IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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.
Reply
Old 7th March 2009, 05:49 PM   #1441
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
I think MM has two things mixed up.

1) I established two line currents---which I'm happy to call a "circuit"---and these currents created magnetic fields. The fields allow you to draw field lines, like any vector field does. Those field lines are "there" (i.e. draw-able) whether or not there's any additional charge or current in the area.

2) MM is happy to do the exact equivalent of drawing field lines as long as he does it by following a test particle rather than by vector tracing. However, once he's put a test-particle in there he starts thinking that this particle's current somehow causes the magnetic field---which is wrong, this field comes from the large line currents we defined earlier, and the test particle is infinitesimal. And he insists on calling this particle's path a "circuit" rather than a "field line" because Alfven told him never to mention field lines---but they're really exactly the same thing.
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:
3) He's also somehow come back to discussing the kinetic energy of the particles.
I'm just noting that the whole thing is kinetic in nature, even if they are small kinetic interaction, or even induction oriented processes.

Quote:
Don't get confused, MM, we're discussing a system with a large magnetostatic potential energy and an unspecified (but generally extremely small) kinetic energy. Please also note that there's no plasma in this problem yet---just two wires and a guy waving a magnetometer---so the relevant physics comes from Maxwell et. al. and long, long predates Mr. Alfven.
Are you attempting to suggest that MR will occur in a pure vacuum? This seems like a rather critical statement. If that is so then you should be able to physically demonstrate it as being a unique form of energy transfer as separate from "particle reconnection" or "circuit reconnection". If not, then how do you know it is a "unique" form of energy exchange, and not something more mundane like ordinary "induction"?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2009, 06:04 PM   #1442
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
What "literally" (physically) reconnects? Carrier particles as in induction, or ions and electrons as in "current flow"? Neither type of "reconnection" would be a form of "magnetic reconnection". Induction already has a proper name and it generates 'current flow'.
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:
Let me ask you a simple question, can "magnetic reconnection" occur and release energy in a pure vacuum, devoid of all ions and electrons?
(a) Any change in a magnetic field can change the energy of that field; compute the integral of B^2 to see this. So, yes, changing magnetic fields generally change this potential energy---if there's no plasma around, open up your Freshman physics textbook to the chapters on (a) induction and (b) Lorentz forces (c) the relationship between force and work and (d) electric motors, where you will find bog-standard examples of magnetic energy being dumped into other forms of energy. Seriously, MM, this is extremely basic E&M. Once again, don't get the B^2 magnetic field energy confused with kinetic energy--it's different.

(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.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2009, 07:23 PM   #1443
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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.
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:
I'm just noting that the whole thing is kinetic in nature, even if they are small kinetic interaction, or even induction oriented processes.
You are still wrong on this point. I don't know how many years back in your education you will have to go to unlearn this mistake, but please do it.

Quote:
Are you attempting to suggest that MR will occur in a pure vacuum? This seems like a rather critical statement. If that is so then you should be able to physically demonstrate it as being a unique form of energy transfer as separate from "particle reconnection" or "circuit reconnection". If not, then how do you know it is a "unique" form of energy exchange, and not something more mundane like ordinary "induction"?
Magnetic reconnection is not "a form of energy transfer", it's a nearly-generic feature of changing magnetic fields. It so happens that these particular changing magnetic fields, like all changing magnetic fields, can affect charged particles including the charged particles in plasma and these effects happen to include energy transfers.

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.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2009, 10:12 PM   #1444
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
(a) Any change in a magnetic field can change the energy of that field; compute the integral of B^2 to see this. So, yes, changing magnetic fields generally change this potential energy---if there's no plasma around,
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?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2009, 10:18 PM   #1445
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
From Cosmic Plasma, page 16.

Quote:
11 .33. CONCLUSIONS ABOUT `FIELD LINE RECONNECTION' AND `MERGING' IN THE STATIONARY MAGNETOSPHERE
Our Gedanken experiment shows that neither the injection of one test particle, a small
number of test particles, or all of the solar wind particles call for a change in the Maxwellian concept of magnetic field lines . There is no need for `frozen-in' field lines moving with the plasma, still less for `field-line reconnection' or `magnetic merging' . The magnetic field always remains static and not a single field line is `disconnected' or `reconnected'. The energy of a charged particle is given by Equation (6) . There is no 'field-line reconnection' that can transfer energy to the particles or release energy in any other way. Other arguments against reconnection models are forwarded by Heikkila (1978). If the magnetic field varies with time, the geometry near the neutral points (points where B = 0) may change in a way that may be considered as the field lines disconnecting and reconnecting . It may be argued that in this case, the usual field-line reconnection formalism should be applicable . As will be shown in II .5 this is not correct. The field line reconnection theories are erroneous also in this case.
Either Alfven was wrong on this point, or you are wrong on this point. I understand Alfven's credentials on this topic, and while I'm not hung up on credentials per se, I'm unclear why you believe him to be in error on this point. Could you please clarify this point for me?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th March 2009, 10:24 PM   #1446
Michael Mozina
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 9,361
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
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.
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"?
Michael Mozina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2009, 12:32 AM   #1447
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
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"?
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.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2009, 02:09 AM   #1448
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The oscillation idea in general is theoretically "testable" via controlled experimentation. I'm not sure that it has been fully established that they oscillate from one to another as of this particular date. A lot of "missing" neutrino observations have been observed in controlled experiments but I"m not sure about the progress on establishing an actual oscillation observation from controlled experiments with a known and measured source. I haven't kept up however so feel free to set me straight.

Simply *assuming* that all the neutrino flavors we observe from the sun began as electron neutrinos remains to be seen IMO. I rather doubt that is the case in fact.
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.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2009, 07:21 AM   #1449
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
If you read through Birkeland's terella (metal sphere) experiments, you'll find that when he charged the outside of the sphere as a cathode, the sphere discharged itself toward the chamber and carried particles along the way. He even describes having to clean the soot off the glass.
Sure makes sense, but this is not the sun and heliosphere.
Quote:
He also noticed "loop like" structures formed at the "bumps" of his terella, and he could control their positioning based upon current flow and the magnetic field strength inside the sphere. I have one of his images side by side with a yohkoh x-ray image of the solar atmosphere during an active phase. These are not "coincidences".
Nope they are bunny pictures, until you scale them and relate them to solar processes.
Quote:
The continuous flow of particles from the sun, the high energy discharges, the tornado like effects, all of these things are related to current flow and magnetic fields.
Are you saying that the Terrela created a flow of negative, positive and neutral particles?

That is what the solar wind is?
Quote:
Bruce by the way documented the relationship between propagation speeds in the solar atmosphere and discharges on Earth. Bruce wrote extensively about discharge theory and his work and Birkeland's work and Alfven's work are all "first rate". Their work is also loaded with that "math stuff" everyone seems to like too. I'm more of a "show me" sort of guy, but the math is useful as well.
Unrelated distraction, we are talking about your model of the solar wind.
Quote:



I'm assuming it's more like a "flow pattern", and by the time the protons reach a certain distance, many of them have picked up a spare electron from somewhere and cooled off a bit and are not necessarily charged at that point. I assume the heliosphere works a bit like the Earth's magnetosphere and that it is a moving and flowing process, not a stagnant wall of particles. I'm looking forward to the IBEX data and I'm looking forward to the IMAX movie coming here to the West Coast. That will be very enlightening on this topic specifically IMO.
Well then we can start with just the negative particles, so you are saying that the positive ions become neutral? So then what accounts for the positive particles in the solar wind.
Quote:



I think you're assuming they *stay* positively charged forever which I do not, and that the heliosphere is semi-rigid in some way, which I do not.
Michael, there are negative, neutral and positive particles in the solar wind, I asked you how current flow accounts for a solar wind that shows all three, but we can start with the negative.
Quote:

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12...s-from-comets/

By the way, you can see the effect of the electron "pick-up" process in comet activity:



A billion watts is only possible because we live inside an electric universe and there is "current flow" from the surface to the heliosphere.

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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th March 2009, 11:54 AM   #1450
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
"If the magnetic field varies with time, the geometry near the neutral points (points where B = 0) may change in a way that may be considered as the field lines disconnecting and reconnecting . It may be argued that in this case, the usual field-line reconnection formalism should be applicable . As will be shown in II .5 this is not correct. The field line reconnection theories are erroneous also in this case."
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.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2009, 02:36 PM   #1451
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
The oscillation idea in general is theoretically "testable" via controlled experimentation. I'm not sure that it has been fully established that they oscillate from one to another as of this particular date. A lot of "missing" neutrino observations have been observed in controlled experiments but I"m not sure about the progress on establishing an actual oscillation observation from controlled experiments with a known and measured source. I haven't kept up however so feel free to set me straight.

Simply *assuming* that all the neutrino flavors we observe from the sun began as electron neutrinos remains to be seen IMO. I rather doubt that is the case in fact.
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".
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2009, 10:58 PM   #1452
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
I see you are back, but quoting something is not answering the question Brantc, I ask it simply so respond to the questions:

1. MM stated that the electrons were moving towards the positively charged heliosphere.
2. MM also stated that the electrons were 'dragging' the positive ions towards the heliosphere.

Which is fine both these statements seem to be okay.

The question which is you could answer simply (and then we can expand is this):

If there positive ions are positively charged (which I assume is why they are called positive ions) are they not going to be repelled by the positive charge of the heliosphere, proportionate to the inverse of their distance from the heliosphere?
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:
I assume you are smart enough to answer the question, it was not how can the electrons drag along the positive ions, it was 'what keeps the positive ions moving towards and past the positively charged heliosphere'?
Well as I said it has something to do with the potential gradients. As you can see there is a whole system. The EU system has the sun as the anode. I'm not 100% convinced that is the case. It may be the cathode.
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:
MM's theory seems to be violating Coulomb’s law, and it does not involve QM effects.

That paper looks interesting but maybe you could explain how it is related to the question I asked.

Unless you are here to play the standard PC game which is to mention irrelevant points and not answer direct questions.
The paper is relevant because it is a study on plasma stream acceleration of ions from the cathode(which may be a good model-solar surface). The mechanism of interest is longitudinal acceleration from a cathode that is not accounted for in standard physics.

Work has been busy. Havent had time to really follow up on this.
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th March 2009, 11:14 PM   #1453
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by ben m View Post


Magnetic reconnection is not "a form of energy transfer", it's a nearly-generic feature of changing magnetic fields. It so happens that these particular changing magnetic fields, like all changing magnetic fields, can affect charged particles including the charged particles in plasma and these effects happen to include energy transfers.

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.

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....
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2009, 05:10 AM   #1454
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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/




Well as I said it has something to do with the potential gradients. As you can see there is a whole system. The EU system has the sun as the anode. I'm not 100% convinced that is the case. It may be the cathode.
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.



The paper is relevant because it is a study on plasma stream acceleration of ions from the cathode(which may be a good model-solar surface). The mechanism of interest is longitudinal acceleration from a cathode that is not accounted for in standard physics.

Work has been busy. Havent had time to really follow up on this.

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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2009, 03:37 PM   #1455
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
The thing that is actually reconnecting is the vector description of the magnetic field.
Yes. Can you explain to MM that this is what "magnetic reconnection" means?

Quote:
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.
The magnetic field is NOT "following the current flow". The magnetic field direction is substantially orthogonal (perpendicular) to the current direction, extends far beyond the current, and is described by curl B = J + dE/dt.

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:
  1. they always carry current. They don't; these charges could well be absent, or infinitesimal, or (more likely) charge neutral, or uncorrelated with the magnetic field strength. If they do carry current, this is part of the current Birkeland was talking about.
  2. these currents are somehow the same thing as, or interchangeable with, or generating or sustaining, the magnetic field itself, which they're not. The currents are J. The magnetic field is B. Curl B = J + dE/dt.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2009, 05:51 PM   #1456
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Solar Corona Redux

Slightly modifying Mozina's quote to reference the ADS page for the paper ...
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
I'd like you to read through this paper Tim ...
Observational evidence for return currents in solar flare loops; Battaglia & Benz, Astronomy and Astrophysics 487(1): 337-344, August 2008
OK, I have read it.

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
and consider the following: Electrical discharges occur in the Earth's atmosphere and release gamma rays in the process. Why would you not consider the single most obvious explanation for these high energy photons? The plasma is "current carrying" inside coronal loops, just as an ordinary plasma filament is 'current carrying'.
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 ...

Originally Posted by Michael Mozina View Post
IMO you and I *both* require a discharge to fully explain these events. These neutron capture signatures in particular are most easily explained in discharge activity.
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:

We assume that the electrons are accelerated in the coronal source region. When a beam of electrons, which is not balanced by an equal beam of ions, a return current prevents charge build-up and the induction of a beam associated magnetic field. In the return current, thermal electrons move towards the coronal source. Since their velocity is relatively small, they collide with background ions and cause resistivity. Ohm's Law then implies the presence of an electric field in the downward direction.
Battaglia & Benz, preprint page 4.
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:

Transport effects by return currents constitute a considerable energy input by Ohmic heating into the loop outside the acceleration region.
Battaglia & Benz, last paragraph.
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.
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th March 2009, 07:18 PM   #1457
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
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
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2009, 08:51 PM   #1458
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
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.
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.......
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th March 2009, 09:11 PM   #1459
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Magnetic fields are induced by the movement of charges in a electric field gradient. Like the one across a (neutral matter)wire flowing current.
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".
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th March 2009, 07:24 PM   #1460
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Magnetic fields

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Magnetic fields are induced by the movement of charges in a electric field gradient. Like the one across a (neutral matter) wire flowing current.
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.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Unless your saying ... that all plasma is neutral across all distances ...
Of course not all plasma is neutral. But most astrophysical plasma is in fact charge neutral over macroscopic distance scales.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Go back to the beginning of your universe. Where did the first magnetic field come from?
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.)

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Do magnetic fields stay frozen into a resistive (not super conducting) plasma over long time scales?
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.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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 ...
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.
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2009, 09:52 PM   #1461
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
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.
You are right. I should have said potential gradient.

Quote:
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.
No. I was not implying that it is the only way.

Quote:
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.
Right. They are still individual charges moving.
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:
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.)
Moving charges. Quarks and muons are charged, right?

Quote:
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.
So they are generated by dynamos? Or moving plasma?

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......
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2009, 10:35 PM   #1462
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
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.
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:
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.
If I could we would not be having this discussion.

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:
the issue exists and you seem to be ignoring it:

1. A system that moves negative ions will move positive ions the opposite way..
That is apparently not the case with the solar wind!!

Quote:
2. Any system that involves charge differentials will become neutral with time, unless continually recharged.
Hence the idea that flux tubes are the carriers of electrical energy.
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:
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.
There is a current flow around and through the Heliosphere and Magnetosphere etc. They continue onward on a different vector at the heliosphere, towards the poles.

Quote:
Now please don’t start hiding behind ambi-plasma.
What is ambi-plasma?????
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2009, 09:29 PM   #1463
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Magnetic fields redux

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Right. They are still individual charges moving.
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?

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Its just that a stream of charged particles makes a magnetic field large enough to detect across cosmological distances......
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.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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.
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)?
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2009, 08:35 PM   #1464
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
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?
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:
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)?
When you look at structures that are in close proximity to a "black hole" like the DNA Nebula you would have to conclude that at times electricity(electromagnetism) is stronger than gravity. Flux tubes, solar flares and loops, as well as large scale filaments indicate that when a current is flowing that it can produce effects stronger than gravity.
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???

Last edited by brantc; 16th March 2009 at 08:39 PM.
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2009, 03:11 AM   #1465
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,521
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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!!!
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.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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.
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?

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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??
How does a "multi billion light year plasma filament" produce the observed redshift?

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
When you look at structures that are in close proximity to a "black hole" like the DNA Nebula you would have to conclude that at times electricity(electromagnetism) is stronger than gravity. Flux tubes, solar flares and loops, as well as large scale filaments indicate that when a current is flowing that it can produce effects stronger than gravity.
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.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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???
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?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2009, 04:35 AM   #1466
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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....
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:
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!!!
Uh huh, sure that evidence is where, not in sight in these posts now is it?
Quote:

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.
Except you haven't presented evidence that they do.
Quote:

The only issue is of first origin. (Big Bang vs Steady State Plasma).
Oh, so this is some sort of ontological philosophy bias you have here?
Quote:

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??
More evidence that you can't present? The call of the JREF, Data? Evidence?
Quote:



When you look at structures that are in close proximity to a "black hole" like the DNA Nebula you would have to conclude that at times electricity(electromagnetism) is stronger than gravity. Flux tubes, solar flares and loops, as well as large scale filaments indicate that when a current is flowing that it can produce effects stronger than gravity.
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.
Okay but the rubber to the road, charges, masses and field strengths. You do know how small the galactic magnetic field is don't you?
Quote:
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???
More untestable philosophy.
__________________
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

Last edited by Dancing David; 17th March 2009 at 04:41 AM.
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2009, 05:12 AM   #1467
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
No....I grew up with that model and as far as I'm concerned has been falsified or least has insurmountable problems..
Why not name one. If we can show you it is neither insurmountable nor a problem, will you admit you are wrong?

Quote:
And I do not understand why the electric model was thrown out except for the fascination with nuclear energy at the time!!!
There is no such thing as "the electric model". There's just some totally absurd and trivially falsified set of naive ideas.

Quote:
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??
You think the evidence points to that? Then you are either truly delusional or simply ignorant. There is massive evidence for general relativity - in which the universe must be expanding - and redshift due to the expansion. There is all sorts of evidence that the universe was different in the past. There are simulations of the expansion and clustering of matter that agree very well with observation. There is the most perfect black body every observed - the CMB.

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:
When you look at structures that are in close proximity to a "black hole" like the DNA Nebula you would have to conclude that at times electricity(electromagnetism) is stronger than gravity.
Are you sitting or falling? If you're sitting, you've just proven that sometimes EM is stronger than gravity. Ever heard of a neutron star? Those are very close to being black holes, but they don't collapse. Again, as everyone knows sometimes other forces (not EM in that case) are stronger than gravity. But those of us that know some physics know when and why that happens. It doesn't happen in cosmology.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2009, 06:51 AM   #1468
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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....
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:
No....I grew up with that model and as far as I'm concerned has been falsified or least has insurmountable problems..
Such as...?

Quote:
And I do not understand why the electric model was thrown out except for the fascination with nuclear energy at the time!!!
What electric model. Where can I find a quantitative decription of this model? What predictions does it make?

Quote:
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.
How on Earth do you suppose that?

Quote:
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??
I think you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:
When you look at structures that are in close proximity to a "black hole" like the DNA Nebula you would have to conclude that at times electricity(electromagnetism) is stronger than gravity. Flux tubes, solar flares and loops, as well as large scale filaments indicate that when a current is flowing that it can produce effects stronger than gravity.
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.
You're right... At times em can be stronger than gravity. Congratulations.

Quote:
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:
So why haven't we run out of hydrogen to burn... Oh, wait forgot you don't believe in that either do you.

