Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Michael Mozina]

Yeah, you're right - your ignorant guesses are far more reliable than numerical simulations of Maxwell's equations in plasma, programmed by experts, run on massively parallel supercomputers over years, and supported by observations and experiments.

Even still there *is* a significant difference between "software science" and real "hardware science". I'm sure inflation works in a software simulation, it just doesn't work in real life.

 

[Michael Mozina]

From looking at what is going on here, what is lacking is objective causality.

That is in fact exactly what is lacking alright. In Birkeland's experiments charge separation and charge attraction were the driving mechanisms behind his observations, whereas the mainstream is putting the cart before the horse and trying to claim the magnetic field does the work. Birkeland's sphere only worked (produced jets, wind, coronal loops) when the surface of the sphere had a charge and there was charge separation between the sphere and the chamber.

Their models don't actually work in a lab, they only work in computer models. It's like inflation code....garbage in, garbage out. Try it in a lab and the whole thing falls apart. To understand "causality" you have to go and do empirical experiments with electricity and they are paranoid about electricity and have absolutely no idea what a real lab experiment with actual control mechanisms might be. Not only that, they believe that magnetic lines disconnect and reconnect! I guess that's what happens when all your ideas come from a computer rather than from an actual experiment with real control mechanisms and real forces of nature.

 

[tusenfem]

Do you think there is a current flowing along this "flux" tube. And I bet it has a parallel vector component due to all the electrons doing their gyro dance around the slinky.

Okay, question to brantc: Do you know Maxwell's equations?

In your message above you say that the gyro radius of the electrons play a role in the flux tube. However, the electrons will not magically start to gyrate, for that it needs a magnetic field to start with. Otherwise, electrons just move however they want, but not in a gyrating motion, because that needs the Lorentz force, in order to create the centripital force necessary for gyrational motion. The straight line in the figure that micheal mozina put in his message above, in the centre of the gyrating motions is the "core field" which has its source below the surface of the sun and is not maintained nor created by the electrons (and ions by the way) that gyrate around it.

Astronomers find magnetic Slinky in Orion
ttp://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/01/12_helical.shtml

For the mainstream a flux tube is a mathematical description having no basis in reality.

For EU a flux tube is a physical entity consisting of plasma in a tubelike form that may have either a perpendicular or parallel magnetic field depending on conditions, and carries a electric current in the form of electrons. It may consist of a neutral plasma but that doesnt take into account that like a wire as many electrons are replaced as leave.

Although I dont agree with everything Paul Bellan says I think he makes a couple of really good experimental points. My red and bold.

"PRL 95, 045002 (2005) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS week ending
22 JULY 2005
Dynamic and Stagnating Plasma Flow Leading to Magnetic-Flux-Tube Collimation
S. You, G. S. Yun, and P. M. Bellan
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
(Received 6 February 2005; published 22 July 2005)"

"The results thus provide strong evidence for flow-driven collimation of flared magnetic-flux tubes. This process requires net electrical current, a supply of particles, and stagnation of the driven flow. In an astrophysical context, accretion disks supply plasma and flows stagnate at the lobes; a net axial current is understood to be necessary for self-confinement [26], and recent observations of helical magnetic field structure in jets are indicative of net axial current [27]. The electrical circuit is then closed by radial currents in the accretion disk, returning via the cocoon.
Active solar regions also exhibit unneutralized electrical currents [28]. We emphasize that strong flows and collimation can be driven by even modest amounts of current, before reaching the kink instability (high current)
threshold.
This work was supported by U.S. DoE and NSF.

[24] S. Mar et al., J. Phys. B 33, 1169 (2000).
[25] H. R. Griem, Plasma Spectroscopy (McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1964).
[26] A. Ferrari, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 36, 539 (1998).
[27] Y. Uchida et al., Astrophys. J. 600, 88 (2004).
[28] M. S. Wheatland,"

ttp://ve4xm.caltech.edu/webpub/2005%20You%20Yun%20Bellan%20Phys%20Rev%20Letter%20Jet%20Collimation.pdf

WRONG!!!! in the EU apparently field lines do not exist (ask Mr Mozina) so why would a flux tube be a physical entity?

