Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy - Magnetic Reconnection

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy

IMO it's a tad ironic that Tom Bridgman spends his free time talking about dealing with creationism in astronomy when he's the one that is claiming that a 'big bang' created all the matter in our universe. :confused::doh:

He's essentially peddling a creation event story that requires three (maybe four now) hypothetical entities. Considering his basic belief system, I have no idea why he feels compelled to whine about other people's creation mythologies. Anyway, what struck me about his most recent blog entry was his topic - Magnetic reconnection theory.

What struck me most about this particular post is the blatant ignorance of history, along with the absurd attempt to twist the facts.

There is a popular misconception, mostly among supporters of Electric Universe (EU) claims, that solar flares and similar eruptive events in plasmas are discharges much like terrestrial lightning or an arc furnace.
There is no misconception. The fact of the matter is that solar flares are "electrical discharges". Bridgman's whole spiel about "like terrestrial lightning" seems to be the area where he intends to play word games.

In fact it was Kristian Birkeland who first described solar flares as electrical discharges, not James Dungey.

FYI, here's what Hannes Alfven had to say about "magnetic reconnection" theory when he presented his double layer paper that made that theory obsolete:

B. Magnetic Merging — A Pseudo-Science

Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfvén, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in 1.3, 11.3, and 11.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist.

A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985). They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.

I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.

In those parts of solar physics which do not deal with the interior of the Sun and the dense photospheric region (fields where the frozen-in concept may be valid), the state is even worse. It is difficult to find theoretical papers on the low density regions which are correct. The present state of plasma astrophysics seems to be almost completely isolated from the new concepts of plasma which the in situ measurements on space plasma have made necessary (see Section VIII).

I sincerely hope that the increased interest in the study of double layers — which is fatal to this pseudoscience — will change the situation. Whenever we find a double layer (or any other E ll # 0) we hammer a nail into the coffin of the "merging" pseudo-science.
In short, Alfven openly stated that the entire 'magnetic reconnection' concept was pure pseudoscience. His double layer paper makes it obsolete and Bridgman never even mentioned that.

To discuss electrical discharges in plasma we first need a definition of an electrical discharge from a plasma physics textbook. Anthony Peratt from his book "Physics Of The Plasma Universe":

1 .5 Electrίcal Discharges in Cosmic Plasma

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy.
This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium. As such, discharges are local phenomena and are usually accompanied by violent prαesses such as rapid heating, ionization, the creation of pinched and filamentary conduction channels, particle acceleration, and the generation of prodigious amounts of electromagnetic radiation. As an example, multi-terawatt pulsed-power generators on earth rely on strong electrical discharges to produce intense particle beams, Χrays, and microωανes . Megajoules of energy are electrically stored in capacitor banks, whose volume may encompass 250 m^3 . This energy is then transferred to a discharge regίοn, located many meters from the source, viα a transmission line.
Now of course Peratt studied plasma physics from Alfven, but I have no idea what, if anything, Bridgman understands about plasma physics, or if he's even read a single textbook on the topic of plasma physics.

If one actually takes the time to read these papers, one finds that the framework around the process Dungey describes for his use of the term 'discharge' actually fits our modern description of magnetic reconnection! Dungey describes the event in terms of magnetic neutral points, AKA X-points!
BZZZT! Those aren't just magnetic neutral points in Dungey's paper, they are electrically active areas where streams of electrons are flowing, electrons that ultimately *discharge* themselves into to the surrounding plasma.

Now of course Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma *is inclusive* of "magnetic reconnection' theory in the first place, it's not *exclusive*.

But solar flares cannot be a 'discharge' in this sense. The solar atmosphere is almost completely ionized and therefore quickly shorts any strong electric field unless that field is created in the plasma configuration itself.
That line is so false it's pathetic. The electrical discharges in the plasma of Birkeland's experiments came from a source *external* to the plasma itself, and the ionization state of the plasma to start with is utterly irrelevant. Alfven also wrote an entire paper that is devoted to explaining how and why electric fields form in plasma, which Bridgman never mentioned!

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Currents%20In%20The%20Solar%20Atmosphere%20And%20A%20Theory%20Of%20Solar%20Flares.pdf

He is basically wrong on both counts.

"X" Marks the Spot
As mentioned above, one of the common characteristics in observations of solar flares was the existence of a magnetic null point near the location of the observed flare. This null point would divide the region up into four zones, forming an 'X'-shaped configuration, as noted above.
Apparently Bridgman does not begin to even understand Alfven's double layer paper or that paper by James Dungey. That same X marks the spot in Alfven's double layer where the current from both directions slams into each other. It's not just 'magnetic lines' that interact at that X, it's all the charged particles that are interacting at that X. That's true in Alfven's double layer paper, and it's true in the paper by James Dungey as well.

Often, Electric Universe supporters don't even mention that reconnection with energy release can only occur when the field is imbedded in a plasma.
That line is a complete misrepresentation of the facts considering my discussion of this topic at JREF. It was the astronomers and the mathematicians that kept claiming that "reconnection' was a "plasma optional" process! It's the maintream that doesn't even understand their own stupid pseudoscientific theories, not the EU proponents.

Now there's a problem, because it is very difficult to mathematically model the behavior of lots of charged particles in electric and magnetic fields, especially when the particles themselves are contributing to the fields controlling their motion. Theorists try to make the problem manageable by abstracting the more complex, small-scale motions into approximations that can be described with some simple parameters.
Alfven already did that for him:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double Layers In Astrophysics.pdf

While some of the details were found to be incorrect, the overall picture of the magnetic field environment remained intact. Because the classical use of the term 'discharge' more correctly fit descriptions of lightning and this did not fit the environment for reconnection, the term 'discharge' was discouraged for solar and magnetospheric eruptive events.
Their 'discouragement' was a ruse that was designed to ignore the fact the they *are* similar processes! That's their entire game in a nutshell. When they talk about making two "lines" reconnect, they aren't talking about simple magnetic lines, they are talking about current carrying threads of plasma (aka Birkeland currents) that electrically interact through a double layer that forms in between the two currents! There are no simple "magnetic lines' that actually reconnect, there are two *Birkeland currents" that reconnect electrically through a double layer. Alfven's double layer paper makes their "reconnection' theory obsolete in such instances. They can't and won't accept that fact.

"Magnetic reconnection" is another example of a 'place holder' term which we use while we try to learn the details of what's going on.
It's a placeholder term for pure pseudoscience according to the author of plasma physics theory. It's a placeholder term for an electrical interaction process in a plasma double layer that is adequately described in Alfven's double layer paper without the need for any magnetic lines disconnecting from or reconnecting to any other magnetic lines.

When physicists use the term 'magnetic reconnection', it covers a wide variety of conditions.
Not actually. They all occur in "current carrying" environments, and Alfven's double layer paper explains that process already *without* reconnection theory.

The bottom line is that Dungey's paper is NOT support for solar and magnetospheric energetic events being physically analogous to terrestrial lighting or arc discharges.
That statement is pure bunk. They are both "electrical discharges" involving huge amount of current through plasma.
 
Last edited:

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Oh how I've missed the blather of creationists who pretend to be experts in science.

From actually reading his papers and his books including Cosmic Plasma, (something astronomers rarely do), I get the feeling that Alfven felt the same way about magnetic reconnection theory. ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Aryeh
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
There is a popular misconception, mostly among supporters of Electric Universe (EU) claims, that solar flares and similar eruptive events in plasmas are discharges much like terrestrial lightning or an arc furnace. - Tom Bridgman
What misconception, the one on his part?

His own scientists have used electric currents to create solar flares in the laboratory, perhaps TB would be better off reading what science is telling him instead of talking of what he knows not.

The lab where it is always sunny: Researchers recreate precursor to solar flares | Mail Online

Just like mainstream have recreated galactic jets in the laboratory using electric currents.

Plasma experiment recreates astrophysical jets - space - 04 July 2005 - New Scientist

"People think magnetic fields accelerate the jet, but I don't think anyone had any great models on why the jets are skinny," says Bellan.
No, mainstream astronomers and basher's of EU theory think magnetic fields accelerate particles. Electrical Engineers know better and have known this for close to 200 years.

The Lorentz Force

It follows that a magnetic field is unable to do work on a charged particle. In other words, a charged particle can never gain or lose energy due to interaction with a magnetic field. On the other hand, a charged particle can certainly gain or lose energy due to interaction with an electric field. Thus, magnetic fields are often used in particle accelerators to guide charged particle motion (e.g., in a circle), but the actual acceleration is always performed by electric fields.
Particle accelerator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh how I've missed the blather of creationists who pretend to be experts in science.


Seems your own scientists are proving the creationist side then, while the evolutionist is lying to your face and not presenting you with the facts.


It is no longer theory, but backed by laboratory experiments whereas what does he have? An unseen core of continuous nuclear fusion (never achieved), already disproved by modern experiments.

[1206.3173] Anomalously Weak Solar Convection

This is 2013, we have the technology to see what could not be seen before, electrical currents everywhere.

NASA - The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target

NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus

NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | NASA Lunar Science Institute

NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights - NASA Science

Check your own reality - seems to be missing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
What misconception, the one on his part?

Evidently so. :)

If you read Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma, it's actually *inclusive* of reconnection theory and induction. Of course Bridgman never bothered to cite a useful scientific definition of an electrical discharge in plasma and it's highly unlikely he's read any of Alfven's work on double layers or that he understands his views on reconnection theory. I'm almost certain he's never read Peratt's book on plasma physics.

My last conversation on this topic at JREF was quite enlightening by the way. The argument started with a mathematician claiming that "magnetic reconnection" was a plasma optional process.

I think he took three or four weeks and presented something like five parts in his dog and pony show, and and not one single resident astronomer in the crowd busted him on his claim about plasma being optional in the "reconnection' process. They don't have the slightest clue about plasma physics, and even their understanding of basic EM theory is woefully lacking IMO.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of EM field theory knows that magnetic lines have no beginning, no ending, no source, and no sink. Magnetic fields aren't like electric fields with a defined source and sink. Magnetic lines cannot disconnect from other magnetic lines, nor reconnect to other magnetic lines. Only plasma particles and *current* can reconnect in plasma. When I pointed all this out to them and cited WIKI for them, they actually changed the WIKI page to suit themselves! :doh:

The whole "magnetic" reconnection claim is pure pseudoscience, just like Alfven said. If they called it "current reconnection', or "circuit reconnection', they might actually get it. The mainstream doesn't even grasp basic EM theory properly in many cases, and almost none of them have the slightest clue about plasma behaviors. Even JREF's so called "resident expert" tried to claim that magnetic reconnection was a plasma optional process. That's why Brigman's one comment was so ironic.

Often, Electric Universe supporters don't even mention that reconnection with energy release can only occur when the field is imbedded in a plasma.

What a ridiculous statement. The EU crowd has a *much* better handle on plasma physics, and it's the mainstream that seems to believe that 'reconnection' is a plasma optional process! After reading Birn's work on reconnection theory, I finally understood what idea they were trying to convey, but it's ultimately just 'circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection" since they all involve current exchange, through a double layer in plasma.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Evidently so. :)

If you read Peratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma, it's actually *inclusive* of reconnection theory and induction. Of course Bridgman never bothered to cite a useful scientific definition of an electrical discharge in plasma and it's highly unlikely he's read any of Alfven's work on double layers or that he understands his views on reconnection theory. I'm almost certain he's never read Peratt's book on plasma physics.

My last conversation on this topic at JREF was quite enlightening by the way. The argument started with a mathematician claiming that "magnetic reconnection" was a plasma optional process.

I think he took three or four weeks and presented something like five parts in his dog and pony show, and and not one single resident astronomer in the crowd busted him on his claim about plasma being optional in the "reconnection' process. They don't have the slightest clue about plasma physics, and even their understanding of basic EM theory is woefully lacking IMO.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of EM field theory knows that magnetic lines have no beginning, no ending, no source, and no sink. Magnetic fields aren't like electric fields with a defined source and sink. Magnetic lines cannot disconnect from other magnetic lines, nor reconnect to other magnetic lines. Only plasma particles and *current* can reconnect in plasma. When I pointed all this out to them and cited WIKI for them, they actually changed the WIKI page to suit themselves! :doh:

The whole "magnetic" reconnection claim is pure pseudoscience, just like Alfven said. If they called it "current reconnection', or "circuit reconnection', they might actually get it. The mainstream doesn't even grasp basic EM theory properly in many cases, and almost none of them have the slightest clue about plasma behaviors. Even JREF's so called "resident expert" tried to claim that magnetic reconnection was a plasma optional process. That's why Brigman's one comment was so ironic.



What a ridiculous statement. The EU crowd has a *much* better handle on plasma physics, and it's the mainstream that seems to believe that 'reconnection' is a plasma optional process! After reading Birn's work on reconnection theory, I finally understood what idea they were trying to convey, but it's ultimately just 'circuit reconnection" or "current reconnection" since they all involve current exchange, through a double layer in plasma.

What always gets me is current astronomers ideas on magnetic fields being *frozen in*. I have yet to see anyone explain how a magnetic field is *frozen in* at the temperatures found in the Sun's environment without a constant electric current to sustain that magnetic field.

Temperature effects on magnets
The Curie Temperature (Tc) is the temperature at which the magnet will be completely demagnetized. Even though it may still be a magnetic material, a material that has the ability to retain a magnetic field when magnetized, it would have completely demagnetized. It is important to note that taking a magnet to Tc will demagnetize the magnet, but depending on the process used, heating and cooling rates, and the environment that the magnet is exposed to during the temperature cycle, heating a magnet to Tc can cause structural or mechanical damage.
Here is a list of tempertures for common materials.


Curie temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since a magnetic field can not even be blocked, disconnection and reconnection is a usless theory.

Is there any material that can block a magnetic force? Specifically does lead block magnetic fields?
Which implies that there are no magnetic monopoles. That is, where as you can separate electric monopoles (positive and negative charges) such that an E-field never has to terminate on the opposite charge, you cannot do this with magnetic poles. There do not exist any magnetic monopoles. There is no such thing as "magnetic charge." All magnetic field lines MUST TERMINATE on the opposite pole. Because of this, there is no way to stop them -- nature must find a way to return the magnetic field lines back to an opposite pole.
Gauss' Law for Magnetic Fields
According to Gauss' law (see Sect. 4.2), the electric flux through any closed surface is directly proportional to the net electric charge enclosed by that surface. Given the very direct analogy which exists between an electric charge and a magnetic monopole, we would expect to be able to formulate a second law which states that the magnetic flux through any closed surface is directly proportional to the number of magnetic monopoles enclosed by that surface. However, as we have already discussed, magnetic monopoles do not exist. It follows that the equivalent of Gauss' law for magnetic fields reduces to:

The magnetic flux though any closed surface is zero.

This is just another way of saying that magnetic monopoles do not exist, and that all magnetic fields are actually generated by circulating currents.
An immediate corollary of the above law is that the number of magnetic field-lines which enter a closed surface is always equal to the number of field-lines which leave the surface. In other words:

Magnetic field-lines form closed loops which never begin or end.
They actually believe because Electrical Engineers draw magnetic field strength lines off the paper it means they are open ended. Such drivel, the paper is just not large enough. If 15 lines are drawn leaving the North Pole, 15 lines will be drawn entering the South Pole. Every single reconnection theory ignores over 100 years of laboratory experiments with magnetic fields. It is the electric current which disconnects and reconnetcs. The magnetic field forms around the current, collapsing when the current is interrupted and reforming when the current reconnects.

Of course, if mainstream astronomers would even once take an electrical field theory class they would know this about magnetic fields and not be constantly surprised with every new data set. Reconnection theory could then be consigned to the trash bin and science could advance instead of going backwards to the 3rd century of using epicycles again.

One gets so tired of such poor science by mainstream astronomers and EU/PC bashers that have not a clue as to what the EU/PC theories actually say because they never read them, let alone their own science!:doh:
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Aryeh
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Death by Electric Universe. I. EU's Unsolvable Problem

Hey Jats, you're officially on Bridgman's hit list. :)

Apparently Mr. Bridgman is incredibly ignorant of EU/PC history, and/or not particularly imaginative. It turns out that Birkeland 'solved' Mr. Bridgman's "unsolvable problem" over 100 years ago, in a lab too. :)

This type of ignorance and close mindedness is the thing that is holding astronomy back at the moment. EU/PC theory doesn't have a "single" solar model. In fact it has several, and several hybrids. The "maths" that Mr. Bridgman presents really relate to a *single* 'electric sun' model, specifically the *externally* powered Juergen's solar model. Any *internally* powered 'electric sun' theory resolves Mr. Bridman's unsolvable problem, and that is exactly the model that Birkeland proposed. It's also the model that Alfven proposed as well.

What Mr. Bridgman failed to mention is that Birkeland published his internally powered "electric sun" (cathode sun) theory about 60 years before Juergen's. He also fails to mention that Alfven's "electric sun" model was also internally powered, in fact Alfven assumed that the standard solar model was correct in terms of energy production.

Juergen's presented his solar model at a time when the "neutrino mystery" was still in full swing, and nobody had a clue about neutrino flavor changes. It's relevancy today is anyone's guess. It should be pointed out however that even Juergen's model could be modified in terms of energy production, allowing for some local energy generation (local fusion) as well as external currents from the universe.

Admittedly Juergen's model isn't my personal favorite. I'm a big fan of Birkeland's cathode sun, but of course Birkeland presumed it was internally powered via a "transmutation of elements" inside the sun. It has nothing to do with Juergen's "johnny come lately" 'electric sun' theory.

I think what I find most obnoxious about EU "haters" is that they refuse to educate themselves to history. They also tend to have a very shallow and 'narrow' viewpoint of what an "electric sun" theory might be. None of them seem to have a clue about Birkeland's model for instance. Fewer still understand that Alfven's "electric sun" model was essentially the standard solar model in terms of power supply, with an electrical interaction in the solar atmosphere between the sun and the rest of the universe.

Bridgeman is a typical EU/PC hater. I doubt if he's even read a single textbook on plasma physics, and it's clear he's read none of Alfven's work. If he did read Birkeland's cathode sun theories, or Alfven's 'electric sun' theories, he's not even honest enough to mention either one of them as an alternative to Juergen's solar model.

I'll give Bridgman a little latitude in terms of demonstrating that Juergen's model of a completely externally powered sun isn't viable, but that's hardly a serious problem for "electric sun" theory. It's too bad that EU haters have so little regard for history, and such a blind hatred toward empirical physics. :(
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I must say.....

After reading Tom Bridgman's recent blog entries, it's easy to see why the mainstream is so utterly lost, and why they continue to grope around in the dark ages of astronomy.

Bridgman apparently does not know, nor did he ever once mention the fact that two of the first three 'electric sun' theories were *internally* powered. In fact Juergen's externally powered model wasn't the first "electric sun" theory ever proposed, nor has it been the last "electric sun' theory ever proposed.

God only knows why Bridgman picked that particular "electric sun" theory to focus on in the first place. God only knows why he seems to think that *all* electric sun theories have some sort of "unsolvable problem". Apparently his entire belief system is predicated upon pure ignorance of the long history of EU/PC theory, and he has no real desire to study the topic in earnest. I seriously doubt from his recent posts that he has even read a real textbook on plasma physics. I'm sure he has not read 'Cosmic Plasma" by Hannes Alfven, or he would certainly know that his "killer math's" about electric suns are completely irrelevant to Alfven's "electric sun" theory. They have no relevance to Birkeland's cathode sun theories either.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy

Note that Electric Universe supporters have no experiments - or even testable mathematical models - to support their alternatives - which appears to be some invisbile agent operating invisible electric discharge tubes.

This statement is so outrageously wrong, it's not even funny. It's bad enough that astronomers misrepresent the facts in relationship to their *own* theories, but the fact they blatantly lie about EU/PC theory is beyond sleazy.

Birkeland was the first EU/PC proponent to empirically test the EU/PC model *in the lab*, in real experiments. To suggest that EU/PC theory has no experimental support of a cathode solar model is absolutely false. Birkeland did that himself. He even created his own mathematical models to describe the travel path of *both* types of charged particles.

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double Layers In Astrophysics.pdf

The "invisible agent" in Birikeland's experiments was an ordinary current, and it wasn't all that "invisible" either. Birkeland literally described solar flares as electrical discharges in his work.

James Dungey also used the term "electrical discharges" in his work, and he also put forth a working model of how it worked. Not coincidentally, his work is much like 'reconnection' theory today, albeit he expressly described the current. Dr. Charles Bruce also did extensive writing on discharge theory as it relates to solar flares.

The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Critici
Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory of Cosmic Atmospheric Phenomena and Universal Evolution

What's nice about Dungey's paper is that it expressly accounts for the current along the "neutral", and he explicitly describes the energy release process as an electrical discharges, very much in agreement with Perratt's definition of an electrical discharge in plasma.

Anthony Perratt also wrote any entire plasma physics textbook that describes the whistler waves and various processes in plasma, not to mention the book that Alfven wrote that describe the math that Bridgman has clearly never read for himself.

Cosmic Plasma - H. Alfvèn - Google Books
Physics of the Plasma Universe (Book) - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

Apparently Mr. Bridgman believes that if he's personally never read and understood the work and math that describe solar flares from the E/circuit orientation of plasma physics, they must not exist. :(
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
FYI, it should also be noted that Birkeland's "electric/cathode sun" was internally powered. All of Mr. Bridgma's IBEX commentary is meaningful only to a Juergen's solar model, and only to an *externally* powered sun theory. Both Alfven's "electric sun" and Birkeland's electric sun were internally powered, not externally powered. Of course it's doubtful that Bridgman even understands Birkeland's solar model or Alfven's solar model based on his commentary.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Let's talk now about the mainstream experiments, how they actually work, and where Alfven's double layer paper comes in.

If you review the various lab experiments on 'magnetic reconnection", they typically begin by creating two current carrying filaments in plasma that flow in opposite directions. Note that it is the *current* that provides/creates both current filaments to start with, and all the available magnetic field energy as well. They then move the current filaments into close proximity, which causes a 'double layer' to form in between the two streams of current. Alfven's double layer paper describes the energy transfer process in that double layer *without* magnetic reconnection. In fact his double layer paper makes 'reconnection' theory obsolete in *all* current carrying environments, including the experiments that use current carrying filaments.

The "rewiring" that takes place between the two current filaments is an example of 'current reconnection', or 'circuit reconnection'. Magnetic lines do not have a beginning, an end, a source, or a sink. They cannot 'disconnect from' nor reconnect to any other magnetic lines. Even the concept of 'magnetic lines' is an oversimplification. Magnetic fields form as a complete and whole *field*, not discrete individualized lines.

In short, the mainstream simply *ignores* the kinetic energy of the current carrying filament, *ignores* the current flowing through the double layer, and tries to dumb down the whole process to a B (magnetic) orientation. The problem is that *electric* fields are providing the entire motive force behind each of the two current carrying filaments, and that same E field is what ultimately 'reconnects'.

As Alfven stated rather bluntly, MR theory is a 'psuedoscience' that is 'sort of' right, and 'sort of ' missing the whole point. As Alfven's double layer paper demonstrates, it's possible to describe the particle actions of a current carrying double layer *without* magnetic reconnection.

Anyone with a basic understanding of EM field theory knows that magnetic lines have no beginning. They don't "end' anywhere either. They don't have a source or a sink, so they cannot "disconnect" for any source, nor reconnect to any sink.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian


Those Sneaky Neutrinos...

Still more results showing how the solar neutrino problem was solved by neutrinos changing type as they travelled from the core of the Sun to the Earth. This result further reinforces the data of how the Sun is powered by INTERNAL nuclear reactions, not external electric currents.

And while mainstream science has plenty of published estimates of the neutrino flux for the standard solar model (Standard solar models, helioseismology, and solar neutrinos), we've yet to see a single estimate or even algorithm to compute the solar neutrino flux for ANY of the Electric Sun models.

Guess the Electric Sun supporters will have to continue to rely on innuendo to discredit the neutrino experiments since they have no facts…
As long as I'm complaining about the so called 'EU critics'....

While I agree with Bridgman on the 'internal vs. external' power issue, it's most annoying that he erroneously continues to act as though there is but *one* 'electric sun' theory.

Alfven's 'electric sun' theory was essentially the standard solar model, with EM interactions between the sun and the universe itself. It was *internally* powered, and it's energy source was dependent on the standard solar model. Unfortunately it also suffers from the revelation that convection speeds at depth are but 1 percent of predicted values.

Likewise Birkeland's solar model was *internally* powered, not externally powered. He presumed a 'transmutation of elements' was providing the power *internally*.

Both Alfven's model and Birkeland's model would *necessarily* need to match the neutrino output predictions of the standard model. Alfven's "electric sun" model is literally dependent upon the standard model. Birkeland also predicted an internal power source, so it too would need to match the neutrino counts of standard theory to produce enough energy to explain what we observe on Earth.

What is "different" about those two electric sun models is not their power source, but rather their interaction with the heliosphere. Birkeland's model actually predicts the flow of both types of charged particles from the sun that will flow toward the heliosphere (space in Birkeland's lingo).

There are of course more than just *three* "electric sun" models under discussion. Several other EU proponents have proposed their own variations of 'electric sun' models, some of which are also internally powered.

It's really disingenuous IMO for Tom Bridgman to misrepresent the facts as it relates to "electric sun" theories. There are several electric sun models to choose from, not one. A *minority* of them are actually entirely *externally* powered.

It's really very annoying IMO that EU critics aren't particularly knowledgeable about the EU/PC topic. I doubt Bridgman has even read Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfven, or he would already know this stuff.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Solar dynamic loops reveal a simultaneous explosion and implosion, plus evidence for magnetic reconnection

Coronal loops are giant magnetic arches filled with hot plasma at temperatures of over a million degrees Celsius. The structures are anchored in the dense photosphere, the visible surface of the Sun. The loops form the building blocks of the corona, the halo surrounding the Sun that can be seen during a total eclipse. They are dynamic structures that oscillate back and forth after explosive events such as solar flares.
This article that Bridgman cited to support so called 'magnetic reconnection' theory is amusing IMO. Notice that the mainstream 'dumbs down' a million degree current carrying plasma to a "magnetic arch"? That's utterly absurd. Coronal loops are current carrying Bennett pinches in plasma. It's the current that flows through the loop that sustains the individuals loop at a million degrees.

The only 'encouraging' thing about the article is that it would "seem" that the mainstream is now acknowledging that the large loops come up and through the surface of the photosphere, and are hot before they exit the photosphere. We can actually observe the magnetic fields that are associated with the flow of current in the largest loops in magnetogram images. The hot temperature of the loops also leave their heat signature on that surface in 1600A and 1700A images.

The thing they *didn't* mention is that coronal loops come in various sizes, from loops that are too small to be observed as more than a single pixel in an SDO image, to loops that are large enough to exit (and reenter) the photosphere.

The "little loops" never actually get large enough to exit the surface of the photosphere, and therefore they never leave their telltale heat and magnetic field signatures on the surface of the photosphere.

Many of the coronal loops are not only 'anchored' in the photosphere, the smaller ones never exit the photosphere at all.

The smaller loops release a lot of heat underneath of the surface of the photosphere. We see the effect of this release of energy in the smaller loops as convection at the surface of the photosphere.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
The Heart of Space Weather Observed in Action | NASA

This other video cited by Bridgman to support "magnetic reconnection" is another good example of a "dumbed down" explanation of arcade loops. The person in the video notes that they cannot observe the magnetic field "lines" as they call them, they observe the million degree particles that run along the 'flux rope". What the video fails to mention is that it's not just 'magnetic lines' that are 'reconnecting' at those locations, it is multiple (two or more) current carrying plasma filaments that 'rewire' themselves in the atmosphere as *current* seeks the path of least resistance through plasma.

It's not actually "magnetic lines" that disconnect or reconnect, it's *current* that rewires itself inside of a double layer. The double layer paper by Hannes Alfven makes the whole concept of ''magnetic reconnection' unnecessary and irrelevant in current carrying environments.

The energy that is released inside the double layer is due to the kinetic energy of the charged particles that traverse each loop, and traverse the double layer between the loops as the currents inside the double layer begins to 'reconnect'.

FYI, the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy has a proper name. It's called "induction', which of course does take place too. It is however the *600,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 volts that drives the process, not just dumbed down magnetic lines.

FYI, it's also disingenuous for Bridgman and the mainstream to be claiming that this represents 'magnetic reconnection' considering the fact that they lost their primary energy source to explain those 'magnetic lines' when they discovered that convection was much slower than predicted, just 1 percent of their predicted value. One percent!

I love how Bridgman just *ignores* the observations that falsify his own beliefs, yet he keeps harping on EU proponents without even properly understanding the range of 'electric sun models' that EU/PC theory has to offer.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
The Heart of Space Weather Observed in Action | NASA

This other video cited by Bridgman to support "magnetic reconnection" is another good example of a "dumbed down" explanation of arcade loops. The person in the video notes that they cannot observe the magnetic field "lines" as they call them, they observe the million degree particles that run along the 'flux rope". What the video fails to mention is that it's not just 'magnetic lines' that are 'reconnecting' at those locations, it is multiple (two or more) current carrying plasma filaments that 'rewire' themselves in the atmosphere as *current* seeks the path of least resistance through plasma.

It's not actually "magnetic lines" that disconnect or reconnect, it's *current* that rewires itself inside of a double layer. The double layer paper by Hannes Alfven makes the whole concept of ''magnetic reconnection' unnecessary and irrelevant in current carrying environments.

The energy that is released inside the double layer is due to the kinetic energy of the charged particles that traverse each loop, and traverse the double layer between the loops as the currents inside the double layer begins to 'reconnect'.

FYI, the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy has a proper name. It's called "induction', which of course does take place too. It is however the *600,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 volts that drives the process, not just dumbed down magnetic lines.

FYI, it's also disingenuous for Bridgman and the mainstream to be claiming that this represents 'magnetic reconnection' considering the fact that they lost their primary energy source to explain those 'magnetic lines' when they discovered that convection was much slower than predicted, just 1 percent of their predicted value. One percent!

I love how Bridgman just *ignores* the observations that falsify his own beliefs, yet he keeps harping on EU proponents without even properly understanding the range of 'electric sun models' that EU/PC theory has to offer.

But that's just it. You are asking them to give up a belief, not change a scientific theory. You and I and they understand that this is not merely solar data and theories at stake. The implications reach much further beyond that Michael.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I see that Bridman is up to his old tricks of simply *misrepresenting* what I actually said.

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy

An electric universe supporter claimed that high current is needed to make exposure to charged particles fatal and that high voltages cannot be fatal.
Emphasis mine. Brigman apparently then attempts to attribute this claim to *me*?!??????? :confused: :doh:

More specifically, I was making the point that in a space plasma in a region across an electric potential of 600 million volts (specifically in reference to the heliophysics environment claimed by Michael Mozina), the resulting radiation exposure will be quickly fatal. Some Electric Universe supporters want to get around this problem with their model by claiming that only a high current can kill.
First of all his original claim is purely bogus. I have *never* said to Bridgman that high voltages *could not* kill. He simply made that up, and in fact it's a blatantly false statement.

He's also attempting to *ignore* the fact that Birkeland's solar model is *internally* powered, and therefore the current requirements are *not* the same as a Juergen's solar model. He's also intent on ignoring that the solar wind has a terminal velocity, and that plasmas do not carry current evenly. About all I can say for that last "hater post" by Bridgman is that he literally "made up" the part that I highlighted. The rest is irrelevant in since Birkeland's model predicts that the sun will release *both* types of charged particles, not just one, and the end result is a moving "quasi-neutral* solar wind plasma in the vicinity of Earth that *separates* again into actual *current* as it runs into the magnetic fields of the Earth. Furthermore, electrons will always seek the path of least resistance, and inside the nearly perfect conductor of the plasmas in the the solar system, that won't be through the human body. :)

As long as Brigman continues to blatantly misrepresent the statements of the EU/PC community like that, he only dishonors himself and shows just how low he will go in a concerted effort to outrageously misrepresent the facts.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy

Ya know.....

It's become *painfully* clear that the mainstream "method" of dealing with electric universe theory is to begin by *oversimplifying* the *range* of various options in EU/PC theory, and then building a strawman case out of a *single* EU/PC option.

Such is the case with Tom Bridgman, one of perhaps the universe's greatest offenders in this activity.

In his last Blog entry, Bridgman makes several oversimplification fallacies, several factual errors, and demonstrates a *fundamental ignorance* of 2/3rds of of EU/PC theory.

EU/PC theory comes with three fundamentally unique solar models, two of which are *internally*, not externally powered. Bridgman's most recent attack on PC theory based on Peratt's models that used an *externally* powered solar model are an excellent example of this oversimplification process in motion in mainstream circles.

While it's technically correct that not *all* galaxies are "strung together" via columnated Birkeland currents with other galaxies, it's still *far* from clear that this is *never* the case in all instances. Furthermore he neglects to mention several of the *correct* predictions that both Birkeland *and* Peratt made with their models.

Birkeland's "electric universe" begins differently than Jurgen's "electric universe", and both are fundmentally different from Alfven's "electric universe models". There are *at least* three fundamentally *unique* "electric universe/plasma cosmology' concepts to consider within the EU/PC framework.

Bridgman begins (and ends) his oversimplification campaign against whole range of EU/PC theories by attempting to fundamentally 'dumb it down" to but a single concept, and only 1/3 of the possible range of options to choose from. This attempt of pure oversimplification is a *constant pattern* found among all Eu/PC theory "haters" IMO. They know just a tiny little bit about it, and insist on limiting it to *their own ignorant understanding* of the topic!

Even still, I'd like to address two fundamental problems with Bridgman's last oversimplified blog entry:

It's been a while since I've made the point about how the Peratt galaxy model fails observational testing. The electric currents which Peratt claimed could be powering galaxies would be strong emitters of microwave radiation. This was a fact even Peratt acknowledged, and EXPECTED that the microwave sky would be covered with spaghetti-like streamers which would connect galaxies like beads on a string (a popular metaphor of Electric Universe supporters). Peratt and other supporters of Plasma Cosmology expected to see these currents in large microwave sky-surveys. The best such survey in recent years is WMAP (Scott Rebuttal. II. The Peratt Galaxy Model vs. the Cosmic Microwave Background), and more recently PLANCK (Electric Universe: More data refuting the EU galaxy model).

Such microwave streamers connecting the galaxies were not found.
That's actually a factually untrue statement for two reasons. First of all we do observe well defined microwave emitting columns of *current* carrying plasma flowing into and out of galaxies, particularly around galaxies with 'active' central cores. They connect not necessarily to *other galaxies* directly, but to the surrounding plasma mediums, and *in some cases* they B) may in fact connect to other galaxy cores, and connect through that surrounding plasma medium.

Bridgman *assumes* that only one of three possible "configurations" of EU theory is somehow fully representative of the whole of EU/PC theory. He also *assumes* that the "wiring diagram" has to look *exactly* (and I mean exactly) like Peratt *assumed* in some mythical (not even named) quote from Peratt, otherwise the whole of EU/PC theory is falsified in his oversimplified hater world. :confused: :doh:

Let's start with what a real galaxy looks like (our own) in a *raw* (rather than heavily processed) microwave image:

Short Sharp Science: Microwave universe: Planck's first hi-res image

PLANCK.jpg


Just as *all* versions of EU/PC theory "predict", there are *tons* of electrically active current flowing to and from various locations *within* our own galaxy that do indeed radiate microwave energy just as *predicted* in EU/PC theory. Bridgman fails to note that successful prediction *entirely*.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PrbtzdGuw...AAAio/GtuAn6vuI74/s1600/herca_vlahst_1280.jpg

He also points us to his own selected image of a galaxy *with* an active core that *does* "wire itself' to the surrounding plasma, in well defined 'Birkeland currents" that are indeed predicted by *every* EU/PC theory. Again Bridgman fails to note this *successful prediction*, while concentrating on *one possible wiring configuration* that turned out to be 'oversimplified' even in early EU/PC models. Oh well. Nothing like ignoring all the *correct* predictions, and fixating on only one claim that actually isn't falsified by the image Bridgman selected.

Note that the *distance between* various galaxies is likely to play a large (read that *huge*) contributing factor in any likelihood of current traveling in well columnated jets for great distances. They clearly do travel great distances, but eventually they run into plasma that is dense enough to carry current without the need of well defined jets.

Bridgman also fails to note the fact that we *have found* well defined connecting bridges of *hot gas* (bait and switch term for current carrying plasma), between whole galaxy clusters!

Hot Gas Bridge Discovered Connecting Galaxy Clusters

Planck_A399_A401_SZE_optical_H1-580x580.jpg


Not only are the galaxies "wired together" individually via the surrounding plasma medium, they're also 'wired together' at the galaxy cluster level! Bridgman fails to note or ever mention this *successful prediction* of all EU/PC models.

I can only surmise from his most recent blog entry that Bridgman *assumes* that only *one possible wiring configuration* of Peratt's model was relevant, and only one specific prediction matters in terms of trying to falsify *every* EU/PC model.

Notice that these radio jets ejected from the centers of the galaxies disperse into blobs in the intergalactic medium.
By "blobs", apparently he means "more dense regions of plasma".

They are not connected to any larger cosmic 'electric circuit', 'Birkeland current' or similar cosmic structure, or even another galaxy.
How did he *decide* that based upon the images he presented?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PrbtzdGuw...AAAio/GtuAn6vuI74/s1600/herca_vlahst_1280.jpg

What Bridgman failed to note is that the currents *are* well defined *close to* the galaxies themselves, but once the medium is "more dense" the current can flow through the more dense medium *without* the need for strong columnized jets to form. It's not true that the IGM is empty, so it's not true that they currents must form *thin* streams of currents in *all* instances and densities of plasmas.

We still have not heard from Electric Universe theorists what would power such gigantic circuits if they did exist!
This is a flat out misstatement of fact. Birkeland was the first proponent of the 'electric universe' concept and he used an *internally* powered solar model, not an *externally* powered model. Bridgman's question was addressed more than 100 years ago by the *original proponent* of EU/PC theory. He's apparently ignorant of history, and *assumes* everyone else must be ignorant of history as well.

The fundamental difference between Alfven's solar model and Birkeland's solar model, vs. a Jurgen's solar model is the fact that the previous (first two) solar models were *internally* powered. Only the *last* and my personally *least favorite* solar model is *externally powered* at all, and even in that case it's not clear that the *whole thing* must necessarily be *externally* powered.

Bridgman is clearly ignorant of the whole of EU/PC history, and what he does think of "EU/PC theory' is really just a cartoon characterature of the actual theory. Even though the universe is indeed filled with currents that connect galaxies and whole galaxy clusters together, Bridgman ignorantly believes those currents have to flow in *tightly wound jets* in every location in spacetime! I doubt even Peratt himself ever said such a thing in a published paper which is why Bridgman never quoted him in the first place!

Grrr. The pure ignorance of EU/PC haters is just absurd. Bridgman seems to be destined to be the last "flat earther" left in cosmology theory, while he continues to whack away at his own ignorant little strawmen.


 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
But it takes currents to make a magnetic field!

This whine is the popular 'corollary' to the Electric Universe claim that only currents can make filaments.
Whine? He calls a *lab demonstrate fact* a "whine"? Really? Let's see Bridgman produce a plasma ball that creates tightly wound plasma spirals for *billions of years* after he turns off the power! In fact, I'd settle for 5 minutes. ;)

Only partially true. But once a magnetic field is started,
Once it's 'started'? You mean by *moving charged particles*, AKA *current*?

it can be maintained, and even regenerated, after the current is long gone, a consequence of the 'displacement current' (wikipedia) in Maxwell's equations, which is a consequence of the fact that electric charge is a conserved quantity.
Define "long gone" for me? In terms of nicely defined Birkeland currents, it's not going to happen. Once the current stops flowing the nicely defined Birkeland currents dissipate almost instantly. Turn of the power inside of an ordinary plasma ball and watch how fast the filaments disappear.

The most well-known example of this feedback between electric and magnetic fields is electromagnetic radiation, AKA light, which can propagate for billions of years after the initial current which created it is long gone.
Energy that is radiating away, and going billion of light years away, won't explain those nicely formed jets around black holes or around galaxy *clusters today*. The mainstream simply *ignores* the *need* for electric fields and the *need* for electrical current in astronomy. They *insists* on trying to *dumb it down* to the B orientation of Maxwell's equations, and they utterly refuse to embrace the E orientation of those very same formulas! That's why they need "magnetic reconnection" rather than the simple circuit theories that Alfven used to describe electrical discharges in double layers.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Elendur

Gamer and mathematician
Feb 27, 2012
2,405
30
Sweden - Umeå
✟17,952.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Engaged
...

Bridgman begins (and ends) his oversimplification campaign against whole range of EU/PC theories by attempting to fundamentally 'dumb it down" to but a single concept, and only 1/3 of the possible range of options to choose from. This attempt of pure oversimplification is a *constant pattern* found among all Eu/PC theory "haters" IMO. They know just a tiny little bit about it, and insist on limiting it to *their own ignorant understanding* of the topic!
I can't help but to point out the irony...

*SPOILER ALERT, EXTREMELY CLARIFYING STATEMENT TO COME*
(Given that several persons, that claims to have understanding in the matter, have stated equivalently about you (with the exception of the range statement (which, you know, you extend into infinity)))

...
We still have not heard from Electric Universe theorists what would power such gigantic circuits if they did exist!
This is a flat out misstatement of fact. Birkeland was the first proponent of the 'electric universe' concept and he used an *internally* powered solar model, not an *externally* powered model. Bridgman's question was addressed more than 100 years ago by the *original proponent* of EU/PC theory. He's apparently ignorant of history, and *assumes* everyone else must be ignorant of history as well.

...
Ok. So if that is a misstatement of fact, then I assume you mean that the opposite would be correct.
I.e. you claim that:
We have heard from Electric Universe theorists what would power such gigantic circuits if they did exist.

Do you think it would be within my range of knowledge to take part of the calculations for the expected energy consumption of a star to "power such gigantic circuits"?
(If not a general, a specific would do)

If yes, could I see it?
 
Upvote 0