Quote:
Would that be a big bang??????
Would everything be going away from that universe sized reconnection???
A PCer talking about reconnection
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2009, 08:06 AM   #1469
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Electric fields/currents offer a far more compelling long term energy source.
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:
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??
So in other words, "tired light". Sorry, doesn't work: that would require random scattering (coherent forward scattering is prohibited by self-interference), which would broaden the image in both angle and energy. But no such broadening occurs. Such theories are thus disproven.

Quote:
Would that filament be capable of forming a z-pinch?
Which would be stronger at that time, gravity or electricity?
Stronger when acting on what? In case you hadn't noticed, much of the mass of the universe (like the sun) is close to charge neutral, and won't feel any significant effect from an electric field. And we can rather easily measure the size of magnetic fields in the galaxy, and for the most part they're tiny. So no, we're not in a giant z-pinch. The magnetic fields are far too small.

Quote:
I'm more of a steady state guy myself
Then how do you answer Olbers' Paradox? Tired light theories don't work, most of them wouldn't solve the problem anyways (for an infinitely old universe, those plasma clouds would heat up until they glowed like stars too), and it applies to neutrinos too. Plus, of course, steady state theories require continual violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (and frequently the 1st law too). You really think that's preferable to big bang theories?
__________________
"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
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2009, 10:05 AM   #1470
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Plasma Cosmology & Star Formation

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Do I agree with the idea that the sun started out as a cloud of less than 3000C molecular gas (not plasma, too hot) ...
I trust you meant "too cold"?

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
... 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?
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.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Oh, and that is too cold for real fusion, has to be tunneling fusion ....
This is a "nothing" criticism. Fusion does not happen until the temperature is high enough.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
No .... I grew up with that model and as far as I'm concerned has been falsified or least has insurmountable problems ..
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:There you have it. Follow my suggested reading list, and you will be well on the way to real expertise on the correct physics of star formation.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
And I do not understand why the electric model was thrown out except for the fascination with nuclear energy at the time!!!
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.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Electric fields/currents offer a far more compelling long term energy source.
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.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Most plasma phenomena can be recreated in the lab. There is no doubt that Birkeland currents exist a cosmic scale.
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?

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
The only issue is of first origin. (Big Bang vs Steady State Plasma).
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.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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??
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.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
When you look at structures that are in close proximity to a "black hole" like the DNA Nebula you would have to conclude that at times electricity (electromagnetism) is stronger than gravity.
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.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Flux tubes, solar flares and loops, as well as large scale filaments indicate that when a current is flowing that it can produce effects stronger than gravity.
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.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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.
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).

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Would that filament be capable of forming a z-pinch?
Why don't you figure that out?
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
Which would be stronger at that time, gravity or electricity?
Why don't you figure that out too?

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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???
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.
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2009, 06:53 PM   #1471
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
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

Last edited by brantc; 20th March 2009 at 07:56 PM.
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th March 2009, 07:22 PM   #1472
brantc
Muse
 
brantc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 541
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
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:
Here is the abstract from the first paper on your list.

Quote:
Cold Dark Clouds: The Initial Conditions for Star Formation
Authors: Edwin A. Bergin (University of Michigan), Mario Tafalla (Observatorio Astronomico Nacional)
(Submitted on 25 May 2007)

Abstract: Cold dark clouds are nearby members of the densest and coldest phase in the galactic interstellar medium, and represent the most accessible sites where stars like our Sun are currently being born. In this review we discuss recent progress in their study, including the newly discovered infrared dark clouds that are likely precursors to stellar clusters. At large scales, dark clouds present filamentary mass distributions with motions dominated by supersonic turbulence. At small, sub-parsec scales, a population of subsonic starless cores provides a unique glimpse of the conditions prior to stellar birth. Recent studies of starless cores reveal a combination of simple physical properties together with a complex chemical structure dominated by the freeze-out of molecules onto cold dust grains. Elucidating this combined structure is both an observational and theoretical challenge whose solution will bring us closer to understanding how molecular gas condenses to form stars. .
Filamentary structure. Remember that...

From the paper.

Quote:
2.3 Shapes
A simple inspection of dark cloud images obtained by any of the methods discussed previously reveals that clouds come in a variety of sizes and shapes. In general, dark clouds have highly irregular edges, and their overall appearance is filamentary and often wind-blown. The presence of long, well-defined filaments was emphasized already a century ago by Barnard (1907) when he noted, describing the Taurus plate of Fig. 1, that “among the most surprising things in connection with these nebula-filled holes are the vacant lanes that so frequently run from them for great distances.” Indeed, some of the filaments in Taurus can be followed for more than 4 degrees or 10 pc, and similarly thin and long structures can be seen in many other clouds like Ophiuchus, Lupus, and Orion both in optical plates (e.g., Schneider & Elmegreen 1979) and radio images (e.g., Bally et al. 1987; Johnstone & Bally 1999).
In many clouds including Taurus and Ophiuchus, the length of some filaments is comparable to the full extent of the cloud. Typically, a cloud contains two or three long filaments that are either parallel or converge at a low angle in a massive condensation that often contains an active cluster-forming site (Tachihara et al. 2002; Burkert & Hartmann 2004). The velocity field of some filaments, in addition, seems rather coherent (see Loren 1989, for a study of Ophiuchus). This combination of spatial length and velocity coherence for some of the filaments suggests that their presence is intrinsic to the cloud structure and not the result of later evolutionary factors like star-formation activity, which would produce a more chaotic, small-scale mass distribution. Dark clouds, therefore, seem to be born with a filamentary distribution of material that extends over a number of parsecs. As clouds evolve and form stars, the products of star formation inherit the filamentary distribution of the parental gas (Hartmann 2002)."

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.
brantc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2009, 01:56 AM   #1473
Reality Check
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:
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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!!!
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.
In addition could you give a citation for the assertion that the Sun "has an acoustical signature that is more suited to a bounded solid shell sphere"?
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2009, 04:15 AM   #1474
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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.
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:
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.
Not necessarily. Many of them seem, from my point of view, to have a "I don't like it therefore it must be wrong" view.

Quote:
I have a hard time believing that every one of those people are wrong.
But you're quite happy to think that the overwhelming majority of cosmologists are wrong?
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2009, 10:29 AM   #1475
Tim Thompson
Muse
 
Tim Thompson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 969
Lightbulb Filamentary Collapse.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
That at this point does not change my opinion. ... And I seriously doubt that learning the equations better is going to help me make up my mind.
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.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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.
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.

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
This has nothing to do with the power source that is driving the current(transferring energy). I don't even care about that right now. Its not important to establishing the reason for the shape of the plasma filaments.
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 ...

Originally Posted by brantc View Post
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.
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.
Tim Thompson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2009, 03:26 PM   #1476
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,270
Quote:
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.
Can charge separation happen in space on large scales Tim?

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 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.
That's good Tim, gravity operating as we know it does!!! So umm.. how do we make gamma rays on Earth using gravity? or X-rays or even radio waves??

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!
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2009, 03:45 PM   #1477
Tubbythin
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,202
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
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
Perhaps you might like to give us a consistent PC theory that explains all of the following:
The Hubble relation
The CMBR
The Lyman-alpha forest
Olbers' paradox
The flatness problem
The horizon problem
The abundance of the elements
???
Tubbythin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2009, 03:51 PM   #1478
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 56,422
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Can charge separation happen in space on large scales Tim?
Not very large scales, no.

Quote:
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
Z-pinches are driven by magnetic fields. Funny thing: we can measure distant magnetic fields fairly easily via Zeeman splitting of spectroscopic lines. How big do you think stellar and galactic magnetic fields are? How big do you think they need to be in order to drive the giant z-pinches you're envisioning? Somehow, I suspect you can't actually come up with any numbers. And if you do manage to, they'll probably be orders of magnitude off from actual observed fields.

Quote:
Even a second year high school student could identify an energy source for Plasma universe!
So why didn't you answer the challenge and identify this power source?

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,
And what observations have been made that contradict big bang theory?

Quote:
The new Plasma cosmology is on the money!!!
I have yet to see anyone present a coherent picture of what "Plasma cosmology" actually means. Of the few attempts to describe it in even minimal detail that I've seen, they all contradict general relativity and violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics (sometimes the 1st as well). They also can't explain Olbers' paradox, the Hubble relationship, or the perfect blackbody lineshape of the cosmic microwave background. If you'd like to take a crack at explaining how whatever flavor of "plasma cosmology" you believe in is "on the money", feel free to do so. Until then, I'll stick with bing bang cosmology, which follows rather directly from general relativity, resolves Olber's paradox, and explains the Hubble relationship and the CMB lineshape, without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
__________________
"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
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2009, 04:49 PM   #1479
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Can charge separation happen in space on large scales Tim?
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:
Does the movement of plasma constitute an ELECTRIC current and it's attendant magnetic counterpart, Tim?
Nope. An electric current occurs only when there's a net charge flow. A flow of equal e- and p+ currents, as occurs in the vast bulk of moving space plasma, carries no electric current and causes no magnetic field. Small-scale electric currents do occur, generally in the form of small-scale waves and turbulences whose magnetic fields are the topic of much mainstream study.

Quote:
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
That's a funny selection of experiments---hmm, you're unmoved by the many experiments demonstrating (a) reconnection, (b) dynamos, (c) shocks, (d) Alfven waves, (e) Maxwell's Equations, and (f) General Relativity? Yes, your named laboratory experiments tell us more about plasma in general and more about electromagnetism. Plasma in general and electromagnetism tell us much about space plasmas in particular. They don't tell you that "because I can make a z-pinch in the lab, z-pinches must happen in space"---just like the discovery of fission reactors doesn't tell you that the Sun is a ball of plutonium, and the discovery of "optical tweezers" doesn't mean that Jupiter is held in its orbit by sunlight.
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2009, 05:04 PM   #1480
Sol88
Philosopher
 
Sol88's Avatar
 
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:
The Hubble relation
The CMBR
The Lyman-alpha forest
Olbers' paradox
The flatness problem
The horizon problem
The abundance of the elements
Ok the first, The Hubble relation

Halton C. Arp
Quote:
Halton C. Arp is one of the key actors in the contemporary debate on the origin and evolution of galaxies in the universe. His landmark compilation of peculiar galaxies led him to challenge the fundamental assumption of modern cosmology, that redshift is a uniform indicator of distance.
Second, Olbers' paradox:
Quote:
If the universe is assumed to contain an infinite number of uniformly distributed luminous stars, then:

1. The collective brightness received from a set of stars at a given distance is independent of that distance;
2. Every line of sight should terminate eventually on the surface of a star;
3. Every point in the sky should be as bright as the surface of a star.
Third, The flatness problem
Quote:
To make the Standard Big Bang theory correspond to reality, cosmologists had to make the assumption that the average density of the universe was equal to the density immediately following the Big Bang. But how? This assumption, like the isotropy assumption, isn't explained. Since an Omega of one corresponds to a flat universe, this is known as "The Flatness Problem."
Fourth, The horizon problem
Quote:
Inflationary theory allows for a solution to the problem (along with several others such as the flatness problem) by positing (assuming) a short 10 − 32 second period of exponential expansion (dubbed "inflation") within the first minute or so of the history of the universe. During inflation, the universe would have increased in size by an enormous factor.
Fifth, The CMBR:
Quote:
How does the Big Bang produce a nearly perfect blackbody CMB? In the Big Bang model there are no temperature gradients because the Universe is assumed to be homogeneous. While the temperature varies with time, this variation is exactly canceled by the redshift so the apparent temperature of radiation from redshift z is given by T(z)/(1+z) which is equal to the CMB temperature To for all redshifts which contribute to the CMB.
And lastly, The Lyman-alpha forest: See point one.

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!
Sol88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:04 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.