Scott's EU Birkeland Current Blunders

[SelfSim]

[/SIZE][/FONT]Why would it not be able to produce synchroton radiation,

Ask Scott ... he's the one who created the model which left out the mechanisms which generate it. Its kind of akin to designing a car without any wheels ...

when every single type ever observed in space has been produced with plasma in the laboratory???????????

Non sequitur.
Every single Birkeland Current emits synchrotron radiation. Its a necessary condition for defining 'Birkeland Current'.
Scott omitted it in his 'year-long' study.

I don't even understand why you would even imply such a thing is impossible, contrary to every laboratory experiment ever performed????

I didn't imply anything.

I made a clear statement in post #15, though.

 

[SelfSim]

What's seems clear is that Scott, like so many other EU proponents, apparently also thinks that a math model should be developed to prove a preconceived ideological agenda. In this case, from this paper, his apparent agenda is that Birkeland Currents can appear magically in space without any pre-existing alignment fields whatsoever!

Because once again, your entire concept of magnetic fields is flawed. Current creates magnetic fields, which then constrict that current further, confining it. This has been known for over 200+ years.

And there it is again .. the preconceived ideological agendas of:

i) 'your {SelfSim's .. Mainstream's} entire concept of magnetic fields is flawed,
and;
ii) 'Current creates magnetic fields, which then constrict that current further, confining it'.

All that really comes first in both your thinking, (and apparently Scotts', too).

Its a perfect example of what I said above, really. Thanks for that.

Because you refuse to comprehend what Gauss' Law told you.

Oh .. Gauss' Law doesn't tell me anything relevant to the topic of the thread which is about Scott's bungled study on Birkeland current magnetic fields.

 

[SelfSim]

It needs to be restated that:

i) Scott's claim that a force free field, (where the magnetic field and the direction of current density are parallel), is at its minimum, and therefore at its most stable energy state, is grossly nonsensical;

and;

ii) the inability of his model as stated, to produce synchrotron radiation, contradicts the empirical evidenced basis underpinning the fundamental definition of a Birkeland Current.

.. Needs to be stated again.

 

[SelfSim]

So you are saying then that plasma filaments in space hundreds of millions of light years long are made of solitary lonesome particles, or lots of those solitary lonesome particles?

So just what ARE you saying then?????

What I'm saying is:

Abstract: The fundamental vector calculus definition of a force-free, field-aligned, Birkeland current is expanded in cylindrical coordinates to obtain the partial differential equations (DEs) that yield the magnetic field created by such a current.

Michael's claim that Scott's model "specifically describes the magnetic field from 'other' particles within the stream" is clearly in error, as Scott specifically states in equation (5) of his paper, that the electric field does not change with time. In other words, the magnetic field is a function of the current density alone which can be composed of one particle, ten particles, a trillion particles etc!

Under Scott's stated model, the numbers (i.e.: "lots") of particles cannot alter the general shape of the field as it increases. If time is removed as a variable from the model (as Scott has done), then the only term remaining in his eqn (5), tells us that the field is a function of the charge density of the stream.

His following math however, predicts a complex, radially varying magnetic field, whose peak strength drops off as (1/r[sup]0.5[/sup])!
His described model however, is only capable of generating a field whose strength drops off as 1/r !

Its completely nonsensical.

 

[Michael]

What's seems clear is that Scott, like so many other EU proponents, apparently also thinks that a math model should be developed to prove a preconceived ideological agenda.

LOL! Irony overload considering all the ad hoc properties assigned to your invisible friends simply to prop up an otherwise falsified ideological agenda. That one tickled my funny bone.

In this case, from this paper, his apparent agenda is that Birkeland Currents can appear magically in space without any pre-existing alignment fields whatsoever!

Er, no. I'm starting to believe that you either never actually read or tried to *understand* his paper or his video. The presence of an electric field and a Birkeland current is simply *assumed* for purposes of the paper. The E fields provides the motive kinetic energy in charged particles which in turn *generate* the magnetic fields around the current.

The *purpose of the paper* is to demonstrate that the that the magnetic fields act to separate the current into various streams and generate evacuated areas between those various streams. Did you even *read* the paper?

I wouldn't expect you to notice the glaring contradictions in this paper however, which is why I articulated them in the initial posts of this thread.

