Astronomers should be sued for false advertizing. (3)

[RealityCheck01]

None of that is actually true.

You are wrong, Michael.
Plasma is quasi-neutral. On cosmological scales there are no EM effects from plasma. Thus EM effects from plasma are not included in the Lambda-CDM model.

They do it too when they talk about magnetism and flux ropes.
...usual insults snipped....

No they do not - no one describes flux ropes as slinkys !
Astronomers do not completely ignore that actual currents happen within the plasma in flux ropes.
The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System has 2245 abstracts containing "flux tube current", e.g. Current sheet formation in quasi-separatrix layers and hyperbolic flux tubes.

You have provided no evidence that Hannes Alfvén described 'threads' (filamentary clouds) as current flows and circuits.

 

[Michael]

You are wrong, Michael.
Plasma is quasi-neutral.

Quasi-neutral isn't "neutral" RC. The plasma in an electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere can be considered 'quasi-neutral' as well, but it's also a *current carrying device* that moves current over very large distances, much larger than you seem to realize or comprehend or give it credit for.

Furthermore, when introduced to other EM fields, these "quasi-neutral" plasma particles with current flowing through them, act *very* differently than a "gas"!

On cosmological scales there are no EM effects from plasma.

Absolutely false. That is the mainstream problem in a nutshell. What it 'left out' in terms of the EM field effects in a mostly plasma universe, it tries to make up for with "supernatural" stuff.

Thus EM effects from plasma are not included in the Lambda-CDM model.

Thus the Lambda-CDM model went down in flames in the Planck data set yet again when they discovered the universe isn't homogeneous on the largest scales as *Guth predicted*. Epic fail of a critical test. Last time this kind of epic failure happened we got 'dark energy'. Got any bets on what the "supernatural fix'' will be called this time RC?

No they do not - no one describes flux ropes as slinkys !

They *do not* recognize or talk about the 'circuit energy' related to that flux rope in the way that Alfven did. They utterly ignore the *circuit energy*, the electric fields that drive them, and they ignore the electric energy in the thread.

Astronomers do not completely ignore that actual currents happen within the plasma in flux ropes.
The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System has 2245 abstracts containing "flux tube current", e.g. Current sheet formation in quasi-separatrix layers and hyperbolic flux tubes.

The last time we had this debate you guys were running around claiming that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma in spite of the fact that Dungey talked about the process over 60 years ago, and Birkeland demonstrated electrical discharges in his lab over 100 years ago!

You have provided no evidence that Hannes Alfvén described 'threads' (filamentary clouds) as current flows and circuits.

Yes RC, I did. Let me ask. Have you read that book yet, yes or no?

Perhaps you could start by giving us a overview of this chapter 1.5 of Alfven's book entitled 'Boundary conditions: Circuit dependence". Then please give us an overview of Chapter three entitled "Circuits".

 

[Michael]

Sorry - but you missed the point Michael.
Forum owners are free to make up whatever rules they like.

True indeed. That particular draconian website chooses to hold the equivalent of "witch hunts" for anyone and any idea they don't like.

In this case they have noticed that threads that cranks

There you go again, right back to the gutter of debate tactics, smearing *individuals*, attacking individuals, using loading language, and debasing the conversation. Proud of yourself RC? You're a one (actually two including denial) trick pony.

start on ATM ideas tend to get very long (cranks frequently cannot acknowledge that they have made mistakes) and often turbulent.
After all, Michael, think about the frustration of people who have spent years learning physics and along comes someone whose idea of physics is pointing at images and saying "I see bunnies in there"!

With those "bunnies' I predicted flares at JREF within 20 minutes of the event. Love them magic bunnies that have a useful purpose.

The really *sad* part is the "hanging of the witch". Most every forum, this one included allows for atheists to 'live and let live' on their forums even if they don't "prove their case". That witch hunt - kill the messenger mentality is simply bizarre.

Thus they decided to make the ATM area get closer to usual scientific debate

A typical debate at a typical website on the internet doesn't require one side to "prove their case' to the satisfaction of the moderators - *or else*. They don't single out *individuals* and put them on trial. They don't *require* them to answer *any* questions on command with various deadlines, etc. No other website in cyberspace has such a draconian and irrational attitude toward dissenters. They can't handle any serious scientific debate so they kill everyone that disagrees with them and they burn all the witches at the stake.

Don't even think about asking me to comment on any threads there that don't happen to include various bits of information. The whole system there is designed to *prohibit* the discussion of PC/EU theory or any other theory that isn't "Lambda-CDM". All heretics are burned at the stake, and the fun begins with a new unsuspecting (of the rules) heretic comes along.

 

[Michael]

Seriously, Justatruthseeker???
You seem not know how plasma is effectively neural over a large enough scale:

Debye length

The Debye length is irrelevant since electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere (and in spacetime) can be *miles* in length RC. It's the *thread distance* that matters to the flow of current through the plasma, not the debye length.

Who is this "you"?
Astronomers do note the obvious. Clouds of gas (even when ionized and actually plasma) can collide, e.g. when galaxy clusters collide. So you get "bow shocks and waves in space".

You get bow shocks in *plasma*, not "hot gas" in space.

It is Hannes Alfven'a (and others) math so complain to Michael not me !
Magnetohydrodynamics

Alfven complained about the misuse of those maths and in fact he called reconnection theory "pseudoscience" more than a half a dozen times in a room full of plasma physicists. He also made the whole concept obsolete in all current carrying plasma with his double layer paper that he presented at that conference where he called reconnection theory pseudoscience in the key note speech a total of 7 times.

Have you read Alfven's book yet RC, yes or no?

 

[Michael]

Seriously??? Can you then explain why the very minute a spacecraft enters space it becomes charged relative to its surroundings if this space is so neutral on smaller scales?

No, of course not. He will however dodge the hard scientific questions, not read, nor scientifically comment on the materials suggested to him, deny you've presented him with any evidence simply because he personally didn't read the material you suggested (like Alfven and circuits), continue to lob ad homs into the discussion on a regular basis, lather, rinse, repeat. That seems to be a predictable pattern with most EU/PC haters in fact.

Do you even know what constitutes an electric current?

Nope. In fact he *insisted* that electrical discharges are 'impossible' in plasma for *years* over at JREF. He is totally ignorant on that specific issue, I can assure you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Seriously, Justatruthseeker???
You seem not know how plasma is effectively neural over a large enough scale:

Debye length

Maybe you should read your science first.

"The presence of a non-negligible number of charge carriers makes the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields. Plasma, therefore, has properties quite unlike those of solids, liquids, or gases and is considered a distinct state of matter....
...Even a partially ionized gas in which as little as 1% of the particles are ionized can have the characteristics of a plasma (i.e., response to magnetic fields and high electrical conductivity)."

Who you trying to fool into believing plasma acts just like solids, liquids and gasses????? Who you trying to convince it is the opposite of what your very science proclaims???? Yourself?
Yet you continually treat it in the math as nothing more than those solids liquids and gasses you declare it is quite unlike. And then declare I must accept your Fairie Dust entities.

That statement is quite wrong, Justatruthseeker.
Einstein's paper on Special Relativity has a title about the electrodynamics of moving bodies. It is not about everything on atomic scales being the electric force as you assert. It is about making the electrodynamics of moving bodies invariant between different inertial fames of reference.

I asserted nothing of the sort. I asserted that SR is a valid theory, GR only applies to 1% of the universe. Get my thought correct. GR fails utterly and miserably in describing the other 99% of the universe, plasma. And so you insert at will your imaginary Fairie Dust entities in an attempt to make the math meet observation. Fairie Dust entities that not a single one is needed for GR to describe the solar system with quite a remarkable accuracy.
But plasma not bound in close confines, 99% of the universe? It fails because you, they, mainstream, supporters of pseudo-science, still treat it just like that tiny little 1% you have actually bothered to measure.

Who is this "you"?

This you is mainstream religious cosmology and anyone that supports it.

Astronomers do note the obvious. Clouds of gas (even when ionized and actually plasma) can collide, e.g. when galaxy clusters collide. So you get "bow shocks and waves in space".

Exactly, those moving charged particles create the magnetic field which confines them into filaments, exactly as observation of the universe shows. They are not clouds of "gas", they are clouds of "Plasma". Your inability to use the word shows your complete lack of understanding. There is no actually to it. 99% of it is plasma. If mainstream astronomers say "hot gas, ionized gas, gas, dust" it is plasma.
Call it gas, all you want, we know what it really is, don't we.

Colossal Gas Cloud Discovered Around Milky Way | Space.com

It is Hannes Alfven'a (and others) math so complain to Michael not me !
Magnetohydrodynamics

Yet he told you that Magnetohydrodynamics did not apply to plasma, during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech no less, but mainstream ignored him then as they had a new theory he had just finished, and went ahead and treated plasma just like those solids, liquids and gasses. Same old routine, same old arguments. If you know it does not act like a solid, liquid or a gas, then how do you justify using math that describes solids, liquids and gasses? Why "are" you applying what you know to be incorrect? Why are you using Magnetohydrodynamics when Alfven himself told you it did not apply to Plasma?

