I've got no idea", which it seems to be, then you've really got no theory.

>Z-pinch/magnetic confinement fusion in particular area of high current density where current circuits interact.

Yeah, um... no. There's no feedback mechanism. Fusion in a Z-pinch doesn't lead to the currents that confine it. That's why it's such a b**** to do in the lab. And since the currents have dissipative resistance, those currents will dissipate and the whole thing will grind to a halt after a little while. Pressure confinement, however (ie, the standard model for fusion in the sun), has a simple and obvious feedback mechanism, a mechanism we KNOW works because we've done it.

>Does not rule out the possibility of Nuclear fusion, depending on how you model the core and how gravity/EM functions internally.

Unless you're proposing a different model of gravity (which Mr. Mozina would require, though I don't think he understands that yet), that doesn't cut it.

The Earth does not explode, and we know that it possesses a significant net negative charge compared to the atmosphere,

But not a lot of energy is stored in that charge separation. And it's only stable because the atmosphere is a pretty good insulator, which plasma is not.

Any atmospheric scientist will inform there is a constant huge voltage difference between the Earths surface and the very upper atmosphere. The sun will also contain one, but much larger

Why would the voltage be larger if the resistivity of the medium is so much smaller? It should be far harder to maintain significant charge separation in a conducting medium than in an insulating one.

and also it will have many additional plasma characteristics

Yeah: like the fact that it readily conducts.

The heliospheric current circuit of 10⁹Amps could also flow into the sun,

At what voltage? The sun's power output is on the order of 4x10²⁶ Watts. At 10⁹ Amps, you'd need a potential of 4x10¹⁷ V in order to power the sun from that current. It would take about 3x10¹⁷ Coulombs. We've already been over this: that sort of charge is simply not possible to confine on the sun. Not by MANY orders of magnitude. You could get a current of 10⁹ A without that large a charge, but if you limit yourself to realistic charges, this kind of current cannot contribute a significant amount to the sun's total power output.

What maintains the half a million coulomb negative charge on the Earths surface? We dont really know. No-one really knows.

Yes, but whatever it is doesn't need to produce all that much power, so it's a far less fundamental question. We know that wind, for example, can create more than enough power required for that charge separation. And we know that friction can cause charge separation (rub a balloon on your head if you don't believe me), and that wind creates friction. But where's the power coming from in your model? You've got no idea, really. It's all hand-waving.

Zeuzzz · Feb 13, 2009

As usual you make a lot of valid (and highly annoying) points. I'll try to repond in detail when I've got a clearer head than at the moment (its pound a pint day)

Maybe I should ask, what DO you agree with in my post? You have not responded to everything.

What do you think about my article on IECF fusion at PU.com and its potential application to stellar power generation? The e-fields required for this are not that untenable from my viewpoint.

Can you also agree that no-one really understands how large charge separation occurs, even on Earth, let alone in deep space.

Ziggurat · Feb 13, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
What do you think about my article on IECF fusion at PU.com and its potential application to stellar power generation?

I don't see why anyone thinks it has any relevance to solar fusion. It relies upon a potential generated by charges fixed in a particular place by a solid structure. Without the solid metal wire structure (and its associated work function), the charges that form the "containment" would repel each other and the whole thing would dissipate. Hell, even with the solid metal cage, you still need to continually pump charge into it from outside because it's always discharging (in fact, that discharge is part of how it works).

The e-fields required for this are not that untenable from my viewpoint.

But the structure is.

Can you also agree that no-one really understands how large charge separation occurs, even on Earth, let alone in deep space.

I don't think we know all the details. But we know enough to place hard constraints on both how much charge separation can occur, how much energy it takes to separate them, and how much energy they store. And none of those numbers come close to accounting for what's going on in the sun.

Michael Mozina · Feb 13, 2009

Tubbythin said:
As I said before, the shape of a blackbody spectrum is utterly independent of whether or not inflation occurred or dark energy is "real". In fact, I derived it in a statistical mechanics course a few years. No reference to cosmology whatsoever.

We seem to be talking past one another on this point. Let me try to explain it this way....

At worst case PC/EU theory has no legitimate solution to explain this spectrum. So? The mainstream "explanation" of this background involves at least three forms of metaphysics to work "properly", and it failed to "predict" those "dark flows" or those "holes" they found in the universe. It's not like I find the mainstream "explanation" of that background to be in any way convincing, anymore than you might be swayed by an argument based on magic. It's not like I find this particular observation to be of such great importance that it becomes the "be-all=end=all" of reasons to select a specific cosmology theory.

Now I might feel quite differently if the mainstream explanation did not use inflation and dark energy and things they can't demonstrate to exist here and now. Since mainstream theory seems to be resorting to nothing less that "magic" from my perspective, I certainly don't find their explanation of this observation to be "impressive" in any way. I most certainly would therefore put little or no weight on that particular issue when deciding which cosmology theory is most "useful" at making key predictions, specifically key predictions inside our solar system.

EU/PC theory "predicts" solar wind. It 'predicts" aurora and solar storms. It "predicts" coronal loops. It "predicts" the existence of "jets' in the solar atmosphere. These have all been "observed" in solar satellite images. The mainstream still finds these things to be "enigmas" and they have no legitimate "explanation" for any of these things, let alone a working model.

Tim Thompson · Feb 13, 2009

Wrong.

Michael Mozina said:
The mainstream "explanation" of this background involves at least three forms of metaphysics to work "properly", ...

If by this you mean (1) inflation, (2) dark energy and (3) dark matter ("3 forms of metaphysics") then you are entirely wrong. All big bang cosmologies absolutely require a thermal shape regardless of the presence of inflation, dark matter or dark energy. In fact, the thermal shape of the spectrum is completely independent of all 3. Only dark matter is involved directly in the CMB, and then only in the relative power for the peaks in the angular power spectrum of the temperature anisotropies, and not in the thermal shape of the spectral energy distribution (SED).

Michael Mozina · Feb 13, 2009

Ziggurat said:
So you wrote that nonsense?

Immediate posturing, how unexpected.

Care to explain that first LMSAL RD image for us with standard theory?

Wow, you're far more confused than I thought. The sun is mostly iron? Wow. An iron sun would necessarily be far heavier than our current estimates of its mass, so it should (according to Newton's law) provide far more gravitational attraction than it does. So Newton must be wrong too.

You then followed it with a strawman? Wow.

Evidently you don't comprehend the difference between "percentages" of elements and total mass. Nobody claimed the total mass was any different.

Fission of what? Surely not of iron.

Er, what?

What's the rate of fission you need in order to match the observed power output?

That depends on how much energy is due to fission, how much is due to fusion and how much is externally generated.

How old do you think the sun is,

Ancient. I'd say it's 4 billion+ years old at least.

and how much fission material does your model require has been burned during that time?

Beats me.

Yeah, I was thinking about that. You say that these subsurface structures are solid, and that they only change because of erosion.

The surface features change not *only* due to erosion, but also due to volcanic activity.

What do you think the vertical length scales are?

Typically hundreds if not thousands of kilometers depending on which image were talking about. Hinode images are quite a bit better resolution than say an Yohkoh image.

What's the rate of erosion,

That depends on what's going on. In that LMSAL image, we're watching a CME in action, and the process is extremely rapid. Other events are much less "dramatic". Typically the more activity we observe in iron ion wavelengths, the greater the surface erosion. The solar maximum produces all sorts of activity, whereas during solar minimum, the events and changes aren't nearly as dramatic.

and can your model realistically produce such erosion rates?

I think we better be clear about what "erosion" is going to do before you get too carried away. The RD images in particular show "outlines" of "surface features" do to the way they reflect light. Even a relatively "small" amount of erosion could drastically alter the reflection patterns of light that we observe in RD images. It's not all together clear how you, me, or anyone else might decide how much 'erosion" we observe in that LMSAL image for instance.

Because given the absolutely enormous horizontal length scales involved (larger than the earth), I think we've GOT to be talking at least kilometers in height, and I just don't see how you can conclude that kilometers of solid iron (or silicon, or whatever) are going to get blasted off within hours.

That would likely be due to a volcanic event, not a simply coronal loop event. There are several factors to consider here, not just one.

Got any evidence that such phenomenal rates of erosion can be produced by plasmas? Birkeland certainly never showed such a thing.

Ever used an arc welder before?

Basically, I don't think you've got a model at all.

You are correct, it's not *my* model to begin with, it's "Birkeland's" solar model, not mine.

You haven't put up a single calculation on your page.

Birkeland's book is full of them. I don't suppose you've read his work?

If your model is correct, the mass of the sun should be much greater than the commonly accepted mass.

Why? The "structure" of the material will make a big differences. You seem to be under the illusion that I am trying to suggest that the whole sun is made of solid iron. That is not what I have suggested. In space, it isn't even a guarantee that the heaviest elements will necessarily sink to the core.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXsvy2tBJlU

That should be something that can be probed experimentally (by, you guessed it, observing the sun's gravitational field). But you haven't put a number on such a fundamental and easily testable parameter. Hell, not even a lower limit.

Again, you seem to be under the impression that I am suggest the total mass is greater. That is not what I am suggesting.

Michael Mozina · Feb 13, 2009

Dancing David said:
Not really, you haven't explained a toy model of why the sun shines, and you are still being coy.

I have "explained" it to you, and if I was being "coy" I would not have put up an entire website on Birkeland's solar model. He wrote about it more extensively that I did however.

Nope you are justa sserting that, take us through Birkelands model then and explain how is models works, what values it predicts, what numbers and forces it gives, and then compare it to the data.

I realize that astronomers have a "fixation" on "quantification" and a completely disregard for "qualification", but I'm not. I realize that the model requires additional "work" in that arena, but I guarantee you that nobody here besides me and maybe a few other EU proponents have even read Birkeland's work. Until you do, it's not my job to be your math mommy. There's plenty of "quantification" to be found in his work, but more importantly, it's "qualified" in a lab too.

I have to say in the past we were shown pictures of a big iron ball and told that it was a model of the sun.

Is that all Birkeland did in your opinion?

Now why don't you explain it to a dummy like me.

My website is the "dummy" version. If you want quantified numbers, I suggest you read Birkeland's work on this topic. It is much more detailed in it's mathematical presentation.

What is Birkeland's model, what math and predictions does it use and make and how does the model and predictions match the theory.

http://www.archive.org/download/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf

Happy reading.

in other words you are being obtuse and deliberately opaque or you don't know.

I am not obligated to bark on command. If you want mathematical numbers, I suggest you begin at the beginning and with Birkeland's work. My website is simply a "made for the masses" sort of visual introduction to the idea based on satellite imagery. If you wish to "understand" the model from a "scientific" point of view, I suggest you read Birkeland's work.

[QUOTE\What gives the surface a continuing negative charge to produce the current, or what is the source of the electrons for the current?[/QUOTE]

My assumption is that fission releases the free protons and electrons and that fusion also does the same. Neutrons are also being "pinched" out of the plasma during the electrical discharge process, and these free neutrons decay into protons and electrons. Unlike the standard model there is no "single" energy source in a Birkeland solar model. There may even be external currents that flow into the sun.

What gives the heliosphere an opposite polarity thus causing the current to flow.

It's being buffetted by particles, much like our magnetosphere.

You really just kinds of glossed over the details and didn't explain it.

Just keeping up around here in a single thread is far more challenging that I realized due to the volume of responses and I have two threads going now. You'll have to accept the "readers digest" version if you won't read Birkeland's work on your own.

Okay, so put it to the test, stop hiding and pretending.

Birkeland did all that. Read it. At least read the parts that are specifically related to his solar model and solar ideas and if you still have questions, I'll try my best to answer them. Unfortunately I will not be able to answer everyone's specific question on every single possible topic. You'll have to do some reading on your own.

Ziggurat · Feb 13, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Immediate posturing, how unexpected. Care to explain that first LMSAL RD image for us with standard theory?

Explain what? That processing an image a certain way makes it look a bit like a relief map? Big whoop. Don't play with image processing if you don't know what it actually means.

Evidently you don't comprehend the difference between "percentages" of elements and total mass. Nobody claimed the total mass was any different.

You're claiming that it's solid. Doesn't that require a higher density? Unless you want to claim that we've radically mistaken the size of the sun, then yes, claiming it's solid makes a rather BIG difference to the total mass.

That depends on how much energy is due to fission, how much is due to fusion and how much is externally generated.

Translation: you haven't got a clue.

I think we better be clear about what "erosion" is going to do before you get too carried away. The RD images in particular show "outlines" of "surface features" do to the way they reflect light. Even a relatively "small" amount of erosion could drastically alter the reflection patterns of light that we observe in RD images. It's not all together clear how you, me, or anyone else might decide how much 'erosion" we observe in that LMSAL image for instance.

So basically, you have no idea of how to relate the image to surface topography.

Ever used an arc welder before?

Not to burn through a kilometer of iron in an hour, no.

You are correct, it's not *my* model to begin with, it's "Birkeland's" solar model, not mine.

So you're saying Birkeland thought the sun was solid?

Why? The "structure" of the material will make a big differences.

Not really. Iron only comes in a few structures, and they all have similar densities.

You seem to be under the illusion that I am trying to suggest that the whole sun is made of solid iron. That is not what I have suggested. In space, it isn't even a guarantee that the heaviest elements will necessarily sink to the core.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXsvy2tBJlU

Bwahahahaha!
You're using an example of water bubbles on the international space station, a situation in which the dynamics are dominated by surface tension and gravity is irrelevant, to try to argue that iron can float on top of something lighter in the sun? Wow. Talk about fail.

But what do you think it is floating on, and how is it able to float on that? Given an average density roughly equal to water, what keeps the iron surface from collapsing?

Tim Thompson · Feb 13, 2009

Problems ... problems ...

Zeuzzz said:
* Temperature of the halo-like corona is 300 times that of surface, violating the inverse square law for radiation
* Solar wind accelerates (somehow) upon leaving the Sun

The inverse square law of radiation is irrelevant to the temperature of the corona, so the problem you describe does not in fact exist at all. Neither is there any fundamental problem with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, since the energy involved on the temperature of the corona is on the order of 1% of the total energy available to heat the corona. The problem is one of identifying which of several possible mechanisms available to heat the corona are actually most effective.

The answer for the acceleration of the solar wind is exactly the same. There is no fundamental problem, only difficulty in identifying specific processes as more or less efficient.

Zeuzzz said:
* Rotates faster at equator, faster on surface

This is not a problem at all. The differential rotation of the sun is easy to explain as rotational shear acting on convection. Convecting gas at the equator is subject to shear, while convecting gas at the poles is not. Hence, convective energy is translated into rotational energy, and the equator outspins the poles. The same effect is partly responsible for the superrotation of Earth's atmosphere.

Zeuzzz said:
* Sunspots reveal cooler interior

This could be a problem, but it does not look very serious. The magnetic field inside a sunspot is significantly stronger than is the field outside in the photosphere. The jxB volume force of the magnetic field inhibits convection, which means it inhibits convective heat flow, which means that the sunspot must be cooler than the gas/plasma around it. The photosphere is a thermal "superconductor" so the blocked heat energy will diffuse into the photosphere, rather than just creep around it, all quite consistent with observed trends in the photosphere.

Zeuzzz said:
* Sunspots travel faster than surrounding surface
* Sunspot penumbra (interior walls) reveal structured filaments and move much faster than slow convection should allow

I am at the moment unaware of either of these effects, so I will need to do a little study before trying to respond.

I recommend the book Solar Astrophysics by Peter V. Foukal, Wiley-VCH 2004 (2nd revised edition) for anyone desirous of knowing what the standard model of the sun is. My answers come primarily from this text, and one other, Stellar Astrophysics Fluid Dynamics, edited by Michael J. Thompson & Jorgen Christensen-Dalsgaard.

Michael Mozina · Feb 13, 2009

Tim Thompson said:
As far as I know, most of the acceleration takes place in the Transition region, and the base of the corona. By the time the solar wind reaches Mercury, it has long since stopped accelerating.

Once it lifts off the surface, the hard work is done. I would imagine most of the acceleration takes place fairly close to the sun.

Factually false statement. Birkeland never modeled the solar wind, either in a laboratory or in a publication, so far as I know. Feel free to cite specific references if you think otherwise.

Factually "true" statement Tim.
http://www.archive.org/download/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf

Birkeland (about 1903) postulated that the sun emitted a wind of charged particles

He didn't just "postulate" it, he built a *working model* in a lab, complete with "control mechanisms". This is called "qualification". Qualification is something your industry has almost entirely forgotten.

and that this wind was responsible for auroral phenomena.

Yes. They accept his aurora explanations, but refuse to accept the fact that he demonstrated and cause and effect relationship between charge separation between the solar surface and the heliosphere and aurora on Earth. Why is that?

He used a plasma gun to generate the plasma that encountered his terella, but never said anything about how the solar wind was accelerated,

Tim, he built working models! I think you better read his terella experiments for yourself before we go any further. You seem to be entirely unaware of the bulk of his terella "experiments".

It was in fact R.C. Carrington & R. Hodgson who first suggested the idea that a solar emission of some kind was responsible for magnetic storms at the Earth ("Description of a Singular Appearance seen in the Sun on September 1, 1859", R.C. Carrington, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (20):13-15 (1859); On a curious Appearance seen in the Sun", R. Hodgson, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (20):15-16 (1859)). They had both independently observed a bright white light solar flare, and noted that it was followed by an exceptional magnetic storm. Neither Carrington nor Hodgson was willing to connect the flare and the storm, but they made careful note of the possibility.

Sir Oliver Lodge asserted that "a torrent or flying cloud of charged atoms or ions" connected the Sun to Earth ("Sunspots, Magnetic Storms, Comet Tails, Atmospheric Electricity and Aurorae", Oliver Lodge, The Electrician (46):249, 1900). But Lodge was aware of G.F. FitzGerald, who had already come to the same conclusion, and in fact estimated the speed of such clouds at about 300 km/sec, which we now know to be quite a reasonable estimate (The Electrician (30):481, 1892).

One really nice thing about you Tim is that you are a wealth of really useful information. Thanks for the links and references. How many of them built working lab models?

But none of these people talked about how the solar wind was actually accelerated away from the sun.

Birkeland did that. He "simulated" it too.

It was Eugene Parker who seems too have been the first to suggest that the Sun's variable magnetic field was the ultimate source of energy to drive the solar wind

But Birkeland demonstrated *qualitatively* that it is "charge separation" that drives this process, not "magnetic fields".

Michael Mozina · Feb 13, 2009

Ziggurat said:
Explain what? That processing an image a certain way makes it look a bit like a relief map? Big whoop. Don't play with image processing if you don't know what it actually means.

Bwahahahaha!

That's your best effort at satellite image analysis? No wonder this industry is so screwed up and confused!

You're claiming that it's solid. Doesn't that require a higher density?

Yes indeed. Notice in Kosovichev's Doppler image that the wave in the photosphere passes over the jagged "structure" below the wave and the outline of that structure is completely unaffected by the wave? Did you happen to read any of that heliosiesmology data on my website by any chance, or read about that "stratification subsurface" they found at about .995R?

Unless you want to claim that we've radically mistaken the size of the sun, then yes, claiming it's solid makes a rather BIG difference to the total mass.

I'm not claiming it is "solid iron". Again, you are confusion "composition percentages" with "total mass". The total mass need be no different.

Translation: you haven't got a clue.

Translation: You don't like to read or study, you like to "argue".

So basically, you have no idea of how to relate the image to surface topography.

That is not so. You would have to read some of that heliosiesmology data from the website however to understand that, but of course you would never actually read any of the references I have provided you on that website.

Not to burn through a kilometer of iron in an hour, no.

How much "current" did you use?

So you're saying Birkeland thought the sun was solid?

He believed the surface was solid. He didn't make a lot of predictions about the interior, other than it contained uranium.

Not really. Iron only comes in a few structures, and they all have similar densities.

The crust of the earth has lots of structures and lots of different densities. I'm sure the same is true of the crust of the sun.

Bwahahahaha!
You're using an example of water bubbles on the international space station, a situation in which the dynamics are dominated by surface tension and gravity is irrelevant, to try to argue that iron can float on top of something lighter in the sun? Wow. Talk about fail.

Talk about stupid responses. Why should I even bother with you if you won't read the links I provide you and your responses are flippant nonsense?

You don't figure surface tension, and interior pressure might affect other objects in space?

But what do you think it is floating on, and how is it able to float on that?

How did that water shell "float" on that air bubble?

Given an average density roughly equal to water, what keeps the iron surface from collapsing?

No doubt it is "high pressure" and "energy" from the core.

Ziggurat · Feb 14, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
How much "current" did you use?

Total current isn't the issue, current density is. What current density do you think is required to burn through kilometers of solid in an hour?

He believed the surface was solid.

Then he is as mistaken as you are. Not that I blame him: he didn't have a lot to go on. Just like Newton didn't have a lot to go on when he came up with his ideas about light.

The crust of the earth has lots of structures and lots of different densities. I'm sure the same is true of the crust of the sun.

Yes, and strangely enough, they're all denser than water. Is the same true of the crust of the sun?

You don't figure surface tension, and interior pressure might affect other objects in space?

Well, duh. Surface tension doesn't scale with volume. It's going to be irrelevant for something as big as the sun. Hell, it's irrelevant for tides on earth. And interior pressure says NOTHING about stability. An iron shell on top of a less dense interior is unstable, regardless of the interior pressure.

How did that water shell "float" on that air bubble?

Because there's no gravity! Did you somehow miss that part?

No doubt it is "high pressure" and "energy" from the core.

That's not an explanation. It doesn't matter what the pressure is, if the density is less, the crust will be unstable and will collapse inwards, for the same reason that you can't get a foot of water to stick to your ceiling even though the atmospheric pressure underneath it is large enough to support the weight. And no, iron isn't strong enough to form a rigid shell on those scales.

Michael Mozina · Feb 14, 2009

Ziggurat said:
Total current isn't the issue, current density is. What current density do you think is required to burn through kilometers of solid in an hour?

You keep insinuating that this is my claim and I have claimed nothing of the sort. The massive scale changes we observe on the surface are almost exclusively due to volcanic activity, not surface erosion due discharge activity. The surface erosion is more "cosmetic" than terrain changing. It can have *significant* changes in the reflection patterns mind you, but it isn't ripping through kilometers of solid iron every hour.

Yes, and strangely enough, they're all denser than water. Is the same true of the crust of the sun?

Which parts? I've seen volcanic rock float on water, haven't you?

Well, duh. Surface tension doesn't scale with volume. It's going to be irrelevant for something as big as the sun.

No, that is simply your contention. You have no evidence of this, nor do I. In theory those water molecules should have floated to the surface of the sphere but they did not. Why?

Hell, it's irrelevant for tides on earth. And interior pressure says NOTHING about stability. An iron shell on top of a less dense interior is unstable, regardless of the interior pressure.

Another handwave instead of an actual argument. That didn't work with the air inside the water bubble, even when the put water droplets inside the air bubble. You're totally and completely ignore the issues of surface tension, pressure, EM fields, etc.

Because there's no gravity! Did you somehow miss that part?

The whole contraption is in a state of free fall, but even then the molecules of water are attracted toward one another and toward a center of gravity. The air bubble stayed inside the water shell even still.

That's not an explanation. It doesn't matter what the pressure is, if the density is less, the crust will be unstable and will collapse inwards, for the same reason that you can't get a foot of water to stick to your ceiling even though the atmospheric pressure underneath it is large enough to support the weight. And no, iron isn't strong enough to form a rigid shell on those scales.

All of these are simply assertions and not one of them addresses a single one of those satellite images on my website or the heliosiesmology data I have presented on my website, or the fusion processes observed by Rhessi.

I hate to burst anyone's bubble here, but since Bruce and Alfven used a "standard" solar model, with relatively "minor' modifications (charge separation between the photosphere and heliosphere), PC/EU theory is not actually predicated upon the validity of Birkeland's solar model. Keep that in mind during this conversation. Most of the same physics applies to standard theory, not just Birkeland's solar model. Each of them presumes the sun is the primary energy source and there is charge attraction between the 'surface' and the heliosphere. The validity of PC/EU theory is not predicated upon any particular solar model. As long as we are simply combining GR and MHD theory, it still falls under the umbrella of PC/EU theory, and PC/EU theory can be applied to either solar model.

Tim Thompson · Feb 14, 2009

I stand corrected.

Michael Mozina said:
... or the fusion processes observed by Rhessi.

RHESSI does not observe fusion processes. All of the gamma rays observed by RHESSI are identifiable as positron annihilation, neutron capture or nuclear de-excitation (mostly the latter). I have seen it suggested that deuteron fusion could take place in hot solar flares, but I am unaware of any observational evidence to support such speculation. But I am aware that there is no evidence for CNO or PP fusion from RHESSI data.

Michael Mozina said:
Factually "true" statement Tim. ... He didn't just "postulate" it, he built a *working model* in a lab, complete with "control mechanisms".

In that case I shall stand corrected, although I cannot at the moment download the PDF document. Every time I try a "network error" ensues and the document fails to transfer. I suspect the server at the other end is unhappy about something.

Michael Mozina said:
But Birkeland demonstrated *qualitatively* that it is "charge separation" that drives this process, not "magnetic fields".

Rather say that Birkeland demonstrated qualitatively that charge separation could be the driver for the process, not that it is the driver for the process. But of course charge separation is an entirely unphysical argument and can be safely ignored. Magnetic fields, on the other hand, are easy to generate & maintain, and are well known to accelerate charged particles through Faraday's Law (which is the driving mechanism in all particle accelerators, so we know it works).

Reality Check · Feb 14, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
Yay! This is gonna be fun. Glad this had been revived.
..snip....

Welcome back Zeuzzz.
I assume that you have managed to come up with a consistent plasma cosmology theory that can actually be compared with the Big Bang theory?

Tim Thompson · Feb 14, 2009

Comments on magnetic Reconnection

Michael Mozina said:
Magnetic lines lack physical substance, .... and they are physically *incapable* of "reconnecting". Did any of you folks take a class in basic electronics? .... You clearly don't know much about electrical engineering or you would never claim you can get energy from "magnetic reconnection".

Representative comments; clearly Mr. Mozina, and others no doubt, reject the concept of "magnetic reconnection" altogether. This is an uncomfortable position to take, since "magnetic reconnection" is directly observed in controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments (i.e., Lawrence & Gekelman, 2008; Cheng, et al., 2008; Yamada, et al., 2007; Yamada, Ren & Ji, 2007; Yamada, et al., 2006; Sarff, et al., 2005 & etc.; Yamada, 1999 reviews the previous 20 years of laboratory plasma studies of magnetic reconnection).

The argument that magnetic field lines are without physical substance, and therefore cannot reconnect, is purely a semantic argument with no basis in physics. The lines represent the topology of the magnetic field, and the change in the topology of the magnetic field is the physical manifestation of magnetic reconnection. The phenomenological consequence is a transfer of energy from the magnetic field (which loses internal energy) to the plasma (which gains kinetic energy). As noted in the papers cited above, the observations of laboratory plasma are consistent with the predictions based on magnetic reconnection theory. Furthermore, we know that double layers are not involved, because the topology of the field is observable before, during and after reconnection, so double layers would be obviously visible. Furthermore, the result of a collapsing double layer is observationally distinguishable from that of reconnection. The observations in fact are consistent with the latter, and inconsistent with the former.

Magnetic reconnection is a phenomenon verified by controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments. See, for instance, the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment (MRX) at the Princeton University Plasma Physics Laboratory. MRX has been measuring magnetic reconnection in laboratory plasma since 1995, but there are experimental observations of reconnection that predate that.

One must also observe that the theory of magnetic reconnection is well developed, and is commonly described in plasma physics text books (i.e., Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications, Priest & Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000, concentrates in detail on magnetic reconnection; other books typically include chapters on magnetic reconnection, i.e., Fundamentals of Plasma Physics, Paul M. Bellan, Cambridge University Press, 2006 (Bellan heads the Bellan Plasma Group at Caltech, which does an outstanding job of simulating solar prominences in in the laboratory); Plasma Physics for Astrophysics, Russell M. Kulsrud, Princeton University Press, 2005; The Physics of Plasmas, Boyd & Sanderson, Cambridge University Press, 2003; Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics, Dieter Biskamp, Cambridge Monographs on Plasma Physics, 1993).

Magnetic reconnection, as a physical phenomenon, regardless of the argument over words, is an integral & fundamental aspect of plasma physics. Denying the validity of magnetic reconnection is quite the same as simply denying the validity of laboratory plasma physics altogether.

brantc · Feb 14, 2009

Causuality............important?

It seems that there are 2 camps here.

Those that think magnetic fields(mainstream) are the prime mover and those that think the charge(EU) is the prime mover.

The charge is more basic than the magnetic field.

This is what certain people seem to be missing. That there is an order of operation in matters of electricity.

A moving charge creates a magnetic field. Why is it moving? Because there is an electric field potential between 2 areas. This potential is through a plasma leads to the formation of "virtual double layers" inside the flux tube from end to end, which causes the current to flow. How it knows its moving is another story.

But a moving magnetic field must act upon a charge to perform some action.
It doesnt exist by itself. A precursor to the magnetic field, before the field existed was the charge(electric field).
The magnetic field did not come from nothing, there was a moving charge first.

Even if you believe in the BigBang, the particles moved to create the magnetic field.

We all know the right hand rule. The flux tube rule.

So just by this reasoning the charge creates the magnetic field.

We(EU) dont have the chicken and egg problem here.
That is why EU can say "Where is the electricity?"

Take a magnetic flux tube. That can be equated to a wire.
The whole reason for the flux tubes existence is to balance the charge between the sun and earth(in the case of the earth-sun tubes).
There happened to be enough of a particle density to where the current built up enough to form a magnetic field allowing the right hand rule to take effect, and pinch to form a flux tube.
This can be the only possible reason for their existence.

So now we can look at "reconnection". As Michael says "Its the circuit that is reconnecting".

The mechanism of reconnection is this.

You start with a flux tube which is actually a twisted pair.
This is where everybody screws it up. The flux tubes have to be a twisted pair before "reconnection" will occur.
The exception is on the sun where I have seen TRACE movie of one tube inside another tube with one helicaly rotating left and the other going right (right hand rule- the magnetic field actually rotates and causes matter to reflect this rotation).

You can see from the Large Plasma Device that they are a twisted pair.
ttp//plasma.physics.ucla.edu/bapsf/images/gallery/stv04.jpg
This you will see in any MEASUREMENT of a flux tube. Simulations are a different story.

Then as you can see here that is an image of a merging pair of flux tubes. This is the act of reconnecting.
ttp://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/bapsf/images/gallery/merge.jpg

What happened is that due to fluctuation in the current flow there was a change in the electron gyro radius. This caused a change in the balance of attraction-repulsion forces between the filaments (flux tubes) which leads to them touching.(1) Naturally its easier for the current to flow from tube to tube(the "X" in reconnection) instead of a little longer down the filament. What happens if you short across a high current source? Bang!! Energy release in the form of what? Acceleration of particles....... Or as I call it "Filamental Pinch, Watson...."

Notice how I didnt talk in terms of magnetic energy releases and stuff.
It is implicit that the magnetic field follows the current flow. The magnetic field does not snap or anything like that. It ramps up and down depending on the current flow. If you turn off a light switch you can measure the magnetic field(inductance) ramp on the wires(flux tube). Thats how you know current is flowing in a wire. Current meters(ammeters) are based on that principle.

Now if we have flux tubes on the sun that are emitting particles and all kind of x-rays, gammas, etc. that must mean they are pinching and accelerating particles. That is an approach that is being explored for fusion, and has produced the highest temperatures(2 billion K or 181,818eV) as well as the most interesting results.

Temperatures hot enough for CNO nucleosynthesis(really hot fusion) have been observed in filaments on the sun which just means the current density is much higher than our earth bound experiments right now..

(1)Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813)

brantc · Feb 14, 2009

QUESTION...

Does anybody here think that a hollow (solid shell) sphere would have a different acoustic signature than a decreasing density plasma sphere?????

Brant

tusenfem · Feb 14, 2009

Zeuzzz said:
The heliospheric current circuit of 10⁹Amps could also flow into the sun, based on MHD considerations first derived by Alfven. We only found the similar currents of 10⁶ amps flowing from the sun into the Earths poles a few years ago and they were right next to us, theres no reason why we should exclude the possibility that the heliospheric current circuit enters the sun from the galaxy. Infact it would be illogical to say it didn't.

If you quote a paper, the please quote a real paper which is here published in A&A.

However, this has already been discussed, tho I have not looked it up at the moment. But looking at the paper, which is freely obtainable from ADS, we find that they use a very simplistic model of the solar magnetic field. I would not want to draw too many conclusions from it. And apparently, looking at the citations over 6 years (all of 3), the paper is of not much importance. Ah, I see that your second link is to the real paper.

And the "currents from the sun" found by Themis, were not coming from the sun, if you want to discuss this, discuss the REAL paper and not a press release. If you read the real paper, you will find out much more. And the "tornado" in the figure of that page is just laughably rediculous.

Dancing David · Feb 14, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
I have "explained" it to you, and if I was being "coy" I would not have put up an entire website on Birkeland's solar model. He wrote about it more extensively that I did however.

I realize that astronomers have a "fixation" on "quantification" and a completely disregard for "qualification", but I'm not. I realize that the model requires additional "work" in that arena, but I guarantee you that nobody here besides me and maybe a few other EU proponents have even read Birkeland's work. Until you do, it's not my job to be your math mommy. There's plenty of "quantification" to be found in his work, but more importantly, it's "qualified" in a lab too.

So in other words you don't have a model you can explain, or you don't have the ability to explain it.

Okay.

You just met the criteria for not having a model or an ability to make predictions other that very vague ones, and so you can skip past the data.

Still PC all the way.

You have qualitative ideas without an ability to put them to use.

Is that all Birkeland did in your opinion?

No, but that is how many explain how the model works. they show a picture and say 'it looks like a bunny'.

So far you haven't offered a model and you are still hiding behing Birkeland, just as some hide behind Perrat.

My website is the "dummy" version. If you want quantified numbers, I suggest you read Birkeland's work on this topic. It is much more detailed in it's mathematical presentation.

Uh, sure I will look at your website, I can only imagine.

So you don't have a model, would be my guess. A model is coherent.

http://www.archive.org/download/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf

Happy reading.

Okay dokey.

I am not obligated to bark on command.

Yup, you don't have a model, that figures.

If you want mathematical numbers, I suggest you begin at the beginning and with Birkeland's work. My website is simply a "made for the masses" sort of visual introduction to the idea based on satellite imagery. If you wish to "understand" the model from a "scientific" point of view, I suggest you read Birkeland's work.

"What gives the surface a continuing negative charge to produce the current, or what is the source of the electrons for the current?"

My assumption is that fission releases the free protons and electrons and that fusion also does the same. Neutrons are also being "pinched" out of the plasma during the electrical discharge process, and these free neutrons decay into protons and electrons. Unlike the standard model there is no "single" energy source in a Birkeland solar model. There may even be external currents that flow into the sun.

So as to the answer, your answer is "I don't have one." Okay.

You haven't answered the question, not have you explained the charge seperation at all.

You don't have a model? Of why the current flows?
Just some Maybe this and Maybe that?

Fine by me.

No model.

It's being buffetted by particles, much like our magnetosphere.

Still being coy and you refuse to answer a direct questions , which was:

What is the source of the current?

To which you still don't have an answer.

Just keeping up around here in a single thread is far more challenging that I realized due to the volume of responses and I have two threads going now. You'll have to accept the "readers digest" version if you won't read Birkeland's work on your own.

Birkeland did all that. Read it. At least read the parts that are specifically related to his solar model and solar ideas and if you still have questions, I'll try my best to answer them. Unfortunately I will not be able to answer everyone's specific question on every single possible topic. You'll have to do some reading on your own.

Yup, you ahve answered and that is fine by me,

You don't have a model.
You don't have predictions.
You don't have data.

I do appreciate your effort and will just reconcile myself to the fact that like most PC or EU people, you just don't have a model to start with.

So the rest doesn't matter.

If you can't give a coherent answer to a layman, then you haven't got a model.

Fine by me.

The standard cosmology does have a model, and PC is a real shame because it doesn't.

try with the current:

Where does the current come from, in the model?

Dancing David · Feb 14, 2009

Hi Brantc!

Welcome to the fray.

I will offer you the same deal, which i hope will meet with more than disappointment.

Choose one area of PC/EU, which ever you prefer. (And just so you know most of the then have been discussed here is some thread or another.)

Please provide the following (And I suggest that you avoid Perrat's work, while a great man it does not explain flat rotation curves, and that you avoid Halton Arp and bad statistics, Lerner and massive black holes is another bad one)

1. A model of some behavior in the universe that is a model of PC/EU, what is the model and what does is model?

2. What predictions does the model make? (regards quantification of parameters)

3. What observations meet those parameters?

So far I have been disappointed, I as most people on this forum believe that plasma is part of mainstream physics. And so far PC and EU have fallen down for one reasons, they do not have a model, they do not make predictions and so they can not be critically examined in comparison to observations.

I hope you break the mold.

tusenfem · Feb 14, 2009

michael mozina how is your double layer model of what some people call reconnection coming? Have you already figured out where and how the currents flow, where the double layers have to be, how the magnetic field changes its topology? Etc. etc.

sol invictus · Feb 14, 2009

brantc said:
It seems that there are 2 camps here.

Those that think magnetic fields(mainstream) are the prime mover and those that think the charge(EU) is the prime mover.

The two camps are those that understand Maxwell's equations and those that don't.

The charge is more basic than the magnetic field.

Is that a moral judgment?

You're aware there can be electric and magnetic fields in empty space, 1 billion lightyears from the nearest charge? That those fields store both energy and momentum? That light (electromagnetic radiation, with no charges) can propel a spaceship with a lightsail?

You can have a field with no charge. You cannot have a charge without a field.

The truth is, both charged particles and the electromagnetic field are fundamental degrees of freedom in the standard model of particle physics. Neither is more "basic" - that's stupid, frankly.

As for reconnection, it's just incomprehensible why it's such a crank-target.

Ziggurat · Feb 14, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
You keep insinuating that this is my claim and I have claimed nothing of the sort. The massive scale changes we observe on the surface are almost exclusively due to volcanic activity, not surface erosion due discharge activity.

Really? That's not what you said on this page. You said, "It [the surface] is being dynamically reshaped and eroded by continual electrical arcing between magnetically polarized points along the surface." In fact, I can't find any mention of anything volcanic on that page. If you've changed your mind, you might want to update that page, but don't pretend you never said it.

The surface erosion is more "cosmetic" than terrain changing. It can have *significant* changes in the reflection patterns mind you, but it isn't ripping through kilometers of solid iron every hour.

Then really, you've got no way to tell anything about the surface topography, since you can't distinguish between reflectivity changes and morphology changes.

Which parts? I've seen volcanic rock float on water, haven't you?

Pumice can float. It comprises a trivially small fraction of the crust, and it cannot bear any significant loads. Nice try, though.

No, that is simply your contention. You have no evidence of this, nor do I.

What an ignorant statement. Of course we know surface tension doesn't scale with volume. That's why it's called surface tension, and not volume tension. And yes, there's plenty of experimental evidence for this. Look at a water

In theory those water molecules should have floated to the surface of the sphere

Which surface? Without gravity, why should it have floated in one direction and not in another?

Another handwave instead of an actual argument. That didn't work with the air inside the water bubble, even when the put water droplets inside the air bubble.

Gee, maybe because the water doesn't exert enough gravity on itself to collapse the bubble. Duh.

The whole contraption is in a state of free fall, but even then the molecules of water are attracted toward one another and toward a center of gravity. The air bubble stayed inside the water shell even still.

Yes, gravity still exists, but precisely because it's in free fall, its effects can be ignored - no local experimental test can distinguish between freefalling in gravity and being in no gravity. The earth's gravity therefore does not contribute to the internal stresses. As for the water's gravitational attraction to itself, you have GOT to be kidding me. Run the numbers: how much force do you think the water's own gravity can produce? Ballpark order-of-magnitude will do. You'll find it's ridiculously low, far less than the surface tension for a bubble that size. That is rather obviously not the case for the sun. Gravity will produce massive internal stresses for the sun. The fact that you're still clinging to that free-falling water bubble as an explanation for your iron shell sun demonstrates how truly clueless you are.

tusenfem · Feb 14, 2009

Michael Mozina said:
Once it lifts off the surface, the hard work is done. I would imagine most of the acceleration takes place fairly close to the sun.

Apperently, you don't know what or where the transition region of the sun is.
This would be just outside of your iron shell, or in the real word, between the chromosphere and the corona.

Michael Mozina said:
Birkeland did that. He "simulated" it too.

But Birkeland demonstrated *qualitatively* that it is "charge separation" that drives this process, not "magnetic fields".

Ahhh Birkeland, Birkeland, what would we be without Birkeland.
Birkeland build his terrella experiment, indeed, there are books and pictures of it.

Birkeland got the idea that the aurora was produced by electrical currents through looking at "magnetometers" up in the north in the cold of arctic winter. (Really read "The Northern Lights") He then postulated that those currents somehow were created by the sun, that the sun was sending out a "cloud" of charged corpuscules (but overall neutral) which somehow drives those currents.

In his mind this was, in some way reminiscent of a cathode ray, in which electrons are emitted and hit a surface at the other side. (like a TV, nooooo not a plasma TV, you youngsters!!!! don't even remember an old fashioned TV). So, to check if such a thing could work, he build his terrella.

Apparently, the terrella was invented by the Englishman physician William Gilbert 300 years before Birkeland, but that as an aside, it was not as intricate as Birkeland's.

A metal sphere with an electromagnet inside, and then there was an electron source, a cathode ray. And he shot these electrons to the magnetized sphere and saw the patters of light (because of the residual gas in the vacuum chamber), which looked like aurora.

With this, he supported his proposal that there are charged corposcules coming from the Sun, however, he never mentioned anything about acceleration of how these corposcules achieved their velocity to reach the Earth. The fact that he used a cathode ray in his experimets was just because that was the easiest way of creating this stream of charged corposcules.

Give Birkeland credit for what he did, which is great, but don't make claims about his accomplishments that have no basis.

tusenfem · Feb 14, 2009

brantc said:
It seems that there are 2 camps here.

Those that think magnetic fields(mainstream) are the prime mover and those that think the charge(EU) is the prime mover.

The charge is more basic than the magnetic field.

This is what certain people seem to be missing. That there is an order of operation in matters of electricity.
[/qoute]

Indeed, there are two camps here, mainstream and EU, however the difference between the two does not make any sense, why would mainstream say the magnetic field is the prime mover? I guess that what you are getting at is that there are two ways of describing electrodynamics. You can either look at magnetic field and plasma flow velocity, or you can look at electric field and current density. Both views come from a reduction of Maxwell's equations and are equivalent, you just have to choose wisely, which one you want to use (see e.g. Parker (1996) and Lui (2000) sorry no link)

brantc said:

A moving charge creates a magnetic field. Why is it moving? Because there is an electric field potential between 2 areas. This potential is through a plasma leads to the formation of "virtual double layers" inside the flux tube from end to end, which causes the current to flow. How it knows its moving is another story.

But a moving magnetic field must act upon a charge to perform some action.
It doesnt exist by itself. A precursor to the magnetic field, before the field existed was the charge(electric field).
The magnetic field did not come from nothing, there was a moving charge first.

Click to expand...

A moving charge first and formost creates a current. With just a moving charge, you don't get anywhere, except for the retarded fields, describing EM radiation by a moving charge. You need to have a real current.

What you write then, is utter nonsense. About why it is moving and "virtual double layers" (whatever those are). A charge can move in a plasma because it has a temperature. And one moving charge does not make a magnetic field just yet. What creates the potential that you suddenly have, and what is that flux tube you are talking about?

If I have a bar magnet or the magnetic field of the Earth, I can have a moving magnetic field, it can exist very easily by itself. You have to make yourself more clear what you want to say. I guess magnetic field in a plasma, but there the Earth or Jupiter or whatever is a good example of magnetic fields that can exist and need not work on a plasma.

Naturally, there is a way of creating magnetic fields through moving charges, currents, and indeed that is what also happens in a plasma.

brantc said:

Even if you believe in the BigBang, the particles moved to create the magnetic field.

Click to expand...

Whatever

brantc said:

We all know the right hand rule. The flux tube rule.

So just by this reasoning the charge creates the magnetic field.

We(EU) dont have the chicken and egg problem here.
That is why EU can say "Where is the electricity?"

Click to expand...

HUH???? And you think mainstream does not have flux tubes with currents? But please tell me if you have a flux tube, where does it come from? Just from those streaming charges? What is the magnetic field created by a linear current?

brantc said:

Take a magnetic flux tube. That can be equated to a wire.
The whole reason for the flux tubes existence is to balance the charge between the sun and earth(in the case of the earth-sun tubes).
There happened to be enough of a particle density to where the current built up enough to form a magnetic field allowing the right hand rule to take effect, and pinch to form a flux tube.
This can be the only possible reason for their existence.

Click to expand...

Again this flux tube, what is it exactly in your mind?
Can it really be equated with a wire? Sure we have magnetic field aligned currents, however, what is creating the magnetic field that the current is flowing along? You are vague in your descriptions.

The flux tube (are we talking about a magnetic flux tube or what?) exists to balance thecharge between the sun and earth? Okay now I am sure we are not talking about magnetic flux tubes, what kind of tubes are you babbling about here?

You are really confused, because to have a pinch, you probably would also like to have a guide magnetic field along which the currents are flowing? At least that is the case for the so favoured Z-pinch and Bennett relation inside the EU-universe.

brantc said:

So now we can look at "reconnection". As Michael says "Its the circuit that is reconnecting".

The mechanism of reconnection is this.

You start with a flux tube which is actually a twisted pair.
This is where everybody screws it up. The flux tubes have to be a twisted pair before "reconnection" will occur.
The exception is on the sun where I have seen TRACE movie of one tube inside another tube with one helicaly rotating left and the other going right (right hand rule- the magnetic field actually rotates and causes matter to reflect this rotation).

Click to expand...

Ah, let's see reconnection explained by your flux tubes. Seems like they are magnetic flux tubes anyway! Well, we will put that aside.

Why would a tube be a twisted pair? Would that not mea that there are w tubes?
A twisted pair of tubes, okay, that is where we screw up in mainstream? Please explain us first how the magnetic field is directed in these twisted tubes.
How about the very simple case of reconnection in the Earth's magnetotail, where there are just two layers with oppositely directed magnetic field separated by a current sheet? From observations there is absolutely no twisted pair of tubes there.

brantc said:

You can see from the Large Plasma Device that they are a twisted pair.
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/bapsf/images/gallery/stv04.jpg
This you will see in any MEASUREMENT of a flux tube. Simulations are a different story.

Then as you can see here that is an image of a merging pair of flux tubes. This is the act of reconnecting.
http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/bapsf/images/gallery/merge.jpg

What happened is that due to fluctuation in the current flow there was a change in the electron gyro radius. This caused a change in the balance of attraction-repulsion forces between the filaments (flux tubes) which leads to them touching.(1) Naturally its easier for the current to flow from tube to tube(the "X" in reconnection) instead of a little longer down the filament. What happens if you short across a high current source? Bang!! Energy release in the form of what? Acceleration of particles....... Or as I call it "Filamental Pinch, Watson...."

Click to expand...

Maybe the experiment in the LAPD was set up like that to have to filaments merge. But I do not see that there is evidence for reconnection. Merging of flux tubes is definitely not the same. Note that (difficult to see because the figures are small) the main field B0 is in only 1 direction. But just two merging currents does not equate reconnection. Methinks you have a misconception here.

The Y (not X as you write) in the merge figure has nothing to do with reconnection, at least not like I look at it. And reconnection has nothing to do with currents moving from one tube to another. There has not been a real topological change in the magentic field in this "merge" figure.

Pretty stupid, Watson, leave it Holmes.

brantc said:

Notice how I didnt talk in terms of magnetic energy releases and stuff.
It is implicit that the magnetic field follows the current flow. The magnetic field does not snap or anything like that. It ramps up and down depending on the current flow. If you turn off a light switch you can measure the magnetic field(inductance) ramp on the wires(flux tube). Thats how you know current is flowing in a wire. Current meters(ammeters) are based on that principle.

Click to expand...

Magnetic field does NOT follow the current flow. Magnetic fields created by currenst are perpendicular to said currents (remember your precious right hand rule?)

And again you talk about flux tubes, and you have no idea what flux tubes are, I get the impression.

brantc said:

Now if we have flux tubes on the sun that are emitting particles and all kind of x-rays, gammas, etc. that must mean they are pinching and accelerating particles. That is an approach that is being explored for fusion, and has produced the highest temperatures(2 billion K or 181,818eV) as well as the most interesting results.

