Electric universe theories here.

[Sol88]

This illustrates that when ions decouple electron physics dominates. MHD is dead as...

Please explain, so we can see whether you understand what you copypasted.

MHD is not dead, it is just NOT USED when you look at the ion diffusion region, and do you know WHY?

What are you doing with the electrons in your ion diffusion region?

 

[tusenfem]

Of course, the magnetic tension of the field will relax, like a rubber band, and accelerate the attached ions and electrons. C'est simple comme bonjour., of course?



Source or example?

Basically every paper on BBFs since the start of Cluster II in 2000.

Of your magnetic acceleration is not accelerating the ions to the same speed as the electrons...

Guess "of" is "if" ? and then is that a question or a statement?

also

Wow, the ELECTRIC FIELD is an electric field, who would have thought THAT???

So, magnetic reconection is actually more correctly called electric current rearrangement giving rise to small electric fields (charge separation) that accelerates particles?

Electric re-connection.

Oh dear, have not heard that one for years.
Please show me an EU paper doing the electric re-connection, or at least a well versed explanation of how it works.

What are you doing with the electrons in your ion diffusion region?

The electron diffusion region is inside the ion diffusion region.
To help you, ion diffusion region is where the ions decouple from the magnetic field.

Okay dinner time Toodles!

 

[Sol88]

Donald E. Scott: An Electrical Engineer's Take on 'Magnetic Reconnection' | Space News

On the Sun, conventional science says that magnetic field lines move or merge, and frequently break and reconnect. This is called magnetic reconnection, a mechanism that many solar physicists claim to be responsible for enormous, energetic solar outbursts.

Recently, scientists using data from NASA’s Magnetospheric Multiscale Spacecraft have published a paper describing the physics inside a so-called magnetic reconnection event.

Professor Donald E. Scott examines these claims, and outlines the fundamental problems with magnetic reconnection from an electrical engineer’s perspective

It's the electrons silly!

 

[Ziggurat]

Donald E. Scott: An Electrical Engineer's Take on 'Magnetic Reconnection' | Space News

I skimmed through it. And what I notice, not surprisingly, is that there's basically no math in it. Oh, sure, Scott throws up Maxwell's equations at one point. But he never does anything with it. Basically the entire talk is him objecting to words. He doesn't like how things are being described.

And there's a bit of truth to his criticism. Popular press descriptions of scientific work is often dumbed down for the general public in a way that makes it wrong to some degree, because it's hard to get all the nuances right and keep it short and easy to understand. But the words used to describe math are not the math itself. Never once does he point to actual math and show any actual mistake. He merely implies that since the description is wrong (or even just oversimplified), that must mean that the math is wrong too. But that's not a justified leap. And that's all he has.

Imagine spending your life tilting at windmills like that, thinking you're actually doing something important. It's sad.

 

[Steve]

And still no answers to these...

Answers? Sol88 is afraid to even acknowledge that those questions have been asked.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Answers? Sol88 is afraid to even acknowledge that those questions have been asked.

And another question. We have heard about double layers, coaxial structures, plasma instabilities, electrical fields, and what have you, which are supposed to run most everything. What I want to know is: Where is the power coming from? Your average star (not to mention super-massive black hole) outputs a literally astronomical amount of energy. In the EM model, where does all that energy come from?

Hans

 

[hecd2]

The distinction he tried to reach between electric and magnetic field lines was highly contrived and wrong. In both cases you have a vector field and in both case the field lines show the vector direction at any point and the closeness of the lines represent the magnitude. He objects to people talking about reconnection of field lines because "they are just lines on paper drawn by a graphic artist". Well, doh!

 

[Ziggurat]

And another question. We have heard about double layers, coaxial structures, plasma instabilities, electrical fields, and what have you, which are supposed to run most everything. What I want to know is: Where is the power coming from? Your average star (not to mention super-massive black hole) outputs a literally astronomical amount of energy. In the EM model, where does all that energy come from?

Hans

It's always funny to see people try to come up with elaborate theories to explain minor phenomena, but be unable to cope with the most central and important facts. And the most important and obvious fact about the sun is its energy output. Even the earliest humans understood that the sun was an enormous energy source. But the EU folks have never done better than Juergens, and he was a colossal failure.

 

[tusenfem]

I just skipped a bit through it, it seems Scott does not like "(de)magnetized electrons", most likely because he does not understand what is meant by that. (you can demagnetize a piece of iron...)
If he has something better, then he should write a letter to the editor of Nature with his view on what is happening. Making BS claims on the boobtoob is easy.

 

[Sol88]

What is a demagnetised electron, tusenfem?

Are there electric currents, electric fields possibly including double layers and the seperation of charge involved in this “use of language” magnetic reconnection?

Use the correct terminology, don’t dumb it down (use MHD) and what do we have?

Electro hydro dynamics.

 

[Ziggurat]

What is a demagnetised electron, tusenfem?

One electron cannot be demagnetized. Or magnetized either, for that matter.

 

[Sol88]

I skimmed through it. And what I notice, not surprisingly, is that there's basically no math in it. Oh, sure, Scott throws up Maxwell's equations at one point. But he never does anything with it. Basically the entire talk is him objecting to words. He doesn't like how things are being described.

And there's a bit of truth to his criticism. Popular press descriptions of scientific work is often dumbed down for the general public in a way that makes it wrong to some degree, because it's hard to get all the nuances right and keep it short and easy to understand. But the words used to describe math are not the math itself. Never once does he point to actual math and show any actual mistake. He merely implies that since the description is wrong (or even just oversimplified), that must mean that the math is wrong too. But that's not a justified leap. And that's all he has.

Imagine spending your life tilting at windmills like that, thinking you're actually doing something important. It's sad.

He doesn't like how things are being described.

Like gas is a plasma?

further

Popular press descriptions of scientific work is often dumbed down for the general public in a way that makes it wrong to some degree, because it's hard to get all the nuances right and keep it short and easy to understand.

like hot gas is a plasma?

Use the correct terminology, its not scary at all.

Magnetic reconection is a great example.

EU describes the same phenomena using electric current short circuits (everyone understands a short circuit) and you use tangle snappy elastic figment s of your imagination.

 

[Sol88]

And another question. We have heard about double layers, coaxial structures, plasma instabilities, electrical fields, and what have you, which are supposed to run most everything. What I want to know is: Where is the power coming from? Your average star (not to mention super-massive black hole) outputs a literally astronomical amount of energy. In the EM model, where does all that energy come from?

Hans

We have heard about double layers, coaxial structures, plasma instabilities, electrical fields, and what have you, which are supposed to run most everything

Do you even understand the basics here?

Plasma, Electric Fields (inc double layers), Electric currents, .......gravity

 

[Sol88]

The distinction he tried to reach between electric and magnetic field lines was highly contrived and wrong. In both cases you have a vector field and in both case the field lines show the vector direction at any point and the closeness of the lines represent the magnitude. He objects to people talking about reconnection of field lines because "they are just lines on paper drawn by a graphic artist". Well, doh!

Do you understand the difference between an electric and magnetic field?

Electric field =

An electric field (sometimes E-field[1]) is the physical field that surrounds electrically charged particles and exerts force on all other charged particles in the field, either attracting or repelling them

Magnetic field =

A magnetic field is a vector field that describes the magnetic influence on moving electric charges, electric currents,[1]: ch1 [2] and magnetic materials. A moving charge in a magnetic field experiences a force perpendicular to its own velocity and to the magnetic field

Hope your smart enough to work out why the mainstreamers were surprised that particle acceleration in snapping magnetic filed lines was a mystery.

Something tangled up magnetic fields launching AGN 'Jets"???

ELECTRIC FIELDS​

 

[lauwenmark]

We have heard about double layers, coaxial structures, plasma instabilities, electrical fields, and what have you, which are supposed to run most everything

Do you even understand the basics here?

Plasma, Electric Fields (inc double layers), Electric currents, .......gravity

So, just writing 'plasma' with a bigger font size magically makes it produce energy? Wow, that's for sure very different from 'mainstream' science!

Seriously, do you even understand the questions people are asking? Hans asked about the energy source powering all the things you keep blabbing about. Plasma, by itself, is not producing energy, regardless on how big you write it.

So, where does all that energy come from? Please answer Hans's question - and try answering the other four he asked weeks ago! Dude, people keep answering your questions, but you keep ignoring those they have - that's rude.

 

[Sol88]

So, just writing 'plasma' with a bigger font size magically makes it produce energy? Wow, that's for sure very different from 'mainstream' science!

Seriously, do you even understand the questions people are asking? Hans asked about the energy source powering all the things you keep blabbing about. Plasma, by itself, is not producing energy, regardless on how big you write it.

So, where does all that energy come from? Please answer Hans's question - and try answering the other four he asked weeks ago! Dude, people keep answering your questions, but you keep ignoring those they have - that's rude.

The Great mystery. Where are we from...ah, to ponder.

Anyhoo, back to actual plasma, electric currents, electric fields....blah blah blah plasma blah blah blah...

Brave enough to tackle a Bennet a pinch in an astrophysical plasma passing an electric current?

Or are you implying, that because there is no apparent “battery” there can be no electric currents, electric fields, plasma instabilities...so on an so forth?

Once upon a time, long long time ago, stuff happened. Much the same as the Big Bang. Once there was nothing....

At this time, it’s not relevant. We are still getting over words to mean things.

Plasma is not gas. Magnetic reconnection is actually electric fields, diamagnetic cavity is inside a double layer...so on and so forth.

You may then move onto advanced plasma physics!

Dusty plasma anyone? Kink or pinch instability in a dusty plasma stream if anyone’s keen on joust?

 

[tusenfem]

What is a demagnetised electron, tusenfem?

An electron that is no longer "slave" to the magnetic field.
Where the magnetic field gets so weak it is no longer the major controlling factor of the motion of the electron.
Usually, "unmagnetized" is used.

 

[tusenfem]

The Great mystery. Where are we from...ah, to ponder.

Anyhoo, back to actual plasma, electric currents, electric fields....blah blah blah plasma blah blah blah...

Brave enough to tackle a Bennet a pinch in an astrophysical plasma passing an electric current?

Or are you implying, that because there is no apparent “battery” there can be no electric currents, electric fields, plasma instabilities...so on an so forth?

Once upon a time, long long time ago, stuff happened. Much the same as the Big Bang. Once there was nothing....

At this time, it’s not relevant. We are still getting over words to mean things.

Plasma is not gas. Magnetic reconnection is actually electric fields, diamagnetic cavity is inside a double layer...so on and so forth.

You may then move onto advanced plasma physics!

Dusty plasma anyone? Kink or pinch instability in a dusty plasma stream if anyone’s keen on joust?

Wow, lots of terms for BS bingo.

 

[Sol88]

A magnetic field is a vector field that describes the magnetic influence on moving electric charges, electric currents,[1]: ch1 [2] and magnetic materials. A moving charge in a magnetic field experiences a force perpendicular to its own velocity and to the magnetic field

Righto, “slave” is the correct word to use? Even demagnetised?

When the magnetic field decays, what happen to the moving electric charge? It’s still creating a magnetic field.

Or the electric current? No magnetic field no current?


Does an electron in a force free configuration within a current not being slave to the magnetic field, also be classed as a demagnetised electron/s?

 

[Sol88]

Wow, lots of terms for BS bingo.

Is a Z pinch within a flux tubes axial magnetic field a possibility in astrophysical electric currents, tusenfem?