Scott's EU Birkeland Current Blunders

SelfSim said:

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!

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

Justatruthseeker said:

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

Click to expand...