Electric universe theories here.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Sol88

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?

They will be equally effective, but under different conditions. That is one reason we can tell the difference.

Hans

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Why is E small?

No source.

Or maybe you could suggest one.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

In MHD, where is E, again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics


Look at the basic equations. See if you can spot E?

[Sol88]

Quote:

Effects which are essentially kinetic and not captured by fluid models include double layers, Landau damping, a wide range of instabilities, chemical separation in space plasmas and electron runaway. In the case of ultra-high intensity laser interactions, the incredibly short timescales of energy deposition mean that hydrodynamic codes fail to capture the essential physics.

Quote:

This includes an extra term in Ohm's Law which models the collisional resistivity

And your happy with that.

How are particles accelerated in AGN Jets again.

Magnetic field or electric field? Your model has failed, you tacitly imply it with a little E.

Quote:

Importance of kinetic effects[edit]
Another limitation of MHD (and fluid theories in general) is that they depend on the assumption that the plasma is strongly collisional (this is the first criterion listed above), so that the time scale of collisions is shorter than the other characteristic times in the system, and the particle distributions are Maxwellian. This is usually not the case in fusion, space and astrophysical plasmas.

[Sol88]

Seems like lotsa mathamajiks in MHD.

and you have trouble with Scott’s math because of a variable r?

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

And your happy with that.

Yes. Aren't you?

Quote:

How are particles accelerated in AGN Jets again.

Rapidly rotating magnetic fields.

[hecd2]

Originally Posted by Sol88

and you have trouble with Scott’s math because of a variable r?

Scott is the one in trouble. Remember? That old amnesia kicking in again?


Scott's maths is demonstrably garbage- and you have demonstrated that you are much too ignorant to understand why.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Sol88

And your happy with that.

How are particles accelerated in AGN Jets again.

Magnetic field or electric field? Your model has failed, you tacitly imply it with a little E.

Funny. How did you decide which model to defend? You don't understand any of them, so how did you decide?

Hans

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by hecd2

Yes. Aren't you?
Rapidly rotating magnetic fields.

Talking math, what’s the equation for particle acceleration in rapidly rotating magnetic fields?

Tusenfem and co invoke electric currents and electric fields when plasma traverse’s magnetic fields.

Is this true in ur world view? You

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by hecd2

Scott is the one in trouble. Remember? That old amnesia kicking in again?


Scott's maths is demonstrably garbage- and you have demonstrated that you are much too ignorant to understand why.

Garbage?

Just watched mainstream “fiddle” with MHD code on a supercomputer.

What “bit” of the equation did he fiddle with back and forth to make the picture look like a AGN jet!

Scott’s on the money ‘ol mate. This is how a force free field aligned current works on a low b plasma.

Electric fields and all. Pity your math doesn’t even acknowledge E.

[Sol88]

Are Scott’s assumption wrong?

Can plasma do this in astrophysical settings?

Very much studied closer to home with FAC’s n Birkeland currents.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Talking math, what’s the equation for particle acceleration in rapidly rotating magnetic fields?

Tusenfem and co invoke electric currents and electric fields when plasma traverse’s magnetic fields.

Is this true in ur world view? You

not electric fields
i asked you before how does plasma "flowing across the magnetic field" generate an electric field?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Are Scott’s assumption wrong?

Can plasma do this in astrophysical settings?

Very much studied closer to home with FAC’s n Birkeland currents.

Scott hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. He stuffs up the maths from the get-go. This has been discussed before. Why do you think his idiocy only appears in a predatory, non-peer-reviewed rag, with zero impact factor?

He isn't a plasma physicist. He has no clue about plasma physics. Your cult possesses nobody with a clue about plasma physics. Which is why they are ignorant enough to think a drift current of electrons can head in to power the Sun, against a magnetic field heading in the opposite direction, at ~ 400 km/s. Care to tell us how that works in la-la land? Been demonstrated in a lab, has it? Nope. Because it is impossible. As Maxwell and Alfven, among countless others, would tell you. Why can't Scott understand this? Because he doesn't understand zip about plasma physics. Or any other kind of physics, as far as I can see. Why should anybody care what this crackpot nonentity thinks?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

not electric fields
i asked you before how does plasma "flowing across the magnetic field" generate an electric field?

Well, according to our mate Ampreres, smidge of charge seperation would occur. This would lead to an electric field, maybe even one of my beloved DOUBLE LAYERS to form, to try and maintain quasi neutrality.

This would set all sorts of fun games for your completely busted MHD. Like hecd2 says, MHD got a little E! What multiple “little” E or interacting? Maths be more complicated? Maybe too complex over galactic size grid computation in a super whiz bang CPU.

Just how it is.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Scott hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. He stuffs up the maths from the get-go. This has been discussed before. Why do you think his idiocy only appears in a predatory, non-peer-reviewed rag, with zero impact factor?

He isn't a plasma physicist. He has no clue about plasma physics. Your cult possesses nobody with a clue about plasma physics. Which is why they are ignorant enough to think a drift current of electrons can head in to power the Sun, against a magnetic field heading in the opposite direction, at ~ 400 km/s. Care to tell us how that works in la-la land? Been demonstrated in a lab, has it? Nope. Because it is impossible. As Maxwell and Alfven, among countless others, would tell you. Why can't Scott understand this? Because he doesn't understand zip about plasma physics. Or any other kind of physics, as far as I can see. Why should anybody care what this crackpot nonentity thinks?

Brush up.

Quote:

Example: Displacement field in a capacitor[edit]

A parallel plate capacitor. Using an imaginary box, it is possible to use Gauss's law to explain the relationship between electric displacement and free charge.
Consider an infinite parallel plate capacitor where the space between the plates is empty or contains a neutral, insulating medium. In this case there are no free charges present except on the metal capacitor plates. Since the flux lines D end on free charges, and there are the same number of uniformly distributed charges of opposite sign on both plates, then the flux lines must all simply traverse the capacitor from one side to the other, and |D| = 0 outside the capacitor. In SI units, the charge density on the plates is equal to the value of the D field between the plates. This follows directly from Gauss's law, by integrating over a small rectangular box straddling one plate of the capacitor:

One plate is the heliospheric boundary the other the photosphere of the Sun.

then the flux lines must all simply traverse the capacitor from one side to the other, and |D| = 0 outside the capacitor. In SI units, the charge density on the plates is equal to the value of the D field between the plates.




Seeing as you shot your mouth of about diamagnetic cavity’s at comets, by using the wrong model, you may like to read up first on the principles of ....

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

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



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

Identification of comet Hyakutake's extremely long ion tail from magnetic field signatures

Quote:

On the basis of plasma instrument15 measurements, the structure encountered by Ulysses was apparently not pressure-balanced, nor
apparently was charge neutrality maintained, as the electron number density remained comparatively stable4. As violation of
these conditions was unlikely, another source of pressure, such as heavy ions, must have been present; these would have been outside the detection range of the plasma instrument.

This suggests that heavy ions of cometary origin were present in the structure. The presence of such ions is confirmed in data returned at the time
from the spacecraft's ion composition instrument17. Decreased broad-band turbulence for ,14 hours before the tail crossing is consistent with the tail preventing solar-wind AlfveÂn wave propagation through it.

Interesting on "draping" wrt flux tubes and Scott's paper. The electric fields and current involved are also of note.

Perhaps you could get a feel for a boundary to flux tubes. MMS also has some interesting bits n bobs on the failure of MHD (little E) and in light of the this assertion

Quote:

The presence of a coherent structure so far from the nucleus suggests that the plasma tails of comets may persist as discrete entities for many astronomical units. As the tail of Hyakutake persisted to Ulysses, it is likely that this structure, ultimately produced by an object only ,2.4 km across23, survived to reach the edge of the heliosphere.

Heliosphere being one plate of the capacitor the other the photosphere, an ELECTRIC DISCHARGE to an obviously ROCKY nucleus.

Plasma, ay!

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Scott hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. He stuffs up the maths from the get-go.

Which is why they are ignorant enough to think a drift current of electrons can head in to power the Sun, against a magnetic field heading in the opposite direction, at ~ 400 km/s. Care to tell us how that works in la-la land? Been demonstrated in a lab, has it?

Drift currents, not the right language. Try Electric displacement field centered on the Sun.

Quote:

In a dielectric material, the presence of an electric field E causes the bound charges in the material (atomic nuclei and their electrons) to slightly separate, inducing a local electric dipole moment.

The electric displacement field "D" is defined as D ≡ ε 0 E + P , is the vacuum permittivity (also called permittivity of free space), and P is the (macroscopic) density of the permanent and induced electric dipole moments in the material, called the polarization density.

The displacement field satisfies Gauss's law in a dielectric:

[Ziggurat]

Wow, that's all kinds of stupid.

Dielectric materials are insulators. Plasmas are conductors. You can't use an equation for insulators to describe a conductor.

[Sol88]

yes ya can...In physics, the electric displacement field (denoted by D) or electric induction is a vector field that appears in Maxwell's equations. It accounts for the effects of free and bound charge within materials[further explanation needed]. "D" stands for "displacement", as in the related concept of displacement current in dielectrics. In free space, the electric displacement field is equivalent to flux density, a concept that lends understanding of Gauss's law. In the International System of Units (SI), it is expressed in units of coulomb per meter square (C⋅m−2).

Quote:

The science of reconnection springs from the basic science of electromagnetics, which dominates most of the universe and is a force as fundamental in space as gravity is on Earth

Quote:

Spotting the persistent characteristic crescent shape in the electron distributions suggests that it is the physics of electrons that is at the heart of understanding how magnetic field lines accelerate the particles.

"This shows us that the electrons move in such a way that electric fields are established and these electric fields in turn produce a flash conversion of magnetic energy,” said Roy Torbert, a scientist at the Space Science Center at the University of New Hampshire in Durham, who is a co-author on the paper. “The encounter that our instruments were able to measure gave us a clearer view of an explosive reconnection energy release and the role played by electron physics."

NASA Directly Observes Fundamental Process of Nature for 1st Time

Right so electric fields then NOT magnetic fields. Is it still fair to call is 'magnetic" re-connection?

How are these electric fields being produced in your perfectly conducting plasma, ziggurat?

The plasma is neither a perfect conductor nor a perfect insulaotr. It's the charge density like tusenfem says, its not the total amperage but the current density in electric currents in space that controls!

Low β plasma can for force free field aligned currents...

Quote:

We now present here a model that requires a low-β plasma environment.

Donald E. Scott

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by hecd2

No source.

Or maybe you could suggest one.

Try the most obvious first, CHARGE SEPARATION.



Strong Winds Power Electric Fields in the Upper Atmosphere, NASA’s ICON Finds

Quote:

Strong winds in the thermosphere, a layer of the upper atmosphere known for its high temperatures, push current-carrying plasma in the ionosphere across invisible magnetic field lines that arc around Earth like an onion. The wind tends to push on chunky, positively charged particles more than small, negatively charged electrons. “You get pluses moving differently than minuses,” said co-author Brian Harding, a physicist at University of California, Berkeley. “That’s an electric current.”

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

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

Hans

Subconsciously? Probably.
I'm reminded of the line from the HHGTTG

Quote:

"If human beings don't keep exercising their lips, their brains start working.”

It seems common with woosters of various persuasions that their need to continually keep spamming the same, repetitive, nonsense is a form of reinforcement of their own beliefs, to try and stave off self-doubt and the influx of reality,

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Subconsciously? Probably.
I'm reminded of the line from the HHGTTG

It seems common with woosters of various persuasions that their need to continually keep spamming the same, repetitive, nonsense is a form of reinforcement of their own beliefs, to try and stave off self-doubt and the influx of reality,

and the influx of reality

Is the reality that electric currents, charge separation leading to electric fields to much reality?

is there charge separation in space?

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Right so electric fields then NOT magnetic fields. Is it still fair to call is 'magnetic" re-connection?

This is yet another example of Sol88's failure to understand that the electromagnetic field is a unified field.

Since 1905, we have known that any division of that unified electromagnetic field into separate electric and magnetic fields will depend upon one's arbitrary choice of reference frame.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The chosen reference frame determines whether an electromagnetic phenomenon is viewed as an effect of electrostatics or magnetism or a combination of the two.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Sol88

yes ya can...[i]In physics, the electric displacement field (denoted by D) or electric induction is a vector field that appears in Maxwell's equations. It accounts for the effects of free and bound charge within materials[further explanation needed].

First, it's bad form to cite a source without providing a link. So here it is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electr...lacement_field

Second, this is yet another case of you reading without understanding. Note that, as that page explains, this is SPECIFICALLY for dielectric materials. What is a dielectric material?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric

In electromagnetism, a dielectric (or dielectric material or dielectric medium) is an electrical insulator that can be polarised by an applied electric field. When a dielectric material is placed in an electric field, electric charges do not flow through the material as they do in an electrical conductor, because they have no loosely bound, or free, electrons that may drift through the material, but instead they shift, only slightly, from their average equilibrium positions, causing dielectric polarisation.

Plasmas are nod dielectrics. They have free electrons. Electric displacement field is not useful for conductors. It is useful for dealing with dielectric materials because it lets you make bound charges implicit rather than explicit, but free charges must always be explicit, so it gains you nothing when working with conductors.

Given how important you think electromagnetism is, it's quite remarkable how little you actually know about it.

ETA: oh, and the displacement field is a mathematical construct, it is not a physically real field. So, irony there regarding Sol88's distaste for mathematical abstraction.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Drift currents, not the right language. Try Electric displacement field centered on the Sun.

