Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Perpetual Student]

Hey Sol88:

What about the "quantitative" part? That's what physics is all about. You've demonstrated nothing!

 

[Tubbythin]

Hey Sol88:

What about the "quantitative" part? That's what physics is all about. You've demonstrated nothing!

I don't think PCers understand the q-word.

 

[Sol88]

Did you catch this paper by Grosser, J.; Glassmeier, K.-H.; Stadelmann, A.

Induced Magnetic Field Effects at Planet Mercury

What's go'n there Tusenfem me 'ol mate?

p.s Any chance of being able to get the whole paper?

 

[tusenfem]

Did you catch this paper by Grosser, J.; Glassmeier, K.-H.; Stadelmann, A.

Induced Magnetic Field Effects at Planet Mercury

Yeah and ....

What's go'n there Tusenfem me 'ol mate?
p.s Any chance of being able to get the whole paper?

Just what is going on anywhere, where there are magnetic fields in motion, they induce an electric field and create currents. THE way, by the way to created currents in astrophysical plasmas (unlike anaconda's idea that they are driven by double layers).

By the way, if you would improve your searching skills, you might have seen that you linked to an abstract of a talk at the EGU. So, no, I don't think I can get that paper for you.

Luckily for you there is also this paper in Space Science Review by the same authors, which I might be able to get. What are you planning to do with it?

Be careful, tho, it WILL be full of math and such, which you don't seem to like and sort of the "follow up" paper was in my previous message.

So, unless you can explain to me why you think the Grosser et al. paper is interesting and what you think you can do with it, I am not going to put effort into getting it.

I guess you might also want to have my paper about permanent and induced magnetic fields on Ganymede too, then.

 

[Perpetual Student]

From the link provided by Sol88:

"Abstract
Since the Mariner 10 spacecraft encountered planet Mercury we know that the innermost planet of our solar system has a magnetosphere comparable to that one of the earth but smaller due to the larger solar wind dynamic pressure at Mercury's orbit and the smaller planetary field. The
magnetopause distance is about one planetary radius R_P (1R_P=2439text{km}) and varies between 0.1 and 1.6 R_P because of changings in the solar wind conditions. This compression of the magnetosphere induces electric currents in the planet's core superposing a magnetic field to the planetary magnetic field. To study the size of this induced fields we have modelled the time-varying magnetosphere of Mercury using a Hilmer-Voigt approch and varied the magnetopause position in time. Computing the magnetic field at the planets surface allows to calculate the induced currents and thus the induced magnetic field. The total magnetic field consisting of planetary, induced and magnetospheric contributions is determined along polar spacecraft orbits around the planet. We find that the induced magnetic fields have a significant contribution to the total field on long-term magnetic field meassurements."

So what? Do you understand what that means? Where is the mathematics demonstrating your thesis?

 

[Reality Check]

Mr Cranium, Richard

Who is Richard?
Who is Mr Cranium?

...did you read Sol Invictus's To narrow the focus a little more, you state the spider feature was created in to separate events, correct?

i.e. Something formed the rays, then an impactor smashed into Mercury creating the crater, on a time scale that suggest two very distinct separate events.

How do you,(mainstream) think the rays where formed?

I have no real idea how these planetary phenomena (i.e non-cosmoslogical) were formed. My guesses are a volcano or lava flow from an impact or even water/gas from a cometary impact.

Care to answer Richard Cranium?

Who is Richard Cranium?

ELECTRIC DISCHARGE HYPOTHESIS NOT FALSIFIED!!!

ELECTRIC DISCHARGE HYPOTHESIS FALSIFIED!!!
(see I can use the caps lock key too !)

It is falsified as a hypothesis. One more time:

Did you actually look at the picture of the Spider crater?
One way to measure the relative age of features on planetary surfaces is to look at the density of craters on them. Younger features have fewer craters on them than older features.
Look at the Spider crater itself. I can see the typical central peak created by an impact. I can see 3-6 things which may be small craters.
Look at the terrain containing the crater. Take an area with a similar size to the crater. There are many more craters per area in the terrain than there are in the crater. The craters are even on top of the rays.
Thus: The crater is younger than the surrounding terrain, including the rays.
Therefore: The crater and the rays were created in two separate events.

This falsifies the lightning hypothesis which would create the crater and rays in one event.

And breaking it up into simpler stages:
Hypothesis 1: The Spider crater and rays were created in one event (a lightning strike).
Falsifiable Prediction 1: The Spider crater and rays are the same age.

Hypothesis 2: The Spider crater and rays were created in two events.
Falsifiable Prediction 2: The Spider crater and rays are different ages.

Data: The density of craters on the Spider crater and the terrain containing the rays (and even in the rays themselves) is different. Standard astronomy tells us that the crater is a different age from the rays.

Sol88: Which falsifiable prediction is supported by the data?

You also missed this from tusenfem:

Unfortunately, you seem to be unawares that Mercury as its own magnetic field, and thus a magnetosphere which shields it from the solar wind. For an interesting view see Karl-Heinz Glassmeier's paper (note that is Glassmeier and not Gary A Glatzmaier). Therefore, Mercury will NOT behave like our moon, in the way that the Moon gets charged through UV radiation and solar wind interaction.

Sol88: Where did your lightning strike come from? Is it aliens ?

You also missed this:

You need to learn to read. This is what sol invictus said:
The lightning theory is not quantitative or falsifiable. Pictures do not mean anything.

Sol88: Where are the numbers from "your" lightning hypothesis? That is what quantitative means.

I seem to have missed the link to the paper where this hypothesis was published Could you post it again?

 

[Sol88]

Hey Sol88:

What about the "" part? That's what physics is all about. You've demonstrated nothing!

What would you like quantitatively?

Ps nice hand wave you got there bro!

Only RC has come up with something, which falls flat on it's arse!

 

[Sol88]

Richard Cranium is you! RC

 

[Sol88]

RC wrote

I have no real idea how these planetary phenomena (i.e non-cosmoslogical) were formed. My guesses are a volcano or lava flow from an impact or even water/gas from a cometary impact.

Perfect!! next please!

 

[Dancing David]

Sol88, and Zuess:
The almighty, himself, could come down onto this thread and spell it out and these guys would still say, "no."

Writers are linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and also a dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Mathematicians are even more linear in their thinking, this leads to a crystallization of thought, and an even more dogmatic insistence on the rightness of their viewpoint.

Pure mathematics has taken over "modern" astronomy. There is no room for historical analysis, or common sense reasoning connected to the real world.

Experiments? No. Pure mathematicians don't engage in experiment, other than "thought experiments".

Sol88, you don't have the math, nobody does at this point in time, and even if you did, because there are undefined terms, such as 'singularity' and "infinite density" there is no way to falsify "big bang, black hole" theory. Pure mathematicians will just rejigger their equations.

Somebody, stated "dark matter" existed, on this website. But it hasn't been detected and now the Chandra X-ray Observatory has taken to doctoring pictures to "show" so-called "dark" matter.

These folks, here, are just stringing you along, Sol88, and Zeuss, you energies and knowledge can be more effectively employed elsewhere.

These pure mathmaticians need to be sealed in there little Platonic Cave and left to their shadows in perpetuity.

Yes, I have no math skills, but math is a description, but it is not an explanation. For that you need words, and concepts. Mathematicians will never understand that.

"What of Lazarus?"

Sol88, come out of this cave of perpetual shadow and leave these people to their fate.

They play you off, so you can't spend your time persuading people who have an open-mind.

These people don't have an open-mind.

The mathematics of "big bang, black holes" has already been falsified, once they used the "infinity" concept.

Infinity can't be quantified. Yet, that is exactly what these people do.

"Big bang, black hole" hypothesis likes to give the impression that it is rigorous and quantified -- that is false. Any "science" that relies on infinity for their basic constructs which is what "modern" astronomy does, today, is not a science, it is a farse, and these guys know it.

It is reification at its most deceptive level. Mathematics gives a patina or thin veneer of scientific respectability, but only mathematics that doesn't rely on the "infinity" concept has any value in the physical sciences.

These guys, here, and indeed, "modern" astronomy are shaman that use mathematics as a cover for fancy.

Sol88 and Zeusss, come out of this loathesome cave and let's seal it up after ourselves.

UniverseToday, any number of website are better than this arena of closed minds.

Hi Anaconda,

I kind of missed something

Where is the

Model?
Predictions?
Data?

That would help a lot .

Thanks!

 

[Sol88]

You also missed this:
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You need to learn to read. This is what sol invictus said:
The lightning theory is not quantitative or falsifiable. Pictures do not mean anything.
Sol88: Where are the numbers from "your" lightning hypothesis? That is what quantitative means.

My numbers are in the same place yours are, wrt impactors, comet water/gas and volcanic lava flows.

 

[Dancing David]

My numbers are in the same place yours are, wrt impactors, comet water/gas and volcanic lava flows.

Um, you have not shown your

Model.

Predictions.

Data.

You have shown some pictures.

 

[Sol88]

Anaconda wrote

Sol88 and Zeusss, come out of this loathesome cave and let's seal it up after ourselves.

But it's just so much fun, watching them blindly follow and regurgitate the standard party line!

Even when faced with insurmountable challenges to their theory, case in hand is the few post's above, the parrots will keep parroting! I mean if it aint in adsabs then it does not exist and the neanderthals will remain in their loathsome cave!

I dearly hope we learn something valuable before this global depression sucks up all the money to do REAL quantitative research into electrical phenomena in space!

The mathematics of "big bang, black holes" has already been falsified, once they used the "infinity" concept.

Infinity can't be quantified. Yet, that is exactly what these people do.

Brilliant!!

 

[Sol88]

Um, you have not shown your

Model.

Predictions.

Data.

You have shown some pictures.

Wrong Mr parrot please re read post 2240

Quack quack!

 

[sol invictus]

So, Sol invictus your turn.

Well, let's see.

First off, if we're going to do this you have to agree to your end of the bargain (see my previous post).

Second, part of what I specified is that the explanation differ from the mainstream's. I know nothing about this crater, but from news reports it appears to be something mysterious - i.e. there is no generally accepted "mainstream" explanation. However I doubt your theory is remotely possible, so that might not matter much here.

So we could try to go with this anyway - IF you agree to the terms, and IF you specify more precisely what your theory is (pictures are not enough). Was one lightning strike what caused all the features in that photo - crater and rays? What was the origin of the charge separation that caused it? How long ago did it happen?

Given that information, we might have enough to work with. For example, we can calculate the energy required at make such a crater and see if its possible. We could estimate how many such craters there should be and see if there are more. Etc.

 

[Sol88]

LINK

Scientists are puzzling over this strange spider shape formed by a set of radiating troughs at the centre of Mercury's huge Caloris impact basin. The troughs might be stretch marks formed when the ground here expanded, but their relationship to the crater near the centre is uncertain

So why are the scientist puzzled then?

So can we add that to your list as well RC?

RC wrote

My guesses are a volcano or lava flow from an impact or even water/gas from a cometary impact

So we have;

Lava or volcanic flows

"Those dark splotchy regions look like lava flows to me," says David Rothery, a planetary scientist at the Open University in the UK.

Quack quack, can't look at picture remember!!

Impact from a comet??? is that falsifiable? No.

Stretch marks from when Mercury got fat!

These features indicate that the whole planet shrank as it cooled, he told New Scientist.

Ohh and you (mainstream) have no idea what the relationship to the crater is!

But we (EU/PC) do it's an electrical discharge! Simple really

 

[Sol88]

Well, let's see.

First off, if we're going to do this you have to agree to your end of the bargain (see my previous post).

Second, part of what I specified is that the explanation differ from the mainstream's. I know nothing about this crater, but from news reports it appears to be something mysterious - i.e. there is no generally accepted "mainstream" explanation. However I doubt your theory is remotely possible, so that might not matter much here.

So we could try to go with this anyway - IF you agree to the terms, and IF you specify more precisely what your theory is (pictures are not enough). Was one lightning strike what caused all the features in that photo - crater and rays? What was the origin of the charge separation that caused it? How long ago did it happen?

Given that information, we might have enough to work with. For example, we can calculate the energy required at make such a crater and see if its possible. We could estimate how many such craters there should be and see if there are more. Etc.

I know nothing about this crater, but from news reports it appears to be something mysterious...Well now you do!

PS there is NO mainstream explanation, just shuffle it under the carpet...move along folks nothing to see here

And just so we don't get hung up on the quantitative data bit, I have NO data on it, i did not build messenger the mainstream did!

(pictures are not enough).

Total and utter BS, David Rothery, a planetary scientist at the Open University in the UK. Did just that

"Those dark splotchy regions look like lava flows to me,"

LINK

And so did mission member Louise Prockter of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, US. LINK

The troughs appear to be stretch marks called extensional faults - troughs formed as a result of part of the surface expanding.

My bold, appear also means looks like!

Is that hypocrisy are here there Sol Invictus? Sure looks like it! whats good for the goose is good for the gander (or duck in this case)!


Quack quack

The pictures ARE the data dimwit!

 

[Sol88]

Sol Invictus,

you are not holding up your end of the bargin!

How do YOU think that the spider crater formed?

pony up dude!

 

[Tubbythin]

The pictures ARE the data dimwit!

Is the picture quantifiable? If yes, please quantify. If not then you have failed SI's challenge:

...one single phenomenon which PC or EU explained in a way that differed from the mainstream, with the condition that it meet the basic standards of physical science - that it be specific, quantitative, and falsifiable.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

One more on synchrotron radiation ...

This recent ApJL paper is interesting (link is to arXiv preprint abstract):

Variable polarization measured in the prompt emission of GRB 041219A using IBIS on board INTEGRAL

Polarization measurements provide direct insight into the nature of astrophysical processes. Unfortunately, only a few instruments are available for this kind of measurements at gamma-ray energies, and the sources need to be very bright. Gamma-Ray Bursts (GRBs) are ideal candidates due to their large flux over limited time intervals, maximizing the available signal-to-noise ratio. To date a few polarization measurements have been reported, claiming of a high degree of polarization in the prompt emission of GRBs but with low statistical evidence.
We used the IBIS telescope on board the INTEGRAL satellite to measure the polarization of the prompt gamma-ray emission of the long and bright GRB 041219A in the 200-800 keV energy band. We find a variable degree of polarization ranging from less than 4% over the first peak to 43+/-25% for the whole second peak. Time resolved analysis of both peaks indicates a high degree of polarization, and the null average polarization in the first peak can be explained by the rapid variations observed in the polarization angle and degree.
Our results are consistent with different models for the prompt emission of GRBs at these energies, but they favor synchrotron radiation from a relativistic outflow with a magnetic field which is coherent on an angular size comparable with the angular size of the emitting region (~1/Gamma) . Indeed this model has the best capabilities to maintain a high polarization level, and to produce the observed variability.

(bold added)

In the EU view - per Anaconda - does a "relativistic outflow" (of charge carriers) equal an electric current?

More generally, are polar jets - as observed in a range of astronomical objects - electric currents, in the EU view?

Here is an ESA PR on this paper:INTEGRAL sees variable polarization from GRB041219A; sorry, no 'pretty picture science' here.