Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[sol invictus]

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

Which it doesn't. How many times do you have to be told that?

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

If I'm a dim wit, you're a vegetable.

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

That's one way to magnetize a ferromagnet, yes. But it also happens spontaneously at low temperatures. If you knew any physics at all, you'd know that that's is one of the most basic examples of a second-order phase transition, studied in every statistical physics course.

My original statement was "Magnetic fields require an electric current".

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

Magnetic fields surround and are created by electric currents, magnetic dipoles, and changing electric fields.

Get it!!

How stupid is it possible to be? Did you not read past the first comma in that sentence? Did you not notice that there are two other possibilities - which by the way are precisely the examples I gave you many posts back, as you would recognize if you had any clue what you're talking about?

You're making yourself look really, really, really dumb....

 

[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! And I consead DRD it may have been to broad a generalization to use "Magnetic fields require an electric current" in this context, but for arguments sake, I'm I correct?

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 on the, not all magnetic fields need an electric current (either 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?

 

[Zeuzzz]

I'm a dim wit

Couldn't have put it better myself.



* Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not?

Noooooooooot.

* Plasma Cosmology - Does it have less evidence and funding than the Big Bang?

Yeeeeeeeees.

* Does this make it correct?

Dont ask me. Ask its proponents. Lerner/Peratt being the obvious ones. I wonder if anyone here has bothered to actually talk to them or ask them for their recent opinions on the status of plasma cosmology? Their emails are easily found online, and I'm sure they would reply to any queries, or even sign up here to discuss anything if asked.

 

[Sol88]

SI wrote:

That's one way to magnetize a ferromagnet, yes. But it also happens spontaneously at low temperatures. If you knew any physics at all, you'd know that that's is one of the most basic examples of a second-order phase transition, studied in every statistical physics course.

Happen often does it?

Why on Earth would that be relevant, bar the words magnetism, in a discussion on the flow of electrons thru a plasma and that it generates a magnetic field!! I mean Reality check wrote:

Bar magnets are an example of ferromagnetism

Are we also clear on the flow of charged particles thru a plasma is an electric current and it generates magnetic fields, among other more exotic stuff?

Which, Tusenfems, has stated generates certain characteristics, as per standard scientific method.

 

[sol invictus]

Happen often does it?

Yes, all the time.

And of course refrigerator magnets are only one of a huge number of examples. Just about every elementary particle has an intrinsic magnetic dipole moment. No electric current in sight.

Why on Earth would that be relevant, bar the words magnetism, in a discussion on the flow of electrons thru a plasma and that it generates a magnetic field!!

You started this, not I. You gave a list of "facts" about physics. As I pointed out many of them were wrong, and you decided to pursue this one for some reason. In the process, you've revealed your near-total ignorance of physics (as if it wasn't already obvious), your inability to read or comprehend what you've read, and generally made yourself look like an utter buffoon (my favorite is when you quoted a sentence which gave several examples of how to generate B fields other than electric currents.... as evidence that the only way to generate B fields is with electric currents - and then insulted other posters for their stupidity).

 

[Sol88]

Looking at the list again we see some common ground emerging;

Space is a PLASMA. MAYBE

99% of Space is plasma. MAYBE

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

Charge separation occurs in lab plasma’s YES

Plasma is an excellent conductor. YES

Plasma has known, though difficult mathematical properties. YES

Plasma is self organizing. MAYBE

Plasma can be “cellular”. YES

Plasma can be “filamentary”. YES

Plasma we can observe in a lab/space YES

Plasma we can measure in a lab/space. YES

Dust can become a Plasma. YES

Magnetic fields require an electric current. YES (wrt electron flow)

A flow of like charged particles constitutes an electric current. YES

We observe magnetic fields everywhere. MAYBE

Charged particles are accelerated in an electric field. YES

Charged particles Follow magnetic field lines. YES in general

Lots of charges particle = PLASMA. NO it's a cloud of charged particles.

Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects comprise the electromagnetic spectrum.

I later tried to clear that statement up, what I tried to convey is when any (Plasma/Electricity/Magnetic effects) all or some of those three do something we can detect it in the EM spectrum.
which was a YES as well.

I'd like to progress this thread to it's logical conclusion in a timely fashion and to make things easy, which ones are not correct?

This is to aid me 'ol cobber DRD get a handle on the definitions, terms, spelling and grammar problems I has got?

Bearing in mind the whole ferro-magnatisim, FAC's and plasma globe filament episode.

While I admit a few of those points may not have been explained well enough before posting, leaving a little to much Grey area. If you read the list and you pick any you think I've misunderstood, I'd be more than happy to show my line of reasoning!

 

[Sol88]

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! And I consead DRD it may have been to broad a generalization to use "Magnetic fields require an electric current" in this context, but for arguments sake, I'm I correct?

DRD did you read this?

Might clear up some confusion!

 

[Tim Thompson]

I'd like to progress this thread to it's logical conclusion in a timely fashion and to make things easy, which ones are not correct?

In that case you are going about it all wrong, and your list only makes matters more confusing, not less. Electromagnetism, electric currents, plasmas and plasma physics are all deeply involved in the standard, mainstream physics and cosmology, just as they are in your alternate view.

So what you should really be doing is pointing out observational evidence which will differentiate between the claims of plasma cosmology, electric universe, and standard cosmology. So what if the universe is mostly plasma, standard astrophysics and cosmology already take that into account in great detail. How does the treatment differ in your view from the mainstream? What specific observed phenomena are wrongly explained in the mainstream view, but correctly explained in your view? And try to keep the list short, or you just add to the confusion.

If you really want to progress to a conclusion, start at the top. Pick the one observed phenomenon that you think is the strongest evidence that verifies your view, and at the same time the strongest evidence that falsifies mainstream astrophysics and cosmology.

 

[Sol88]

Tim T wrote:

In that case you are going about it all wrong, and your list only makes matters more confusing, not less. Electromagnetism, electric currents, plasmas and plasma physics are all deeply involved in the standard, mainstream physics and cosmology, just as they are in your alternate view.

Is the list correct Tim? Without agreement on those FACTS I have no theory

Any errors I've made?

If you really want to progress to a conclusion, start at the top. Pick the one observed phenomenon that you think is the strongest evidence that verifies your view, and at the same time the strongest evidence that falsifies mainstream astrophysics and cosmology.

Exactly want I'd like to do, but without agreement on the terms, definitions and everybody involved in this discussion understanding of plasma, I fear we will run into more pointless tail chasing exercises!

I mean look at the Ferrromagnetism posts

And the post on the characteristics of a current thru a plasma with or without a field line!

And yes I agree that's the best way, when we agree on the terms and everyone's understanding of plasma phenomena, then I maybe able to concentrate on one particular favorite of mine, well two closely related one's actually

Sound fair.

First those mistake's in the list!

Which one do you not agree on Tim, wholly or partially?

 

[tusenfem]

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!!!

Ahhhh, but what you forget is that this whole discussion about a plasma ball and Birkeland currents was started up by your good friend and confident Zeuzzz. Here is where that started with Zeuzzz telling us that:

Birkeland currents are arbitrary filamentary structures. That scale perfectly from macroscopic, to the currents seen in plasma balls, to the birkeland currents in the aurorae ...

That is where the link started between plasma balls and Birkeland currents. Then you, Sol88, came up with the following answer on my mystification about why EU/EC/ES/PU/PC proponents would say the two are the same (well at least according to Zeuzzz) in this message

It's no mystery!

Though the 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!

Well, electricity in a plasma, so what? The discussion was about Birkeland currents, which flow in the magnetosphere along the magnetic field lines, which is not the case in a plasma ball. And thus the whole stupid comment by Zeuzzz is moot, it should have stopped there.

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,

But that was not the discussion, you diverted away from it, suddenly wanting to discuss general currents (but still in the Birkeland discussion frame).

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

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

But still you have not given an answer about what conditions are on the magnetic field in order to produce field aligned currents. Does it always happen? Can I just sprinkle a bit of magnetic fairy dust in the plasma and then all the currents that may or may not flow in the plasma will become field aligned?

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

Yeah, it's my old age and overweight that makes me slow.

The first pic was a wire with current and circular magnetic fields around it, according to the right hand rule as someone would emphasize.

Replace the wire with a flow of electrons thru a plasma? Whats different than what a stated here: t'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!

One of the differences is that in a plasma a current is NOT guided, it can go anywhere and does not have to follow the line that is does have to follow when it is in a wire. A rather significant difference I would say. That is why the discharges (in the plasma ball or in lightning) are so jagged, the current searches for the least resistance.

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?

I understand that you want to have "electrical wires" in a unmagnetized plasma.

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!!!

Really?? you just add a field line and then whammy the current will flow along the field? So, what kind of magnetic field are you putting in there? How about the auroral electrojet, where the current is flowing perpendicular to the magnetic field? Oh boy, you really need to learn a lot still about plasmas and magnetic fields.

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

Indeed, Birkeland currents have a magnetic field shoved down their throats, however, I was not thinking like you that the magnetic field needs to be connected or something. Neither am I suggesting that in what I wrote: 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.

What does the magnetic field need to make the currents flow along it, now what would that be?

I understand the conditions well enough thanks!

Apparently not, because I have not seen you writing it down yet.

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

Well, the Io flux tube admittedly does adhere to the condition that I am hoping for you will write down at some point.

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!

Oh, Sol88, you know this is not the first discussion on the EU bunk, neither here nor on other boards, and invariably all the proponents of this idea can never come up with any real models about anything, because they do not understand plasma physics. They think that "oh charges, flowing, current, magnetic field, model!!! YEAH!!" If it only were so simple

Now lemme see, a plasma ball is a model for lightning. There are field lines in the Earth's atmosphere, why does lightning not follow these field lines? Why are lightning bolts not Birkeland currents?

 

[tusenfem]

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.

Wow, is that YOUR understanding of what a plasma is?
I guess that begs the question:
So what numbers come up when you run them bad boys thru your abacus?
not unlike an earlier message here on the board, where I had to explain to you what a plasma is

 

[Tubbythin]

* Plasma Cosmology - Does it have less evidence and funding than the Big Bang?

The Big Bang had no funding at all. It happened about 13.7 billion years before anyone invented currency (at least here on Earth).

 

[tusenfem]

Couldn't have put it better myself.



* Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not?

Noooooooooot.

* Plasma Cosmology - Does it have less evidence and funding than the Big Bang?

Yeeeeeeeees.

* Does this make it correct?

Dont ask me. Ask its proponents. Lerner/Peratt being the obvious ones. I wonder if anyone here has bothered to actually talk to them or ask them for their recent opinions on the status of plasma cosmology? Their emails are easily found online, and I'm sure they would reply to any queries, or even sign up here to discuss anything if asked.

If you would bother studying some of the stuff that even Lerner and Peratt write, you might even add constructively to the discussion.

 

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Like the ones that connect the Sun and the Earth!!!! Or Jupiter and Io?

Well, the Io flux tube admittedly does adhere to the condition that I am hoping for you will write down at some point.

Io's Atmosphere and the Io Plasma Torus

As Io circles around Jupiter and through the plasma torus, an enormous electrical current flows between them. Approximately 2 trillion watts of power is generated. The current follows the magnetic field lines to Jupiter's surface where it creates lightning in the upper atmosphere. The first black and white Hubble Space Telescope image (top) shows the flux tube, where Io and Jupiter are linked by an electrical current of charged particles. Volcanic emissions from Io flow along Jupiter's magnetic field lines, through Io, to Jupiter's north and south magnetic poles. In the second black and white image, auroral emissions are visible at Jupiter's north and south poles. The ultraviolet image below shows how the structure and appearance of Jupiter's aurora changes at it rotates.

Is that Ok?

Would you agree on the 2trillion watts as a ball park figure?

 

[Sol88]

Oh, Sol88, you know this is not the first discussion on the EU bunk, neither here nor on other boards, and invariably all the proponents of this idea can never come up with any real models about anything, because they do not understand plasma physics. They think that "oh charges, flowing, current, magnetic field, model!!! YEAH!!" If it only were so simple

My friend it is simple!

 

[Sol88]

Wow, is that YOUR understanding of what a plasma is?
I guess that begs the question:
So what numbers come up when you run them bad boys thru your abacus?
not unlike an earlier message here on the board, where I had to explain to you what a plasma is

So space is not filled by plasma then, tusenfem?

Is it dark matter that I'm nit taking into account?

 

[tusenfem]

Io's Atmosphere and the Io Plasma Torus

Would you agree on the 2trillion watts as a ball park figure?

You don't have to explain the Io or Europa flux tube to me, I worked on them. I know the currents that should flow there etc. etc. etc.

And what do you want to say here?

Do you or do you not know what condition a magnetic field has to have to make currents mainly parallel to the field? THAT is the question, and the answer is sooooooooooooooooooooo simple, but apparently you have problems giving or finding the answer.

 

[tusenfem]

Wow, is that YOUR understanding of what a plasma is?
I guess that begs the question:
So what numbers come up when you run them bad boys thru your abacus?
not unlike an earlier message here on the board, where I had to explain to you what a plasma is

So space is not filled by plasma then, tusenfem?

Is it dark matter that I'm nit taking into account?

And here is Sol88 again putting words in peoples mouths that they never said. Did you see me say here that I think space is not filled with plasma? (by the way you say that space IS plasma). I was just bouncing YOUR question back to you, after I basically gave you the definition of a plasma.

Apparently, you can only discuss things by moving away from the topic, by putting words in peoples mouth, making strange conjectures. This is soooo tiresome.

 

[tusenfem]

My friend it is simple!

Really? That is why there are so many handwaving articles on thunderbolts without any support whatsoever.

How well versed are you in plasma physics, Sol88, how long have you studied it, did you go to college, or did you just skim the Wiki pages?

 

[Dancing David]

Are you stating that all these galaxies have QSO's associated with them?

Depends on what you mean by association. I am pointing out that there is no suppressions of Arp's material as someone claimed, and that Hubble certainly has taken images of Arp galaxies.

The statistics that Arp uses are not the ones that he could use and therefore his results are not meaningful. The same sue of statitis's in all sorts of fields would have held back epidemuiology to the last century.

There is no case for Arp galaxy/QSO association. No more than ice cream causes drowning.