|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
7th March 2009, 05:49 PM | #1441 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
You're missing a couple of key point here Ben IMO. The particle's path, infinitesimal as it may be, is in fact a form of "current flow". It may be quite small compared to the rest of the larger line currents, but it is still a physical form of 'current flow' as well.
Quote:
Quote:
|
7th March 2009, 06:04 PM | #1442 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
We gave you, repeatedly, the exact mainstream definition of "reconnection"---the "thing" that reconnects is the topology of lines drawn along the magnetic field vector. These lines happen to be the same lines followed by adiabatic test particles which you like to call "circuits". Neither the lines nor the circuits are objects in space, like bits of string, but that has never prevented us from drawing them and using math to describe them. You have acknowledged that these lines are drawable and that their topology can change---that's reconnection, and that's all it ever was, and that's why we've been calling you mistaken when you say "reconnection doesn't occur".
Quote:
(b) If there's plasma around, some of this well-known magnetic field energy can be deposited in that plasma, just like it would in any other conductor. No surprise, no magic. The dynamics are much more complicated, raising the question "how much of this energy goes into the plasma". But there is no reason for that answer to be zero. Or perhaps you're still arguing that magnetic fields don't carry energy at all? That was a mistake; if you acknowledge it clearly, it'll prevent future confusion. |
7th March 2009, 07:23 PM | #1443 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
So what? The path is exactly the same when I "trace" it with a 100-coulomb test charge, a 1.6x10^-19-coulomb test charge, in the limit where the test charge goes to zero, a pair or particles whose charges (and hence current) sum to zero, or a perfectly neutral magnetometer. The current that *you* want to use to trace the path is not a "key point", it's a pedagogical tool that I only brought up because you keep ignoring the existence of magnetometers.
Quote:
Quote:
Physicists do use special cases to describe things, MM. "Induction" is anything where dB/dT = curl E is involved; this can happen in zillions of different geometries which get different names. Sometimes we call it self-induction, sometimes mutual induction, sometimes eddy currents, sometimes reactance, sometimes electromagnetic radiation, etc. Magnetic reconnection is just another such special case that gets its own name, but yes it's "ultimately" just an example of the same phenomenon. |
7th March 2009, 10:12 PM | #1444 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
Rather than spend forever posturing on this point, can you empirically demonstrate a "magnetic reconnection event" in the absence of any plasma or "current flow" in the chamber, yes or no? How is this event physically unique from:
A) particle reconnection at the level of particles rather than fields? B) induction? C) Circuit reconnection at the level of circuits? |
7th March 2009, 10:18 PM | #1445 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
From Cosmic Plasma, page 16.
Quote:
|
7th March 2009, 10:24 PM | #1446 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
|
The real question then becomes can you do this in a vacuum without electrons and protons, and if so, where is the paper so I can read about it? The topology can and would change as a result of a change in the "current flow". *If* you can demonstrate this topology change is possible without a flow of particles, then I'm all ears. If not, I'm rather skeptical that you can actually distinguish between small changes in current flow over time, versus some sort of "unique" process in plasma. An ordinary plasma ball can demonstrate a topology change in magnetic fields in plasma can be directly related to current flow changes in the plasma. How do you differentiate between ordinary current flow changes and "magnetic reconnection"?
|
8th March 2009, 12:32 AM | #1447 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
We gave you an example---a few posts ago, it involved two wires. We focused our attention on a point which we labelled (1,1) where there was, in fact, no current. There were magnetic fields at this location. We measured those fields. The fields changed---due, as it so happens, to varying currents far away.
Magnetic fields change. Magnetic fields change even at locations, like (1,1) in our example, where there are no local currents at all. Understand? Magnetic fields---indeed all vector fields---have many well-defined and measurable properties like "magnitude", "direction", "curl", "divergence", and "topology". Look in any Freshman vector calculus textbook for the definitions of these properties. When the fields change these quantities also change. If the change happens to be "the magnitude changes and nothing else does", we call it "an increase in field strength." Do you object? Is "increase in field strength" some sort of math fairy or whatever? If the field happens to change direction we call it a "rotation". Sorry if this sounds utterly impossible, but it's true! Scientists can get pretty abstract about this stuff! If the change happens to include a change in the topology we call it a "reconnection". Sorry, MM, you seem to be waiting for me to say "... and reconnection has these magic plasma properties and cause inflation and neutrinos". Sorry, MM, for the zillionth time: "reconnection" is just a change in the topology of a magnetic field. It happens all the time. All magnetic field changes are capable of effecting charge carriers---you seem now to be enthusiastic about induction, good! That's progress!---and reconnection, being just a magnetic field change, also has this property. I don't think Alfven ever intended to deny *that*, MM. I think he intended to deny that reconnection was (as other scientists argue) *particularly good* at a *certain kind* of particle acceleration. |
8th March 2009, 02:09 AM | #1448 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
The oscillation has been tested via controlled experimentation using the controlled neutrinos from nuclear reactors.
This includes "progress on establishing an actual oscillation observation from controlled experiments with a known and measured source". If you read the links you would kow this. We have observed fusion (remember hydrogen bombs?). Fusion always produces electron neutrinos. These are actually detected at the various neutrino observatories. The observation of oscillation resolves experimental obervation of 1/3 of the solar neutrinos predicted by theory. |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
8th March 2009, 07:21 AM | #1449 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
Sure makes sense, but this is not the sun and heliosphere.
Quote:
Quote:
That is what the solar wind is?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Okay, so now you are revising your earlier statement, I asked you the source of the solar wind, you said that electron were attracted to the heliosphere and that they dragged along the positive ions. You are now changing your stance and avoiding the specifics of what you stated earlier. So then we can still ask some questions that show you are full of hot air. Reference to the soot on the terella, really? that is just another bunny picture, it does not address the issue of the solar wind at all. I take this as an admission that your original statement was in error. You have changed topic and avoided the question. here is the deal Michael, You stated that the electron 'drag along the positive ions' but you are still avoiding what I asked because you don't want to answer! I asked for how given your negative sun and positive heliosphere you could get a solar wind that has both positive and negative charges. (Not even considering the neutral charges) So how does your model of the negative sun and positive heliosphere create a solar wind that has both negative and positive particles in it? I am asking a very simple direct question, I can get the original quotes to demonstrate your statements but I would prefer for you to present your ideas. So please to answer the questions: So how does your model of the negative sun and positive heliosphere create a solar wind that has both negative and positive particles in it? I would rather address your ideas with your involvement: Here are the issues I have with your original statements: 1. Current flows cause the solar wind. 2. Specifically you stated it was current flow from the negative sun to the positive heliosphere. This then raises the following question: A. How is a positive ion going to be part of this current flow to generate the positive ions in the solar wind ? to which you stated: 3. the electrons drag along the positive ions. So here we go MM, the particles in the solar wind are getting momentum from somewhere, you sated that the source of this momentum was a current flow. B. So electrons and negative ions acquire their momentum as they are drawn from the negative sun to the positive heliosphere: So what then keeps them moving, they have acquired momentum from moving towards a positive charge: B. I- so they then approach the positive heliosphere and pass through it? B. ii- is not the same force which attracted them to the sun to the heliosphere going to decrease their momentum as they pass through the heliosphere and move past it, and in fact is not the momentum imparted to them on their way to the heliosphere going to be counteracted as they move away from the heliosphere? B. iii- Thus drawing them back into the heliosphere? I am starting with just one set of the three particles in the solar wind, the negative ones. They still will get trapped in the heliosphere. So let us start here shall wee? Four specific questions about how your model provides for the negative particles in the solar wind. I hope to learn more as we go. |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
8th March 2009, 11:54 AM | #1450 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Did you even read what you quoted? Look at this: this is Alfven pointing out that a varying magnetic field may be considered as field lines reconnecting. This is what we have just given you 50 examples of, and this is what you have ignored or denied 50 times. Magnetic field can vary in a way which can be described (and is described, and which we described to you over and over) as field line reconnection. You've been arguing the exact opposite---that there's no such change at all, and no reasonable such description.
Alfven goes on to say that in a special case---and I think he's talking exclusively about self-magnetized plasmas---you do not find reconnection going on in practice. That has also not been your argument. That's actually, perhaps, an argument worth having, but I have no desire to have it with someone who thinks that Maxwell's equations themselves explicitly forbid reconnection, that magnetic field energy is just charge carrier kinetic energy, and that any use of vector field equation can be insulted as some sort of fiction. |
9th March 2009, 02:36 PM | #1451 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
We already went through all of this. Kamland (and other reactor experiments), Minos and K2K (and other accelerator experiments) have explicitly-controlled manmade neutrino sources; atmospheric neutrinos (SuperK, SNO, IMB, etc.) use a *local* natural source which we can measure both before and after it oscillates (see SNO's most recent paper).
SNO doesn't "assume" that solar neutrinos have electron, muon, or tau flavor; it sees the sum of all three. Did you read any of this? No, you just restated the fact that you "have doubts". |
9th March 2009, 10:58 PM | #1452 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
|
Yes. I think that you can have potential gradients and that may be the driving force. The heliospheric termination shock has a higher potential of electron attraction from what I can see. The gradient appears to be about 3.4 MeV... Or that could be the energy of the protons accelerated inward by the double layer.
"Voyager 1 Explores the Termination Shock Region and the Heliosheath Beyond" "Voyager 1 crossed the termination shock- The shock is a steady source of low-energy protons with an energy spectrum ~E–1.41 ± 0.15 from 0.5 to ~3.5 megaelectron volts, consistent with a weak termination shock having a solar wind velocity jump ratio . However, in contradiction to many predictions, the intensity of anomalous cosmic ray (ACR) helium did not peak at the shock, indicating that the ACR source is not in the shock region local to Voyager 1. The intensities of ~10–megaelectron volt electrons, ACRs, and galactic cosmic rays have steadily increased since late 2004 as the effects of solar modulation have decreased." http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../309/5743/2017 1100 eV (about 500 km/s solar wind speed) The solar wind speed is high (800 km/s) over coronal holes and low (300 km/s) over streamers "An estimation of the solar wind speed in the vicinity of the Sun is carried out using the initial speed and acceleration of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) that appeared close to the solar limb. A linear relationship was found between the initial acceleration and the speed of the limb CMEs. It appears that a dragging force is acting on the CMEs, depending on the speed difference between the CMEs and the ambient plasma. The ambient solar wind speed within 20 solar radii estimated from low-latitude CMEs during 1998–2003 ranged from 100 to 700 km s−1, while the solar wind speed measured at 1 AU ranged from 300 to 700 km s−1. The estimated solar wind speeds in the vicinity of the Sun sometimes agreed with the simultaneous in situ measurements at 1 AU, but in other periods they were slower than the speeds measured at 1 AU. It is suggested that most of the time the low-latitude solar wind completes accelerating within 20 solar radii, but occasionally additional acceleration is present beyond 20 solar radii." http://jpsj.ipap.jp/link?JPSJ/67/3991/
Quote:
In any case the acceleration of the solar wind has to do with potential gradients(electrical, not necessarily electrostatic); not flinging or impulsive blasts, i.e. mechanical. My personal conclusions of the operation of the sun are further out than most so I will refrain from reciting them. However I believe it is a combination of thermionic emission from the solar surface, double layer acceleration to about 20 SR and then a steady gradient, according to observations.
Quote:
Work has been busy. Havent had time to really follow up on this. |
9th March 2009, 11:14 PM | #1453 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
|
The thing that is actually reconnecting is the vector description of the magnetic field. The magnetic field is actually following the current flow. As the current flow reforms in a new configuration the magnetic field follows it and the vectors reconnect. The vector description tells you really nothing about what happened in between. You need to look at the flow of particles to tell you the cause. Yes, the magnetic field affects the particles in that it forces them into a tube like shape and causes them to gyrate and if it is a changing in time field, it will move them. It is the potential across(from end to end) the tube that causes the particles to move down the tube and the magnetic field made by the moving particles that constricts the tube. 2 of these tubes next to each other are the precursor to a reconnection. It is variations in this particle flow that cause this "reconnection". The flux transfer events etc.... |
10th March 2009, 05:10 AM | #1454 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
Hi Brantc, You have again totaly ignored the point, I have seen most of these articles before and they all suffer from the same problem in terms of explaining the electric sun and the production of the 'solar wind'. There are three kinds of partciles in the solar wind, and you are just ignoring the fact that a model that is driven by electric currents and charges is not going to produce a solar wind with all three states. So please address the issues of the solar wind, do not hide behind terms, the catode experiment is not applicable to the sun, you have not showns a cathode anode to exist in the solar system. the issue exists and you seem to be ignoring it: 1. A system that moves negative ions will move positive ions the opposite way.. 2. Any system that involves charge differentials will become neutral with time, unless continually recharged. 3. Even if there is a mechanism for moving negative ions it will draw them to a steady state in terms of position in that they will reach a point as in MM heliosphere that they pass and the same charge that drew them forward will draw them backwards. ‘I think that you can have potential gradients and that may be the driving force.” Yes you may but they will have an opposite effect on opposite charges. And if the heliosphere has a higher electron attraction it will have a higher repelling of positive ions. The solar wind has both. ‘In any case the acceleration of the solar wind has to do with potential gradients(electrical, not necessarily electrostatic); not flinging or impulsive blasts, i.e. mechanical.’ And again it is a wind of all three states of charge. You keep ignoring that, it will act opposite on opposite charges, yet the solar wind has positive and negative ions. Now please don’t start hiding behind ambi-plasma. |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
10th March 2009, 03:37 PM | #1455 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Yes. Can you explain to MM that this is what "magnetic reconnection" means?
Quote:
This sounds like you're making a mistake that MM also makes. The magnetic field is a consequence of the current flow [i]but they're not the same thing.[/b] A current way in front of me, flowing to my left, will generate a magnetic field at my location ... pointing up. A current going in a straight line makes a magnetic field, nearby, going around in circles. And current configurations which move around gently but smoothly can generate, elsewhere, magnetic field configurations which discontinuously change topology. The explicit example I gave, with the two wires, involved no topology changes in the current sources, but gave a topology change in the magnetic field. Under some circumstances, if you generate a magnetic field (using some source current) and then release some charged particles within it, the particles will follow trajectories which happen to be the same as the field lines. You and MM seem to think that these particles are the most important thing going on in the system. You seem to think:
|
10th March 2009, 05:51 PM | #1456 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Solar Corona Redux
Slightly modifying Mozina's quote to reference the ADS page for the paper ...
OK, I have read it. Other than the fact that the paper you reference talks about currents, I see no connection at all between it and what you have asked here. Furthermore, I have already given you an explicit answer to the question, which answer is not at all modified by the paper. I don't like to repeat myself, as it seems I should not have to, but I will now, and perhaps inject a bit more detail. The paper you reference, Battaglia & Benz, refers to RHESSI observations of broadband gamma rays. The gamma rays you reference in your CNO paper are all narrow line emission features. In both cases, Sun & Earth, the broadband gamma rays are certainly due to accelerated electrons, and most likely related to electrical currents & electrical discharges. The narrow line are due to well known emission mechanisms such as: neutron capture, positron annihilation and nuclear relaxation. I have never held any opinion other than what I have said here, since becoming a physicist many years ago, and I can think of nothing to change my mind that appears in the Battaglia & Benz paper. But I suspect you never realized that I would accept electrical currents as the source for broadband gamma rays, simply because you never realized that electric fields & electric currents flowing in the solar (and generally stellar) photosphere & corona & etc. are very much mainstream, standard solar (and stellar) model features. Indeed, how can one imagine a stellar atmosphere that does not have electric currents flowing in it? That has never been in dispute, at least not by me. And now ... I don't think so. Just because there is an electric current does not mean that there is a "discharge" in the sense of the usual electric sun activity. Consider, for instance, this from Battaglia & Benz: You can't "discharge" if you don't "charge" in the first place, and as Battaglia & Benz rather explicitly point out, their scenario "prevents charge build-up", which means there is no "charge" which means there can't be a "discharge". As for where the beam (or current) that induces the return current comes from, Battaglia & Benz say only "We assume that the electrons are accelerated in the coronal source region", without specifying how they get accelerated. The particle temperature is high because the particles get accelerated to high velocities (which is after all, the definition of particle temperature). So it's the acceleration that causes both the initial current and the high temperature, rather than the current being the cause of the high temperature. Now, Battaglia & Benz do say: Clearly the word "considerable" is open to considerable interpretation. Do we need the Ohmic heating to account for the neutron capture signature? Maybe, maybe not. There is no mention of narrow line observations at the same time, so we don't know how the broadband & narrow line emission correlate for the study events. But we do know that the Battaglia & Benz return current scenario worked for only 2 out of 5 observed events, because they said so (preprint, page 8, ... "Both cases (out of five) ... ") I think you seriously exaggerate the value of "discharge" in understanding stars & the sun. As I see it, the standard physics tells us that the magnetic field comes first, and the significant electric fields are all induced by the variable magnetic fields (there are insignificant electric fields generated by other mechanical means of charge separation). But electric sun/star physics tells us that the electric field comes first, and the significant magnetic fields are induced by the variable electric fields. To me, the former makes obvious good sense, while the later seems absurd. There are only two basic mechanisms I can think of which result in an electric field: (1) separation of opposite signed charges, and (2) induction by a variable magnetic field (Faraday's Law). If I am overlooking something, by all means let me know. Now, since we are asking where the electric field comes from in the first place, it's cheating to say that charges are separated by an electric field. There are ways to separate charges by purely mechanical means, since electrons are significantly less massive than protons. So, for instance, in a stellar interior, one would expect a charge imbalance to occur as heavier protons tend to settle in the gravitational potential of the star. Eddington knew this back in 1926, and even calculated the magnitude of the charge imbalance: "This corresponds to a deficiency of one electron in every million tons of matter" (The Internal Constitution of the Stars, page 273). This is clearly insufficient to be the energy driver of a star, and modern calculations have not significantly altered Eddington's conclusion that the electric force is "absurdly weak". So, electric fields & electric currents in & around the sun are very mainstream concepts, well represented in the literature. Amazingly, even in the mainstream models, we expect the sun & stars to carry relatively small, net positive charges (i.e., Neslusan, 2001), because protons are heavier than electrons and so electrons escape the sun more easily. It's all about which field is the primary driver. Is it the electric field or is it the magnetic field? There is no physical justification for the electric star model with electric fields being primary, whereas the standard model with magnetic fields being primary is very well supported by extensive physics. As for the source of the Sun's heat, "acceleration" of the solar wind & corona is in the sense of "speeding up". But Ohmic heating is energy lost by slowing down. We don't create a fast solar wind and super hot corona by making the particles slow down. So I think we need a better source of energy. |
10th March 2009, 07:18 PM | #1457 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
Thanks TT.
