Message from the Dawn of time...

[Michael]

Reality check I think it's best to leave Michael and Justa aloe to pat each others backs. There is really nothing you can say to them and convince them. Hint: They consider all the mainstream to be wrong! This should ring a few alarm bells.

I am as of now un-subscribing from this thread.

You won't miss much by ignoring this thread in the first place. The mainstream's grandiose claims about some mythical message they saw from the dawn of time in Bicep2 data all turned to 'dust' by publication time anyway.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nope, Justatruthseeker. A plasma is a partially ionized gas with every ion and electron going in a random direction.

You done failed already by showing you never understood what electric current was to begin with, thinking it must be made of only one type of charged particle.

Tell that to the solar wind, just charged particles interacting as they travel together at different velocities. Because you do not understand what is occurring across those double layers.

This is how plasma behaves. "In particular we will see that the plasma state is able to react in a collective manner. Therefore, the plasma medium is more then the sum of its constituents."

Again, you lack the knowledge of true plasma behavior, which is why your mind thinks those electrons are traveling every-which-way. Which is why the galactic rotation has a flat rotation rate - because that plasma acts collectively, and is more than the sum of its constituents.

Which of course leads us to why you need Fairie Dust in the first place, because that plasma does not follow the math of solids, liquids and gasses. But you insist on applying the incorrect theory, and so also require 95% ad-hoc gap fillers to make up for treating plasma like dust and gas.

Here, from plasma 101 and your own link.

"It is important to note that although they are unbound, these particles are not ‘free’. When the charges move they generate electrical currents with magnetic fields, and as a result, they are affected by each other’s fields. This governs their collective behavior with many degrees of freedom."

You are arguing a loosing stance, because no citations you present about plasma from plasma physicists, will ever support you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Reality check I think it's best to leave Michael and Justa aloe to pat each others backs. There is really nothing you can say to them and convince them. Hint: They consider all the mainstream to be wrong! This should ring a few alarm bells.

I am as of now un-subscribing from this thread.

You mean you lack the science to keep up the farce any longer? Realitycheck already showed his lack of understanding of electricity and plasma. He needs to check his reality. I think you all do, living so long in Fairie Dust land and all.

 

[RealityCheck01]

There are no 'lies to children' being told RC, ...snipped insults...

Did you actually read those linked lecture notes, Michael?
The author has "lies to children" where he states that magnetic fields are due to electrons orbiting in atoms. Origin of Permanent Magnetism

Well, atoms consist of negatively charged electrons in orbit around positively charged nuclei. A moving electric charge constitutes an electric current, so there must be a current associated with every electron in an atom. ...

It's the spin[ and charge (thus their magnetic moment) of the electrons that mainly creates magnetic fields in "ferromagnetic materials".
Ferromagnetism

Origin of magnetism
One of the fundamental properties of an electron (besides that it carries charge) is that it has a magnetic dipole moment, i.e., it behaves itself as a tiny magnet. This dipole moment comes from the more fundamental property of the electron that it has quantum mechanical spin. Due to its quantum nature, the spin of the electron can be in one of only two states; with the magnetic field either pointing "up" or "down" (for any choice of up and down). The spin of the electrons in atoms is the main source of ferromagnetism, although there is also a contribution from the orbital angular momentum of the electron about the nucleus. When these tiny magnetic dipoles in a piece of matter are aligned in the same direction, their individual magnetic fields add together to create a measurable macroscopic field.

N.B. "orbital angular momentum" is also a quantum feature since electrons are not classically orbiting the nucleus.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...snipped insults...

"Origin of Permanent Magnetism" contains lies to children, Michael !

 

[RealityCheck01]

Even in solar flares there are non ionized particles being ionized, and slightly ionized atoms becoming *more ionized* during the discharge flare....snipped irrelevant rant.....

Mostly right, Michael.
In any plasma there are always ionized atoms and molecules being neutralized.
In any plasma there are always neutral atoms and molecules being ionized.
In any plasma there are always ionized atoms and molecules being more ionized.
However only in a dusty plasma are there "particles" swapping between being ionized and neutral. You are completely right if by "particles" you mean atoms and molecules.

The usual display of ignorance about the properties of plasma (they conduct ) does not excuse a matching ignorance about lightning (Peratt's example):
Actual electrical discharges such as lightning are impossible on plasma by definition (no dielectric medium like air to break down).

 

[RealityCheck01]

...rant, delusions and insults snipped...

A) No plasma in Somov's example.
B) No plasma movement in Somov's example.
And the continuing ignorance about where the magnetic reconnection happens in Somov's example .
Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum (24 fantasies mostly about the contents of Somov's textbook section on MR in vacuum). The fantasy about plasma in the example has persisted since 29 November 2011!

The evasion admits the lie (not any admission from you), Michael:
Michael's evasion admits a lie about "plasma filaments" in section 4.4.2
(added emphasis in the forlorn hope that Michael can comprehend the English .)

Michael (30 October 2013): If we have electrical wires producing the current in the vacuum of Somov's example then would you claim that magnetic reconnection happens in the electrical wires?

You are right Michael: There are no wires or plasma in Somov's example. But if you are free to add plasma (which is really dumb since plasmas are not currents - they contain currents !) to produce the current then I am free to add real electrical currents in wires.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Reality check I think it's best to leave Michael and Justa aloe to pat each others backs. There is really nothing you can say to them and convince them.

Sorry to see you unsubscribe, mzungu.
I know about Michael and his inability to change his mind (The sun has a rigid iron surface located under the photosphere that is revealed by satellite imagery fantasy since maybe 2006!).
I have hopes for Justatruthseeker since he has not devolved into insults or pointless rants.

 

[RealityCheck01]

.... a bit of a "Michael" rant snipped ...

I know about the heliospheric current sheet, Justatruthseeker, and that there are no double layers in that Wikipedia article.
I know about double layers, Justatruthseeker], and that there are no heliospheric current sheet in that Wikipedia article.

Juts a thought, Justatruthseeker, but is English your second language?
Your posts do not suggest this but the linking of two unrelated Wikipedia articles does.

In a general plasma, electrons and ions are " traveling every-which-way" (I missed out the "subject to the EM forces they exert on each other" as my own little "lie to children" ). They do not move in one direction. They do not move in opposite directions. They do have collective movements with many degrees of freedom.

You may want to try to think for yourself, Justatruthseeker, since you seem to be parroting some crank's delusions about

• galaxy velocity curves can be explained by a fantasy about plasma.
• the theory of plasma physics is invalid because an ionized gas is describing using the physics of gases and ions .
• the idiocy of "ad-hoc" in "95% ad-hoc gap fillers".
• the ignorance behind "treating plasma like dust and gas" (that is not plasma physics!).

 

[Michael]

"Origin of Permanent Magnetism" contains lies to children, Michael !

The only lies being told are being told by you RC.

You *lied* when you claimed that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. You *lied* when you claimed to know anything at all about plasma physics too because you've never read a textbook on the topic. You lied when you claimed that Somov's example included "wires". You lied when you claimed that the plasma physics process called 'magnetic reconnection' was a plasma optional process. You lied when you claimed that Peratt's *definition* of an "electrical discharge in plasma" *requires* a breakdownd of a dilectric. You lied in the way you presented Dungey's work too. You've basically lied about everything you've said.

 

[Michael]

The usual display of ignorance about the properties of plasma (they conduct )

You lied about that too. Nobody ever denied our doubted that plasmas "conduct". You are basically incapable of having an adult conversation. All you can do is lie about everything, make strawmen up in your head on a whim, and include tons of loaded, personal attack nonsense in every single post. Unbelievable.

does not excuse a matching ignorance about lightning (Peratt's example):
Actual electrical discharges such as lightning are impossible on plasma by definition (no dielectric medium like air to break down).

More of your lies. Peratt's definition of discharges in plasma claims that actual electrical discharges *are* possible, not *impossible.*. You really don't even know how to tell the truth. Both Dungey and Peratt claimed that electrical discharges are *possible* in plasma. You lied about that too.

 

[Michael]

Sorry to see you unsubscribe, mzungu.
I know about Michael and his inability to change his mind

You're projecting too.

Dungey proved you wrong. You won't admit it, nor will you admit that electrical discharges occur in plasma. You refuse to admit that Somov's example included *no* (as in zero) 'wires' too. You refuse to admit any of the many mistakes that you make. Instead you keep repeating the same falsified claims, Dungey, Peratt, Somov and every other published author be damned. What you won't ever do is present a *published author* that claims that actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma as *only you* have ever claimed. You are hopeless.

 

[Michael]

...rant, delusions and insults snipped...

You even lie when you edit my posts and start inserting your own comments as passing them off as something attributed to me.

A) No plasma in Somov's example.

There's another lie on your part. He includes two currents, and all currents in a vacuum are composed of charged particles, aka plasma. His charged particles (AKA plasma) even *move* in the example.

B) No plasma movement in Somov's example.

Another blatant lie. The distance between the two plasma channels *move* in the diagram.

And the continuing ignorance about where the magnetic reconnection happens in Somov's example .

You lied again. I never said squat about *where* reconnection happens. You blatantly made that up.

You are right Michael: There are no wires or plasma in Somov's example.

Bull. There are two currents that *move* which are clearly labelled in his example. Only you insist on turning plasma currents in a vacuum into two wires in a vacuum.

But if you are free to add plasma (which is really dumb since plasmas are not currents - they contain currents !) to produce the current then I am free to add real electrical currents in wires.

Nope. You aren't free to add things to his diagram which aren't there and which would prevent movement from even occurring in *your* example and then attributing it to Somov. Somov's example works because the currents are composed of individual particles that can in fact move and come closer together, unlike your example with *solid wires* in which only *magnetic flux* and magnetic attraction would occur.

You misrepresented ever published author you've cited.

 

[Michael]

The amusing part is watching you kludge everyone's comments from Dungey to Peratt, to Somov. They all describe an electrical discharge process where stored EM energy is converted into charged particle movements. You've continuously stuck words and terms in all of their mouths which simply aren't there. Dungey doesn't claim that actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma. He says exactly the opposite in fact. You're quite literally *kludging* every author and the statements they make!

 

[RealityCheck01]

...insults and rant snipped...

You are persisting in the ignorance that plasmas conduct and so lightning (actual electrical discharges) cannot happen in them, Michael.

EAT: To be more exact it is the denial of basic English that leads to that display of ignorance:
actual electrical discharges are lightning as in Peratt's examplea.
Lightning cannot happen in a plasma.
Thus stating that lightning (actual can happen in a plasma is ignorance or denial of the properties of plasma.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual rant snipped....

Michael is still in denial that plasmas conduct thus lightning cannot happen in them - I may drop "actual electrical discharges" since Michael still cannot understand this means Peratt's example of lightning !

 

[RealityCheck01]

...usual rant snipped....

Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
It is a lie that Dungey stated that actual electrical discharges happen in plasma, Michael.

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! but you want the cause to be undefined "electric discharges"

LXXVI. Conditions for the occurrence of electrical discharges in astrophysical systems (1953 )

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

His 'discharge' is an existing current density that grows, i.e. not a discharge!
The Neutral Point Discharge Theory of Solar Flares. a Reply to Cowling's Criticism (1958 )

The suggestion that an solar flare results 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.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...snipped rant...

Oh dear, Michael - I did not edit your post. This is my reply to your post:
A) No plasma in Somov's example.
B) No plasma movement in Somov's example.
You reply with an ignorant rant about electrical currents being plasma. And then make that doubly ignorant with the image from Somov's textbook which has no plasma in the caption.

Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum (24 fantasies mostly about the contents of Somov's textbook section on MR in vacuum). The fantasy about plasma in the example has persisted since 29 November 2011!

Michael's evasion admits a lie about "plasma filaments" in section 4.4.2
(added emphasis in the forlorn hope that Michael can comprehend the English .)

Michael (30 October 2013): If we have electrical wires producing the current in the vacuum of Somov's example then would you claim that magnetic reconnection happens in the electrical wires?

 

[Michael]

Actual electrical discharges are impossible in plasma, etc.
It is a lie that Dungey stated that actual electrical discharges happen in plasma, Michael.

The term *actual* is a lie on your part. It's a qualifier that *you personally* added, which Dungey never said anything about. It's also a personal qualifier that Peratt did not *require* in his definition of electrical discharges in plasmas. Dungey's example *includes* the potential for dust to be ionized too, or not. Either way, it's an *actual* electrical discharge n plasma.

18th October 2011: Dungey's 'electric discharge' = high current density in magnetic reconnection

You made that up too to suit yourself. He used the term "electrical discharge" with respect to solar flares. You're simply making *rationalizations* and then simply ignoring what he said.

What you will never do is provide a quote from any published author that claims that actual (or otherwise) electrical discharges are "impossible' in plasma.

13th January 2011: Dungey's and Peratt's definition of discharge are different!

Nope. You lied about that too. According to Peratt, electrical discharges *are possible* in plasma - by definition! You lied when you tried to suggest that Dungey's use of the term 'electrical discharges' isn't a perfect fit for Peratt's *definition* of an electrical discharge in plasma.

8th November 2011: Citing Dungey means that cause of solar flares is magnetic reconnection! but you want the cause to be undefined "electric discharges"

Dungey actually used the term "electrical discharge" in that paper RC, and Peratt's definition of an electrical discharges is *inclusive* of "magnetic reconnection" which simply converts magnetic field energy into particle movement, the two things you and Clinger *left out*!

The other stuff is just you trying to weasel out of the reality by inserting your own qualifiers and claims to their work when they made no such qualifiers or claims in their actual work. By definition 'actual' electrical discharges are *possible* and common in plasma. Period. Your denial routine won't change any of Dungey's or Peratt's published work.

When are you going to read a real textbook on this topic RC?

 

[RealityCheck01]

The statement

I never said squat about *where* reconnection happens.

is really amazing, Michael, since you have been able to read Somov's textbook section for almost 3 years now. I would have expected you to state the obvious. But since you have not then I will ask you an extremely simple question:
5 November 2014 Michael: Where does magnetic reconnection happen in Somov's example?
As a clue here is the image:

And here is most of the text:
Michael Mozina's ideas about Somov's 'Reconnection in a Vacuum' section II