And why would you say Bellan is making the points when the first author apparently is You? Please give credit where it is due. The helical magnetic field in outflow regions and jets is well understood by mainstream physics, but I doubt you would understand it.
And what the heck are "unneutralized" currents?

and by the way here is the paper at ArXiv

 

[tusenfem]

How does a "magnetic loop" have a "diameter" exactly? What "physical" thing makes up this "diameter" you're talking about?

The diameter at the surface of the Sun, where the magnetic loop comes out. You will hopefully not deny that there is a certain cross section of the footpoints of the loop when they exist the surface?

That diameter I took as roughly 1 Earth diameter, which is nothing special, rather tiny actually, and the field of 10 Gauss and the (perpendicular???) electron velocity of 2/3 c, and then you find a gyro radius of about 1 km, which means that on over that whole structure of the magnetic loop, you can forget about the electron gyroradius. And why is that good, especially for you, MM???????????

Because you want to do MHD created by Saint Hannes, which per definition does not apply at length scales below the largest ion gyro radius. Read your classics MM, maybe you might learn something?

The "radius" your talking about is a function of the density of the plasma and the amount of current flow inside the tube. It's not related to a single electron or a single atom, but rather it is related to the "whole system" and the events within the "whole system".

No Mr MM, that would be the Debye sphere, or something, the gyro radius is absolutely NOT a function of the plasma density, did you ever read Alfven's work? You unmask yourself as knowledgeable of even the basics of Alfven's work, and you say that I have to read the old master? Get a life!

 

[tusenfem]

Electrons moving along a Birkeland current may be accelerated by a plasma double layer. If the resulting electrons approach relativistic velocities (ie. the speed of light) they may subsequently produce a Bennett pinch, which in a magnetic field will spiral and emit synchrotron radiation that includes radio, optical (ie. light), x-rays, and gamma rays.

Sentences like this should make anyone, who is serious about plasma physics or space physics weep. I have the feeling this was written by Ian Tresman and appeared on the old double layer wiki page, but that as an aside.

• electrons flowing along a Birkeland current: The electrons cannot flow along a Birkeland current, they WOULD BE the Birkeland current, sheesh!
• may be accelerated by a double layer: or may be accelerated by just an electric field, why specifically a double layer which will only appear in a current when the density of the current carriers (electrons and ions) is too low to support the current density, and hence have to be accelerated. But not every electric field is a double layer.
• If they reach relativistic velocities they may create a Bennett pinch: why should they need to be relativistic (although electrons are easy that way), the Bennett pinch only says that the magnetic force has to overcome the plasma pressure, which can easily be done with strong current without the electrons being relativistic.
• which in a magnetic field will spiral: what will spiral? the bennett pinch? No, I guess he means the electrons, and yes they can spiral, but if the are accelerated by a double layer their main velocity will be along the field and thus very little "spiraling" will happen.
• and emit radiation: yeah this is definitely a text written by Ian, which appeared in the old double layer wiki page, and in some other places. Fortunately, this time it is not happening in the double layer.

If you quote something, michael mozina please check what is written.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

That is in fact exactly what is lacking alright. In Birkeland's experiments charge separation and charge attraction were the driving mechanisms behind his observations, whereas the mainstream is putting the cart before the horse and trying to claim the magnetic field does the work. Birkeland's sphere only worked (produced jets, wind, coronal loops) when the surface of the sphere had a charge and there was charge separation between the sphere and the chamber.

Their models don't actually work in a lab, they only work in computer models. It's like inflation code....garbage in, garbage out. Try it in a lab and the whole thing falls apart. To understand "causality" you have to go and do empirical experiments with electricity and they are paranoid about electricity and have absolutely no idea what a real lab experiment with actual control mechanisms might be. Not only that, they believe that magnetic lines disconnect and reconnect! I guess that's what happens when all your ideas come from a computer rather than from an actual experiment with real control mechanisms and real forces of nature.