Wow. |
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
11th March 2009, 08:51 PM | #1458 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
|
No, that is incorrect.
Magnetic fields are induced by the movement of charges in a electric field gradient. Like the one across a (neutral matter)wire flowing current. Unless your saying that magnetic fields come from some other cause besides moving changes, like rotating quarks..... And that all plasma is neutral across all distances... Go back to the beginning of your universe. Where did the first magnetic field come from? How do you generate an EM field or just a magnetic field(besides a bar magnet which is not internally variable). What does basic electronics and electricity say about the generation of magnetic fields? The strongest magnets on earth are electromagnets... In the analysis of a circuit, the magnetic field(Ammeter mostly) is used to tell you what about the circuit? Do magnetic fields stay frozen into a resistive(not super conducting) plasma over long time scales? Are fluid metal dynamos(earth, sun, the blackhole SgR*A?) the only source of magnetic fields that run the whole universe???? They still rely on eddy currents(moving charges), or conduction band transfers I think you called it....... |
11th March 2009, 09:11 PM | #1459 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
Magnetic fields are induced by electric current or by a changing electric field. Current is not always caused by an electric field; mechanical forces (as in convection-driven dynamos, or Van de Graff generators), kinetic effects, and other non-Ohmic currents can and do occur. (It's never caused by a "field gradient"---you meant "potential gradient"). Anyway, electric current is not the same thing as "movement of charges", since you can have moving charges and no current.
You can take a plasma with no magnetic field in it---you can impose a magnetic field on it from outside. The plasma will respond, but it's perfectly fair in these cases to say that "the magnetic field comes first". |
12th March 2009, 07:24 PM | #1460 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Magnetic fields
Well, to start with, "gradient" implies an electric field that is variable as a function of location. But of course an electric field that is constant will provide the EMF for an electric current, so you use the word "gradient" improperly here.
Indeed, if you have an electric current, then you will get a magnetic field, wrapped around the current in a solenoidal shape (Amperes Law). However, if you are trying to tell me that's the only way to get magnetic fields, then I will respond that you are quite wrong. The motion of a charge neutral plasma, in the total absence of any electric field, will generate a magnetic field. That's the whole point of saying that the magnetic field "comes first". If you have a plasma, but no global electric field, then the motion of that plasma will generate a global magnetic field (of course there are microscopic electric fields, in close proximity to the individual electrically charged particles). We know that happens. The laws of physics demand it, and observation confirms it. Of course not all plasma is neutral. But most astrophysical plasma is in fact charge neutral over macroscopic distance scales. Nobody knows for sure, but most likely it was generated in the quark plasma of the infant universe (i.e., Díaz-Gil, et al., 2008; de Souza & Opher, 2008; Kunze, 2008; Díaz-Gil, et al., 2007, and etc.) That depends on what "long time scales" mean. The mobility of the magnetic field depends on the conductivity of the plasma. The field is literally "frozen in" to the plasma only in the ideal case of zero resistivity, but of course that is not physically interesting except as an approximation. The real question you should be asking is whether or not the time scale for diffusion of the field through the plasma is long compared to the time scale of whatever physical phenomenon you are interested in. If the physical phenomenon is faster than the diffusion time scale, then the field is "frozen in" to the plasma for that case. If the the physical phenomenon is slower than the diffusion time scale, then the field is not "frozen in" to the plasma. The "freezing" of a magnetic field in a plasma is not an all or nothing affair, like on & off, frozen or not frozen. Rather, the freezing is only an approximation, and depends entirely on the time scale of interest for any give case. The same field in the same plasma might be "frozen" for one purpose, but "not frozen" for another purpose. This is all standard plasma physics, explained in any textbook on the subject. Dynamos, probably yes they are, although most are of course not fluid metal dynamos. Nobody ever said that magnetic fields are independent of charged particles. What we do say is that the classical electric currents, as in pure streams of electrons (or protons or other charged particles), are not the only way to generate magnetic fields, and that indeed most of the magnetic fields in the cosmos are not generated by such currents. |
13th March 2009, 09:52 PM | #1461 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
|
You are right. I should have said potential gradient.
Quote:
Quote:
A plasma is charges(ions, electrons, neutrals) whether or not it is globally neutral. If the charges were locked up in a neutral atom than I would not expect a magnetic field from its motion...... But then it wouldnt be a plasma!!!!
Quote:
Quote:
A dynamo is either liquid metal(moving charges) or plasma(moving charges). Its just that a stream of charged particles makes a magnetic field large enough to detect across cosmological distances...... |
13th March 2009, 10:35 PM | #1462 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
|
Neutrals. I would definitely expect recombination almost instantly. It is a problem to accelerate neutrals by any method other than mechanical. If they have already be accelerated then they should pretty constant in speed past 20 SR.
I understand that there may be some "outside" ideas involved but I dont want to invoke anything like that..... An arc is a very good ion carrier and is composed of an electron current....
Quote:
Any body immersed in a plasma develops a sheath. That sheath also develops a current flow around it.(Heliospheric current flows). One part could be termed the cathode and one the anode... The Cassini Langmuir probe. http://www.space.irfu.se/cassini/
Quote:
Quote:
In my own personal view I dont think that idea is complete. I dont understand what maintains the 4 million volt differential that is the cause of lightning. Is it because of a flux tube flowing power from the sun? I'm not 100% convinced that this is the cause but it may be. My interpretation may involve the idea spheres that would be resonant with the aether which manifests as charge separation on a sphere... Some Tesla thrown in for good measure....
Quote:
Quote:
|
14th March 2009, 09:29 PM | #1463 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Magnetic fields redux
Has anyone ever disputed that moving electrical charges are responsible for magnetic fields? I can't think of anyone off hand, so what is your point for emphasizing something that literally everyone already agrees with?
And so too does a charge neutral plasma. And since that is a lot easier to explain physically, it is the most widely accepted explanation. But I dare say there are bound to be streams of like charged particles (i.e., something like classical electric currents) flowing around in the cosmos (i.e, Sofue, Kigure & Shibata, 2005; Dolginov & Toptygin, 2004; Dolginov & Toptygin, 2003 & etc.). My point here is that mainstream models in astrophysics and cosmology do not ignore electric currents, as some might think or suggest. But one must realize that any old wild guess is usually not good enough to publish. One does need to have some reasonable physical arguments to make an idea at least acceptable enough for consideration. See The Feynman Lectures on Physics, volume II, chapter 9 (Electricity in the Atmosphere), section 9-5 (The mechanism of charge separation). The general idea is that a water droplet falling through the natural potential of the Earth, about 100 volts/meter, will pick up an induced dipole moment that causes the bottom of the droplet to be positive, while the top is negative. This results in the falling droplet/drop repelling positive ions while attracting negative ions, and thus transporting negative charge downwards in the cloud. As Feynman points out, there are problems with this idea, but it will produce charged regions in a cloud that match those observed, and it can be augmented by other mechanisms. But the idea is supported by the observation that the initial electrification of thunderstorms is correlated with precipitation (i.e., Stolzenburg, et al., 2003). But of course thunderstorms are also part of the global electric circuit (i.e., Rycroft, et al., 2007). Harrison, 2004 gives a good overview of the global electric circuit, and Aplin, 2006 discusses the electrification of atmospheres in general. The idea described by Feynman was originally developed by C.T.R. Wilson, probably by or about 1920, but was evidently not fully published until 1956. Feynman's book is the only general physics text book I have ever seen with a discussion of atmospheric electricity. Now, let me ask you ... Do you accept the mainstream model of nuclear fusion as the primary power source for the sun, or do you think it is electromagnetic instead? And so, in general, do you accept mainstream stellar physics, or the "electric star" model? In cosmology, do you think that plasma processes dominate over large spatial scales, or do you accept that gravity is the dominant force in cosmology (not the only one of course, just the dominant one)? |
16th March 2009, 08:35 PM | #1464 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
|
Do I agree with the idea that the sun started out as a cloud of less than 3000C molecular gas(not plasma, too hot) and collapsed upon itself to ignite this perfectly radiatively/gravity balanced sphere of decreasing density plasma that has an acoustical signature that is more suited to a bounded solid shell sphere? Oh, and that is too cold for real fusion, has to be tunneling fusion....
No....I grew up with that model and as far as I'm concerned has been falsified or least has insurmountable problems.. And I do not understand why the electric model was thrown out except for the fascination with nuclear energy at the time!!! Electric fields/currents offer a far more compelling long term energy source. Most plasma phenomena can be recreated in the lab. There is no doubt that Birkeland currents exist a cosmic scale. The only issue is of first origin. (Big Bang vs Steady State Plasma). I think the evidence points to some sort of redshift(distance) that is due to long distance in plasma(electric fields?) in addition to other types of intrinsic redshifts. What if we were in a multi billion light year plasma filament??
Quote:
The mass flowing of galaxies(as well as the preferred cosmic axis orientation) is an indication the we may be embedded in a billion light year across plasma filament. Would that filament be capable of forming a z-pinch? Which would be stronger at that time, gravity or electricity? I'm more of a steady state guy myself and think that the universe has been here for trillions of years but that doesnt stop one from wondering: Would that be a big bang?????? Would everything be going away from that universe sized reconnection??? |
17th March 2009, 03:11 AM | #1465 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Perhaps you would give us a list of how the fusion model of the sun has been falsified or at least the list of insurmountable problems.
I would also be interested in how the electric model produces the observed flux of solar neutrinos. Do you mean external or internal "electric fields/currents" powering the Sun? Can you give us the citations to journal papers for the existence of cosmic scale Birkeland currents? How does a "multi billion light year plasma filament" produce the observed redshift? That is exactly what astronomers and cosmologists state, i.e. in some situations, e.g. the high energy environment surrounding a super massive black hole, electromagnetism can dominate gravity over small scales (in cosmological terms this means less the millions of light years). The universe is of course not one of those high energy environment. A z-pinch would not be a big bang: no CMB, no Lyman-alpha forest, no nucleosynthesis, probably no decrease in galactic metallicity with distance, probably a non-symmetrical distribution of galactic velocities across the sky (unless you have a perfectly spherical z-pinch somehow). A little point: a steady state guy should not say "trillions of years" since that implies an origin for the universe. What you mean is an infinite amount of time. The Errors in the Steady State and Quasi-SS Models oddly does not ask the obvious questions: Where are the infinitely old (or even > 14 billion year old) objects? Where are the infinitely massive objects or even those with the mass of a galactic cluster? |
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
17th March 2009, 04:35 AM | #1466 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
So now you don't like QM, the issue is that there is no sort of fusion without QM effects.
Why? Because of something from electrodynamics called the 'Coulomb' effect I belive. Maybe you should read about it sometiem, as it is part of electrical charge phenomena. You are being very silly. No matter how 'hot' or 'pressurised' you make your marterial you are not going to get fusion with protons unless you have QM, do you not get that? The hotter and the more pressurised the material, the more repulsion there will be between the protons. Gosh, that is an electrical charge effect, I am really shocked Brantc.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
17th March 2009, 05:12 AM | #1467 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
|
Why not name one. If we can show you it is neither insurmountable nor a problem, will you admit you are wrong?
Quote:
Quote:
There is not even an idea - let alone evidence - for plasma causing uniform redshift and unscattered light of the type we observe. If that were possible, it would be extremely important in astrophysics (because it would be degenerate with cosmological redshift). People spend a huge amount of time studying cosmic dust - not the most sexy of of topics - precisely because it attenuates light and affects redshift-distance relations. If plasma could cause redshift like that it would be hugely important - but it very obviously cannot, as you would know if you understood anything about EM and plasma.
Quote:
|
17th March 2009, 06:51 AM | #1468 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
Wuh? You think QM tunneling is imaginary? Of course its too cold for fusion without tunneling. Could you estimate the temperature required without tunneling? Do you know why its a very good thing the Sun isn't that hot?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
17th March 2009, 08:06 AM | #1469 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
Uh, no they don't. I've been over the numbers before. First off, currents are not an energy source. Secondly, given the energy densities of electric fields, and the charges needed to produce them, how on earth can you conclude that electricity can provide the necessary energy? It cannot, not by MANY orders of magnitude. I've done the calculations. Try it yourself. See how much charge you'd need to put on the sun to provide enough energy. You'll find that with that much charge, the sun would explode almost instantly.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
17th March 2009, 10:05 AM | #1470 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Plasma Cosmology & Star Formation
I trust you meant "too cold"?
This is a thoroughly false statement based on a naive misinterpretation of helioseismic observations that imply the presence of a boundary layer under the photosphere, as reported in Lefebvre & Kosovichev, 2005. On one of his iron sun webpages, Mozina interprets this as revealing "a layer of electrical activity", although he seems to be quite alone in this interpretation. Others have interpreted it as a solid surface, as you do here, even though one need only read the abstract to see that the surface moves radially in anti-phase with the solar cycle. But the only physically reasonable interpretation is that the observations reveal a boundary between layers of differing density, similar to the layers that we see in our own atmosphere & oceans. So in this case you are dead wrong. This is a "nothing" criticism. Fusion does not happen until the temperature is high enough. And I submit that you do not have the foggiest notion what you are talking about. You have no idea what the model you grew up with actually says about star formation, even if you think you do. They say that a "little knowledge is a dangerous thing", and that's especially true if you don't know that "little knowledge" is what you have. So let us rectify this problem. I suggest a course of reading & study, whereby you can learn the real physics of the real models of star formation. Of course, like all real theories & models, we do not know literally everything there is to know about it all. Most of the basic underlying physics is now well understood, and that is a good place to start. So for that I recommend the book The Formation of stars by Steven W. Stahler & Francesco Palla, Wiley-VCH 2004; with 822 pages of text, plus indices, this is a thorough treatment of the fundamentals as we currently understand it. But of course, there is a considerable body of active research at the frontiers of knowledge of star formation as well. So for that I recommend a recent trio of papers, published together, and the references thereto, as a good, representative picture of current research into the physics of star formation:
Because it makes no physical sense. One does not simply invent ideas and run with them. It is not enough for an idea to be applicable to a given phenomenon. The idea must also be consistent with the entire body of known physics, from one end to the other. This is one of the fascinations of astrophysics for me, the fact that it involves literally every branch of physics in the formation & solution of fundamental problems. No one can, no one ever has, and no one ever will devise a physically valid electric model, either for the formation of stars, or their continued existence. All we ever see is hand-waving, guesses, dreams, and vague notions that hardly even qualify as "ideas". Contrast that with the well developed and consistent physics in the sources I listed above, along with many more on the active physics of stars beyond their formation. There is simply no contest, the "electric" models don't just lose every time, they are routed & destroyed every time. They don't even qualify as physics in a rudimentary sense, they are that bad. Actually, quite the opposite, they are uncompelling for one simple reason: they are not energy sources, they are energy sinks. You don't get energy out of an electric current until after you put energy into it, an inconvenient fact consistently ignored by every "electric" theory of stars & cosmology. There are two and only two ways to get a macroscopic electric field. Either you generate a magnetic field in a charge neutral plasma, and get the electric field from Faraday's Law, or you pull the electric charges apart by purely mechanical means Van de Graaf generators do this), thus creating an electric field between the concentrations of opposite charge. That's is, as far as I know. The mainstream models of astrophysics and cosmology are based on the physically reasonable assumption that most (but not all) of the electric fields we observe in astrophysical & cosmological settings are generated by the former process based on Faraday's Law. The electric models are all based on the physically unreasonable assumption that there are classical electric currents, streams of like charged particles, flowing literally everywhere, powering literally everything, without ever once even considering how those currents got there in the first place. Electric fields & currents are not at all reasonable long term energy sources, they are only excuses for not discussing the real long term energy sources that put them there in the first place. These are points that Mozina makes as well. The former is not as important as you think, and the latter is an assertion with little foundation either way. The fact that most plasma phenomena can be recreated in a laboratory is certainly not irrelevant, but there is a catch that plasma cosmologists & "electric" theorists overlook. The experiments in question should recreate the physical conditions found in the astrophysical environments. But what we see is some simplistic experiment "scaled up" to astrophysical dimensions, while ignoring the fact that it is not just the dimensions that are involved, but the physical environment as well. if you want to be definitive, you can't "scale up" an experiment on an non-magnetized plasma and expect it to accurately model the behavior of a magnetized plasma, but that's what they do. It is a rare case, if it ever happens at all, that plasma cosmologists or "electric" theorists actually make use of laboratory plasma physics experiments that are applicable to astrophysical environments. And as for cosmological Birkeland currents: Maybe, maybe not. Where is the evidence? What observations are more reasonably physically interpreted as "Birkeland currents" (which by definition flow only in Earth's magnetosphere, a purely semantic point) as opposed to simple, or not so simple, plasma? How do you tell the difference? There are more choices. You assume, for instance, "steady state plasma", but what about steady state non-plasma cosmologies, such as the Hoyle & Narlikar brainchild of Quasi Steady State Cosmology? You might want to consider reviewing this: Standard Cosmology and Alternatives: A Critical Appraisal; Narlikar & Padmanabhan, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 39(1): 211-248, September 2001. You will find that the "electric" model appears nowhere in their paper. Even amongst "alternative" cosmologists, the "electric universe" models are recognized as inferior products. You think? And what of we were? If that's what you think, then get serious about it and make the idea quantitative. What are the physical mechanisms whereby an electric field or a plasma will always give is redshifts that are directly related to the distance? Others have tried, but without success, to create just such models. Maybe you are the one who will come up withh the big break through. Yes you would, and curiously we "mainstream" folks do exactly that, and have done exactly that, for as long as we have been doing this astrophysics and cosmology stuff. Yes, we all know that as well. Clearly the solar wind defies gravity by not falling back into the sun. But neither this, nor the points above, constitute observational evidence, which can be reasonably interpreted in the context of physics, that this is in fact what is happening, on large astrophysical & cosmological scales, that electromagnetic forces dominate the shape of galaxies, for instance. So what? Does the plasma control the galaxies or do the galaxies control the plasma? Nobody disputes the obvious conclusion that we have plasma underfoot almost everywhere we go in astrophysics and cosmology. You seem to be under the delusion that the presence of plasma is prima-facie evidence that the plasma dominates. But "who's in charge around here" is the real physical question. Just because there is plasma laying around does not automatically make it the Boss of the Universe (that job is already taken). Why don't you figure that out? Why don't you figure that out too? It seems physically unlikely to me. Z-pinches happen in terrestrial laboratory experiments because we know how to make them happen and we force them to happen. Electrical currents flowing in wires are strongly constrained to the geometry of the wires (i.e., The Z-machine). But that is not the case for plasma flowing unconstrained in 3-dimensional space. You can confine the plasma and get flux tubes & pinches in dense environments, but only on cosmologically small scales. On cosmologically significant scales, how do you get the pinch to pinch down hard enough to get small enough (or build enough energy) to push galaxies around? You know, there are anti-pinch forces at work in plasmas too, it's not all pro-pinch. How do you handle radiative transfer, and radiation pressure opposing the pinch in a hot environment (I mean really hot, not just "sun" hot)? How do you generate the kind of electrical current required to "pinch" in the first place, over spatial scales that large? No doubt there are many other problems to overcome as well, but that will do for now. On discussion boards like this we bandy about loose notions, crazy ideas, and sane ideas as well. But we are talking about serious science, and in that case, bandying crazy ideas about only works for a while. Sooner or later, every serious scientists is required by circumstance, and other serious scientists as well, to "put up or shut up". That's we we have the infamous peer reviewed journals, where we hang our ideas out for criticism, once they meet some minimal standard for being criticized. Many "alternative cosmologists" never make it that far, and cry foul, that they are being censored or suppressed. But the reality is that their "ideas", to use the word charitably, are simply not good enough to waste time on. The "electric star" and "electric universe" ideas are just that bad, and not worth any serious time or effort. That's why they live on discussion boards and self-published webpages, and simply die everywhere else. As for plasma cosmology, it had its day. Back in the 50's & 60's, and even into the 80's, Alfven argued his case. He lost because his case was not good enough, it's just that simple. So have other steady state ideas fallen by the wayside. Hoyle & Narlikar, Arp & Burbidge, and Alfven have all been serious players in serious discussions, unlike the un-serious "electric" notions. But they lost in the end because Big Bang (as Hoyle named it) cosmology is simply the better idea. It may not always be the better idea, but it is for now. All you have to do to win the argument of ideas is to have a better idea. |
20th March 2009, 06:53 PM | #1471 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
|
Holy moly!!!!!
Dont all pounce at once now!!! But I knew as soon as I gave my 'misinformed' opinion the gloves would come out. Thats why I was sticking to one point previously. Charges and magnetic fields, cause and effect. That is the basis for any PU or EU idea. And was there a current flow in a flux tube. And is electrical current flow the cause of the flux tubes shape. So sorry to disappoint you, but there is no possible way that I could answer those questions in a manner any of you would ever find acceptable. Thats pretty obvious. I know this and you know this, and my skills know this. I will answer the ones I feel I might have even a little bit of a chance of not looking like a total as*... That at this point does not change my opinion. I have read alot on cosmology, and what you are saying that anybody that does not support that Big Bang is wrong. However that also means that you are saying that everybody that argues against that big bang has made a mistake in their interpretation of the observations. I have a hard time believing that every one of those people are wrong. And I seriously doubt that learning the equations better is going to help me make up my mind. I will read some of the material that you have asked me to read. Brant |
20th March 2009, 07:22 PM | #1472 |
Muse
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
|
Here is the abstract from the first paper on your list.