Temperatures hot enough for CNO nucleosynthesis(really hot fusion) have been observed in filaments on the sun which just means the current density is much higher than our earth bound experiments right now..

(1)Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813)

Click to expand...

How can flux tubes emit particles? Radiation okay.
To emit radiation there is no reason whatsoever that they need to pinch.
The motion of the magnetic flux tubed on the surface of the sun and the shearing motion of the footpoints drive enough electric field to create accelearation (even double layers, read my paper on Strong double layers, existence criteria, and annihilation: an application to solar flares) and all kind of processes can take place. You EU people have to get off from your addiction of Z-pinches.

Temperatures hot enough may be found, but I don't think there is any evidence that CNO cycle fusion actually happens. The densities are way to low. I think only Michael Mozina claims such a thing in his paper mentioned several pages back.

So, brantc, come back when you have figured out the real physics and know how to describe the processes. Your message was no advertisement for EU, I can tell you.

brantc · Feb 14, 2009

sol invictus said:
The two camps are those that understand Maxwell's equations and those that don't.

Is that a moral judgment?

You're aware there can be electric and magnetic fields in empty space, 1 billion lightyears from the nearest charge? That those fields store both energy and momentum? That light (electromagnetic radiation, with no charges) can propel a spaceship with a lightsail?

You can have a field with no charge. You cannot have a charge without a field.

I am not arguing about how far a magnetic field extends. I'm saying if you look at the cause of that magnetic field you will see that it is electricity.(unless you believe that it comes from a bar magnet).

The truth is, both charged particles and the electromagnetic field are fundamental degrees of freedom in the standard model of particle physics. Neither is more "basic" - that's stupid, frankly.

Cause and effect. Electric currents always cause magnetic fields. Magnetic fields MAY induce a current in some matter, even neutral matter. But you need the electric current(charge flow) to make the magnetic field to induce the current

As for reconnection, it's just incomprehensible why it's such a crank-target.

Arent we cranky today.... Stick to one point.

sol invictus · Feb 14, 2009

brantc said:
Cause and effect. Electric currents always cause magnetic fields.

Gee - I had no idea there were electric currents powering my refrigerator magnets! That's amazing - I should try hooking up a lightbulb to one!

The fact is, electric currents are one source of B fields. Spin is another. Nuclear fission is another. Fusion is another. Neutral particles like neutrons are another.

And if that isn't enough, magnetic fields (plus some motion) can cause electric currents.

Arent we cranky today.... Stick to one point.

The point is you're wrong.

brantc · Feb 14, 2009

tusenfem said:
brantc said:

It seems that there are 2 camps here.

Those that think magnetic fields(mainstream) are the prime mover and those that think the charge(EU) is the prime mover.

The charge is more basic than the magnetic field.

This is what certain people seem to be missing. That there is an order of operation in matters of electricity.
[/qoute]

Indeed, there are two camps here, mainstream and EU, however the difference between the two does not make any sense, why would mainstream say the magnetic field is the prime mover? I guess that what you are getting at is that there are two ways of describing electrodynamics. You can either look at magnetic field and plasma flow velocity, or you can look at electric field and current density. Both views come from a reduction of Maxwell's equations and are equivalent, you just have to choose wisely, which one you want to use (see e.g. [://esoads.eso.org/abs/1996JGR...10110587P]Parker (1996)[/url] and Lui (2000) sorry no link)

A moving charge first and formost creates a current. With just a moving charge, you don't get anywhere, except for the retarded fields, describing EM radiation by a moving charge. You need to have a real current.

What you write then, is utter nonsense. About why it is moving and "virtual double layers" (whatever those are). A charge can move in a plasma because it has a temperature. And one moving charge does not make a magnetic field just yet. What creates the potential that you suddenly have, and what is that flux tube you are talking about?

If I have a bar magnet or the magnetic field of the Earth, I can have a moving magnetic field, it can exist very easily by itself. You have to make yourself more clear what you want to say. I guess magnetic field in a plasma, but there the Earth or Jupiter or whatever is a good example of magnetic fields that can exist and need not work on a plasma.

Naturally, there is a way of creating magnetic fields through moving charges, currents, and indeed that is what also happens in a plasma.

Whatever

HUH???? And you think mainstream does not have flux tubes with currents? But please tell me if you have a flux tube, where does it come from? Just from those streaming charges? What is the magnetic field created by a linear current?

Again this flux tube, what is it exactly in your mind?
Can it really be equated with a wire? Sure we have magnetic field aligned currents, however, what is creating the magnetic field that the current is flowing along? You are vague in your descriptions.

The flux tube (are we talking about a magnetic flux tube or what?) exists to balance thecharge between the sun and earth? Okay now I am sure we are not talking about magnetic flux tubes, what kind of tubes are you babbling about here?

You are really confused, because to have a pinch, you probably would also like to have a guide magnetic field along which the currents are flowing? At least that is the case for the so favoured Z-pinch and Bennett relation inside the EU-universe.

Ah, let's see reconnection explained by your flux tubes. Seems like they are magnetic flux tubes anyway! Well, we will put that aside.

Why would a tube be a twisted pair? Would that not mea that there are w tubes?
A twisted pair of tubes, okay, that is where we screw up in mainstream? Please explain us first how the magnetic field is directed in these twisted tubes.
How about the very simple case of reconnection in the Earth's magnetotail, where there are just two layers with oppositely directed magnetic field separated by a current sheet? From observations there is absolutely no twisted pair of tubes there.

Maybe the experiment in the LAPD was set up like that to have to filaments merge. But I do not see that there is evidence for reconnection. Merging of flux tubes is definitely not the same. Note that (difficult to see because the figures are small) the main field B0 is in only 1 direction. But just two merging currents does not equate reconnection. Methinks you have a misconception here.

The Y (not X as you write) in the merge figure has nothing to do with reconnection, at least not like I look at it. And reconnection has nothing to do with currents moving from one tube to another. There has not been a real topological change in the magentic field in this "merge" figure.

Pretty stupid, Watson, leave it Holmes.

Magnetic field does NOT follow the current flow. Magnetic fields created by currenst are perpendicular to said currents (remember your precious right hand rule?)

And again you talk about flux tubes, and you have no idea what flux tubes are, I get the impression.

How can flux tubes emit particles? Radiation okay.
To emit radiation there is no reason whatsoever that they need to pinch.
The motion of the magnetic flux tubed on the surface of the sun and the shearing motion of the footpoints drive enough electric field to create accelearation (even double layers, read my paper on [://esoads.eso.org/abs/1994ApJS...90..589V]Strong double layers, existence criteria, and annihilation: an application to solar flares[/url]) and all kind of processes can take place. You EU people have to get off from your addiction of Z-pinches.

Temperatures hot enough may be found, but I don't think there is any evidence that CNO cycle fusion actually happens. The densities are way to low. I think only Michael Mozina claims such a thing in his paper mentioned several pages back.

So, brantc, come back when you have figured out the real physics and know how to describe the processes. Your message was no advertisement for EU, I can tell you.

Click to expand...

As big as your degree is, you did not really refute anything I said.
Especially the part where I got the "flux tubes and reconnection" from the ESA web site.

Flux tubes evolution after multipoint reconnections

Search on Google and go the ESA website since I dont have enough post to link yet.

What is a CME???? Particles and all. A coronal loop that explodes. A exploding flux tube.

And from the RHESSI website.

"In the simplest picture, oppositely directed magnetic field lines that are roughly vertical relative to the solar surface pinch together, where they reconnect and form new field lines that snap both upward and downward, away from the reconnection region (see illustration below). The new, upward-moving field lines form a large coronal loop that may become a coronal mass ejection (CME). The new downward-moving field lines form a relatively compact coronal loop or arcade of loops. This compact loop continues to build up, somewhat like adding more and more layers to an onion, as long as the magnetic reconnection continues above it."

And I'm not even going to argue about electric current causing magnetic fields.