Hi Michael,

I'm not sure how much of this thread you read before you started posting to it, but there's a key part that I feel all readers need to understand, concerning your posts in this thread, namely: what is "Plasma Cosmology"?

If you do read the 'pre-Michael Mozina' parts of this thread, you'll see that a lot of the discussion could have been more focussed if this simple question had been answered by the (then) one and only proponent of Plasma Cosmology (Zeuzzz), and that when he did, finally, provide a sufficiently clear, consistent definition*, the thread came to a rapid conclusion (yes, Plasma Cosmology (PC) is indeed the very definition of (scientific) woo).

I look forward to your answer.

* one, furthermore, which has the benefit of being both public and by an author whose 'PC credentials' cannot possibly be questioned (Eric Lerner).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Electrons moving along a Birkeland current may be accelerated by a plasma double layer. If the resulting electrons approach relativistic velocities (ie. the speed of light) they may subsequently produce a Bennett pinch, which in a magnetic field will spiral and emit synchrotron radiation that includes radio, optical (ie. light), x-rays, and gamma rays.

Sentences like this should make anyone, who is serious about plasma physics or space physics weep. I have the feeling this was written by Ian Tresman and appeared on the old double layer wiki page, but that as an aside.

• electrons flowing along a Birkeland current: The electrons cannot flow along a Birkeland current, they WOULD BE the Birkeland current, sheesh!
• may be accelerated by a double layer: or may be accelerated by just an electric field, why specifically a double layer which will only appear in a current when the density of the current carriers (electrons and ions) is too low to support the current density, and hence have to be accelerated. But not every electric field is a double layer.
• If they reach relativistic velocities they may create a Bennett pinch: why should they need to be relativistic (although electrons are easy that way), the Bennett pinch only says that the magnetic force has to overcome the plasma pressure, which can easily be done with strong current without the electrons being relativistic.
• which in a magnetic field will spiral: what will spiral? the bennett pinch? No, I guess he means the electrons, and yes they can spiral, but if the are accelerated by a double layer their main velocity will be along the field and thus very little "spiraling" will happen.
• and emit radiation: yeah this is definitely a text written by Ian, which appeared in the old double layer wiki page, and in some other places. Fortunately, this time it is not happening in the double layer.

If you quote something, michael mozina please check what is written.

Google is your friend ...

The short para you quoted, tusenfem, comes from Ian Tresman's website.

Someone - maybe IT himself? - has been diligently copying it all over the internet, so much so that the content of the IT webpage on "Birkeland current", which this quote is from, is also the wikipedia page on that topic!

My quick search using google turned up >50 webpages with the core part of this quote, and the ~dozen I checked were all, it seems, direct copies of the IT webpage.

Of course, it may be that the IT webpage is a copy of the wikipedia one, which itself may be a copy of some other one ...

 

[tusenfem]

Google is your friend ...

The short para you quoted, tusenfem, comes from Ian Tresman's website.

Someone - maybe IT himself? - has been diligently copying it all over the internet, so much so that the content of the IT webpage on "Birkeland current", which this quote is from, is also the wikipedia page on that topic!

My quick search using google turned up >50 webpages with the core part of this quote, and the ~dozen I checked were all, it seems, direct copies of the IT webpage.

Of course, it may be that the IT webpage is a copy of the wikipedia one, which itself may be a copy of some other one ...

Yes, I thought so. The wiki page on Birkeland currents is written by IT, and if you look at the discussion page, you will see that I had a bunch of comments about it. I started once to change the page, take out the gravest errors, but did not finish my job, because of lack of time, and at a point lack of interest. I should pick it up again. Some of the dubious statements that have not been corrected are:

• Birkeland currents are also one of a class of plasma phenonena called a z-pinch Here cause and result are switched around. A Birkeland current is not a z-pinch. A z-pinch may occur when a field aligned current exists. But there are certain restrictions to that, a pinch can only occur when the field strength increases above a certain level. I am not sure that z-pinches have been observed in the Earth's Birkeland currents.
• This can also twist, producing a helical pinch that spirals like a twisted or braided rope, and this most closely corresponds to a Birkeland current. Why does this most closely correspond to a Birkeland current?
• Parallel Birkeland currents moving in opposite directions will repel with an electromagnetic force inversely proportional to their distance apart. But anti-parallel Birkeland currents will not occur, as the inflow is on the dawn side and the outflow is on the dusk side.
• Electrons moving along a Birkeland current may be accelerated by a plasma double layer. Electrons are not moving along a Birkeland current, they 'are' the Birkeland current.
• If the resulting electrons approach relativistic velocities (ie. the speed of light) they may subsequently produce a Bennett pinch No, this is not true, relativistic particles do not increase the current, so if the requirement for a Bennett pinch has not been fulfilled before, then making the electrons relativistic will not make any difference.

don't believe everything you read on wikipedia

 

[Dancing David]

Ian does get kudos in one respect, if you push him and parse you words and senteces carefully, he will admit that he is interpreting , speculating and moving betond the actual material he cites.

I almost got him to admit that he was placing more into one of Alven's statements than it warranted, and he then did admit itw as his opinion and interpretation.

(It was about the amount of 'pue plasma' effects in charged gasses (very low charge plasma/quasi plasmas) and he admited he was overinterpreting Alven's statements)

 

[brantc]

HI brantc.

I'm a bit late coming (back) to this thread.

Would you mind telling me what this post of yours, and indeed nearly all yours in this thread, has to do with 'Plasma Cosmology'?

Mainstream thinks that flux tubes are some mathematical entity with field lines(as it is defined) and is NOT created by electric current flow. And they dont start how they are created or what their purpose is.

EU says the flux tube( we can call them something else to please other people here) carries an electrical current. This is to equalize the charge between to bodies in a plasma.

If the mainstream will accept the simple fact that the only way to form a plasma tube(flux tube) is with an electric current, then this would be over.
This is basic physics, basic electrical engineering.

The only time that these basic rules dont seem to apply is when mainstreamers make posts.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Mainstream thinks that flux tubes are some mathematical entity with field lines(as it is defined) and is NOT created by electric current flow. And they dont start how they are created or what their purpose is.

EU says the flux tube( we can call them something else to please other people here) carries an electrical current. This is to equalize the charge between to bodies in a plasma.

If the mainstream will accept the simple fact that the only way to form a plasma tube(flux tube) is with an electric current, then this would be over.
This is basic physics, basic electrical engineering.

The only time that these basic rules dont seem to apply is when mainstreamers make posts.

Bingo. The difference of course is that we can demonstrate our point with an ordinary plasma ball, whereas they can't empirically demonstrate their claims at all, regardless of the cost. Birkeland had not trouble explaining solar wind and "jets" and coronal loops over 100 years ago. What's their problem? Oh ya, I forgot. They aren't allowed to mention the forbidden evil word "electricity", therefore "magic magnetic fields did it". They lack physical substance and form as a complete and full continuum yet they can "reconnect" somehow and create form "flux tubes", but only in a computer simulation.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hi Michael,

I'm not sure how much of this thread you read before you started posting to it, but there's a key part that I feel all readers need to understand, concerning your posts in this thread, namely: what is "Plasma Cosmology"?

In a broad sense it is the application of MHD theory to objects in space, the combination of GR and MHD theory.

If you do read the 'pre-Michael Mozina' parts of this thread, you'll see that a lot of the discussion could have been more focussed if this simple question had been answered by the (then) one and only proponent of Plasma Cosmology (Zeuzzz),

Sorry, but I'm not Zeuzzz and I refuse to be bound by his personal definition just because it suits you somehow. I'll stick with my definition thanks.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The diameter at the surface of the Sun, where the magnetic loop comes out. You will hopefully not deny that there is a certain cross section of the footpoints of the loop when they exist the surface?

