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.
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!