From Wiki Birkeland currents. Since I cant link but notice how there are 2 components(vectors) to the magnetic field. One parallel and one perpendicular. And I bet it depends on the electron gyroradius as to which one dominates.
"The complex self-constricting magnetic field lines and current paths in a Birkeland current that may develop in a plasma[12]"

brant

Zeuzzz · Feb 14, 2009

Reality Check said:
Welcome back Zeuzzz.
I assume that you have managed to come up with a consistent plasma cosmology theory that can actually be compared with the Big Bang theory?

Yeah I have. UTFSE.

brantc · Feb 14, 2009

Dancing David said:
Hi Brantc!

Welcome to the fray.

I will offer you the same deal, which i hope will meet with more than disappointment.

Choose one area of PC/EU, which ever you prefer. (And just so you know most of the then have been discussed here is some thread or another.)

Please provide the following (And I suggest that you avoid Perrat's work, while a great man it does not explain flat rotation curves, and that you avoid Halton Arp and bad statistics, Lerner and massive black holes is another bad one)

1. A model of some behavior in the universe that is a model of PC/EU, what is the model and what does is model?

2. What predictions does the model make? (regards quantification of parameters)

3. What observations meet those parameters?

So far I have been disappointed, I as most people on this forum believe that plasma is part of mainstream physics. And so far PC and EU have fallen down for one reasons, they do not have a model, they do not make predictions and so they can not be critically examined in comparison to observations.

I hope you break the mold.

Fun to be here!!!

Well since I am from an electrical background I will pick flux tubes. They are most like a wire......

The question is do flux tubes transfer energy between 2 objects, and if so what type of energy...

The predictions are that the magnetic field is caused by a current flow.

The existence of a magnetic field is evidence of a current flow.

Electron gyromotion. These 2 pages describe why I think that both parallel and perpendicular magnetic fields exist, with one dominating depending on plasma conditions, for the case of any flux tube carrying an electrical current.
ttp://books.google.com/books?id=Vyoe88GEVz4C&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=Electron+gyroradius+in+a+plasma&source=web&ots=YvhndeyClQ&sig=aznZe66U85QHA3Pyfs_WB71BdjE#PPA146,M1

Zeuzzz · Feb 14, 2009

Reality Check said:
Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it crackpottery.

The definition of "plasma cosmology"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.

This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. Thus the collection allows:

Multiple inconsistent theories on cosmological redshift.

Multiple inconsistent theories on the cosmic microwave background.

Multiple inconsistent theories on the structure of the universe.

Multiple inconsistent theories on stellar formation.

Multiple inconsistent theories on anything else that is contained in "plasma cosmology"

The PC collection includes:

Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation (His 1986 papers I and II).

Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.

Gallo et al. calculations of Galactic Rotation Described with Bulge+Disk Gravitational Models.

Tired-light explanation of cosmological redshifts.

Wolf Effect (non-cosmological redshifts).

Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light (redshifts).

Intrinsic redshifts from the ejection of quasars from bright galaxies. E.g. Halton Arp's The Origin of Companion Galaxies.

Other theories which may include the Electric Universe ().

Lerner's explanation of the CMB.

Peratt's explanation of the CMB, but it hasn't been introduced yet.

Peratt's ideas on quasars/QSOs/radio galaxies/AGNs (only tangentially referenced).

Various ideas on fractal scaling, up to ~tens of Mpc

Something about 'force free filaments' (unclear whether this is a separate idea or an essential part of one or more of the above). Lerner's paper.

Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)

All standard plasma theories.

Electric Universe e.g. electrically powered stars (see the earlier posts).

The Van Allen Hypothesis—The Origin of the Magnetic Fields of the Planets and Stars

etc. (I will add to this list as this thread progresses since no one really knows what theories are included)

There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling (ignoring the problems with this - see the Astrophysical application section). The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

pc completely forgets about the laboratory experiments on gravity that can be scaled in theory without any problems to cosmic scales. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

Your list is silly Reality Check. Not all those publications are core areas of PC. Many of them merely act as supporting evidence of one aspect of plasma cosmology. Many of them merely demonstrate that plasma scaling exists, and thus is a valid aspect of plasma cosmology which many of the models are based on. Many of them merely demonstrate the importance of plasma in the the universe, which is often overlooked by BB exclusively gravitationally based theories, but central to plasma cosmology. They are no more core aspects of plasma cosmology than the orbit of Neptune is to the Big Bang.

So, lets have another go. You say we need to give comparisons between PC and BBT to see what they predict differently.

Maybe listening to Lerner and Peratts breif overview here would be a good idea to start with: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-4jPllBldM

BBT: The universe is assumed to have a beginning and an end in time.
PC: The universe is assumed infinite in time and constantly evolving.

BBT: The universe originated from a highly homogeneous state and will remain largely so in the future.
PC: The universe is filamentary and clumpy. The large scale structure of the cosmos will not be homogeneous but highly filamentary.

BBT: CMB radiation will be isotropic.
PC: The CMB will not be entirely isotropic, certianly not the extent the Big Bang originally predicted.

BBT: The anisotropy of the CBR will be random, due mainly to the properties of the gravitational field.
PC: The anisotropy of the CBR will show a strong preferred orientation in the sky. Mainly due to magnetic anisotropy which occurs in a plasma, so that its magnetic field is oriented in a preferred direction.

BBT: The universe is nearly entirely electrically neutral and so EM and plasma considerations do not effect any gravitationally based models at all. The large charge separation we notice on Earth and in our local environment is just magic and a special unique event.
PC: Charge separation occurs in outer space due to various complex non linear plasma characteristics.

BBT: Energy can be created instantaneously out of nothing.
PC: Energy can not be created out of nothing, in accordance with conservation of energy.

BBT: The dark energy field can create energy out of nothing.
PC: Bollocks.

BBT: We can abandon common sense and known physics to explain contradictory observations.
PC: We must stick to well known, testable, provable, laboratory based verifiable physics, without adding ptolemaic epicycles to explain observations and conflicting observations.

There probably a few more about primordial elements too, etc. I'll get back to this list in a bit.

sol invictus · Feb 15, 2009

brantc said:
The predictions are that the magnetic field is caused by a current flow.

The existence of a magnetic field is evidence of a current flow.

If those are the predictions, the theory is wrong. Where's the current flow in a beam of light? In a magnet?

Perpetual Student · Feb 15, 2009

sol invictus:

I have been on the sidelines following this debate for some time now. Sometimes when debating one can take extreme positions that may not otherwise be intended. Do you feel that PC is virtually all unscientific or do you see any aspects that may have some shred of genuine scientific value or speculative interest?

ben m · Feb 15, 2009

I have no intention of wading any further into this thread, but facts are easy.

Zeuzzz said:
BBT: The universe originated from a highly homogeneous state and will remain largely so in the future.

Standard cosmology says that the universe originated in a highly homogeneous state *with power-law density fluctuations*, and that those density fluctuations evolved under gravity into modern (and future) large-scale structure.

BBT: CMB radiation will be isotropic.

Almost: standard cosmology says that the CMB must have an anisotropy arising from the exact same the primordial density fluctuations mentioned above.

BBT: The anisotropy of the CBR will be random, due mainly to the properties of the gravitational field.

What?

BBT: The universe is nearly entirely electrically neutral and so EM and plasma considerations do not effect any gravitationally based models at all. The large charge separation we notice on Earth and in our local environment is just magic and a special unique event.

Be careful: astrophysicists take plasma effects into account everywhere they think they're important. Shocks, magnetospheres, jets, magnetic fields as a component of the EOS of hot gas, etc. They generally *find* that these effects are not important *in large-scale structure formation*, kinematics, etc.

BBT: Energy can be created instantaneously out of nothing.

Are you talking about inflation? Say so. Say "BBT believes that the inflaton condensate has thus-and-such properties; PC believes that the inflaton condensate either doesn't exist or doesn't have those properties".

BBT: We can abandon common sense and known physics to explain contradictory observations.
PC: We must stick to well known, testable, provable, laboratory based verifiable physics, without adding ptolemaic epicycles to explain observations and conflicting observations.

... and as usual, every time I assume a good-faith discussion, the PC folks get back to trash talk. Let me try: "BBT: we can invoke new physics to explain contradictory observations. PC: we're so used to ignoring contradictory observations, why would we need to do any extra work?" Goodbye.

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Muse

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Muse

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Muse

Penultimate Amazing

Muse

Muse

Muse

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Illuminator

Muse

Philosopher

Muse

Banned

Muse

Banned

Philosopher

Illuminator

Unregistered