You're either avoiding my question or at least you did not address it. What *physical thing* defines this "tube"?

That diameter I took as roughly 1 Earth diameter, which is nothing special, rather tiny actually, and the field of 10 Gauss and the (perpendicular???) electron velocity of 2/3 c, and then you find a gyro radius of about 1 km, which means that on over that whole structure of the magnetic loop, you can forget about the electron gyroradius. And why is that good, especially for you, MM???????????

Huh? What's good for me is a test of concept. You guys never do that. You make up math formulas and stuff them into computer simulations and you never actually "test" any of this stuff.

Because you want to do MHD created by Saint Hannes, which per definition does not apply at length scales below the largest ion gyro radius. Read your classics MM, maybe you might learn something?

From you? Definitely not. Your answer was completely non responsive to my point and evasive to boot.

No Mr MM, that would be the Debye sphere, or something,

No, that would be a strawman or something that is again unresponsive to my point. You're now 0 for 3 in addressing my points. Is that typical? If so, this is going to take forever.

Let's try this one more time, and from a different angle. Yes or no, are there "return currents" in coronal loop activity, and are these events "discharge" related?

 

[ben m]

Mainstream thinks that flux tubes are some mathematical entity with field lines(as it is defined) and is NOT created by electric current flow. And they dont start how they are created or what their purpose is.

We went through this a few threads ago. Both of the following statements are true (modulo a basically unimportant caveat about external fields) in a world where Maxwell's Equations are true:

1) Plasmas can contain arbitrary charge and current fields J; if you know J then you also know the E and B vector fields everywhere.

2) Plasmas can contain E and B fields; if you know these fields then you also know the charge and current everywhere.

Flux tubes and field lines are 100% standard, mathematically valid ways to describe *any* vector field. We very commonly use them to describe the B field. Talking about flux tubes is not "ignoring current", since once is equivalent to the other via a derivative. Talking about contour lines on a topographic map is not "ignoring slope" or "ignoring altitude". Talking about waves in Fourier space is not "ignoring position space".

If you actually care---i.e. if you genuinely object to the flux tube representation for scientific reasons, rather than because Alfven told you to---please show us *exactly* what aspects of your beloved E and J vector fields *are* and *are not* mathematically recoverable from the field-line or flux-tube (they're the same thing) representations of B? It's not hard. Show your math. LaTeX works on this board if you need it.

 

[brantc]

Okay, question to brantc: Do you know Maxwell's equations?

In your message above you say that the gyro radius of the electrons play a role in the flux tube. However, the electrons will not magically start to gyrate, for that it needs a magnetic field to start with. Otherwise, electrons just move however they want, but not in a gyrating motion, because that needs the Lorentz force, in order to create the centripital force necessary for gyrational motion. The straight line in the figure that micheal mozina put in his message above, in the centre of the gyrating motions is the "core field" which has its source below the surface of the sun and is not maintained nor created by the electrons (and ions by the way) that gyrate around it.

You still dont get the causality issue. AND that is the root of all MS problems.

The current flows. Magnetic fields arise. Electrons start to gyrate.

Core or whatever other thing you want to invoke, its still an electric current that flows and makes the magnetic field. There is nobody holding a bar magnet next to the flux tubes in space.....

I mean how much clearer do I have to make it?

WRONG!!!! in the EU apparently field lines do not exist (ask Mr Mozina) so why would a flux tube be a physical entity?

You are so totally confused between math and reality.
And again magnetic fields are a continuum. As are the magnetic fields around a flux tube.
If it will make you feel better we can change the name to EU plasma tube minus the MS math description of "field lines are a flux tube".
Its still the same physical thing bound by the same rules.

And why would you say Bellan is making the points when the first author apparently is You? Please give credit where it is due.

"I said Paul makes a couple of really good experimental points". I said nothing as to if he makes my points. And I did give credit..... English is a tuff language.

The helical magnetic field in outflow regions and jets is well understood by mainstream physics, but I doubt you would understand it.

Apparently not because I am still arguing with you about whether the cause is electrical or not. All you have to do is apply the right hand rule and your done, of course making exceptions for the gyroradius of electrons in a plasma.
I have seen MS say things like twisting like a rubber band, rotating elephant trunks, magnetic slinkys etc. If they really understood it there would be a common language , and they would be looking for an electrical source instead of gravity.

I have not seen another MS paper that actually gives the root cause of the helical magnetic fields as electricity, not some fossil 13 billion year magnetic field that came from nowhere....

And what the heck are "unneutralized" currents?

Your the expert, ask Paul.

and by the way [ttp://de.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506221]here is the paper at ArXiv

I suspect that I could tell you not to touch that wire because its live with 10,000 volts at 1000 amps, and you would touch it, get your hand blown off, and then tell me it wasnt electricity, it was gravity accelerating electrons into your hand causing it to fall off!!!!

 

[Tim Thompson]

Ampere's Law

I hate to break the bad news, but the picture you just posted is a picture of what tusenfem said, a picture of what you called "baloney". Sometimes these boards can be very amusing.

No Tim.

Oh, really? Let's do an experiment shall we? Let us start with what tusenfem said ...

No, get this into your head please: the current flowing along a mangetic flux tube CANNOT generate the field it is flowing along, no current can create an aligned magnetic field.

OK, so tusenfem is telling us that no current can generate a magnetic field that is parallel to the current. That must mean that the current will generate a magnetic field that is not parallel to the current. So, you post an image ...

Boloney.
[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/79/Magnetic_rope.png/300px-Magnetic_rope.png[/qimg]

Now, what does the image show? it shows a current flowing along a straight line surrounded by an azimuthal magnetic field. Is an azimuthal magnetic field parallel to the flow of current? No it is not. Did tusenfem say that the magnetic field would not run parallel to the current? Yes he did. So, it must be that the picture you posted is a picture of what tusenfem said, and you are claiming that a picture of what tusenfem said proves that what tusenfem said is "baloney". I trust you understand why someone might be tempted under the circumstances to take what you say on the topic with the legendary "grain of salt"?

Of course any current flow will generate an azimuthal magnetic field around it, this is well known to everyone (Ampère's Law), and there should be no need to fret about it so hard.

I think you simply make too many posts to fast and just don't remember what everybody is saying. Maybe you should try to slow down and substitute quality for quantity?

 

[brantc]

We went through this a few threads ago. Both of the following statements are true (modulo a basically unimportant caveat about external fields) in a world where Maxwell's Equations are true:

1) Plasmas can contain arbitrary charge and current fields J; if you know J then you also know the E and B vector fields everywhere.

2) Plasmas can contain E and B fields; if you know these fields then you also know the charge and current everywhere.

Flux tubes and field lines are 100% standard, mathematically valid ways to describe *any* vector field. We very commonly use them to describe the B field. Talking about flux tubes is not "ignoring current", since once is equivalent to the other via a derivative. Talking about contour lines on a topographic map is not "ignoring slope" or "ignoring altitude". Talking about waves in Fourier space is not "ignoring position space".

If you actually care---i.e. if you genuinely object to the flux tube representation for scientific reasons, rather than because Alfven told you to---please show us *exactly* what aspects of your beloved E and J vector fields *are* and *are not* mathematically recoverable from the field-line or flux-tube (they're the same thing) representations of B? It's not hard. Show your math. LaTeX works on this board if you need it.

"Flux tubes and field lines are 100% standard, mathematically valid ways to describe *any* vector field. "

I totally agree. It is just an approximation....
And it is also a description of a real physical entity unless you want to claim that the mathematical flux tube came before the real thing, and that the math tells the plasma what to do.....
Or just separate the 2 and have 2 different names...
Flux tube for the math and plasma tube for the real thing...

But does a magnetic field actually consist of lines or is it a continuum?
Is it humanly possible to integrate a continuum(no limit)?

