Moondust

[serious] · Nov 6, 2015

AV1611VET said:
I could be wrong, guys, but I think this thread is more about the depth of the moon dust, than it is about what the moon dust consists of.

Too late, now its about magnets.

How do they work? My guess is though the power of fairy dust.

crjmurray · Nov 6, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Ahhh, didn't know that. Thanks for the info.

Something you don't know...

Justatruthseeker · Nov 7, 2015

[serious] said:
Too late, now its about magnets.

How do they work? My guess is though the power of fairy dust.

Electricity.

crjmurray said:
Something you don't know...

But I admit when I don't know.

Justatruthseeker · Nov 7, 2015

Magnets work by electrical current - as all of science understands.

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node77.html

"In conclusion, all magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by circulating currents. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (i.e., the scale of the circuit). "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

"A magnetic field is the magnetic effect of electric currents and magnetic materials."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfie.html

"Magnetic fields are produced by electric currents, which can be macroscopic currents in wires, or microscopic currents associated with electrons in atomic orbits."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/biosav.html#c1

"The Biot-Savart Law relates magnetic fields to the currents which are their sources. In a similar manner, Coulomb's law relates electric fields to the point charges which are their sources. Finding the magnetic field resulting from a current distribution involves the vector product, and is inherently a calculus problem when the distance from the current to the field point is continuously changing."

http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/physics/mag/node6.html

"When we introduced the electric field

it was apparent that electric charges were the source of such a field. Experiments in the 19th century showed that the source of a magnetic field

was a moving charge, or current. A detailed mathematical relation between a charge moving at velocity

and the associated magnetic field

is known as Ampère's law or, in another form, the Biot-Savart law.

https://physics.ucf.edu/~roldan/classes/Chap28_PHY2049.pdf

http://www.physics.sjsu.edu/becker/physics51/mag_field.htm

http://web.monroecc.edu/manila/webfiles/spiral/3.MagneticFieldNC.pdf

So we have no need of applying Fairie Dust, just to accept the science.

lesliedellow · Nov 7, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
As plasma physicists have been trying to tell them for the last 200+ years.

Cor blimey. That's before Faraday, Ampere, Lorentz or even St Alfven had even set pen to paper. That's really something, eh?

Justatruthseeker · Nov 7, 2015

lesliedellow said:
Cor blimey. That's before Faraday, Ampere, Lorentz or even St Alfven had even set pen to paper. That's really something, eh?

And yet you can't find a single paper where anything but electromagnetic theory was applied to describe plasma behavior in any laboratory. And then when mainstream cosmologists apply the incorrect theory to 99% of the universe - you accept their Fairie Dust excuses for refusing to apply the proper physics.

Imagine that, but then cosmologists are still trying to apply physics for clumps of matter to single particles, so what can we expect but Fairie Dust???

You got a lot of nerve to talk about Ampere, Faraday, Gauss or Weber - since you ignore them in every theory in a universe 99% plasma. Talk about the hypocritical excuses soon to follow for ignoring those laws of physics.

lesliedellow · Nov 7, 2015

[serious] said:
Moon dust? More like fairy dust, am-i-right?

Surely you mean "fairie dust". Let us have the correct spelling of scientific terminology, please.

[serious] · Nov 7, 2015

lesliedellow said:
Surely you mean "fairie dust". Let us have the correct spelling of scientific terminology, please.

No, it stands for friendly assumptions in relatively young dudes usually spouting taglines.

Justatruthseeker · Nov 7, 2015

[serious] said:
No, it stands for friendly assumptions in relatively young dudes usually spouting taglines.

Agreed - that's why those youngsters can only engage in ad-hominem attacks because they sure can't argue the science.

lesliedellow · Nov 7, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
And yet you can't find a single paper where anything but electromagnetic theory was applied to describe plasma behaviour

Goodness me, we now learn that even St Alfven didn't know what he was talking about. After all, he seemed to think that fluid mechanics had something to do with the behaviour of gases - ionised or not. Well, silly old him.

Justatruthseeker · Nov 7, 2015

lesliedellow said:
Goodness me, we now learn that even St Alfven didn't know what he was talking about. After all, he seemed to think that fluid mechanics had something to do with the behaviour of gases - ionised or not. Well, silly old him.

And yet the same man also told you that MHD theory could not be used to explain space plasma. And as experiments proved him correct.... but of course you couldn't be bothered to watch a 4:55 second video on plasma behavior in space, could you. Nor could you be bothered to read what Alfven actually said about MHD and plasma in space - knowing that without particle physics and circuit theory - all was lost.

""A study of how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts such as double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects, and circuits is made. It is found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century (e.g, double layers, Langmuir, 1929; pinch effect, Bennet, 1934)" Alfvén reported that of 17 of the most used textbooks on astrophysics, none mention the pinch effect, none mentioned critical ionization velocity, only two mention circuits, and three mentioned double layers"

http://cds.cern.ch/record/169085/files/CM-P00069347.pdf

Yes - the plasma physicist tried to tell them about plasma behavior - but they didn't listen.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-lecture.pdf

"The cosmical plasma physics of today is far less advanced than the thermonuclear research physics. It is to some extent the playground of theoreticians who have never seen a plasma in a laboratory. Many of them still believe in formulae which we know from laboratory experiments to be wrong. The astrophysical correspondence to the thermonuclear crisis has not yet come."

But it's on the doorstep as we speak.

I'm sorry - I keep confusing you with someone that believes in laboratory experiments.

You can't even get your Fairie Dust claims about other people right. Funny history shows Alfven and science disagrees with you on every claim you make. Are you not tired of strawman in attempts to defend mainstream Fairie Dust?

Justatruthseeker · Nov 7, 2015

Let me repeat that since you didn't bother to read it the first time - or ever, yet claim to be informed.

http://cds.cern.ch/record/169085/files/CM-P00069347.pdf

"As neither double layer nor circuit theory can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory."

As Plasma Physicists are doing. Even if those that should be doing so are instead hindering them.

So what was that strawman again about MHD and cosmic plasma's you were spouting in your attempt at diversion from the truth? Sad a claimed Christian must resort to such tactics of hate too suppress the truth.

lesliedellow · Nov 7, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
"A study of how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts such as double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects, and circuits is made. It is found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century (e.g, double layers, Langmuir, 1929; pinch effect, Bennet, 1934)" Alfvén reported that of 17 of the most used textbooks on astrophysics, none mention the pinch effect, none mentioned critical ionization velocity, only two mention circuits, and three mentioned double layers"

Um, "Principles of Magnetohydrodynamics" by Hans Goedbloed and Stefaan Poedts, page 75.

Justatruthseeker · Nov 7, 2015

lesliedellow said:
Um, "Principles of Magnetohydrodynamics" by Hans Goedbloed and Stefaan Poedts, page 75.

What cant do the courtesy of posting a link like I do for you????

So what, we'll find the mentioned electrical circuits or double layers or critical velocity mentioned maybe once on a single page?

Like Alfven said in his later papers - It won't work for space plasma - because you won't watch the experiment that flasifies all your beliefs.

But of course you ignore his double layer paper which made MHD superfluous.

At least if you are going to make claims someone said something - at least post what that person says - not someone else.

http://cds.cern.ch/record/169085/files/CM-P00069347.pdf

""As neither double layer nor circuit theory can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory.""

So why are you resisting and refusing to advance science by clinging to useless theories for plasma behavior in zero-G - when you know the moon isn't even neutral?????

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/30mar_moonfountains/

MHD describes the behavior of charged particles under a confined condition. It is limited in it's scope. As GR is limited in it's scope to describing the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses.

The particle physics and circuit theory has been applied - but you haven't bothered to read it either.

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf

The plasma physicists keep trying to tell you how it behaves - but you keep ignoring them. Preferring instead to listen to quacks instead of the experts on plasma behavior.

I understand you must justify ignoring 99% of the universe in your own mind somehow. So I'll post it again since you skipped the link above, so we won't have any excuses to ignore the reality.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/30mar_moonfountains/

lesliedellow · Nov 7, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
What cant do the courtesy of posting a link like I do for you????

I'm afraid you will have to put your hand in your pocket and buy it - you know real text books, instead of quote mines from Wikipedia.

On the other hand, it contains real mathematics, so perhaps it's not for you.

[serious] · Nov 7, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Agreed - that's why those youngsters can only engage in ad-hominem attacks because they sure can't argue the science.

I thought they just invoked fairies.

Forces Always Incessantly Referenced In Every Statement

Moondust

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

The Bear. Not The Bull.

Newbie

Newbie

Member

Newbie

Member

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Newbie

Member

Newbie

Newbie

Member

Newbie

Member

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency