Scott's EU Birkeland Current Blunders

[RealityCheck01]

2 December 2012: A recycled (thus the date) "electrical discharge in the solar plasma as described by Dungey" lie.
This is not electrical discharges such as lightning.

9 March 2018 Michael: A "Anomalously Weak Solar Convection does falsify the standard solar model" lie.

20 March 2018: A lie that I deny that convection currents and predictions were off.

20 March 2018: A lie about electrical discharges in plasma pops up again

20 March 2018: Continued denial of physics of solar convection currents that have been detected but do not match computer models.

23 March 2018: A lie that I claimed "powerful magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere as a result of 'fast' convection".

23 March 2018: A "no way to explain how or why hydrogen stays mixed together with Iron and Nickel at such *slow* convection speeds" lie.

23 March 2018: An irrational demand that I fix what the he imagines are issues when he knows I am not a working astrophysicist.

4 April 2018: So far a "fast convection" and solar magnetic field lie unless he produces the scientific literature that states the Sun's magnetic field needs "fast convection" or retracts the assertion.

In the real world, the solar magnetic field comes from convection in the convection zone of the Sun. No convection at all (his solar model?) = no magnetic field ! Obviously Michael must have textbooks or papers that state that only the convection speeds predicted by computer models can produce the observed solar magnetic field. The sources will be easy to produce and I will give him a week or so to reply.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I decided to create a new thread about a recent Electric Universe (EU) paper kindly posted by Michael, who used it to argue that it clearly demonstrates EU's math capabilities (on another thread here at CF).

The paper is as follows:
Magnetic Fields of Birkeland Currents by DE Scott, Ph. D. (EE)

The accompanying presentation by Scott at a recent EU pow-wow, follows: is here.

Put simply, Scott creates a model of a supposed 'Birkeland Current' in plasma, based on the following two key postulates:

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.

In Scott's words:He then goes on to describe the nature of what he says is the resulting magnetic field and calls it a 'Birkeland Current Magnetic Field'. He proceeds to invoke an equation, articulated in cylindrical coordinates, for which he develops a numerical solution (using a computer).

Now, I assert that postulate (i) above is false to start with[sup]#1[/sup];
A charged plasma particle moving at constant velocity in a straight line, is in 'a minimum energy configuration' and yet this arrangement does not qualify as 'a force-free field', as postulate (i) asserts. Its circular magnetic field, which forms at right angles to its direction, can never re-orient itself to being parallel to its direction of travel!

Lets point out your error with basic electromagnetic theory 101.

Motion of a Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field | Boundless Physics

"If the particle velocity happens to be aligned parallel to the magnetic field, or is zero, the magnetic force will be zero. This differs from the case of an electric field, where the particle velocity has no bearing, on any given instant, on the magnitude or direction of the electric force."

can we all say force free field class.....

You make a lot of claims, shown to be in error with the actual facts of electromagnetism.

A more formal definition of a 'force-free field' requires that a current density direction/vector ('j') and the magnetic field vector ('B') must be in alignment, (parallel or coincident with each other).

There are many, many more issues with this paper from a mainstream Physics perspective but I'm going to try and keep this simple, by taking them one at a time. I'll try to continue with each issue in its own dedicated post.

As I'm sure others will try to divert this thread from its intended focus, which is the paper itself, (in support of their own agendas), I may or may not respond to their attempts. I'm not really out to address their misconceptions ... the focus is intended to be on Scott's.

Best regards!

Footnote #1:
But wait !! We need to consider falsification of my own assertion! (See my next post).

And as just shown to you in basic electromagnetic theory, your beliefs and conclusions are all incorrect.

Force-free magnetic field - Wikipedia

1958ApJ...128..384W Page 384

Plasma convection in force-free magnetic fields as a mechanism for chemical separation in cosmical plasmas

 

[RealityCheck01]

Lets point out your error with basic electromagnetic theory 101....

This is a force-free magnetic field which is a specific type of magnetic field. You linked to a web page on an arbitrary magnetic field and then to that Wikipedia page.

Followed by misleading readers about SelfSim's post where the existence of force-free magnetic fields in not disputed.

Nearly a lie by quote mining - "But wait !! We need to consider falsification of my own assertion! (See my next post). " and SelfSim shows that his assertion is wrong in his next post .