You're articulating your own erroneous understanding of his work as far as I can tell. Did you ever go over to Thunderbolts and discuss his paper with Celeste yet? She seemed to understand the nature of your error better than I do, but I think I'm finally "getting it". You're basically ignoring the presence of the E field that puts the various charged particles and ultimately the entire thread into motion.

In this paper, Scott is not describing a Birkeland Current from its essential constituents. I do concede, (obviously), that he calls it one. It is however, more a 'thing' he's ended up with.

It's a "thing" that you always end up with in all current carrying plasmas at some point. They form inside of any ordinary plasma ball in fact. There's nothing particularly mysterious about them, and the *E* field generates the motive kinetic energy that ultimately generates the magnetic field around the current.

At best, he is describing a unidirectional charged particle flow

Nope. Current typically flows in both directions, and in solar atmospheric activity it actually flows *back and forth* sometimes.

(the collective aggregate of a bunch of straight wooden rods in his Roman 'fasces' analogy). His misinterpretation of Alfven's diagram (Figure #4) apparently also results in the total absence of helical particle trajectories, which are established due to the magnetic pressure induced by an alignment field. The idea that more than one mysteriously co-aligned current stream, then somehow magically creates the effect of an enveloping alignment field, is totally unconvincing because he simply hasn't demonstrated this to be so, anywhere.

You apparently missed the point of the analogy entirely. The "helical flow" of the current stream is directly related to the magnetic field that acts to *pinch* the thread together, and *separate* it into various "particle streams" that can even be composed of *different materials* that have been separated by ionization state within the Birkeland current. The magnetic fields act to pinch the thread together in general term, and also *separate* it into more dense and less dense areas. The areas of high density act as the current carrying filament, whereas the evacuated areas between the plasmas in the tread act to *insulate* the various areas of plasma even within the Birkeland current itself. You didn't correctly understand anything about his video or his paper.

Scott's 'thing' is not able to produce synchrotron radiation as a result of the normal particle acceleration, (helical), which is the defining characteristic of a Birkeland Current, and is the primary method used for remotely detecting them.

Sure it can. All he needs to do is vary the voltage and/or current flow, and he can get various shapes and sizes of various hollow tubes within the filament. I really thing you missed the entire meaning of his work in that paper and that video.

If we follow his rationale, there would be no difference between what his model produces, and the magnetic field produced by a DC current flowing in a long, straight wire. Bizarrely though, this is not the result he ends up with!

That statement isn't true either. He explains that it's the *mobile nature* of plasma (compared to solids) that allows for Birkeland currents to form in the first place. You really need to watch that video first and then read the paper. Maybe it will make more sense to you the second time through?

EU theory lays claim to supposedly being based on empirical lab evidence, and yet Scott produces a result which is totally at odds with that lab evidence!

How? An ordinary plasma ball demonstrates that the E field acts as the kinetic energy production process in plasma. It puts the charged particles into motion. That *motion of charged particles* is the *cause* of the magnetic fields that act to *pinch* the filaments into nicely defined (and well insulated) current carrying filaments. In every way his paper and video is consistent with the plasma results that are seen in the lab. The only 'additional information' Scott's paper really "adds" to our understand is *why* the thread separates itself into more dense and less dense region within the same filament. I really do think you missed the *entire* point of Scott's paper and video.

 

[Michael]

FYI, it's going to take me some time to catch up today, but I'll see what I can do. It's been a pretty busy week for me at work, and I'm still up to my ears in programming projects today. Hang in there. I will eventually catch up.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And there it is again .. the preconceived ideological agendas of:

i) 'your {SelfSim's .. Mainstream's} entire concept of magnetic fields is flawed,
and;
ii) 'Current creates magnetic fields, which then constrict that current further, confining it'.

All that really comes first in both your thinking, (and apparently Scotts', too).

Its a perfect example of what I said above, really. Thanks for that.

Oh .. Gauss' Law doesn't tell me anything relevant to the topic of the thread which is about Scott's bungled study on Birkeland current magnetic fields.

You mean laboratory demonstrated ideas do you not? Versus what, your purely theoretical musings of matter that is not matter? Of bent nothing that accelerates too?

You mean your theories of Birkeland Currents and heliosphere's, that each and every one of them was falsified????? On which model of anything do you claim any right to even have a valid say in the matter?

"The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

You are going to claim Scott is wrong based upon your theoretical models that have already one and all been falsified? Are those the theoretical models you claim as support?????







Why don't you just get over it.