I'd rather not, for the reasons Ziggurat has pointed out! Here we go again, in the most dumbed down way I can manage;

Scott wants electrons to drift in from beyond the heliosphere to power the Sun. That is impossible. No charged particles can enter the heliosphere unless they have ~ relativistic energies. We call them 'cosmic rays'. We know the flux of them. And there aren't enough of them to power much of anything. Any charged particle has to get past the piled-up magnetic field at the heliopause. Having got past that, it is confronted with the magnetic field carried by the solar wind, at ~ 400 km/s, all the way to that heliopause.

Then we can add his complete ignorance of what the solar wind actually is. He thinks it is a current of ions heading outward, with his drift electrons impossibly heading inwards. As Alfven explained, the solar wind must be overall neutral, otherwise we get an enormous space charge. Which would be bloody obvious. It seems like Alfven, and ~ 60 years of in-situ detections of the quasi-neutral solar wind, are not enough to convince Scott that he hasn't got a clue about plasma physics. Then again, why would he? He was an engineer! Pity he can't recognise that, and shut up about things he doesn't understand. Which also includes nuclear physics.

He wants the neutrinos we detect to come from fusion on the surface/ in the solar atmosphere! It is neither hot enough nor dense enough for fusion there. If, by some miracle, it did occur, it would be blindingly obvious as gamma ray line emission. Which is obviously not seen. Were there sufficient impossible fusion on the surface to account for the neutrino detections, we wouldn't be here. We would never have evolved. Nor would anything else on this planet.

The very fact of our existence is enough to show that Scott is completely clueless!

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Well, according to our mate Ampreres, smidge of charge seperation would occur. This would lead to an electric field, maybe even one of my beloved DOUBLE LAYERS to form, to try and maintain quasi neutrality.

I don't know who Ampreres is, and also don't know what a "smidge of charge seperation" should be and why it would occur.
You seem to just put some keywords together in nonsensical sentences (including numerous typos)

Originally Posted by Sol88

This would set all sorts of fun games for your completely busted MHD. Like hecd2 says, MHD got a little E! What multiple “little” E or interacting? Maths be more complicated? Maybe too complex over galactic size grid computation in a super whiz bang CPU.

Just how it is.

There is lots of E in MHD, but you have to understand it, what the equations mean and such, which you do not.
And then you keep on complaining about the mathamajics being too complicated and then link to papers with an enourmous amount of math (which you do not understand) that show that the math is not too complicated, or else the paper would not have been written.
Did you ever look at a plasma physics book? How everything is elegantly derived, and no that is not only MHD but also full kinetic plasma physics.
This "discussion" is just getting more and more ridiculous, as it always does, until it stops and then starts again from point zero in a few months.

Just how it is.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Identification of comet Hyakutake's extremely long ion tail from magnetic field signatures

As usual you just highlight what you need, even though further on in the sentence it is explained why the measurements of electron and ion densities do not agree

Quote:

nor apparently was charge neutrality maintained, as the electron number density remained comparatively stable. As violation of these conditions was unlikely, another source of pressure, such as heavy ions, must have been present; these would have been outside the detection range of the plasma instrument.

One cannot always measure everything with the instruments sent into space.

Originally Posted by Sol88

MMS also has some interesting bits n bobs on the failure of MHD (little E) and in light of the this assertion

There are many papers from Cluster, Themis and MMS that show all kind of things, e.g. where the "frozen in " condition breaks down (i.e. MHD is not valid) but also where the measured electric field E is in agreement with the motional electric field v x B, and thus .... (I will let you figure that out for yourself).

[Sol88]

Collimation of the relativistic jet in the quasar 3C273

Quote:

Our results demonstrate that ultra-high-resolution observations with new millimeter facilities can provide many new insights for high-powered AGN which were not previously suitable to study jet collimation. Further study using full polarimetric data and Faraday rotation synthesis can reveal the distribution of the three-dimensional magnetic field and the circumnuclear medium in the active collimation region (e.g., Park et al. 2019a). These explorations with polarimetric analysis using presented multifrequency data including GMVA+ALMA will be presented in a forthcoming paper.

Interesting....still drawing a blank?

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Interesting....still drawing a blank?

I am sure you are.

[lauwenmark]

And still no answers to these...

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

1) What ARE "mainstream electric universe ideas"?

2) How do they differ from the current paradigm?

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

4) What evidence exists to support them?

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

Hans

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

As usual you just highlight what you need, even though further on in the sentence it is explained why the measurements of electron and ion densities do not agree



One cannot always measure everything with the instruments sent into space.



