More counter rotation evidence to support Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model.

Status
Not open for further replies.

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,852
3,887
✟273,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
That is absolutely false. "Magnetic reconnection" is a "model". Plasma is a *physical thing* with specific physical properties which may or may not be properly described by any specific "model". Plasma isn't a superconductor. Period. There is therefore no such thing as "infinitely conductive plasma". Any "model" that describes it as such is already *wrong*.
Wrong.
Alfven’s ideal MHD equations are the fluid mechanics analogues of Maxwell’s equation and are based on plasma being infinitely conductive.
Not bad for a “wrong” model that led its originator to a Nobel Prize.

A thought experiment is irrelevant in terms of the actual physical properties of plasma. It's nothing more than a thought experiment that begins with an "inaccurate thought" about the conductive properties of plasma!
Wrong refer to Alfven’s ideal MHD equations.

Nope. Even that assertion is false because conductive plasma tends to create and generate *filaments* of far greater density than the surrounding environment. Current carrying plasma can't be accurately modeled by "assuming" that it spreads itself out evenly. Even the term "plasma" was originally coined because of the fact that plasma tends to form organized structures that mirror the behaviors of living organisms. It forms insulating double layers and filamentary processes that be easily observed in any ordinary plasma ball.

Word salad

Models seek to describe physical reality, but physical reality is not obligated to agree with any particular model.

In this case, any model which "assumes" that plasma is infinitely conductive is doomed to failure because it begins with a false premise which is easily "debunked".
Wrong refer to Alfven’s ideal MHD equations.

A simple z-machine experiment shows that plasma "heats up" dramatically as a result of the "resistance" it has to electrical current. We see that same process play out in solar physics where coronal loops reach *millions* (sometimes tens of millions) of degrees as a result of that resistance.

Nonsense the same electrical current would not heat up a vacuum which simulates the particle number density of the corona.

There's a very obvious reason why Alfven modeled plasma in space using circuit theory rather than MHD theory in most all instances. In space, the *circuit energy* must also be accounted for, and modeled. It can't simply be ignored, otherwise the "model" is a dismal failure.

Word salad.

That's exactly why EU/PC models *work in the lab*, whereas mainstream models do not. EU/PC models produce a working full sphere corona in a lab because they *include* the circuit energy in their calculations, where as mainstream models *cannot ever* hope to produce a working full sphere corona in a lab based on "magnetic reconnection".
Wrong EU/PC models do not work in the lab while magnetic reconnection has been produced in the lab.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: SelfSim
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,852
3,887
✟273,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Like all of science's definitions, plasma is an operational model. What it is or isn't, is subject to the physical context of that model because all of science's explanations are contextual (and provisional).

In a thought experiment, an infinitely conductive astrophysical plasma is fine for testing what happens (or is predicted) in a specific astrohysical context.

An astrophysical plasma having a density less than anything possible in our best vacuum chambers and a long mean free path, is a simple case which also happens to be consistent with observations in that astrophysical context .. and that the overall electric field in that context will be zero, is irrefutably logically true.
End of story.
You might find this interesting.
Why do we deal only with large scale magnetic fields in astrophysics, and not electric fields?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SelfSim
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Wrong.
Alfven’s ideal MHD equations are the fluid mechanics analogues of Maxwell’s equation and are based on plasma being infinitely conductive.
Not bad for a “wrong” model that led its originator to a Nobel Prize.


Wrong refer to Alfven’s ideal MHD equations.



Word salad


Wrong refer to Alfven’s ideal MHD equations.



Nonsense the same electrical current would not heat up a vacuum which simulates the particle number density of the corona.



Word salad.


Wrong EU/PC models do not work in the lab while magnetic reconnection has been produced in the lab.

It's more than a little amusing that you're trying to *misuse* the beliefs and statements of Hannes Alfven to make your case about mythical "infinitely conductive* plasma, when in fact Alfven personally *rejected* the use of MHD theory in *numerous* instances where the mainstream continues to rely upon those models, in favor of (drum roll) *circuit theory*. For instance, like Birkeland, Alfven used *circuit* theory to describe coronal loops, magnetosphere activity, events associated with "magnetic reconnection", etc. In fact AFAIK, Alfven virtually *never* used MHD theory to describe high energy events in cosmological plasma. All his cosmological models are based on circuit theory, not MHD theory.

In fact Alfven *admonished* those who erroneously promoted the notions of "frozen" magnetic fields in light and hot plasma environments and flat out rejected "magnetic reconnection" models as "pseudoscience". He used his double layer model to explain such events, and stated quite bluntly that his double layer paper made the whole reconnection model irrelevant and obsolete in all current carrying environments.

In low or *non* current carrying dense cold plasma, there may be a few limited instances where the "high conductivity" aspect of plasma allows one to *ignore* the electric field aspects of plasma and get reasonably useful results, but certainly not in high current environments where the electric field does all the actual work.

It's rather telling that you're trying to misrepresent Alfven's own beliefss, when in fact he personally *rejected* the use of MHD theory alone to describe magnetosphere and solar atmospheric activity in favor of circuit theory.

Any ordinary plasma ball demonstrates that electric fields and electric current causes plasma to generate *filaments* of higher density plasma, which are surrounded by evacuated regions around the filament that act to insulate the current carrying threads from the surrounding plasma, thus allowing those plasma threads to act like "wires" to carry current over vast distances. The "high (but not infinite) conductivity" aspect of plasma enable currents to *easily* flow through plasma.

However, every single z-machine experiment demonstrates that plasma *resists* the flow of current, and that resistance generates very high temperature plasma in very highly conductive plasma. You've simply "made up" a completely mythical properly of plasma that doesn't even actually exist in nature. There is no such thing as an "infinitely conductive" plasma. No such thing exists except in your head.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

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

You might also be interested in at least six instances where it's better to use a particle/circuit approach to modeling the behaviors of plasma from Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma, page 7:

Phenomena which cannot be understood without explicitly accounting for the current are:
(A) Energy transfer from one region to another (see II and III).
(B) Formation of double layers (see II .6).
(C) The' occurrence of explosive events such as solar flares (I11 .8), magnetic substorms (111.5 .1), possibly also `internal ionization' phenomena in comets (Wurm, 1963; Mendis, 1978) and stellar flares.
(D) Double layer violation of the Ferraro corotation (II1.3). Establishing `partial corotation' is essential for the understanding of some features of the solar system (see ESS, 17, 18).
(E) Formation of filaments in the ionospheric aurora, the solar atmosphere, the nebulae and in the ionosphere of Venus (1I .4 and 1I.93).
(F) Formation of current sheets which may give space a `cellular structure' 1I .10 and VI).

One can easily "oversimplify" plasma to the point of absurdity, as in the case of magnetic reconnection models. Alfven flat out rejected that entire concept and he relied almost exclusively on circuit theory to describe high energy events in cosmological plasma.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
This typical rambling post is a combination of word salad, confusion, lack of basic comprehension skills resulting in random responses and the excessive use of the term “you made this up”.

Pure projection (again). You absolutely did "make up" the mythical concept of infinitely conductive plasma. They are as "real" as a mythical unicorn. Neither one exists.

Since I am not going to waste my time responding to every occasion you made this dumb remark, particularly when it has been dealt with in previous posts, one will suffice particularly when applied to the concept of modelling infinitely conductive plasmas.

There is no such thing as "infinitely conductive" plasma, or infinitely conductive unicorns. They do not exist.

The question of why astrophysical plasmas are modelled as a zero electric field came up on the most famous physics internet forum site that is also frequented by Nobel Prize winners

Why do we deal only with large scale magnetic fields in astrophysics, and not electric fields?

It makes your comment “you made this up” look rather stupid now doesn’t it, but more importantly the answers provides an insight from a physics perspective which compliments the answer I gave from a maths perspective.

No, actually it just makes your erroneous claim about infinitely conductive plasma look just that much more ridiculous. It also highlights the primary misunderstanding of plasma that has led to utter confusion on the part of the mainstream. Alfven warned them repeatedly and often about misusing the concepts of 'frozen' magnetic fields and of not paying attention to the limits of the conductive properties of plasma. The mainstream has consistently misrepresented his statements and his models, just as you are still doing today.

What is there to discuss about Scott’s model?

There's not much to discuss so long as you continue to misrepresent *your own misstatements* and your own misunderstandings as "fact". If you can't even come to grips with the fact that there is no such thing as a mythical form of infinitely conductive plasma, there's simply no hope whatsoever that you will ever admit to your own mistakes with respect to Scott's models.

If and when you finally admit that there is not such thing as your mythical infinitely conductive plasma, I'll be happy to move on to your misunderstanding of Scott's model, but there's no point in trying if you're unwilling to admit even your most *obvious* mistakes.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,852
3,887
✟273,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes, and I have done so on numerous occasions, including pointing out some of your own mathematical errors:

Galaxy rotation patterns are better explained by Birkeland currents than by dark matter.

Of course you then immediately started whipping up math related to solid "wires" and try to use it to misrepresent the behaviors and properties of *plasma*. :(



It's a bit ironic that I had to explain a Beltrami vector field to you, yet you insist on attempting to belittle *my* math skills. It's absurd behavior.



I'm afraid that you can't "teach" me anything about plasma physics so long as you insists on misrepresenting the properties of plasma. Plasma isn't a superconductor and it's not a solid so it has properties that require one to apply math related to *plasma*, not to "wires".



More projection on your part. You've consistently attacked my math skills, my integrity/honesty/etc in this thread (like nearly every thread of mine that you respond to). It's not me that is being 'adversarial'. I'm simply pointing out the various errors you've made, like the case with Beltrami vector fields and your erroneous belief in infinitely conductive plasma. I can't help it that you believe in things that are not factually true and I'm not obligated to agree with you when you make those kinds of errors.

As I suspected the mathematical detail and the irony behind this post went right over your head as I used your link on Beltrami vector fields as further evidence to show why Scott’s model is wrong.
Once again you have been caught out lying for even suggesting you understand what a Beltrami vector field is given you are completely unaware it contradicts Scott’s model.

Even if this inconvenient truth was ignored your “supposed understanding” of Beltrami vector fields doesn’t make right the algebraic error in point (4), the consequences of the error in points (5),(6) and (7) nor the contradiction in observation in point (2) in the rebuttal.

All you have confirmed is your dishonesty, you are hopelessly out of your depth, and certainly have not demonstrated any maths skills.



Alfven didn't claim that any plasma was infinitely conductive, he simply suggested it could be treated that way in *some few instances*, but not all of them.



MHD theory isn't the only way to mathematically model plasma and the notion of infinite conductivity is your own belief, not Alfven's belief. Your quote doesn't make that claim. It only suggests that some mathematical models can be *simplified* in some instances, but not in all instance.

There's a logical physical reason why Alfven did *not* use MHD theory to describe the behaviors of light, hot cosmological plasma. It's inapplicable in current carrying scenarios. One can *try* to use MHD theory, but it fails in many instances when the whole circuit energy is not accounted for. Alfven explains where it's applicable and where it's not in his books and papers. He specifically warned about trying to treat magnetic fields as being "frozen" in plasma, and using MHD theory to model "magnetic reconnection". In fact he flat out rejected the idea.



I'm not trolling you, I"m simply pointing out that your misrepresenting what Alfven *actually* said. There's a *huge* difference between suggesting that it's appropriate to *simplify* the issue in some instance and not others by treating plasma as being infinitely conductive and actually claiming that plasma is infinitely conductive. It's not infinitely conducive as every z-machine experiment will attest. Ditto for coronal loops.



He didn't use it the way you're using it. He didn't claim that plasma was infinitely conductive, and he rejected entire (mis)applications of MHD theory such as "magnetic reconnection". His own beliefs about plasma in space are found in his papers which promote the use of *circuit* theory, not MHD theory. In his opinion MHD theory was simply inapplicable to many cosmological scenarios.



