Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Ziggurat]

I'd love nothing more to give you a mathematical description of an electric discharge but does one in fact exist?

Yes. Funny how ignorant EU/PC proponents are of actual electrodynamics. Not that I'm surprised, what with your recent confusion about orbitals and dipole moments.

 

[Sol88]

Mmmm... science content??

The charging and discharging of the leyden jar not sciencey enough for ya!



Maybe you'd like to partake in a little experimental "science"? You know hands on, getting into it, scientific experiment, much like I show my 4 yr old daughter

I'd love nothing more to give you a mathematical description of an electric discharge but does one in fact exist?

But the leyden jar "scientific" experiment should get the point across with no need to resort to some differe_ntia_tal ve^Ctor integ^ral!!

Obviously there would be a number of very dynamic variables at play in an event such as this so I'm not sure what you maths is going to PROVE!!

All right I'm no mathematician but lets have a crack at a little mathmatical jiggery pokery, I'm sure if I do something wrong someone here will let me know!

In relation to the spider crater on Mercury being an electrical discharge (spark/arc) phenomena and not impact, volcanic or geological. Then we might just be able to do some maths.

Ok lets work out some basics

Electrostatic discharge (spark/arc)

Electrostatic discharge (ESD) is the sudden and momentary electric current that flows between two objects at different electrical potentials caused by direct contact or induced by an electrostatic field.

Futher from the same article

Sparks
Main article: corona discharge

A spark is triggered when the electric field strength exceeds approximately 10 – 30 kV/cm[citation needed] (the dielectric field strength of air). This may cause a very rapid increase in the number of free electrons and ions in the air, temporarily causing the air to abruptly become an electrical conductor in a process called dielectric breakdown.

Perhaps the best known example of a natural spark is a lightning strike. In this case the potential difference between a cloud and ground, or between two clouds, is typically hundreds of millions of volts. The resulting current that flows through the ionized air causes an explosive release of energy. On a much smaller scale, sparks can form in air during electrostatic discharges from charged objects that are charged to as little as 380 volts (Paschen's law).

so as we are not talking about the dielectric field strength of air here but of space/vacuum would could roughly generalize with the electric constant

or

But that's not of much help if what we a really after is Realization of free space in outer space

While only a partial vacuum, outer space contains such sparse matter that the pressure of interstellar space is on the order of 10 pPa (1×10−11 Pa)[31]. For comparison, the pressure at sea level (as defined in the unit of atmospheric pressure) is about 101 kPa (1×105 Pa). The gases in outer space are not uniformly distributed, of course. The density of hydrogen in our galaxy is estimated at 1 hydrogen atom/cm3.[32] The critical density separating a Universe that continuously expands from one that ultimately crunches is estimated as about three hydrogen atoms per thousand liters of space.[33] In the partial vacuum of outer space, there are small quantities of matter (mostly hydrogen), cosmic dust and cosmic noise. See intergalactic space. In addition, there is a cosmic microwave background with a temperature of 2.725 K, which implies a photon density of about 400 /cm3.[34] [35]

The density of the interplanetary medium and interstellar medium, though, is extremely low; for many applications negligible error is introduced by treating the interplanetary and interstellar regions as "free space".

So while we are not talking about IPM or ISM here at Mercuries orbit what is actual plasma density there?

If it's coupled to the solar wind then it's going to be highly variable, I would imagine considering how dynamic the solar wind is (Sun plasma stream).

So which electric constant shall we "pick"?

Anywhoo... according to my theory once a threshold was reached WRT charge separation and electric field strength and the electric constant a corona discharge started.

Firstly

In electricity, a corona discharge is an electrical discharge brought on by the ionization of a fluid surrounding a conductor, which occurs when the potential gradient (the strength of the electric field) exceeds a certain value, but conditions are insufficient to cause complete electrical breakdown or arcing.

That fluid in this case is plasma, remember we are on Mercuries surface here.

Now I believe that the conditions that contributed to the formation of this "spider crater" continued to increase the strength of the local electric field so

If the geometry and gradient are such that the ionized region continues to grow instead of stopping at a certain radius, a completely conductive path may be formed, resulting in a momentary spark, or a continuous arc.

So the steps that involved are quite straight forward.

Pretty pics omitted for the sake of bandwidth

Mechanism of corona discharge:

Corona discharge of both the positive and negative variety have certain mechanisms in common.

1. A neutral atom or molecule of the medium, in a region of strong electric field (such as the high potential gradient near the curved electrode) is ionized by an exogenous environmental event (for example, as the result of a photon interaction), to create a positive ion and a free electron.

2 The electric field then operates on these charged particles, separating them, and preventing their recombination, and also accelerating them, imparting each of them with kinetic energy.

3 As a result of the energisation of the electrons (which have a much higher charge/mass ratio and so are accelerated to a higher velocity), further electron/positive-ion pairs may be created by collision with neutral atoms. These then undergo the same separating process creating an electron avalanche. Both positive and negative coronas rely on electron avalanches.

4 In processes which differ between positive and negative coronas, the energy of these plasma processes is converted into further initial electron dissociations to seed further avalanches.

5 An ion species created in this series of avalanches (which differs between positive and negative coronas) is attracted to the uncurved electrode, completing the circuit, and sustaining the current flow.

now we could use Peeks law,

but I'm not to sure how'd that work around Mercury!

Could we fiddle it to fit a sphere in space?

mv is an irregularity factor to account for the condition of the wires. For smooth, polished wires, mv = 1. For roughened, dirty or weathered wires, 0.98 to 0.93, and for cables, 0.87 to 0.83.

Lets call the surface of Mercury on a planerty scale smooth, so mv=1

r is the radius of the wires

As we are not talking about wire but a sphere here and Murcuries mean radius is 2,439.7 ± 1.0 km or as we are really after the surface area of a sphere, at least Murcuries the r=7.48 × 107 km²

S is the distance between the wires

S=??? .i.e. we don't know the distance between the two objects here, so lets just make one up based on Terrestrial positive lightning between the ionosphere and ground of 100km and so S=10000km nice round number!

δ is the air density factor. It is calculated by the equation:

Which in space would, I imagine be negligible, so δ=0

gv is the "visual critical" potential gradient, and is calculated by the equation:

as we are not in Earths atmosphere here I could assume the electric-constant would be close enough? So gv=ε0 or whatever it maybe at the surface of Murcury, but will start there.

Could we butcher the equation like that and get something useful out of it?

On the "look" of it (the Spider crater) and the description between a positive and negative corona discharge I'd posit a negative coronal discharge!

Negative coronas

Properties

A negative corona is manifested in a non-uniform corona, varying according to the surface features and irregularities of the curved conductor. It often appears as tufts of corona at sharp edges, the number of tufts altering with the strength of the field. The form of negative coronas is a result of its source of secondary avalanche electrons (see below). It appears a little larger than the corresponding positive corona, as electrons are allowed to drift out of the ionising region, and so the plasma continues some distance beyond it. The total number of electrons, and electron density is much greater than in the corresponding positive corona. However, they are of a predominantly lower energy, owing to being in a region of lower potential-gradient. Therefore, whilst for many reactions the increased electron density will increase the reaction rate, the lower energy of the electrons will mean that reactions which require a higher electron energy may take place at a lower rate.

Mechanism

Negative coronas are more complex than positive coronas in construction. As with positive coronas, the establishing of a corona begins with an exogenous ionisation event generating a primary electron, followed by an electron avalanche.

Electrons ionised from the neutral gas are not useful in sustaining the negative corona process by generating secondary electrons for further avalanches, as the general movement of electrons in a negative corona is outward from the curved electrode. For negative corona, instead, the dominant process generating secondary electrons is the photoelectric effect, from the surface of the electrode itself. The work-function of the electrons (the energy required to liberate the electrons from the surface) is considerably lower than the ionisation energy of air at standard temperatures and pressures, making it a more liberal source of secondary electrons under these conditions. Again, the source of energy for the electron-liberation is a high-energy photon from an atom within the plasma body relaxing after excitation from an earlier collision. The use of ionised neutral gas as a source of ionisation is further diminished in a negative corona by the high-concentration of positive ions clustering around the curved electrode.

Under other conditions, the collision of the positive species with the curved electrode can also cause electron liberation.

The difference, then, between positive and negative coronas, in the matter of the generation of secondary electron avalanches, is that in a positive corona they are generated by the gas surrounding the plasma region, the new secondary electrons travelling inward, whereas in a negative corona they are generated by the curved electrode itself, the new secondary electrons travelling outward.

A further feature of the structure of negative coronas is that as the electrons drift outwards, they encounter neutral molecules and, with electronegative molecules (such as oxygen and water vapour), combine to produce negative ions. These negative ions are then attracted to the positive uncurved electrode, completing the 'circuit'.

A negative corona can be divided into three radial areas, around the sharp electrode. In the inner area, high-energy electrons inelastically collide with neutral atoms and cause avalanches, whilst outer electrons (usually of a lower energy) combine with neutral atoms to produce negative ions. In the intermediate region, electrons combine to form negative ions, but typically have insufficient energy to cause avalanche ionisation, but remain part of a plasma owing to the different polarities of the species present, and the ability to partake in characteristic plasma reactions. In the outer region, only a flow of negative ions and, to a lesser and radially-decreasing extent, free electrons toward the positive electrode takes place. The inner two regions are known as the corona plasma. The inner region is an ionising plasma, the middle a non-ionising plasma. The outer region is known as the unipolar region.

So RC maybe correct in he's assumption of the formation taking place in two separate events! But he's timing may be off, it may not be cosmological time here, the "grabens"/rays/channels formed just before the dielectric strength was exceeded and an spark/arc formed which then formed the crater, time wise maybe only seconds, minutes or hours hell maybe even days passed before discharge was initiated!

Hope that's sciencey enough for our resident boffins, but without the hard data to plug into a highly dynamic process at this stage I'm not to sure if the maths is of much use!

Sol Invictus, Reality Check, tusenfem, Tim Thompson, Ben M, Perp student and others, which bit is hard to understand?

 

[Reality Check]

So RC maybe correct in he's assumption of the formation taking place in two separate events! But he's timing may be off, it may not be cosmological time here, the "grabens"/rays/channels formed just before the dielectric strength was exceeded and an spark/arc formed which then formed the crater, time wise maybe only seconds, minutes or hours hell maybe even days passed before discharge was initiated!

I never said anything about "cosmological time".
The formation of the crater and the rays differ in depending on the rate of formation of craters. This will be some 1000's of years. Note that the Spider crater itself has no clear craters within it. There are some features that I think may be craters or debris from the crater wall.

Thus you still need to answer the original questions (I added the difference) and a new question:
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 by a number of years (probably 1000's of years).

For the third time Sol88: Which falsifiable prediction is supported by the data?

Mercury has a magnetic field and so there is no charge separation from the solar wind (as on the Moon and other bodies) to provide a source for the ligtning

For the third time Sol88: Where did your lightning strike come from?

The challenge that sol invictus issued was to do with a strange little "theory" called plasma cosmology. It has nothing to do with planetary science. Thus even if the Spider crater was formed by a lightning strike, it has nothing to do pc. But just in case:

For the first time Sol88: What has this bit of planetary science have to to with plasma cosmology?

 

[Sol88]

I never said anything about "cosmological time".
The formation of the crater and the rays differ in depending on the rate of formation of craters. This will be some 1000's of years. Note that the Spider crater itself has no clear craters within it. There are some features that I think may be craters or debris from the crater wall.

Thus you still need to answer the original questions (I added the difference) and a new question:
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 by a number of years (probably 1000's of years).

For the third time Sol88: Which falsifiable prediction is supported by the data?

Mercury has a magnetic field and so there is no charge separation from the solar wind (as on the Moon and other bodies) to provide a source for the ligtning

For the third time Sol88: Where did your lightning strike come from?

The challenge that sol invictus issued was to do with a strange little "theory" called plasma cosmology. It has nothing to do with planetary science. Thus even if the Spider crater was formed by a lightning strike, it has nothing to do pc. But just in case:

For the first time Sol88: What has this bit of planetary science have to to with plasma cosmology?

RC, you do not no much about electrical discharge do you, I strongly suggest reading up on the topic before disregarding it out of hand!

A characteristic of a arc (and you'd know if you'd ever used a stick arc welder) is that when the arc is extinguished it's not a clean break! Secondary smaller crater can from, that accounts for the standards astronomy complete misrepresentation of crater as tools to estimate planetary age!

The spider crater (the "big" one) is the PRIMARY crater! the sequence of events would be charge separation, corona discharge, arc, secondary craters, so I see how you could be all confusimitated and cunfudelled there sport!

so...

For the third time Sol88: Which falsifiable prediction is supported by the data?

The electrical discharge predictions, Mr Dick Cranium! Your (mainstream) explanations (there not even theories) are NOT falsifiable therefore there only worth is to prop up that wobbly coffee table down stairs!

For the first time Sol88: What has this bit of planetary science have to to with plasma cosmology?

That's the biggest appeal for EU/PC it as everything to do with cosmology, unlike standard astronomy which have there own little niche departments that have NO bearing on one and other!

Question for YOU R.Head what does planetary science and cosmology have do with each other?

 

[Sol88]

Yeah and ....



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.

I think it is interesting because that's my understanding of how a transformer works!

A transformer is a device that transfers electrical energy from one circuit to another through inductively coupled conductors — the transformer's coils or "windings". Except for air-core transformers, the conductors are commonly wound around a single iron-rich core, or around separate but magnetically-coupled cores. A varying current in the first or "primary" winding creates a varying magnetic field in the core (or cores) of the transformer. This varying magnetic field induces a varying electromotive force (EMF) or "voltage" in the "secondary" winding. This effect is called mutual induction.

No? So what happens to all that charge in Mercuries core?

 

[tusenfem]

All right I'm no mathematician but lets have a crack at a little mathmatical jiggery pokery, I'm sure if I do something wrong someone here will let me know!

Indeed, you are not, ouch my beautiful brain!!

Sol Invictus, Reality Check, tusenfem, Tim Thompson, Ben M, Perp student and others, which bit is hard to understand?

I would not know where to start to debunk this junk.

Maybe you should have sticked to Earth's lightning, which would be more appropriate for Mercury. Although corona discharge sound more interesting than lightning, so I guess that is why you went down that path. Then you could stop the sillyness of setting r to an area instead of a radius, which would give you trouble in the logarithm because S is a distance and you would have to take the log of something with units km^-1, which is not possible.

 

[tusenfem]

I think it is interesting because that's my understanding of how a transformer works!

Why on Earth would you want a transformer?
Well, in some way you can see it like that, only that the induced current (through the disturbance of the magnetic field) will flow in that disturbed magnetic field, sort of like the Birkeland currents in the Earth's magnetospere. In this case there is NO linking of two current circuits like in a transformer (where it is usually used to down the voltage of the one circuit to the other circuit).

No? So what happens to all that charge in Mercuries core?

What charge in Mercury's core? What are you talking about, where do you get the idea that there should be charge in Mercury's core? As usual I have trouble following your "logic".

 

[Sol88]

Here is a slow motion electrical discharge

Awesome Slow-motion lightning!

and

2000 FPS Lightning & Rain in UltraSlo motion

and

Slow Motion Video of a Lightning Positive Ground Flash

Slow Motion Upward Lightning from a Tower

Slow Motion Video of Lightning Positive Leaders

Slow Motion Video of a Lightning Negative Ground Flash

And this one is prolly the best I reckon!

Slow Motion Lightning filmed from an Aircraft

That my friends is MAJIK

 

[Sol88]

I thought you where pretty cluey Tusenfem but alas...if it's not in your text book then it's fairly obvious it doe's not exist!


I mean come on

Why on Earth would you want a transformer?

Because that's what they described more or less! Now where would these nutters get something as outlandish as that!

Well, in some way you can see it like that, only that the induced current (through the disturbance of the magnetic field)

In which way am I seeing it?

 

[tusenfem]

Because that's what they described more or less! Now where would these nutters get something as outlandish as that!

No, they describe the induced magnetic field that is added to the permanent magnetic field of Mercury. From what you could have read yourself:

This compression of the magnetosphere induces electric currents in the planet's core superposing a magnetic field to the planetary magnetic field.

In which way am I seeing it?

I would hope you would see it as curl(E) = - dB/dt

 

[Sol88]

No, they describe the induced magnetic field that is added to the permanent magnetic field of Mercury. From what you could have read yourself:





I would hope you would see it as curl(E) = - dB/dt

If you say so...

I thought the mainstream where surprised to learn that Mercury had a permanent magnetic field at all!!!

Would not have been a surprise to some!

 

[Sol88]

Tusenfem,

Do you have a copy of this paper

Title:
Updated Review of Planetary Atmospheric Electricity
Authors:
Yair, Y.; Fischer, G.; Simões, F.; Renno, N.; Zarka, P.

Along with this one;



The Permanent and Inductive Magnetic Moments of Ganymede


If so may I please have a copy?

 

[tusenfem]

Tusenfem,

Do you have a copy of this paper

Title:
Updated Review of Planetary Atmospheric Electricity
Authors:
Yair, Y.; Fischer, G.; Simões, F.; Renno, N.; Zarka, P.

Along with this one;



The Permanent and Inductive Magnetic Moments of Ganymede


If so may I please have a copy?

no, yes, maybe

 

[tusenfem]

I thought the mainstream where surprised to learn that Mercury had a permanent magnetic field at all!!!

It was not expected that Mercury could have an active dynamo in its metal core due to the limited thermal flux. And indeed, the magnetosphere is a miniature.

Would not have been a surprise to some!

Really? Who are some, and what would be their reasons for not being surprised?

 

[Dancing David]

Mmmm... science content??

The charging and discharging of the leyden jar not sciencey enough for ya!



Maybe you'd like to partake in a little experimental "science"? You know hands on, getting into it, scientific experiment, much like I show my 4 yr old daughter

I'd love nothing more to give you a mathematical description of an electric discharge but does one in fact exist?

But the leyden jar "scientific" experiment should get the point across with no need to resort to some differe_ntia_tal ve^Ctor integ^ral!!

Obviously there would be a number of very dynamic variables at play in an event such as this so I'm not sure what you maths is going to PROVE!!

No, what you need to do is show what relevance it has to astronomical events.

So what process is analogous to the leyden jar?
How does it scale to the process?
What mechanisms support it?
What data supports this theory?

You know, something like that.

Duh, Layden jars exist.

What relevance do they have?

 

[Reality Check]

RC, you do not no much about electrical discharge do you, I strongly suggest reading up on the topic before disregarding it out of hand!

A characteristic of a arc (and you'd know if you'd ever used a stick arc welder) is that when the arc is extinguished it's not a clean break! Secondary smaller crater can from, that accounts for the standards astronomy complete misrepresentation of crater as tools to estimate planetary age!

The spider crater (the "big" one) is the PRIMARY crater! the sequence of events would be charge separation, corona discharge, arc, secondary craters, so I see how you could be all confusimitated and cunfudelled there sport!

So how many years pass between the formation of the primary and secondary craters when arc welding?

You seem to be all "confusimitated and cunfudelled" about how to read (and write) and understand English.

...snipped stuff for this guy Mr Dick Cranium (whoever he is)...
That's the biggest appeal for EU/PC it as everything to do with cosmology, unlike standard astronomy which have there own little niche departments that have NO bearing on one and other!

You just get weirder and weirder Sol88.

There is this small thing called gravity. Scientists could say everything to do with it, e.g. the falling of an apple from a tree, is "cosmology". They are not that stupid. Instead they know that "the falling of an apple from a tree" is a small scale thing which demonstrates gravity and is not cosmology.

Planetary science is not cosmology. For a start "planetary science" starts with "p" not "c" !

...snipped stuff for this guy R.Head (whoever he is)...

For the fourth time Sol88: Where did your lightning strike come from?

 

[Sol88]

People, just entertain this poor delusional illiterate retard and answer the following questions, as no one so far has advanced anything more than standard astronomy regurgitation.

So lets rule out impact. asteroid and comets

lets rule out Volcanisim.

Lets rule out geological processes expansion and contraction

Lets also rule electric discharge out.

Are there any mainstream or not one I may have missed?

What's left in the arsenal?

 

[Sol88]

If Mercury has a magnetosphere then I predict it will have aurora.

 

[BenBurch]

If Mercury has a magnetosphere then I predict it will have aurora.

If it rains tonight, I predict my lawn will be wet!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Before I get back into the swing of this thread and reply to Sols 'challenge' in detail (need to be careful what I choose), I just read the paper often cited as the best evidence for dark matter, the one about the Bullet Cluster. The one that supposedly falsifies plasma cosmology, and is somehow statistically significant (along with like one or two other 'direct observations'). Its flipping hilarious!

A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter - astro-ph0608407 and 0608408 by Clowe et al. and Bradac et al.

We present new weak lensing observations of 1E0657-558 (z=0.296), a unique cluster merger, that enable a direct detection of dark matter, independent of assumptions regarding the nature of the gravitational force law. Due to the collision of two clusters, the dissipationless stellar component and the fluid-like X-ray emitting plasma are spatially segregated. By using both wide-field ground based images and HST/ACS images of the cluster cores, we create gravitational lensing maps which show that the gravitational potential does not trace the plasma distribution, the dominant baryonic mass component, but rather approximately traces the distribution of galaxies. An 8-sigma significance spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen.

"A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter"



...."A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter"



What a ridiculously unsupportable assertion! And what an amazingly inappropriate title.

Z, you may have missed a series of posts a while back ...

Here, astronomical observations, Observations and the forces of nature (gravity), There are no 'observations'; there is only theory, and The EU myth re quasars (and Arp).

I think it would be well worth your time going back and reading them, carefully.

You see, in this post of yours (that I'm quoting) you seem to invoke another EU myth and either grossly misunderstand the nature of observations in astronomy or the role of theory in observations (or both).

Now RC has addressed some of the non-science aspects of your post earlier; I'd like to address some others here.

First, though, there's no need to "falsif[y] plasma cosmology", or rather, it cannot be falsified, in the sense that "falsify" is used wrt science. Why? Well, we've been through this before, more than once .... PC, per the very concise definition you proffered, is non-science ... the very definition of (scientific) woo.

Second, your invocation of "statistically significant (along with like one or two other 'direct observations')" clearly shows that you neither understand the observational evidence for CDM nor statistics; specifically, these two (or three) clusters by themselves would be mere curiosities, but together with thousands (millions?) of other objects, they provide exactly what they claim.

Third, by your own standards - the ones about addressing the science and not indulging in ad homs, use of the fallacy of argument from incredulity, etc - this post is clearly hypocritical.

Fourth, and perhaps most fundamentally, you all but state that you reject contemporary astrophysics as a (branch of) science, and come very close to denying astronomy is one too.

Perhaps, before you embark on further research, you might consider starting a thread on the nature of modern astrophysics and astronomy, as science? I feel that unless and until you are on the same plane as most others who have participated in this thread there will be a great deal of talking past each other, and very little meaningful discussion.

Oh, and btw, if you continue to show you don't read my posts I'll start doing complete copy&paste jobs, in the hope that repetition will succeed.