• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

More counter rotation evidence to support Dr. Scott's Birkeland current model.

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Michael, Oct 18, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    It's really sad that you resort to name calling and personal attacks when trying to debate a concept that you don't even begin to understand in the first place. Have you even read Physics of the plasma universe by Peratt? Yes or no?

    Laugh all you like, but it's very clear that astronomy today is stuck in another Ptolemy cycle. 95 percent of the current LCDM model isn't actually based on "physics" at all, it's based on pure metaphysical placeholder terms for human ignorance.
     
  2. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +873
    Christian
    Single
    If Michael had even have the vaguest understanding of plasma physics 101 he wouldn’t use the term electrophobia.
    Most people are familiar with Ohm’s law and in its generalized version the equation is
    J = σE where J is the current density, σ is the conductivity and E the electric field.

    Dividing both sides by E;
    J/E = σ
    As E → 0, σ → ∞
    Hence for infinitely conductive plasmas, the overall electric field is zero.

    Plasma physicists model astrophysical plasmas as having infinite conductivity.
    The reasoning is straightforward; astrophysical plasmas have extremely low number densities, far lower than the very best laboratory ultra high vacuums and long mean free paths.
    The long mean free path means collisions between particles is very low hence conductivity is modelled as infinite with the overall electric field being zero.
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2020
  3. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +873
    Christian
    Single
    This is the best you can do to defend Scott’s model; avoid the rebuttal despite the fanfare of looking at it and providing a giant handwave that Scott can violate the laws of physics for force free magnetic fields.
    The irony is if you read the rebuttal and understood it you would find Scott in fact does not “intentionally” simplify his model, instead it is a consequence of the algebraic error he made in point (4).

    Your defence of the model is a total failure and is marked 0/10.
     
  4. SkyWriting

    SkyWriting The Librarian Supporter

    +6,106
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Others
    Currently.
     
  5. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    It's becoming painfully apparent that you're simply making this up as you go. First of all, plasma, while it's an *excellent* conductor, is absolutely not "infinitely conductive". These are *exactly* the kinds of gross oversimplifications that the mainstream engages in, just like their "frozen in' magnetic field line nonsense.

    Anyone whose ever owned a plasma ball knows that electric fields do not have to be limited to the current carrying filament itself in the first place, and the thread isn't "infinitely conductive" either.

    Which is part of the problem. It's not the whole problem of course, but it's one of them. A coronal loop is heated up to *millions* of degrees because it *resists* the current flowing through it. Plasma is *not* a superconductor.


    That is even *more* reason why "thin" plasma cannot possibly be "infinitely conductive".

    The overall electric field that drives the current isn't even necessarily related to any of that, as any ordinary plasma ball can demonstrate.
     
  6. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    Your handwavy claims about his model are 0/10. He clearly explained where and why he simplified he model for purposes of his papers. None of your criticisms are even *remotely* valid.
     
  7. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    I'm not sure if that was a humorous play on words, or a hopeful assumption that things might change, but either way, it was pretty funny. :)

    FYI, I am hopeful that things "might" change as a result of the Parker Solar Probe mission, but after the first round of PSP papers, particularly the one related to "magnetic switchbacks", I'm not convinced that they're likely to embrace the electrical aspects of solar physics anytime soon.
     
  8. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +873
    Christian
    Single
    In fact it is painfully obvious anything that is beyond your intellectual capacity is summarily dismissed as being made up.
    It’s ironic you should mention frozen in magnetic field lines because Alfven uses the same “made up” arguments in an attempt to refute the concept.

    Electric Currents in Cosmic Plasma

    Isn’t it truly remarkable that Alfven in 1977 is using the same descriptions that I supposedly made up in 2020.
    Another example of a Michael foot in mouth event.

    The rest of your post is just plain ridiculous by trying to equate astrophysical plasmas with plasma balls.
    Plasma globes are typically at a pressure of around 2-10 mmHg which corresponds to a number density of ≈10¹⁶/cm³.
    By comparison astrophysical plasmas are around 1/cm³.
    Not only is it impossible to generate such vacuums on Earth, plasma balls cannot form in such a rarefied environment.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2020
  9. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +873
    Christian
    Single
    I note when you are on the defensive you mirror my criticisms word for word which forms part of your spin story which doesn’t even try to *remotely* explain why Scott’s model is right by addressing the seven points in the rebuttal.

    If Scott’s equations are correct then why are they contradicted in the very Wiegelmann link he references in his paper.

    The equation mentioned is µ₀jz₀ = ∂By₀∂x − ∂Bx₀∂y at a particular point in space.

    This equation meaningless to you is the mathematical relationship between B and j in Cartesian coordinates where the current density j is in the direction z.
    The authors of the reference assume the reader has the mathematical knowledge so I will derive the general equation to fill in the gaps to show another reason why Scott’s algebra and his equations are nonsensical.

    First of all we have the force free equation;
    ∇× B = αB

    Since this is a Beltrami vector field × B is parallel to B.
    Furthermore since B is parallel to j for the force free condition, then ×B is also parallel to j which also forms part of the Beltrami vector field.
    Hence we can define an equation of the form × B = µ₀j

    To anyone familiar with vector analysis × B can be expressed as the determinant;

    [​IMG]
    e₁, e₂, e₃ are the orthogonal unit vectors.

    Expanding the determinant gives;
    × B = (∂Bz/∂y-∂By/∂z)e₁ - (∂Bz/∂x-∂Bx/∂z)e₂ + (∂By/∂x-∂Bx/∂y)e₃
    Also µ₀j = (µ₀j)e₁ + (µ₀j)e₂ + (µ₀j)e₃

    Since × B is parallel to j.
    (∂Bz/∂y-∂By/∂z)e₁ - (∂Bz/∂x-∂Bx/∂z)e₂ + (∂By/∂x-∂Bx/∂y)e₃ = (µ₀j)e₁ + (µ₀j)e₂ + (µ₀j)e₃

    In the z or e₃ direction;

    µ₀j = (∂By/∂x - ∂Bx/∂y) which is the general equation in the link for the z direction.


    In Scott’s model however cylindrical coordinates are used with unit vectors R, Φ and Z where;

    × B = ((1/r)∂Bz/∂ϕ-∂Bϕ/∂z)R + (∂Br/∂z-∂Bz/∂r)Φ + 1/r(∂(rBϕ)/∂r − ∂Br∂ϕ)Z
    µ₀j = (µ₀j)R + (µ₀j)Φ + (µ₀j)Z

    In the Z direction the equation reduces to;
    jz(r) = (1/µ₀r)(∂(rBϕ)/∂r − ∂Br∂ϕ)

    Even though you do not understand the maths this equation looks nothing like Scott’s equation
    jz(r) = (α/μ)Bz(0)J0(αr).
    Furthermore the mathematics used to derive the equation is at odds with Scott’s algebra.
    So therefore the algebra used to derive Scott’s equation is wrong.

    To anyone with even a basic knowledge of algebra the error is obvious and one would not have to go down this convoluted path.

    What is disturbing is Scott seems to suffer from your disease; using a reference he not only doesn’t understand but also contradicts his equations.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2020
  10. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    Ya, but apparently you specifically edited out the *refutation* part of his argument entirely. From your own link:

    He then goes on to explain why it's misleading and unnecessary!

    Talk about deceptive editing on your part. You completely ignored the fact that he specifically states that the concept does not apply to light thin plasma, double layers, and current carrying plasma in general, including everywhere that it's associated with "magnetic reconnection/merging". Sheesh.

    No wonder astronomy is in such a sorry state these days. You listened *only* to the part that you wished to hear, you completely ignored the fact he specifically said it doesn't apply to all instance, you ignored the fact that he personally *never* used that to describe events in the solar atmosphere, the magnetosphere or anywhere else for that matter. He used *circuit* theory in such instances and he specifically referred to the entire 'magnetic reconnection" concept as "pseudoscience". Even in the part of the quote that you cited, Alfven doesn't claim that plasma is actually infinitely conductive, he simply notes that can be treated that way in some few instances.

    LOL. As far back as 1977 Alfven explicitly explained why that whole concept is *not* a valid argument too, yet here you are in 2020 peddling a claim and concept that Alfven *directly refuted* in the very next few paragraphs of that very same paper.

    The fact that the average density of plasma in space is even lower than a plasma ball makes your argument that much more irrational. Plasma will (and does) still "pinch' itself together into current carrying threads, but the areas directly around the current carrying threads are evacuated almost completely, creating an insulating effect between various currents. You've missed Alfven's point *entirely*. Talk about putting your own foot in your mouth! Holy cow.

    Alfven flat out rejected the use of "frozen in" fields in light plasma, in interplanetary plasma's by name, and in the magnetosphere by name. He specifically uses *circuit* theory to explain all such events in light plasma. How can you even miss that?

    I have to look up a paper tomorrow to deal with your next post, and it's late here now and I'm going to bed. Holy smokes. If you messed up something *this easy to understand*, then it's no wonder that you're having such a difficult time with Scott's paper.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2020
  11. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +873
    Christian
    Single
    This has got to be one of the most inept attempts at deflection I have ever come across.
    You have been caught out lying and are trying to deflect the issue by attacking my credibility. Par for the course.
    Not only is it a textbook strawman but also an ad hom attack to consider my failure to include Alfven’s rebuttals as “deceptive”, particularly when it has absolutely no bearing in exposing your dishonesty that I made up the concept of zero electric fields and infinite conductivity.

    It doesn’t take great intellect or insight to realise the most effective way of exposing you as a liar is to refer to the part of the paper where Alfven explicitly states astrophysical plasmas are modelled as a zero electric field with infinite conductivity which completely refutes your fabricated accusation I made this up.

    After boldly claiming you were going to address the rebuttal of Scott's model to now engage in lying, ad hom attacks and strawman fallacies is a sure fire indication you are totally out of your depth but not having the fortitude of admitting it.

    This is a nonsensical random piece of word salad with Alfven thrown in for good measure.

    This is just a continuation of the ad hom attacks and deflection as I mentioned in my first response.

    Another ad hom attack.
    Let me give you some advice; if you don’t understand the maths, as you have demonstrated with Scott’s paper, or my rebuttal of it, don’t bother as you will be wasting your time.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2020
  12. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    That is obviously pure projection on your part.

    You absolutely did make up this specific claim:

    Underline mine. You made up the quote that I cited out of whole cloth because even though plasma is an *excellent* conductor, it is absolutely, positively not "infinitely conductive", nor did Alfven make any such erroneous claim in the quote that you provided. He only said that in *certain limited instances*, plasma could be *treated* that way. He also lists numerous examples where it *cannot* be treated that way, even for simplification purposes.

    It doesn't take a great intellect to notice that your own quote and Alfven's quote are not the same either. His statement in no way claims that plasma is an infinite conductor. He only suggests that plasma can be treated that way in *some* specific instances, and Alfven explicitly states further on in the same paper that plasma *cannot* be treated that way in other instances. Those are two totally different statements.

    I'll just skip your redundant personal attacks.
     
    Last edited: Jan 20, 2020
  13. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    The massive problem with the mainstream *oversimplifying* the properties of plasma and the limits of it's conductive properties is blatantly obvious in any high energy solar satellite image.

    Instead of acknowledging that plasma is absolutely *not* infinitely conductive in all instances, and recognizing that *resistance* is responsible for heating coronal loops to *millions* of degrees, they simply "made up" a mythical process called "magnetic reconnection" that somehow heats even individual coronal loops to millions of degrees, in spite of Alfven *rejecting* that idea outright, referring to magnetic reconnection/merging as "pseudoscience" and making it obsolete and irrelevant with his double layer paper.

    Plasma is composed of *moving charged particles* which slam into one another, and which get "pinched" together current carrying environments. It's not "infinitely conductive" in all instance. It *resists* the flow for current when the current reaches critical levels. That's the heat source of coronal loops, not 'magnetic reconnection'.

    We see that in the lab too in z-machine experiments. Plasma is *not* infinitely conductive in *all* scenarios, in spite of the fact that it can be *treated* as such in some *limited* instances.
     
  14. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +873
    Christian
    Single
    Cherry picking one line out of my post and conveniently ignoring everything else which stated the criteria of zero electric fields and infinite conductivity applies to astrophysical plasmas and nothing else is a deliberate distortion of the facts.

    Let me remind you what you conveniently omitted in that post.

    Plasma physicists model astrophysical plasmas as having infinite conductivity.
    The reasoning is straightforward; astrophysical plasmas have extremely low number densities, far lower than the very best laboratory ultra high vacuums and long mean free paths.
    The long mean free path means collisions between particles is very low hence conductivity is modelled as infinite with the overall electric field being zero.



    Given you have conceded Alfven applies the criteria to “some specific instances” and “certain limited instances” i.e. astrophysical plasmas, amounts to confessing to lying that I made up the criteria on astrophysical plasmas.

    Your motivation for deflection, by conflating the issue and mudslinging, is not only being caught out lying by Alfven’s paper, but I can also imagine the humiliation in relying on Alfven as always being an irrefutable source; in this case however Alfven’s paper has irrefutably exposed you for lying.

    Since you have now reverted to playing the role of the victim in which case you must not have lied at all then answer the following question.
    In the context of astrophysical plasmas how did you arrive at the conclusion without lying that I made up the criteria?
     
  15. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +873
    Christian
    Single
    And this post is yet another sad and sorry attempt to spin story your way out of the lie that I made up the criteria on astrophysical plasmas.
     
  16. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    Plasma is *not* infinitely conductive, so modeling it that way is erroneous, and it's exactly why astronomers are stuck in the dark ages of physics! Coronal loops heat up to *millions* of degrees due to *resistance* to the flow of electrical curent. It's irrational to treat plasma as being something that it's *not*!


    This is another example of another bogus argument. Current carrying plasma doesn't conveniently spread itself out all nice and evenly. You can't model it that way either and get *accurate* results. Current carrying plasma pinches plasma particles into relatively *dense* plasma "threads" which are surrounded by less dense regions between them. Plasma cannot be treated in such overly simplistic ways and give accurate results. Again, that' is *exactly* why the mainstream is stuck using placeholder terms from human ignorance to describe most of the universe in 2020.

    You absolutely did make up the concept of plasma *being* infinitely conductive. It's not. Alfven didn't say that it actually was infinitely conductive either. You did make that up.

    There is simply no such thing as infinitely conductive plasma. You might as well be saying "Hence, for infinitely conductive room temperature copper wires, the overall electric field is zero." There's no such thing! You made it up!

    Nope. Pure projection on your part. Alfven didn't say a word about "infinitely conductive plasma". He simply said that plasma could be *modeled* that way in *some limited instances* for simplification purposes, much like Scott's chose to *simply* several aspects of his model. It's a valid thing to do in *a few* isolated instances, but he never said that there actually was such a thing as infinitely conductive plasma! You simply made that up.

    I arrived at the only logical conclusion I could arrive at. Since there is no such thing as an infinitely conductive plasma, your assertion to the contrary could only be something that you personally made up. Your quote from Alfven makes no such claim. Only you made such an erroneous assertion.
     
  17. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    You're the only individual that claims:

    Since there is no such thing as infinitely conductive plasma, the overall electrical field *cannot* ever be zero. It can be *close* to zero in some few instance, but it can never actually be *zero*.

    You might as well assert: Hence for infinitely conductive magic juice, the overall electric field is zero. *If* magic juice existed, your statement might be true. Since there is no such thing as magic juice it's simply not a factually true statement, it's something that is simply "made up".

    If you stubbornly refuse to even take responsibility for your own *obviously* bogus statements, how on Earth do you expect to have a meaningful conversation about Scott's Birkeland current model?
     
  18. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +612
    Humanist
    Private
    Like all of science's definitions, plasma is an operational model. What it is or isn't, is subject to the physical context of that model because all of science's explanations are contextual (and provisional).

    In a thought experiment, an infinitely conductive astrophysical plasma is fine for testing what happens (or is predicted) in a specific astrohysical context.

    An astrophysical plasma having a density less than anything possible in our best vacuum chambers and a long mean free path, is a simple case which also happens to be consistent with observations in that astrophysical context .. and that the overall electric field in that context will be zero, is irrefutably logically true.
    End of story.
     
  19. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    That is absolutely false. "Magnetic reconnection" is a "model". Plasma is a *physical thing* with specific physical properties which may or may not be properly described by any specific "model". Plasma isn't a superconductor. Period. There is therefore no such thing as "infinitely conductive plasma". Any "model" that describes it as such is already *wrong*.

    A thought experiment is irrelevant in terms of the actual physical properties of plasma. It's nothing more than a thought experiment that begins with an "inaccurate thought" about the conductive properties of plasma!

    Nope. Even that assertion is false because conductive plasma tends to create and generate *filaments* of far greater density than the surrounding environment. Current carrying plasma can't be accurately modeled by "assuming" that it spreads itself out evenly. Even the term "plasma" was originally coined because of the fact that plasma tends to form organized structures that mirror the behaviors of living organisms. It forms insulating double layers and filamentary processes that be easily observed in any ordinary plasma ball.

    Models seek to describe physical reality, but physical reality is not obligated to agree with any particular model.

    In this case, any model which "assumes" that plasma is infinitely conductive is doomed to failure because it begins with a false premise which is easily "debunked".

    A simple z-machine experiment shows that plasma "heats up" dramatically as a result of the "resistance" it has to electrical current. We see that same process play out in solar physics where coronal loops reach *millions* (sometimes tens of millions) of degrees as a result of that resistance.

    There's a very obvious reason why Alfven modeled plasma in space using circuit theory rather than MHD theory in most all instances. In space, the *circuit energy* must also be accounted for, and modeled. It can't simply be ignored, otherwise the "model" is a dismal failure.

    That's exactly why EU/PC models *work in the lab*, whereas mainstream models do not. EU/PC models produce a working full sphere corona in a lab because they *include* the circuit energy in their calculations, where as mainstream models *cannot ever* hope to produce a working full sphere corona in a lab based on "magnetic reconnection".
     
  20. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +873
    Christian
    Single
    This typical rambling post is a combination of word salad, confusion, lack of basic comprehension skills resulting in random responses and the excessive use of the term “you made this up”.

    Since I am not going to waste my time responding to every occasion you made this dumb remark, particularly when it has been dealt with in previous posts, one will suffice particularly when applied to the concept of modelling infinitely conductive plasmas.

    The question of why astrophysical plasmas are modelled as a zero electric field came up on the most famous physics internet forum site that is also frequented by Nobel Prize winners

    Why do we deal only with large scale magnetic fields in astrophysics, and not electric fields?

    It makes your comment “you made this up” look rather stupid now doesn’t it, but more importantly the answers provides an insight from a physics perspective which compliments the answer I gave from a maths perspective.

    What is there to discuss about Scott’s model?
    You were given the opportunity to address not only the rebuttal but also the Wiegelmann paper but since both are clearly beyond your intellectual level you didn’t respond.
    You are not capable of offering a meaningful discussion when you have already demonstrated the best you can do is to be Scott’s spin doctor.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...