Oh dear, Justatruthseeker!
The truth that you seek and have not found is that scientists understand what causes magnetic fields and use the actual scientific definition of neutral for plasma.

No, you would just have me seeking after Fairie Dust. How are those Gravitational Waves coming along? WIMPS? SUSY? How's those theories that ignore the electrical force holding up? Your entire solar theory was just dashed by Voyager, THEMIS and IBEX. What theory are you basing anything on? I'd say it's all on shaky ground and crumbling fast. But you just keep believing in that neutral as in no electric charge, instead of neutral as in "balanced" electric charge.

And what does cause magnetism?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Quasi-neutral isn't "neutral" RC.

Quasi-neutral is "neutral at scales larger than the Debye length" Michael.

Absolutely false.

Absolutely basic physics, Michael.
Ignoring this basic physics is why the PC/EU idea is a crank idea in a nutshell.

...snipped yet another unsupported D) assertion and a bit of ignorance....

Citation for the Plank results showing that "universe isn't homogeneous on the largest scales", Michael.
This was never predicted by Guth, Michael. It is a standard assumption in cosmology.

...Alfven obsession snipped...

Evidence that Hannes Alfvén described 'threads' as current flows and circuits?

...The last time we had this debate you guys were running around claiming that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma in spite of the fact that Dungey talked about the process over 60 years ago, and Birkeland demonstrated electrical discharges in his lab over 100 years ago!

The last time we had this debate you were running around in circles displaying not knowing that "electrical discharge" has different meanings in different contexts.
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc. (November 2012)
And wow - the implied claim that Birkeland discovered electrical discharges in the lab, Michael! For example, people were creating electrical discharges using static electricity for centuries before Birkeland was born.

Yes RC, I did.

No you did not. You linked to a old textbook by Hannes Alfven with no actual text available. There is no point in my wasting money in buying a textbook from 1981 if you cannot convince me that it covers the topic.
Just quote the section where Hannes Alfven treats a filamentary molecular cloud (a "thread") using a circuit model.
Space 'Slinky' Confirms Theory with a Twist | Space.com
(or galactic jets which I mentioned)

Or answer:
Evidence that Hannes Alfvén described 'threads' as current flows and circuits?
with citations to his papers on the subject.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Maybe you should read your science first.

I did.

Who you trying to fool into believing plasma acts just like solids, liquids and gasses?????
...more on the same vein and "Fairie Dust"stuff snipped...

I cannot see how you get the little fantasy from the fact that I quoted that plasma is a fourth state of matter, Justatruthseeker!!!!!

I asserted nothing of the sort. I asserted that SR is a valid theory, GR only applies to 1% of the universe.
...more inane "Fairie Dust"stuff snipped...

That is wrong, Justatruthseeker: GR applies to all of the matter and energy in the universe (100% of it!).
You seem to have the idea that GR is a theory of plasma. That is wrong, Justatruthseeker.

This you is mainstream religious cosmology and anyone that supports it.

So you mean most of the scientists in the world and anyone with the ability to read and understand the evidence for the Big Bang, the scientific process, observations of the universe, etc.

...Your inability to use the word shows your complete lack of understanding.

The inability to read the word plasma in my post is astounding, Justatruthseeker .
I actually disagree with the practise of astronomers using the word gas to encompass both plasma and actual gas such as neutral H. But it is the accepted practise so I live with it. So should you, Justatruthseeker.

99% of the visible matter in the universe is plasma. PU/EU proponents obsess on that fact so that they do not have to learn what plasma actually does.

Yet he told you that Magnetohydrodynamics did not apply to plasma, during his Nobel Prize acceptance speech no less...
...yet more Fairie Dust stuff snipped...
...unsupported rant about some "solar theory" crumbling fast snipped....

Yet you need to read up about the argument by authority.
You need to actually cite Hannes Alfven saying that most of his life's work and what he got the Noble prize for was a waste of time .

Magnetohydrodynamics is used because it works.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You need to actually cite Hannes Alfven saying that most of his life's work and what he got the Noble prize for was a waste of time .

The disturbing lack of citations to scientific evidence in your posts, Justatruthseeker may mean that you do not know how to do the research so: The Nobel Prize in Physics 1970

This was 43 years ago!


Science such as magnetohydrodynamics has advanced since then. In fact his "second approach" is what basically plasma physics does now.

