Considering the possibility that electric fields play a fundamental role and determining that they only play a lesser dynamical role for specific fundamental reasons is still considering the possibility that electric fields play a fundamental role.
No, they ignored basic and well known phenomena (like double layers, exploding double layers, z-pinches and Birkeland currents) and observations that appear to prove those phenomena do indeed exist in space ... even at scales of thousands of light years. Which is exactly what I was saying is the case. They prove my point.
Is it just that you think, since they are not considered to play as significant of a role as you would like, it sounds better to say that the possibility has not been considered?
Again, provide any peer reviewed, scientific articles that rule out those phenomena in the behavior of the comets, planets, the sun, galaxies, the formation of jets, the explanation for pulsars, etc. That is your challenge. And it's a difficult one. And unless you can do it, my point is made. The only peer reviewed sources you provided all concluded that those effects should be considered. Except for your first ... a wikipedia article which gives no details whatsoever.
I see you completely ignored my statements about magnetic influences.
I responded as appropriate. I noted that your "statement shows a profound lack of understanding of the physics involved. Plasmas are not electrically neutral. They are QUASI-neutral and in fact can create very large structures." Both are facts I can prove and have many times on this forum. Would you like a specific response to your other statements? Sure thing:
Magnetic fields influence similarly moving Electrons (negative charge) and the positive charged ions of a plasma in opposite directions and would separate charges in a plasma and not coalesce the entire plasma into a large scale structure.
Guess you never heard of a Birkeland current, what the discoverer of them said, what a scientist (Alfven) who won a Nobel prize in physics for his work on plasmas said, or the model of galaxies he and Per Carlqvist developed in 1977 with Birkeland currents as a central feature, or what supercomputer simulations of galactic scale Birkeland currents showed ... despite my posting material on those facts repeatedly to this forum.
Here, try these for starters:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Birkeland_current
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h4w5l7l06280863r/
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesII.annotated.pdf
http://www.cosmology.info/2005conference/wps/gallo_1.pdf
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Galaxy_formation
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/graphics.simulations/cicumBgal2.jpg (that's a galactic magnetic field compared to Peratt's simulation results from interacting Birkeland currents)
And here is another example of how mainstream scientists are totally misinterpreting the data because they don't understand Birkeland currents:
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/archives/19990327/bob1.asp "Paul Bellan creates tiny solar eruptions in his laboratory. ... snip ... During an experiment in Bellan's lab, the naked eye sees a single pink flash. A high-speed camera, however, shows a miniature, glowing arch expanding from the end of a horseshoe-shaped magnet. The curve builds, wavers, twists, and then dissipates into the surrounding vacuum—all in a matter of microseconds. ... snip ... In his experiments, Bellan zaps puffs of hydrogen gas with hundreds of megawatts of electricity to transform the gas into plasma and to
make the arcs twist in response to their own magnetic forces, as many of their big solar cousins do. "We can actually duplicate something going on in the sun that people thought [was explained by] a very different physics," he says. The simulations may shed new light on how prominences arise, contort, and erupt, Bellan explains. He and his colleague Freddy Hansen reported their work last November at the American Physical Society's Division of Plasma Physics meeting in New Orleans. The simulations have already led them to a new, well-received model for the formation of bright, S-shaped features on the solar surface that appear to lead to solar eruptions within hours or days (SN: 3/13/99, p. 164). In a 1996 study of some 50 such filaments seen in satellite observations, researchers led by Rust concluded that the S shapes were top-down views of extraordinarily hot,
twisted prominences. Some scientists suspect that if prominences get too twisted, they become unstable and erupt. In a model developed by Bellan, a plasma's own magnetic forces produce the S shapes, which also appear in computer simulations of his lab arches.
The magnetic forces twist the plasma until its current flows parallel to its magnetic field lines, Bellan explains."
Do you see what I mean? Bellan has completely missed the significance of the data and his simulation results. He's describing Birkeland currents and doesn't seem to know it. The fact is, everywhere we look we see evidence of Birkeland currents ... from the earth's atmosphere to intergalactic space.
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And it's disingenuous for that website to state "During the 1940s and 50s, Alfvén developed magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) which enables plasmas to be modelled as waves in a fluid, for which Alfvén won the 1970 Nobel Prize for physics. MHD is a standard astronomical tool." That's because Alfven specifically stated that MHD was not the right tool to model galaxies and stars where phenomena like double layers and Birkeland currents occur. The source is also dishonest in stating that "current models indicate that plasma processes have little role to play in forming the very largest structures, such as voids, galaxy clusters and superclusters." Dishonest because current models do not include electromagnetic effects such as those Alfven and others say play a role in the formation of those structures. And the website fails to even mention the MANY problems mainstream astrophysicists are having with their models and their explanation of those large structures. I've posted several times articles discussing a number of those problems. Your side in this debate has consistently ignored what I posted. Just like the Big Bang community has done. Because they aren't open to any explanation but gravity. Q.E.D.
Disingenuous, form your point of view no doubt, dishonest, not in the least.
Wrong. It's lying by omission. Omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. These facts I noted were easily discovered. That they weren't noted in the article has to be a deliberate deception or the result of the author wearing blinders because he/she believes in the mainstream theories.
Once again you seem to think that if people do not accept your assertions
These are not "assertions" ... they are demonstrable "facts". There's a difference.
So QUASI-neutral meaning “seemingly” neutral, thanks for agreeing with the reference quoted by demonstrating a profound lack of language skills.
There's an important difference between neutral and quasi-neutral. It allows Birkeland currents to form. It means that objects that come in contact with plasma will charge ... like comets. Plasma is a better conductor than copper. And for the record, quasi-neutral is the language used in scientific papers.
Why don’t you just list what you would consider a “mainstream source” or mainstream journal, the time frame you would consider “recent” and any other hoops you would like to see someone jump through, then wait to see who volunteers.
It must be a scientific journal, peer reviewed and must specifically conclude that Birkeland currents, double layers and z-pinches play no role in the behavior of comets, the sun, galaxies, jet phenomena (from proto-stars and objects claimed to be black holes, neutron stars, quark stars) or intergalactic clouds. And you can go back as far as you like. That's the challenge.
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And you think by linking a paper done in 1982 by a proponent of plasma cosmology and associate of Alfven you show that the mainstream has considered it? Who do you think you are kidding?
Stop kidding yourself. This is a peer reviewed paper in a mainstream journal. Both the editors and peer review must have considered it worthy of consideration and publication.
Except it concludes that those phenomena (at least the ones they mentioned) are significant. Your challenge is to find one that concludes they aren't. And I'm betting you can't do it.
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Again, you only prove my point. This is an article written in 1993 which notes double layers might be responsible for the emissions from pulsars. It was obviously ignored by the rest of mainstream physics community. Also, note that the source spends a lot of time on the bogus gnome of magnetic reconnection and assumes we know what neutron stars are (we don't really). It's hard to not laugh at a source that back in 1993 was treating magnetic reconnection as if it were proven physics when in 2007 they still haven't proven it or tend to describe phenomena that sound like exploding double layers in their "proofs". But to those authors credit, at least they mention double layers as the other possible cause of the emissions. They note that double layers are "effective particle accelerators." The authors find they could produce the 10^^15 volt discharges that are observed. This is something that seems to have been completely forgotten in most mainstream work since that time.
So once again your point is if your assertions were not generally accepted by this paper or after its publication then both were ignored.
No, my point is that if a peer-reviewed journal published a study that concluded double layers could be responsible for the pulsar emissions, why did the mainstream just ignore it. As far as I know they didn't publish any peer reviewed articles challenging this one. They just ignored it. That's my point. And that's not the way science is supposed to work. And mind you, there were other peer reviewed articles that supported the conclusion. And they were ignored too. That's not the way science is supposed to work.
My particular preference for this paper is the following quote, which you seemed to ignore or at least not address in your response.
Quote:
If this particle density is moderately low, field-aligned currents are likely to trigger micro-instabilities and possible double layer formation before reconnection occurs. If instead the lowest particle density is higher, reconnection is likely to occur before the threshold for micro-instability is reached. In some circumstances, the current may continue to grow even after double layers have formed, eventually triggering a reconnection event. So it would seem that one of this paper’s assertions is that under certain conditions some of your favorite missing mainstream plasma physics orphans (Brikeland currents and Double Layers) could be the parents of one of your favorite mainstream plasma physics gnomes (Magnetic Reconnection). So whenever you see a mainstream references to magnetic reconnection in plasma remember your orphans could be the triggering mechanism.
ROTFLOL! You've completely missed the point of the authors. They said BOTH double layers and reconnection could produce the observed energy levels. Here's a fact. Magnetic reconnection is STILL a gnome, almost 2 decades after these authors published an article that is written as if magnetic reconnection was a proven fact. It wasn't. And it's still a gnome today because Maxwell's laws prohibit the sort of reconnection they claim. Here's what Hannes Alfven, Nobel prize winner and inventor of MHD said on this matter: "The concepts of 'frozen-in magnetic field lines' and 'field-line reconnection', which are frequently used in discussions of the theory of the magnetosphere, have been criticized by Alfven and Falthammar (1971), by Heikkila (1973), and by Alfven (1975). In the present paper, it is demonstrated that both concepts are unnecessary and often misleading. The frozen-in concept is shown to belong to the pseudo-plasma formalism which is useful only in special cases." You and the mainstream would be wise to listen to him. The problem is that mainstream researchers are now doing experiments and SIMPLY LABELING phenomena as reconnection that are actually exploding double layers. They apparently do not understand the physics of what is going on so they've invented a gnome and are sticking too it no matter what damage they do to physics. Because their jobs, reputations and the expensive projects they have planned all depend on the continuation of that gnome. Because Big Bang itself (and the jobs, reputations and expensive projects associated with it) all depend on the continuation of that gnome. So as a result they just ignore what Maxwell's laws say, what Alfven said, and what current critics are telling them. In fact, they don't even mention double layers in all the papers they've published on their gnomes.
Your statements only continue to demonstrate that your grasp on mainstream references is as feeble as your grasp of fundamental physics. Please read, think and learn.
You best continuing wiping. And you now have a very clear challenge. Let's see if your "grasp" of mainstream references is as good as you seem to think.
By the way you attributed an entire posts worth of quotes to me instead of their originator.
Sorry. I copied all the posts to me on the thread into one file and formulated responses. Unfortunately, I ended up copying the QUOTE=The Man; text into locations that were supposed to be QUOTE=Ziggurat. Again my apologies to you and the forum for the confusion.
