Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[tusenfem]

Okay, I have no problems with the graph. That is what it is, and I have seen it in classes at university. However, the ideas of Alexeff are a bit weird, IMHO.

"We now develop a very simplified model of the mechanism of magnetic field generation, glossing over details in integration in order to present the basic details of the model. Consider Maxwell’s equations. The magnetic field is generated by a current

∇×B = μ₀J. (1)

The magnetic field is operated on by a differential operator. The exact nature of the operator is not known at present, but the basic spatial distance in the differentiation process is obviously the celestial body’s radius R. Hence

B/R = μ₀J. (2)

My bold. The nature of the operator is not known? Does Alexeff know his Maxwell equations? That differential operator is just a combination of spatial derivatives, and cannot be anything else. Here is the definition of curl .

Next, the current must be generated by the rotation of the planet

J = σVB = σωRB. (3)

Okay, stop it here for a moment. Equation (3) comes, when I read it correctly from J = σ E, with E the electric field. Now, it is stated that the current must be created by the rotation of the planet. Well, one could do this, if the planet is charged and rotating, you will have a current. However, that is not what Alexeff is doing, no, he takes the motional electric field and states that E = v × B. Nice, but not appropriate, because there is no B. This is where a referee should have jumped in (but being published in IEEE the referees don't have up much with plasma physical equations).

So, in order to get a current one needs an ambient magnetic field, so B in equation 2 and B in equation 3 are not the same magnetic fields!

Equating the two expressions produces a result that is ambiguous in B

B/R = μ₀σωRB (4)

Yeah, I would say this is ambiguous, because if you take out B on both sides, you find a nice expression for the radius of a star/planet/galaxy:

R² = ( μ₀σω )^-1
wowie!

However I note that the current flow from the equator of the celestial body is across the magnetic field in plasma, and Bohm conduction is appropriate. Bohm conduction will be discussed in more detail later [....]

J = σE = en_eν = en_e(E/B) = en_eωR. (5)

Once more, what magnetic field??? Alexeff is assuming an a priory magnetic field in which the planet is embedded!

Now, I don't know what Bohm conduction is, but looking at the equations Alexeff means that a current is made of of moving electrons, sure, why not. However, now it becomes interesting, because there are also two v's.
The current is defined as σE (fine) and as en_eν (also fine). Then in the next =-sign the velocity of the electrons is set to the velocity in E = v × B velocity. However, do we know that the planet is charged? Where is the initial assumption that there is charge on the planet? I did not see any, maybe Zeuzzz forgot to copy that part of the model?

And then the last step is just writing the E = v × B velocity (deduced from E/B) to ωR. All good and fine, but only works if the rotation axis of the charged planet is parallel to the background field.

Naturally, one could just look at the magnetic field of a spinning charged sphere, which would be easier that all this ambiguous stuff here, and probably easily looked up in Jackson (which I don't have at home, where I am now).

The net result is as follows:

B = μ₀en_eωR². (6)

Thus, the magnetic field of the planet is proportional to the permeability of space, the charge of the electron, the electron density of the surrounding medium, the angular velocity of rotation, and the square of the radius.

So, now he puts in the J from equation 5 into equation 2. Still this could maybe work if the planet is charged and if there is already a background magnetic field in the plasma in which the planet is embedded and I am still sure that there is a confusion of two B's which are confusingly not labeled.

Now, the magnetic moment M is defined as the total flux multiplied by the distance between the magnetic poles. Using a simple cylindrical model, as shown in Fig. 2, We find,

[latex]M=\mu_0en_e{\omega}R^2(2{\pi}R^3)=2{{\pi}\mu_0}en_e{\omega}R^5[/latex] (7)

This kind of definition for magnetic moment I have never seen.
Normally, the magnetic field of a magnetic moment m is given as:

B = (mu₀ / 4 pi) (3 n(m.n - m) / r³
where n is a unit vector in direction r and m is the magnetic moment of a dipole (of which Alexeff is talking I think). Naturally, as Alexeff is not to thrilled about differentiation, integration and vectors, he can easily invert the above equation for the poles of the planet. Maybe the same comes out. Actually, mu₀ seems to fall out then, typo by Zeuzzz or an error by Alexeff?

Next, consider the angular momentum L of a massM at radius R from the axis

L = MVR = MωR². (8)

For a rotating cylindrical body, as shown in Fig. 2, I must integrate over the volume and assume a mass density m

[latex]L={\pi}m{\omega}R^5.[/latex] (9)

Sure why not, interesting detail, we are dealing with a cylinder??? Why? Is the angular momentum for a sphere too complicated to calculate? Anywho: L = MωR² for a particle at R of mass M and angular velocity ω. For a sphere of constant density (why not, life is easy) we can quickly integrate L for the total angular momentum

Ltot = int int int MωR² 2R² dR dphi dtheta,

where M and ω are constants (actually M is then a density but whatever) and doing the integration one finds that

Ltot = M ω (4 pi²/3) R⁵
Ah well, the same sortof.

Thus, the ratio of magnetic moment M to angular momentum L does not depend on R or ω

M/L = (2μ₀en_e)/m (10)

The remarkable result is that these simple calculations reproduce the correct proportionality ratio between magnetic moment L and angular momentum M over 12 orders of magnitude.

Well, indeed in this calculation R falls out of the ratio. However, this "calculation" is so riddled in unclarities from the start, that it is hard to know whether this has any significance on the graph or not.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Sol88:
As you can see, the dragon has been slain -- Zeuzzz's comments are mere death spasms. The game is over!
Now, you and Zeuzzz can go back to selling snake oil to aborigines!

 

[Reality Check]

With all this talk of dubious hidden dynamo models of planetary magnetic fields and convective fluid motion based ideas, there is a totally alterantive hypothesis for the origin of these magnetic fields (and even [though not really considered suffieciently yet] one that could explain the magnetic field of the sun and galaxies at large, based on similar ideas to that of Alfvens in them acting as large farday generators/unipolar inductors*), all of which published in peer reviewed plasma cosmology journals (mostly, though by no means exclusively, the 2007 Special Issue on Cosmic Plasma). One day I wonder if anyones ever going to read all the peer reviewed materials in their journals, and Peratts book, And Alfvens, and other relenvent materials, so they actually know what they are talking about. The only two that I recall being discussed is Thronhills (largely crap and highly specualative [Though still interesting!]) paper on the Z-pinch morphology of electric stars, and Scotts still un-disproved, though admiteddly nitpicky, publication on the properties of magenetic fields and plasma in the cosmos.

Then maybe everyones heated arguments from ignorance can start to have some substance. No-ones claiming to have omnipotent knowledge. The material is all there in the IEEE journals for people to read, review and cite. Its just underappreciated and hard to acees for those that dont have the privelages.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/lo...hDecision=-203

...snip...

The following italisized test is Credit of: "The Van Allen Hypothesis—The Origin of the Magnetic Fields of the, Planets and Stars", Alexeff, Igor, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. 35, issue 4, pp. 748-750 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ITPS...35..748A
...snip...

Zueuzzz: Did you notice that the title of the paper includes the words "planets" and "stars" and that nothing related to cosmology is mentioned?

If the authors thought that their theory had a wider range of applicability then they would have mentioned it. I would have expected you to have cited this but there is not sign of it.
This makes this paper into an alternative bit of planetary science with the flaws that ben m mentioned.

My nitpick with the first citation is that this is a conference paper. It is not a peer reviewed paper. It appeared in The 33rd IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science, 2006. ICOPS 2006. IEEE Conference Record - Abstracts.
But this is fixed with the second citation to what seems to be the same paper published in the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Physics.

Perhaps like Sol88 you could try to stick to the OP subject: Plasma Cosmology.
Some clues:

• If the paper does not mention the universe as a whole then it is probably not cosmology.
• If the distances mentioned in the paper are not billions of light years then it is probably not cosmology.
• If the paper is about craters then it is probably not cosmology.
• If the paper is about moons then it is probably not cosmology.
• If the paper is about planets then it is probably not cosmology.
• If the paper is about stars then it is probably not cosmology.
• If the paper is about galaxies then it is possibly not cosmology.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Well done tusenfem.



I'll have a look at your reply when I'm not hungover. You should also read the further sections of his publication, that was just section one I quoted, as as Alexeff said, its a "a very simplified model of the mechanism
of magnetic field generation, glossing over details in integration
in order to present the basic details of the model."

I look forward to his more definitive model in the near future (maybe in the next transactions on plasma science), and have made him aware of your critisism, to which is still waiting responce.

When you have come up with a theory to explain why the "the magnetic moments of the planets and stars are proportional to their angular momentum over some 12 orders of magnitude. “This graph is purely empirical and is regarded with disdain by theorists of planetary magnetism.”—Van Allen."

You may be able to publish a paper just like Alexeff and try to come up with an explanation for the anomalous observations.

Unless you already have one waiting? Do you?

 

[Zeuzzz]

As you can see, the dragon has been slain

Hardly. He's given a critique (and a good one at that) of one of thousands of peer reviewed plasma cosmology papers. So thats one down (maybe, determining on what Alexeff says in responce), 999 to go!

 

[Zeuzzz]

Zueuzzz: Did you notice that the title of the paper includes the words "planets" and "stars" and that nothing related to cosmology is mentioned?

Did you see my huge reference list that showed unipolar inductors/faraday electrical generators relevance from planetary and stellar all the way to galactic scales? Hence providing the link you are seeking. You know, the large part that you and tusenfem ignored. I didn't put that in for fun, you know.

 

[Reality Check]

Did you see my huge reference list that showed unipolar inductors/faraday electrical generators relevance from planetary and stellar all the way to galactic scales? Hence providing the link you are seeking. You know, the large part that you and tusenfem ignored. I didn't put that in for fun, you know.

I saw the list.
But where in the paper does the author claim his theory applies to galaxies?

An little analogy for you: NASA publishes a paper on using the position of galaxies to orientate spacecraft. They cite papers on galaxies and even galactic clusters (just for the fun of it).
Is the orientation of spacecraft then cosmology?

 

[tusenfem]

* http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Faraday_disk

A Unipolar inductor usually refers to a device in which a rotating metal disk rotating in a magnetic field, generates an electric current. The metal disk can be any conductor, including a rotating plasma. It is also known as a homopolar generator, unipolar generator, acyclic generator, disk dynamo, or Faraday disk.

Astrophysical unipolar inductors

Unipolar inductors occur in astrophysics where a conductor rotates through a magnetic field, for example, the movement of the highly conductive plasma in a cosmic body's ionosphere through its magnetic field. In their book, Cosmical Electrodynamics, Hannes Alfvén and Carl-Gunne Fälthammar write:

"Since cosmical clouds of ionized gas are generally magnetized, their motion produces induced electric fields [..] For example the motion of the magnetized interplanetary plasma produces electric fields that are essential for the production of aurora and magnetic storms" [..]
".. the rotation of a conductor in a magnetic field produces an electric field in the system at rest. This phenomenon is well known from laboratory experiments and is usually called 'homopolar ' or 'unipolar' induction. [3]

Unipolar inductors have been associated with the aurorae on Uranus,[[4]] binary stars,[5] [6] black holes,[7] [8] pulsars (neutron stars),[2] galaxies,[9] the Jupiter Io system,[10] [11] the Moon,[12] [13] the Solar Wind,[14] sunspots,[15] [16] in the Venusian magnetic tail.[17], the Earth,[18], and comets.[19] [20]

Ah, forgot that, about the unipolar inductor. That was a nice theory while it lasted, however, the Io-Jupiter "system" is not a unipolar inductor. This became clear in 2000 after the paper by Russell and Huddleston.

Sometimes the oldies are good, sometimes they are not.

 

[Tubbythin]

Hardly. He's given a critique (and a good one at that) of one of thousands of peer reviewed plasma cosmology papers. So thats one down (maybe, determining on what Alexeff says in responce), 999 to go!

Firstly, are there really thousands or is this like the "numerous" peer reviwed papers of Scott? Secondly, are they sensible peers: ie cosmologists not electrical engineers. Thirdly, what are your criteria for calling something a plasma cosmology paper?

 

[ben m]

Hardly. He's given a critique (and a good one at that) of one of thousands of peer reviewed plasma cosmology papers. So thats one down (maybe, determining on what Alexeff says in responce), 999 to go!

1) I don't think there are thousands of peer-reviewed plasma cosmology papers. There are thousands of peer reviewed papers about space plasmas, the E&M environment of pulsars, the Solar Wind, etc., which, as we've said many times, is a perfectly mainstream subfield of astrophysics. How many peer-reviewed papers are there about the role of E&M forces in Galactic orbits?

2) Is your argumentation strategy now to post all 1000 papers one by one? And you'll declare that the Jury Is Still Out until we've gotten through all 1000? (Some of which, no doubt, will be perfectly good papers on mainstream topics.)

3) I just want to point out, for the record: it was very easy to see what was right and what was wrong with the paper you posted. What made it so easy? It used math. If you had just posted the conclusion in standard PC-handwaving language, I'd have dismissed the whole thing. Since you posted actual equations as well, we can see which of them were right (some) and which of them were wrong.

4) Regarding the "we do not know the nature of this operator"---I skipped that because I they meant something more case-specific, and perhaps a language barrier made them choose this phrase which sounds a bit like they don't know the curl. This is consistent with their conclusion that del x E = E/R, which is a reasonable dimensional-analysis statement.

 

[Ziggurat]

The magnetic field is generated by a current

∇×B = μ₀J. (1)

The magnetic field is operated on by a differential operator. The exact nature of the operator is not known at present, but the basic spatial distance in the differentiation process is obviously the celestial body’s radius R. Hence

B/R = μ₀J. (2)

First off, as tusenfem noted, the curl operator is known exactly. But I suspect that's not quite what the author really meant, but rather than since we don't know the fields in detail, we can't calculate the curl exactly. This is true (if it's what he meant), though the wording is absolutely terrible. But the conclusion that ∇×B = B/R is not supported. We may roughly suspect the curl to scale as 1/R, but the prefactor is almost certainly NOT 1. So we're already brushing numbers under the rug.

Next, the current must be generated by the rotation of the planet

J = σVB = σωRB. (3)

Where does this come from? It frankly makes no sense. My guess is similiar to tusenfem: the author is trying to use J = σE, notes that E gives a force per unit charge, VxB gives a force per unit charge, and concludes that you can substitute one for the other. But you can't. Electricity will drive a current in a conducting medium, and if the medium is Ohmic, you can calculate the current with J = σE. But electric forces are not the same as Lorentz forces. Lorentz forces are always perpendicular to the direction of motion, whereas electric forces are independent of the direction of motion. If you want to calculate a current, the difference is rather crucial.

Plus, of course, we're getting the cart in front of the horse. We're trying to calculate a field by calculating the current, and then using a field (which we don't know) in order to calculate that current. All the while ignoring its actual spatial arrangement. This is not a small thing either, because induced currents create fields of their own which oppose the magnetic field that produces them. So how do we generate a magnetic field which generates itself, even though it should be canceling itself? The whole argument is nonsense, which is why the equations are so poorly justified. If this is the sort of paper that makes sense to PC advocates, it's no wonder I've seen so many of them claim that math can be used to prove anything: if you don't care about whether or not your equations are valid, then yeah, you can indeed prove anything you want to. This is a case in point: by ignoring everything about the spatial arrangement of the currents and the direction of the fields, we've "proved" that a magnetic field can create itself.

Equating the two expressions produces a result that is ambiguous in B

B/R = μ₀σωRB (4)

Of course it's ambiguous: we've posited a field which creates itself, so the value of B becomes arbitrary. This should have been a hint that the argument was crap to begin with.

However I note that the current flow from the equator of the celestial body is across the magnetic field in plasma, and Bohm conduction is appropriate. Bohm conduction will be discussed in more detail later [....]

J = σE = en_eν = en_e(E/B) = en_eωR. (5)

This one is rich. Let's start off with the first three parts:
J = σE = en_eν
OK, true enough. Let's look at that third part in a little more detail: it comes from the first part, and it's basically just a statement that the current is equal to the charge of an electron times the number density of electrons we have times the drift velocity they're moving at. v is therefore parallel to J, and so is E in the above equations. Quite correct, but we'll need a good understanding of the fact that these should really be vector equations in just a little bit. Now he says
en_eν = en_e(E/B)
But this is nonsense. Recall that E is our electromotive force driving the current. It is parallel to v. Where does v=E/B come from? It could only have come from a rewriting of the Lorentz force law, F=qv x B, which (IF v is perpendicular to B) gives v = (F/q)/B. Replace F/q with E, and I've got v=E/B. But there's a rather major problem: the Lorentz force law gives me a force perpendicular to my velocity, which means it's perpendicular to my current. So I cannot use F/q as being equivalent to the E in J = σE, because they point in perpendicular directions. That's what you get when you start treating vectors like scalars: complete and utter nonsense.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Hardly. He's given a critique (and a good one at that) of one of thousands of peer reviewed plasma cosmology papers. So thats one down (maybe, determining on what Alexeff says in responce), 999 to go!

1) I don't think there are thousands of peer-reviewed plasma cosmology papers. There are thousands of peer reviewed papers about space plasmas, the E&M environment of pulsars, the Solar Wind, etc., which, as we've said many times, is a perfectly mainstream subfield of astrophysics. How many peer-reviewed papers are there about the role of E&M forces in Galactic orbits?

2) Is your argumentation strategy now to post all 1000 papers one by one? And you'll declare that the Jury Is Still Out until we've gotten through all 1000? (Some of which, no doubt, will be perfectly good papers on mainstream topics.)

3) I just want to point out, for the record: it was very easy to see what was right and what was wrong with the paper you posted. What made it so easy? It used math. If you had just posted the conclusion in standard PC-handwaving language, I'd have dismissed the whole thing. Since you posted actual equations as well, we can see which of them were right (some) and which of them were wrong.

[...]

Hear, hear.

I think this is a very good place to remind ourselves of a post very early in this thread; here it is, in full:

Here's a suggestion for you: rather than just walk away, if you believe in this stuff - as you clearly do - take a leaf out of John's book and ignore the snarky comments and stick to your plan of posting evidence. Maybe an "idiots' guide" would be helpful? During that, continue to interact with those posters who you feel are showing you the respect you're due and see how we go.

The trouble is that there is no such thing as plasma cosmology. There is a set of ideas, ranging from the totally ridiculous (the sun is powered by electricity) to the merely stupid (flat galactic rotation curves can be explained by electromagnetic forces) to phenomena not fully understood by anyone (solar flares) to the totally mundane (most matter in the universe is plasma).

Every single concrete idea which has been put forward - of which there have not been many - has either been debunked or turns out to be consistent with mainstream astrophysics. After the fact, Zeuzzz has then declared that those ideas weren't PC after all. Every attempt to get him to produce a concrete or quantitative prediction of PC has failed, largely I think because he recognizes that it will probably be shown false in short order, leaving him with few options.

So instead he continues making vague statements about PC, and spends most of his posts attacking aspects of the standard cosmological model (relying on the logic of false dichotomy: if the standard theory is wrong mine must be right - even though I don't have one).

He runs away whenever he gets too thoroughly trapped. For example we had a long discussion on magnetic reconnection - a standard and well understood phenomenon which he claimed violated Maxwell's equations. Since this was an extremely clear example, I decided that it would make a good test. If Zeuzzz couldn't learn or admit he was wrong about that, he never would about anything and there wasn't much point in conversation. After months of being bludgeoned with irrefutable experimental, theoretical, and numerical evidence, he had totally reversed his position - while denying he had changed at all. When confronted with proof in the form of his own old posts (internet fora are nice that way) he ran away, and has only been back rarely since.

Oh, and this one too (by Tubbythin, post#2449, just before ben m's):

Firstly, are there really thousands or is this like the "numerous" peer reviwed papers of Scott? Secondly, are they sensible peers: ie cosmologists not electrical engineers. Thirdly, what are your criteria for calling something a plasma cosmology paper?

One more thing ...

Back in post#1733 in this thread I re-introduced MHDEnzo, by providing a link to an arXiv preprint on it.

There are many curious things about this, among them:

* MHDEnzo appears to be a plasma cosmologist's dream come true - simulation code that realistically simulates the electromagnetic fields so beloved of EU/PC proponents AND includes gravitation - yet not one peep from any such proponent about it

* among other things, this code may be able to do what Peratt et al. wrt spiral galaxy formation, only many orders of magnitude better (more realistic code, better machine implementation, far greater applicability in parameter space, etc) - yet not one peep from any EU/PC proponent

* AFAIK, none of the authors of the "thousands of peer reviewed plasma cosmology papers" seems to be even aware of Enzo, much less has cited it or used it ... despite its potential relevance and pertinence to plasma cosmology

* given the direct applicability of MHDEnzo to PC, perhaps it will become one of the codes most heavily used by authors of future PC papers?

* the very existence of such code demonstrates that one of the persistent EU myths^ is, at best, gross ignorance and is, more likely, a cynical lie; the deafening silence from regular EU/PC proponents on this, in this thread and the MM-initiated one, suggest that the latter interpretation is closer to the mark.

* the code has already been used for two published papers (in ApJ, in 2008), on questions of considerable cosmological significance (Population III star formation and formation of one kind of structure in galaxy clusters) - yet neither is cited by any EU/PC proponent (at least here in this part of the JREF Forum).

^ that mainstream astrophysicists do not apply plasma physics to their work, because they are ignorant of it, or for more sinister motives

 

[Zeuzzz]

3) I just want to point out, for the record: it was very easy to see what was right and what was wrong with the paper you posted. What made it so easy? It used math. If you had just posted the conclusion in standard PC-handwaving language, I'd have dismissed the whole thing. Since you posted actual equations as well, we can see which of them were right (some) and which of them were wrong.

Please show me a plasma cosmology publication about plasma cosmology that contains "standard PC-handwaving language" and no maths. Hint: You wont be able to. Not one.*

I think you will find that all PC material uses maths, and rigorously so, Ben M. I just dont think that you have a clue what PC is, I think that you think some of the silly EU theories and advocates from thunderbolts and Thornhill et al are relevent to plasma cosmology in some way. They rarely use maths (with some exceptions [Scott]), whereas plasma cosmology is based entirely on maths, science, maxwells equations, MHD considerations, real plasma properties and general non linear plasma behaviour

There are hundreds more with maths in it. Maybe starting with this one would be a good idea:

Two world systems revisited: a comparison of plasma cosmology and the big bang, Lerner, E. J., IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. 31, issue 6, pp. 1268-1275 [full text]

Shock! Lots of maths, data and statistics

So whats you comments on the maths in that one then

*Unless you make stupid mistake of confusing unpublished electric universe/electric cosmos theories with PC models.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Good bye. Cant be bothered to engage in debate today. Brain cells are too fried.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Good bye. Cant be bothered to engage in debate today. Brain cells are too fried.

Is today really different than any other?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Please show me a plasma cosmology publication about plasma cosmology that contains "standard PC-handwaving language" and no maths. Hint: You wont be able to. Not one.*

I think you will find that all PC material uses maths, and rigorously so, Ben M. I just dont think that you have a clue what PC is, I think that you think some of the silly EU theories and advocates from thunderbolts and Thornhill et al are relevent to plasma cosmology in some way. They rarely use maths (with some exceptions [Scott]), whereas plasma cosmology is based entirely on maths, science, maxwells equations, MHD considerations, real plasma properties and general non linear plasma behaviour

[...]

*Unless you make stupid mistake of confusing unpublished electric universe/electric cosmos theories with PC models.

(bold added - except for the first instance)

Let's see now, who wrote the following, earlier in this thread^ (bold added)?

"Depends what you categorize plasma cosmology as. I define it as the study of the plasma universe, which see's no need for an ex nihilo creationist perspective of the universe, and focusses on what processes are ongoing and fully experimentally verifiable, with a lot more attention given to plasma forces and electromagnetism than the traditional gravity and mass only models. This is what most PC proponents would also define it as. So Scotts material, and Thornhills, would fall under this scope, by this definition, as they are dealing specifically with EM forces and plasma effects in the cosmos."

"You cant simply dismiss an entire scientific publication just for the reason that the material addressed does not have equations in it."

What publication is the author of this quote referring to? Why it's this one, by Thornhill, published in IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, and yes, it contains no equations, or math, or ...

So how did such an awful document actually get published? Were the reviewers asleep at the wheel? And just who were they anyway?

"The same ones that review the transactions on plasma science like every other publication. In this edition, Peratt and Eastman were the directors, and other very prominent scientists reviewed Thornhills paper, along with all the other publications in the journal.

Heres a couple;

[...]

I could list more of the reviewers, but I think you get the point."

"Good bye. Cant be bothered to engage in debate today. Brain cells are too fried." - dear reader, you are on your own in terms of finding who posted this, and where, in this thread ...

^ no prizes for getting the right answer; sources: here, and here

 

[Zeuzzz]

So Scotts material, and Thornhills, would fall under this scope, by this definition, as they are dealing specifically with EM forces and plasma effects in the cosmos.[/I]"

So would every other papaer on plasma or EM in space. Which is why I later retracted from Peratts vague defintion.

 

[Ziggurat]

Please show me a plasma cosmology publication about plasma cosmology that contains "standard PC-handwaving language" and no maths. Hint: You wont be able to. Not one.*

*Unless you make stupid mistake of confusing unpublished electric universe/electric cosmos theories with PC models.

Ben didn't say anything about "published" work (by which I presume you mean in print, since web sites are arguably publications). So you're constructing a strawman. But even so, it's not a particularly good one, since it's simply not true: there are indeed exactly such publications. In fact, let's look at
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/
What do we find? They're currently hawking e-books (yes, that's a publication) which apparently consist entirely of pretty pictures and words. Taking a look at the first one, we find not a single calculation, and other than page numbers and dates, only one other number is presented in the entire first chapter (the only part I can access for free).

So I decided I'd look around the plasma cosmology web site itself, to see if their writing was similarly hand-waving without any math. I figured "Technical" would be the logical place to look, and low and behold, I did find a bit of math, which they quote from somewhere else:

But perhaps the most important characteristic of electromagnetism is that it obeys the longest-range force law in the universe. When two or more non-plasma bodies interact gravitationally, their force law varies inversely as the square of the distance between them; 1/4 the pull if they are 2 arbitrary measurement units apart, 1/9 the pull for a distance of 3 units apart, 1/16 the pull for 4 units apart, and so on. When plasmas, say streams of charged particles, interact electromagnetically, their force law varies inversely as the distance between them, 1/2 the pull if they are 2 arbitrary measurement units apart, 1/3 the pull for a distance of 3 units apart, 1/4 the pull for 4 units apart, and so on. So at 4 arbitrary distance units apart, the electromagnetic force is 4 times greater than that of gravitation, relatively speaking, and at 100 units, apart, the electromagnetic force is 100 times that of gravitation.

They've got a picture to go along with this explanation. Funny thing, though, but the above is a complete lie. It compares the gravitational attraction of point-like objects to the electromagnetic interaction of line objects where the separation is much smaller than the line length. Small problem: both electricity AND gravity will produce 1/r forces for line objects when line length is much longer than separation distance. Once that separation distance is significantly larger than the length, it won't obey 1/r force laws anymore - in fact, since any current will have to form a loop and you'll have a dipole interaction, separated currents will interact as 1/r³, which is shorter range than gravity. So electromagnetism does NOT obey longer-range force laws than gravity. Even the little math that is presented is presented in a hand-waving fashion, and is used to basically lie.

 

[Reality Check]

So would every other papaer on plasma or EM in space. Which is why I later retracted from Peratts vague defintion.

If you have retracted from Peratts vague defintion then what have you replaced it with?

I assume that this is "Peratts vague defintion"

the study of the plasma universe, which see's no need for an ex nihilo creationist perspective of the universe, and focusses on what processes are ongoing and fully experimentally verifiable, with a lot more attention given to plasma forces and electromagnetism than the traditional gravity and mass only models.

The alternative is that you are admitting that plasma cosmology is undefined as far as you are concerned .

 

[Zeuzzz]

Ben didn't say anything about "published" work (by which I presume you mean in print, since web sites are arguably publications). So you're constructing a strawman. But even so, it's not a particularly good one, since it's simply not true: there are indeed exactly such publications. In fact, let's look at
http://www.plasmacosmology.net/
What do we find? They're currently hawking e-books (yes, that's a publication) which apparently consist entirely of pretty pictures and words. Taking a look at the first one, we find not a single calculation, and other than page numbers and dates, only one other number is presented in the entire first chapter (the only part I can access for free).

That website is nothing to do with plasma cosmology. Its by the guy that runs the thundbolts crap. He doesn't have a clue about physics, as his articles demonstrate, he uses the term plasma cosmology to try to add credence to some of the electric universe garbage and try to sell as many books as possible. If you want to see plasma cosmology stuff then look in the peer reviewed journal articles at the IEEE, Peratts book Physics of the Plasma Universe (available at all good universities) Cosmic plasma by Hannes Alfven, or any other publication. Your making me sound like a broken record! And still you dont do what I ask, every time.

Look here: http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma_Universe_resources#Journals

And on the IEEE site for their journals; http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=27

HAPPY READING

Please dont quote any more stuff from dubious watered down websites.

So I decided I'd look around the plasma cosmology web site itself, to see if their writing was similarly hand-waving without any math. I figured "Technical" would be the logical place to look, and low and behold, I did find a bit of math, which they quote from somewhere else:

Not really representative, again.

They've got a picture to go along with this explanation. Funny thing, though, but the above is a complete lie. It compares the gravitational attraction of point-like objects to the electromagnetic interaction of line objects where the separation is much smaller than the line length. Small problem: both electricity AND gravity will produce 1/r forces for line objects when line length is much longer than separation distance.

So gravity obeys a similar geometric law as EM? as in, amperes law around a wire (1/r)? Do you have a reference? How on Earth could this have ever been measured.

Could tie in very nicely indeed with a certain someones theory of galaxy formation. Gravitational attraction of 1/r between filaments of considerable mass, without the need for dark matter!

Once that separation distance is significantly larger than the length, it won't obey 1/r force laws anymore - in fact, since any current will have to form a loop and you'll have a dipole interaction, separated currents will interact as 1/r³, which is shorter range than gravity. So electromagnetism does NOT obey longer-range force laws than gravity. Even the little math that is presented is presented in a hand-waving fashion, and is used to basically lie.

Your looking at something written by a PC proponent thats been watered down for the general public, and claiming this is 'core claim' they are making. Its a website, look at the peer reviewed material underlying it which goes into far more detail. Crickey.

And I'm sorry but it categorically does obey a longer range force law than gravity in this case like Peratt says (Biot Savart force law). Sure, magnetoststics and electroctstaics obey 1/r^2 like gravity, but not in the case of large scale filamentary attraction, which is a unique force unto itself.

You are right in what you say btw "Once that separation distance is significantly larger than the length, it won't obey 1/r force laws anymore", but this really doesn't matter, as in the case we are talking about a model where the separation distance is not significantly larger than the length. The filaments in question are called filaments for a reason. So his assertion is completely true. And will remain so. Which you would know if you had the slightest comprehention of plasma cosmology. Still no-ones emailed me to ask for the PDF of Peratts physics of the plasma universe. Have a look in your local uni. Until people read this much cited and respected material and comment on its veracity, this converstaion is going to go round and roound in circles. No-one thats cited his book has refuted anything in it. Maybe you could be the first Ziggy, eh?

I dont know how many flipping time I'm going to say this, but PLEASE look at the peer reviewed publictaions in highly respected journals and not short snippets from dubious simplistic websites.


Start with these two: Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, A. L. Peratt, 1997, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 242, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1996 [full text]

Abstract Plasma science is rich in distinguishable scales ranging from the atomic to the galactic to the meta-galactic, i.e., themesoscale. Thus plasma science has an important contribution to make in understanding the connection between microscopic and macroscopic phenomena. Plasma is a system composed of a large number of particles which interact primarily, but not exclusively, through the electromagnetic field. The problem of understanding the linkages and couplings in multi-scale processes is a frontier problem of modern science involving fields as diverse as plasma phenomena in the laboratory to galactic dynamics.

Unlike the first three states of matter, plasma, often called the fourth state of matter, involves the mesoscale and its interdisciplinary founding have drawn upon various subfields of physics including engineering, astronomy, and chemistry. Basic plasma research is now posed to provide, with major developments in instrumentation and large-scale computational resources, fundamental insights into the properties of matter on scales ranging from the atomic to the galactic. In all cases, these are treated as mesoscale systems. Thus, basic plasma research, when applied to the study of astrophysical and space plasmas, recognizes that the behavior of the near-earth plasma environment may depend to some extent on the behavior of the stellar plasma, that may in turn be governed by galactic plasmas. However, unlike laboratory plasmas, astrophysical plasmas will forever be inaccessible to in situ observation. The inability to test concepts and theories of large-scale plasmas leaves only virtual testing as a means to understand the universe. Advances in in computer technology and the capability of performing physics first principles, fully three-dimensional, particle-in-cell simulations, are making virtual testing a viable alternative to verify our predictions about the far universe.

The first part of this paper explores the dynamical and fluid properties of the plasma state, plasma kinetics, and the radiation emitted from plasmas. The second part of this paper outlines the formulation for the particle-in-cell simulation of astrophysical plasmas and advances in simulational techniques and algorithms, as-well-as the advances that may be expected as the computational resource grows to petaflop speed/memory capabilities.

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A. L. Peratt, Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol246, 1998 [full text]


When you've found out all the hand waving, wrong aspects, crackpot parts, and mistakes, please contact the Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science and ask them to retract the paper. In the stutaion that major mistakes have been made, they DO make retratcions, it has happened before. I remember Science retratcing a couple of old papers recently due to them being wrong.


The last publication can also be vewied in Plasma physics: proceedings of the 1997 Latin American workshop : VII LAWPP 97, held in Caracas, Venezuela, January 20-31, 1997, available in HardBack in all good universities, and continaing Peratts plasma cosmology material. Look on this page for the google book (page 51): http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=...BFCc&sig=uuEQVHDy8fiuBD-37H7BBrQKFgM#PPA50,M1

This book contains a broad spectrum of Plasma Physics areas: magnetic confinement (tokamaks), inertial confinement (hohlraums), pulse plasmas (z-pinch, plasma focus), plasma astrophysics, dusty plasmas, plasma processing, basic plasma physics, computational plasma physics, shock waves, spectroscopy in plasmas, etc. Both invited and contributed papers of the VII LAWPP (VII Latin American Workshop on Plasma Physics) are included in this volume. The invited papers of the LAWPP present minicourses for graduate students and review papers in each area. This was the spirit of the preceding LAWPP. These papers are also an update of the new ideas in the field. The book will be of interest to researchers and graduate students.

And this one may be a good idea aswell: Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 89-103 1997

Contrary to popular and scientific opinion of just a few decades ago, space is not an ‘empty’ void. It is actually filled with high energy particles, magnetic fields, and highly conducting plasma. The ability of plasmas to produce electric fields, either by instabilities brought about by plasma motion or the movement of magnetic fields, has popularized the term ‘Electric Space’ in recognition of the electric fields systematically discovered and measured in the solar system. Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state and the importance of electromagnetic forces on cosmic plasma cannot be overstated; even in neutral hydrogen regions (˜10^‑4 parts ionized), the electromagnetic force to gravitational force ratio is 10⁷. An early prediction about the morphology of the universe is that it be filamentary (Alfvén, 1950). Plasmas in electric space are energetic (because of electric fields) and they are generally inhomogeneous with constituent parts in motion. Plasmas in relative motion are coupled by the currents they drive in each other and nonequilibrium plasma often consists of current-conducting filaments. This paper explores the dynamical and radiative consequences of the evolution of galactic-dimensioned filaments in electric space.

There are hunderds of others in the IEEE journals, in Astrophysics and Space Science and other journals.

SO STOP CONFUSING EU SPECULATIVE UNPUBLISHED NONSENSE FOR PLASMA COSMOLOGY. Theres a scientific process and a peer review process for a very good reason. As i said before.

Nuff said. Wan't even going to post anymore today. But this just screamed at me to outline where your going all wrong. Will anyone ever listen when I tell them the difference between plasma cosmology in journals, and just speculative EU material thats been masked under the more authorative material of plasma cosmology? I hope so. One day. Its a dream I have. Nearly 60 pages of posts and still no-one seems to have got it yet!