• Resistive magnetohydrodynamics is his conductivity not infinity criteria.
• There have been 43 years of research resulting in abetter understanding of the limits of the frozen-in field approximation.
  The study and observation of magnetic reconnection was a primary driver in this.
• Circuit models are sometimes used to describe plasma. But everyone knows the limitations, e.g. it the long wavelength approximation of plasma physics so you get things like the total energy in the system, not the details of how that energy is distributed.
• DLs are better understood.
• Filaments and sheets are better understood and more often described.
• The theories are better developed (but still a bit phenomenological)

ETA: Talking about Alfven and circuit models - he authored a couple of nice papers treating solar flares in circuit models including double layers. As noted above he could get a match with the total energy of solar flares and that was just about it.Currents in the solar atmosphere and a theory of solar flares (1966)

 

[Michael]

Quasi-neutral is "neutral at scales larger than the Debye length" Michael.

No, it's not RC. You cannot describe the behaviors of a standard plasma ball without talking about the length of the threads that form in the plasma, and the current flowing through the small filaments that form inside the plasma. You're in complete denial of physics, and just in complete denial of Alfven's work at this point.

The worst part is that I have personally handed you both papers and books and apparently you just don't care to read them. They *all* talk about circuits and current RC.

Absolutely basic physics, Michael.
Ignoring this basic physics is why the PC/EU idea is a crank idea in a nutshell.

There you go back to ad homs. You've got exactly two "tricks' in debate, sleazy ad homs in every post, and pure denial in every post. Your entire lazy attitude can be summed up as "Denial, personal attack, denial, personal attack, lather rinse repeat". Apparently that's your mantra.

Citation for the Plank results showing that "universe isn't homogeneous on the largest scales", Michael.
This was never predicted by Guth, Michael. It is a standard assumption in cosmology.

Apparently you missed a *huge* chunk of the BB theory thread where I took Guth's website claims apart one by one, including his claim of homogeity on the largest scales.

Evidence that Hannes Alfvén described 'threads' as current flows and circuits?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/A Three Ring Circuit Model OfThe Magnetosphere.pdf
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/A...r Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

If you had actually read *any* of the papers I've handed you over the past 3 years, you would already know he describes *currents* and *circuits* in plasma. Either you aren't doing your part and actually reading the material, or you are blatantly and intentionally misrepresenting Alfven's work. Which is it? You could *not* be ignorant of Alfven's cosmology theories after all these years, so I can only assume your intentions are completely dishonorable in the first place! Haters are all alike. The topics change, but the behaviors are always the same.

How can you even ask me for such stuff when I've handed it to you *countless* times already?!?!?

The last time we had this debate you were running around in circles displaying not knowing that "electrical discharge" has different meanings in different contexts.

It has had a very specific meaning in terms of solar physics since Birkeland first described 'electrical discharges' around the cathode sun model he proposed, and Dungey first used the term in relationship to solar flares. You've been in denial of that for *years* now. Denial, misinformation, and personal insults seem to be all you're capable of doing.

Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.

For over three years I have asked you to provide a *published* document that claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You made up that claim by yourself and you have never supported it with a published document of any sort. I have however shown you Dungey's work, Birkeland's work, even actually plasma chamber movies of *discharges* taking place between plasma in the chamber and the walls of the chamber itself. Your denial problem is off scale and I'm sure you will *not* provide me with any reference that says "electrical discharges are impossible in plasma". You made it up. It's a lie. Dungey demonstrated it's a lie. You're in denial of empirical facts.

(November 2012)
And wow - the implied claim that Birkeland discovered electrical discharges in the lab, Michael! For example, people were creating electrical discharges using static electricity for centuries before Birkeland was born.

He used the term to describe solar flare events in relationship to his cathode sun theories RC. You're back to pure denial as Dungey's work demonstrates for you.

1958IAUS....6..135D Page 135

No you did not. You linked to a old textbook by Hannes Alfven with no actual text available.

How dare you! I've personally provided you with *countless* of his *freely available *published* papers! You've apparently *never* read them, or you are *intentionally being dishonest*. There's no other possible explanation for your denial of the fact that Alfven describes *circuits* in plasma.

There is no point in my wasting money in buying a textbook from 1981 if you cannot convince me that it covers the topic.

All you had to do was read the table of contents to know it covers the topic. Ya know....

If you're going to fancy yourself as the the worlds leading "debunker" of PC/EU theory, don't you think you should at *least* understand the basics of the theory, like circuits in plasma?

Just quote the section where Hannes Alfven treats a filamentary molecular cloud (a "thread") using a circuit model.

