Continuation The Electric Comet Theory Boogaloo (Part 2)

[jonesdave116]

Yep, no magnetic reconnection has been a staple of EU proponents as long as I've been aware of them. Quite telling that proponents of Electro-magnetic dominance in the universe can be so astonishingly, demonstrably and stubbornly wrong about a fundamental aspect of magnetism that you can demonstrate to yourself with just some simple object you probably already have. Just a historically fundamental experiment in magnetism, a bar magnet and compass, demonstrates magnetic reconection as the compass primarily connected to the Earths field is not homeomophic to the compass primarily connected to the bar magnet field. That lack of homeomorphism just wasn't well understood in the early days of electromagnetic experimentation. If your whole shtick is electro-magnetism and you can't even get a fundamental aspect of that right you get nothing but fail.

I think that a lot of the problems stem from their hero worship of Alfvén; "Alfvén said such and such, therefore it must be true!" Unfortunately for them, although he got a lot of stuff right, he also got a fair bit of stuff wrong.
His railing against magnetic recombination being a case in point. This is something that has been demonstrated in the lab countless times, and observed in astrophysical contexts, as well. Despite that, the EU ideologues still deny it can happen, purely based on Alfvén saying it couldn't! This from a bunch who supposedly believe that lab experiment is everything!

He also banged on a lot about double layers, which is probably why Sol is so keen to ascribe them to pretty much anything, including diamagnetic cavity boundaries! Alfvén and D. A. Mendis were keen on seeing certain phenomena in comets as being possibly due to double layers (albeit in the tail). Mendis wrote a lot on comets, and you can find this DL stuff in earlier work of his, mostly prior to Halley. After that he seems to lose interest in finding them. Observation (or the lack thereof) has a habit of doing that.

Alfvén's views on comets were essentially mainstream, and totally at odds with Thornhill's unscientific nonsense. However, he did come up with the rather strange idea that comets could not only produce meteor streams, but could also still be forming from them! I found this unusual abstract from a symposium in 1970. What is unusual about it is the criticism you can see from other scientists (including Whipple) below the abstract:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1972IAUS...45..485A
So, he did come up with some rather strange stuff, including the Alfvén-Klein model of the universe.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, well, they are kind of running out of arguments here. At first it was, "H₂O doesn't exist at comets." Until it was pointed out to the eejits that it most certainly did. Then it was "ice doesn't exist", until it was pointed out to them that it most certainly did. And then they kind of ran out of arguments. And this was well before Rosetta reached 67P. Sad, really. Hey ho. People are entitled to believe whatever they like. Just don't equate it with science, eh?

No it doesn't but that does not prevent Sol88 from repeating the same factually challenged statements repeatedly for for many years.

It is about time for 'dark mode', 'magnetosphere' and the mystery of the four asteroids with comas.
;D

 

[Sol88]

I don't think you are understanding this.
The parallel currents are flowing along the boundary and along the magnetic field lines.
The thickness of the boundary is on the order of the ion gyro radius, which means it cannot be a DL, which has a typical thickness of tens of Debye lengths.
Not every charge separation is a double layer.

And, assuming it was a double layer, then what? What is that supposed to tell us? Are you going to claim that thunderdolts' electrical dischages are created by 0.5 Volts over the DCBL?

More than 1 "boundry layer" old chap, all dynamic, all helping the nucleus accommodate the solar plasma environment around it at that time and location in space.

Hint...Has something to do with
Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity

Though the title may need amending.

 

[Sol88]

I think that a lot of the problems stem from their hero worship of Alfvén; "Alfvén said such and such, therefore it must be true!" Unfortunately for them, although he got a lot of stuff right, he also got a fair bit of stuff wrong.
His railing against magnetic recombination being a case in point. This is something that has been demonstrated in the lab countless times, and observed in astrophysical contexts, as well. Despite that, the EU ideologues still deny it can happen, purely based on Alfvén saying it couldn't! This from a bunch who supposedly believe that lab experiment is everything!

He also banged on a lot about double layers, which is probably why Sol is so keen to ascribe them to pretty much anything, including diamagnetic cavity boundaries! Alfvén and D. A. Mendis were keen on seeing certain phenomena in comets as being possibly due to double layers (albeit in the tail). Mendis wrote a lot on comets, and you can find this DL stuff in earlier work of his, mostly prior to Halley. After that he seems to lose interest in finding them. Observation (or the lack thereof) has a habit of doing that.

Alfvén's views on comets were essentially mainstream, and totally at odds with Thornhill's unscientific nonsense. However, he did come up with the rather strange idea that comets could not only produce meteor streams, but could also still be forming from them! I found this unusual abstract from a symposium in 1970. What is unusual about it is the criticism you can see from other scientists (including Whipple) below the abstract:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1972IAUS...45..485A
So, he did come up with some rather strange stuff, including the Alfvén-Klein model of the universe.

easy there big fella!

We can't even get a straight answer concerning

In the MHD regime of plasma physics, currents are determined by the changes in the magnetic field, through Ampere's law.
The magnetic field is generated in the Sun through amplification, the dynamo mechanism.
It can create a flux tube (prominence), which will have (observed) currents due to the motion of the footpoints.
As soon as a flux tube is in the solar wind, the current it has is determined by the structure of the flux tube, e.g. how much it is wound-up.

, let alone you bringing up the 'ol chestnut of Ideal and resistive MHD and which should be applicable in this situation.

 

[tusenfem]

More than 1 "boundry layer" old chap, all dynamic, all helping the nucleus accommodate the solar plasma environment around it at that time and location in space.

Hint...Has something to do with
Surface charging and electrostatic dust acceleration at the nucleus of comet 67P during periods of low activity

Though the title may need amending.

the CDBL is hundreds of km from the nucleus

 

[tusenfem]

easy there big fella!

We can't even get a straight answer concerning , let alone you bringing up the 'ol chestnut of Ideal and resistive MHD and which should be applicable in this situation.

The fact that I might have written it up telegram-style, combined with the fact that you have zilch knowledge of plasma physics, and are not interested in learning anything may make it seem like it is no answer.

 

[jonesdave116]

let alone you bringing up the 'ol chestnut of Ideal and resistive MHD and which should be applicable in this situation.

I brought up no such thing. I just said that Alfvén got some stuff wrong, and basically disagrees with your electric comet woo. Alfvén (and Mendis) knew about the predicted 'contact surface', and never tried to claim it was/ would be a double layer:

Magnetisation of comets
Mendis, D. A. & Alfvén, H
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v248/n5443/abs/248036a0.html

They also knew about it after its discovery in situ, at Halley. They still weren't claiming it was a double layer. Only you, as far as I can see, have ever claimed such a thing. There would be a reason for that. It is seemingly related to the fact that you simply refuse to see that this electric comet nonsense was a busted flush long before Rosetta reached its target. This would have been obvious to anybody with internet access, and a reasonable degree of scientific knowledge. Except, it appears, for the likes of Thornhill and yourself, among others.
There is not now, nor ever has been, any reason to believe that Thornhill's scientifically illiterate fantasy was anything other than a tall tale, told to equally scientifically illiterate followers, in an attempt to make his ludicrous 'Thunderbolts of the Gods' woo more convincing. And anybody that finds that convincing is, by definition, scientifically illiterate. All the evidence, and I mean all, shows him to be wrong. And there isn't a shred of evidence, and never has been, that he is right.
So, quite why people carry on believing this unqualified woo peddler, when he has been shown to be wrong so many times, is beyond me.
I have now come to the conclusion the EU is more akin to creationism, in that it is purely an anti-science cult, which needs to attack mainstream science at every turn, due to them having a belief that is based purely on faith, and with no evidence to back up their nutty beliefs.

 

[Sol88]

Ahhh, well, that's me wrong then. I figured the flux tube was something that was induced in the coma due to interaction with the mixed up magnetic fields from the CME. Hey ho, nobody should be surprised that I'm no expert on flux tubes - whatever they are!

sniped

Some interesting papers on COMs at comets:

from Tusenfem

The fact that I might have written it up telegram-style, combined with the fact that you have zilch knowledge of plasma physics, and are not interested in learning anything may make it seem like it is no answer.

Not for me Tusenfem but for JD116!!! oh and the casual lurkers

 

[Sol88]

Maybe you should read Peratt's book, the basic plasma physics in it is quite all right.

In the MHD regime of plasma physics, currents are determined by the changes in the magnetic field, through Ampere's law.
The magnetic field is generated in the Sun through amplification, the dynamo mechanism.
It can create a flux tube (prominence), which will have (observed) currents due to the motion of the footpoints.
As soon as a flux tube is in the solar wind, the current it has is determined by the structure of the flux tube, e.g. how much it is wound-up.

And wheter is current is strong or not depends on the environment it is measured in. You could calculate the current density and compare it with other numbers, or search the web for the currents in CMEs.

???

Any more substance? or just chocolate fudge?

 

[jonesdave116]

^^^^^Huh? I think you'll find that the flux ropes, if that is what you are on about (hard to tell) were, indeed, thought to be due to an induced effect in the coma. Not that it matters, as it has naff all to do with Wal's electric comet lunacy. I've checked his ramblings on such matters, and there is no mention of flux ropes. Rather a lot about 'rock' and 'electric discharges to the nucleus' and 'EDM' (lol).

 

[tusenfem]

from Tusenfem

Not for me Tusenfem but for JD116!!! oh and the casual lurkers

most of the lurkers know
it is not my job to educate you, when it has been clear you are a bad student

 

[Reality Check]

easy there big fella!

Nothing to do with the EU delusions and even lies about Hannes Alfvén, Sol88.

What Alfvén pointed out in his keynote speech in 1986 was the known fact that the frozen-in approximation was an approximation and so care needs to be taken in its application ! The deluded Thunderbolts cult lies about this being a statement from Alfvén that magnetic reconnection does not exist or its theory does not work. What makes this deluded is
* the "hero worship" of Alfvén or argument from authority.
* ignoring 30 years of science since his opinion in that speech.

 

[jonesdave116]

Nothing to do with the EU delusions and even lies about Hannes Alfvén, Sol88.

What Alfvén pointed out in his keynote speech in 1986 was the known fact that the frozen-in approximation was an approximation and so care needs to be taken in its application ! The deluded Thunderbolts cult lies about this being a statement from Alfvén that magnetic reconnection does not exist or its theory does not work. What makes this deluded is
* the "hero worship" of Alfvén or argument from authority.
* ignoring 30 years of science since his opinion in that speech.

It might be 47 years. I had a feeling that was from his 1970 Nobel speech. Could be wrong.

 

[Reality Check]

Alfven's opinion about the frozen-in field approximate seems to start with On frozen-in field lines and field-line reconnection (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 81, Aug. 1, 1976, p. 4019-4021)

The concepts of 'frozen-in magnetic field lines' and 'field-line reconnection', which are frequently used in discussions of the theory of the magnetosphere, have been criticized by Alfven and Falthammar (1971), by Heikkila (1973), and by Alfven (1975). In the present paper, it is demonstrated that both concepts are unnecessary and often misleading. The frozen-in concept is shown to belong to the pseudo-plasma formalism which is useful only in special cases.

The EU cranks tend to whine about the March 17-19 1986 Double Layers in Astrophysics (PDF) workshop and his keynote speech.

 

[jonesdave116]

Alfven's opinion about the frozen-in field approximate seems to start with On frozen-in field lines and field-line reconnection (Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 81, Aug. 1, 1976, p. 4019-4021)


The EU cranks tend to whine about the March 17-19 1986 Double Layers in Astrophysics (PDF) workshop and his keynote speech.

Yep, I think I've got that paper. I did just have another look at his 1970 Nobel speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-lecture.pdf). He does say in that (Table 1) that "Frozen-in picture often completely misleading." So it looks like he was going off it by at least that date. I've got a 1963 paper somewhere, but can't be bothered checking it at the moment!

 

[tusenfem]

Yep, I think I've got that paper. I did just have another look at his 1970 Nobel speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-lecture.pdf). He does say in that (Table 1) that "Frozen-in picture often completely misleading." So it looks like he was going off it by at least that date. I've got a 1963 paper somewhere, but can't be bothered checking it at the moment!

Yes, indeed, if you don't know what you are doing and simply assume "frozen-in" then you can be mightily wrong.
But modern space plasma physicists and plasma(astro)physicists are well aware of this, as the "validity of the MHD concept" is discussed from day one in every course.
Also, if one searches for papers by A.T.Y. Lui, you will find that people actually look for where and under which conditions the frozen-in assumption breaks down in the Earth's magnetosphere.

 

[jonesdave116]

Yes, indeed, if you don't know what you are doing and simply assume "frozen-in" then you can be mightily wrong.
But modern space plasma physicists and plasma(astro)physicists are well aware of this, as the "validity of the MHD concept" is discussed from day one in every course.
Also, if one searches for papers by A.T.Y. Lui, you will find that people actually look for where and under which conditions the frozen-in assumption breaks down in the Earth's magnetosphere.

I've seen a fair bit of discussion of this in various places, when EUers bring out their "Alfvén said it can't happen" line of 'reasoning'.
My take on the outcome, is that Alfvén was right to caution against its use unthinkingly but, on the other hand, it turns out to be more widely applicable than he realised.
There is a table where Alfvén lists his views on the properties that fluid and 'particle' plasmas can and cannot have. It can be found in this paper:

COMMENTS ON H. ARP "THE PERSISTENT PROBLEM OF SPIRAL GALAXIES"
Alfvén, H. (1987)
http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/19/102/19102728.pdf

I'm no expert, but I assume the last entry in that table, "Energy release through magnetic merging", to mean recombination. If that assumption is correct, then he seems to be saying that it is possible in fluid plasmas, but not 'particle' plasmas. That would seem to legitimise its use (in the minds of EUers) with regard to the Sun. Not sure about elsewhere.

Not that it matters. To quote Alfvén himself from that paper, when referring to a Chandrasekhar-Fermi paper used by Arp:

With the deepest respect for them, it must be stated that cosmic plasma physics has advanced considerably during the thirty-four years which has passed since its appearance.

Pretty much the same can be said now, with regard to anybody who thinks Alfvén was the last word on plasma physics.

One other quote from that paper, which hasn't stood the test of time:

As guest editor in the IEEE "Special issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma" Anthony Peratt has opened the dams for the new views on our cosmic environment which space research data make necessary. These will now inundate and drown much of the pre-sputnik geophysics-astrophysics. Arp's new approach to the dynamics of galaxies will probably be an important part of this Great Flood.

Nope. COBE, WMAP & Planck pretty much knocked that on the head. Among other things.

 

[Sol88]

most of the lurkers know
it is not my job to educate you, when it has been clear you are a bad student

Sorry Tusenfem you are too smart for me!

No need to explain any further, you've done enough.

10.4 Solar wind impact

The solar wind is variable, not only the magnetic field direction (responsible for nested draping), but magnetic explosions on the surface of the Sun regularly send coronal mass ejections (CMEs) into interplanetary space. These are fast, high-density, magnetic flux ropes [see e.g., M¨ostl et al., 2014] which can interact with the planets, creating e.g. strong disturbances in the Earth’s magnetosphere [see e.g., Zhang et al., 2007]. But they will also interact with comets and lead to interesting phenomena.

As in my simple statement "plasma does stuff"

5 Harris and co.
In a region where oppositely directed magnetic fields meet, a current sheet will be generated, by necessity of Ampere’s law:

Mmmmm...galactic magnetic fields generating electric currents!

and why cant we just call magnetic flux ropes, force free field aligned currents, "stringy things" by what they really are BIRKELAND CURRENTS in honour of the man that discovered them?

Dude had it down 100 years ago, shame on "modern peer reviewed science"

Did'nt see any mention of the man in your paper Tusenfem? are you a real scientist are part of the herd?

 

[Sol88]

I brought up no such thing. I just said that Alfvén got some stuff wrong, and basically disagrees with your electric comet woo. Alfvén (and Mendis) knew about the predicted 'contact surface', and never tried to claim it was/ would be a double layer:

Magnetisation of comets
Mendis, D. A. & Alfvén, H
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v248/n5443/abs/248036a0.html

They also knew about it after its discovery in situ, at Halley. They still weren't claiming it was a double layer. Only you, as far as I can see, have ever claimed such a thing. There would be a reason for that. It is seemingly related to the fact that you simply refuse to see that this electric comet nonsense was a busted flush long before Rosetta reached its target.

This would have been obvious to anybody with internet access, and a reasonable degree of scientific knowledge. Except, it appears, for the likes of Thornhill and yourself, among others.
There is not now, nor ever has been, any reason to believe that Thornhill's scientifically illiterate fantasy was anything other than a tall tale, told to equally scientifically illiterate followers, in an attempt to make his ludicrous 'Thunderbolts of the Gods' woo more convincing. And anybody that finds that convincing is, by definition, scientifically illiterate. All the evidence, and I mean all, shows him to be wrong. And there isn't a shred of evidence, and never has been, that he is right.
So, quite why people carry on believing this unqualified woo peddler, when he has been shown to be wrong so many times, is beyond me.
I have now come to the conclusion the EU is more akin to creationism, in that it is purely an anti-science cult, which needs to attack mainstream science at every turn, due to them having a belief that is based purely on faith, and with no evidence to back up their nutty beliefs.

Ahhh...double layers!

Grab a coffee, JD116, sit down and understand what adouble layer is!

seems you were wrong about ..

Ahhh, well, that's me wrong then. I figured the flux tube was something that was induced in the coma due to interaction with the mixed up magnetic fields from the CME. Hey ho, nobody should be surprised that I'm no expert on flux tubes - whatever they are!

.. maybe you're not up to speed on DOUBLE LAYERS either!

 

[jonesdave116]

Ahhh...double layers!

Grab a coffee, JD116, sit down and understand what adouble layer is!

seems you were wrong about .... maybe you're not up to speed on DOUBLE LAYERS either!

And what, pray tell, have flux tubes got to do with non-existent DLs at comets?

And I'm not reading a piece from a woo site, when we have an in-house PA who did his PhD on double layers! Given how much else that lot have misunderstood in their efforts to force fit everything into a Velikovskian worldview, I think that is wise.