Electric universe theories here.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Well, there is no radial electric field, so ....

Thermal energy only to accelerate ions and electrons to the same speed and tempreture then?


Nothing about plasma moving across magnetic fields giving rise to electric fields?

I do see NASA (Experts?) update their Sun page from

Quote:

The sun is a star, a hot ball of glowing gases at the heart of our solar system. Its influence extends far beyond the orbits of distant Neptune and Pluto.

to

Quote:

The Sun — our closest star — is made of super-hot ionized gas called plasma. The Sun's surface and atmosphere change constantly, driven by the magnetic forces generated by this churning plasma.

driven by the magnetic forces generated by this churning plasma. but not electric fields?

Maybe not radial in the electrostatic pith ball type model but most definatly electric fileds involved in the solar current sheet the comet moves thru.

Again, nice confabulation using semantics.

Quote:

We show that: 1) both the axial and azimuthal magnetic and current density components cyclically reverse their directions with radial distance from the central axis of the current; 2) the magnetic field extends farther from the central axis within a force-free field than it would if produced by a current in a long straight conductor. The total magnetic field magnitude and current density are shown to vary
inversely as the square root of r. For large r, outside the plasma, the azimuthal magnetic field is shown to vary as 1/r. These results are shown to be consistent with laboratory and astronomical observations.

Don Scott


Consistant with the observation and the model proposed by J. F. Drake

Quote:

5 Discussion

We have presented simulations of interchange reconnection between open and closed flux in the low corona that reveal the formation of flux ropes that are ejected with high velocity outward in the corona (see Fig. 3). Cuts through the flux rope reveal that a strong axial magnetic field is wrapped by magnetic flux and exhibit the characteristic reversal in the radial magnetic field as documented in switchback observations in the solar wind. The flux rope model maintains the direction of the electron strahl with respect to the local magnetic field as seen in the data.

Beautiful!

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by steenkh

In Sol’s world calculations and measurements are “mathemajicks” and bad, but words-only contents are good. Words like “electrical”, or “plasma” are good, but “gas” or “fields strength” are bad.

Nevertheless, all papers that he seems to believe (coz them use da rite worts) are full of fricking math !

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Nevertheless, all papers that he seems to believe (coz them use da rite worts) are full of fricking math !

Well pick Don Scotts Apart.

Where is the error in his calculation?

Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model

do you agree with J. F. Drake's maths?

Bit hard to cut n paste equations.

Whats the difference between the two sets of math.


Both describe the same thing?

Enjoying the holiday I hope? Was meant to travel to the Netherlands again this year but unfortunately things are turning crap. Seems the farmers are a bit upset.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Well pick Don Scotts Apart.

Where is the error in his calculation?

Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model

do you agree with J. F. Drake's maths?

Bit hard to cut n paste equations.

Whats the difference between the two sets of math.


Both describe the same thing?

Enjoying the holiday I hope? Was meant to travel to the Netherlands again this year but unfortunately things are turning crap. Seems the farmers are a bit upset.

Why the hell should anybody take the trouble to explain things to you? You won't understand the explanations, and you won't care. You will just continue to pick interesting words and post them in some random order.

Hans

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Thermal energy only to accelerate ions and electrons to the same speed and tempreture then?

If ions and electrons are at the same temperature, they will NOT be at the same velocity.

This is really basic physics, and you continue to fail at it.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Well pick Don Scotts Apart.

J F Drake et al. kinda did that in their abstract.

Originally Posted by Sol88

do you agree with J. F. Drake's maths?

Looking only at the abstract, I think I'm already seeing a fundamental disagreement between Donald Scott and J F Drake. With my highlighting:

Originally Posted by J F Drake et al.

The structure of magnetic flux ropes injected into the solar wind during reconnection in the coronal atmosphere is explored with particle-in-cell simulations and compared with in situ measurements of magnetic “switchbacks” from the Parker Solar Probe. We suggest that multi-x-line reconnection between open and closed flux in the corona injects flux ropes into the solar wind and that these flux ropes convect outward over long distances before eroding due to reconnection. Simulations that explore the magnetic structure of flux ropes in the solar wind reproduce the following key features of the switchback observations: a rapid rotation of the radial magnetic field into the transverse direction, which is a consequence of reconnection with a strong guide field; and the potential to reverse the radial field component. The potential implication of the injection of large numbers of flux ropes in the coronal atmosphere for understanding the generation of the solar wind is discussed.

Isn't Donald Scott one of the EU folks who denies the very existence of magnetic reconnection?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

If ions and electrons are at the same temperature, they will NOT be at the same velocity.

This is really basic physics, and you continue to fail at it.

Then why use it for “magnetic reconnection”?

See below…

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

J F Drake et al. kinda did that in their abstract.




Looking only at the abstract, I think I'm already seeing a fundamental disagreement between Donald Scott and J F Drake. With my highlighting:




Isn't Donald Scott one of the EU folks who denies the very existence of magnetic reconnection?

Of course that’s what you’d think…it’s what your incorrect model tells you.

Snappy field lines…



Children might believe it but then I’m not sure if you understood the words, not the math they used, to prove to field lines snap and release energy but the understanding of the model of magnetic reconnection?

Tusenfem, I think, was pretty clued up on the topic.

[Sol88]

Quote:

Magnetic Reconnection

When the magnetic field lines on the sun snap apart and violently reconnect, they can release enormous amounts of energy that trigger geomagnetic storms. Those storms can disrupt cell phone service, damage satellites and blackout power grids. But how this process, known as magnetic reconnection, transforms magnetic energy into explosive particle energy remains a major unsolved problem in plasma astrophysics that PPPL scientists are addressing.

. https://www.pppl.gov/research/plasma-science-and-technology

Yes, ziggurat? It’s how it’s understood to work, so I’ve read.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Then why use it for “magnetic reconnection”?

See below…

What the hell are you talking about? I can't see anything there about electrons and ions having both the same temperature and the same velocity.

And you are talking about thermal velocities, are you not? Do you not know how thermal velocity relates to temperature? Are you unaware of the roll mass plays in that relationship?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What the hell are you talking about? I can't see anything there about electrons and ions having both the same temperature and the same velocity.

And you are talking about thermal velocities, are you not? Do you not know how thermal velocity relates to temperature? Are you unaware of the roll mass plays in that relationship?

I'm talking your standard snappy magnetic field line explanation, the one the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE mobs indeed says is a load of fish heads left in a bucket in the sun.

The problem is your model, it failed. It's not the EU's fault you've used the wrong model.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Sol88

I'm talking your standard snappy magnetic field line explanation, the one the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE mobs indeed says is a load of fish heads left in a bucket in the sun.

Why do I care what they say? They don't know what they are talking about, and have not formed a coherent objection.

And YOU made a claim about temperature and velocity. That claim was wrong.

[lauwenmark]

Originally Posted by Sol88

You never come up with a why, except some vague mathamagicians drivel plugged into an incorrect model, you don’t believe your lying eyes?

The purpose of science is not to find a 'why'. It isn't meant to find a purpose in the universe. Its goal is to answer 'how' - that is, how the universe is working.
'Why' is actually a question of faith and religion.

So, you are finally admitting that you are interested in faith and not science?

And scientists don't blindly believe 'their lying eyes', because they can be so easily fooled, and don't provide enough data to measure most things.

But your theories never ever measured anything, right?

And even if we believe in what we see, that's only the first step of science: observation. Then comes the main challenge: explaining what we saw, and provide ways that could be used to evaluate, quantify, predict.

But your theories never ever predicted or quantified anything, right?

Tell me, what makes your theories different from a religious cult?

[lauwenmark]

Oh, yeah, and still no answer to those, Sol? Trying to make them forgotten? Are you so embarrassed to admit you cannot answer them?

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

3) What observations do they explain better than the current paradigm?

4) What evidence exists to support them?

If you can't provide sensible and relevant answers for this, there is nothing to discuss.

Hans

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by lauwenmark

The purpose of science is not to find a 'why'. It isn't meant to find a purpose in the universe. Its goal is to answer 'how' - that is, how the universe is working.
'Why' is actually a question of faith and religion.

Confabulation!

The "why" is why is Don Scotts MATH wrong?

Not enough snapping filed lines of magnets? magnetic reconnection as peddled here is a BUST!

Is there are problem with the mathematical solution the Don Scott, Why? not how but why.

Quote:

The fundamental vector calculus definition of a force-free, field-aligned current in space is expanded in cylindrical coordinates to directly obtain the Bessel partial differential equation that specifies the magnetic field created by such a current. This result is often called the Lundquist solution. A simple but detailed derivation is included here.

Flux Tubes, FAC's, Birekland Currents, magnetic flux ropes... all are electric currents.

The Universe is full of electric fields driving electric currents completing electric curcuits, you know the ELECTRIC Universe stuff.

https://phys.org/news/2022-11-rocket...it-powers.html

[Sol88]

Stand down mystery solved...its all electric!

Solving a Plasma Physics Mystery: Magnetic Reconnection

Quote:

Magnetic reconnection is a process that occurs nearly anywhere there's plasma. The fourth state of matter, plasma, is gas made up of unbound ions and electrons. As plasma makes up the stars and 99 percent of the visible universe, magnetic reconnection is quite common. However, it is poorly understood. Scientists at universities, research institutes, the Department of Energy Office of Science's Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), and NASA are coming close to mapping the process of magnetic reconnection. With the help of modeling, experimental, and observational data, they think their most recent theory may provide the definitive map to guide scientists through this fundamental phenomenon.

Oh..PLASMA!

ok, keep going, seem important

Quote:

Magnetic reconnection is one of the most important phenomenon throughout the whole universe," said Jim Burch, Vice President of the Southwest Research Institute and principal investigator of NASA's Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) mission.

Quote:

At first, scientists assumed they could explain magnetic reconnection using the standard theory that explains how fluids affected by magnetic fields behave. That didn't work. When scientists used this theory to calculate how quickly a solar flare develops, the answer was a million years. In reality, solar flares develop in only a few minutes.

Listnen up, mob here comes the oompf!

Quote:

But Did It Work?
This back-and-forth led to a new theory: two-fluid reconnection. Unlike previous theories, it modeled electrons and ions like two fluids that move separately from one other.

further

Quote:

But two-fluid theory still had a hole. The theory explains reconnection in small and medium plasmas but doesn't explain how reconnection happens in very large plasmas that have few interactions between their particles. As these plasmas make up much of the universe, it was a big gap

Enter the Plasmoid

Talk about cumm'n tusenfem you 'ol dog, ay!

Quote:

In 2007, Nuno Loureiro, then a postdoctoral researcher at PPPL and a participant of the DOE Center for Multiscale Plasma Dynamics at the University of Maryland, developed what might be the final piece of the map. It was a new theory that became known as the plasmoid instability. It connects the Sweet-Parker and two-fluid models into a single theory. Later work at PPPL has expanded on his initial idea.

Like Sweet-Parker, the plasmoid instability model starts with a stretched-out, thin sheet of electrical current with an accompanying magnetic field. Like the two-fluid model, it assumes the electrons and ions that flow along the magnetic field lines break away at different times.

What makes this model different is that it is based on the fact that the sheets of electrical current are extremely unstable. As the sheets stretch, they break and form new ones, each thinner than the original. As these sheets separate, chains of magnetic bubbles (plasmoids) form between them. While previous theories had described these bubbles, no one had provided a good explanation of how and why they form.

The theory proposes that as more bubbles form and sheets break up, the magnetic lines crash into each other and break. The lines disconnect from the ions first, then the electrons. The breaking feeds magnetic energy into the particles, heating them up and accelerating them. As time goes on, the whole process becomes faster and faster. It creates a runaway effect — fast reconnection.

Unlike Sweet-Parker, this model provides the "oomph" to give fast reconnection its speed. Unlike the two-fluid theory, it illustrates why and how the process starts after that initial sheet of strong electric current forms.

So, not snapping field lines but electric currents, plasmoids

[Sol88]

Instability of current sheets and formation of plasmoid chains

You'll have to give ma bit to brush up on new theory that is the plasmoid instability.

Snappy filed lines....ooooh boy that was a doozie.

[Sol88]

Sounds a lot like your turbulent cascade dissipation of energy, tusenfem, that you wrote some time with regard to current sheets n what not.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Sounds a lot like your turbulent cascade dissipation of energy, tusenfem, that you wrote some time with regard to current sheets n what not.

Similar mathematically, or if you do a keyword search?

[Sol88]

As described.

Could dig out. Better to ask the super duper space plasma physicist that modeled it.

Knows it better than me.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Sol88

As described.

Could dig out. Better to ask the super duper space plasma physicist that modeled it.

Knows it better than me.

You want me to ask the writer of this paper why Sol88 thinks it sounds similar to what tusanfem wrote 'with regard to current sheets n what not'?

How would they know why you think it's similar?

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Nothing about plasma moving across magnetic fields giving rise to electric fields?

why would that give rise to electric fields?

Originally Posted by Sol88

I do see NASA (Experts?) update their Sun page from to

We do not see you update your knowledge.

Originally Posted by Sol88

driven by the magnetic forces generated by this churning plasma. but not electric fields?

Why not first try to understand how the solar dynamo works?

Originally Posted by Sol88

Maybe not radial in the electrostatic pith ball type model but most definatly electric fileds involved in the solar current sheet the comet moves thru.

Really, Scott shows that? He just copy-pasted introductory space plasma physics and makes his readers believe it's all his idea.

Originally Posted by Sol88

Again, nice confabulation using semantics.

There is nothing new new in Scott's "paper", and he did not discover the solar wind sectors, heck there is not even data in his paper.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Sounds a lot like your turbulent cascade dissipation of energy, tusenfem, that you wrote some time with regard to current sheets n what not.

Fresh-up my memory.
This is supposed to link to the Loureiro et al. paper? (djeez! so much mathamajics in it.)

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Of course that’s what you’d think…it’s what your incorrect model tells you.

Snappy field lines…



Children might believe it but then I’m not sure if you understood the words, not the math they used, to prove to field lines snap and release energy but the understanding of the model of magnetic reconnection?

Tusenfem, I think, was pretty clued up on the topic.

It is also what a couple of the business card type refrigerator magnets can show you. Slide two of them against each other in the right orientation and you'll find those "Snappy field lines".

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Stand down mystery solved...its all electric!

Solving a Plasma Physics Mystery: Magnetic Reconnection



Oh..PLASMA!

ok, keep going, seem important



Listnen up, mob here comes the oompf!



further



Enter the Plasmoid

Talk about cumm'n tusenfem you 'ol dog, ay!





So, not snapping field lines but electric currents, plasmoids

From your own quote of your own citation...


"The theory proposes that as more bubbles form and sheets break up, the magnetic lines crash into each other and break. The lines disconnect from the ions first, then the electrons. The breaking feeds magnetic energy into the particles, heating them up and accelerating them. As time goes on, the whole process becomes faster and faster. It creates a runaway effect — fast reconnection."


So explicitly "snapping field lines" and even a runaway effect of fast reconnection ("snapping field lines").

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by The Man

From your own quote of your own citation...


"The theory proposes that as more bubbles form and sheets break up, the magnetic lines crash into each other and break. The lines disconnect from the ions first, then the electrons. The breaking feeds magnetic energy into the particles, heating them up and accelerating them. As time goes on, the whole process becomes faster and faster. It creates a runaway effect — fast reconnection."


So explicitly "snapping field lines" and even a runaway effect of fast reconnection ("snapping field lines").

Better said as ELECTRIC CURRENT rearranging themselves!

Latest story out...Direct observations of a complex coronal web uncover an important clue as to what mechanism drives solar wind

I'll point the error straight out

Quote:

In this study, the team used an advanced magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) model to simulate the magnetic field and plasma state of the corona for this time period.

MHD?

Busted flush!

Quote:

At first, scientists assumed they could explain magnetic reconnection using the standard theory that explains how fluids affected by magnetic fields behave. That didn't work.

MHD failed (plasma as a fluid (gas)).

Now this is were you seem to fall over, read carefully.

Quote:

Next up was the Sweet-Parker theory, proposed in 1957. It described thin, stretched-out sheets of electrical current forming in the plasma. Magnetic field lines sit on top of these sheets of electrical current. As the magnetic field lines break apart, the particles that normally flow along the field lines break away from them and stop being magnetized.

Right, what we are really talking about is a reconfiguration of the electric currents.

Why not just say it?

Snapping field lines...




Thats a good one!

'cos it leads to very smart people saying this

Quote:

According to the team's new results, the hot solar plasma in the middle corona flows along the open magnetic field lines of the coronal web. Where the field lines cross and interact, energy is released.

Again, flowing plasma down a field line is an ELECTRIC CURRENT, flux tube, Birkeland current, FAC, Force free field aligned...

Again, MHD is a bust!

[Sol88]

Plasma, scalable for the lab to the Universe.

Amazing!

So, again please inform me why a "jet" form an AGN is not an electric current?

Specifically a FORCE FREE FIELD ALIGNED current.

Because MHD says no?

Or the ELECTRIC/PLASMA Universe cranks are right and you've been wrong (for quite some time now) and the only thing left is for you to double down on the "science"?

And prove you can divide by zero?

[Sol88]

Quote:

Moreover, the slow solar wind is not homogeneous, but reveals, at least in part, a ray-like structure of clearly distinguishable streamers. Where and how do they originate? These are the questions addressed in the new study.

Ahh...wind!

Sounds like I should be hoisting the mainsail!

Still, Kristian Birkeland could give you a few pointers!

[Sol88]

A plasma ball showing lotza magnetic reconnection.

A plasma ball. Mentions a bit on the universe to boot.

Though the gas explanation sound like your interpretation of what plasma

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Well pick Don Scotts Apart.

Where is the error in his calculation?

Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model

Really? Are you really going to play? OK, here goes.

1) In equation 14, Scott makes it a condition of his solution that current density should be proportional to magnetic field strength everywhere. This is arbitrary, unwarranted and unphysical. This condition is required to get to eqn 26, the partial differential equation which Scott solves to get the Bessel function form of the axial and azimuthal magnetic field as a function of radial distance. Since this condition is arbitrary, unwarranted and unphysical, so is the solution

2) The factor alpha introduced in equation 14 determines the distance scale of the axial and azimuthal reversals of current density and magnetic field, but nothing in the solution gives or constrains the magnitude of alpha, which can be as large or small as you like - what sort of physical solution is that?

3) Scott fails to impose appropriate boundary conditions in solving the partial differential equation, eqn 26. As a consequence the solution does not converge at infinity and the total current in the solution is infinite.

It is clear that Scott's model has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.

It also has nothing to do with Drake's model where there is no solution that looks anything like Scott's Bessel function solution (see Drake fig 2, where there is a flux rope imbedded in a uniform magnetic field). Finally, Scott's solution is steady state, whereas Drake's simulations are dynamic and driven by reconnection. The two things are completely different.

[Sol88]

Uphysical?

What term in the math is unphysicsl? Understand an unwarranted term, even arbitrary sign somewhere in his math but unphysicsl?

Are you able to clarify?

current density should be proportional to magnetic field strength everywhere

This is unphysical? It’s not maths but it’s just words, like a word salad.

Is that not how it works here on Earth? An electric current has a magnetic field proportional to the current?

Maybe you could design a massive great big space clamp metre

Fascinating. What would happen to the equation if the current density varied along the length of the current? Would the magnetic field not be proportional.

If the current density becomes to low Double layer formation can take place. Or plasma instabilities in general. Something like a kink in the jet maybe. Maybe a “shock”?

[Sol88]

Quote:

No boundary condition at any non-zero value of r is introduced. There will be, in all real currents in space, a natural limit, r = R, to the extent of the current density j(r).

Which bit in the math is confusing you. r?

The Parker solar probe has now flown thru a coupe of these now, you call the switchbacks.

Sure in real electric currents in space there is a boundary, a noisy lossy coaxial cable metaphor. Couple pages back now.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Is that not how it works here on Earth? An electric current has a magnetic field proportional to the current?

You are confused, as usual. The field produced by a current is proportional to that current, but the current density at any location is NOT usually proportional to the total magnetic field at location. If it were a requirement, we could never produce magnetic fields in a vacuum.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Better said as ELECTRIC CURRENT rearranging themselves!

Tell that to the authors of your own citation, as evidently they don't concur.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Which bit in the math is confusing you. r?

hecd2 isn't confused. He's saying Scotts didn't do something (impose a boundary condition) which he should have done, and the failure to do so disconnects the math from any physically relevant scenario.

Quote:

Sure in real electric currents in space there is a boundary

Quite so. Which is why Scotts leaving one out invalidates his results.

[Sol88]

So no electric currents in space then?

‘Cos the maths wrong?

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Uphysical?

What term in the math is unphysicsl? Understand an unwarranted term, even arbitrary sign somewhere in his math but unphysicsl?

Are you able to clarify?

Yes, it is not generally the case in solutions of Maxwell's equations that current density is proportional to magnetic field at every location throughout the field. In Scott's paper he offers no physical reason for imposing this assumption, therefore his assumption is unphysical.

Quote:

current density should be proportional to magnetic field strength everywhere

Quote:

This is unphysical? It’s not maths but it’s just words, like a word salad.

This is what eqn 14 of Scott's paper says. I can see that maths is a closed book to you. This is not a physical requirement - there is no physical reason to constrain the current density to be proportional to magnetic field at all points in the field. It is an arbitrary, unwarranted and unphysical assumption

Quote:

Is that not how it works here on Earth? An electric current has a magnetic field proportional to the current?

In general electric current density is not proportional to magnetic field throughout the field. This is trivially obvious by considering the fact that the magnetic field arising from a current carrying wire is non zero outside the wire whereas the current density outside the wire is zero.

Quote:

Fascinating. What would happen to the equation if the current density varied along the length of the current? Would the magnetic field not be proportional.

In Scott's model the current density and magnetic field are constant axially, (and are steady state) but vary as a function of radial position. Scott imposes an assumption that the current density is proportional to the field at all points throughout the field without offering a physical reason for this constraint. It is therefore unphysical, arbitrary and unwarranted.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Sol88

So no electric currents in space then?

‘Cos the maths wrong?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Sol88]

So what math are you going to use to describe electric currents in astrophysical plasma?

Treat plasma as gas(fluid) with a frozen in magnetic field?

If like to talk math as complete nonsense start there.

How far from the centre of the currrent to the boundary of said current? Mathamagicians?

See the data in a couple probes that have flow thru flux tubes.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Scott

No boundary condition at any non-zero value of r is introduced. There will be, in all real currents in space, a natural limit, r = R, to the extent of the current density j(r)

Originally Posted by Sol88

Which bit in the math is confusing you. r?

I'm not confused but you seem to be. That is Scott explictly pointing out that j should go to zero at some radial distance r less than infinity and then explicitly admitting that he failed to apply a Cauchy boundary condition. Maybe, if you disagree, you can point out exactly where, with equation numbers, Scott sets a boundary condition before attempting to solve equation 26. And then you can explain away the fact that in his solution total current fails to converge resulting in an infinite total current.

Then you can explain the physical meaning of alpha.