What would cause you to rethink your position on "big bang" theory?

[sjastro]

You're "assuming" that plasma density can be easily estimated down to a single number, everywhere. Current carrying plasma doesn't work like that.

If you think it is higher, it reduces the range of the electromagnetic force even further; basic plasma physics.

Well, for starters, Birkeland's model presumes that the surface of every sun is charged negatively compared to "space", and the discovery that the vast majority of cosmic rays are positively charged would tend to support that model.

I asked you a question about a ternary system of galaxies held together by electromagnetic forces and this is your response.......

 

[Michael]

If you think it is higher, it reduces the range of the electromagnetic force even further; basic plasma physics.

That's not actually how it works in current carrying plasma however. Plasma threads tend to attract one another, and they direct the flow of mass through them as well.

I asked you a question about a ternary system of galaxies held together by electromagnetic forces and this is your response.......

The idea is that stars have a net negative surface charge and would tend to repulse one another, as would a collection of stars in various galaxies.

 

[sjastro]

That's not actually how it works in current carrying plasma however. Plasma threads tend to attract one another, and they direct the flow of mass through them as well.

You don't have a clue and the use of word salad only enhances your lack of comprehension not disguises it.

The idea is that stars have a net negative surface charge and would tend to repulse one another, as would a collection of stars in various galaxies.

More word salad.
The word repulsion is the reason why three bodies or more whether they be galaxies or stars cannot be held together by EM forces which not even possible due to the limited range.

 

[Michael]

You don't have a clue and the use of word salad only enhances your lack of comprehension not disguises it.


More word salad.
The word repulsion is the reason why three bodies or more whether they be galaxies or stars cannot be held together by EM forces which not even possible due to the limited range.

What "limited range"?

Measurement of the Electric Current in a Kpc-Scale Jet

From this data we derive the magnetoplasma and electrodynamic parameters of this 50 kpc long jet

 

[sjastro]

What "limited range"?

Measurement of the Electric Current in a Kpc-Scale Jet

Confirmation you don't have a clue since the EM force is not an electric current.

 

[Michael]

Confirmation you don't have a clue since the EM force is not an electric current.

The electric current generate EM force! Oy Vey.

 

[sjastro]

The electric current generate EM force! Oy Vey.

An electric current does not generate an EM force.
You clearly don't understand what an electric current is which in layman's terms is the movement of charge.
When there is no electric current, the charges don't disappear as charge is conserved hence the EM force between accelerated charges exists with or without a current.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Do not flame other views. If you cannot debate other views without name calling or denigrating please scroll past this thread.
Also do not mention in any public fashion reporting posts or staff actions. If something needs to be reported do it quietly.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Michael]

An electric current does not generate an EM force.

Yes it does. The current in plasma filaments creates a magnetic field around the filament that tend to attract or repel other filaments depending on the orientation of the currents in the filaments.

You clearly don't understand what an electric current is which in layman's terms is the movement of charge.

Um, yes, but that movement generates a magnetic field that is also part of the EM force.

When there is no electric current, the charges don't disappear as charge is conserved hence the EM force between accelerated charges exists with or without a current.

You're quibbling over details IMO. Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement of current though the filament generates a magnetic field around the filament.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... a magnetic field that is also part of the EM force.
...
You're quibbling over details IMO. Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement of current though the filament generates a magnetic field around the filament.

Seriously, a field is not a force. This is not quibbling over details, it's basic physics.

 

[Michael]

Seriously, a field is not a force. This is not quibbling over details, it's basic physics.

Electromagnetic force - Energy Education

While he's technically correct that the EM force acts on charged particles that move or don't move, it's still a force either way.

 

[sjastro]

You're quibbling over details IMO. Ok, but that doesn't change the fact that the movement of current though the filament generates a magnetic field around the filament.

Which is not an EM force.
Do you think you get a Lorentz force between parallel wires when a current passes through only one wire?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Electromagnetic force - Energy Education

While he's technically correct that the EM force acts on charged particles that move or don't move, it's still a force either way.

I'm not sure whether you're pretending not to understand or whether you really don't understand this simple point... Where does that article say a magnetic field is an EM force?

 

[Michael]

I'm not sure whether you're pretending not to understand or whether you really don't understand this simple point... Where does that article say a magnetic field is an EM force?

Right here:

It's called the electromagnetic force because it includes the formerly distinct electric force and the magnetic force; magnetic forces and electric forces are really the same fundamental force.[1]

 

[Michael]

Which is not an EM force.
Do you think you get a Lorentz force between parallel wires when a current passes through only one wire?

No, that's not what I said.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Right here:

It's called the electromagnetic force because it includes the formerly distinct electric force and the magnetic force; magnetic forces and electric forces are really the same fundamental force.[1]

That sentence is all about forces, not fields. Fields and forces are not the same things.

How do you expect to argue anything in physics if you don't know such fundamentals?

 

[sjastro]

That sentence is all about forces, not fields. Fields and forces are not the same things.

How do you expect to argue anything in physics if you don't know such fundamentals?

He is making irrelevant responses as elsewhere in this thread much like the Chewbacca defense.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

He is making irrelevant responses as elsewhere in this thread much like the Chewbacca defense.

Yes; he posts lots of stuff gleaned from various sources that look vaguely scientific, but every now and then there'll be a couple of posts so fundamentally mistaken in basic physics one would think a five-year-old had borrowed daddy's keyboard...

 

[Michael]

That sentence is all about forces, not fields. Fields and forces are not the same things.

How do you expect to argue anything in physics if you don't know such fundamentals?

I never claimed that they were the same thing! Sheesh. You guys twist my statements and meanings like a pretzel to suit yourselves. Nothing like tilting at windmills of your own making.

 

[Michael]

Yes; he posts lots of stuff gleaned from various sources that look vaguely scientific, but every now and then there'll be a couple of posts so fundamentally mistaken in basic physics one would think a five-year-old had borrowed daddy's keyboard...

Pure personal attack. How predictable.