Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[tusenfem]

Perhaps you could help me? Aren't you a plasma physicist?

whatevah! look at post 1638, there is your answer.

 

[Sol88]

OK, I'm sorry Tusenfem, It's no use gettn narkie at each other, does nuthn for the thread, so truce ay!

Perhaps you could help me? Aren't you a plasma physicist?

No mate that's fair dink'm that won't achive anything, so I sorry I'm sure you get as frustrated as I do but lets keep it focused.

What say ye there bro?

Sol Invictus asked:

Zeuzzz or "Sol", can you enlighten us? Where did you first hear about EU/PC, and why did you become so obsessed with it? Are you interested in learning "mainstream" physics too? Or is it just that you draw some enjoyment from feeling like an iconoclast?

Anyway so I'll tells, I base my EU/PC assumptions on the following list, perhaps you could tell which one I misunderstand;

The biggie first!

Space is a PLASMA.

99% of Space is plasma.

Plasma contains + (positive) & - (Negative) charges.

Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s

Plasma is an excellent conductor.

Plasma has known, though difficult mathematical properties.

Plasma is self organizing.

Plasma can be “cellular”.

Plasma can be “filamentary”.

Plasma we can observe in a lab/space

Plasma we can measure in a lab/space.

Dust can become a Plasma.

Magnetic fields require an electric current.

A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current.

We observe magnetic fields everywhere.

Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.

Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines.

Lots of charges particle = PLASMA.

Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects comprise the electromagnetic spectrum.

That’s a few that rattle round this noggn, where am I going wrong?

If I've offended you, Tusenfem and you decline to answer I'll understand.

 

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

What happens when you pass en electric current thru a plasma? At this stage forget about field lines. Be it lightning or a plasma globe filament.

Nuthing!?!?!

Some or all of the following may happen, depending on the situation:

• plasma heating (basically always happens because of the resistivity of the plasma)
• instabilities (depending on the flow velocity of the electrons or ions carrying the current, instabilities may or may not arise)
• double layers (although this partly fits into the instabilities category, depending on the local plasma density or on the flow velocity of the particle carrying the current, see instabilities, double layers may or may not be created)
• filamentation (depending on the strength of the current and on the properties of the plasma filamentation may or may not occur)

That is basically all that can happen in a plasma. Unless you mean an only partially ionized plasma, then you can get ionization too.

No that's how I understand it as well, so where are we going wrong?

Ok lets add field lines, perhaps I have some confusion in that department? Same deal except the current has to follow a field line.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

We need to be clear about this, so let's put it to bed before moving on, shall we?

Do you accept that my post was limited to illustrating a logical inconsistency?

If you don't accept that, then we need to work out why ... because that's what I intended.

No I do not, your post wrt this subject is very limited!

Clear on what exactly? logical inconsistencies?

OK, so let's try it once again, a little bit slower this time.

Suppose we have this statement:

JoeSixpack was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results.

Suppose we are wish to show that it is false.

There are many ways we could do that.

One way would be to find a counter-example.

This is particularly easy in this case, because the statement is absolute ... there are no qualifiers, nothing limiting the scope of the claim.

If we could find some results of JoeSixpack that have been published, then we would have just such a counter-example.

Note that we can replace "JoeSixpack" with "tusenfem", or "Zeuzzz", or "Sol88", or "DeiRenDopa", or .... "Arp"; in each case a single example of the publication of that person's results would show the statement to be false.

Now suppose we discover that SevenpackSam wrote these two statements:

A) JoeSixpack was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results.

B) "On the nature of shoes, ships, and sealing wax" is a paper, by JoeSixpack, that was published yesterday.

This is a logical inconsistency.

Note that the logical inconsistency is independent of SevenpackSam ... it could be tusenfem who wrote the two statements, or Zeuzzz, or Sol88, or DeiRenDopa; all that is required is the two statements themselves.

Do you understand that this is a logical inconsistency?

Now suppose we find that "Sol88" presents these two statements:

A) Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results.

B) "The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319" is a paper, by Arp, that was published in ApJ in 2005.

