Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[tusenfem]

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

If that is all you can ask, sheesh, you have not understood anything, nitwit.

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

Why not put in the numbers, do some frakking work

Good analogy!

so, you agree that you made a stupid remark, thank you.

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

I would love to tell you, but your feeble mind would not understand, and quite possibly explode with all the interesting information I could give you.

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

Yah, and???????????????????????????????????????
Typical EU... behaviour, just drop a few words, and hope other people do the work for you.
Explain yourself, Sollyboy, show us what you are thinking, show us what you (mis)understand.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Per your request, Sol88 ...

[...]

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;

General comment: taken as a whole, the list comes across as confusing ... at many levels.

For example, many items have standard definitions, when used in one part of physics or another (sometimes the definitions are a little different), so the extent to which you have misunderstood a term depends on whether you are using a standard (physics) definition of it or not.

The biggie first!

Space is a PLASMA.

Not the most auspicious way to start, perhaps.

Do you intend this to be a definition?

Are you saying that you can replace the word "Space" with the word "a PLASMA" everywhere - in physics textbooks, in papers published in ApJ, ...?

In any case, I can't see how this could be anything other than a misunderstanding, and a biggie misunderstanding at that.

99% of Space is plasma.

Same as above

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

Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s

Plasma is an excellent conductor.

Given how badly you blew the biggie, I'd expect you misunderstand all these too ... even though they seem OK (as stated).

Plasma has known, though difficult mathematical properties.

As above, with the added wrinkle that I strongly suspect you have (hopelessly?) tangled theory and observation/phenomenology to boot

Plasma is self organizing.

Plasma can be “cellular”.

Plasma can be “filamentary”.

Given your posts in this thread to date, I'd bet you misunderstand all three.

However, taking the standard meaning of quotation marks (as an indicator of your explicit intention to use a non-standard meaning for the words between them), the last two are empty (so it would be impossible to misunderstand them).

Plasma we can observe in a lab/space

Plasma we can measure in a lab/space.

Do you mean "we can observe plasmas in a lab" and "we can observe plasmas in space" (sort of thing)? If so, then OK.

However, if we use your first point ("Space is a PLASMA"), then you have either a logical inconsistency, or a tautology ("Plasma we can observe in a PLASMA" - huh?)

Dust can become a Plasma.

What's with the capital ("P")?

If Ms Dust marries Mr Plasma, I guess she could become a Plasma ...

Magnetic fields require an electric current.

Bzzz - you don't even get to go on "Who wants to be a millionaire", much less win anything.

A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current.

OK, with the same caveat as above (I strongly suspect you are just quoting words you don't understand at all)

We observe magnetic fields everywhere.

Depends.

If you mean "we have observed", then obviously false; again, I think there lurks great confusion over the distinction between theory and observation just beneath the surface.

Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.

OK (same caveats as above)

Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines.

Lots of charges particle = PLASMA.

You blew your second chance at being selected to play ...

Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects comprise the electromagnetic spectrum.

Huh?

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

With the biggie wrong (the first two) in mind, it doesn't really much matter how many of the rest you got right or wrong ... if the foundations of your ideas are so confused (even illucid), it becomes a dead cert that a great deal of the rest of it will be wrong.

Sorry if this seems harsh to you, but I feel that you deserve a straight, honest answer.

 

[Reality Check]

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

You are still wrong: The correct statement is 99% of the visible matter in the observable universe is plasma.
This of course ignores the fact that only 4% of the observable universe is made of visible matter. There is the other 22% that is dark matter.

It also does not mean anything. By the same logic: 100% of matter in the the universe is matter. Thus any cosmological theory has to have gravity (which effects matter) dominant. Since PC theory does not have this, PC theory is wrong.

 

[sol invictus]

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

That's the 1% of space? Huh? And "gravity is a property" only of that 1%?? What in the world are you talking about?

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

You said, "Magnetic fields require an electric current". I gave you two counterexamples (and I have infinitely many more). I have no idea what your response was supposed to mean.

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

And?

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

No, that's more or less the opposite of what I said. You'll need to go back and re-read what I wrote.

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

That was my point. What you said before was wrong.

 

[Sol88]

whoaa there big boy, back the truck up!

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

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post

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.

If ya going to have a go Potzy, get ya facts straight first! I NEVER said MAY or MAY NOT follow a field line wrt a plasma filament inside a plasma globe!!!

And you are correct sunshine, we were NOT talking about FAC's I was stating the properties of a current flowing thru a plasma are, as you agreed,

Quote:
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.

Then I said If a field line was add to the equation you could call it a FAC, which you also agreeded to

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

Quote:
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 I am under NO misunderstanding on the hows and whys here, though you seem to be confused!

I mean you seem very slow today me 'ol mate, do you understand what the first picture in that post represents?

Replace the wire with a flow of electrons thru a plasma? Whats different than what a stated here,

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!

I'll reiterate they do show a very distinct property of ELECTRICITY flowing in a plasma!

Do you UNDERSTAND? Separate for a minute your FAC/Birkeland current rant and read the question?

If we add a field line to that same flow of electrons thru a plasma, very basically we call it a FAC!!! And all we have done is added a field line!!!

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.

On the money my friend! Is that not wot a Birkeland current does?

I realize there is more to, like that field line is connect to something as you suggest

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.

I understand the conditions well enough thanks!

don't you think there is some kind of condition on the magnetic field in order that it creates field aligned currents?

Like the ones that connect the Sun and the Earth!!!! Or Jupiter and Io?

You totally missed the point with your knicker twisting EU idiots don't know the difference between a plasma ball filament and a FAC rant. I made a clear distinction between a flow of electricity thru a plasma in general and it's characteristics!

You add a field line to a plasma ball filament and that's a field aligned current!

Or are you just blow'n smoke??

 

[Sol88]

Quote:

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

You said, "Magnetic fields require an electric current". I gave you two counterexamples (and I have infinitely many more). I have no idea what your response was supposed to mean.

I gave you a fact "Magnetic fields require an electric current" and you said my fridge magnet requires no electric current.

False. Where's the current in your refrigerator magnets?

How's that fridge magnet made to be magnetic? Dim wit

Typical answer by someone who has no understanding of what we are actually talking about to spout nonsensical rubbish like that!

Unless you are suggesting the magnetic fields we observe in the Universe are caused by your rouge fridge magnets. Are you?

 

[Sol88]

The biggie first!

Space is a PLASMA.
Not the most auspicious way to start, perhaps.

Do you intend this to be a definition?

Are you saying that you can replace the word "Space" with the word "a PLASMA" everywhere - in physics textbooks, in papers published in ApJ, ...?

In any case, I can't see how this could be anything other than a misunderstanding, and a biggie misunderstanding at that.

Space is a plasma! Fact or fiction?

We need this cleared up as a matter of urgency for this discussion to be able to continue in any scientific manner

From wiki

Intergalactic
Main articles: Intracluster medium and Cosmic microwave background

Intergalactic space is the physical space between galaxies. Generally free of dust and debris, intergalactic space is very close to a total vacuum. Some theories put the average density of the universe as the equivalent of one hydrogen atom per cubic meter.[12][13] The density of the universe, however, is clearly not uniform; it ranges from relatively high density in galaxies (including very high density in structures within galaxies, such as planets, stars, and black holes) to conditions in vast voids that have much lower density than the universe's average.

Surrounding and stretching between galaxies, there is a rarefied plasma[14][15] that is thought to possess a cosmic filamentary structure[16] and that is slightly denser than the average density in the universe. This material is called the intergalactic medium (IGM) and is mostly ionized hydrogen, i.e. a plasma consisting of equal numbers of electrons and protons. The IGM is thought to exist at a density of 10 to 100 times the average density of the universe (10 to 100 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter). It reaches densities as high as 1000 times the average density of the universe in rich clusters of galaxies.

The reason the IGM is thought to be mostly ionized gas is that its temperature is thought to be quite high by terrestrial standards (though some parts of it are only "warm" by astrophysical standards). As gas falls into the Intergalactic Medium from the voids, it heats up to temperatures of 105 K to 107 K, which is high enough for the bound electrons to escape from the hydrogen nuclei upon collisions. At these temperatures, it is called the Warm-Hot Intergalactic Medium (WHIM). Computer simulations indicate that on the order of half the atomic matter in the universe might exist in this warm-hot, rarefied state. When gas falls from the filamentary structures of the WHIM into the galaxy clusters at the intersections of the cosmic filaments, it can heat up even more, reaching temperatures of 108 K and above.

Wiki

Just a question of density then eh? The IGM (Space) is a plasma! Fair call boys?

Now the ISM!

From wiki

Interstellar medium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Interstellar" redirects here. For other uses, see Interstellar (disambiguation).
The distribution of ionized hydrogen (known by astronomers as H II from old spectroscopic terminology) in the parts of the Galactic interstellar medium visible from the Earth's northern hemisphere as observed with the Wisconsin Hα Mapper (Haffner et al. 2003).

In astronomy, the interstellar medium (or ISM) is the gas and dust that pervade interstellar space: the matter that exists between the stars within a galaxy. It fills interstellar space and blends smoothly into the surrounding intergalactic space. The energy that occupies the same volume, in the form of electromagnetic radiation, is the interstellar radiation field.

The interstellar medium consists of an extremely dilute (by terrestrial standards) mixture of ions, atoms, molecules, larger dust grains, cosmic rays, and (galactic) magnetic fields.[1] The matter consists of about 99% gas and 1% dust by mass. Densities range from a few thousand to a few hundred million particles per cubic meter with an average value in the Milky Way Galaxy of a million particles per cubic meter. As a result of primordial nucleosynthesis, the gas is roughly 89% hydrogen and 9% helium and 2% elements heavier than hydrogen or helium by number of nuclei, with additional heavier elements ("metals" in astronomical parlance) present in trace amounts.

The ISM plays a crucial role in astrophysics precisely because of its intermediate role between stellar and galactic scales. Stars form within the densest regions of the ISM, molecular clouds, and replenish the ISM with matter and energy through planetary nebulae, stellar winds, and supernovae. This interplay between stars and the ISM helps determine the rate at which a galaxy depletes its gaseous content, and therefore its lifespan of active star formation.

Though is a bit ambiguous on the gas thing, could we call the interstellar medium a plasma too Tusenfem?

And last but not least the Interplanetary medium

Again from wiki

Composition and physical characteristics

The interplanetary medium includes interplanetary dust, cosmic rays and hot plasma from the solar wind. The temperature of the interplanetary medium is approximately 100,000 K, and its density is very low at about 5 particles per cubic centimeter in the vicinity of the Earth; it decreases with increasing distance from the sun, in inverse proportion to the square of the distance.

The density is variable, and may be affected by magnetic fields and events such as coronal mass ejections. It may rise to as high as 100 particles/cm³.

Since the interplanetary medium is a plasma, it has the characteristics of a plasma, rather than a simple gas; for example, it carries with it the Sun's magnetic field, is highly electrically conductive (resulting in the Heliospheric current sheet), forms plasma double layers where it comes into contact with a planetary magnetosphere or at the heliopause, and exhibits filamentation (such as in aurora).

The plasma in the interplanetary medium is also responsible for the strength of the Sun's magnetic field at the orbit of the Earth being over 100 times greater than originally anticipated. If space were a vacuum, then the Sun's 10-4 tesla magnetic dipole field would reduce with the cube of the distance to about 10-11 tesla. But satellite observations show that it is about 100 times greater at around 10-9 tesla. Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) theory predicts that the motion of a conducting fluid (e.g. the interplanetary medium) in a magnetic field, induces electric currents which in turn generates magnetic fields, and in this respect it behaves like a MHD dynamo.

Could I interpret the IGM, ISM and the IPM as "space"?

Space is a Plasma!

Yes or no?

 

[Reality Check]

I gave you a fact "Magnetic fields require an electric current" and you said my fridge magnet requires no electric current.

How's that fridge magnet made to be magnetic? Dim wit

Typical answer by someone who has no understanding of what we are actually talking about to spout nonsensical rubbish like that!

Unless you are suggesting the magnetic fields we observe in the Universe are caused by your rouge fridge magnets. Are you?

Hi Sol88: I see you still have not worked out the function of the Quote button in this forum so I will answer:

Your "Magnetic fields require an electric current" fact is wrong.

Magnetic fields do not need electric currents to exist. Bar magnets are an example of ferromagnetism (I added the wikipedia link since you seem never to have heard of this). There are no electric currents in bar magnets, i.e. no flow of electrons.

You may have noticed the absence of a connection from your fridge magnet to any power plugs .

 

[Perpetual Student]

"Intergalactic space is the physical space between galaxies. Generally free of dust and debris, intergalactic space is very close to a total vacuum. Some theories put the average density of the universe as the equivalent of one hydrogen atom per cubic meter.[12][13] The density of the universe, however, is clearly not uniform; it ranges from relatively high density in galaxies (including very high density in structures within galaxies, such as planets, stars, and black holes) to conditions in vast voids that have much lower density than the universe's average."
"Surrounding and stretching between galaxies, there is a rarefied plasma[14][15] that is thought to possess a cosmic filamentary structure[16] and that is slightly denser than the average density in the universe. This material is called the intergalactic medium (IGM) and is mostly ionized hydrogen, i.e. a plasma consisting of equal numbers of electrons and protons. The IGM is thought to exist at a density of 10 to 100 times the average density of the universe (10 to 100 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter). It reaches densities as high as 1000 times the average density of the universe in rich clusters of galaxies."

Perhaps we are dealing with a reading comprehension problem here. The above clearly states that IGM is a plasma that fills intergalactic space. That would make space distinct from the plasma!

 

[Sol88]

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

Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s

Plasma is an excellent conductor.

Given how badly you blew the biggie, I'd expect you misunderstand all these too ... even though they seem OK (as stated).

DRD, WTF!!! Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

Plasma is self organizing.

Plasma can be “cellular”.

Plasma can be “filamentary”.

Given your posts in this thread to date, I'd bet you misunderstand all three.

However, taking the standard meaning of quotation marks (as an indicator of your explicit intention to use a non-standard meaning for the words between them), the last two are empty (so it would be impossible to misunderstand them).

Agree or disagree? I understand the meaning, do you?

Dust can become a Plasma.
What's with the capital ("P")?

If Ms Dust marries Mr Plasma, I guess she could become a Plasma ...

Ehh!!! Ms dust and Mr plasma, you been hittn the pipe ol mate?

Can dust become a plasma? DRD

A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current.

OK, with the same caveat as above (I strongly suspect you are just quoting words you don't understand at all)

Ok A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current. waiving caveat I do not understand, that is electricity!

Quote:

Magnetic fields require an electric current.

Bzzz - you don't even get to go on "Who wants to be a millionaire", much less win anything.

Buzz???? Like the one your gettn from your crack pipe?

Quote:

We observe magnetic fields everywhere.

Depends.

Depends on what? Do we or do we not detect magnetic fields in space?

and last off all

Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field.

OK (same caveats as above)

Ok, but with some sort of caveat as well!

So the only thing we did NOT agree on was the space is a plasma!


See post 1667

And put ya pipe down for a bit!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

It's a tight call here, do we have failures of logic (the agreed basis for our discussions) or of mis-aligned definitions?

Probably a bit of both; let's see ...

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

You said, "Magnetic fields require an electric current". I gave you two counterexamples (and I have infinitely many more). I have no idea what your response was supposed to mean.

I gave you a fact "Magnetic fields require an electric current" and you said my fridge magnet requires no electric current.

False. Where's the current in your refrigerator magnets?

How's that fridge magnet made to be magnetic? Dim wit

Typical answer by someone who has no understanding of what we are actually talking about to spout nonsensical rubbish like that!

Unless you are suggesting the magnetic fields we observe in the Universe are caused by your rouge fridge magnets. Are you?

We have another example of a logical contradiction:

The statement "Magnetic fields require an electric current" is absolute (there are no qualifiers).

So a single counter-example is sufficient to show the statement is false.

"There is no electric current in a fridge magnet" is just such a counter-example ... let's see how:

A fridge magnet generates (or has - we'll get to definitions later) a "magnetic field", right?

A fridge magnet has no electric currents, right?

So the magnetic field of a fridge magnet is an example of a magnetic field that does not require an electric current.

So it is a counter-example.

And so the logical inconsistency is demonstrated.

Now for definitions.

In si's world (and tusenfem's, and RC's, and ...), "magnetic field" and "electric current" (and many, many other terms) have specific, precise meanings (I referred to this in my post, responding to your request).

If you do not know, or share, those definitions, then it is likely (or almost certain) that situations will arise when you are 'talking past' si (and tusenfem, and RC, and ...).

Your response, I guess, shows this fairly clearly ... you had a very different definition of 'magnetic field' in mind than the standard, textbook definition that si used (and tusenfem, and RC, and DRD, and ...).

Do you see how the absence of an agreed definition of a key term can lead to misunderstanding?

(there's more, of course; it would seem - for example - that you had a very different expectation wrt 'require' than si did)

Here's one positive that you may wish to take away from this: when engaging in a discussion based on science, it is critically important to ensure that everyone is working from the same definitions of the key terms in that discussion.

Can you see how important this is?

Oh, and congrats on the improvement in using the quote tags, keep up the good work (you've still got some other aspects of use to learn ...)

 

[Reality Check]

Space is a plasma! Fact or fiction?

We need this cleared up as a matter of urgency for this discussion to be able to continue in any scientific manner

Wiki

Just a question of density then eh? The IGM (Space) is a plasma! Fair call boys?

This is easy: Space is not a plasma. Space is a volume. Plasma is an ionized gas with specific properties (not all ionized gas is a plasma).

The IGM (Space) is mostly ionized gas as the article states. It also contains neutral (not ionized) hydrogen which is definitely not a plasma. I do not know how much of the ionized gas in the IGM is plasma but I would not be surprised if all of the ionized gas is plasma.

A note about the article: As an EU proponent the "cosmic filamentary structure [16]" may excite you. This is an actual image of comic filaments! But...

• They are not the filaments predicted in EU, i.e. pairs of filaments 35 kpc wide with an average length of 350 Mpc. They are a spider web of interconnecting filaments that are not paired.
• The actual image is from a computer simulation by the Grand Challenge Cosmology Consortium which is simulating the universe using the standard model (no PC involved).

 

[Sol88]

Magnetic fields do not need electric currents to exist. Bar magnets are an example of ferromagnetism (I added the wikipedia link since you seem never to have heard of this). There are no electric currents in bar magnets, i.e. no flow of electrons.

Dude you are missing the point here, but as I'm a slow learner could you explain this statement from your quoted wiki page

All permanent magnets (materials that can be magnetized by an external magnetic field and which remain magnetized after the external field is removed) are either ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic, as are the metals that are noticeably attracted to them.

How is the external magnetic field made?

So drop the fridge magnet thing eh!!

We see no permanent magnets in space aka ferromagnatisim

 

[Sol88]

DRD

We have another example of a logical contradiction:

The statement "Magnetic fields require an electric current" is absolute (there are no qualifiers).

So a single counter-example is sufficient to show the statement is false.

"There is no electric current in a fridge magnet" is just such a counter-example ... let's see how:

A fridge magnet generates (or has - we'll get to definitions later) a "magnetic field", right?

A fridge magnet has no electric currents, right?

How is a fridge magnet made....with an electric current!

Your argument is a strawman!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Most of this falls under the "definitions are critical" comment I made in my last post; much of the rest comes from the 'biggie misunderstanding' re the first two items (I'll get to responding to your post on that in a bit).

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

Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s

Plasma is an excellent conductor.

Given how badly you blew the biggie, I'd expect you misunderstand all these too ... even though they seem OK (as stated).

DRD, WTF!!! Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

OK, this is as good a time as any to introduce something else that's important - spelling and punctuation.

Sure, most times minor spelling errors or punctuation mistakes don't matter.

However, there are plenty of times that they do; if only because they cause a breakdown in communication (i.e. the reader takes away a meaning quite different than the writer intended).

Perhaps the most important place where it is critical to get spelling and punctuation right is with definitions.

Now when it comes to 'plasma', you used three different forms: "PLASMA", "Plasma", and "plasma".

The standard convention has it that you therefore are referring to three different things, and it is via the standard convention that your readers will interpret what you write.

Now I expect that you did not intend such a distinction; you intended the three forms to refer to the same thing - did you?

Further, you wrote "Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s" (bold added).

Now I understood you to mean "Charge separation occurs in lab plasmas", but you could very easily have actually meant "plasma's", with the word, or words, this modifies omitted (e.g. "Charge separation occurs in [a] lab plasma’s [double layer]").

Further, given the very large number of spelling mistakes, errors of grammar and punctuation, use of idiosyncratic terms, etc, in your posts (to date), an intelligent reader would be well advised to keep several possible meanings in mind, pending your clarification (e.g. "plasmas" and "plasma's").

However, the real biggie - that stands in my way of either agreeing or disagreeing with your statements - is in the first two items.

You see, at the very least those two statements open the very real possibility that you have in mind a definition of "plasma" that is not only non-standard (i.e. not found in standard physics textbooks), but also so complex (or complicated, or confusing, or ...) as to make every other statement that you make - with 'plasma' or 'space' in it - equally complex (or worse).

Now I spent a lot of words saying what I had said the first time round (in a mere one line) ... but if I had to guess, I'd say my attempt at clarification very likely has failed, big time (i.e. you understand almost nothing of what I have written).

Thoughts?

Plasma is self organizing.

Plasma can be “cellular”.

Plasma can be “filamentary”.

Given your posts in this thread to date, I'd bet you misunderstand all three.

However, taking the standard meaning of quotation marks (as an indicator of your explicit intention to use a non-standard meaning for the words between them), the last two are empty (so it would be impossible to misunderstand them).

Agree or disagree? I understand the meaning, do you?

[...]

OK, let's be reduced to grunts; No.

Sol88, if I may offer some advice?

You're far too anxious to get to the main game.

However the evidence for deep, deep gulfs between you and everyone else (who has responded to your posts) is overwhelming ... miscommunication abounds.

So try to take it easy, step by step, definition by definition ... establish mutual understanding on a small thing, and build on that to get to mutual understanding on something a little bigger ... and so on.

Does that sound like a plan?

 

[Reality Check]

Dude you are missing the point here, but as I'm a slow learner could you explain this statement from your quoted wiki page

How is the external magnetic field made?

So drop the fridge magnet thing eh!!

We see no permanent magnets in space aka ferromagnatisim

The external magnetic field is made (as the article states) from the magnetic moments of the electrons in the atoms in the metal. These electrons are not in an electric current.

You have not learned about the Quote button yet so I have no idea what the topic in this sub-thread is. All I can see is that you were totally wrong when you stated that "Magnetic fields require an electric current".
ETA: A bar magnet is a counter-example because it does not require an electric current either in creation (which you did not mention) or operation. Thus bar magnets disprove your statement. Now if you had said "Some magnetic fields require an electric current" then you would have been right or probably right if you had said "Magnetic fields in plasma require a flow of charged particles". But you made an absolute statement about all magnetic fields.

You are right. We should drop this "fridge magnet thing" now that you know that magnetic fields do not need an electric current. It has nothing to do with the subject of the thread.

Perhaps you can give us what all other PC proponents have failed to do and give us the set of theories that make up PC.
For example:
What is the one and only theory that predicts the CMB in PC?
What does this theory give for the temperature of the CMB?
What does this theory give for the thermal spectrum of the CMB?
What does this theory give for the power spectrum of the CMB?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

DRD

We have another example of a logical contradiction:

The statement "Magnetic fields require an electric current" is absolute (there are no qualifiers).

So a single counter-example is sufficient to show the statement is false.

"There is no electric current in a fridge magnet" is just such a counter-example ... let's see how:

A fridge magnet generates (or has - we'll get to definitions later) a "magnetic field", right?

A fridge magnet has no electric currents, right?

How is a fridge magnet made....with an electric current!

Your argument is a strawman!

Sol88, please pay attention.

"Magnetic fields require an electric current" - that's what you wrote.

Does this statement contain, as an utterly inescapable component, the idea of 'creation'?

Perhaps it does to you ... but clearly to everyone else who has commented on what you wrote, it doesn't.

Now what do you take away from that? Well, if I were you, I'd take away that I had failed to communicate the essential 'AND THAT INCLUDES CREATION!' element (CAPS for emphasis, no other meaning intended)

But let's get back to definitions, shall we?

Remember what I said about the importance of having clarity and mutual understanding of the meanings - and definitions - of key terms?

Well, this is an excellent example of why that is important.

Oh, and I'm not making any argument ... all I'm trying to do is show you how what you write is all too easily understood - by readers (your intended audience) - in a very different way than you intended.

You see, there's a really, really important feature of absolute statements (such as yours, about magnetic fields requiring electric currents), and that is that any reader can interpret them with any qualifiers they wish, and they'd be right!

Btw, can you make a fridge magnet with another fridge magnet? with another magnet? Can you make a magnet (not necessarily a fridge magnet) just by letting some liquid iron (with appropriate impurities) cool slowly, out in the back paddock? That is, in the back paddock where there are no electric currents? (of course, I could go on, and on ... I could even end up with an extraordinarily contrived example ... it matters not a jot ... all I need is a single counter-example! ).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[snip]

We see no permanent magnets in space aka ferromagnatisim

You see, Sol88?

You did it again!

Can you see how (and why)?

HINT: your original statement was absolute, yet it seems you had 'space' in mind.

 

[Sol88]

DRD wrote

But let's get back to definitions, shall we?

Remember what I said about the importance of having clarity and mutual understanding of the meanings - and definitions - of key terms?

That's what I did and and the posters more or less agreed with me on my understanding and definitions of these subject. For clarification here is the list again.

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.

Then some one throws in the 'ol fridge magnet thing, again, and off we go on the see you don't know how magnets work, so how could you know anything else!

And the 'ol space is a volume filled with plasma/PLASMA/Plasma or any other PLASMA it's still a PLASMA/Plasma/plasma and space is still filled with it (PLASMA/Plasma/plasma)

This is my understanding of a PLASMA/Plasma/plasma

Definition of a plasma

Although a plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles, a definition can have three criteria:[8][9][10]

1. The plasma approximation: Charged particles must be close enough together that each particle influences many nearby charged particles, rather than just interacting with the closest particle (these collective effects are a distinguishing feature of a plasma). The plasma approximation is valid when the number of charge carriers within the sphere of influence (called the Debye sphere whose radius is the Debye screening length) of a particular particle are higher than unity to provide collective behaviour of the charged particles. The average number of particles in the Debye sphere is given by the plasma parameter, "Λ" (the Greek letter Lambda).
2. Bulk interactions: The Debye screening length (defined above) is short compared to the physical size of the plasma. This criterion means that interactions in the bulk of the plasma are more important than those at its edges, where boundary effects may take place. When this criterion is satisfied, the plasma is quasineutral.
3. Plasma frequency: The electron plasma frequency (measuring plasma oscillations of the electrons) is large compared to the electron-neutral collision frequency (measuring frequency of collisions between electrons and neutral particles). When this condition is valid, electrostatic interactions dominate over the processes of ordinary gas kinetics.

So does that give us

clarity and mutual understanding of the meanings - and definitions - of key terms?

Yes or no?

 

[Sol88]

And on the fridge magnet thing so it never rears it ugly head again in our discussions

reality check wrote:

Your "Magnetic fields require an electric current" fact is wrong.

Magnetic fields do not need electric currents to exist. Bar magnets are an example of ferromagnetism (I added the wikipedia link since you seem never to have heard of this). There are no electric currents in bar magnets, i.e. no flow of electrons.

Of which this statement is extremely important from the link

All permanent magnets (materials that can be magnetized by an external magnetic field and which remain magnetized after the external field is removed) are either ferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic, as are the metals that are noticeably attracted to them.

So the metal is subjected to a magnetic field to "make" it magnetic even AFTER the magnetic field is removed!

My original statement was

"Magnetic fields require an electric current"

Click on the hyperlink of external magnetic field and you get this

A magnetic field is a vector field which can exert a magnetic force on moving electric charges and on magnetic dipoles (such as permanent magnets). When placed in a magnetic field, magnetic dipoles tend to align their axes parallel to the magnetic field. Magnetic fields surround and are created by electric currents, magnetic dipoles, and changing electric fields. Magnetic fields also have their own energy, with an energy density proportional to the square of the field intensity.

Get it!!

wonder how all that remnant surface magnetism we see on Mars, our Moon...etc etc came about?

So for clarification of facts I said nothing about the special properties of ferromagnatisims ability to retain it's magnetism after the ELECTRIC CURRENT has been turned off!

As per "Electric currents make Magnetic fields" or "Magnetic fields require an electric current"

Your choice.

Your "Magnetic fields require an electric current" fact is wrong.

Magnetic fields do not need electric currents to exist.

or is that your final answer?

Are we sweet of the not all magnetic fields need an electric current (down a wire or thru a plasma!) to manifest?

Or ya going to call the logical inconsistencies contained in that whole red herring carry on sound scientific evidence against the EU/PC idea?