Read his magnetosphere paper RC. I'm not obligated to do your bidding when you won't bother reading the material. Your denial of his use of circuit theory in relationship to plasma physics is just pathetic, and frankly it's down right dishonest. You have no excuse for peddling lies RC. Either read the material or don't, but don't keep denying the content.

Your stalking behaviors are really creepy RC, particularly since you keep denying the content of Alfven's work, the content of Dungey's work, and the content of everything I provide for you to read. You're like angry ignorant stalker that is hell bent on attacking *one* individual in cyberspace. Creepy stuff! I'm really running out of patience with your angry cyber stalking routine.

 

[Michael]

I did.

No you didn't! You could not possibly be ignorant of the fact that Alfven used circuit theory in relationship to plasma cosmology, or you literally do not know the *first thing* about plasma cosmology theory! Alfven literally "wrote the (first) book' on plasma cosmology theory and you've personally never bothered to go to the library to read it, or even read the parts of the book that are online at Google books. Had you done so, there's no way on Earth you could remain ignorant of his use of circuit theory in PC theory. In fact there's no way you could be ignorant of that fact anyway after all the papers I've personally handed you over the past 3 years while you cyberstalked me around the internet!

How about showing a little intellectual integrity and actually read his book, particularly since you fancy yourself as one of the worlds leading debunkers of plasma cosmology theory. You should at least have read and understand the basics, but you don't. You apparently don't know the *first* thing about it. He used circuit concepts in chapter 1 of that book and talks all about it in chapter three. I'm pretty sure that the opening parts of chapter three are even freely available at that link I provided earlier.

Is your compete ignorance of Alfven's use of circuit theories and concepts in PC theory pure laziness on your part, or just blatant dishonesty? Which is it?

When can I expect a *published* document to support your claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma? When can I expect you to actually sit down and read Alfven's book on PC theory?

 

[Michael]

The disturbing lack of citations to scientific evidence in your posts,

Irony overload considering the fact I've asked you for three years for a reference that *actually* supports your claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You have no right to criticize anyone on any topic.

Science such as magnetohydrodynamics has advanced since then.

Ya, and so has the formalism around a claim that Alfven described as 'pseudoscience', and one he *replaced* with his paper on double layers. He made that whole reconnection theory obsolete in all current carrying environments. The mainstream doesn't care.

Their "approach' got utterly blown out of the water last year too when SDO revealed that convection speeds are about 1 percent of mainstream 'predictions'. So much for the mainstream explanation for anything in atmospheric solar physics.

Circuit models are sometimes used to describe plasma. But everyone knows the limitations,.......

ETA: Talking about Alfven and circuit models - he authored a couple of nice papers treating solar flares in circuit models including double layers.

So really all that pure harassment that you gave me about needing more evidence of Alfven using circuit theory in PC theory was one giant personal harassment process all along. You already knew it! You also ignored the fact he wrote an *entire book* on the topic that he published in 1981 where he put the whole thing together as a "cosmology theory".

As noted above he could get a match with the total energy of solar flares and that was just about it.Currents in the solar atmosphere and a theory of solar flares (1966)

Total nonsense. His flare model is completely scalable up and down the energy spectrum simply by modifying the voltages and current in the flux ropes. More pure misinformation on your part.

 

[Michael]

There was an interesting article on New Scientist today about the state of affairs in particle physics research. This series of points was quite interesting IMO, particularly the "faith" that particle physicists now lack in SUSY theory, and the "hope" they still hold in exotic matter theory in general. Apparently exotic matter theory has definitely become an exotic matter of the gaps argument, but only a minority pin their hopes on SUSY theory. Personally I'm placing my bets on them finding nothing particularly long lived, certainly nothing that will explain the "dark matter" needs of Lambda-CDM theory. It's also interesting IMO that "scientists" also hold out hope *in spite* of a complete lack of supporting evidence. Even a 24 percent optimism in SUSY claims seems pretty high to me considering the fact that SUSY theory failed it's own "golden test". I guess astronomers and some particle physicists are still holding out hope for exotic matter theories, but SUSY theory in particular seems to be on the serious decline.
Dark matter tops physicists' wish list, post-Higgs - physics-math - 02 October 2013 - New Scientist

Supersymmetry fading

One leading theory beyond the standard model is supersymmetry (SUSY), in which every particle has a much heavier partner, but so far the LHC has found no evidence supporting it. Only 24 per cent of physicists polled voted for SUSY as a solution to the hierarchy problem, which asks why the Higgs mass is vastly smaller than predicted by the standard model, a major mystery in particle physics. "Probably three or four years ago it would have been 50 per cent or more," says Ibanez. "The absence of any other new thing is making us nervous, but there is nothing better than having actual data." Perhaps that explains another result from the survey: a full 75 per cent expect we will detect dark matter, mysterious particles that interact with the rest of the universe only through gravity, within the next decade. "I don't understand why. I'm on the pessimistic side," says Ibanez. It is possible that theorists are pinning their hopes on the unknowns of dark matter rather than the known and troublesome Higgs, he says. "The general perception is that there is dark matter," says Dorigo. "It is not understood, but there is something to discover."

 

[RealityCheck01]

The Debye length is irrelevant since electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere (and in spacetime)...

The Debye length is relevant in all plasmas.

You get bow shocks in *plasma*, not "hot gas" in space.

Actually you only get bow shocks between a magnetosphere and an ambient medium.
The context of Justatruthseeker's "bow shocks and waves in space" is collisions between "gas" (as an astronomer would say) such as the observed shock waves in colliding galaxy clusters.

Alfven complained ...

Yes he did. What does the opinion of a dead man stated in a speech decades have to do with the fact that he was basically wrong?

Have you heard of the logical fallacy of argument from authority, Michael?

 

[RealityCheck01]

No, it's not RC. You cannot describe the behaviors of a standard plasma ball
...tirade ignoring plasma properties snipped...

Yes it is basic physics, Michael, as anyone who knows about plasma knows. Plasmas are quasi-neutral. The EM effects in them extend no greater than some 10s of the Debye length scale.
There is a valid issue that you could raise about this if you know about plasmas but not a peep about it from you!

Wow, Michael: You know that papers aboutcircuits and currents exist!
Guess what -so do I !

There you go back to ad homs.
...snipped usual insults...

There you go displaying ignorance about what an ad hominem is, Michael.
The PC/EU idea is not a person .
Ignoring this basic physics (the Debye length) is why the PC/EU idea is a crank idea in a nutshell.

Actually I never have even heard of the BB theory thread.
This is a thread about science so the context is scientific citations:
Citation for the Plank results showing that "universe isn't homogeneous on the largest scales", Michael.
However if you have posts in that thread listing your citations then cite those.

Read again: Evidence that Hannes Alfvén described 'threads' as current flows and circuits?
Those citations to are close to lies because neither are about 'threads' (filamentary molecular clouds or galactic jets). so I will spare you embarrassment by not quoting them.
They are about what I already know he wrote about - the magnetosphere and solar flares (I already have copies of the papers).

If you had actually read *any* of the papers I've handed you over the past 3 years,
...usual rant snipped....

I have actually read very paper that you have cited over that last over the past 3 years.

It has had a very specific meaning in terms of solar physics ...

No it has not: Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
Dungey had one definition (a high current density in a magnetic reconnection). Peratt had another. Birkeland had none - he just created electric discharges in a gas (not a plasma !)

You have the claim that "electrical discharges" are possible in plasma. It is up to you to support it.
You have not even been able to settle on a single definition of what these "electrical discharges" are .

He used the term to describe solar flare events in relationship to his cathode sun theories RC.
...usual insults and rant snipped...
1958IAUS....6..135D Page 135

continuing you inability to understand Dungey's work, Michael !
I pointed this out in Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.

You may go on about Dungey again so:
18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection
13th January 2011: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different!
8th November 2011: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection!

Michael has given citations to support the above.

1. James Dungey 1
   "Discharges are shown to be a possible source of high energy particles, if the current density is very large. The growth of the current density is discussed using the fact that the magnetic lines of force are approximately frozen into the ionized gas. It is shown that discharges are unlikely to occur anywhere except at neutral points of the magnetic field. Neutral points are found to be unstable in such a way that a small perturbation will start a discharge in a time of the order of the characteristic time of the system. Such discharges may account for aurorae, and may also occur in solar flares and the interstellar gas"
   Emphasis added. His 'discharge' is an existing current density that grows, i.e. not a discharge!
2. James Dungey 2
   "The suggestion that an solar flare resuts from an electrical discharge situated in the neighbourhood of a neutral point of the magnetic field was made by Giovanelli [2].
   ...
   The defining feature of a discharge in this context is the existence of a large current density."

All you had to do was read the table of contents to know it covers the topic. Ya know....
...more insults and ranting snipped...

All you had to do is give me a citation to the table of contents and show that it includes a chapter called something like "Molecular cloud filaments treated in a circuit model" since those are the 'threads' in

If they did apply those established aspects of EM field theory they'd treat threat all those threads as current flows and circuits like Alfven did.
​

Cosmic Plasma on Google Books has no table of contents that I can see.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Evidence that Hannes Alfvén described 'threads' as current flows and circuits?

There is another problem with that assertion about Hannes Alfvén and 'threads', Michael.
Space 'Slinky' Confirms Theory with a Twist

In 2000, Jason Fiege and Ralph Pudritz from McMaster University suggested that filamentary clouds like the Orion Molecular Cloud might exhibit a helical magnetic field around their long axis. This discovery is the first confirmation of their theory.

Hannes Alfvén was dead for 5 years by then.
Hannes Alfven's book was published 19 years before anyone thought that these 'threads' could have magnetic fields around their long axis.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Missed this:

Nope.

That is a total fantasy, Michael.
What constitutes an electric current was first taught to me in high school at least. It would take a total failure of an education system for anyone over the age of about 12 to not know what an electric current is, Michael !

P.S. Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc. (November 2012)

 

[Michael]

Yes it is basic physics, Michael, as anyone who knows about plasma knows.

You apparently don't know much about anything related to plasma physics actually, particularly since you *refuse* to read the equivalent of the "bible of plasma cosmology theory" for yourself, nor have you read even a single textbook on the topic of plasma physics. You seem completely ignorant of circuit theory and completely ignorant of PC theory too.

Plasmas are quasi-neutral.

So what? That term means *nothing* as it relates to the reaction of plasma in the presence of electromagnetic fields.

The EM effects in them extend no greater than some 10s of the Debye length scale.

False. The EM effect extends to *the length of the plasma filament* that carries the current from one location to another. In the Earth's atmosphere that can be *miles/kilometers*. In spacetime that can extend to *light years* in theory. All the plasma filaments you see in spacetime are *current carrying* threads. That current, and the corresponding magnetic field is what *pinches* the plasma into threads in the first place. You'd know all this if you spent a tenth as much time reading Alfven's book as you've spent harassing me personally in cyberspace.

There is a valid issue that you could raise about this if you know about plasmas but not a peep about it from you!

You mean *besides* the thread distance issue and the fact the whole plasma thread is changed by changes in the surrounding EM fields, including the ones that generate solar flares?

Wow, Michael: You know that papers aboutcircuits and currents exist!
Guess what -so do I !

Then stop demanding more evidence when you "already know it"! Get a life RC and quit harassing me about things you *already know*!

There you go displaying ignorance about what an ad hominem is, Michael.
The PC/EU idea is not a person .

Your crackpot, crank, and various other loaded language is pitiful excuse for an honest debate. You personally are a two trick pony, denial and ad homs.

Ignoring this basic physics (the Debye length) is why the PC/EU idea is a crank idea in a nutshell.

Ignoring the 3d nature of plasma threads and the *length* of various plasma threads, as well as ignoring their sensitive to other EM fields is what makes you personally *wrong* about PC theory. The fact you've never even bothered to read Cosmic Plasma for yourself while playing the role of PC/EU "skeptic" is what makes you a crank.

Actually I never have even heard of the BB theory thread.

Read through it sometime. Guth's claims were all falsified by the data and his very last falsified claim about homogeneity on the largest scales went up in flame in the Planck data set.

Read again: Evidence that Hannes Alfvén described 'threads' as current flows and circuits?

Get a real life RC and quit misrepresenting PC/EU theory.

Those citations to are close to lies because neither are about 'threads' (filamentary molecular clouds or galactic jets). so I will spare you embarrassment by not quoting them.

You mean you're trying to play legaleeze trickery and you're pretending you somehow "win points" over some trivial argument over semantics *again*. You're a trip.

I have actually read very paper that you have cited over that last over the past 3 years.

You blatantly misrepresent them on nearly a daily basis. Why is that RC?

No it has not: Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.[/quote]

Never in 3 years of requests have you ever provided a published paper that supports your erroneous claim. Go ahead and keep dodging the question but I'll keep asking you for it every day, every post, just so everyone can watch you run like hell from that request *again*.

Dungey had one definition (a high current density in a magnetic reconnection). Peratt had another.

False. Both used the term consistently and both *published authors* insisted that electrical discharges occur in plasma. You've never provided a *published* rebuttal to their writing in 3 years and you never will.

Birkeland had none - he just created electric discharges in a gas (not a plasma !)

False again, and you've probably never read his book either.

You have the claim that "electrical discharges" are possible in plasma. It is up to you to support it.

Dungey did it for you Dr. Denial.

You have not even been able to settle on a single definition of what these "electrical discharges" are .

Settling with a guy that refuses to read anything presented isn't possible RC. I've settled on a definition that is congruent with Dungey and Peratt. You're not even capable of providing a published paper that even claims that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma and use the term "impossible". You don't want to "settled", nor do you care about "truth" or you'd give us some published references to support your claims. You never do.

continuing you inability to understand Dungey's work, Michael !
I pointed this out in Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.

You pulled that claim out of your back pocket and you are incapable of supporting it with *published* references. Who do you *really* (as in honestly) think you're fooling by running from my request for a published support of your claim about electrical discharges being "impossible" in plasma?

All you had to do is give me a citation....

I shouldn't have to do anything for you if you fancy yourself as a PC/EU skeptic. If you haven't read the book, it's not my job to educate you personally. Get over yourself and educate yourself.

You're also moving the goal posts because my first comment was purely about circuit theory in PC theory.

Cosmic Plasma on Google Books has no table of contents that I can see.

You're absolutely the single most lazy and/or the single most incompetent "skeptic" that I've ever met on any topic, anywhere on the internet.

Cosmic Plasma - H. Alfvèn - Google Books
(If the link doesn't work directly you can click on the little blue book on that screen, and then press the little blue arrow to the right a couple of times and you'll find the table of contents)

For crying out loud RC, it's been three years already. Just go down to the library and read the book already!

 

[Michael]

The Debye length is relevant in all plasmas.

It doesn't matter one iota in terms of the filament length and the sensitivity of the current carrying filament to external EM fields! You're making this up as you go apparently. An ordinary plasma ball demonstrates that the Debye length is irrelevant in terms of the distance a current can travel through plasma.

Actually you only get bow shocks between a magnetosphere and an ambient medium.

The "ambient medium" as you're calling it is a *6000 degree plasma*!

Yes he did. What does the opinion of a dead man stated in a speech decades have to do with the fact that he was basically wrong?

When you personally pick out the error in his double layer paper, I'll be happy to answer that question.

Have you heard of the logical fallacy of argument from authority, Michael?

Sure. You use it every day, particularly when you use terms like crank, crackpot, yada, yada, yada on astronomy topics when you're not even an astronomer in the first place!

 

[RealityCheck01]

Plasma cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irony overload considering the fact I've asked you for three years for a reference that *actually* supports your claim that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You have no right to criticize anyone on any topic.

Total fail, Michael, considering the fact I've asked you for three years for a reference that *actually* supports your claim that electrical discharges are possible in plasma. You have no right to criticize anyone on any topic because you cannot back up your claim:
Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc. (November 2012)

Ya, and so has the formalism around a claim that Alfven described as 'pseudoscience',

Oh dear- the obsession on Alfven and his personal opinion yet again, Michael .
Have you heard of the logical fallacy of argument from authority, Michael?

and one he *replaced* with his paper on double layers. He made that whole reconnection theory obsolete in all current carrying environments.
...usual insults snipped...

Yes another unsupported assertion, Michael !

Please cite the paper(s) where Alfven replaced magnetic reconnection theory in all "current carrying environments" with another theory.
​

You can start by defining "current carrying environments" (wires carry currents!). I suspect you mean plasmas since all plasmas are conductive.
I do know about the treatment of solar flares in a circuit model with a DL. That is a single "current carrying environments".

Their "approach' got utterly blown out of the water last year too when SDO revealed that convection speeds are about 1 percent of mainstream 'predictions'.

Actually SDO revealed that convection speeds inside the Sun are about 1 percent of mainstream computer model results.
What were Alfven's predictions of the convection speed using his approach, Michael?
What are the convection speed predictions of anyone using his approach, Michael?

Maybe you can understand that one thing more wrong about something than a theory that gets predictions wring is a theory that has no predictions . What is even more wrong of course is a theory that does not exist!

You also ignored the fact he wrote an *entire book* on the topic that he published in 1981 where he put the whole thing together as a "cosmology theory".
[p/quote]
Total nonsense: I am ignoring a citation to an image of the cover of the book, Michael !
I know about his invalidated Plasma Cosmology theory which has nothing to do with magnetic reconnection but may have something to do with whatever you think his "approach" was.

Total nonsense.
...followed by total nonsense ...

I wrote:

As noted above he could get a match with the total energy of solar flares and that was just about it.

And that is what they wrote in that paper. Given some observations of the Sun

• I from Zeeman effect measurements
• L from the magnetic inductance of a wire.
• time constant from the observation of flares.

Then the voltage drop and energy release come from basic electrodynamics.