And is electromagnetism driven by electric current or gravity?

Is there a first cause?????????????? Charge before magnetic field!!

And a magnetic field(not bar) tells you there is a current flowing!!!!!

 

[Tim Thompson]

Magnetic Reconnection Redux

Magnetic reconnection certainly has been empirically tested. Evidently you missed my earlier post with the details: Comments on magnetic Reconnection.

The magnetic lines lack physical substance, and they are physically incapable of "disconnecting" or "reconnecting" to any other magnetic field line.

Wow, you really just don't get it at all. Of course it is all about semantics, and no it is not at all about physics, which you resolutely ignore. The "physical substance" of magnetic field lines could not be more irrelevant to the topic of magnetic reconnection. All physical phenomena are described by mathematical equations. The mathematical equations are used to predict what should be observed in a controlled laboratory experiment. Then we do the controlled laboratory experiment, and we compare what we see with what we predict. If what we see and what we predict agree, then we say that the mathematical description is "correct". If what we see and what we predict do not agree, then we say that the mathematical description is "wrong".

The mathematical description of the physical reconfiguration of the topology of the magnetic field uses field lines and merges them to produce a mathematical description of a physical phenomenon. Hence the title magnetic reconnection. Nobody except you thinks that this means that physical field lines physically merge. So your argument is purely words & their interpretation in reality (semantics) with no basis in science at all.

The key to understanding the relationship between any physical phenomenon and its mathematical description is the relationship between prediction and experiment. I have given you a considerable collection of controlled laboratory plasma physics experiments which produce results which consistently agree with predictions made from the mathematical theory of reconnection. So let us skip all the nonsense about the "physical reality" of the field lines, which nobody cares about anyway, and stick to the point: prediction and experiment are mutually consistent. If you are not prepared to show why specific experiments are wrong, or to dispute that specific experiments do not, as claimed, agree with magnetic reconnection theoretical predictions, then you have no argument based in empirical science. In that case we can all agree on the scientific basis of the physics of magnetic reconnection, and move on to other things.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Mainstream thinks that flux tubes are some mathematical entity with field lines(as it is defined) and is NOT created by electric current flow. And they dont start how they are created or what their purpose is.

EU says the flux tube( we can call them something else to please other people here) carries an electrical current. This is to equalize the charge between to bodies in a plasma.

If the mainstream will accept the simple fact that the only way to form a plasma tube(flux tube) is with an electric current, then this would be over.
This is basic physics, basic electrical engineering.

The only time that these basic rules dont seem to apply is when mainstreamers make posts.

Yes, I think I got that (or most of it anyway), but what does it have to do with plasma cosmology (PC, for short)?

Perhaps it would help if could give a definition of what you mean when you use the term ("plasma cosmology").

For example, is the resolution of Olbers' paradox something that is within the scope of PC? Or a quantitative explanation of the observed large-scale structure of the universe?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Hi Michael,

I'm not sure how much of this thread you read before you started posting to it, but there's a key part that I feel all readers need to understand, concerning your posts in this thread, namely: what is "Plasma Cosmology"?

In a broad sense it is the application of MHD theory to objects in space, the combination of GR and MHD theory.

Thanks.

In your view, then, does Plasma Cosmology (PC) include - by definition - study of the Earth's magnetosphere? the Moon? Saturn's rings?

Again, in your view, is there any distinction between PC and astronomy? PC and astrophysics? PC and space science? PC and the planetary sciences?

What role, if any, do other parts of physics play in PC? For example, atomic and nuclear physics.

If you do read the 'pre-Michael Mozina' parts of this thread, you'll see that a lot of the discussion could have been more focussed if this simple question had been answered by the (then) one and only proponent of Plasma Cosmology (Zeuzzz),

Sorry, but I'm not Zeuzzz and I refuse to be bound by his personal definition just because it suits you somehow. I'll stick with my definition thanks.

Indeed, that is true.

I will note, in passing, that your definition of PC seems to be somewhat different than that of Eric Lerner.