Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Yes, just like you expect in the mainstream model.



No there aren't. There is zero evidence for processes requiring electric fields (other than the transient fields you get in a magnetized plasmas). The only evidence is "if we want Birkeland's terrella to be the correct model for everything that vaguely looks like it, we need electrostatic currents", which is to say no evidence at all.

Read the four papers I just cited and repeat that statement Ben. If you do, I'll know you have no interest in "truth". The evidence is right there Ben.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0384
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606657
 
Quantitatively speaking, what is wrong with any of the following papers?

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0384
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606657

No dodging, no BS, no playing games anymore. What's wrong with these papers DRD, or are you just in pure denial?
I can answer for DRD.

Nothing is wrong with any of the papers.
They are about the electrical fields and currents that are produced by solar flares from coronal loops (magnetic fields).
  • Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits
    A large number of energetic electrons are generated during solar flares. They carry a substantial part of the flare released energy but how these electrons are created is not fully understood yet. This paper suggests that plasma motion in an active region in the photosphere is the source of large electric currents. These currents can be described by macroscopic circuits. Under special circumstances currents can establish in the corona along magnetic field lines. The energy released by these currents when moderate assumptions for the local conditions are made, is found be comparable to the flare energy
  • Eruptions of Magnetic Ropes in Two Homologous Solar Events on 2002 June 1 and 2: a Key to Understanding of an Enigmatic Flare
    The goal of this paper is to understand the drivers, configurations, and scenarios of two similar eruptive events, which occurred in the same solar active region 9973 on 2002 June 1 and 2. The June 2 event was previously studied by Sui, Holman, and Dennis (2006, 2008), who concluded that it was challenging for popular flare models. Using multi-spectral data, we analyze a combination of the two events. Each of the events exhibited an evolving cusp-like feature. We have revealed that these apparent ``cusps'' were most likely mimicked by twisted magnetic flux ropes, but unlikely to be related to the inverted Y-like magnetic configuration in the standard flare model. The ropes originated inside a funnel-like magnetic domain whose base was bounded by an EUV ring structure, and the top was associated with a coronal null point. The ropes appear to be the major drivers for the events, but their rise was not triggered by reconnection in the coronal null point. We propose a scenario and a three-dimensional scheme for these events in which the filament eruptions and flares were caused by interaction of the ropes.
  • Observational evidence for return currents in solar flare loops
    Context: The common flare scenario comprises an acceleration site in the corona and particle transport to the chromosphere. Using satellites available to date it has become possible to distinguish between the two processes of acceleration and transport, and study the particle propagation in flare loops in detail, as well as complete comparisons with theoretical predictions.
    Aims: We complete a quantitative comparison between flare hard X-ray spectra observed by RHESSI and theoretical predictions. This enables acceleration to be distinguished from transport and the nature of transport effects to be explored.
    Methods: Data acquired by the RHESSI satellite were analyzed using full sun spectroscopy as well as imaging spectroscopy methods. Coronal source and footpoint spectra of well observed limb events were analyzed and quantitatively compared to theoretical predictions. New concepts are introduced to existing models to resolve discrepancies between observations and predictions.
    Results: The standard thin-thick target solar flare model cannot explain the observations of all events. In the events presented here, propagation effects in the form of non-collisional energy loss are of importance to explain the observations. We demonstrate that those energy losses can be interpreted in terms of an electric field in the flare loop. One event seems consistent with particle propagation or acceleration in lower than average density in the coronal source.
    Conclusions: We find observational evidence for an electric field in flare loops caused by return currents.
  • A fresh look on the heating mechanisms of the Solar corona
    Recently using Particle-In-Cell simulations i.e. in the kinetic plasma description Tsiklauri et al. and G\'enot et al. reported on a discovery of a new mechanism of parallel electric field generation, which results in electron acceleration. In this work we show that the parallel (to the uniform unperturbed magnetic field) electric field generation can be obtained in much simpler framework using ideal Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) description, i.e. without resorting to complicated wave particle interaction effects such as ion polarisation drift and resulting space charge separation which seems to be an ultimate cause of the electron acceleration. Further, in the context of the coronal heating problem a new {\it two stage mechanism} of the plasma heating is presented by putting emphasis, first, on the generation of parallel electric fields within {\it ideal MHD} description directly, rather than focusing on the enhanced dissipation mechanisms of the Alfv\'en waves and, second, dissipation of these parallel electric fields via {\it kinetic} effects. It is shown that a single Alfv\'en wave harmonic with frequency ($\nu = 7$ Hz), (which has longitudinal wavelength $\lambda_A = 0.63$ Mm for putative Alfv\'en speed of 4328 km s$^{-1}$) the generated parallel electric field could account for the 10% of the necessary coronal heating requirement. We conjecture that wide spectrum (10$^{-4}-10^3$ Hz) Alfv\'en waves, based on observationally constrained spectrum, could provide necessary coronal heating requirement
 
Pure denial. I apply the empirical method very consistently. It is you that consistently puts their "faith' in metaphysical BS. "Dark energy" is a figment of your collective imagination. It does not empirically exist or have any effect on an empirical experiment. "Electromagnetic energy" however does exist in nature in massive quantities.
Pure ignorance.
There is no such thing as the "empirical method" used in science. There is the scientific method which starts by taking empirical data ("The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.") and constructing hypotheses to explain the data.
But we should not derail this thread into your usual rant about your ignorance of the scientifice method. My suggestion: Start a new thread on your "empirical method". Start by defining it in the original post.

Dark energy does empirically exist - it has been measured.
Dark energy does have an effect on one "empirical experiment" - the universe.

Electromagnetic energy does exist in nature and in massive quantities, e.g. the energy in the magnetic fields of coronal loops.
Anyone who knows any physics knows that statement has no relevance to cosmology. Nuclear energy does exist in nature and in larger quantities than electromagnetic energy. This does not mean that we need a "nuclear cosmology".
 
Last edited:
Read the four papers I just cited and repeat that statement Ben. If you do, I'll know you have no interest in "truth". The evidence is right there Ben.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0813
http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0384
http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606657
Try actually reading the context of the post.

That really is the same as asking where did the big bang come from.

Its turtles all the way down. It just depends on which model you think fits better.
There are plasma and filaments, and processes that require electric fields as well as magnetic fields.

So I think there is a process that provides EMF(separated charges) just like whatever it is that provides the power for the big bang in your model.

You dont have an answer to that question so we are on equal footing.

and ben m replies:
Yes, just like you expect in the mainstream model.

No there aren't. There is zero evidence for processes requiring electric fields (other than the transient fields you get in a magnetized plasmas). The only evidence is "if we want Birkeland's terrella to be the correct model for everything that vaguely looks like it, we need electrostatic currents", which is to say no evidence at all.
It is not about solar flares. It is about brantc's new cosmology where the universe acts as as if there is an EMF across it and so there is an electric current flowing through it doing something.
 

I don't know or care what MM has to say about this paper, but other observers may be interested in knowing that it includes lots of magnetic reconnection, and does not contain any of MM's dogma about it being (a) impossible, (b) a violation of conservation of energy, or (c) beyond polite discussion since a Nobelist didn't like it.

From the paper: " This outcome is consistent with the conclusion of Sterling et al. (2001), “the tether cutting reconnection may still be occurring, but only after the eruption onset was triggered by some other process”. ... Unlike the standard model, in which flare reconnection is initiated by a rise of a single magnetic rope, we have discussed the initiation of the eruptive flares by reconnection of two rising ropes." Yep.
 
Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

Hi Michael Mozina,
There are a couple of outstanding questions in this thread:
  1. Citation for Birkeland's prediction for the speed of the solar wind
    First asked 28 December 2009
    He did calculate a speed for his cathode-ray pencils of "45 metres less than the velocity of light." (page 596) and his prefix states a few hundred. That is obviously not the speed of the solar wind or any other solar phenomena.
  2. Just what are Birkeland's cathode-ray pencils in modern terms?
    First asked 28 December 2009
I do not expect an answer given your track record, e.g. the 30 odd unanswered questions in this thread!
So I will give my guess for the correct answers from an honest person:
  1. Birkeland never gave a speed for the solar wind.
  2. His pencils of cathode-rays do not exist.
 
Definition of "magnetic rope".

I don't know or care what MM has to say about this paper, but other observers may be interested in knowing that it includes lots of magnetic reconnection, and does not contain any of MM's dogma about it being (a) impossible, (b) a violation of conservation of energy, or (c) beyond polite discussion since a Nobelist didn't like it.

From the paper: " This outcome is consistent with the conclusion of Sterling et al. (2001), “the tether cutting reconnection may still be occurring, but only after the eruption onset was triggered by some other process”. ... Unlike the standard model, in which flare reconnection is initiated by a rise of a single magnetic rope, we have discussed the initiation of the eruptive flares by reconnection of two rising ropes." Yep.

Alfven's definition of a "magnetic rope" from Cosmic Plasma

"However, in cosmic plasmas the perhaps most important constriction mechanism is the electromagnetic attraction between parallel currents . A manifestation of this mechanism is the pinch effect, which was studied by Bennett long ago (1934), and has received much attention in connection with thermonuclear research . As we shall see, phenomena of this general type also exist on a cosmic scale, and lead to a bunching of currents and magnetic fields to filaments or `magnetic ropes' . This bunching is usually accompanied by an accumulation of matter, and it may explain the observational fact that cosmic matter exhibits an abundance of filamentary structures (II .4 .1) . This same mechanism may also evacuate the regions near the rope and produce regions of exceptionally low densities."

Yep Ben, two "circuits" experiencing a "short circuit". You can't tell a "circuit" from a "magnetic line".
 
Pseudo-science looks like science, but it is not science.

You mean like Guth's make believe inflation faeries and those dark energy gnomes you pulled out of your back pocket? Please. This is simply offensive at this point. You are in pure denial and you have not a single clue what "empirical physics" is all about. Get over yourself.

I'm sick and tired of being lied about, bs'd in every thread and watch you dance around every direct question put to you. Yes or no have you read those papers? Yes or no is there satellite evidence to support Birkeland's/Bruce's/Alfven's discharge theories from separate sources that just so happened to also rule out that Y component of "magnetic reconnection" pseudoscience?
 
Last edited:
Hi Michael Mozina,
There are a couple of outstanding questions in this thread:

Here's an outstanding question for you, Ben, DRD, and Tim too I suppose. How long did you folks intend to simply live in pure denial? I've handed you three new papers plus the one Tim gave me and all three of you act like it's nothing, and of no importance whatsoever. What the hell? What do you expect me to do with pure denial?
 
Last edited:
A corollary: an alternative which purports to be physics-based but lacks a quantitative basis and/or consistency is pseudo-science at best.

The PC/EU ideas of MM, yada, yada, yad, are clearly pseudo-science, by these criteria.

I will expect you to retract that statement or find the flaws in the four papers I have provided you with.
 
I don't know or care what MM has to say about this paper, but other observers may be interested in knowing that it includes lots of magnetic reconnection, and does not contain any of MM's dogma about it being (a) impossible, (b) a violation of conservation of energy, or (c) beyond polite discussion since a Nobelist didn't like it.

For interested observers, the papers I provided actually *RULED OUT* the signature "Y" release of energy associated with "magnetic reconnection" in favor of "current carrying filaments". These current carrying filaments called "magnetic ropes" are simply scaled up cousins to the ordinary current carry filaments inside of an ordinary plasma ball. They are much larger version of the same basic theme in plasma physics. There is nothing magical or even mysterious about discharges through a plasma. The "pinch" of the magnetic field around the current constricts the currents into flowing filaments of moving charged particles. They create flowing tornado-like filaments of moving charged particles and the electrons travel through them. They work just like the filaments in an ordinary plasma ball, and of course that requires "current flow" to operate. :) Whatever else you might pick up from these conversations please remember that a "magnetic rope" is something that Alfven explicitly associated with a current carrying filament and a "Bennett Pinch". That's something that occurs in lightening strikes on Earth. :)
 
Last edited:
From the abstract of the second paper:

The goal of this paper is to understand the drivers, configurations, and scenarios of two similar eruptive events, which occurred in the same solar active region 9973 on 2002 June 1 and 2. The June 2 event was previously studied by Sui, Holman, and Dennis (2006, 2008), who concluded that it was challenging for popular flare models. Using multi-spectral data, we analyze a combination of the two events. Each of the events exhibited an evolving cusp-like feature. We have revealed that these apparent ``cusps'' were most likely mimicked by twisted magnetic flux ropes, but unlikely to be related to the inverted Y-like magnetic configuration in the standard flare model. The ropes originated inside a funnel-like magnetic domain whose base was bounded by an EUV ring structure, and the top was associated with a coronal null point. The ropes appear to be the major drivers for the events, but their rise was not triggered by reconnection in the coronal null point. We propose a scenario and a three-dimensional scheme for these events in which the filament eruptions and flares were caused by interaction of the ropes.

In other words, they ruled out the standard "magnetic reconnection" mathematical model in favor of Alfven's/Birkeland's/Bruce's "discharge" theory. I'll keep hammering you folks on this point until you find the flaw in their work or accept that your precious magnetic reconnection model is dead.
 
Reference the book Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications by Eric Priest & Terry Forbes, Cambridge University Press, 2000. Magnetic reconnection is not induction.

In what *PHYSICAL* tangible way is it "different from" induction? I'm going to simply ignore all that posturing for the time being Tim, but I would like a straight (physics oriented) answer. How is it physically different from induction?
 
Dark energy does empirically exist - it has been measured.

It's getting late and I'm going to bed soon so I'm going to ignore all your ridiculous stuff tonight with the exception of this comment.

In no way did you 'empirically measure' "dark energy". The very best you could hope to claim is that you "empirically measured" something called "acceleration". Acceleration of physical objects has nothing whatsoever to do with "dark energy". You "assumed" it has something to do with something you call "dark energy", but "dark energy" never accelerated anything ever in any experiment.
 
It's getting late and I'm going to bed soon so I'm going to ignore all your ridiculous stuff tonight with the exception of this comment.

In no way did you 'empirically measure' "dark energy". The very best you could hope to claim is that you "empirically measured" something called "acceleration". Acceleration of physical objects has nothing whatsoever to do with "dark energy". You "assumed" it has something to do with something you call "dark energy", but "dark energy" never accelerated anything ever in any experiment.
Your ignorance is showing again MM.
Dark energy is a placeholder for the thing that causes:
  • The empirical measurement that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate and
  • the empirical measurement that the universe does not have enough visible energy & mass to explain the empirical measurement that the universe is flat.
This is in the same way that dark matter is a placeholder for the thing that causes the empirical measurement that there is missing mass.

It is correct that dakr energy has not (yet) been measured in the lab.
It is correct the dark matter has not (yet) been measured in the lab.
So what?
Neither has most of astronomy, e.g. where is there a star in a lab?
Since we have never measured the properties of a star in a lab then according to your logic they must not exist :jaw-dropp !

What you are ignorant of is that the scientific definition of empirical includes observations (e.g. that stars exist).
 
Cite where the authors introduce "Alfven's/Birkeland's/Bruce's discharge theory"

From the abstract of the second paper:

In other words, they ruled out the standard "magnetic reconnection" mathematical model in favor of Alfven's/Birkeland's/Bruce's "discharge" theory. I'll keep hammering you folks on this point until you find the flaw in their work or accept that your precious magnetic reconnection model is dead.
From the abstract of the second paper:
The goal of this paper is to understand the drivers, configurations, and scenarios of two similar eruptive events, which occurred in the same solar active region 9973 on 2002 June 1 and 2. The June 2 event was previously studied by Sui, Holman, and Dennis (2006, 2008), who concluded that it was challenging for popular flare models. Using multi-spectral data, we analyze a combination of the two events. Each of the events exhibited an evolving cusp-like feature. We have revealed that these apparent ``cusps'' were most likely mimicked by twisted magnetic flux ropes, but unlikely to be related to the inverted Y-like magnetic configuration in the standard flare model. The ropes originated inside a funnel-like magnetic domain whose base was bounded by an EUV ring structure, and the top was associated with a coronal null point. The ropes appear to be the major drivers for the events, but their rise was not triggered by reconnection in the coronal null point. We propose a scenario and a three-dimensional scheme for these events in which the filament eruptions and flares were caused by interaction of the ropes.
In other words, they ruled out the standard magnetic reconnection mathematical model in favour of another mathematical model involving twisted magnetic flux ropes.

It is obvious that you have not actually read the paper and noticed that they do not cite Alfven, Birkeland or even that crank Bruce.

First asked 4 January 2010
Michael Mozina
Where in Eruptions of Magnetic Ropes in Two Homologous Solar Events on 2002 June 1 and 2: a Key to Understanding of an Enigmatic Flare do the authors introduce "Alfven's/Birkeland's/Bruce's discharge theory"?
Can you point me to a textbook containing the "Alfven's/Birkeland's/Bruce's discharge theory"?
 
Last edited:
Here's an outstanding question for you, Ben, DRD, and Tim too I suppose. How long did you folks intend to simply live in pure denial? I've handed you three new papers plus the one Tim gave me and all three of you act like it's nothing, and of no importance whatsoever. What the hell? What do you expect me to do with pure denial?
The denial or ignorance is on your part.


The papers are about the electrical fields and currents that are produced by solar flares from coronal loops (magnetic fields).
  • Generation of large scale electric fields in coronal flare circuits
    This is an model about large scale electric fields in the flares produced by coronal loops. See Fig 2 for the loop (FYI: all the B's are magnetic fields!) and flare.
  • Eruptions of Magnetic Ropes in Two Homologous Solar Events on 2002 June 1 and 2: a Key to Understanding of an Enigmatic Flare
    This is a twisted magmnetic rope model for these 2 solar flares. It bascially states that solar flares vary (big surprise!), the standard magnetic reconnection model explains most of them but there are some flares that fit their magnetic reconnection between twisted magnetic flux rope model. See section 3.3 (page 16) of the paper "Flare, Ejecta, and a Cusp-like Feature".
  • Observational evidence for return currents in solar flare loops
    This paper is about a model for the acceleration of electrons in solar flares. FYI: It says nothing about the coronal loops and nothing about causes the acceleration.
    Results: The standard thin-thick target solar flare model cannot explain the observations of all events. In the events presented here, propagation effects in the form of non-collisional energy loss are of importance to explain the observations. We demonstrate that those energy losses can be interpreted in terms of an electric field in the flare loop. One event seems consistent with particle propagation or acceleration in lower than average density in the coronal source.
    Conclusions: We find observational evidence for an electric field in flare loops caused by return currents.
    And on page 4:
    In the above analysis, we assumed that the electrons experienced a constant energy loss while streaming down the loop. We now demonstrate that this energy loss could be caused by an electric potential in the loop that drives a return current.
  • A fresh look on the heating mechanisms of the Solar corona
    This is a letter rather than the full paper that was published but the abstract and text is clear. It is about modeling the acceleration of electrons by electric fields to explain the coronal heating problem. It is nothing to do with electrical discharges. It is standard solar physics.
In conclusion:
None of these papers support your physically impossible coronal loops are elecrical discharges idea.All of these papers are standard solar physics.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom