Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Could you give us poor mortals a good analogy for Double layer then?
So really, they were just 'magic words' you were waving around?
Really, you did not study what you were promoting?
Could you give us poor mortals a good analogy for Double layer then?
Well Alfven was crackpot enough to lose all his money in a kind of pyramid scam.
However sad that is.
However, Alfven's ideas have nothing in common with anything in your mind. You, Sol88 do not understand plasma physics.
The idea of the skin of a balloon being a DeBye length is preposterous.
For the rest, the surface area of a double layer is totally unimportant, however, I cannot explain that to you as you do not understand plasma physics.
And if the DL's surface area is large so is the area that can accelerate charged particles!Particle acceleration: The potential drop across the double layer will accelerate electrons and positive ions in opposite directions. The magnitude of the potential drop determines the acceleration of the charged particles. In strong double layers, this will result in beams or jets of charged particles.
Energy supply: In a certain limit, the voltage drop across a current-carrying double layer is proportional to the total current, and it might be thought of as a resistive element (or load) which absorbs energy in an electric circuit. Anthony Peratt (1991) wrote: "Since the double layer acts as a load, there has to be an external source maintaining the potential difference and driving the current. In the laboratory this source is usually an electrical power supply, whereas in space it may be the magnetic energy stored in an extended current system, which responds to a change in current with an inductive voltage"
Cellular nature: While double layers are relatively thin, they will spread over the entire cross surface of a laboratory container. Likewise where adjacent plasma regions have different properties, double layers will form and tend to cellularise the different regions
# Energy transfer: Double layers facilitate the transfer of electrical energy into kinetic energy, dW/dt=I.ΔV where I is the electric current dissipating energy into a double layer with a voltage drop of ΔV. Alfvén points out that the current may well consist exclusively of low-energy particles.[42] Torvén et al. also report that plasma may spontaneously transfer magnetically stored energy into kinetic energy by electric double layers.[43]
Magnetometer data from Galileo’s multiple flybys of Ganymede provide significant, but not unambiguous, evidence that the moon, like its neighboring satellites Europa and Callisto,
responds inductively to Jupiter’s time-varying magnetic field.
I agree - the electric universe is about woo, woo and even more woo!Swap Jupiter for the Sun and Jupiter Moons for the planets and .....That's what the electric universe is all about!
The behavior of active plasma at every point is influenced—or driven—by conditions in the rest of the circuit. Fluctuations are often driven to form double layers (DLs)—thin regions of opposite charge build-up with large voltage drops between them. DLs are electrical phenomena that do not appear in observations of magnetic fields. The electric forces in DLs can be very much stronger than gravitational and mechanical forces. Gas theory modified to encompass “magnetism” will overlook them.
DLs separate plasma into cells and filaments that have different qualities—different temperatures or densities or compositions. These cellular and filamentary structures show up especially in planetary nebulas, but they can be invisible in optical wavelengths and appear in x-ray or radio observations.
DLs are “noisy,” emitting radio waves over a broad band of frequencies. They can sort matter into regions of like composition and condense or rarify it. DLs can accelerate charged particles to cosmic ray energies.
And DLs can explode. Energy from the rest of the circuit flows into the break, and the explosion can release much more energy than is present locally. This effect is seen in flares on the sun and is likely responsible for the outbursts of novas, the so-called “exploding” stars.
The electromagnetic forces in currents squeeze the conducting channels into thin thread-like filaments. These filaments attract each other in pairs, but when they get close, instead of merging, they spiral around each other. Pairs of pairs, and more, may entwine into plasma “cables” that can transmit electrical power over enormous distances. We see these cables as the “jets” that connect Herbig-Haro stars and active galactic nuclei with DLs that may lie many light-years away.
But the “cables” can be invisible, too. These make up the galactic circuits that power the stars, analogs of the power lines , invisible at night, that carry electricity from generating stations to city lights. The “flux tube” that connects Jupiter’s moon Io to the bright spots in Jupiter’s auroras is an invisible plasma cable, undetected until a space probe flew through it.
The new vision of the cosmos connects components at one scale into circuits that are coupled to and driven by circuits at larger scales. This new cosmos is laced with hierarchies of interacting circuits.
