Electric universe theories here.

[MRC_Hans]

Great, we have lift off!

Using standard garden variety school physics, which would accelerate a charged particle more effectively, an electric field or a magnetic field?

They will be equally effective, but under different conditions. That is one reason we can tell the difference.

Hans

 

[hecd2]

Why is E small?

No source.

Or maybe you could suggest one.

 

[hecd2]

In MHD, where is E, again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetohydrodynamics


Look at the basic equations. See if you can spot E?

 

[Sol88]

Effects which are essentially kinetic and not captured by fluid models include double layers, Landau damping, a wide range of instabilities, chemical separation in space plasmas and electron runaway. In the case of ultra-high intensity laser interactions, the incredibly short timescales of energy deposition mean that hydrodynamic codes fail to capture the essential physics.

This includes an extra term in Ohm's Law which models the collisional resistivity

And your happy with that.

How are particles accelerated in AGN Jets again.

Magnetic field or electric field? Your model has failed, you tacitly imply it with a little E.

Importance of kinetic effects[edit]
Another limitation of MHD (and fluid theories in general) is that they depend on the assumption that the plasma is strongly collisional (this is the first criterion listed above), so that the time scale of collisions is shorter than the other characteristic times in the system, and the particle distributions are Maxwellian. This is usually not the case in fusion, space and astrophysical plasmas.

 

[Sol88]

Seems like lotsa mathamajiks in MHD.

and you have trouble with Scott’s math because of a variable r?

 

[hecd2]

And your happy with that.

Yes. Aren't you?

How are particles accelerated in AGN Jets again.

Rapidly rotating magnetic fields.

 

[hecd2]

and you have trouble with Scott’s math because of a variable r?

Scott is the one in trouble. Remember? That old amnesia kicking in again?


Scott's maths is demonstrably garbage- and you have demonstrated that you are much too ignorant to understand why.

 

[MRC_Hans]

And your happy with that.

How are particles accelerated in AGN Jets again.

Magnetic field or electric field? Your model has failed, you tacitly imply it with a little E.

Funny. How did you decide which model to defend? You don't understand any of them, so how did you decide?

Hans

 

[Sol88]

Yes. Aren't you?
Rapidly rotating magnetic fields.

Talking math, what’s the equation for particle acceleration in rapidly rotating magnetic fields?

Tusenfem and co invoke electric currents and electric fields when plasma traverse’s magnetic fields.

Is this true in ur world view? You

 

[Sol88]

Scott is the one in trouble. Remember? That old amnesia kicking in again?


Scott's maths is demonstrably garbage- and you have demonstrated that you are much too ignorant to understand why.

Garbage?

Just watched mainstream “fiddle” with MHD code on a supercomputer.

What “bit” of the equation did he fiddle with back and forth to make the picture look like a AGN jet!

Scott’s on the money ‘ol mate. This is how a force free field aligned current works on a low b plasma.

Electric fields and all. Pity your math doesn’t even acknowledge E.

 

[Sol88]

Are Scott’s assumption wrong?

Can plasma do this in astrophysical settings?

Very much studied closer to home with FAC’s n Birkeland currents.

 

[tusenfem]

Talking math, what’s the equation for particle acceleration in rapidly rotating magnetic fields?

Tusenfem and co invoke electric currents and electric fields when plasma traverse’s magnetic fields.

Is this true in ur world view? You

not electric fields
i asked you before how does plasma "flowing across the magnetic field" generate an electric field?

 

[jonesdave116]

Are Scott’s assumption wrong?

Can plasma do this in astrophysical settings?

Very much studied closer to home with FAC’s n Birkeland currents.

Scott hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. He stuffs up the maths from the get-go. This has been discussed before. Why do you think his idiocy only appears in a predatory, non-peer-reviewed rag, with zero impact factor?

He isn't a plasma physicist. He has no clue about plasma physics. Your cult possesses nobody with a clue about plasma physics. Which is why they are ignorant enough to think a drift current of electrons can head in to power the Sun, against a magnetic field heading in the opposite direction, at ~ 400 km/s. Care to tell us how that works in la-la land? Been demonstrated in a lab, has it? Nope. Because it is impossible. As Maxwell and Alfven, among countless others, would tell you. Why can't Scott understand this? Because he doesn't understand zip about plasma physics. Or any other kind of physics, as far as I can see. Why should anybody care what this crackpot nonentity thinks?

 

[Sol88]

not electric fields
i asked you before how does plasma "flowing across the magnetic field" generate an electric field?

Well, according to our mate Ampreres, smidge of charge seperation would occur. This would lead to an electric field, maybe even one of my beloved DOUBLE LAYERS to form, to try and maintain quasi neutrality.

This would set all sorts of fun games for your completely busted MHD. Like hecd2 says, MHD got a little E! What multiple “little” E or interacting? Maths be more complicated? Maybe too complex over galactic size grid computation in a super whiz bang CPU.

Just how it is.

 

[Sol88]

Scott hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. He stuffs up the maths from the get-go. This has been discussed before. Why do you think his idiocy only appears in a predatory, non-peer-reviewed rag, with zero impact factor?

He isn't a plasma physicist. He has no clue about plasma physics. Your cult possesses nobody with a clue about plasma physics. Which is why they are ignorant enough to think a drift current of electrons can head in to power the Sun, against a magnetic field heading in the opposite direction, at ~ 400 km/s. Care to tell us how that works in la-la land? Been demonstrated in a lab, has it? Nope. Because it is impossible. As Maxwell and Alfven, among countless others, would tell you. Why can't Scott understand this? Because he doesn't understand zip about plasma physics. Or any other kind of physics, as far as I can see. Why should anybody care what this crackpot nonentity thinks?

Brush up.

Example: Displacement field in a capacitor[edit]

A parallel plate capacitor. Using an imaginary box, it is possible to use Gauss's law to explain the relationship between electric displacement and free charge.
Consider an infinite parallel plate capacitor where the space between the plates is empty or contains a neutral, insulating medium. In this case there are no free charges present except on the metal capacitor plates. Since the flux lines D end on free charges, and there are the same number of uniformly distributed charges of opposite sign on both plates, then the flux lines must all simply traverse the capacitor from one side to the other, and |D| = 0 outside the capacitor. In SI units, the charge density on the plates is equal to the value of the D field between the plates. This follows directly from Gauss's law, by integrating over a small rectangular box straddling one plate of the capacitor:

One plate is the heliospheric boundary the other the photosphere of the Sun.

then the flux lines must all simply traverse the capacitor from one side to the other, and |D| = 0 outside the capacitor. In SI units, the charge density on the plates is equal to the value of the D field between the plates.




Seeing as you shot your mouth of about diamagnetic cavity’s at comets, by using the wrong model, you may like to read up first on the principles of ....

 

[Sol88]

hecd2 isn't confused. He's saying Scotts didn't do something (impose a boundary condition) which he should have done, and the failure to do so disconnects the math from any physically relevant scenario.



Quite so. Which is why Scotts leaving one out invalidates his results.

Identification of comet Hyakutake's extremely long ion tail from magnetic field signatures

On the basis of plasma instrument15 measurements, the structure encountered by Ulysses was apparently not pressure-balanced, nor
apparently was charge neutrality maintained, as the electron number density remained comparatively stable4. As violation of
these conditions was unlikely, another source of pressure, such as heavy ions, must have been present; these would have been outside the detection range of the plasma instrument.

This suggests that heavy ions of cometary origin were present in the structure. The presence of such ions is confirmed in data returned at the time
from the spacecraft's ion composition instrument17. Decreased broad-band turbulence for ,14 hours before the tail crossing is consistent with the tail preventing solar-wind AlfveÂn wave propagation through it.

Interesting on "draping" wrt flux tubes and Scott's paper. The electric fields and current involved are also of note.

Perhaps you could get a feel for a boundary to flux tubes. MMS also has some interesting bits n bobs on the failure of MHD (little E) and in light of the this assertion

The presence of a coherent structure so far from the nucleus suggests that the plasma tails of comets may persist as discrete entities for many astronomical units. As the tail of Hyakutake persisted to Ulysses, it is likely that this structure, ultimately produced by an object only ,2.4 km across23, survived to reach the edge of the heliosphere.

Heliosphere being one plate of the capacitor the other the photosphere, an ELECTRIC DISCHARGE to an obviously ROCKY nucleus.

Plasma, ay!

 

[Sol88]

Scott hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. He stuffs up the maths from the get-go.

Which is why they are ignorant enough to think a drift current of electrons can head in to power the Sun, against a magnetic field heading in the opposite direction, at ~ 400 km/s. Care to tell us how that works in la-la land? Been demonstrated in a lab, has it?

Drift currents, not the right language. Try Electric displacement field centered on the Sun.

In a dielectric material, the presence of an electric field E causes the bound charges in the material (atomic nuclei and their electrons) to slightly separate, inducing a local electric dipole moment.

The electric displacement field "D" is defined as D ≡ ε 0 E + P , is the vacuum permittivity (also called permittivity of free space), and P is the (macroscopic) density of the permanent and induced electric dipole moments in the material, called the polarization density.

The displacement field satisfies Gauss's law in a dielectric:

 

[Ziggurat]

Wow, that's all kinds of stupid.

Dielectric materials are insulators. Plasmas are conductors. You can't use an equation for insulators to describe a conductor.

 

[Sol88]

yes ya can...In physics, the electric displacement field (denoted by D) or electric induction is a vector field that appears in Maxwell's equations. It accounts for the effects of free and bound charge within materials[further explanation needed]. "D" stands for "displacement", as in the related concept of displacement current in dielectrics. In free space, the electric displacement field is equivalent to flux density, a concept that lends understanding of Gauss's law. In the International System of Units (SI), it is expressed in units of coulomb per meter square (C⋅m−2).

The science of reconnection springs from the basic science of electromagnetics, which dominates most of the universe and is a force as fundamental in space as gravity is on Earth

Spotting the persistent characteristic crescent shape in the electron distributions suggests that it is the physics of electrons that is at the heart of understanding how magnetic field lines accelerate the particles.

"This shows us that the electrons move in such a way that electric fields are established and these electric fields in turn produce a flash conversion of magnetic energy,” said Roy Torbert, a scientist at the Space Science Center at the University of New Hampshire in Durham, who is a co-author on the paper. “The encounter that our instruments were able to measure gave us a clearer view of an explosive reconnection energy release and the role played by electron physics."

NASA Directly Observes Fundamental Process of Nature for 1st Time

Right so electric fields then NOT magnetic fields. Is it still fair to call is 'magnetic" re-connection?

How are these electric fields being produced in your perfectly conducting plasma, ziggurat?

The plasma is neither a perfect conductor nor a perfect insulaotr. It's the charge density like tusenfem says, its not the total amperage but the current density in electric currents in space that controls!

Low β plasma can for force free field aligned currents...

We now present here a model that requires a low-β plasma environment.

Donald E. Scott

 

[Sol88]

No source.

Or maybe you could suggest one.

Try the most obvious first, CHARGE SEPARATION.



Strong Winds Power Electric Fields in the Upper Atmosphere, NASA’s ICON Finds

Strong winds in the thermosphere, a layer of the upper atmosphere known for its high temperatures, push current-carrying plasma in the ionosphere across invisible magnetic field lines that arc around Earth like an onion. The wind tends to push on chunky, positively charged particles more than small, negatively charged electrons. “You get pluses moving differently than minuses,” said co-author Brian Harding, a physicist at University of California, Berkeley. “That’s an electric current.”