Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Reality Check]

Indeed yes, it falls down in too many areas to be a serious contendor. But similar ideas based on 1/r laws (instead of 1/r^2) and using more complex initial mass distributions than a simple high mass core could prove fruitful in the future.
Though none exist to date that I know of, using either EM or a modfication of gravity.

Citations please to the papers containing these "similar ideas based on 1/r laws" of gravity. But this sounds like they are your ideas.

If you mean MOND then you are expressing it wrongly (there is no 1/r law in MOND).

Maybe you could answer the question about the longest acting force in the universe Reality Check?

What was the question about gravity?
I saw no question containing that phrase.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Citations please to the papers containing these "similar ideas based on 1/r laws" of gravity.

Any book that uses the Biot Savart force law or equivalent electrostatic version

But this sounds like they are your ideas.

As for applying them to galactic sized filaments, or defining gravity to behave in a similar geometric fashion, yes. My own idea.

If you mean MOND then you are expressing it wrongly (there is no 1/r law in MOND).

Yup I know.

What was the question about gravity?
I saw no question containing that phrase.

Ok lets re-state.

Given that the biot savart force law obeys 1/r whereas gravity 1/r^2 its self evident that on larger scales the biot savart law is the stronger of the two. True yes?

 

[ben m]

Any book that uses the Biot Savart force law or equivalent electrostatic version
...
Given that the biot savart force law obeys 1/r whereas gravity 1/r^2 its self evident that on larger scales the biot savart law is the stronger of the two. True yes?

Electrostatic: you mean Coulomb's Law? Sorry, both the Biot-Savart law and Coulomb's Law give forces that drop as 1/r^2, not 1/r.

Perhaps you're confused by the force due to an infinitely-long current-carrying wire or an infinite line of charge---this force drops as 1/r. (You see this fairly often, because the long straight wire is a reasonably common configuration for a current.). But the Biot-Savart law has the same 1/r^2 term as Coulomb's Law and as Newton's Law of Gravitation.

And, of course, if you compute the gravitational force due to an infinitely-long line of mass, like a long straight wire or a rod, you'll find that the gravitational force drops as 1/r.

(I am no longer surprised by how little astrophysics EU/PC enthusiasts know. I should probably stop being surprised by how little E&M they know.)

 

[dafydd]

So you're saying Einstein, Hawking, Susskind, etc., are all wrong?

Don't you just love woos? They brighten up a dull day.

 

[Reality Check]

Given that the biot savart force law obeys 1/r whereas gravity 1/r^2 its self evident that on larger scales the biot savart law is the stronger of the two. True yes?

As ben_m points out: True no. False yes! (even for an infinitely long wire).
Biot–Savart law.

 

[Dancing David]

The november newsletter is out, not really plasma cosmology but more issues with the big bang, etc.

http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2009.11.pdf



As for this thread ... I think that I've said everything I know on this subject. Any further queries I could likely reply to by just re-quoting previous answers I have given. And Ziggurat if you are reading would be nice of you to address my reply about the longest ranging force in the universe.

And those issues are?

 

[sol invictus]

Given that the biot savart force law obeys 1/r whereas gravity 1/r^2 its self evident that on larger scales the biot savart law is the stronger of the two. True yes?

This has already been explained to you many times in the past, Zeuzzz. As I (literally) learned in high school physics, the strongest possible magnetic force goes as 1/r^4 at long distances ("long" means the separation distance is larger than the size of the objects or configurations involved).

You get a 1/r force between two straight parallel wires separated by a distance less than their linear extent. Of course you also get 1/r forces between two long straight parallel line charges, or line masses. And in fact, while I've never checked, you should get gravitomagnetic 1/r forces between two long straight parallel mass currents. All of those 1/r forces are short distance; the minute the separation exceeds the length of the current/line charge, the force switches over (to 1/r^2 for charge or mass, and 1/r^4 for current loops).

In no case is the long range force ever stronger than 1/r^2, and for magnetism (due to the lack of magnetic monopoles) it's never stronger than 1/r^4.

 

[Ziggurat]

This has already been explained to you many times in the past, Zeuzzz.

Indeed. At length.

 

[Zeuzzz]

wow I got pwned.

 

[Zeuzzz]

attempt2, Gravity is purely attractive it can not create large filamentary structures of high mass as everything is pulled towards the COG. EM has a repulsive component and plasmas have an inherant tendancy to filament, meaning that the very long filaments required to get a nearly 1/r attraction is not completely untenable.