I agree - the electric universe is about woo, woo and even more woo!
Whooh boy!!!Whooh boy!!!
The Jovian system is a solar system in miniature! except Jupiter has not achieved the fictions internal P-P fusion!
For Tusenfem: He does not need to "wallow". He and every other comeptant scientist has the physical facts to show that the universe is not dominated by "plasmas and electric currents".If Thunderbolts website is so disliked here, then why does thier articels so closely follow "mainstream" plasma physics?
let's put this into context with my post above on DL's
From TPOD
You, Tusenfem, have a papers printed on this chit and you still wallow in mainstreams refusal to accept a universe dominated by plasmas and electric currents???
i understand plasma physics well enough and I'm surprised you Tusenfem are so...well stubborn! I mean lets look at this statement again.
What form does a DL take in plasma?
Cellular? A "bubble"? A sheet? a Tube? (Birkeland current)
And the surface area is very important! From your(Tusenfem) wiki page!
And if the DL's surface area is large so is the area that can accelerate charged particles!
also [energy supply]
and [cellular nature]
And the kicker [energy transfer]
Lets see your gravity only cosmology do that!!!
Hell let's chuck in a quote from The Permanent and Inductive Magnetic Moments of Ganymede M. G. Kivelson & K. K. Khurana and M. Volwerk
Swap Jupiter for the Sun and Jupiter Moons for the planets and .....That's what the electric universe is all about!
thundercrap said:The behavior of active plasma at every point is influenced—or driven—by conditions in the rest of the circuit. Fluctuations are often driven to form double layers (DLs)—thin regions of opposite charge build-up with large voltage drops between them. DLs are electrical phenomena that do not appear in observations of magnetic fields. The electric forces in DLs can be very much stronger than gravitational and mechanical forces. Gas theory modified to encompass “magnetism” will overlook them.
thundercrap said:DLs separate plasma into cells and filaments that have different qualities—different temperatures or densities or compositions. These cellular and filamentary structures show up especially in planetary nebulas, but they can be invisible in optical wavelengths and appear in x-ray or radio observations.
thundercrap said:DLs are “noisy,” emitting radio waves over a broad band of frequencies. They can sort matter into regions of like composition and condense or rarify it. DLs can accelerate charged particles to cosmic ray energies.
thundercrap said:And DLs can explode. Energy from the rest of the circuit flows into the break, and the explosion can release much more energy than is present locally. This effect is seen in flares on the sun and is likely responsible for the outbursts of novas, the so-called “exploding” stars.
thundercrap said:The electromagnetic forces in currents squeeze the conducting channels into thin thread-like filaments. These filaments attract each other in pairs, but when they get close, instead of merging, they spiral around each other. Pairs of pairs, and more, may entwine into plasma “cables” that can transmit electrical power over enormous distances. We see these cables as the “jets” that connect Herbig-Haro stars and active galactic nuclei with DLs that may lie many light-years away.
thundercrap said:But the “cables” can be invisible, too. These make up the galactic circuits that power the stars, analogs of the power lines , invisible at night, that carry electricity from generating stations to city lights. The “flux tube” that connects Jupiter’s moon Io to the bright spots in Jupiter’s auroras is an invisible plasma cable, undetected until a space probe flew through it.
thundercrap said:The new vision of the cosmos connects components at one scale into circuits that are coupled to and driven by circuits at larger scales. This new cosmos is laced with hierarchies of interacting circuits.
Sol88 said:You, Tusenfem, have a papers printed on this chit and you still wallow in mainstreams refusal to accept a universe dominated by plasmas and electric currents???
Sol88 said:i understand plasma physics well enough
A DL is made up of two sheets.
So it will not be a bubble, it might be at the edge of a bubble, depending what kind of bubble you are talking about, coz as usual you give insufficient information. Never mind..
A Birkeland current is a current and thus cannot be a double layer, because a double layer is an electric field.
Can you read Sol88?Tusenfem wrote
A DL is made up of two sheets? Flat square sheets? That do not close on each other? hoe does that work? why wouldn't the charges just sneak off the end of your flat sheets?
or do they form a bubble, cell like structures?
An image released today by the Gemini Observatory brings into focus a new and remarkably detailed view of supersonic "bullets" of gas and the wakes created as they pierce through clouds of molecular hydrogen in the Orion Nebula.
The Orion bullets were first seen in a visible-light image in 1983. By 1992, images taken at infrared wavelengths led astronomers to conclude that these clumps of gas were ejected from deep within the nebula following an unknown violent event connected with the recent formation of a cluster of massive stars there
Clouds of iron atoms at the tip of each bullet glow brightly (blue in the Gemini image) as they are shock-heated by friction to around 5000°C (9,000°F). Molecular hydrogen, which makes up the bulk of both the bullets and the surrounding gas cloud, is destroyed at the tips by the violent collisions between the high-speed bullets and the surrounding cloud.
The blue features in the Gemini image correspond to the shocked regions where the iron is fluorescing. The orange regions are the glowing hydrogen molecules in the bullet's wakes. In this image, the wakes ("fingers") behind each of the iron-gas bullets are resolved into filaments for the first time ever. These might well be the actual sheaths enclosing the shock waves created as the bullets travel through the cloud.
Lets just take another random mainstream article and their use of PR terms of gas and plasma, which from all the arguments we have had during these posts is a classic example.
Tusenfem wrote
A DL is made up of two sheets? Flat square sheets? That do not close on each other? hoe does that work? why wouldn't the charges just sneak off the end of your flat sheets?
or do they form a bubble, cell like structures?
Lets just take another random mainstream article and their use of PR terms of gas and plasma, which from all the arguments we have had during these posts is a classic example.
<snip>
Now excuse my obvious total lack of understanding of plasma physics, but in light of what we have been discussing in the above posts then wouldn't the correct language be more plasma orientated?
Blurb!!! (read Alfven) Blurb!!!
Whooh boy!!!
The Jovian system is a solar system in miniature! except Jupiter has not achieved the fictions internal P-P fusion!
you know I did that and the impression I got was this is what electric currents in a plasma does?
The paper itself points out the importance of galaxy evolution. This is quite messy astrophysics - in the sense that its difficult to build good models as so much is going on, basically. Its really not clear to me that his arguments against galaxy evolution being able to explain the observations are sufficiently strong - he in fact describes it as a 'tentative conclusion' himself.To quote another one Lerner, Eric J., Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF March 21, 2006 -- Volume 822, pp. 60-74, 1st Crisis in Cosmology conference. And there are a good few more in rather more respected journals (than his own)..... but they are not relevant to this thread and belong in the plasma cosmology thread. So any replies to this a little off topic material in there, please. Dont want this thread to be another hijacked off at a tangent.
Now to grasp why this is yet another nail in the PC coffin, you have to keep in mind that according to Lerner's version of PC, GR cannot be used to explain the Hubble relationship (an inhomogeneous universe is one possible 'out' in this regard), and that, going waaay back, Alfvén once considered the possibility that the universe has a quasi-fractal, hierarchical structure, such that at successively larger scales its average density falls at a rate that makes straight-forward application of GR invalid.abstract said:The assumption that the Universe, on sufficiently large scales, is homogeneous and isotropic is crucial to our current understanding of cosmology. In this paper we test if the observed galaxy distribution is actually homogeneous on large scales. We have carried out a multifractal analysis of the galaxy distribution in a volume limited subsample from the SDSS DR6. This considers the scaling properties of different moments of galaxy number counts in spheres of varying radius $r$ centered on galaxies. This analysis gives the spectrum of generalized dimension $D_q(r)$, where $q >0$ quantifies the scaling properties in overdense regions and $q<0$ in underdense regions. We expect $D_q(r)=3$ for a homogeneous, random point distribution.
In our analysis we have determined $D_q(r)$ in the range $-4 \le q \le 4$ and $7 \le r \le 98 h^{-1} {\rm Mpc}$. In addition to the SDSS data we have analysed several random samples which are homogeneous by construction. Simulated galaxy samples generated from dark matter N-body simulations and the Millennium Run were also analysed. The SDSS data is considered to be homogeneous if the measured $D_q$ is consistent with that of the random samples. We find that the galaxy distribution becomes homogeneous at a length-scale between 60 and $70 h^{-1} {\rm Mpc}$. The galaxy distribution, we find, is homogeneous at length-scales greater than $70 h^{-1} {\rm Mpc}$. This is consistent with earlier works which find the transition to homogeneity at around $70 h^{-1} {\rm Mpc}$.
