Electric universe theories here.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

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

Not Scott's anyway.

Quote:

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

Well it is a fluid - it has pressure, temperature and viscosity. So fluid dynamics equations are relevant. It also conducts so Maxwell's equations are relevant. What mathematical approach to plasma dynamics would you take? (I realise that you haven't a clue.)

[Sol88]

Well it is a fluid - it has pressure, temperature and viscosity.

Right, you're one of them. This fluid obviously conducts, yeah? No math needed just yet

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by hecd2

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

Then you can explain the physical meaning of alpha.

We are talking the boundary of the the electric current to the surrounding plasma, yeah?

We have observed and measured the boundary between the centre of the current and the boundary

Plug that bad boy in, run it thru your abbicus see if you can understand the boundaries to the electric currents threading astrophysical plasma’s.

They have been thought of as glowing lossy coaxial cables, by Blandford.

Quote:

4.3.1. Radio Core-shift. The unresolved radio core has generally been associated with self- absorbed synchrotron radiation from the approaching jet. We are, in effect looking at a radio photosphere formed by the jet walls and a surface across the jet. The size of the unre- solved photosphere should scale roughly as the wavelength and the size that can be resolved interferometrically with an inter-continental baseline. This expectation is consistent with multi-frequency VLBI observations. However, we expect to see the unresolved centroid of the photosphere shift towards the position of the black hole with increasing ν (Blandford & Ko ̈nigl 1979; Ko ̈nigl 1981). This effect has been seen (Plavin et al. 2018).

Relativistic Jets in Active Galactic Nuclei
Roger Blandford1

Do you think there would be a solid number for r, considering the boundary is more like a photosphere?

[Sol88]

Quote:

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

Quote:

Then you can explain the physical meaning of alpha.

hecd2

Quote:

A simple but detailed derivation is included here. The physical properties of the resulting intricate magnetic field structure are described. The cause of its characteristic counter-rotation and counter-flows are identified. The describing equations are put into state-variable form and a step-wise approximation is applied. This solution reveals the primary effect of the force-free parameter, α, as being a scale factor of radial distance

Scott

I’d say the physical meaning is a characteristic counter-rotation and counter-flows are identified is this observed in astrophysical plasma’s like AGN “Jets”?

Touch more money thrown at the study of the data, may lead you to a constraint or a more solid value for alpha.

Ulysses data could help you out. Looks look at the boundary signatures in the tail crossing data. A complete surprise to the fluid flow model.

[Sol88]

Basically big power lines threading the Universe.

The Electric Universe.

Even your tacit admission of electric currents via the wrong model is still the Electric Universe.


Back to the drawing board for Gravity centric cosmology.

[Sol88]

Quote:

Plasma pressure[edit]
In magnetohydrostatic equilibrium, the following condition is met for the equation of motion of the plasma confined to the flux tube:[4]
{\displaystyle 0=-\nabla p+j\times B-\rho g}
where

p is the plasma pressure

j is the current density of the plasma

{\displaystyle \rho g} is the gravitational force

With the magnetohydrostatic equilibrium condition met, a cylindrical flux tube's plasma pressure of
{\displaystyle p(R)} is given by the following relation written in cylindrical coordinates with
R
R as the distance from the axis radially:[4]

wiki - Plasma Pressure


Sorry about the formatting, the maths doesn’t play nice.

Anyhoo, the gravitational force in your pressure equation, why?

‘Cos if j is the current density of the plasma, would not the magnetic field that wraps the current contain it?

And you use gravity in your formula because the pressure inside the electric current is greater than space, a vacuum?

Should your fluid gas not dissipate? Barring planetary atmospheres, of course.

[Sol88]

Great maths problem for you what gravitational force would a neutral lump of rock feel from the fluid tube described by MHD?

It has mass, yeah?

Should be pretty simple the mass of the fluid tube by the asteroids mass.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

We are talking the boundary of the the electric current to the surrounding plasma, yeah?

We have observed and measured the boundary between the centre of the current and the boundary

Great, thank you for confirming that Scott's shambolic model where there is no boundary and the total current is infinite is completely unconnected with reality.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Scott

I’d say the physical meaning is a characteristic counter-rotation and counter-flows are identified is this observed in astrophysical plasma’s like AGN “Jets”?

Field aligned currents where the current and magnetic field reverse multiple (well, infinitely many) times fom the centre radially outwards are not observed in nature.