If I believed that you fairly and correctly understood and represented the beliefs and various models of Alfven and/or Scott I'd be all ears. When I hear you misrepresent their models and their belief however, it's hard to take you seriously. Alfven never claimed that plasma was infinitely conductive even if he suggested that it could be treated as such in some few (limited) instances. If you can't agree with something that obvious and that simple, there's no possible way for us to agree on anything related to plasma physics. How do you even explain plasma reaching millions/billions of degrees Kelvin in z-machine experiments if you actually believe that plasma is "infinitely conductive"? It's *resistivity* to high amounts of current is easily demonstrated in the lab.



More projection I'm afraid.
Given you are doubling down on your lies in deliberately misinterpreting me indicates this extends to a pathological level.
It is quite evident you no have no guilt or shame in lying and the transparency of your lies indicates your have no issues in being caught out either.
To turn this thread around as an attack on your integrity is truly bizarre.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: SelfSim
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
As I suspected the mathematical detail and the irony behind this post went right over your head as I used your link on Beltrami vector fields as further evidence to show why Scott’s model is wrong.

No, actually you tried to apply the concept to *solids* and "wires" without respect to the moving and and flowing and spiraling nature of current carrying plasma which only leads to more misunderstandings on your part.

From your post which I previously cited right after I corrected your math error with respect to Beltrami vector fields:

Maxwell’s equation is based on Ampere’s circuital law where the current passes through the magnetic field that is wrapped around the wire.
Clearly j and B not parallel and therefore plays no role in the derivation of the equations.

We aren't talking about *wires* and solids, we're discussing *moving* plasma particles which are themselves a type of "current" which moves in a corkscrew pattern and direction that is effectively parallel (in one axis) to the magnetic fields which also move with the plasma:

Birkeland current - Wikipedia

600px-Magnetic_rope.svg.png


Once again you have been caught out lying for even suggesting you understand what a Beltrami vector field is given you are completely unaware it contradicts Scott’s model.

This statement is right up there with your "infinitely conductive plasma" mythology in terms of how wrong you actually are, and in typical sjastro fashion, it's also a 'personal attack'. Sheesh. You're a one trick pony.

All you have confirmed is your dishonesty, you are hopelessly out of your depth, and certainly have not demonstrated any maths skills.

This from the guy that erroneously believes that plasma is infinitely conductive in *spite* of the fact that every single z-machine experiment falsifies that erroneous belief.

Given you are doubling down on your lies in deliberately misinterpreting me indicates this extends to a pathological level.

Here's what you said:

Hence for infinitely conductive plasmas, the overall electric field is zero.

It's a false statement. There's no such thing as infinitely conductive plasma or infinitely conductive unicorns, and Alfven never claimed there was such a thing as "infinitely conductive plasma". You simply made that up on your own. Period.

It is quite evident you no have no guilt or shame in lying and the transparency of your lies indicates your have no issues in being caught out either.
To turn this thread around as an attack on your integrity is truly bizarre.

LOL! You quite literally turn every single discussion between us into a personal attack by calling me a liar in virtually every post, and/or by projecting your own ignorance of physics or math onto me. It's boring and irrational behavior. It's impossible to have a rational discussion with you because you simply refuse to admit that you're wrong even when it's blatantly obvious that you're ridiculously wrong. There is no such thing as infinitely conductive plasma! That is utter nonsense. Deal with it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,852
3,887
✟273,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
No, actually you tried to apply the concept to *solids* and "wires" without respect to the moving and and flowing and spiraling nature of current carrying plasma which only leads to more misunderstandings on your part.

From your post which I previously cited right after I corrected your math error with respect to Beltrami vector fields:



We aren't talking about *wires* and solids, we're discussing *moving* plasma particles which are themselves a type of "current" which moves in a corkscrew pattern and direction that is effectively parallel (in one axis) to the magnetic fields which also move with the plasma:

Birkeland current - Wikipedia

600px-Magnetic_rope.svg.png




This statement is right up there with your "infinitely conductive plasma" mythology in terms of how wrong you actually are, and in typical sjastro fashion, it's also a 'personal attack'. Sheesh. You're a one trick pony.
If you have "corrected my math error" with respect to Beltrami vector fields which somehow validates Scott's model then why have you ignored the following issues.
(1) Show how a Beltrami vector field is applicable to Scott’s use of Maxwell’s 4th equation ∇× B = µ₀j + ε∂E/∂t in his 2015 paper which he uses to derive his equations.
(2) Show how a Beltrami vector field addresses and corrects the issues in my rebuttal of Scott’s model.

Instead you concoct a nonsensical piece of word salad which includes a Birkeland current diagram which clearly shows the magnetic field and current are aligned but not parallel which not only violates the Beltrami vector field condition but it cannot be a force free field either which forms the basis of Scott's model.
It confirms yet again you are completely out of your depth and making bald faced lies about correcting my "math error" when you don't have the vaguest idea what a Beltrami vector field is or how it saves Scott's model.

This from the guy that erroneously believes that plasma is infinitely conductive in *spite* of the fact that every single z-machine experiment falsifies that erroneous belief.



Here's what you said:



It's a false statement. There's no such thing as infinitely conductive plasma or infinitely conductive unicorns, and Alfven never claimed there was such a thing as "infinitely conductive plasma". You simply made that up on your own. Period.



LOL! You quite literally turn every single discussion between us into a personal attack by calling me a liar in virtually every post, and/or by projecting your own ignorance of physics or math onto me. It's boring and irrational behavior. It's impossible to have a rational discussion with you because you simply refuse to admit that you're wrong even when it's blatantly obvious that you're ridiculously wrong. There is no such thing as infinitely conductive plasma! That is utter nonsense. Deal with it.

I’ve counted six references involving infinite conductive plasma mentioned in your posts which blind Freddie can plainly see is designed to be trollish and yet here is another example that exposes your dishonesty when a plasma cosmology website of all things makes the same “utter nonsense” comments about infinite conductive plasmas.

Plasma Universe said:
The simplest form of MHD, Ideal MHD, assumes that the fluid has so little resistivity that it can be treated as a perfect conductor.
It then goes on to define the conditions where where infinitely conductive plasmas can be applicable.
Plasma Universe said:
Ideal MHD is only strictly applicable when:
  1. The plasma is strongly collisional, so that the time scale of collisions is shorter than the other characteristic times in the system, and the particle distributions are therefore close to Maxwellian.
  2. The resistivity due to these collisions is small. In particular, the typical magnetic diffusion times over any scale length present in the system must be longer than any time scale of interest.
  3. We are interested in length scales much longer than the ion skin depth and Larmor radius perpendicular to the field, long enough along the field to ignore Landau damping, and time scales much longer than the ion gyration time (system is smooth and slowly evolving).
Magnetohydrodynamics | Plasma-Universe.com
The plasma universe site is simply describing the ideas developed by Alfven.
You have put your foot in your mouth so many times but this one is right at the top of the list.

On the subject of you being supposedly victimized the equation is simple; stop lying such as claiming I made up the idea on infinite conductive plasmas and you won’t be called out for lying.
Since you are always the victim would you care to explain why you are the one who always ends up being suspended or banned.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
If you have "corrected my math error" with respect to Beltrami vector fields which somehow validates Scott's model then why have you ignored the following issues.

I haven't ignored them, I explained it to you. First you tossed out a little "math salad" at me and erroneously tried to claim that:

(∇ X B) X B = 0 cannot be correct.

If two vectors A and B are pointing in the same direction then their cross product
A X B = 0 since the vectors are parallel.
The cross product of a vector with itself B X B = 0.
∇ X B is the rotation of a the vector B through some angle θ.
Since ∇ X B points in a different direction to B then:
(∇ X B) X B ≠ 0 for all vectors B.

I then had to point out to you that Beltrami vector fields falsify your bogus claim.

(1) Show how a Beltrami vector field is applicable to Scott’s use of Maxwell’s 4th equation ∇× B = µ₀j + ε∂E/∂t in his 2015 paper which he uses to derive his equations.

I just did that for you and you simply ignored my explanation entirely. dE/dt is necessarily zero since Scott specifically simplified the model to scenarios where the electric field isn't changing over time.

In a *moving plasma* (as opposed to solid wires), the magnetic field winds around in the general direction of the flow of the current and it's roughly parallel along the z axis. They're out of phase with each other in the other two axis of course, but they are parallel along the axis of the flow of current.

I even provided visual aids and showed you the diagram of a Birkeland current.

(2) Show how a Beltrami vector field addresses and corrects the issues in my rebuttal of Scott’s model.

Oh Vey. I just did. I even corrected your erroneous math salad.

Instead you concoct a nonsensical piece of word salad which includes a Birkeland current diagram which clearly shows the magnetic field and current are aligned but not parallel which not only violates the Beltrami vector field condition but it cannot be a force free field either which forms the basis of Scott's model.

You really have a bad habit of tossing out your own erroneous statements as "fact". The diagram I provided to you shows that the current and the magnetic field move more or less parallel, and in the same direction along the Z axis. It's 'force free' only in the sense that the electric field isn't changing over time, instead it's constant, so everything 'goes with the flow". All of these concepts are somewhat *oversimplified* of course, but that's true for virtually all models related to plasma, particularly the "frozen" concept in MHD theory.

It confirms yet again you are completely out of your depth and making bald faced lies about correcting my "math error" when you don't have the vaguest idea what a Beltrami vector field is or how it saves Scott's model.

Blah, blah, personal attack blah. I don't think you even knew that Beltrami vector fields existed until I personally pointed them out to you! It's obvious that you're projecting again.

I’ve counted six references involving infinite conductive plasma mentioned in your posts....

Ya, because you *refuse* to simply cop to and admit your *obvious* (and numerous) errors! If you simply admitted that it's a false claim we'd be done with that issue by now. Since you refuse to admit that "infinitely conductive plasma" is a myth, I have to keep returning to your bogus error.

which blind Freddie can plainly see is designed to be trollish and yet here is another example that exposes your dishonesty when a plasma cosmology website of all things makes the same “utter nonsense” comments about infinite conductive plasmas.

I don't care how many times you try to oversimplify the resistivity of plasma, it's never going to be "infinitely conductive". It's not a superconductor.

It then goes on to define the conditions where where infinitely conductive plasmas can be applicable.

There are some few instances where plasma can be "treated" that way for purposes of "simplification", but it's not actually infinitely conductive. How can you even continue to support that nonsense?

Alfven *railed* against the notion of 'frozen in" fields, particularly when the concept was applied to light current carrying plasma scenarios, and/or "magnetic reconnection" models. He called that kind of stuff "pseudoscience" in fact.

Magnetohydrodynamics | Plasma-Universe.com
The plasma universe site is simply describing the ideas developed by Alfven.
You have put your foot in your mouth so many times but this one is right at the top of the list.

Pure projection (again) I'm afraid:

The simplest form of MHD, Ideal MHD, assumes that the fluid has so little resistivity that it can be treated as a perfect conductor.

Notice the qualifiers in that sentence? Notice the terms "simplest", "so little resistivity" and "treated as". There is no such thing as 'infinitely conductive plasma", nor infinitely conductive unicorns.

Sure, it's possible to *simplify* concepts and use them in instances/scenarios where they're "more or less" valid, but it's irrational to try to oversimplify the process entirely and ignore the facts. Plasma, while being an "excellent" conductor, is still not "infinitely conductive", ever! It's certainly not infinitely conductive in z-machine experiments or inside coronal loops or "magnetic rope" scenarios involving massive currents. Even a "little' resistivity" turns into a lot of heat in such instances.

On the subject of you being supposedly victimized the equation is simple; stop lying.....

Oh for goodness sake. You falsely asserted that plasma is "infinitely conductive" when even the links that you cite refute your own claim (little resistivity) and yet you have the sheer audacity to accuse me of "lying" even after I had to fix your Beltrami vector field error no less. Wow!

such as claiming I made up the idea on infinite conductive plasmas and you won’t be called out for lying.

You did make up the idea of "infinitely conductive plasma" out of whole cloth. Even the link that you *just cited* included the logical qualifiers (simplest, so little resistivity, treated as) that you simply left out entirely!

If you won't admit to your own *obvious* errors, we'll get nowhere in this conversation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
... Coronal loops heat up to *millions* of degrees due to *resistance* to the flow of electrical curent.
Are you sure you mean current heating? One of the problems with early plasma nuclear fusion research (lab work!) was that current heating is only useful for the initial heating of the plasma because plasma resistance drops rapidly with increasing temperature.

If current heating of plasma works differently in the solar corona, in what respects is it different?
 
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
Are you sure you mean current heating? One of the problems with early plasma nuclear fusion research (lab work!) was that current heating is only useful for the initial heating of the plasma because plasma resistance drops rapidly with increasing temperature.

If current heating of plasma works differently in the solar corona, in what respects is it different?

Sure resistance drops off rapidly with increasing temperatures as the plasma becomes more ionized, but there's also a limit in terms of when plasma "pinches" occur and particles start slamming into each other due to the excessively high volume of current flowing through the plasma. As massive current flowing through the plasma increases, at some point, plasma pinches, and runaway particle collision processes takes over and we end up million degree temperatures, and even the potential for exploding double layers and complete circuit failure.

In the case of coronal loops it is the so called "small" resistance to current that *sustains* those tens of millions of degree temperatures over hours and days on end, and results in exploding double layers and "solar flares".

The (small) resistance to current is what *sustains* those high coronal temperatures, not just the initial heating.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,852
3,887
✟273,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I haven't ignored them, I explained it to you. First you tossed out a little "math salad" at me and erroneously tried to claim that:



I then had to point out to you that Beltrami vector fields falsify your bogus claim.



I just did that for you and you simply ignored my explanation entirely. dE/dt is necessarily zero since Scott specifically simplified the model to scenarios where the electric field isn't changing over time.

In a *moving plasma* (as opposed to solid wires), the magnetic field winds around in the general direction of the flow of the current and it's roughly parallel along the z axis. They're out of phase with each other in the other two axis of course, but they are parallel along the axis of the flow of current.

I even provided visual aids and showed you the diagram of a Birkeland current.



Oh Vey. I just did. I even corrected your erroneous math salad.



You really have a bad habit of tossing out your own erroneous statements as "fact". The diagram I provided to you shows that the current and the magnetic field move more or less parallel, and in the same direction along the Z axis. It's 'force free' only in the sense that the electric field isn't changing over time, instead it's constant, so everything 'goes with the flow". All of these concepts are somewhat *oversimplified* of course, but that's true for virtually all models related to plasma, particularly the "frozen" concept in MHD theory.




Blah, blah, personal attack blah. I don't think you even knew that Beltrami vector fields existed until I personally pointed them out to you! It's obvious that you're projecting again.
Amongst this mass of word salad is another bald faced lie; claiming to have addressed the rebuttals in Scott’s model when it is blindingly obvious you haven’t.
I will give you the opportunity to correct this by showing how my “math salad(?)” results in making it algebraically valid not to substitute the Bz(0) term as Scott has done as described in point(4) of the rebuttal.
You don’t even have to address any other points in the rebuttal.

Ya, because you *refuse* to simply cop to and admit your *obvious* (and numerous) errors! If you simply admitted that it's a false claim we'd be done with that issue by now. Since you refuse to admit that "infinitely conductive plasma" is a myth, I have to keep returning to your bogus error.



I don't care how many times you try to oversimplify the resistivity of plasma, it's never going to be "infinitely conductive". It's not a superconductor.



There are some few instances where plasma can be "treated" that way for purposes of "simplification", but it's not actually infinitely conductive. How can you even continue to support that nonsense?

Alfven *railed* against the notion of 'frozen in" fields, particularly when the concept was applied to light current carrying plasma scenarios, and/or "magnetic reconnection" models. He called that kind of stuff "pseudoscience" in fact.



Pure projection (again) I'm afraid:



Notice the qualifiers in that sentence? Notice the terms "simplest", "so little resistivity" and "treated as". There is no such thing as 'infinitely conductive plasma", nor infinitely conductive unicorns.

Sure, it's possible to *simplify* concepts and use them in instances/scenarios where they're "more or less" valid, but it's irrational to try to oversimplify the process entirely and ignore the facts. Plasma, while being an "excellent" conductor, is still not "infinitely conductive", ever! It's certainly not infinitely conductive in z-machine experiments or inside coronal loops or "magnetic rope" scenarios involving massive currents. Even a "little' resistivity" turns into a lot of heat in such instances.



Oh for goodness sake. You falsely asserted that plasma is "infinitely conductive" when even the links that you cite refute your own claim (little resistivity) and yet you have the sheer audacity to accuse me of "lying" even after I had to fix your Beltrami vector field error no less. Wow!



You did make up the idea of "infinitely conductive plasma" out of whole cloth. Even the link that you *just cited* included the logical qualifiers (simplest, so little resistivity, treated as) that you simply left out entirely!

If you won't admit to your own *obvious* errors, we'll get nowhere in this conversation.
Well here is your opportunity to put your money where your mouth is by proving how my *obvious errors* shows that Scott never made a gross algebraic error as I mentioned in my previous response.

Now if everything goes to plan since you can’t do this, it will end up like your idiotic attempts to extricate yourself through trolling after being caught out lying that infinite conductive plasma is my idea.
When this occurs then the conversation can be ended as your decision to troll, lie, flame etc including a substantial serving of word salad was motivated by being exposed you have no comprehension of Scott’s model let alone its flaws and your support of the model is based on an abnormal emotional attachment.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Amongst this mass of word salad is another bald faced lie; claiming to have addressed the rebuttals in Scott’s model when it is blindingly obvious you haven’t.

FYI, our conversations would be a lot more rational and a whole lot more enjoyable if your ceased *falsely* accusing me of "lies" simply because you personally disagree with me. That's irrational behavior. It's entirely possible to have a disagreement without anyone intentionally "lying". You've made several mistakes now in our discussion of Scott's paper/model, but I haven't accused you of lying.

Yes, I have definitely addressed your various so called "rebuttal's" of Scott's model. Let's recap, shall we?

I can only surmise by the *first two* very basic mistakes/misstatements that you have made about this topic that you are completely unfamiliar with Beltrami fields and flows which have been known about and associated with plasma physics for *many decades*, if not an entire *century* in the case of Birkeland currents.

First you erroneously and falsely asserted that it was impossible for the current and fields to be moving in parallel, basically suggesting that there was no such thing as a Beltrami field in general, or a Birkeland current. I showed you very specifically (with appropriate references) that your *erroneous assumption* is incorrect, and it's entirely possible in *three* dimensional processes for such things to occur. To your credit, you did in fact admit to that first mathematical error, but then you promptly made another error.

You also made a second misstatement of fact related to physics rather than math when you erroneously said:

Hence for infinitely conductive plasmas, the overall electric field is zero.

When I tried to point out to you that there is no such thing as "infinitely conductive plasma", you tried to justify your false claim by quoting Alfven, and then another link, neither of which ever said any such thing! In both instances, the authors *qualified* the use of such *oversimplifications* and in Alfven's case, he specifically cited numerous examples of where such oversimplifications do not apply and cannot be used.

Since no plasma is "infinitely conductive", the electric field cannot ever be "zero". It can be a very small number in some instances and locations in the plasma, however that certainly has nothing to do with fact that an electric field can exist and the beginning and end of "Birkeland current" and that electric field can be the "driving force" of the entire current flow process.

You *still* have not acknowledged that physics error related to *real* plasma. It's impossible for me to take you seriously when you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge that point. Until you do, this conversation is going nowhere.

Apparently your "new" error/argument is based on a presumption that Scott cannot *simplify* his model (as MHD is simplified), simply because you say so. Like your first "math salad" error, you expect me personally to refute your erroneous claim *personally*. From prior conversations, I've experienced first hand you taking my statements (and even my formulas) out of context and blatantly misrepresent my statements and my meaning. It's therefore not in anyone's interest for us to go down that same road. Instead I provided you with a *diagram* which refutes your claim, and shows that in *three* dimensions, it's entirely appropriate to associate Beltrami fields/flows with Birkeland currents.

(1) Show how a Beltrami vector field is applicable to Scott’s use of Maxwell’s 4th equation ∇× B = µ₀j + ε∂E/∂t in his 2015 paper which he uses to derive his equations.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...Fusion_and_Inertial_Fusion_Plasma_Experiments

Advanced Electromagnetism: Foundations: Theory And Applications

For *decades* now, Beltrami fields, and Beltrami flows have been shown to have application not only to hydrodynamic processes, but also to *magnetohydrodynamic processes* as well, including Birkeland currents.

Scott has simply "simplified" his Birkeland current model by "assuming" that dE/dt is zero. You've also made a (false) "big deal" about the fact that a Birkeland current cannot be "force free". That's like claiming that is "false" to assume that magnetic fields are "frozen" into plasma. Both statements are technically correct, because of the fact that plasma is not actually "infinitely conductive", so ideal MHD theory along with everything associated with "absolute conditions" (frozen, collisionless, incompressible, force free) are merely *approximations* that are "close" to correct in some few instances, but not *completely* correct in *all possible* instances. In the specific instance that Scott is describing (dE/dt = 0), it's "close enough* to being a "force free" condition as any other "approximation' related to plasma using "ideal MHD" theory.

I will give you the opportunity to correct this by showing how my “math salad(?)” results in making it algebraically valid not to substitute the Bz(0) term as Scott has done as described in point(4) of the rebuttal.
You don’t even have to address any other points in the rebuttal.

Why on *Earth* would I choose to personally "bark math" on command for you when you have already *misrepresented* the meaning of the math and formulas that I have presented to you in the past? You took a *single* variable in my last mathematical presentation an turned it into *two separate variables* simply because I used two letters to represent the *single* variable in my formula and you built a completely *strawman* argument.

Both of the two references I have provided (along with the diagram I provided you earlier) make it *abundantly* clear that current and fields can move "parallel" to each other along one axis, specifically the axis of the moving current, and demonstrate that Beltrami fields have been associated with plasma physics *for decades* if not a full century.

Just as I did *not* try to "debunk" your previous mathematical error personally, I'm not going to do so now either. IMO you already have an established track record of making strawmen out of my equations, and you've made at least *two other* errors in this debate already, three actually.

There's no "emotional" attachment on my part to *physics that actually enjoys laboratory support*, including Beltrami fields and Birkeland currents. They simply work in the lab, therefore I trust the validity of their use in various mathematical models.

As I said earlier, I can only presume that Beltrami fields and flows were "news" to you personally, and their associated use in plasma physics is also "news" to you personally, but they do exist and they are routinely used in plasma physics and applicable to plasma physics.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,852
3,887
✟273,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Are you sure you mean current heating? One of the problems with early plasma nuclear fusion research (lab work!) was that current heating is only useful for the initial heating of the plasma because plasma resistance drops rapidly with increasing temperature.

If current heating of plasma works differently in the solar corona, in what respects is it different?
Michael said:
Sure resistance drops off rapidly with increasing temperatures as the plasma becomes more ionized, but there's also a limit in terms of when plasma "pinches" occur and particles start slamming into each other due to the excessively high volume of current flowing through the plasma. As massive current flowing through the plasma increases, at some point, plasma pinches, and runaway particle collision processes takes over and we end up million degree temperatures, and even the potential for exploding double layers and complete circuit failure.

In the case of coronal loops it is the so called "small" resistance to current that *sustains* those tens of millions of degree temperatures over hours and days on end, and results in exploding double layers and "solar flares".

The (small) resistance to current is what *sustains* those high coronal temperatures, not just the initial heating.

FB,

Instead of cringing or face palming when encountering word salad nonsense like this I turn it into an exercise into finding as many flaws as possible.
I doubt the list is exhaustive so here are some of them.

(1) Since the solar corona is extremely thin a term that comes back to bite Michael is that it can be treated as an infinitely conductive plasma.
Since there is practically nothing in the solar corona to resist the current there are very few collisions to warm the corona to millions of degrees.

(2) The density of the corona is around 10⁻¹⁵ g/cm³.
At this extremely low density photons emitted from the surface very rarely interact with the plasma and pass straight through the corona resulting in it being transparent. Alternatively if the corona is being heated through resistance, the photons emitted through collisions would no longer make the corona transparent.

(3) The sun would become an extremely powerful emitter for X-ray and γ photons and we wouldn’t be having this discussion as the Earth’s atmosphere would have been stripped long ago. This is not a problem with the mainstream model as X-ray and γ photons from the core lose most of their energy by the time they reach the surface.

(4) Since one would expect photons to be emitted in all directions including back towards the surface, the upper photosphere would be heated and it would impossible to explain the heat convection cells observed on the Sun’s surface.

(5) Analysis of ion/electron velocities of the solar wind in the lower corona reveals a Maxwellian distribution.
Any double layer would accelerate or retard the solar wind ions and electrons (or vice versa) and the distribution would no longer be Maxwellian.

(6) Why aren’t we fried by Birkeland currents in our own ionosphere which is considerably denser than the corona and would provide more “resistance”.

(7) There is absolutely no evidence of any giant external currents in the first place which carry their own magnetic field.
The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field at any given point is fully accounted for by the magnetic field carried by the solar wind plus the motion of interplanetary plasma through this field which induces currents which in turn produces localized magnetic fields.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
FB,

Instead of cringing or face palming when encountering word salad nonsense like this I turn it into an exercise into finding as many flaws as possible.
I doubt the list is exhaustive so here are some of them.

(1) Since the solar corona is extremely thin a term that comes back to bite Michael is that it can be treated as an infinitely conductive plasma.
Since there is practically nothing in the solar corona to resist the current there are very few collisions to warm the corona to millions of degrees.

(2) The density of the corona is around 10⁻¹⁵ g/cm³.
At this extremely low density photons emitted from the surface very rarely interact with the plasma and pass straight through the corona resulting in it being transparent. Alternatively if the corona is being heated through resistance, the photons emitted through collisions would no longer make the corona transparent.

(3) The sun would become an extremely powerful emitter for X-ray and γ photons and we wouldn’t be having this discussion as the Earth’s atmosphere would have been stripped long ago. This is not a problem with the mainstream model as X-ray and γ photons from the core lose most of their energy by the time they reach the surface.

(4) Since one would expect photons to be emitted in all directions including back towards the surface, the upper photosphere would be heated and it would impossible to explain the heat convection cells observed on the Sun’s surface.

(5) Analysis of ion/electron velocities of the solar wind in the lower corona reveals a Maxwellian distribution.
Any double layer would accelerate or retard the solar wind ions and electrons (or vice versa) and the distribution would no longer be Maxwellian.

(6) Why aren’t we fried by Birkeland currents in our own ionosphere which is considerably denser than the corona and would provide more “resistance”.

(7) There is absolutely no evidence of any giant external currents in the first place which carry their own magnetic field.
The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field at any given point is fully accounted for by the magnetic field carried by the solar wind plus the motion of interplanetary plasma through this field which induces currents which in turn produces localized magnetic fields.
Thanks - it was the diffuse nature of the coronal plasma (as in your 1 & 2) that made the 'current heating' model intuitively implausible to me - even allowing for a suitable current source; if it's self-limiting in the lab, with plasma densities many orders of magnitude higher than the corona, it really doesn't make sense that it could happen in the corona. The rest of your analysis seems to confirm it.
 
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
Thanks - it was the diffuse nature of the coronal plasma (as in your 1 & 2) that made the 'current heating' model intuitively implausible to me - even allowing for a suitable current source; if it's self-limiting in the lab, with plasma densities many orders of magnitude higher than the corona, it really doesn't make sense that it could happen in the corona. The rest of your analysis seems to confirm it.

https://thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Currents In The Solar Atmosphere And A Theory Of Solar Flares.pdf

All of sjastro's arguments are as flawed as his points 1 & 2 actually, or they actually destroy his own argument (coronal loops are prolific emitters of x-rays and even gamma rays). Alfven explained why sjastro is wrong, and Alfven included the math.

Birkeland currents tend to "pinch" the plasma into dense current carrying filaments (like a plasma ball), so the "average" density of the corona is absolutely irrelevant. It's the density of the filaments that matter. According to Alfven's estimates, the operating voltage of the sun is around 1 billion volts. Birkeland put it at around 600 million volts.

Points 3 and 7 are directly refuted by SDO x-ray images of the sun which clearly demonstrate that the sun is a prolific emitter of x-rays, and massive "magnetic ropes" (aka Birkeland currents) have been shown to connect the sun to various planets and they even show up in the atmosphere of Venus:

Magnetic Rope Observed For The First Time Between Saturn And The Sun - Physics-Astronomy.com
NASA - NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries About Northern Lights
Baffling Magnetic Structures Spotted in Venus' Atmosphere | Space

The evidence of magnetic ropes, aka Birkeland currents in the interplanetary medium and the solar corona is *overwhelming*. Those so called "baffling" magnetic structures on Venus are predictable structures in a current carrying plasma environment. NASA has yet another goofy name for Birkeland currents in the Earth's upper atmosphere. NASA calls them "Steve".

Meet 'Steve,' the Aurora-Like Mystery Scientists Are Beginning to Unravel | Space

In fact the mainstream uses lots of goofy terms like "space slinky", flux ropes, magnetic ropes, magnetic portals, STEVE and anything *except* their proper scientific name, "Birkeland currents". In fairness however, Alfven used the term "magnetic rope" as well, but he explained them:

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
By the way, the *least* applicable scenario in terms of your false 'infinite conductivity' claim is in *thin/hot* plasma. The thin/hot parts of the corona aren't even carrying the bulk of the current. It's those x-ray emitting 'magnetic ropes" that carry the bulk of the current though the solar atmosphere, and SDO (Yohkoh,SOHO,TRACE,STEREO,GOES) images all demonstrate that coronal loops are *prolific* emitters of x-rays.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I was more interested in the supposed mechanism for current heating of the corona, as the only papers I can recall suggesting current being involved suggest that they could only contribute a small part through Ohmic heating (six orders of magnitude less than required, by one estimate). The main question seems to be how the energy in the magnetic field is converted to heat; resonances in the magnetohydrodynamics of Alfvenic waves, or, alternatively, 'nanoflares' with interacting coronal loops, seem to be the popular hypotheses, with significant currents only indirectly involved, if at all.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...and_Anomalous_Resistivity_in_the_Solar_Corona

It's really odd (and incorrect) to think *only* in terms of magnetic field energy being turned into heat. The only way to have 'magnetic field energy' in plasma in the first place is to also have currents. It's not necessarily an either/or scenario in all cases.

Even if Alfven's flare model, magnetic field energy that is stored in the current carrying loops is converted into kinetic energy as the loop experiences a catastrophic failure, and the circuit is disrupted. A massive change in the magnetic field around the loop also induces particle movement in the plasma.

I'm sure there is *some* amount of magnetic field energy being converted into particle kinetic energy, but there is also kinetic energy found in the electrons flowing off of the cathode surface, and kinetic energy found in the cosmic rays coming into the solar atmosphere.

I think it's overly-simplistic to assume it has to be one or the other, but rather I'm sure it's a combination of both resistivity and induced motion in many instances, particularly in flare type events.
 
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
4,852
3,887
✟273,723.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I was more interested in the supposed mechanism for current heating of the corona, as the only papers I can recall suggesting current being involved suggest that they could only contribute a small part through Ohmic heating (six orders of magnitude less than required, by one estimate). The main question seems to be how the energy in the magnetic field is converted to heat; resonances in the magnetohydrodynamics of Alfvenic waves, or, alternatively, 'nanoflares' with interacting coronal loops, seem to be the popular hypotheses, with significant currents only indirectly involved, if at all.

Ohmic heating of the corona as shown is straightforward to debunk, one can also use MHD which though far more complicated gives an insight in how Alfvenic waves alone can be used to explain how energy in a magnetic field is converted to heat.

The mechanism involves the passage of an Alfvenic wave of frequency ω through a plasma of frequency Ω.
Since plasma is composed of ions and electrons held together by electrostatic forces, these forces act as restoring forces.
If an external force is applied which increases the mean distance between ions and electrons and then removed the plasma will go into oscillation like a simple harmonic oscillator with a frequency Ω.
As electrons are considerably less massive than ions, the electrons are modelled to oscillate relative to the stationary ions.
The plasma frequency Ω is defined by the formula;
Ω² = e²nₑ/mₑεₒ
e is the electron charge, nₑ is the electron number density, mₑ is the electron mass, εₒ is the permittivity of free space.

The magnetic tension of a field also acts as restoring force and when subject to a perturbation such as by the magnetic field of an external current can also undergo oscillation with a frequency ω and generate Alfvenic waves with a velocity;
vₐ = B/√μₒρ
B is the magnetic field strength, μₒ is the permeability of the vacuum, ρ is the plasma mass density.

When an Alfvenic wave of frequency ω passes through plasma with frequency Ω, the velocity equation is of the form;
v = +/- cω/√(ω²-Ω²)
This is known as a dispersion equation.
If ω < Ω the velocity takes on an imaginary value.
Where ω < Ω without going into the gory details which is beyond the scope of this post, the Alfvenic waves are found to be damped and lose their energy to the plasma which is heated.

For the solar corona the plasma frequencies are very small due to the low density and Alfvenic waves which must be smaller than this frequency will carry very little energy (since energy is a function of the frequency of the wave).
As a result even if all the energy was transferred to the solar corona through damping, heating of the corona would be very small in magnitude.

The general subject of heating of the solar corona is very complicated involving a number of mechanisms used in conjunction with Alfvenic waves.
In this case the Alfvenic waves are in the region ω > Ω where energy loss by damping does not occur.
Instead these high frequency Alfvenic waves carry large amounts of energy and lose it when the magnetic field undergoes resonance due to Alfvenic waves of a given frequency.
MHD Alfvenic waves are far more complicated than originally envisaged by Alfven and are kinetic Alfvenic waves which have a perpendicular or transverse wavelength when comparable to the gyroradius of ions in plasma results in resonant absorption of the wave which heats up the plasma.
 
Last edited:
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
Ohmic heating of the corona as shown is straightforward to debunk,

Since I provided a paper on the topic, you should find it straightforward to "debunk"? :scratch:

one can also use MHD which though far more complicated gives an insight in how Alfvenic waves alone can be used to explain how energy in a magnetic field is converted to heat.

The fact that coronal heating might be explained some other way in no way "debunks" the methods listed in the paper that I cited. By the way, that specific paper itself only demonstrates a *method* by which resistivity can be calculated in plasma, it doesn't actually explain all the heating of the corona that way, rather it suggests that:

4. The conclusion to be drawn from point (3) is that either these currents are irrelevant for coronal heating, or that the true resistivity in the corona exceeds the Spitzer value by several orders of magnitude. Resolution of this matter obviously lies in a better understanding of the resistivity in a collisionless plasma.
5. The same model used to estimate the volumetric and mass heating rates is also used to estimate the electron drift speed in the current sheets. This drift speed could be comparable to the electron drift speed, and in excess of the ion acoustic speed. Accordingly, current-driven instabilities might be present in these sheets, and the waves driven unstable by these currents might enhance
the resistivity to significant levels. This contention is supported by works in the literature which have shown enhancement of resistivity by current-driven instabilities.

In other words, the "assumptions" used in the paper wouldn't necessarily explain coronal heating this way, but they discuss assumptions that would and could make a big difference in terms of the results.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.