Plasma Cosmology in 2019-2020

[Michael]

https://www.capjournal.org/issues/16/16_18.pdf

So. let us have no more misrepresentation of what these scientists are doing.

You're the only one who is misrepresenting Birkeland's model and his lab work. Birkeland talks about the all the various solar correlations and parallels himself in his book, but I'm sure you've never bothered to read it.

I particularly liked this quote under the demonstrable phenomena section:

With a low-intensity dipolar magnetic field, the audience sees auroral ovals (Figure 3). With a stronger field, one can visualise the generation of Van Allen belts and polar cusps. A sphere connected to the cathode becomes a star shooting out a stellar wind made of electrons. This allows the audience to see a shock zone between this star and the second sphere, which is connected to the anode. This configuration mimics a bow shock (Figure 4). A bow shock is a region where two streams of gas collide, usually between a magnetosphere — the region of space near an astronomical object in which charged particles are controlled by that object’s magnetic field — and an ambient medium; so for planets with a magnetic field the bow shock is located at the boundary where the stellar wind meets the planet’s magnetosphere2. In this region the speed of a stellar wind abruptly drops and the solar wind is sculpted into characteristic formations reminiscent of the crest of a wave made by a ship moving through water, showing how the bow shock gained its name.

None of these things have ever been replicated with MR theory. MR theorists can't even produce a sustained working aurora in a lab for goodness sake. That's quite an impressive list of things that MR theory cannot do and quite a list of a things that circuit theory can easily reproduce and has reproduced in a lab for more than a century.

I guess I was a bit off the mark in terms of estimating the cost to demonstrate the value of circuit theory in the lab. It looks like the cost is closer to 8000 to 10000 Euros to build.

 

[Michael]

It doesn't matter what Alfven thought.

Maybe not to you, but it definitely matters to me. He did write MHD theory and he was awarded the Nobel prize for it. He was in fact the only and first "expert" in the field of MHD theory when he first wrote it, and he never embraced MR theory.

He died just before MR was demonstrated in the lab,

Almost all of those experiments you're talking about run on electricity and depend on circuits and/or circuit interruption events. I don't think he'd be impressed.

and years before it was detected in-situ.

Everywhere that astronomers assume they're seeing MR, he assumed it was due to circuit theory, including the aurora (demonstrated in the lab with circuit theory), solar flares (which Birkeland described in his experiments based on circuit theory), and pretty much everywhere else that involves high energy plasma events. Again, I doubt he'd be impressed.

And you cannot use MHD to model MR.

You can use it to model the movements and behaviors of plasma on a smaller scale which is where it's useful to include MHD into circuit oriented theories however. Alfven claimed that his double layer paper made the whole MRx concept irrelevant and obsolete and I tend to agree.

Nope, you cannot use circuit theory to model plasma in a lab! Due to there being no plasma present!

What? How do you think they create plasma in various experiments like the zmachine experiments? I have to assume that was a typo on your part. You can't actually be claiming that SAFIRE and z-machine experiments do not generate plasma.

Lol. The very fact of MR shows he was wrong. No need to rub it in by saying so in every paper on MR!

People wrote such papers during his lifetime and he rejected them back then, so I'm sure he'd reject them now as well. Not much has actually changed in fact. Same basic players, same basic models. Same lack of laboratory success at generating something as simple as an aurora in a lab with MR too.

Just as I figured, you can't find a single error in any of his work.

The fact that no scientist supports his views now, shows that he was wrong.

No it doesn't. Aristarchus of Samos developed a heliocentric solar model 18 centuries before Ptolemy finally bit the dust. For 1800 years astronomers favored Ptolemy and no scientists supported his heliocentric model. Aristarchus had the last laugh historically speaking. Science isn't a popularity contest that can be measured at a single point in time.

No need to criticise his views when observation shows him to be wrong.

You've never shown any of his work or anything in his published papers to be wrong, nor has anyone else I've ever met.

Nope. Nobody has created a corona in a lab.

Yes they have. SAFIRE does so on a daily basis. Circuit theory is awesome in the lab and MRx isn't even capable of sustaining a simple aurora in a lab.

Trivially false. Links to claims that MR is induction. From real scientists.

I've never seen you show us an experiment that demonstrates they're actually physically different. In that Somov "vacuum" example, Somov's use of the term MR is physically and tangibly indistinguishable from ordinary magnetic flux. If you introduce magnetic flux into any conductor, including a plasma, it will induce currents and particle movement, so AFAIK, their is no *measurable* or tangible physical difference between MR and induction in any lab test. In fact, most of the MR lab tests are based on circuits and turning off circuits to generate powerful magnetic field changes (aka magnetic flux) in the conductor. It sure sounds like induction and it sure looks like it too.

 

[Michael]

Just a random cut & paste job from a website;

Apparently you get all of your misinformation about EU/PC theory from random websites rather than from published papers. That does explain a lot.

As ever, it seems I know more about the subject than Michael!

LOL! Evidently everything that you 'think' you know about EU/PC theory is wrong because it all comes from unpublished random website material. Who even put up that website? Do you even know? I sure don't. What on Earth makes you think that particular website is an accurate resource?

 

[sjastro]

I suppose that does explain why many many mainstream astronomy websites ban all discussion of "against the mainstream" ideas, and setup draconian rule systems that essentially forbid any dissent, and ban those that do dissent. It explains why some here on this very forum resort to personal attacks and ad hominems in post after post. Use terms like "cult" to attempt to smear all EU proponents with one big brush, etc....[

A classic case of alls fair in love and war to create the enemy.

I don't even recall you ever asking me that question, but I supposed it's possible I missed it. What does that question even have to do with EU theory being based on working physics and why does that require me personally to answer it?

Another convenient loss of memory.
Is this your latest addition to your box of tricks in how to avoid answering a question.
Before you had your "memory loss" you were asked how a ternary system formed by EM forces could exist given it was impossible for an attractive force to exist between all bodies.
While a ternary system is a complicated exercise to explain using Newtonian gravity, in terms of basic physics they exist because gravity is an attractive force between all bodies.
So here is your opportunity to explain the ternary system using EU which uses "basic physics".

 

[Michael]

A classic case of alls fair in love and war to create the enemy.

I'm not resorting to the use of ad homs and name calling in every post. That's being done by LCDM proponents, not me.

Another convenient loss of memory.

Cite the post for me. It's been a busy day at work, and there have been a lot of posts today, so it's entirely possible that I missed it. It's amusing that you seem to feel the need to accuse me of avoiding the question, while also accusing me of the "all's fair in love and war" mentality. Sheesh. Irony overload.

Before you had your "memory loss" you were asked how a ternary system formed by EM forces could exist given it was impossible for an attractive force to exist between all bodies.
While a ternary system is a complicated exercise to explain using Newtonian gravity, in terms of basic physics they exist because gravity is an attractive force between all bodies.
So here is your opportunity to explain the ternary system using EU which uses "basic physics".

Apparently you're under the misconception that EU/PC theory doesn't include gravity?

 

[sjastro]

Apparently you get all of your misinformation about EU/PC theory from random websites rather than from published papers. That does explain a lot.



LOL! Evidently everything that you 'think' you know about EU/PC theory is wrong because it all comes from unpublished random website material. Who even put up that website? Do you even know? I sure don't. What on Earth makes you think that particular website is an accurate resource?

EU/PC theory is a moniker you created.
Point out in the Plasma Cosmology video where Scott's paper on galaxy rotation curves is even mentioned let alone discussed.
Where is Thornhill's contribution?

 

[sjastro]

I'm not resorting to the use of ad homs and name calling in every post. That's being done by LCDM proponents, not me.

It wasn't about you in particular but now that you want to play the role of Mr Squeaky Clean here is your ad hom attack on astronomers in general.

Cite the post for me. It's been a busy day at work, and there have been a lot of posts today, so it's entirely possible that I missed it. It's amusing that you seem to feel the need to accuse me of avoiding the question, while also accusing me of the "all's fair in love and war" mentality. Sheesh. Irony overload.

I am making a statement of fact.
Your memory loss is amazing because it developed into a sub thread starting from this post and lead to your ridiculous assertion that EM forces and electric currents were one in the same thing!!!!

Apparently you're under the misconception that EU/PC theory doesn't include gravity?

It amazes me how you contradict yourself on a regular basis.
A ternary system is a subset of the cosmic web which according to EU/PC theory is held together by EM forces masquerading as electrical currents!!!!
You can't have it both ways.
You either try to explain a ternary system according to your EM force posing as electrical currents; alternatively by admitting a ternary system is held together by gravity implies the cosmic web is as well which contradicts your EU/PC theory.

 

[Smithi]

I suppose that does explain why many mainstream astronomy websites ban all discussion of "against the mainstream" ideas, and setup draconian rule systems that essentially forbid any dissent, and ban those that do dissent. It explains why some here on this very forum resort to personal attacks and ad hominems in post after post. Use terms like "cult" to attempt to smear all EU proponents with one big brush, etc....



I don't even recall you ever asking me that question, but I supposed it's possible I missed it. What does that question even have to do with EU theory being based on working physics and why does that require me personally to answer it?

Do not try to pretend that you were banned from various fora for having dissenting views! You know very well why you were banned.

 

[Smithi]

You're the only one who is misrepresenting Birkeland's model and his lab work. Birkeland talks about the all the various solar correlations and parallels himself in his book, but I'm sure you've never bothered to read it.

I particularly liked this quote under the demonstrable phenomena section:



None of these things have ever been replicated with MR theory. MR theorists can't even produce a sustained working aurora in a lab for goodness sake. That's quite an impressive list of things that MR theory cannot do and quite a list of a things that circuit theory can easily reproduce and has reproduced in a lab for more than a century.

I guess I was a bit off the mark in terms of estimating the cost to demonstrate the value of circuit theory in the lab. It looks like the cost is closer to 8000 to 10000 Euros to build.

And the experiment is nothing to do with modelling the corona. So stop claiming that it is. The Sun is not a cathode, and nor does it shoot out electrons! It is electrically neutral, near as makes no difference, and shoots out electrons and ions. In the same direction. At the same velocity. Nobody is silly enough to believe a charged Sun could do that!

 

[Smithi]

Maybe not to you, but it definitely matters to me. He did write MHD theory and he was awarded the Nobel prize for it. He was in fact the only and first "expert" in the field of MHD theory when he first wrote it, and he never embraced MR theory.

Nor do I care what Alfven matters to you. You are not knowledgeable about plasma physics. Others, who are, ignore Alfven's erroneous claims about MR. Including former friends, colleagues and students.

Almost all of those experiments you're talking about run on electricity and depend on circuits and/or circuit interruption events. I don't think he'd be impressed.

Lol.

Everywhere that astronomers assume they're seeing MR, he assumed it was due to circuit theory, including the aurora (demonstrated in the lab with circuit theory), solar flares (which Birkeland described in his experiments based on circuit theory), and pretty much everywhere else that involves high energy plasma events. Again, I doubt he'd be impressed.

Well, everybody else was. And nobody is supporting Alfven any more, are they? So who cares what you think he would think? You are likely wrong. You usually are.

You can use it to model the movements and behaviors of plasma on a smaller scale which is where it's useful to include MHD into circuit oriented theories however. Alfven claimed that his double layer paper made the whole MRx concept irrelevant and obsolete and I tend to agree.

Michael, nobody cares what you think. You do not understand the subject! His double layer nonsense is shown to be wrong. They are not there, and cannot change the topology of the field in the way that is observed.

What? How do you think they create plasma in various experiments like the zmachine experiments? I have to assume that was a typo on your part. You can't actually be claiming that SAFIRE and z-machine experiments do not generate plasma.

Hilarious! What on Earth do you think circuit theory is? It is not experimentation! You have been told this before! Do you think it involves circuits powering electricity to create plasma? Hahahahaha. What a riot! Circuit theory is a very long wavelength approximation of a plasma system as a whole. It does not describe the plasma. It is a paper and pencil exercise, that is a bigger approximation than MHD!

People wrote such papers during his lifetime and he rejected them back then, so I'm sure he'd reject them now as well. Not much has actually changed in fact. Same basic players, same basic models. Same lack of laboratory success at generating something as simple as an aurora in a lab with MR too.

Who cares? He was shown to be wrong. Nobody supports his position. He was wrong. As shown by observation. Show me a scientist supporting him. There are none. That is all the proof we need. He screwed up the boundary conditions, and tried to use circuit theory. He was always going to fail.

No it doesn't. Aristarchus of Samos developed a heliocentric solar model 18 centuries before Ptolemy finally bit the dust. For 1800 years astronomers favored Ptolemy and no scientists supported his heliocentric model. Aristarchus had the last laugh historically speaking. Science isn't a popularity contest that can be measured at a single point in time.

Hahahahahaha! He is shown to be wrong by OBSERVATION!
Nobody thinks he was right. Nobody qualified, anyway. Your hero worship of Alfven is vomit inducing.

You've never shown any of his work or anything in his published papers to be wrong, nor has anyone else I've ever met.

Every time MR is observed he is shown to be wrong. Every time we fasil to see anti-matter annihilating he is wrong.

Yes they have. SAFIRE does so on a daily basis. Circuit theory is awesome in the lab and MRx isn't even capable of sustaining a simple aurora in a lab.

Here we go with your ridiculous idea of what circuit theory is! Lol. And they have not created a corona, and nor has anybody else. That is merly your false claim.

I've never seen you show us an experiment that demonstrates they're actually physically different. In that Somov "vacuum" example, Somov's use of the term MR is physically and tangibly indistinguishable from ordinary magnetic flux. If you introduce magnetic flux into any conductor, including a plasma, it will induce currents and particle movement, so AFAIK, their is no *measurable* or tangible physical difference between MR and induction in any lab test. In fact, most of the MR lab tests are based on circuits and turning off circuits to generate powerful magnetic field changes (aka magnetic flux) in the conductor. It sure sounds like induction and it sure looks like it too.

Gibberish. Induction does not change the magnetic field topology. You have been told this by experts many times. It is nonsense. Show me the paper where MR is claimed to be induction. Not papers that you don't understand and then claim that it is induction. Your lack of knowledge of plasma physics means you are incapable of having a meaningful debate about it.

 

[Smithi]

Apparently you get all of your misinformation about EU/PC theory from random websites rather than from published papers. That does explain a lot.

Hahahahahaha! You think there is a published paper on how two Velikovskians invented EU? Seriously? Tell me you're joking!

LOL! Evidently everything that you 'think' you know about EU/PC theory is wrong because it all comes from unpublished random website material. Who even put up that website? Do you even know? I sure don't. What on Earth makes you think that particular website is an accurate resource?

Because it is accurate based on everything else I've read, whereas your fairy tale is not. See Leroy Ellenberger for more of the history of where EU came from. Trust me - it was Velikovsky. As Thornhill admits.

 

[Michael]

It wasn't about you in particular but now that you want to play the role of Mr Squeaky Clean here is your ad hom attack on astronomers in general.

Ok, I'll bite. Which *specific* part of that post are you claiming to be a ad hom attack? I simply noted that I've lost count of how many times I've heard astronomers on TV erroneously claim to 'know' that dark matter exists, and usually claim to "know" that it is not an ordinary form of matter.

I am making a statement of fact.
Your memory loss is amazing because it developed into a sub thread starting from this post and lead to your ridiculous assertion that EM forces and electric currents were one in the same thing!!!!

First of all, I absolutely did *not* claim that EM forces and electric currents are the same thing. You made that up. I said that current generate them. Had I been more scientifically accurate I would have suggested that they create magnetic fields rather than forces, but ultimate the fields act on particles so it's was just an awkward way to phrase it on my part. I never claimed that electric currents and EM forces are the same thing!

Secondly, this was your cryptic comment earlier:

Furthermore if EU theory is based on working physics why couldn't you answer a basic question how a three body or ternary system is held together by EM forces.

I could not recall you mentioning "three body" anywhere, and I you didn't. You asked me what might keep galaxies from collapsing and I suggested it might be related to EM repulsion because Birkeland assumed that all suns had a negatively charged surface which would act to repulse other negatively charged suns. You evidently expected me to read your mind. Sorry, I don't do that.

It amazes me how you contradict yourself on a regular basis.
A ternary system is a subset of the cosmic web which according to EU/PC theory is held together by EM forces masquerading as electrical currents!!!!

You often twist my statements like a pretzel, including now. That's not what I said.

You can't have it both ways.

I certainly can add a little EM repulsion to gravity.

 

[Michael]

Nor do I care what Alfven matters to you. You are not knowledgeable about plasma physics.

I would have to assume that I know more about Alfven's models and Birkeland's work than you do based on some of your various statements. I know what works in the lab, and MR theory is a poor competitor in the lab when it comes to producing anything remotely related to solar physics or planetary aurora. Alfven was certainly knowledgeable in plasma physics and he wasn't *at all* kind toward MR theory.

Others, who are, ignore Alfven's erroneous claims about MR.

Ya, and astronomers ignored Aristarchus of Samos for 18 centuries too and then all the "experts" did an abrupt about face.

Well, everybody else was.

Ya and everyone was impressed with Ptolemy too for 18 centuries. I tend to go with the lab results.

And nobody is supporting Alfven any more, are they?

Oh yes they are, including Lerner and Peratt. Ratcliffe seems to prefer his work too.

Michael, nobody cares what you think.

That's obviously not true in your particular case or you wouldn't dog me around the internet, going forum to forum to engage me everywhere.

You do not understand the subject!

I certainly understand EU/PC theory better than you do. I have no idea if you understand anything about plasma physics but if you got everything you know about it from random websites, like you evidently do for EU/PC theory, I doubt you understand it very well either.

His double layer nonsense is shown to be wrong.

Which *specific* part of that paper is "wrong", including page number, paragraph and formula? You make grandiose and erroneous claims without a *shred* of supporting evidence. I've still yet to see you cite a real published paper and point out any specific errors in it. You just cite random guys from random website who make spurious and irrational statements which you simply repeat. Show us where it's wrong specifically.

They are not there, and cannot change the topology of the field in the way that is observed.

They are there, and they can and they result in electrical discharges that are "observed".

Hilarious! What on Earth do you think circuit theory is? It is not experimentation! You have been told this before!

You've made so many erroneous statements in this thread, I've simply lost count. I have no confidence that you understand circuit theory any better than you understand EU/PC theory.

Do you think it involves circuits powering electricity to create plasma?

It can, particularly in z-machine experiments.

Hahahahaha. What a riot! Circuit theory is a very long wavelength approximation of a plasma system as a whole.

Um, you actually think that circuit theory is strictly limited to "long wavelength approximation of plasma"? No. It's used in *many* different applications, some of which have absolutely *nothing* to do with plasma. Wow. You really are making this up as you go. Circuit theory is useful in plasma physics because it can describe the total circuit energy of a system and take it all into account, whereas MHD theory cannot easily do that. MHD theory is more useful in plasma physics when describing the smaller localized movement patterns of plasma. They both are useful in different situations.

It does not describe the plasma.

It describes the electrical currents and circuit energy in plasma quite well actually.

It is a paper and pencil exercise, that is a bigger approximation than MHD!

Meh. It's more than that, but there's at least some truth in that statement in the sense that MHD theory is better at describing events in plasma on a small scale.

Who cares? He was shown to be wrong.

False. I have yet to see *anyone* (you included) show any specific error in even a single one of his 100 or so published papers. Let's see you show us a *specific* error, including paper, page number, paragraph and formula. It's never going to happen.

Nobody supports his position.

Science is not a popularity contest and Peratt and Lerner certainly do support his position.

He was wrong.

You keep erroneously saying that and then running away from my request to demonstrate any *specific* error in any specific paper.

As shown by observation.

That's not so. Your subjective interpretation of a distant observation is irrelevant. That's not a disproof of his work.

Show me a scientist supporting him. There are none.

That's obviously false since Peratt and Lerner are both carrying on his work in circuit theory.

That is all the proof we need. He screwed up the boundary conditions, and tried to use circuit theory. He was always going to fail.

Actually you have that entirely backwards. It's the mainstream that messed up the boundary conditions *big time* which is exactly why MR theory doesn't do anything useful in the lab.

I'm going to skip all the redundant stuff by the way.

Gibberish. Induction does not change the magnetic field topology.

Actually, it does because as particles move as a result of induction, they too generate magnetic fields that are moving with the particles. Somov's vacuum example of MR was physically indistinguishable from ordinary magnetic flux. If magnetic flux occurs in a conductor like a plasma, it induces current. You're making an extraordinary claim by suggesting that MR is a unique process that is something *other than* induction, but you've never shown me a paper describing an experiment which demonstrated that they are in fact different from each other.

You have been told this by experts many times.

You mean the same experts that can't generate a working aurora or corona in a lab experiment based on MR theory?

It is nonsense. Show me the paper where MR is claimed to be induction.

That's not my job, it's your job to show me the paper and the specific lab experiment that shows that MR isn't actually induction and demonstrates it to be a unique process. Alfven's double layer paper describes current sheet interactions without mentioning MR. AFAIK, MR is simply a redundant relabeling of ordinary induction. Where's your direct empirical proof that MR is a unique process that is not induction?

Not papers that you don't understand and then claim that it is induction. Your lack of knowledge of plasma physics means you are incapable of having a meaningful debate about it.

I'm able to (and have) cited all kind of published and peer reviewed papers to make my points in the standard scientific manner, whereas you keep asserting your own opinions as "facts", and citing random individuals from random websites to try to make your points. You're the one who doesn't seem to understand how a scientific debate is supposed to work.

 

[Michael]

EU/PC theory is a moniker you created.
Point out in the Plasma Cosmology video where Scott's paper on galaxy rotation curves is even mentioned let alone discussed.
Where is Thornhill's contribution?

Actually, I cited a video in a previous thread somewhere showing Scott giving a description of his most recent paper and he thanked Peratt for his help, so apparently they get along just fine. I don't care if Scott is mentioned in some video. That's irrelevant.

I don't attempt to separate EU from PC in the first place and I have no logical reason to do so. It's all related to electricity in plasma in space.

 

[Michael]

And the experiment is nothing to do with modelling the corona. So stop claiming that it is.

Birkeland absolutely associates the corona in that video and in his experiments with the sun's corona. From page 661 of his book: The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition:

The series of experiments that I have made with a magnetic globe as cathode in a large vacuum-box, for the purpose of studying analogies to the zodiacal light and Saturn's ring, have led to discoveries that appear to be of great importance for the solar theory.

...................................................................

An aureole is thereby produced about the magnetic globe, with ray-structure at the poles, the whole thing strongly resembling pictures of the sun's corona. Rarefied gases, rendered luminous by similar discharges from the sun, would first emit a light of their own, and then diffuse that of the sun. It is well known that the spectrum of the corona contains above all a brilliant ray of coronium /. =5304, and besides this there is a faint continuous spectrum, probably due to reflected solar light. If the sun's corona is of an electric origin such as we have here assumed, we might perhaps expect to see an enormous ring of light about the sun every time the earth, during an eclipse of the sun, stood very nearly in the plane of the sun's equator. This would have to be upon the assumption that in the spaces far from the sun there is a gas that can become electrically luminescent, or, in an electric state able to reflect sunlight.

The Sun is not a cathode, and nor does it shoot out electrons!

Yes it is, and yes it does.
NASA - NASA is Tracking Electron Beams from the Sun

That's another "successful prediction" of Birkeland's model by the way.

It is electrically neutral, near as makes no difference,

False. Even papers by the mainstream talk about it having some surface charge due to gravitational separation of lighter electrons and heavier protons.

and shoots out electrons and ions.

Yes, and Birkeland predicted that the sun would emit *both* types of particles, but it also emits "strahl" electrons that move much faster than solar wind protons.

In the same direction. At the same velocity. Nobody is silly enough to believe a charged Sun could do that!

Birkeland actually "predicted" that the sun emits both types of particles based on the results of his laboratory experiments.

"From a physical point of view it is most probable that solar rays are neither exclusively negative nor positive rays, but of both kinds".[12][13]

It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. — Kristian Birkeland 1913[7]:720

 

[Smithi]

Actually, I cited a video in a previous thread somewhere showing Scott giving a description of his most recent paper and he thanked Peratt for his help, so apparently they get along just fine. I don't care if Scott is mentioned in some video. That's irrelevant.

I don't attempt to separate EU from PC in the first place and I have no logical reason to do so. It's all related to electricity in plasma in space.

Nope. EU is mostly definitely founded in Veoikosky's nonsense. And Talbott's.

 

[Smithi]

I would have to assume that I know more about Alfven's models and Birkeland's work than you do based on some of your various statements. I know what works in the lab, and MR theory is a poor competitor in the lab when it comes to producing anything remotely related to solar physics or planetary aurora. Alfven was certainly knowledgeable in plasma physics and he wasn't *at all* kind toward MR theory.

Nope. You cannot understand Alfven's work because you do not understand plasma physics. And Alfven was wrong. So who cares what he said? Falthammar certainly doesn't!

Ya, and astronomers ignored Aristarchus of Samos for 18 centuries too and then all the "experts" did an abrupt about face.

Is that the best you can do? Lol. Alfven was wrong. MR is observed. In the lab, in-situ and in solar flares. Fact. Ergo he was wrong. Which is why nobody supports his out of date musings on MR.

Ya and everyone was impressed with Ptolemy too for 18 centuries. I tend to go with the lab results.

Oh dear. Now we're on to Ptolemy! Haha. Wrong is wrong. Get over it.

Oh yes they are, including Lerner and Peratt. Ratcliffe seems to prefer his work too.

I've no idea who Ratcliffe is. Lerner is a nobody who has not, to my knowledge, written anything on MR. Peratt does likely understand MR, but I have not seen him supporting Alfven's errors.

 

[Smithi]

That's obviously not true in your particular case or you wouldn't dog me around the internet, going forum to forum to engage me everywhere.

Lol. Don't flatter yourself. I engage a number of people in a number of places, most of them EUists. I do not care what.................things...........they believe. I merely do it to stop those places becoming a propganda outlet for EU.......... things. Lest the less scientifically literate become taken in by it.

I certainly understand EU/PC theory better than you do. I have no idea if you understand anything about plasma physics but if you got everything you know about it from random websites, like you evidently do for EU/PC theory, I doubt you understand it very well either.

Waaaay better than you do. And professional plasma physicists, like Tusenfem (Martin Volwerk), understand it waaaaaay better that I. And I am in the process of looking through some of his replies to you over your total lack of understanding of the subject. Might have to post some of them. It really is amusing reading! Or sad. Depending on your viewpoint.

Which *specific* part of that paper is "wrong", including page number, paragraph and formula? You make grandiose and erroneous claims without a *shred* of supporting evidence. I've still yet to see you cite a real published paper and point out any specific errors in it. You just cite random guys from random website who make spurious and irrational statements which you simply repeat. Show us where it's wrong specifically.

Errrr, the DLs aren't there! And will not change the topology of the magnetic field in the way that is seen in the lab and in-situ! No need to dig through a failed prediction to show that it failed. Nobody believes that DL stuff any more.

They are there, and they can and they result in electrical discharges that are "observed".

Trivially false. You made that up. Which paper are these invisible DLs that cause reconnection observed in?

You've made so many erroneous statements in this thread, I've simply lost count. I have no confidence that you understand circuit theory any better than you understand EU/PC theory.

I have made no erroneous statements. And my claims about circuit theory are those I have directly nicked from the posts of a professional plasma physicist telling you the same thing! Maybe I need to start posting these comments from real scientists, telling you that you haven't got any sort of grasp of the subject.

It can, particularly in z-machine experiments.

Lol. That is nothing to do with circuit theory! Go learn the subject. Get back to us when you have. Do you know what is necessary to model a system using circuit theory, Michael? A pencil and paper!

 

[Smithi]

Um, you actually think that circuit theory is strictly limited to "long wavelength approximation of plasma"? No. It's used in *many* different applications, some of which have absolutely *nothing* to do with plasma. Wow. You really are making this up as you go. Circuit theory is useful in plasma physics because it can describe the total circuit energy of a system and take it all into account, whereas MHD theory cannot easily do that. MHD theory is more useful in plasma physics when describing the smaller localized movement patterns of plasma. They both are useful in different situations.

From professional plasma physicist;

No, you cannot use circuit description for magnetic reconnection as one of the main restrictions of a circuit description is that it is only valid in the long wavelength approximation.

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Magnetic reconnection and physical processes

It describes the electrical currents and circuit energy in plasma quite well actually.

But does not describe the plasma.

Meh. It's more than that, but there's at least some truth in that statement in the sense that MHD theory is better at describing events in plasma on a small scale.

Nope. We can describe lots of plasma systems of various dimensions using MHD. The solar wind, for one. When you look at MHD you need to look at the timescales you are modelling, and whether it is appropriate for a certain situation. It is not appropriate for MR. It is appropriate for getting a good idea of the solar wind interaction with Venus, Mars or comets, for instance.

False. I have yet to see *anyone* (you included) show any specific error in even a single one of his 100 or so published papers. Let's see you show us a *specific* error, including paper, page number, paragraph and formula. It's never going to happen.

Which part of 'magnetic reconnection is observed' does not show him to be wrong? He was wrong.

Science is not a popularity contest and Peratt and Lerner certainly do support his position.

Lerner isn't worth bothering with. So, show me Peratt modelling MR with circuit theory. Or claiming that MR doesn't occur.

You keep erroneously saying that and then running away from my request to demonstrate any *specific* error in any specific paper.

Which part of 'magnetic reconnection is observed' does not show him to be wrong? He was wrong. Change the record.

 

[Smithi]

That's not so. Your subjective interpretation of a distant observation is irrelevant. That's not a disproof of his work.

You are making things up again. MR is observed in the lab. It is observed in-situ by multiple spacecraft. It is observed on the Sun. It is 100% fact. I know of no scientist claiming otherwise. Alfven was wrong. Not even Falthammar followed his erroneous conclusions!

That's obviously false since Peratt and Lerner are both carrying on his work in circuit theory.

Lerner is a nonentity. Peratt, as far as I can see, is wandering around some desert or other, looking for plasma............stuff.................. in rock art!

Actually you have that entirely backwards. It's the mainstream that messed up the boundary conditions *big time* which is exactly why MR theory doesn't do anything useful in the lab.

It is seen in the lab, so you made that up. And there is no such thing as 'MR theory'. And given that it is detected in-situ, there is no argument to be had. No scientist supports Alfven's wonky claims about MR.

I'm going to skip all the redundant stuff by the way.

Not going to read your own posts, any more? Fair enough.

Actually, it does because as particles move as a result of induction, they too generate magnetic fields that are moving with the particles. Somov's vacuum example of MR was physically indistinguishable from ordinary magnetic flux. If magnetic flux occurs in a conductor like a plasma, it induces current. You're making an extraordinary claim by suggesting that MR is a unique process that is something *other than* induction, but you've never shown me a paper describing an experiment which demonstrated that they are in fact different from each other.

Lol. Not a single scientist is claiming that MR is induction nonsense! None. So how the hell am I going to find a paper saying "MR is not induction. Not that anyone is claiming that it is, but we thought we'd make that clear. For fun." Do you see how utterly ridiculous that is? Induction cannot change the field topology in the way it is seen to be by MR. As you have been told umpteen times.

Real plasma physicist;

Magnetic reconnections shows a distinguished topological change of the magnetic vector field that cannot be described by induction. The whole morphology is different. The arrows of the vector field cannot be connected in the same way after reconnection.

International Skeptics Forum - View Single Post - Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not