Quote:
From the paper.
Quote:
Ok. If I was a rabid EUer I would say "See there is proof of the Electrical Universe. Filaments carry electrical current from point a to point b." But I'm not. I would say "Look there are filaments in that cloud. There are observations to support that. I even have a reference."
So now I am saying that- and here is my "claim", the reason that they are filaments is due to electricity not gravity. By default they would have to be carrying an electrical current and exhibiting the "Pinch" effect. This has nothing to do with the power source that is driving the current(transferring energy). I dont even care about that right now. Its not important to establishing the reason for the shape of the plasma filaments. |
21st March 2009, 01:56 AM | #1473 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
|
Hi brantc
You missed the questions that I asked before so here they are for the second time:
Quote:
|
__________________
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) Electric comets still do not exist! |
|
21st March 2009, 04:15 AM | #1474 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
I'm not sure who you're particularly reffering to with "you" but I don't think anyone has said the above, not in any explicit sense. I think the general view of most posters on this thread is that anyone who rejects the Big Bang in favour of EU/PC which is both internally inconsistent and incapable of explaining cosmological observations is practicing woo.
Quote:
Quote:
|
22nd March 2009, 10:29 AM | #1475 |
Muse
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
|
Filamentary Collapse.
Well, I guess that's the end of that. The very heart of prejudice; heaven forbid that you actually try to learn anything about the topic, lest knowledge interfere with your philosophical comfort zone.
And you would be wrong. The reality is that the formation of filaments is a complicated affair that involves thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, plasma physics, magnetic fields, and more. You would simply ignore everything except plasma physics, and you would therefore guarantee that you are wrong. So, we see for instance An Origin of Filamentary Structure in Molecular Clouds; Nagai, Inutsuka & Miyama; The Astrophysical Journal, 506(1): 306-322, October 1998. Here the authors demonstrate how gravitational collapse will form filamentary structures, given an initially spherical cloud. There is a lot of physics involved; angular momentum, thermodynamics, gravitation, magnetic fields and more. But the primary driver of collapse is gravity, not a "pinch", which would probably not be effective at such large scales anyway. But of course this will not change your mind, since it's all "equations", and you don't see any need to bother with such trivialities. But it is important to establish the ultimate source for the energy that drives the process. The mainstream clearly identifies gravity as the ultimate energy source. Furthermore, we can see when we examine the details that gravity, operating as we know it does, in the context of physics as we know it, will in fact produce detailed structures the are consistent with what we actually see when we look at the universe. You, on the other hand, cannot identify an energy source, and cannot demonstrate even qualitatively that the physical processes you allege could in fact produce structures similar to those we see in the real universe. That makes your idea inferior. And finally ... Why, because there are a lot of them? But there are a lot more who do accept big bang cosmology, so if you are impressed by mere numbers, why not go with the mainstream? Or perhaps it's because all the alternative types are really smart? But there are even more really smart people in the mainstream, so if that's what impresses you, why not go with the mainstream? Or maybe it's as simple as them saying what you want to hear, so naturally they must be right? All of the arguments I have ever seen in opposition to mainstream "big bang" cosmology are inferior to the counter arguments. I don't say that all of the alternative ideas are stupid; quite the contrary, many are quite clever. And I don't think that all of the alternative thinkers are stupid either; quite the contrary, many are quite intelligent. I simply say they are all "wrong" in the sense of presenting ideas inferior to their competition. But, of course, all of the serious contenders have learned a thing or two about those pesky equations. |
23rd March 2009, 03:26 PM | #1476 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
Quote:
Does the movement of plasma constitute an ELECTRIC current and it's attendant magnetic counterpart, Tim? Do the experiments conducted in the lab on Earth have any bearing on the 99% of the Universe that is Plasma? i.e. z-pinch, double layers, field aligned current (aka Birkeland currents), long range attractiveness short range repulsive forces and filamentation among others, Tim Even a second year high school student could identify an energy source for Plasma universe!
Quote:
The BB theory was "made up" before we got into space, now we have and with what we've discovered it should be given the credit it deserves and put to rest, it just does not work and no matter what you add to it to try and make it work it will not! it so passe and 19th century The new Plasma cosmology is on the money!!! Perhaps we could pick up were we left off, with no threat of being banned like some other no name forum, for stepping outside the box? Perhaps your other mates might like to step in now we are on an even playing field? Tusenfem, Neried, Antioseb and so forth?? I'd love a debate again without you being able to push the panic button! |
23rd March 2009, 03:45 PM | #1477 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
|
|
23rd March 2009, 03:51 PM | #1478 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
|
Not very large scales, no.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law |
|
23rd March 2009, 04:49 PM | #1479 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
|
No, everything we know about E&M tells us that large objects in a plasma do not spontaneously charge up; if you were to charge them up "by hand" or by magic, everything we know about E&M tells us they would discharge, releasing the electrostatic potential energy that you put there and no more, and they would not sustain the discharge current nor would they charge up again.
Unless you know something about E&M that no one else does, this idea is dead.
Quote:
Quote:
|
23rd March 2009, 05:04 PM | #1480 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
|
Ok, Tubbythin first, unfortunatly you will have to wait for my fifteen post to come up before any links can be posted as per forum rules!
Quote:
Halton C. Arp
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, with my bolding all I see is assumption built on assumption and then the standard model runs into a few problems, well I just ask why are you so sold on a model based entirely on assumptions? In the EU/PC model most of those problems are not even there, if the redshift assumptions is wrong then there is no Hubble relationship problem, it is something the mathematicians have caused themselves bit silly eh? So imho that's a problem for big bangers to work out, good luck and let us know how you go! |
Thread Tools | |
|
|