• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Michael Mozina said:
Really? How much current flows between the solar surface and the heliosphere? What's the voltage?
Click to expand...

None, as the only current flowing from the Sun to the heliopause is generated by the magnetic field in the solar wind, in order that there can be sunward magnetic field in one hemisphere and anti-sunward magnetic field in the other hemisphere. This current flow perpendicular to the magentic field in the solar wind (for obvious reasons).

However, due to the Parker spiral, there is a radial component to this heliospheric current, which was shown through numerical modeling by Israelevich et al. 2001. BUT this is highly idealized, because is has been shown by e.g. T. L. Zhang, that one never measures a Parker spiral, when looking at spacecraft data. Only when one statistically investigates long time periods of solar wind data a Parker spiral pattern shows up. So, the results by Isrealevich et al. should be taken as a high upper limit of what the radial component could be.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The problem D'rok is that they not only *DO NOT* recognize the "current flow", they actively ignore and deny it exists. Unlike Birkeland, they don't talk about voltages or circuits or current flow. They have no clue that there is a discharge process even occurring between the solar surface and the heliosphere, in fact they actively DENY it. That applies to space as a whole too. They acknowledge the magnetic fields, but never the 'current flows" that sustain them.
Click to expand...

More lies by MM, as clearly a literature search on myself would show.
Heck, the Cluster Mission (now 10 years in action, next week great birthday-party conference at Corfu) was specially designed for measuring magnetic field gradients from which naturally electrical currents are derived. In the first 6 years Cluster was in differently sized tetrahedron configurations so curlometry could be performed.

Also, MM still does not seem to know the how and what of magnetic fields. For example the Earth's magnetic field is totally generated in the fluid core of the Earth. Any changes in the magnetic field drive electrical currents, there usually is not need for external currents to maintain the magnetic field. But hey, those are intricacies that MM should not worry himself about, when he can't even understand the differences in normal mainstream nomenclature between current, charge, potential etc. etc.
 
tusenfem said:
If the dielectric breaks down a ionized path is created from the Earth to the cloud (the so called precursor) and that gives the cloud the possibility to discharge its excess of electrons. So, I would have no problems here to say that (the) discharge channel has a net (negative) charge when the lightning strikes.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine. On that point at least we seem to agree. Let's go one step further now. How about the discharge channels that form inside of an ordinary plasma ball?
 
tusenfem said:
More lies by MM, as clearly a literature search on myself would show.
Heck, the Cluster Mission (now 10 years in action, next week great birthday-party conference at Corfu) was specially designed for measuring magnetic field gradients from which naturally electrical currents are derived. In the first 6 years Cluster was in differently sized tetrahedron configurations so curlometry could be performed.
Click to expand...

You know, you really should refrain from the "liar, liar pants on fire" routine when your cohort in crime answered my question like this:

None. Zero.
There is a mass flow between the solar surface and the heliosphere. FYI this is called the solar wind. It consists of equal numbers of negative and positive charges. It is electrically neutral.
Click to expand...

Your industry as a WHOLE absolutely DOES NOT even begin to comprehend Birkeland's work, let alone acknowledge any of it. Even you had a silly comment in the solar thread which I will respond to in that thread as I have time. If you fail to comprehend the "cause" of the acceleration of solar wind, why should I have any confidence that you have any clue what causes universal acceleration?

Honestly T, you're playing both sides of the fence here. On one hand, you yourself have handed me papers describing coronal loops as "circuits" from authors other than Alfven, and yet you refuse to acknowledge the discharge process that is occurring between the sun and the heliosphere that drives the solar wind process and that coronal loop process as well.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You know, you really should refrain from the "liar, liar pants on fire" routine when your cohort in crime answered my question like this:
Click to expand...


Michael, you are a proven liar. Lying is one of the flaws in your arguments, so it's perfectly appropriate to point that out. Your other flaws consist mainly of arguing from incredulity, or assuming the simple fact that you find something difficult to believe means it must be false, and arguing from ignorance, or making claims based on a lack of information because of your refusal to be aware of or to include that information.

It's lies, arguments from incredulity, and arguments from ignorance. You have presented virtually nothing else, nothing, to support your criticism of currently best supported theory or your silly proposed alternatives. You certainly have never offered a sound argument, properly sourced or scientifically supported.

Your industry as a WHOLE absolutely DOES NOT even begin to comprehend Birkeland's work, let alone acknowledge any of it. Even you had a silly comment in the solar thread which I will respond to in that thread as I have time. If you fail to comprehend the "cause" of the acceleration of solar wind, why should I have any confidence that you have any clue what causes universal acceleration?
Click to expand...


You don't know the cause of the acceleration of the solar wind. If you did you'd cite your sources. When people ask you to cite your sources you plop your Birkeland bible down, throw a tantrum, insult all scientists, and refuse to cite the sources. But the point is, since you do not know the cause of the acceleration of the solar wind, you cannot possibly validly criticize anyone else's knowledge on the issue.

Honestly T, you're playing both sides of the fence here. On one hand, you yourself have handed me papers describing coronal loops as "circuits" from authors other than Alfven, and yet you refuse to acknowledge the discharge process that is occurring between the sun and the heliosphere that drives the solar wind process and that coronal loop process as well.
Click to expand...


This is another argument from ignorance based on your severe misunderstanding due to your lack of qualification to understand what you read. A discharge process has been explained to you. You either refuse to understand due to ignorance, or you are incapable of understanding due to intellectual limitations. If you actually know better, your argument is another lie. If you don't, it's just a stupid argument based on your lack of qualifications to understand anything about science above the level of a typical ten year old child.
 
GeeMack said:
Michael, you are a proven liar.
Click to expand...

The only liar and the only intentional deceiver here is you GM. Your sky entities are utterly impotent and you're completely clueless about PC/EU theory because you *REFUSE* to actually study it. You've lied since day one, and you continue to lie about it. In fact I still haven't heard you accept that fact that Birkeland even had a solar model! You're hopeless.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The only liar and the only intentional deceiver here is you GM. Your sky entities are utterly impotent [...]
Click to expand...


I don't have any sky entities. Your inference that I do is another lie.

[...] and you're completely clueless about PC/EU theory because you *REFUSE* to actually study it.
Click to expand...


PC/EU has been shown to be non-science, a wholly unsupportable wildass guess about the Universe typically put forth by crackpots, stupid people, attention mongers, conspiracy theorists, youngsters, bitter scientist wannabes, and mentally ill cranks. This thread isn't about PC/EU. Continue your desperate and intentional effort to derail the discussion and you're likely to get a few days off without pay.

You've lied since day one, and you continue to lie about it.
Click to expand...


When anyone in this thread has called you out on your lying (and whether you've noticed or not, that has been pretty much everyone) they have pointed out where your lies are. Your whining tantrum here calling me a liar without demonstrating where I have lied, or even that I have lied, is a simple insulting personal attack. Continue this sort of uncivil behavior and you may just get yourself a few days off without pay.

In fact I still haven't heard you accept that fact that Birkeland even had a solar model! You're hopeless.
Click to expand...


A solar model, by definition, is a mathematical description of the Sun which attempts to explain the density, thermal characteristics, structural makeup, elemental makeup, and other physical properties. Birkeland's terrella was a solar model the same way my Revell/Monogram 1:570 model of the RMS Titanic is a ship model. Kristian Birkeland never definitively proposed a solar model, your desperate attempt to spit on his grave notwithstanding. But this thread isn't about your nutty misunderstandings about the Sun, so if you persist in your concerted efforts to troll it that direction, you're likely to earn a few days off without pay.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100921144135.htm

I thought this was an interesting article and appropriate for this thread. There you have "evidence" that EM fields have *ALWAYS* existed around all the galaxies of the universe. :) Gee, what theory predicts that observation?
Click to expand...


Of course you're unable to describe how those EM fields might explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe, so it's an unrelated issue. But damned good try to derail the thread again, Michael. Pretty soon the mods might take notice, you can get yourself suspended or banned, then you can cry persecution and feel all warm and snugly about your unsupportable crackpot conjectures. :p
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
That applies to space as a whole too. They acknowledge the magnetic fields, but never the 'current flows" that sustain them.
Click to expand...

I considered posting about the story Michael has just recently linked from sciencedaily, but I figured it wouldn't help support my point that magnetic fields are of interest to astrophysicists and the subject of study because he already knew that it was, because of the line above.

Only now he's ignoring that and using it to indicate his ideas are right instead? I'm as maximally baffled by all this as ever.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Emphasis mine. On that point at least we seem to agree. Let's go one step further now. How about the discharge channels that form inside of an ordinary plasma ball?
Click to expand...

Oh, are we going to play the question game, I am not supposed to answer all your questions while you never answer any of mine?

Please search this board, I have already extensively explained how a plasma ball works, it is basically the same as lightning, because the name "plasma ball" is a selling gimmick, there is only low density neutral argon gas in there which acts as a dielectric, just like the Earth's atmosphere. etc. etc.

Please read up on it in the "magnetic reconnection and physical processes" thread, it is on page 15, post 556

Stop wasting my time with these nonsense questions, that have been answered again and again an again.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Your industry as a WHOLE absolutely DOES NOT even begin to comprehend Birkeland's work, let alone acknowledge any of it. Even you had a silly comment in the solar thread which I will respond to in that thread as I have time. If you fail to comprehend the "cause" of the acceleration of solar wind, why should I have any confidence that you have any clue what causes universal acceleration?

Honestly T, you're playing both sides of the fence here. On one hand, you yourself have handed me papers describing coronal loops as "circuits" from authors other than Alfven, and yet you refuse to acknowledge the discharge process that is occurring between the sun and the heliosphere that drives the solar wind process and that coronal loop process as well.
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah yeah. The fact that you cannot see that for one project you use a circuit, for another you use resistive MHD and the next you really have to do plasma physics, is not my fault. It's like insisting on using general relativity to calculate the path of the apple that (allegedly) fell on Newton's head.

And I do not fail to comprehend the acceleration of the solar wind, in basic terms its just the gas law, there are too many processes that can energize the solar wind (Tom has given you ample description).

The Sun is not a cathode and the solar wind is not driven by a potential drop between the Sun and the heliopause.

For the rest, it would be nice if you could really put some effort in to really answering questions and describing your models.
 
Michael Mozina said:
You know, you really should refrain from the "liar, liar pants on fire" routine when your cohort in crime answered my question like this:
Click to expand...
Liar
What I said was
Reality Check said:
None. Zero.
There is a mass flow between the solar surface and the heliosphere. FYI this is called the solar wind. It consists of equal numbers of negative and positive charges. It is electrically neutral. This was predicted by a guy called Birkeland who you have been lying about for months years (Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work).
Click to expand...
That answers the question you asked - there is no current or voltage between the sun and heliosphere.

tusenfem pointed out that there is current (and voltage) perpendicular to the solar wind generated by the sun's magnetic field acting on the solar wind, i.e. not a current between the sun and heliosphere.
tusenfem said:
None, as the only current flowing from the Sun to the heliopause is generated by the magnetic field in the solar wind, in order that there can be sunward magnetic field in one hemisphere and anti-sunward magnetic field in the other hemisphere. This current flow perpendicular to the magentic field in the solar wind (for obvious reasons).
Click to expand...
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100921144135.htm

I thought this was an interesting article and appropriate for this thread. There you have "evidence" that EM fields have *ALWAYS* existed around all the galaxies of the universe. :) Gee, what theory predicts that observation?
Click to expand...
Gee - Maxwell's equations?
The fact that we measure magnetic fields in space all the time (planetary, stellar, galactic, etc)?

And the bit you ignored:
Physicists have hypothesized for many years that a universal magnetic field should permeate deep space between galaxies, but there was no way to observe it or measure it until now.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis)
The only thing new about this observation is the age and weakness of the detected magnetic fields.
From such blurred images, the researchers found that the average magnetic field had a "femto-Gauss" strength, just one-quadrillionth of the Earth's magnetic field. The universal magnetic fields may have formed in the early universe shortly after the Big Bang, long before stars and galaxies formed, Ando and Kusenko said.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hey, MM is citing Alex Kusenko? Good guy---an excellent theorist, but more specifically an excellent theorist who works very well with experimentalists.

The paper that this press release comes from is, I think, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1005.1924A which we can look into in some more detail. Some key quotes:

Unlike the fields in galaxies, which are believed to have been amplified by the dynamo action of the large-scale convective motions of gas, the fields in voids remain low, close to their primordial values modified only by the relatively small contribution of the fields leaking out of galaxies (Kronberg 1994; Grasso & Rubinstein 2001; Widrow 2002; Kulsrud & Zweibel 2008). The observational and theoretical upper bounds on IGMF constrain their magnitudes to be below 10−9 G
Click to expand...

Look at the field sources: not Birkeland currents, not filaments, not high-voltage discharges---just dynamos, the same thing that makes the Sun's and Earth's main magnetic fields.

Look at the field strengths: they're measured to be very small.

Furthermore, since IGMF are likely to originate from the primordial seed fields created shortly after the Big Bang, this potentially opens a new window on the origin of cosmological magnetic fields, inflation, and the phase transitions in the early Universe.
Click to expand...

What's that---Big Bang, inflation? If MM is willing to learn from Kusenko that intergalactic magnetic fields are experimentally known to be very small, perhaps he is also willing to learn that there's nothing wrong with dark energy, dark matter, inflation, etc.

52 articles with author=Kusenko and abstract="dark matter"

10 articles with author=Kusenko and abstract=inflation



Of course, I doubt he's willing to learn anything of the sort. Someone send me a PM if he ever proves me wrong.
 
Last edited:
crack-pot.gif
 
Primordial & Cosmological Magnetic Fields

Michael Mozina said:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100921144135.htm

I thought this was an interesting article and appropriate for this thread. There you have "evidence" that EM fields have *ALWAYS* existed around all the galaxies of the universe. :) Gee, what theory predicts that observation?
Click to expand...
You see, this is what happens when ignorance gains a voice. Mozina could have done what ben_m did, and find the actual scientific paper, and look at the actual science (Evidence for Gamma-Ray Halos Around Active Galactic Nuclei), but he chose not to do so. He chose instead to limit himself to a news article on the web. Is it because, as some suspect, that he would not have understood the science paper in any case? Or is it because he does not care? Maybe both?

As D'rok has already suggested, in fact standard Lambda-CDM cosmology does predict exactly that. In fact, standard Lambda-CDM cosmology requires exactly that. Galactic dynamos are capable of magnifying a pre-existing "seed" magnetic field, but they are not able to generate magnetic fields of observed strength from scratch.

I quote the last sentence of the abstract, as did ben_m: "Furthermore, since IGMF are likely to originate from the primordial seed fields created shortly after the Big Bang, this potentially opens a new window on the origin of cosmological magnetic fields, inflation, and the phase transitions in the early Universe." Mozina asks "what theory predicts this observation?" with the obvious intent that plasma cosmology would be the answer, and yet the very source we are led to tells us right up front that Lambda-CDM cosmology does in fact predict this observation. Trying to score cheap points, Mozina simply shoots himself in the foot, so to speak.

Michael Mozina said:
They acknowledge the magnetic fields, but never the 'current flows" that sustain them.
Click to expand...
The voice of ignorance once again. That is not true, but Mozina does not know enough to realize this, preferring as he does to remain ignorant as much as possible. In fact, the current flows (no quotation marks) which are responsible for both the generation of primordial magnetic fields and the dynamo amplification of seed fields are explicitly recognized and acknowledged throughout the astrophysical & cosmological literature. One might conclude that Mozina cannot read, as a handy way of explaining this discrepancy between reality and mozality (the Mozina version of reality).

Indeed, one need only select from the list of references in the Ando & Kusenko paper: Magnetic Field Production during Preheating at the Electroweak Scale (2008), Magnetic fields in the early Universe (2001), Magnetic fields produced by phase transition bubbles in the electroweak phase transition (1996), Magnetic fields from cosmological phase transitions (1991) and Inflation-produced, large-scale magnetic fields. Cosmological magnetogenesis has been a field of study for decades in Lambda-CDM cosmology and can be explained directly via inflation theory. Now you know what theory predicts that observation.

Keep in mind that cosmology, like any other field of science, is a whole thing, not just the sum of its parts. One of the favorite activities of the "alternative thinker" is to disassemble something like cosmology into its parts and try to assault each part independently, without appreciating how those parts mutually support each other. Lambda-CDM cosmology is supported by a wide range of observations (a dirty word to people like Mozina) including large scale structure, cosmic microwave background, redshift-distance, gravitational lensing & etc. The Lambda-CDM theory of cosmology, including inflation, is simultaneously consistent with all of these cosmological observations, within the bounds set by both theoretical & observational uncertainty. This is not to say that it is "correct" in some absolute sense, but only that is satisfies the most fundamental requirement of any empirical, natural science: Consistency with observation(s) of the natural universe. That fundamental criterion is one that all other cosmological models, plasma cosmology definitely included, fail to satisfy, and that explains the ascendency of Lambda-CDM cosmology in the science community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom