Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy - Magnetic Reconnection

[Justatruthseeker]

You need to read what you link to, Justatruthseeker.
Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia has a link to
Stellar magnetic field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More than that we would have to both attend some post-graduate astronomy courses or read some textbooks .

And no - you do not need electric currents for magnetic fields. Permanent magnets do not have any electric currents. These are magnetic basically because electrons have a magnetic moment due to their spin. N.B. this is not classical spin so there is no electric charge spinning around in a circle.

ETA: I will also point out that the Sun does not "maintain" a magnetic field as in a permanent magnet. The magnetic field flips every 11 years or so. It develops multiple north and south poles. It does lots of strange things that point to a plasma dynamo origin.

And how pray tell, does conductive plasma inside a star produce a magnetic field at those temperatures without electric current??? Do you know what curie temperature is?????

Ahh yes, the perpetual motion dynamo.

 

[RealityCheck]

And how pray tell, does conductive plasma inside a star produce a magnetic field at those temperatures without electric current??? Do you know what curie temperature is?????

Ahh yes, the perpetual motion dynamo.

Ummmm.... plasma is, as you said, conductive. Kinda like a metal. Moving charge is a current that produces magnetic fields.

 

[lesliedellow]

And how pray tell, does conductive plasma inside a star produce a magnetic field at those temperatures without electric current???

NASA doesn't seem to know, but presumably you do. Well, there's your Nobel Prize, ready and waiting for you.

Since you know everything there is to be known about electromagnetism, presumably you also know that electric currents require the application of an electric field, otherwise the charge carriers just move around at random. So where is your electric field coming from?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

NASA doesn't seem to know, but presumably you do. Well, there's your Nobel Prize, ready and waiting for you.

Sure, the same thing that powers all stars, just visible in some when the current is high.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/hubble-nebulae-06-130904.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/Planetary_Nebula_M2-9.jpg

http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2002/07/31/0001178679/h3401_hst_big.jpg

They know enough to make sure the artists draw those connections in their conceptions

Herschel finds past-prime star may be making planets

And all these nebula, just like our sun and all other stars, all have their poles aligned close to the galactic plane, because that is where the current flows, inward along the spiral arms.

Mystery Alignment of Planetary Nebulae Discovered : Discovery News

One day astronomers will figure it out and it won't be so mysterious to them anymore.

And the life and death of a star has nothing to do with it, merely intensity of current.

Which is also why Voyager found no change in the galactic magnetic field, because that field is also aligned with the spiral arms.


http://www.holoscience.com/wp/synopsis/synopsis-5-electric-galaxies/

It is only mysterious to you and astronomers because you ignore the electric activity in space.

 

[lesliedellow]

Sure, the same thing that powers all stars, just visible in some when the current is high.

You conveniently forgot to mention where that electric field, necessary for the passage of a current, is supposed to come from. Still, I am sure that was merely an oversight on your part.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You conveniently forgot to mention where that electric field, necessary for the passage of a current, is supposed to come from. Still, I am sure that was merely an oversight on your part.

Best research electric fields. Electric and magnetic fields are caused by moving charged particles. Electrostatic fields are caused by stationary particles. Moving particles in and of themselves create electric fields. And an electric field is not necessary for the passage of current, simply motion of particles in the same general direction. The electric field mediates the voltage differential between objects of mass, dependent on the particles motion.

Answered here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7809468-24/#post65380173

 

[lesliedellow]

And an electric field is not necessary for the passage of current, simply motion of particles in the same general direction.

And how do you get charged particles all marching in the same direction?

Yes, quite right, you apply an electric field.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And how do you get charged particles all marching in the same direction?

Yes, quite right, you apply an electric field.

Not according to your astronomers. What accelerates the solar wind according to mainstream? Certainly not an electric field. Of course we both know they are wrong, just as they are wrong about almost all of their Fairie Dust theories.

I am glad to see we both agree as to what causes charged particles to accelerate, including the solar wind and plasma jets.

It's sad when one has to argue against his own beliefs to get someone to commit themselves to falsifying their own Fairie Dust theories. But I couldn't have said it better myself.

But of course we know you will backstep now and argue that the solar wind is accelerated not by electric fields, but thermal processes and magnetic fields. The same with plasma jets from the center of galaxies. You will backstep and argue they are accelerated by gravity and magnetic fields.

I expect even though it seems you know the correct answer, you will continue to ignore electrical activities in space.

 

[lesliedellow]

Not according to your astronomers. What accelerates the solar wind according to mainstream? Certainly not an electric field.

Quite right. Not an electric field. For one thing the solar wind carries no net charge, and it therefore:

a.) Is not an electric current.

b.) Couldn't possible be caused by an electric field.

The solar wind is the result of particles becoming hot enough (acquiring enough kinetic energy) to escape the Sun's gravitational field.

 

[Michael]

Quite right. Not an electric field. For one thing the solar wind carries no net charge, and it therefore:

a.) Is not an electric current.

It isn't always "neutral" (in fact it's always pumping energy into Earth's atmosphere), so your assertion is false.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/northern_lights.html

Here is how Hannes Alfven describes a "magnetic rope":

"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."

b.) Couldn't possible be caused by an electric field.

False again. Birkeland used a cathode terrella to simulate solar wind and "predict" it was composed of *both* types of charged particles.

The solar wind is the result of particles becoming hot enough (acquiring enough kinetic energy) to escape the Sun's gravitational field.

Where can you show me an experiment with 6000 degree plasma that emits a constant stream of million mile per hours particles in every direction? That sounds like magic plasma to me.

 

[Michael]

And how do you get charged particles all marching in the same direction?

Yes, quite right, you apply an electric field.

Which is exactly how Birkeland simulated solar wind and successfully predicted it would contain both types of charged particles. That's also how he created and successfully predicted the existence of cathode rays from the sun, polar 'jets', and electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere.

 

[lesliedellow]

Which is exactly how Birkeland simulated solar wind and successfully predicted it would contain both types of charged particles. That's also how he created and successfully predicted the existence of cathode rays from the sun, polar 'jets', and electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere.

You cannot have an electric field accelerate both positive and negative charges, except in opposite directions.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You cannot have an electric field accelerate both positive and negative charges, except in opposite directions.

I beg to differ:

Electric current - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A flow of positive charges gives the same electric current, and has the same effect in a circuit, as an equal flow of negative charges in the opposite direction. Since current can be the flow of either positive or negative charges, or both, a convention for the direction of current which is independent of the type of charge carriers is needed. The direction of conventional current is arbitrarily defined to be the same as the direction of the flow of positive charges."

You are limiting yourself and forgetting all about voltage differentials and thinking only in terms of one-dimensional aspects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage

 

[lesliedellow]

I beg to differ:

You can beg to differ all you like, but it is a fact, and, if you think those pages from Wikipedia say otherwise, you do not understand what you are reading.

 

[Michael]

You cannot have an electric field accelerate both positive and negative charges, except in opposite directions.

Birkeland actually demonstrated in a lab that your statement is not true, and he did so over 100 years ago. Today we would call it "sputtering". Birkeland even included two calculations to describe the particle movement from the sun based on the charge of the particle. His whole investigation began as a observation of the "soot" that would build up on the walls of his experiments. He quickly realized that metallic parts of his cathode terrela were being ripped from the sphere, and deposited on the glass.

 

[lesliedellow]

Birkeland actually demonstrated in a lab that your statement is not true, and he did so over 100 years ago. Today we would call it "sputtering". Birkeland even included two calculations to describe the particle movement from the sun based on the charge of the particle. His whole investigation began as a observation of the "soot" that would build up on the walls of his experiments. He quickly realized that metallic parts of his cathode terrela were being ripped from the sphere, and deposited on the glass.

You are effectively telling me that Birkeland "proved" that like charges can attract one another. So he was either talking nonsense, or you have misunderstood what he said. If you are anything like Justa, the second stands a good chance of being the case.

 

[Michael]

You are effectively telling me that Birkeland "proved" that like charges can attract one another.

No, that's not what I said.

So he was either talking nonsense, or you have misunderstood what he said.

It sounds like *you* misunderstood what I said.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, that's not what I said.



It sounds like *you* misunderstood what I said.

They don't want to understand.

Sputtering - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Electronic sputtering The term electronic sputtering can mean either sputtering induced by energetic electrons (for example in a transmission electron microscope), or sputtering due to very high-energy or highly charged heavy ions that lose energy to the solid mostly by electronic stopping power, where the electronic excitations cause sputtering.[8] Electronic sputtering produces high sputtering yields from insulators, as the electronic excitations that cause sputtering are not immediately quenched, as they would be in a conductor. One example of this is Jupiter's ice-covered moon Europa, where a MeV sulfur ion from Jupiter's magnetosphere can eject up to 10,000 H2O molecules...
In space Sputtering is one of the forms of space weathering, a process that changes the physical and chemical properties of airless bodies, such as asteroids and the Moon. It is also one of the possible ways that Mars has lost most of its atmosphere and that Mercury continually replenishes its tenuous surface-bounded exosphere."


Thin film - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Plasma enhanced CVD (PECVD) uses an ionized vapor, or plasma, as a precursor. Unlike the soot example above, commercial PECVD relies on electromagnetic means (electric current, microwave excitation), rather than a chemical reaction, to produce a plasma....

• Cathodic arc deposition (arc-PVD) which is a kind of ion beam deposition where an electrical arc is created that literally blasts ions from the cathode. The arc has an extremely high power density resulting in a high level of ionization (30–100%), multiply charged ions, neutral particles, clusters and macro-particles (droplets). If a reactive gas is introduced during the evaporation process, dissociation, ionization and excitation can occur during interaction with the ion flux and a compound film will be deposited."

Something they should read, but wont.




Cathodic arc deposition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

And what do you know, ion beams on the moon.

NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind

 

[lesliedellow]

No, that's not what I said.



It sounds like *you* misunderstood what I said.

1.) Sputtering displaces atoms from the surface of a material, not ions or electrons.

2.) Even if ions were emitted from the surface, the electric field would accelerate them in a direction opposite to that of electron flow, as I said.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Birkeland actually demonstrated in a lab that your statement is not true, and he did so over 100 years ago.

It is a law of physics (Maxwells equations) that an electric field accelerates positive and negative charges in different directions. Birkeland did not demonstrate a violation of a law of physics.
What happened in Birkeland's "little Earth" experiment was that electric and magnetic fields were present. So there was some spluttering (the "soot" on the glass of his apparatus). These would have been ions being torn off the surface of the terrella.
The "two calculations" are possibly the ones about electrons where he calculated that they travelled almost at the sped of light. This is incorrect - the solar wind is much slower.