Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Galaxy rotation patterns are better explained by Birkeland currents than by dark matter.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="sjastro" data-source="post: 73844743" data-attributes="member: 352921"><p>The “correction” doesn’t exonerate Scott it adds to the confusion.</p><p></p><p>He starts off with Maxwell’s equation where (∇ X <strong>B</strong>) X <strong>B</strong> ≠ 0 applies, then somewhere in the paper the equation magically changes to (∇ X <strong>B</strong>) X <strong>B</strong> = 0 to reflect the force free condition.</p><p>In fact he oscillates between (∇ X <strong>B</strong>) X <strong>B</strong> ≠ 0 and (∇ X <strong>B</strong>) X <strong>B</strong> = 0.</p><p>It’s like the literary sleight of hand followed by the algebraic error.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The irony is if he never made the algebraic substitution in the first place he would have reproduced Lundquist’s 1950 equations.</p><p>It’s almost as if to make it an “original work” he has decided to tinker around with the equations by the incorrect substitution which has ended up in a mathematical disaster.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Here is the interesting point.</p><p>Force free fields apply where the magnetic pressure exceeds the plasma pressure.</p><p>Birkeland currents are associated with z pinches which by definition increase the plasma pressure as for example “in the laboratory” regarding plasma fusion.</p><p>So whether Birkeland currents can actually exist in force free fields is a relevant question and is probably a reflection in the Wignelmann/Sakurai link why the aligned currents are not Birkeland currents.</p><p></p><p>If we go by Scott’s recipe that Birkeland currents and force free fields go hand in hand there is a real problem in our solar system.</p><p>In a way it relates to that “interesting” discussion of hydrostatic equilibrium of the Earth’s atmosphere with that individual on the other site.<img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/oops.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":sorry:" title="sorry :sorry:" data-shortname=":sorry:" /></p><p>While the Sun’s corona is not in hydrostatic equilibrium the outward force of the plasma pressure is countered by the inward gravitational force of the Sun.</p><p>This unique set of circumstances which includes the density of the plasma in the corona sets up the conditions for a force free field in the corona.</p><p>Beyond the corona there is no force free field in the solar wind so what happens to the Birkeland current?</p><p></p><p>Then there is the contradiction that Birkeland currents exist in the Earth’s magnetosphere which is not a force free field and adds to the confusion.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="sjastro, post: 73844743, member: 352921"] The “correction” doesn’t exonerate Scott it adds to the confusion. He starts off with Maxwell’s equation where (∇ X [B]B[/B]) X [B]B[/B] ≠ 0 applies, then somewhere in the paper the equation magically changes to (∇ X [B]B[/B]) X [B]B[/B] = 0 to reflect the force free condition. In fact he oscillates between (∇ X [B]B[/B]) X [B]B[/B] ≠ 0 and (∇ X [B]B[/B]) X [B]B[/B] = 0. It’s like the literary sleight of hand followed by the algebraic error. The irony is if he never made the algebraic substitution in the first place he would have reproduced Lundquist’s 1950 equations. It’s almost as if to make it an “original work” he has decided to tinker around with the equations by the incorrect substitution which has ended up in a mathematical disaster. Here is the interesting point. Force free fields apply where the magnetic pressure exceeds the plasma pressure. Birkeland currents are associated with z pinches which by definition increase the plasma pressure as for example “in the laboratory” regarding plasma fusion. So whether Birkeland currents can actually exist in force free fields is a relevant question and is probably a reflection in the Wignelmann/Sakurai link why the aligned currents are not Birkeland currents. If we go by Scott’s recipe that Birkeland currents and force free fields go hand in hand there is a real problem in our solar system. In a way it relates to that “interesting” discussion of hydrostatic equilibrium of the Earth’s atmosphere with that individual on the other site.:sorry: While the Sun’s corona is not in hydrostatic equilibrium the outward force of the plasma pressure is countered by the inward gravitational force of the Sun. This unique set of circumstances which includes the density of the plasma in the corona sets up the conditions for a force free field in the corona. Beyond the corona there is no force free field in the solar wind so what happens to the Birkeland current? Then there is the contradiction that Birkeland currents exist in the Earth’s magnetosphere which is not a force free field and adds to the confusion. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Galaxy rotation patterns are better explained by Birkeland currents than by dark matter.
Top
Bottom