There are many papers from Cluster, Themis and MMS that show all kind of things, e.g. where the "frozen in " condition breaks down (i.e. MHD is not valid) but also where the measured electric field E is in agreement with the motional electric field v x B, and thus .... (I will let you figure that out for yourself).

Researchers observe directly turbulent magnetic reconnection in solar wind

Quote:

For the first time, the research team found direct evidence of the turbulent reconnection in the solar wind. Moreover, the filamentary currents and flux ropes inside the diffusion region are observed, leading to a turbulent diffusion region. During the turbulent reconnection, the ions and electrons are effectively heated.

Electric fields?

[Ziggurat]

You keep posting links to things that you don't understand, which don't show what you think it shows, and aren't generally even related to what you're responding to. Who exactly do you think you're impressing?

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You keep posting links to things that you don't understand, which don't show what you think it shows, and aren't generally even related to what you're responding to. Who exactly do you think you're impressing?

I expect that he may be auditioning for that new movie which may possibly be made someday which is entitled Breaking 3: Electric Universe Boogaloo.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Researchers observe directly turbulent magnetic reconnection in solar wind




Electric fields?

Dunno, does it say so in the paper?

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

not electric fields
i asked you before how does plasma "flowing across the magnetic field" generate an electric field?

Well, magnetic fields apparently!

Quote:

During the process, the magnetic energy is rapidly released to heat and accelerate the plasmas.

Researchers observe directly turbulent magnetic reconnection in solar wind

Magnetic fields and Electric Fields both accelerate charged particles?

The ELECTRIC FIELD in magnetic reconnection is actually an electric field. This is accelerating the particles NOT the magnetic field, silly.

Did you know, tusenfem?

Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission Observations of Reconnecting Electric Fields in the Magnetotail on Kinetic Scales

In case you really want it hard...

This illustrates that when ions decouple electron physics dominates. MHD is dead as...

Tough you keep trying to expound it's virtues whilst poo pooing Scotts.

Quote:

Key Points

• First MMS observations of electric fields near reconnecting site in the magnetotail
• A newly devised measure of estimating proximity to the electron diffusion region
• Demonstration that when ions decouple the electron physics dominates

Magentic reconection as spouted here is dead. Electric Fields in the Magnetotail on Kinetic Scales dominates.

Along with a Diamagnetic cavity, both have parallels in AGN "jets" n Black Holes.

Plasma, scalable. Gravity, not so much.

[tusenfem]

Originally Posted by Sol88

Originally Posted by me

not electric fields
i asked you before how does plasma "flowing across the magnetic field" generate an electric field?

Well, magnetic fields apparently!

Well that is an "answer".

Originally Posted by Sol88

Magnetic fields and Electric Fields both accelerate charged particles?

Of course, the magnetic tension of the field will relax, like a rubber band, and accelerate the attached ions and electrons. C'est simple comme bonjour.

Originally Posted by Sol88

The ELECTRIC FIELD in magnetic reconnection is actually an electric field.
Did you know, tusenfem?

Wow, the ELECTRIC FIELD is an electric field, who would have thought THAT???

Originally Posted by Sol88

This illustrates that when ions decouple electron physics dominates. MHD is dead as...

Please explain, so we can see whether you understand what you copypasted.

MHD is not dead, it is just NOT USED when you look at the ion diffusion region, and do you know WHY?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

MHD is not dead, it is just NOT USED when you look at the ion diffusion region, and do you know WHY?

Sol88 seems to believe that mainstream physics has no way to deal with plasmas other than MHD. Which is obviously wrong.

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by tusenfem

Well that is an "answer".



Of course, the magnetic tension of the field will relax, like a rubber band, and accelerate the attached ions and electrons. C'est simple comme bonjour.



Wow, the ELECTRIC FIELD is an electric field, who would have thought THAT???



Please explain, so we can see whether you understand what you copypasted.

MHD is not dead, it is just NOT USED when you look at the ion diffusion region, and do you know WHY?

Of course, the magnetic tension of the field will relax, like a rubber band, and accelerate the attached ions and electrons. C'est simple comme bonjour., of course?



Source or example?

[Sol88]

Of your magnetic acceleration is not accelerating the ions to the same speed as the electrons...

Back to square one. The DEATH of MHD as a useful model.

[Sol88]

also

Wow, the ELECTRIC FIELD is an electric field, who would have thought THAT???

So, magnetic reconection is actually more correctly called electric current rearrangement giving rise to small electric fields (charge separation) that accelerates particles?

Electric re-connection.