DeiRenDopa said:Readers who have been following this thread for some time will perhaps recall that our fave drive-by spamster, Z, many months ago posted a raft of material on the fractal nature of the universe, and how this was consistent with PC (so he claimed; as usual, his claim withered under mild scrutiny, and he abandoned it).
Well, this recent arXiv preprint pretty much puts paid to the idea of an inhomogeneous universe ... at least as far as galaxies are concerned, and once the scale considered is greater than ... well, here's the preprint, and the abstract (enjoy):
The scale of homogeneity of the galaxy distribution in SDSS DR6
Now to grasp why this is yet another nail in the PC coffin, you have to keep in mind that according to Lerner's version of PC, GR cannot be used to explain the Hubble relationship (an inhomogeneous universe is one possible 'out' in this regard), and that, going waaay back, Alfvén once considered the possibility that the universe has a quasi-fractal, hierarchical structure, such that at successively larger scales its average density falls at a rate that makes straight-forward application of GR invalid.abstract said:The assumption that the Universe, on sufficiently large scales, is homogeneous and isotropic is crucial to our current understanding of cosmology. In this paper we test if the observed galaxy distribution is actually homogeneous on large scales. We have carried out a multifractal analysis of the galaxy distribution in a volume limited subsample from the SDSS DR6. This considers the scaling properties of different moments of galaxy number counts in spheres of varying radius [LATEX]$r$[/LATEX] centered on galaxies. This analysis gives the spectrum of generalized dimension [LATEX]$D_q(r)$[/LATEX], where [LATEX]$q >0$[/LATEX] quantifies the scaling properties in overdense regions and [LATEX]$q<0$[/LATEX] in underdense regions. We expect [LATEX]$D_q(r)=3$[/LATEX] for a homogeneous, random point distribution.
In our analysis we have determined [LATEX]$D_q(r)$[/LATEX] in the range [LATEX]$-4 \le q \le 4$[/LATEX] and [LATEX]$7 \le r \le 98 h^{-1} {\rm Mpc}$[/LATEX]. In addition to the SDSS data we have analysed several random samples which are homogeneous by construction. Simulated galaxy samples generated from dark matter N-body simulations and the Millennium Run were also analysed. The SDSS data is considered to be homogeneous if the measured [LATEX]$D_q$[/LATEX] is consistent with that of the random samples. We find that the galaxy distribution becomes homogeneous at a length-scale between 60 and [LATEX]$70 h^{-1} {\rm Mpc}$[/LATEX]. The galaxy distribution, we find, is homogeneous at length-scales greater than [LATEX]$70 h^{-1} {\rm Mpc}$[/LATEX]. This is consistent with earlier works which find the transition to homogeneity at around [LATEX]$70 h^{-1} {\rm Mpc}$[/LATEX].
This latest result makes both explanations even more difficult.
This is about the Lambda-CDM theory (not plasma cosmology) and so I have copied it there.Abstract: For more than a half century cosmologists have been guided by the assumption that matter is distributed homogeneously on sufficiently large scales. On the other hand, observations have consistently yielded evidence for inhomogeneity in the distribution of matter right up to the limits of most surveys. The apparent paradox can be understood in terms of the role that paradigms play in the evolution of science.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.2643.pdf
WMAP catastrophe
This month, we’ve chosen to highlight a paper that is causing a stir in cosmology. Serious doubt is cast upon the validity of the entire body of WMAP analysis. Thanks to Eric Lerner for the following analysis:
An important new paper shows that there are serious errors in the WMAP team’s analysis of the satellite’s data. The new paper, Observation number correlation in WMAP data By Ti-Pei Li et al, which has been accepted by MNRAS, shows that a spurious apparent temperature is introduced into the map of the CMB by the WMAP team’s analyses. As a result, the conclusions based on this analysis, including the widely-publicized supposed agreement with some predictions of the dominant LCDM cosmology, are thrown into doubt. Li et al’s recent paper on WMAP observation number effects arXiv 0905.0075 is a follow-up to Liu and Li’s earlier paper on the same subject, 0806.4493, which was reported in this newsletter, but whose significance was not fully recognized at the time.
WMAP mapped the tiny variations of anisotropies in the CMB by comparing the inputs of two receivers or horns placed 141 degrees apart, as the satellite spun and scanned the entire sky. Complex mathematical procures were used to transform these differences in inputs into a map of absolute temperature or intensity at every point in the sky. In outline the authors argue that:
1. The way temperature is calculated by the WMAP team based on the differential between the two WMAP horns is in error, as is best explained in the Li et al paper. When the number of observations of a given pixel by the “plus” horn (the number of times that point in the sky is scanned) is different than the number of observation by the “minus” horn, there is a spurious temperature added, dependent on transmission imbalances, which are different for different bands. (Esq. 5 and 6 of Li et al). These spurious temperatures, up to 10-20 micros K are clearly shown in figure 3, which shows the pixel-by-pixel correlation of the
2
difference in observation number and temperature. This spurious temperature, dependent on observation number, in turn produces a spurious fluctuation in temperature which is dependent on the number of observations. The number of observations in turn is a strong function of declination. See figure 2 of Liu and Li, which tells the story very well. Li explains procedures by which the raw data can be re-analysed to eliminate these artefacts.
2. The method by which WMAP temperatures are calculated also does not accurately correct for the fact that pixels 141 degrees way from hot spots are measured too cold. In Liu and Li, p.18, they show that pixels 141 degrees away from the 2000 hottest pixels in the map are on average 12-14 micro Kelvin cooler than average pixels, depending on the band. This is several hundred times above the expected random variation. Since each circle contains 15,000 pixels spread across a good section of the sky, the average temperature should be very close to the average of the whole sky. This is even truer for 2,000 such circles. But that is not what Liu and Li found.
So, from these papers, it seems that there are spurious temperature anisotropies that are comparable with the entire anisotropy found in the WMAP team’s maps. Therefore the entire analysis of cosmological parameters based on these maps is wrong. Indeed it seems very puzzling that an analysis that is so contaminated with errors should come up with parameters anywhere near those expected by LCDM models. The fact that the Li et al paper was accepted by MNRAS is perhaps an indication that some of the leading journals are becoming more open to work that challenges conventional assumptions in cosmology.
13. Title: Observation number correlation in WMAP data
Authors: Ti-Pei Li, Hao Liu, Li-Ming Song, Shao-Lin Xiong, Jian-Yin Nie
arXiv:0905.0075
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2009.06.pdf
Abstract: For more than a half century cosmologists have been guided by the assumption that matter is distributed homogeneously on sufficiently large scales. On the other hand, observations have consistently yielded evidence for inhomogeneity in the distribution of matter right up to the limits of most surveys. The apparent paradox can be understood in terms of the role that paradigms play in the evolution of science.
Like creationists, the EU/PC advocates interpret/spin any 'problem' with the mainstream theory as evidence for their claims.
Cygnus X-1 - I will refer you to my reply to Zeuzzz's post.Some PC advocates. I'll refer you to this post where the I'm going to (shortly) outline the predictions that PC made and how they compare to observations now and how they differ from Big Bang predictions, with links to the relevent publications.
Some PC advocates. I'll refer you to post where the I'm going to (shortly) outline the predictions that PC made and how they compare to observations now and how they differ from Big Bang predictions, with links to the relevent publications.
Unfortunately I can't post URLs yet.
The link you provide gives NO PC prediction of Li abundances.
Again, we do not see Peratt's current streams in WMAP raw data. See the recent post in my blog "Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background". Even Peratt's own predictions reveal this problem.
Tom
The link you provide gives NO PC prediction of Li abundances.
Light elements abundance
The structure formation theory allowed Lerner to calculate the size of stars formed in the formation of a galaxy and thus the amounts of helium and other light elements that will be generated during galaxy formation.[37] This led to the predictions that large numbers of intermediate mass stars (from 4-12 solar masses) would be generated during the formations of galaxies. Standard stellar evolution theory indicates that these stars produce and emit to the environment large amounts of helium-4, but very little carbon, nitrogen and oxygen.