So the point that gravity also obeys 1/r in a similar situation (gravitational force due to an infinitely-long line of mass) is moot, the attrcative field will never allow the formation of such large scale filamentary structures for this to practically work, plasmas however are ideally suited to form structures very close to the ideal situation that gives the 1/r relationship.

 

[ben m]

attempt2, Gravity is purely attractive it can not create large filamentary structures of high mass as everything is pulled towards the COG.

Nope. 1/r^2 attraction DOES make filamentary structures, as is easily visible every time someone solves the equations of motion of lots of masses under 1/r^2 attraction. This, for example, is a solution of the equations-of-motion in which the only force is gravitational attraction.

Your mistake: things are NOT pulled "towards the center of gravity". Remember the 1/r^2? If the center of gravity is a large mass far away (large r), but there's also a smaller mass much closer to you (small r), you're pulled towards the smaller, closer mass. This happens to result in filaments. Don't believe me? Solve the damn many-body 1/r^2 equations yourself.

 

[Tim Thompson]

Gravity forms filaments

Gravity is purely attractive it can not create large filamentary structures of high mass as everything is pulled towards the COG.

As ben_m points out, this is not true. Aside from the millenium simulation he linked, see also Formation of the large-scale structure in the Universe: Simulations where the videos explicitly show the formation of filamentary structure from gravity alone. Also see N-body Simulation Images & Videos.

 

[Michael Mozina]

This has already been explained to you many times in the past, Zeuzzz. As I (literally) learned in high school physics, the strongest possible magnetic force goes as 1/r^4 at long distances ("long" means the separation distance is larger than the size of the objects or configurations involved).

You get a 1/r force between two straight parallel wires separated by a distance less than their linear extent. Of course you also get 1/r forces between two long straight parallel line charges, or line masses. And in fact, while I've never checked, you should get gravitomagnetic 1/r forces between two long straight parallel mass currents. All of those 1/r forces are short distance; the minute the separation exceeds the length of the current/line charge, the force switches over (to 1/r^2 for charge or mass, and 1/r^4 for current loops).

In no case is the long range force ever stronger than 1/r^2, and for magnetism (due to the lack of magnetic monopoles) it's never stronger than 1/r^4.

Ya, but gravity isn't heating those coronal loops to millions of degrees and it's not creating that million mile per hour solar wind. It's simply fascinating to me that you (all) can be this adept at math and physics yet "resist" the obvious to the point of absurdity.

 

[ben m]

Ya, but gravity isn't heating those coronal loops to millions of degrees and it's not creating that million mile per hour solar wind. It's simply fascinating to me that you (all) can be this adept at math and physics yet "resist" the obvious to the point of absurdity.

I think MM has some sort of auto-posting system set up. If it sees a post containing the word "gravity", it's programmed to auto-reply saying "you ignored electromagnetism", folllwed by a random boilerplate quote from the EU library.

Otherwise: Who are you arguing with?

Do you agree with Zeuzzz, for some reason, in his claim that magnetism is a 1/r force? Do you agree with Zeuzzz, for some reason, in his claim that 1/r^2 attractive forces can't make filaments? Whoever said that gravity heats coronal loops and generates the solar wind? Have you forgotten all the hours you've spent arguing against magnetic reconnection?

 

[Ziggurat]

I was just pointing out that the gravitational field is not completely comparable to the EM field, as it lacks a repulsive component and is not made up of two fields.

Once again, you demonstrate that you simply have no idea what you're talking about. The electromagnetic field is a single rank-2 tensor field. Because it's antisymmetric, we can express it as two separate vector fields, but that's not what it really is. How about gravity? By golly, we get the same thing. The gravitomagnetic field is usually too weak to notice, but it's there.

It's true that gravity and E&M are different because gravity has only one charge type, and like charges attract. But IIRC you're still in denial about what the consequences of that are (negative potential energy). Feel free to correct me if you've figure that part out.

This is where the difference comes in, and why the Biot Savart force law does not need infinitely long filaments, as would be required by gravity.

Wrong. So wrong. The 1/r form of the Biot-Savart force law does indeed need infinitely long filaments, or else it's only an approximation. In fact, if you look it up in Griffiths Intro to Electrodynamics, you'll find that the 1/r form of the law isn't even what he gives as the Biot-Savart law, but rather an integral over your current element with each term contributing 1/r². From which it's rather obvious (to anyone who knows any vector calculus, anyways) that the 1/r form for straight wire currents MUST be an approximation if the wire is finite length.

True.

No, you obviously don't get it: it only gives 1/r if your integral is over an infinite source line. If it's finite, then it will be approximately 1/r if your distance from the source is much less than the length of the source. But this is true for ANY integral of a 1/r² force, including (you guessed it) gravity AND magnetism.

Ah. Heres the crux of the issue. This is where the inherant properties of plasmas to form into filaments come in. And where the exclusively attractive field of gravity can not compare, as it can not create linearities.

You keep saying gravity can't create filaments, but you've got nothing other than your intuition to demonstrate that. Actual many-body simulations demonstrate that your intuition is as wrong as the rest of your thinking on this topic.

Yes, you can integrate over the current line to get a 1/r. And yes, you can also integrate gravity over a mass line and get 1/r. BUT there will never be a line mass big enough in nature due to the exclusively attractive nature of the gravitational field.

You just don't get it. A line mass only needs to be "big enough" relative to the separation distance. And that applies to both electromagnetic forces AND gravity. If a line source is long enough to produce approximately 1/r forces from magnetism, then it will obviously and necessarily be long enough to produce approximately 1/r forces from gravity as well, in the same bloody place. You can't get charge or current without mass. If the universe is filamentary with 1/r electromagnetic forces operating on cosmic scales, then there will necessarily be 1/r gravitational forces as well.

Plus you need infinitely long straight infinitely fine filaments for it to work perfectly, which is patently obserd.

That's the exact same thing in the case of the Biot-Savart law. Talking about 1/r scaling is rather obviously (well, obvious to everyone else) talking about approximate scaling. Oh, and they don't need to be infinitely fine either, only cylindrically symmetric. That applies to both gravity and currents.

Well, this is where the **** hits the pan. I'm still waiting for you to produce a paper where a 1/r law is used for gravity. There are hundreds that show that the 1/r force holds over a huge range scale for amperes law (or its equivalent Biot Savart version)

Line sources are of little interest to most gravity situations. And like I said, 1/r scaling for a line source is a necessary result of three things:
1) linearity of the field with respect to sources
2) 1/r² scaling for a point source
3) the universe being logically consistent

So which one of those do you want to challenge, Zeuzzz? Because otherwise, there simply is no alternative. None. Playing journal hunt games won't change any of that.

 

[Reality Check]

Ya, but gravity isn't heating those coronal loops to millions of degrees and it's not creating that million mile per hour solar wind. It's simply fascinating to me that you (all) can be this adept at math and physics yet "resist" the obvious to the point of absurdity.

No one claims that gravity heats coronal loops to millions of degrees or creates the solar wind speed. Theories for the coronal heating problem and solar wind speed involve a little thing called electromagnetism that you may (or may not ) have heard of.
It's simply fascinating to me that you (Michael Mozina) can be this incompetent at math and physics yet "resist" the obvious to the point of absurdity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No one claims that gravity heats coronal loops to millions of degrees or creates the solar wind speed. Theories for the coronal heating problem and solar wind speed involve a little thing called electromagnetism that you may (or may not ) have heard of.
It's simply fascinating to me that you (Michael Mozina) can be this incompetent at math and physics yet "resist" the obvious to the point of absurdity.

Ya right. You point Rhessi and Fermi at Earth and they both see gamma rays coming from "discharges" in the Earths atmosphere. You point the same equipment at the solar atmosphere, see the same gamma rays and claim "magnetic reconnection did it". Now it is somehow all my fault that not a single one of you can explain the unique physical energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection" or show that it is any different than ordinary EM interactions in plasma. It's all my fault I suppose that you can't empirically duplicate Birkeland's work with spheres with "magnetic reconnection" too?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think MM has some sort of auto-posting system set up. If it sees a post containing the word "gravity", it's programmed to auto-reply saying "you ignored electromagnetism", folllwed by a random boilerplate quote from the EU library.

No, I just love how you folks want to attempt to explain everything that you observe in space *without* current flow. It's so cute. It's just adorable how you all ignore that high speed solar wind, those million degree coronal loops and jets that were all empirical "predictions" of Birkeland's experiments (real physical experiments with real control mechanisms).

Have you forgotten all the hours you've spent arguing against magnetic reconnection?

My argument with it is exactly the same as Alfven's problem with the concept. It's a "pseudoscientific" understanding of plasma physics. Magnetic lines always form as a full and complete continuum. They are physically incapable of making or breaking connections with other magnetic lines. They don't act like a "circuit", only circuits do that.

 

[GeeMack]

No, I just love how you folks want to attempt to explain everything that you observe in space *without* current flow. It's so cute. It's just adorable how you all ignore that high speed solar wind, those million degree coronal loops and jets that were all empirical "predictions" of Birkeland's experiments (real physical experiments with real control mechanisms).

Yet in all the years you've been preaching your faith, you've never been able to point out exactly where in Birkeland's work he predicted those winds and jets and all that solid iron surface crap. Not once. And you won't do it again today. You'll post a link to a piece of material that nobody else takes to mean what you think it means. You'll wave around a hundred year old black and white picture that has nothing to do with the way the Sun actually works. You'll whine because everyone else isn't stupid enough to fall for your looks-like-a-bunny crackpot standard of evidence. You'll bitch about your paranoid conspiracy theory where all the scientists in the world refuse to go along with your fruitcake fantasy for fear of losing their funding. You'll continue to believe that all your arguments from incredulity and ignorance support your contention. But there's one thing you absolutely will not do, and that is to actually show where Birkeland specifically made those predictions you claim he made.

But go ahead and prove me wrong, Michael. How about just this once, instead of crying like a little girl because people have the gall to ask you to support your crackpot notions, how about you actually do it. Quote Birkeland. Show the math. Reference a specific document, page, and line where he described the physics behind that high speed solar wind. Point out the real physical experiments with real control mechanisms where he generated million degree coronal loops.

Shine for us, Michael. It's your turn.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yet in all the years you've been preaching your faith, you've never been able to point out exactly where in Birkeland's work he predicted those winds and jets and all that solid iron surface crap. Not once.

http://www.archive.org/download/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf

I don't think you even know how to tell the truth.

And you won't do it again today. You'll post a link to a piece of material that nobody else takes to mean what you think it means.

You mean you won't read it YET AGAIN.

You'll wave around a hundred year old black and white picture that has nothing to do with the way the Sun actually works. You'll whine because everyone else isn't stupid enough to fall for your looks-like-a-bunny crackpot standard of evidence.

Your industry is the one looking for magnetic bunnies in everything they see. Birkeland actually created "empirical experiments" to verify his work whereas you folks are just lazy at this point.

You'll bitch about your paranoid conspiracy theory

You mean like the way astronomers go out of their way to NOT mention the word "electricity" or "current flow" in relationship to solar events? It's not my imagination. Even a cursory glance at the rules over at BAUT demonstrate the irrational prejudice of this industry. Anything "electric" is "against the mainstream" and immediately gets treated as heresy, witch trial and everything.

where all the scientists in the world refuse to go along with your fruitcake fantasy

When are you going to stop trying to credit me with an idea that's over 100 years old?

But there's one thing you absolutely will not do, and that is to actually show where Birkeland specifically made those predictions you claim he made.

I'm sure as hell not going to waste anymore time on you quoting Birkeland only to have you plug your ears and go into pure denial again.

But go ahead and prove me wrong, Michael.

Ok, fine.

Page 664 BIRKELAND. THE NORWEGIAN AURORA POLARIS EXPEDITION, 19021903.

If the metallic globe surrounding the electro-magnet is not smooth, but has sharp points on its surface, for instance near the poles, the disruptive discharges would issue at these points, and it will be.necessary to use a stronger magnetisation to make the patches arrange themselves in zones round the equator. From the results obtained by SWABE, WOLF, CARRINGTON and SPOERER, we know that the sun-spots arrange themselves just in two zones between 5 and 40 N and S latitude, in such a manner that in the minimum-period of the spots, they begin to show themselves in high latitudes, and then descend until at their maximum-period they have reached a latitude of about 16 north and south. If we remember especially that the spots are the centres of emission of very stiff cathode-rays (Ho =3 X 10^6 C. G. S.), which give rise to auroras and magnetic perturbations on our earth, it would appear as if the sun-spots were the foot-points of disruptive electric discharges from the sun.

Oh look, Birkeland and his friends predicted disruptive electric discharges from the sun, focused around sunspots, 50 years before I was born! Now go ahead and and keep bending the truth and continue to demonstrate the lack of ethics that pervades your industry today. You're the perfect poster child of the willfully ignorant astronomer. You refuse to read anything presented to you. You don't respond to the material and you don't think before you stick your foot in your mouth. You don't want to learn and you refuse to educate yourself on your own without your EU mommy shoving the material down your throat. In short you're ignorant because you *WANT* to remain ignorant and you want to blame someone for your ignorance.