 

[SelfSim]

In this case, from this paper, his apparent agenda is that Birkeland Currents can appear magically in space without any pre-existing alignment fields whatsoever!

Er, no.
...
The presence of an electric field and a Birkeland current is simply *assumed* for purposes of the paper. The E fields provides the motive kinetic energy in charged particles which in turn *generate* the magnetic fields around the current.

Then you need to go back and come up with a rational explanation for the same resultant contradiction, also posed by Scott's postulates, which was outlined in post#1:
Those postulates being:

i) A force free field is a minimum energy configuration and;
ii) The associated magnetic field, is purely intrinsic and not affected by external fields.

Or, in Scott's words:

In cosmic plasma an electric current and its associated magnetic field are free to take on a minimum energy configuration. This arrangement is described as a force-free field ...

So, by invoking an aligning E-Field, it seems you are in full agreement with the following statement:

Scott's claim that a force free field, (where the magnetic field and the direction of current density are parallel), is at its minimum, and therefore at its most stable energy state, is grossly nonsensical;

... because you are now invoking an aligning E-field (which is never mentioned as an assumption by Scott in his paper, by the way).

Ya can't have it both ways, Michael. Either the 'thing' is in a minimum energy configuration and there is no force free field, or its not in such a state, and its not stable. If its to be in a force-free state, then whatever imposes that special condition must be included in the model, otherwise its nonsense. So which flavour are you going to choose?

It seems the blind spot created by your obsession with un-evidenced, unquantified and therefore unsubstantiated ideologies, prevents you from viewing the paper as presented.

The *purpose of the paper* is to demonstrate that the that the magnetic fields act to separate the current into various streams and generate evacuated areas between those various streams.

And if I take what you say at face value, you provide a perfect example demonstrating Scott's first Physics Blunder! I mean: "He's gonna manufacture that sorely needed contrived model to prove our EU pre-conceived ideology"
... No matter the cost! Even if that cost requires a blatant demonstration of being way out of his depth as far as Physics is concerned.

You see, his Figure 6 in the paper is doubtful based on his own analysis results. Its too complicated to demonstrate precisely why this is so in this particular response .. but I will, when I get the chance.

You're articulating your own erroneous understanding of his work as far as I can tell. Did you ever go over to Thunderbolts and discuss his paper with Celeste yet? She seemed to understand the nature of your error better than I do, but I think I'm finally "getting it". You're basically ignoring the presence of the E field that puts the various charged particles and ultimately the entire thread into motion.

Ya see, this "Celeste", just like you, also indulges in the self-destructive Thunderbolts practice of bolstering ignorance and total confusion about Physics .. That's just the whole point of a cult-headquarters, eh? Tell her to come here, if she's in the least bit interested in comin' to a real learnin' tree! (I might talk to her, if she behaves herself) ..

Thunderbolts administrators (specifically, Smith and Talbott) permanently ban posters who articulate accurate mainstream Physics. The evidence is right there in their archives ... if one bothers to look for it.
(Admittedly though, they probably do this in response to the opposite and equally extreme practices at sites like Cosmoquest (i.e: ATM proponent bannings)). I see no reason to go to TBolts for this reason.
I think you also know that, almost certainly, my inputs would most definitely not be welcome at TBolts.

It's a "thing" that you always end up with in all current carrying plasmas at some point. They form inside of any ordinary plasma ball in fact. There's nothing particularly mysterious about them, and the *E* field generates the motive kinetic energy that ultimately generates the magnetic field around the current.

Oh .. so Scott's paper is only about those plasma-ball toy thingys, then?

Nope. Current typically flows in both directions, and in solar atmospheric activity it actually flows *back and forth* sometimes.

Then where are the forces those flows generate shown in Scott's analysis?

Oh .. hang on a minute ... oh yes! ... THEY'RE MISSING FROM IT!

You apparently missed the point of the analogy entirely. The "helical flow" of the current stream is directly related to the magnetic field that acts to *pinch* the thread together, and *separate* it into various "particle streams" that can even be composed of *different materials* that have been separated by ionization state within the Birkeland current. The magnetic fields act to pinch the thread together in general term, and also *separate* it into more dense and less dense areas. The areas of high density act as the current carrying filament, whereas the evacuated areas between the plasmas in the tread act to *insulate* the various areas of plasma even within the Birkeland current itself. You didn't correctly understand anything about his video or his paper.

Theoretical understanding in Physics comes from a rigorous argument consisting of an internally consistent, quantitatively objectified model which makes accurate predictions and is support by empirical evidence.

Scott's fails on all counts for the reasons I have articulated in my previous posts.

My criticisms all come from well known and accepted basic Physics principles, (empirically fortified), and from what is stated by Scott in his paper .. nothing else.

Scott's 'thing' is not able to produce synchrotron radiation as a result of the normal particle acceleration, (helical), which is the defining characteristic of a Birkeland Current, and is the primary method used for remotely detecting them

Sure it can. All he needs to do is vary the voltage and/or current flow, and he can get various shapes and sizes of various hollow tubes within the filament. I really thing you missed the entire meaning of his work in that paper and that video.

Nah.. Scott missed his own blunder contained in his initial Abstract. Tell, me, was this paper Peer-Reviewed by anyone with Physics credentials?
(Heh .. everyone's allowed a few dumb questions .. that was just one of 'em .. )

If we follow his rationale, there would be no difference between what his model produces, and the magnetic field produced by a DC current flowing in a long, straight wire. Bizarrely though, this is not the result he ends up with!

That statement isn't true either. He explains that it's the *mobile nature* of plasma (compared to solids) that allows for Birkeland currents to form in the first place. You really need to watch that video first and then read the paper. Maybe it will make more sense to you the second time through?

My underline ... You assume I haven't already done that .. and just like Scott, yet again another assumption is incorrect.

Once again, you fail to recognise the Scott-invoked 'minimum energy state'. Once again, I say (more or less): "ya can't have it both ways ... its either a minimum energy state and there is no force-free condition .. or its not .. if its not, then include the other force which imposes the force-free condition"

EU theory lays claim to supposedly being based on empirical lab evidence, and yet Scott produces a result which is totally at odds with that lab evidence!

How? An ordinary plasma ball demonstrates that the E field acts as the kinetic energy production process in plasma. It puts the charged particles into motion. That *motion of charged particles* is the *cause* of the magnetic fields that act to *pinch* the filaments into nicely defined (and well insulated) current carrying filaments. In every way his paper and video is consistent with the plasma results that are seen in the lab. The only 'additional information' Scott's paper really "adds" to our understand is *why* the thread separates itself into more dense and less dense region within the same filament. I really do think you missed the *entire* point of Scott's paper and video.

If you wish to discuss the non-trivial, limiting conditions deliberately engineered into plasma-ball toys, then you should start another thread. Scott's paper invokes what he believes are universal, simplistic, generalised physical concepts, (even though he gets them wrong) ... not specifically complex, human-made, engineered objects.

 

[SelfSim]

You mean laboratory demonstrated ideas do you not? Versus what, your purely theoretical musings of matter that is not matter? Of bent nothing that accelerates too?

You mean your theories of Birkeland Currents and heliosphere's, that each and every one of them was falsified????? On which model of anything do you claim any right to even have a valid say in the matter?

"The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

You are going to claim Scott is wrong based upon your theoretical models that have already one and all been falsified? Are those the theoretical models you claim as support?????

Why don't you just get over it.

Never mind, Justatruthseeker ... you're welcome to return to the conversation topic if coherency returns for you ...

 

[SelfSim]

You see, his Figure 6 in the paper isdoubtful, based on his own analysis results. Its too complicated to demonstrate precisely why this is so in this particular response .. but I will, when I get the chance.

Ok .. so the next point is that Scott appears to have only considered the effects between contained charged particles and the wrapped intrinsic magnetic field ... but what about the effects on the particles by spatially distant parts of this field?

See, according to his own Figure #5 and the accompanying Table #1, the Lorentz force between successive overlapping adjacent radii is positive, or attractive, (because his 'F' is positive). At the same time, the Lorentz force between selected radii separated by pitch angles of 180[sup]o[/sup], is negative, or repulsive. So, this complex field has both charged particle attractive forces between successive radii layers, and apparently repulsive forces between more spatially separated radii layers (having pitch angles separated by 180[sup]o[/sup]).

This calls into serious question, the instability that such an arrangement creates. It is completely implausible that such a phenomenon could persist in free space for any meaningful duration.

Now even if we ignore the major instability issues, because the net effect between successive radii layers of overlapping field is a positive 'F' value, (resulting in charged particle containment), and because this characteristic continues smoothly with increasing radii, the result of this would more likely be a more even distribution of charged particles, when viewed "up the gun barrel" (his term).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Never mind, Justatruthseeker ... you're welcome to return to the conversation topic if coherency returns for you ...

While you continue to ignore that every model you claim as support has been falsified? I understand.

I guess you need to justify to yourself some reason for ignoring that all your models are wrong. Whatever it takes to get through another day, not having to accept the truth, right?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

ou see, his Figure 6 in the paper isdoubtful, based on his own analysis results. Its too complicated to demonstrate precisely why this is so in this particular response .. but I will, when I get the chance.

Ok .. so the next point is that Scott appears to have only considered the effects between contained charged particles and the wrapped intrinsic magnetic field ... but what about the effects on the particles by spatially distant parts of this field?

See, according to his own Figure #5 and the accompanying Table #1, the Lorentz force between successive overlapping adjacent radii is positive, or attractive, (because his 'F' is positive). At the same time, the Lorentz force between selected radii separated by pitch angles of 180[sup]o[/sup], is negative, or repulsive. So, this complex field has both charged particle attractive forces between successive radii layers, and apparently repulsive forces between more spatially separated radii layers (having pitch angles separated by 180[sup]o[/sup]).

This calls into serious question, the instability that such an arrangement creates. It is completely implausible that such a phenomenon could persist in free space for any meaningful duration.

Now even if we ignore the major instability issues, because the net effect between successive radii layers of overlapping field is a positive 'F' value, (resulting in charged particle containment), and because this characteristic continues smoothly with increasing radii, the result of this would more likely be a more even distribution of charged particles, when viewed "up the gun barrel" (his term).

We know it's complicated. We understand it's not the elegant math you prefer, but Scott, like all those first working out theory, use formula that work in the Special case, then one Generalizes the theory.

That's why mainstream cosmologist rejected Plasma Physics to begin with.

"The first one was the hundred years old investigations in what was called electrical discharges in gases. This approach was to a high degree experimental and phenomenological, and only very slowly reached some degree of theoretical sophistication. Most theoretical physicists locked down on this field, which was complicated and awkward. The plasma exhibited striations and double-layers, the electron distribution was non-Maxwellian, there were all sorts of oscillations and instabilities. In short, it was a field which was not at all suited for mathematically elegant theories...

...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 reason for this is that several of the basic concepts on which the theories are founded, are not applicable to the condition prevailing in cosmos. They are "generally accepted" by most theoreticians, they are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not "understand", how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them. It is now obvious that we have to start a second approach from widely different starting points."




But you won't. You still refuse to use any starting point but the theoretical models that were all shown to be wrong. You refuse to accept that laboratory data, still believe in formula we know to be wrong. You should have changed back in the 1970's, but you chose that elegant math over the reality of plasma physics. Now deal with it and face up to a universe that is 99% plasma.

You placed a bad bet years ago, now it's time to pay up to that choice.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ask Scott ... he's the one who created the model which left out the mechanisms which generate it. Its kind of akin to designing a car without any wheels ...

Except for the tiny little laboratory fact known about for 200+ years, that electric currents create their own magnetic fields, which wrap around them, confining them into filaments. The only guiding thing, what you consistently ignore: Voltage differentials between all objects of mass.

Every single Birkeland Current emits synchrotron radiation. Its a necessary condition for defining 'Birkeland Current'.
Scott omitted it in his 'year-long' study.
I didn't imply anything.

I made a clear statement in post #15, though.

Sigh, once again Scott is defining the Special case. Just as someone else once did, and conveniently left all out mention of all gravitational effects when they described that Special case. Even telling us those effects in that case could be ignored. And now you are complaining about that same exact thing????

Why, because Scott didn't mention magical expanding and bending nothing? Of a magical increase of distance and acceleration without an actual increase in velocity??? Of particles of mass that are not really particles at all?

Of magnetic fields that in your magical world just exist? When every laboratory experiment ever done shows only moving charged particles emit magnetic fields? Moving charged particles just like in a wire.



What generates it is voltage differences between charged particles, which cause them to move, creating magnetic fields which direct them in circular motions. All you need to start charged particles moving is an electric field. Magnetic fields do nothing but guide particle motion, once they begin to move.

You need to justify your need to have a magnetic field first?

Magnetic field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Origin of Permanent Magnetism

"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)"

Because as I tried to hint at earlier, you ignore what Guass tried to tell you.

Gauss' Law for Magnetic Fields

"The magnetic flux though any closed surface is zero.

This is just another way of saying that magnetic monopoles do not exist, and that all magnetic fields are actually generated by circulating currents."



So unless you won the Nobel Prize for the discovery of magnetic monopoles, there isn't anything to discuss about magnetic fields forming before electric currents - charged particle movement from electric fields.


Again, you ignore that Scott was discussing the Special case, a Birkeland Current free of all outside influence, you know, sort of like singularities and SR. At 14:05 he specifically told you this. One always works out the Special case first in any theory, be it Special Relativity, perfect fluids in space, etc., etc. Then one goes on to generalize to non-perfect cases and outside influences. To instabilities and double layers, to all those non-elegant maths your theorists prefer to avoid.

So quit ignoring reality and start helping to generalize the theory.

 

[SelfSim]

So, just to summarise the main issues in some fresh words:

i) Scott's version of a Birkeland current different is no different from any other 'normal' current, as neither is field aligned by an external field;

ii) Force free fields are not in a minimum energy configuration.

iii) The solution copied by Scott from mainstream theoretical math, is not considered to exist in nature due to the complexity of the magnetic field.

Tom Bridgman also provides some input on all this, (in response to my comments on his blog post here). He says:

Scott addresses no boundary conditions which would determine the scale of the structures - he's basically having this current fill all of space, which make it difficult (impossible?) to relate current density, and radius, to anything else we can measure.

Note that beyond comparisons to any circular structure, Scott does no comparison of claimed strength of these currents and measured values.

Bessel's equation is a common part of the solution in many systems with axial symmetry including fluid mechanics and deformable-body mechanics, so you expect similar structures for systems like fluids and gases on spinning planets as well as impact waves. In those cases, researchers have actually compared the results of the equations with actual measurements of wind speeds, etc.

- Wikipedia: Vibrations of a circular membrane
- MathPhys Archive: Modeling a Vibrating Drumhead I

But biggest problem is the issue of stability of this configuration.

For 'force-free', the assumption is that the magnetic field is parallel to the current. Actually, I'm not sure if that can ever be absolutely true for any arbitrary current configuration and intensity. But Dr. Scott forgets that constraint and starts talking about the magnetic field winding around the current - a violation of the constraint in his solution, in addition to his claims that the configuration moves plasma around.

In reality, 'force-free' also means that the magnetic field created by the current is small compared to the magnetic field parallel to the current. Therefore, the magnetic field imposed exterior to the current configuration must be significantly larger than the magnetic field created by the current itself. This is also a stability condition for this configuration as described in many texts on the topic.

This is the case in environments like the aurora. The current of the incoming electron beams may be large, but the magnetic field it creates is still small compared to the planetary magnetic field that acts to stabilize it. It enables aurora to persist for a time as a reasonably stable structure.

So clearly, we have two completely independent sources here, (myself and Tom Bridgman), who have found major flaws, gaping holes and oversights in Scott's arguments, as laid out in this paper.

The bottom line is that unless Scott (or anyone else) can provide hard, relevant, quantitative environmental parametric data to substantiate the feasibility of the structures he claims emerge from his model, I think one is legitimately justified in relegating his 'year-long study' towards the very bottom of anyone's bucket list of anecdotal trivia.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So, just to summarise the main issues in some fresh words:

i) Scott's version of a Birkeland current different is no different from any other 'normal' current, as neither is field aligned by an external field;

ii) Force free fields are not in a minimum energy configuration.

iii) The solution copied by Scott from mainstream theoretical math, is not considered to exist in nature due to the complexity of the magnetic field.

Tom Bridgman also provides some input on all this, (in response to my comments on his blog post here). He says:

So clearly, we have two completely independent sources here, (myself and Tom Bridgman), who have found major flaws, gaping holes and oversights in Scott's arguments, as laid out in this paper.

The bottom line is that unless Scott (or anyone else) can provide hard, relevant, quantitative environmental parametric data to substantiate the feasibility of the structures he claims emerge from his model, I think one is legitimately justified in relegating his 'year-long study' towards the very bottom of anyone's bucket list of anecdotal trivia.

What boundary conditions did you impart to singularities, where your math demands a universe devoid of all other matter????? Not to mention you then violate your own math every time you claim one exists in the center of galaxies. of course that's ok though, having no boundary conditions, because you need that formula don't you.

It's pathetic your attempt at double-talk. All perfect cases are always worked out before one generalizes the theory. But like a true devoted fanatic, you ignore that your theorists did that very thing in every theory they ever made. You are just pathetic. Is that really the best you all got????

To put it in your own words: "The bottom line is that unless you (or anyone else) can provide hard, relevant, quantitative environmental parametric data to substantiate the feasibility of the structures you claim emerge from your models, I think one is legitimately justified in relegating his '100 year-long study' towards the very bottom of anyone's bucket list of anecdotal trivia."

Starting with your Fairie Dust black holes and then moving on to bending, accelerating, expanding nothing. Oh that's right, you got no qualitative data at all, can't measure even the tinies bit of expansion anywhere, except far, far away in your imaginations.

Shall we discuss your qualitative data on dark matter, that qualitative data that has turned up zip every single time? So let's apply your reasoning to your own theories, shall we?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Maybe you should ask TB which heliosphere model he prefers? I'd like to know which ones of all that were falsified does he hold to?

Heliosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

""The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

As a matter of fact, I'd like to know which one you are claiming is correct?

 

[Elendur]

What boundary conditions did you impart to singularities, where your math demands a universe devoid of all other matter????? Not to mention you then violate your own math every time you claim one exists in the center of galaxies. of course that's ok though, having no boundary conditions, because you need that formula don't you.

It's pathetic your attempt at double-talk. All perfect cases are always worked out before one generalizes the theory. But like a true devoted fanatic, you ignore that your theorists did that very thing in every theory they ever made. You are just pathetic. Is that really the best you all got????

Tu quoque.

And please do try to constrain your usage of question marks. It does nothing except bring the quality, and thus your credibility, down. One is enough for a question, should you want to put more emphasis on it you could combine it with an exclamation mark.

To put it in your own words: "The bottom line is that unless you (or anyone else) can provide hard, relevant, quantitative environmental parametric data to substantiate the feasibility of the structures you claim emerge from your models, I think one is legitimately justified in relegating his '100 year-long study' towards the very bottom of anyone's bucket list of anecdotal trivia."

Starting with your Fairie Dust black holes and then moving on to bending, accelerating, expanding nothing. Oh that's right, you got no qualitative data at all, can't measure even the tinies bit of expansion anywhere, except far, far away in your imaginations.

Shall we discuss your qualitative data on dark matter, that qualitative data that has turned up zip every single time? So let's apply your reasoning to your own theories, shall we?

Again tu quoque.

 

[SelfSim]

For 'force-free', the assumption is that the magnetic field is parallel to the current. Actually, I'm not sure if that can ever be absolutely true for any arbitrary current configuration and intensity. But Dr. Scott forgets that constraint and starts talking about the magnetic field winding around the current - a violation of the constraint in his solution, in addition to his claims that the configuration moves plasma around.

The violation of a constraint in a study which sets out to distinguish one, serves no other purpose other than to expose the inconsistency of that study.

One may not like mainstream cosmology's conclusions, (such as the 'darknesses'[sup]*[/sup]), but it needs to be pointed out that the constraints which led to them, have an extraordinarily high degree of integrity (in the sense of completeness and wholeness):

The word integrity evolved from the Latin adjective integer, meaning whole or complete. In this context, integrity is the inner sense of "wholeness" deriving from qualities such as honesty and consistency of character.

Thus, when one violates one's own hypothesised constraints, one can therefore also be said to be lacking in honesty and consistency.

The potential for Mainstream Cosmology's 'darknesses' to recede from purview (be falsified) exists purely because of the integrity of the constraints which led to them. These constraints, in turn, have their basis in the rock-solid fundamentals of empirical and theoretical Physics.

This stands completely distinct however, from so-called 'Electric Universe Theory', as has been clearly demonstrated in this thread. (Ie: in respect of the EU theoretical interpretation of EU's 'Birkeland Current Magnetic Fields').

* 'Darknesses' meaning Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

 

[Michael]

So, just to summarise the main issues in some fresh words:

i) Scott's version of a Birkeland current different is no different from any other 'normal' current, as neither is field aligned by an external field;

Actually, the basic forward movement is "aligned" by the electric field that creates the particle movement in both directions in plasmas. The magnetic field associated with the filament isn't interfered with by any *external* magnetic fields, and the "force free" aspect relates mostly to the the "magnetic resistance" being as close to zero as possible (not interfering with particle movement).

ii) Force free fields are not in a minimum energy configuration.

They seek a minimum *resistance* configuration in terms of plasma flows within the thread, a "force free" orientation.

iii) The solution copied by Scott from mainstream theoretical math, is not considered to exist in nature due to the complexity of the magnetic field.

That a silly statement since it's already been observed in SDO images of thread eruptions:

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/filaments/filamenteruption.mpg

Tom Bridgman also provides some input on all this, (in response to my comments on his blog post here). He says:

He says a lot of goofy stuff on that blog as I'll demonstrate shortly, actually starting with that plasma filament showing movement in *both* directions just as Scott's model predicts. The filament even "splits" part of the plasma thread off during the filament eruption process.

So clearly, we have two completely independent sources here, (myself and Tom Bridgman),

Er, no. We have *one* external (to our conversation) reference. You don't count unless I count too, in which case it's two against two.

who have found major flaws, gaping holes and oversights in Scott's arguments, as laid out in this paper.

Your statements (both of you) sound more like gaping flaws in your understanding of everything associated with EU/PC theory, starting with Bridgman's ridiculous commentary about Birkeland's solar model:

The Norwegian Aurora Polaris Expedition (1902-1903), pg 720:
"According to our manner of looking at the matter, every star in the universe would be the seat and field of activity of electric forces of a strength that no one could imagine.
We have no certain opinion as to how the assumed enormous electric currents with enormous tension are produced, but it is certainly not in accordance with the principles we employ in technics on the earth at the present time. One may well believe, however, that a knowledge in the future of electrotechnics of the heavens would be of great practical value to our electrical engineers." [italics mine]

Birkeland admits he doesn't know how any of his stellar models would work with the understanding of electromagnetism of his day. The revision to Maxwell's equations for which he hoped did not happen. A coherent understanding of atomic physics and nuclear structure were still a decade and more away. Quantum electrodynamics would largely map Maxwell's equations to the sub-atomic scale, producing only limited changes in large-scale phenomena.

Bridgman misrepresents his statements. Birkeland doesn't *fully* understand how the sun could "fuse" elements together and release that much electrical energy since the knowledge of fusion was indeed decades off, but it's actually a *successful prediction* of his model that the sun is *internally* powered and electrically active. He does in fact "hint" at at the energy production process which he calls a "transmutation of elements". As Birkeland notes in his book, no known (at that time) energy release mechanism was known to release that much internal energy.

Bridgman also simply ignores all advances in plasma physics and fusion research, as well as all the *confirmations* of Birkeland's model, including polar jets, electrical discharges in solar flares, electron beams (cathode rays) coming from the sun, field aligned currents in Earth's aurora as a result of that current flow, ect. Bridgman is essentially trying to condemn Birkeland for being ahead of his time in terms of *known power generation mechanisms* and in terms of plasma physics maths that would have to factor into the equations somewhere. He personally even described various particle trajectories in his work.

I haven't been through his whole blog page yet to look at his other responses, but he still utterly ignores the fact that Birkeland's solar model is *internally* powered and therefore the *current density* in his model is necessarily *very different* than Juergen's solar model requirements. He never acknowledges that *key* issue!

As far as I can tell he's basically handwaving away claiming that the filaments would be "unstable" in such configurations. Indeed that flare video from SDO demonstrates that he's correct, they *can indeed become* unstable in such configurations, particularly when they interact with *external* (to the thread) fields. The problem for Bridgman is that we've already *imaged* these types of "bi-directional" filaments in the solar atmosphere.

The bottom line is that unless Scott (or anyone else) can provide hard, relevant, quantitative environmental parametric data to substantiate the feasibility of the structures he claims emerge from his model, I think one is legitimately justified in relegating his 'year-long study' towards the very bottom of anyone's bucket list of anecdotal trivia.

Since SDO solar images already confirm the bi-directional flow aspects of his model, I suggest that you seriously reconsider what he's proposing. I still don't think you correctly understand his model or his "force free" statements yet. The plasma threads seek a "least resistance" configuration (force free) in terms of magnetic field *interactions* between interwoven current filaments that run in different directions at different radii.

IMO you *missed* the entire point of Scott's paper, and Bridgman missed the *important* difference in Birkeland's model with respect to *current density*, along with the fact that SDO has already imaged bi-directional filaments that *do* become unstable.

 

[Michael]

I'm still buried with programming projects. Bear with me a bit. I will catch up, but "slowly".