The plasma calculations, which contained no free variables, led to a broader range of predicted abundances than big bang nucleosynthesis, because a process occurring in individual galaxies would be subject to individual variation.[38] The minimum predicted value is consistent with the minimum observed values of 4He abundance.[39] In order to account for the observed amounts of deuterium and various isotopes of lithium, Eric Lerner has posited that cosmic rays from the early stars could, by collisions with ambient hydrogen and other elements, produce the light elements unaccounted for in stellar nucleosynthesis.[40]
*E. J. Lerner, "On the problem of big-bang nucleosynthesis", Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, 145-149 (1995). E.J. Lerner,
* Galactic Model of Element Formation," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol. 17, No. 3, April 1989, pp. 259‑263.
* A comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 31, Issue 6, Dec. 2003 Page(s): 1268 - 1275 [full text]
Okay heres some quickly if its links you want to sift through:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88918621#Light_elements_abundance
Okay heres some quickly if its links you want to sift through:
I actually have all these references in my collection.
The statement
"The plasma calculations, which contained no free variables, , led to a broader range of predicted abundances than big bang nucleosynthesis, because a process occurring in individual galaxies would be subject to individual variation."
is almost oxymoronic. If you have no free variables, how do you have individual variation?
In "Galactic Model of Element Formation", Lerner tosses together nucleosynthesis results from other researchers who are not using plasma cosmology initial conditions. Estimates of elemental yields will probably be very different compared to BBN and standard stellar model calculations. If Lerner means that element building is taking place in 'shock waves' during galaxy formation, this would have a radically different composition compared to the fast expanding 'cooking' of BBN vs. slow, steady 'cooking' in stellar interiors vs. fast events in novae & supernovae. Lerner fails to explicitly show these shocks produce the required abundances. Most of Lerner's work is assembled piecemeal using 'rules of thumb' that were established under conditions very different from the plasma cosmology model.
But not even that matters as Peratt's galaxy model clearly predicted we should see 'spaghetti' like filaments of microwave emission from the current streams and these do not appear in COBE or WMAP (see "Electric space: evolution of the plasma universe" by A. Peratt, pg 101).
Tom
originally read Eric
Lerner’s The Big Bang Never Happened while in graduate school studying for my Ph.D. in
astrophysics. More recently, I’ve read Anthony Peratt’s Physics of the Plasma Universe
(Springer-Verlag, 1992). I expected something similar to a reasonable, popular-level update to
the latest claims of the plasma cosmology crowd.
Tom, If you have found viable issues with Plasma Cosmology and the models proposed in the literature by Alfvén, Birkeland, Peratt, Lerner, Verchuur, et al, then I suggest that you write up such observations and get them published in a journal so the scientists in question can reply. They have afterall published all their material in journals for the world to look at. I'm sure that Lerner, Peratt, et al, would come up with answers to your your critisisms.
As someone who has:
[ stuff deleted ]
What has shifted your view of late from plasma cosmology being reasonable to not?
Plasmas
Plasma physics is a vital component of our understanding of the cosmos, given that plasmas occur ubiquitously in space. The following paper is of great significance to plasma cosmologists, and gives exact equations for a variety of phenomena in laboratory plasmas. The recent discovery of Bethe’s CNO nuclear fusion cycle at the foot points of solar coronal arches (2005, astro-ph/0512633) emphasises the importance in astrophysics of the connection between thermonuclear energy and electromagnetism. “The importance of the thermomagnetic Nernst effect for the problem to stabilize plasma by a vorticity containing shear flow, becomes important in the vicinity of cold walls where the temperature gradient is large, but can conceivably also become important in the presence of thermonuclear reactions, where the reaction rate goes with a high power of the temperature.”
[102]gen-phys arXiv:0910.1626
Title: Shear Flow Stabilization of a z-Pinch Plasma in the Presence of a Radial Temperature Gradient
Authors: F.Winterberg
I doubt that Ziggurat would be interested in a post about gravity ("the longest ranging force in the universe") that is several months old.As for this thread ... I think that I've said everything I know on this subject. Any further queries I could likely reply to by just re-quoting previous answers I have given. And Ziggurat if you are reading would be nice of you to address my reply about the longest ranging force in the universe.