Do you acknowledge that this is a logical inconsistency?

That I gave a link to Arp's work after I said he was denied telescope time?

I hope the above clarifies what I am pointing out; if it doesn't, please say so and I'll try again to make it clear.

Sol88, we need to come to agreement on this, because it is the only mutually agreed basis we have, so far, for any discussion here.

This is your beef against the merits of the EU/PC?

To be clear: I am trying to establish an agreed basis for having a discussion on this topic; I have not even begun to look at "EU/PC", whatever that might be.

For avoidance of doubt here are all three papers I could dig up in chronological order on H.Arp after he was denied Telescope time

[...]

Interesting.

You may be interested to know that my ~30s search using ADS turned up 18 published papers by Arp, in the period 1998-2009, along with ten conference or workshop presentations.

You may also be interested to know that this rate of publication makes Arp a quite active astronomer.

 

[sol invictus]

Say whaaa? Tripper!

Do you know what's being discussed here?

If you mean, "do you understand my posts", the answer is no. I find I often find it difficult to understand wrong statements.

If you mean, "do you understand the physics being discussed in this thread", the answer is a (qualified) yes.

The first image you posted shows magnetic field lines circling around a current. They are perpendicular to the current - the opposite of a Birkeland current - and the picture was probably intended to illustrate the B fields due to current flowing down a wire surrounded by vacuum.

Space is a PLASMA.

99% of Space is plasma.

I love it when people contradict themselves in two consecutive statements...

Plasma contains + (positive) & - (Negative) charges.

Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s

Plasma is an excellent conductor.

Plasma has known, though difficult mathematical properties.

True.

Plasma is self organizing.

Hmm...

Plasma can be “cellular”.

Plasma can be “filamentary”.

Plasma we can observe in a lab/space

Plasma we can measure in a lab/space.

Dust can become a Plasma.

Yes, OK.

Magnetic fields require an electric current.

False. Where's the current in your refrigerator magnets? Where's the current for the B fields in the radio waves broadcast in 2005 that are currently arriving at Alpha Centauri?

A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current.

We observe magnetic fields everywhere.

Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.

True.

Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines.

False. Charged particles experience zero magnetic force if they follow B field lines. If they don't, they feel a force transverse to their motion that causes them to travel along a curved path.

Lots of charges particle = PLASMA.

False. All matter contains charged particles - and at much higher density than most plasmas.

Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects comprise the electromagnetic spectrum.

I suppose that's true in some vague sense, but it's equally true if you remove the "Plasma/".

 

[tusenfem]

N

1. Lots of charges particle = PLASMA.
2. Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects comprise the electromagnetic spectrum.

where am I going wrong?

Ah, let's see, start at the end? Here you are wrong:

1. Just lots of charged particles is not a plasma
2. Effects are not an electromagnetic spectrum, a spectrum is a specific word used in physics

and then the greatest weirdness: Space is a PLASMA

Space is space and is not a plasma.

 

[tusenfem]

Ok lets add field lines, perhaps I have some confusion in that department? Same deal except the current has to follow a field line.

Add field lines (what kind of field lines? I assume magnetic).

The current follows a field line, which means that the electrons at least are magnetized.

The only thing that needs to be added than is that there will be effects of magnetic pressure in the possible instabilities.

 

[Sol88]

DRD

Do you acknowledge that this is a logical inconsistency?

Quote:

That I gave a link to Arp's work after I said he was denied telescope time?
I hope the above clarifies what I am pointing out; if it doesn't, please say so and I'll try again to make it clear.

Sol88, we need to come to agreement on this, because it is the only mutually agreed basis we have, so far, for any discussion here.

All right I may have made a cock up, As far as I knew it was telescope time.

But are you saying he was denied puplication rights as well?

Now suppose we find that "Sol88" presents these two statements:

A) Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results.

B) "The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319" is a paper, by Arp, that was published in ApJ in 2005.

 

[Sol88]

Cool

tusenfem
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ok lets add field lines, perhaps I have some confusion in that department? Same deal except the current has to follow a field line.
Add field lines (what kind of field lines? I assume magnetic).

The current follows a field line, which means that the electrons at least are magnetized.

The only thing that needs to be added than is that there will be effects of magnetic pressure in the possible instabilities

Could that be called a Birkeland current?

 

[Sol88]

Ah, let's see, start at the end? Here you are wrong:

1. Just lots of charged particles is not a plasma
2. Effects are not an electromagnetic spectrum, a spectrum is a specific word used in physics

and then the greatest weirdness: Space is a PLASMA

Space is space and is not a plasma.

Ok now we are getting somewhere, this is were I'm getting confused!

Say we have a "cloud" of charged particle a light year cubed? whats that called?

Sorry in effects I meant to say, when plasma/electricity and magnetic fields DO something we see the effects in the electromagnetic spectrum.

What would I see in the EM spectrum of a current following a magnetic field line thru a plasma?

How many charged particle per cubic cm would constitute a plasma?

 

[tusenfem]

Could that be called a Birkeland current?

Not in my definition. I am for the strict definition that Birkeland currents are a specific kind of field aligned currents in the Earth's magnetosphere. For all the rest of field aligned currents I use the term "field aligned currents." Only grudgingly I added the extended definition into the Wiki page.

 

[tusenfem]

Say we have a "cloud" of charged particle a light year cubed? whats that called?

That would just be cloud of ionized gas. There are special conditions for an ionized gas to be called a plasma. From Plasma physics for dummies (a BAUT thread):

There are three criteria that a plasma needs to obey, which will be stated here, but some of the defintions will first get clear in the following sections.

DeBye shielding
By looking at the Coulomb potential of a charge $q$, which is placed in a ``plasma'' and at the way the charge carriers behave because of this extra charges, it is found that the field of this extra charge gets shielded off by the original charge carriers. This happens over distance of the DeBye length $\lambda_{\rm D}$. In order for a plasma to be quasineutral, the physical dimension of the system, $L$, must be large compared to $\lambda_{\rm D}$:

\lambda_{\rm D} << L,

otherwise there is not enough space for the collective shielding effect to occur, and we have a simple ionized gas. This requirement is often called the first plasma criterion.

Plasma Parameter
This has to do with the density of the plasma and the DeBye length. Since the shielding effect is the result of the collective behaviour inside a DeBye sphere of radius $\lambda_{\rm D}$, it is necessary that this sphere contains enough particles. The number of particles inside a DeBye sphere is $(4/3)\pi n_{\rm e} \lambda_{\rm D}^3$. The term $n_{\rm e} \lambda_{\rm D}^3$ is often called the plasma parameter, $\Lambda$, and the second criterion for a plasma reads:

\Lambda = n_{\rm e} \lambda_{\rm D}^3 >> 1.

The mean potential energy of a particle due to its nearest neighbour, which is inversely proportional to the mean interparticle distance, and thus proportional to $n_{\rm e}^{1/3}$, must be much smaller than its mean energy,
$k_{\rm B} T_{\rm e}$.
\item Plasma Frequency \\
A typical oscillation of the plasma happens when both species (i.e.\ the positive and the negative) are moved wrt. eachother. The equations of motion for the distributions will show that the plasma starts oscillating {\it collectively} around the zero point at the so called plasma frequency:

\omega_{\rm p} = \sqrt{\frac{n_{\rm e} e^2}{m_{\rm e} \epsilon_0}}

Some plasmas, like the Earth's ionosphere, are not fully ionized. Here we have a substantial number of neutral particles and if the charged particles collide too often with neutrals, the electrons will be forced into equilibrium with the neutrals and the medium does not behave as a plasma anymore, but simply like a neutral gas. For the electrons to remain unaffected by collisions with neutrals, the average time between two electron-neutral collisions, tn, must be larger that the reciprocal of the plasma frequency:

\omega_{\rm p} \tau_{\rm n} >> 1

This is the third criterion for an ionized medium to behave as a plasma.

Then, and only then, can you claim to talk about a plasma.

Sorry in effects I meant to say, when plasma/electricity and magnetic fields DO something we see the effects in the electromagnetic spectrum.

yeah, but that is like saying if I turn the switch I see light. it does not mean anything.

What would I see in the EM spectrum of a current following a magnetic field line thru a plasma?

NOTHING! a current flowing though a plasma does not necessarily need to show a signature.

The least the current will do is heat the plasma, so I guess you will at least see a change in the emission of the plasma, in whatever way the plasma is emitting its thermal signature.

Then again, it can become wild and all kinds of plasma waves may be excited.

How many charged particle per cubic cm would constitute a plasma?

Read above, it does not just depend on how many particles or how big, three requirements are set for something to be called a plasma.

 

[Sol88]

Tusenfem wrote:

I fail to see why the discharges in a plasma ball are equivalent to Birkeland currents.
These discharges are equivalent to lightning, they do not flow along the magnetic field, they just search the path of least resistance inside the ball and discharge.
It is a complete mystery to me that proponents of EU don't understand how a plasma ball works.

Then I added:

It's no mystery!

Though they may not be following a magnetic field line as per magnetosphere/steller/Cosmic/Galactic understanding, they do show a very distinct property of ELECTRICITY flowing in a plasma!

Added few pics starting with the basics see POST 1616

Sol invictus jumped in and said this

You're wrong.

A Birkeland current is a current that flows along magnetic field lines. The image you posted shows precisely the opposite (and at least the first image has nothing to do with plasma, by the way).

Maybe you did not see this

Now insert a field line going FROM somewhere TO somewhere and that is my understanding of a Birkeland current, on any scale!

Though you did later admit

The first image you posted shows magnetic field lines circling around a current. They are perpendicular to the current - the opposite of a Birkeland current - and the picture was probably intended to illustrate the B fields due to current flowing down a wire surrounded by vacuum

.Yes that was it's purpose, as it does when any current flows. I do realize the Birkeland current also has one "down the guts" so to speak. That's the one the electron are spiraling around, no?

Now insert a field line going FROM somewhere TO somewhere and that is my understanding of a Birkeland current, on any scale! [/QUOTE]

Which was clarified by Tusenfem in later posts

What happens when you pass en electric current thru a plasma? At this stage forget about field lines. Be it lightning or a plasma globe filament.
Nuthing!?!?!

Some or all of the following may happen, depending on the situation:

* plasma heating (basically always happens because of the resistivity of the plasma)
* instabilities (depending on the flow velocity of the electrons or ions carrying the current, instabilities may or may not arise)
* double layers (although this partly fits into the instabilities category, depending on the local plasma density or on the flow velocity of the particle carrying the current, see instabilities, double layers may or may not be created)
* filamentation (depending on the strength of the current and on the properties of the plasma filamentation may or may not occur)


That is basically all that can happen in a plasma. Unless you mean an only partially ionized plasma, then you can get ionization too.

I did forget to mention the plasma ball gets hot when you put your full palm on it, uncomfortably so actually! And I in no way suggested the plasma ball was powerful enough to form double layers, though I spose you crank up the power and scale the plasma ball and it would? Fair call?

Then we added some MAGNETIC field lines on Tusenfem wrote:

tusenfem
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Ok lets add field lines, perhaps I have some confusion in that department? Same deal except the current has to follow a field line.
Add field lines (what kind of field lines? I assume magnetic).

The current follows a field line, which means that the electrons at least are magnetized.

The only thing that needs to be added than is that there will be effects of magnetic pressure in the possible instabilities.

So then begrudgingly we call them Birkeland currents' or to give no credit were credits due "field aligned current" FAC's

tusenfem
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Could that be called a Birkeland current?
Not in my definition. I am for the strict definition that Birkeland currents are a specific kind of field aligned currents in the Earth's magnetosphere. For all the rest of field aligned currents I use the term "field aligned currents." Only grudgingly I added the extended definition into the Wiki page.

So where did that argument take us?

 

[Sol88]

That would just be cloud of ionized gas. There are special conditions for an ionized gas to be called a plasma. From Plasma physics for dummies (a BAUT thread):

Originally Posted by tusenfem
There are three criteria that a plasma needs to obey, which will be stated here, but some of the defintions will first get clear in the following sections.

DeBye shielding
By looking at the Coulomb potential of a charge $q$, which is placed in a ``plasma'' and at the way the charge carriers behave because of this extra charges, it is found that the field of this extra charge gets shielded off by the original charge carriers. This happens over distance of the DeBye length $\lambda_{\rm D}$. In order for a plasma to be quasineutral, the physical dimension of the system, $L$, must be large compared to $\lambda_{\rm D}$:

\lambda_{\rm D} << L,

otherwise there is not enough space for the collective shielding effect to occur, and we have a simple ionized gas. This requirement is often called the first plasma criterion.

Plasma Parameter
This has to do with the density of the plasma and the DeBye length. Since the shielding effect is the result of the collective behaviour inside a DeBye sphere of radius $\lambda_{\rm D}$, it is necessary that this sphere contains enough particles. The number of particles inside a DeBye sphere is $(4/3)\pi n_{\rm e} \lambda_{\rm D}^3$. The term $n_{\rm e} \lambda_{\rm D}^3$ is often called the plasma parameter, $\Lambda$, and the second criterion for a plasma reads:

\Lambda = n_{\rm e} \lambda_{\rm D}^3 >> 1.

The mean potential energy of a particle due to its nearest neighbour, which is inversely proportional to the mean interparticle distance, and thus proportional to $n_{\rm e}^{1/3}$, must be much smaller than its mean energy,
$k_{\rm B} T_{\rm e}$.
\item Plasma Frequency \\
A typical oscillation of the plasma happens when both species (i.e.\ the positive and the negative) are moved wrt. eachother. The equations of motion for the distributions will show that the plasma starts oscillating {\it collectively} around the zero point at the so called plasma frequency:

\omega_{\rm p} = \sqrt{\frac{n_{\rm e} e^2}{m_{\rm e} \epsilon_0}}

Some plasmas, like the Earth's ionosphere, are not fully ionized. Here we have a substantial number of neutral particles and if the charged particles collide too often with neutrals, the electrons will be forced into equilibrium with the neutrals and the medium does not behave as a plasma anymore, but simply like a neutral gas. For the electrons to remain unaffected by collisions with neutrals, the average time between two electron-neutral collisions, tn, must be larger that the reciprocal of the plasma frequency:

\omega_{\rm p} \tau_{\rm n} >> 1

This is the third criterion for an ionized medium to behave as a plasma.
Then, and only then, can you claim to talk about a plasma.

So what numbers come up when you run them bad boys thru your abacus?

How many charged particle per cubic cm would constitute a plasma?

Read above, it does not just depend on how many particles or how big, three requirements are set for something to be called a plasma.

Could space be considered on the whole, a tenuous plasma using the above criterion?

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Sorry in effects I meant to say, when plasma/electricity and magnetic fields DO something we see the effects in the electromagnetic spectrum.

yeah, but that is like saying if I turn the switch I see light. it does not mean anything.

Good analogy!

What would I see in the EM spectrum of a current following a magnetic field line thru a plasma?

NOTHING! a current flowing though a plasma does not necessarily need to show a signature.

The least the current will do is heat the plasma, so I guess you will at least see a change in the emission of the plasma, in whatever way the plasma is emitting its thermal signature.

Then again, it can become wild and all kinds of plasma waves may be excited.

Wild and excited, whoo tell me more! Sorry just seems a left field statement, but I do understand what you mean

I'm thinking along the lines of electrons spiraling along a field line.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Sol88,

May I ask you to spend some time on learning how to quote others' posts correctly?

The way you've been doing it can - and very likely has - resulted in mistakes such as attributing some text to one JREF Forum member when it was actually posted by another.

Thank you in advance.

(I've edited your post - the parts where you quote - to reflect who actually wrote what)

DRD

Do you acknowledge that this is a logical inconsistency?

That I gave a link to Arp's work after I said he was denied telescope time?

I hope the above clarifies what I am pointing out; if it doesn't, please say so and I'll try again to make it clear.

Sol88, we need to come to agreement on this, because it is the only mutually agreed basis we have, so far, for any discussion here.

All right I may have made a cock up, As far as I knew it was telescope time.

Thanks for that.

However, it is still not clear to me that you have understood what a logical inconsistency (of this type) is, nor that you understand my example.

For example, you seem to be saying that you assumed "results" could only obtained by someone (JoeSixpack say) through that person's (JoeSixpack's) own, dedicated, use of telescope time.

Is that so? Did you make that assumption?

In any case, shall I go over what this kind of logical inconsistency is, once more?

I really, really need you to acknowledge that you understand this (and please, this has nothing to do with Arp) before I can continue.

But are you saying he was denied puplication rights as well?

Now suppose we find that "Sol88" presents these two statements:

A) Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results.

B) "The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319" is a paper, by Arp, that was published in ApJ in 2005.

I have made no statement - in my posts on this kind of logical inconsistency - on the publication rights, or telescope time, of anyone.

The logical inconsistency comes in a pair of posts written by a "Sol88"; shall I quote them for you, and provide links?

 

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Space is a PLASMA.

99% of Space is plasma.
I love it when people contradict themselves in two consecutive statements..

Ok ok the 1% is solid matter, gas, or liquid the substance of which gravity IS a property.

Quote:

Magnetic fields require an electric current

.
False. Where's the current in your refrigerator magnets? Where's the current for the B fields in the radio waves broadcast in 2005 that are currently arriving at Alpha Centauri?

Classic What bloody fridge magnet? Ever seen one is the cosmos?

And in case you've never done it, this experiment you can do at home Making a permanent magnet

Quote:

Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines.

False. Charged particles experience zero magnetic force if they follow B field lines. If they don't, they feel a force transverse to their motion that causes them to travel along a curved path.

So whats a Birkeland current then? Curved path you say, like synchrotron?

Quote:

Lots of charges particle = PLASMA.

False. All matter contains charged particles - and at much higher density than most plasmas.

Not all matter is a plasma though is it? See Tusenfem's mathematical definition of a plasma.

But the rest we agree on then? Progress!!! we are making some now

 

[Sol88]

The logical inconsistency comes in a pair of posts written by a "Sol88"; shall I quote them for you, and provide links?

Sure why not I've been to busy seeing if I'm a total nutter or not, so far so good though!!

Perhaps you'd care to me here and run over some of the points I've listed in post 1642 maybe you think they may have some bearing on this thread.

Am I in trouble for my illogical consistencies or something Miss?

 

[edd]

Ok ok the 1% is solid matter, gas, or liquid the substance of which gravity IS a property.

I'm confused. Are you meaning to imply that plasma does not exert a gravitational pull?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The logical inconsistency comes in a pair of posts written by a "Sol88"; shall I quote them for you, and provide links?

Sure why not I've been to busy seeing if I'm a total nutter or not, so far so good though!!

In post#1511, you quoted this (extract): "Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results"

In post #1545, you gave a link to a paper published in 2005; the paper has "H. Arp³" as an author, with ³ being "Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, 85741 Garching, Germany" (so it's the one and only, not merely someone with the same name).

A pretty open and shut example of a logical inconsistency, right?

Perhaps you'd care to me here and run over some of the points I've listed in post 1642 maybe you think they may have some bearing on this thread.

Sure thing ... in a later post ...

Am I in trouble for my illogical consistencies or something Miss?

We need an agreed basis for a discussion, as I proposed earlier.

You accepted that need, and agreed that logic should be at least one aspect of that basis.

Next: can we take the "conspiracy card" off the table and out of play, permanently, or not? I would like a clear, unambiguous reply if you please.

 

[tusenfem]

oh Sol, to quote "the Fonz": Sit on it.

Tusenfem wrote: I fail to see why the discharges in a plasma ball are equivalent to Birkeland currents.

Then I added:
Though they may not be following a magnetic field line as per magnetosphere/steller/Cosmic/Galactic understanding, they do show a very distinct property of ELECTRICITY flowing in a plasma!

Sol, you still cannot get it into your tiny brain, obviously. A Birkeland current (one of the pivotal entities in EU/EC/ES/PU/PC, henceforth EU...) is a FIELD ALIGNED CURRENT, so your comment that the discharge in a plasma ball may or may not follow a magnetic field line, means you are not talking about field alignend currents. I know it is a difficult theme, if the current follows the magnetic field it is a birkeland current, if the current does not follow the magnetic field it is not a birkeland current. Very difficult to keep that straight.

The discharges show that electrical phenomena can occur in a plasma.

Added few pics starting with the basics see POST 1616

And useless pics they were, too. One of a current in a wire with the magnetic field around it, one pic of a bow shock, mmmmmmm

Sol invictus jumped in and said this: A Birkeland current is a current that flows along magnetic field lines.

Maybe you did not see this:Now insert a field line going FROM somewhere TO somewhere and that is my understanding of a Birkeland current, on any scale!

Just putting in a magnetic field does not do anything, don't you think there is some kind of condition on the magnetic field in order that it creates field aligned currents? Your understanding of Birkeland currents is, at the least, flawed.

Though you did later admit .Yes that was it's purpose, as it does when any current flows. I do realize the Birkeland current also has one "down the guts" so to speak. That's the one the electron are spiraling around, no?

Sol Invictus did not admid anything, you are making things up here.
dunno what you mean with "one down the guts" I guess you mean that you think you believe that it might be that Birkeland currents are flowing along the magnetic field, or someting of the kind.

Now insert a field line going FROM somewhere TO somewhere and that is my understanding of a Birkeland current, on any scale!

So once more, do you think that putting a field line in creates a Birkeland current? Are there any conditions on the magnetic field?

Which was clarified by Tusenfem in later posts

Tusenfem's post being about what can happen when a current flows through a plasma did not clarify anything about the discussion above. You are making things up as they come along.

I did forget to mention the plasma ball gets hot when you put your full palm on it, uncomfortably so actually! And I in no way suggested the plasma ball was powerful enough to form double layers, though I spose you crank up the power and scale the plasma ball and it would? Fair call?

Sure your hand gets warm, do you know why? Because a current flows from the glass ball through your hand and body to ground. That is why your hand heats up, or do you have another reason why?

I don't know if DLs form in the discharges. It could actually well be that the form. Do you know how DLs are created? I suppose you do, because next to Birkeland currents these are the other pinnacle of EU... Double layers can do anything in EU...

Then we added some MAGNETIC field lines on Tusenfem wrote:The only thing that needs to be added than is that there will be effects of magnetic pressure in the possible instabilities.

So, here I gave away the answer a bit, about the condition on the magnetic field and field aligned currents, did you see that Sol88? (I did not copy the answer here in this post tho, you have to search for yourself). And actually what are your concluding now from this "summary"

So then begrudgingly we call them Birkeland currents' or to give no credit were credits due "field aligned current" FAC's

This is not a question about "givin credit where credit is due"! Birkeland currents are a specific kind of current in a planetary magnetosphere, which was proposed by Kristian Birkeland at the beginning of the 20th century and which were shown to exist in the early 1960s by satellite measurements. Any other use of the term Birkeland current is misleading in my opinion, it's just field aligned currents.

So where did that argument take us?

Well, this "summary" shows us that you have learned nothing, that you have no idea about plasmas and magnetic fields. Which is kind of strange because as such a big proponent of EU... you should know everything about plasmas. Did you ever read a book on plasma physics, or did you just skim over the wiki pages? Go to a library and read a book Sol88, for all I care you can read the old and new testament of EU, Alfvén's Cosmic Plasma and Alfvén & Fälthammar's Cosmic Electrodynamics. Maybe you will learn from the oldies, I think anything we try to teach you is useless.