Scott's alpha gives the radial scale of the reversals, but nothing in the model tells us what alpha should be, you can choose it freely. So for any given j0 (central current density) from zero to infinty alpha can be 10 billion per femtometre (or more) or 1e-50 per megaparsec (or less) and nothng in Scott's model gives you any idea of what it should be. Nor does Scott offer any clue as to how you might predict alpha for any given initial conditions. His model is not just unphysical, it is totally impotent and useless.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Anyhoo, the gravitational force in your pressure equation, why?

Why not?

Quote:

‘Cos if j is the current density of the plasma, would not the magnetic field that wraps the current contain it?

That's the j x B term. For stasis all forces have to balance. This is a general equation that applies to a wide range of conditions so why wouldn't you include gravity? It might or might not be significant for any given situation. They should also include radiation pressure.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Anyhoo, the gravitational force in your pressure equation, why?

Why do you think, genius? Because gravity acts on plasmas just like it acts on every other form of matter.

Quote:

‘Cos if j is the current density of the plasma, would not the magnetic field that wraps the current contain it?

Equilibrium containment is assumed in that equation (if it's not at equilibrium, then the left hand side won't be zero). Field confinement is provided by the j x B term.

Quote:

And you use gravity in your formula because the pressure inside the electric current is greater than space, a vacuum?

No. Gravity is in the formula because it's trying to model flux tubes in conditions where gravity is relevant, such as on the sun. Gravity from the sun is trying to make that plasma fall into the sun. Some other force (either a pressure gradient or a magnetic field) must counteract gravity in order to maintain equilibrium.

[jonesdave116]

I see that Sol is still spamming the nonsensical Don Scott 'paper'. This has been dealt with before on here, and elsewhere. Start with this post by SelfSim, and the included link to where the mathematical errors in the paper were laid bare by someone who unfortunately doesn't post on here;

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=160

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Great maths problem for you what gravitational force would a neutral lump of rock feel from the fluid tube described by MHD?

It has mass, yeah?

Should be pretty simple the mass of the fluid tube by the asteroids mass.

Uh ... could you please translate that into something resembling English?

Hans

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Sol88

wiki - Plasma Pressure


Sorry about the formatting, the maths doesn’t play nice.

Well it takes a bit of working, and seemingly you can't be bothered about that.

Quote:

Anyhoo, the gravitational force in your pressure equation, why?

Perhaps because gravity more or less works the universe?

Quote:

‘Cos if j is the current density of the plasma, would not the magnetic field that wraps the current contain it?

Not necessarily. A charged particle is not influenced by a magnetic field unless it moves.

Quote:

And you use gravity in your formula because the pressure inside the electric current is greater than space, a vacuum?

What? If there is an electric current, there must be carriers, ions or electrons. They have mass. Gravity works on mass.

Quote:

Should your fluid gas not dissipate? Barring planetary atmospheres, of course.

Perhaps gravity works on it?

Look, you don't really know what you are talking about, right?

Hans

[Sol88]

NASA scientists create black hole jets with supercomputer

Give me some time on the super duper computer to run my “code” thru it and prove galaxy and star formation are electrical.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Well it takes a bit of working, and seemingly you can't be bothered about that.



Perhaps because gravity more or less works the universe?



Not necessarily. A charged particle is not influenced by a magnetic field unless it moves.



What? If there is an electric current, there must be carriers, ions or electrons. They have mass. Gravity works on mass.



Perhaps gravity works on it?

Look, you don't really know what you are talking about, right?

Hans

You seem stuck in a gravity well, like you are circling a black hole.

Ions and electrons indeed have different masses. It’s VERY important, not so much for gravity in the equation of an electric current thru space.

Are you willing to accept “Jets” play a dominant role in star and galaxy formation and evolution?

As, now, suggested by the mainstream. See story above.

Run some code...not so simple when you are dealing with plasma, your fluid space gas, but not plasma.

[Sol88]

How does your black hole of mathamagikis launch ions and electrons (that have mass) from the maws of such a gravitational monster?

In colimated streams of relevistic particles streams(Electric currents)

Mystery that one. Any suggestions?

Do you even know what you are talking about?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why do you think, genius? Because gravity acts on plasmas just like it acts on every other form of matter.



Equilibrium containment is assumed in that equation (if it's not at equilibrium, then the left hand side won't be zero). Field confinement is provided by the j x B term.



No. Gravity is in the formula because it's trying to model flux tubes in conditions where gravity is relevant, such as on the sun. Gravity from the sun is trying to make that plasma fall into the sun. Some other force (either a pressure gradient or a magnetic field) must counteract gravity in order to maintain equilibrium.

Gravity? Again, gravity in a flux tube, it no care about gravity...

For instance, your statement: Gravity from the sun is trying to make that plasma fall into the sun. Some other force (either a pressure gradient or a magnetic field) must counteract gravity in order to maintain equilibrium.

Would your gravity on the sun affect the the ions and the electrons in this PLASMA differently? Seeing how we’ve just re established they have different mass’s.

Pressure, magnetic fields or majik, right. Are they my only options? You know, according to mainstream maths(code)?

Can I phone a friend?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Sol88

You seem stuck in a gravity well, like you are circling a black hole.

Ions and electrons indeed have different masses. It’s VERY important, not so much for gravity in the equation of an electric current thru space.

Are you willing to accept “Jets” play a dominant role in star and galaxy formation and evolution?

As, now, suggested by the mainstream. See story above.

Run some code...not so simple when you are dealing with plasma, your fluid space gas, but not plasma.

You really do realize that you don't know what you are talking about, right?

Hans

[Sol88]

Can I invoke electric fields into play? Regarding solar plasma and the Parker solar probe.

Or do I have to stick with gravity, regarding solar plasma and gravity?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

You really do realize that you don't know what you are talking about, right?

Hans

Quite happy to kick back champ and just watch the people that do know what they are are talking about whack code into a super computer to try and work the wonderous mystery of income extraction, from a completely falsified model.

That’s the code you should use.

Just a hypothetical question for you and based of the latest data and simulations, is it possible that AGN jets and astrophysical jets in general are indeed Force Free Field Aligned Currents?

Regards of code or math?

‘Cos,

Quote:

"High-luminosity jets are easier to find because they create massive structures that can be seen in radio observations," Tanner explained. "Low-luminosity jets are challenging to study observationally, so the astronomy community does not understand them as well."

They are NOT well understood in the astro commune....

Ah ha, I see what now...

Quote:

Tanner modified the Athena astrophysical hydrodynamics code to explore the impacts of the jets and gas on each other across 26,000 light-years of space, about half the radius of the Milky Way. From the full set of 100 simulations, the team selected 19—which consumed 800,000 core hours on the NCCS Discover supercomputer—for publication.

astrophysical hydrodynamics code... well there’s ya blue!

Gas and fluid code?

In a plasma?

Can this code handle Scott’s model for a field aligned force free electric current? Be interesting, one would think.

Any body run such a large simulation on this sorta supaPuter with PIC or kinetic plasma code?

Be worth a crack, Shirley?

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Can I invoke electric fields into play? Regarding solar plasma and the Parker solar probe.

Or do I have to stick with gravity, regarding solar plasma and gravity?

Well, regarding "solar plasma and gravity", that is of course about gravity. Is English your native language?

However, obviously electrical fields play a role. And even more, magnetic fields play a role.

And, gravity plays a role. A big one. What is so difficult to understand about this?

Hans

[Sol88]

@mrc hans, do you ven know what a FAC, field aligned current is?

I’m only assuming you do and it might lead me to think you what I’m talking about.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

Well, regarding "solar plasma and gravity", that is of course about gravity. Is English your native language?

However, obviously electrical fields play a role. And even more, magnetic fields play a role.

And, gravity plays a role. A big one. What is so difficult to understand about this?

Hans

Great, we have lift off!

Using standard garden variety school physics, which would accelerate a charged particle more effectively, an electric field or a magnetic field?

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Would your gravity on the sun affect the the ions and the electrons in this PLASMA differently? Seeing how we’ve just re established they have different mass’s.

Having spent years showing you know nothing about electromagnetism, you now show that you know nothing about gravity. What do you think Galileo demonstrated by dropping balls off the Pisa tower?

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Can this code handle Scott’s model for a field aligned force free electric current? Be interesting, one would

You’re forgetting that Scott’s model is garbage and shown to be garbage. Suffering from amnesia, are you?

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Using standard garden variety school physics, which would accelerate a charged particle more effectively, an electric field or a magnetic field?

Which is larger - E or v x B? Why?

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Give me some time on the super duper computer to run my “code” thru it and prove galaxy and star formation are electrical.

Considering that you don’t use mathamajicks in EU, and accordingly can’t put anything into code, I doubt that you could prove anything, no matter what sort of super duper computer you use.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by hecd2

Having spent years showing you know nothing about electromagnetism, you now show that you know nothing about gravity. What do you think Galileo demonstrated by dropping balls off the Pisa tower?

He has big balls?

How about if he dropped a feather? Mmmmmm.....

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by hecd2

Which is larger - E or v x B? Why?

Well, if your stuck...

Quote:

HOW DOES A PARTICLE ACCELERATOR WORK?
Particle accelerators use electric fields to speed up and increase the energy of a beam of particles, which are steered and focused by magnetic fields. The particle source provides the particles, such as protons or electrons, that are to be accelerated. The beam of particles travels inside a vacuum in the metal beam pipe. The vacuum is crucial to maintaining an air and dust free environment for the beam of particles to travel unobstructed. Electromagnets steer and focus the beam of particles while it travels through the vacuum tube.

Electric fields spaced around the accelerator switch from positive to negative at a given frequency, creating radio waves that accelerate particles in bunches. Particles can be directed at a fixed target, such as a thin piece of metal foil, or two beams of particles can be collided. Particle detectors record and reveal the particles and radiation that are produced by the collision between a beam of particles and the target.

How Particle Accelerators Work

Ummmmm....Electric field.


So why does mainstream only have a magnetic field to use?

Like in your main model for plasma a Magnetic fluid physics (space gas) model. Space gas being plasma of course.

Our you allowed to use the electric fields? Or is that still taboo?

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Well, if your stuck...

How Particle Accelerators Work

Ummmmm....Electric field.


So why does mainstream only have a magnetic field to use?

Like in your main model for plasma Magnetic fluid physics (space gas) plasmas

Our you allowed to use the electric fields? Or is that still taboo?

Perhaps you can explain how particle accelerators work with EU theories instead of science?

[Sol88]

Quote:

Particle physics, also called high-energy physics, asks basic questions about the universe. With particle accelerators as their primary scientific tools, particle physicists have achieved a profound understanding of the fundamental particles and physical laws that govern matter, energy, space and time.

I’d be asking the basic questions first there sport.

Could electric instead of magnetic fields be better particle accelerators?

You could ask hecd2, seems pretty cluey with the numbers.

[Sol88]

It’s electric fields silly. All ways has been.

Now DOUBLE LAYERS are a wonderful astrophysical object.

Caveat, not all electric fields are double layers but all double layers are electric fields.

Electric fields are pretty good at accelerating particles.

Double layers by the way not only accelerate particle’s, did you know that ziggurat?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by hecd2

Which is larger - E or v x B? Why?

Magnetic fields are pretty good at shaping plasmas, even very weak ones.

Let alone guiding spiraling electrons and confining and collimating plasmas.

Hell if the electrons are not spiraling any more, wonder what would happen?

Would they have a velocity restriction since they no longer have to spiral along the guide field line?

Not sure how you put that into math. Ponderable question.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

How about if he dropped a feather? Mmmmmm.....

In a vacuum? You're trying to cover up your abysmal ignorance of gravity.You think particles with different masses are "affected" differently. Dumb.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Originally Posted by hecd2

Which is larger - E or v x B?

Why?Well, if your stuck...

You don't know do you? You can't know because your question has the same validity as "how long is a piece of string?"

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

WSo why does mainstream only have a magnetic field to use?

In this context, because E is small and v and B are large.

[Sol88]

E is small?

Well your magnetic fluid ain’t accelerating particles.

In MHD, where is E, again?

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Well your magnetic fluid ain’t accelerating particles.

Why not? You do know what v x B means? Wait... You don't.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by hecd2

In this context, because E is small and v and B are large.

Cart before the horse their, squire.


Why is E small? ‘Cos maths confirms it?

Observation says no. How are the magnetic fields accelerating particles, now we have established the current sheets and plasmids involved in “magnetic” reconnection.

Any E, in it?

Because, if it’s just a rearranging of electric fields and currents and the associated “reconnecting” magentic fields, then E should feature somewhere in MHD.

Your model, magnetogas is propa cooked. Does not work and you need to up the E a smidge.

Can your maths handle it?