Death Star Galaxy

[Molinaro]

On the topic of CMB temperature prediction, there is a point I think needs to be highlighted in the above discussion.

The original prediction based on the big bang was wrong. However, the justification for the prediction was clearly laid out. The current age of the universe, in the big bang model, is an ingredient in the required calculation. The wrong age used at the that time gave the wrong temperature and the right spectrum.
Later, as in today, using the currently know age of the universe, 13.7 billion years, and the same method used back then, gives the right temparture.

That demonstrates a fundamental correctness in the model upon which the calculation is based.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
And there are no experiments that show "magnetic reconnection" is uniquely different from known electrical behaviors in plasma.

Actually there is a simple experiment in magnetic reconnection that anyone can perform that demonstrates its fundamental difference from known electrical behavior in plasma since it does not involve a plasma.

So you wish to argue against my contention that there are no experiments that show magnetic reconnection is uniquely different from known electrical behaviors IN PLASMA by offering an experiment that DOES NOT INVOLVE PLASMA? That makes perfect sense.

In any case, let's take a look at your "experiment". You claim that if you place a compass needle (a small bar magnet) in the Earth's magnetic field so that it aligns itself with Earth's north pole and then bring another bar magnet towards the compass needle with it's north/south poles aligned at right angles to the compass needle, then when the compass suddenly swings towards the bar magnet, you have demonstrated magnetic reconnection. In other words, you claim that the field lines of earth's magnetic field directly connect to the field lines of the compass magnet (at least those coming from the poles) in the initial configuration and then open and reconnect to the field lines of the bar magnet as it is brought closer to the compass. Right?

Now I'm curious about the notion that a field line (treating them as real entities for the sake of argument) of the compass connects to a field line from the earth and then later the bar magnet. Aren't the magnetic fields of all three bodies of different strength? How does one transition from one strength to another? Sorry, but earth's magnetic field lines do NOT connect to the compasses magnetic field lines, nor the compasses to the bar magnets, nor the bar magnet's to the earth's. Instead, the magnetic field of the Earth and the field of the compass ... and bar magnet ... add and subtract from each other depending on the directions of the fields. That is how they interact. And when the bar magnet is brought in close to the compass, no field lines open and reconnect. The compass merely aligns it's axis with the stronger field in the environment ... that of the bar magnet.

And you seem to think your example proves the type of magnetic reconnection used to explain phenomena like solar flares and CMEs? Well let's see if that's true ...

Here's the way most mainstream astronomy sources describe magnetic reconnection in astrophysics. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/magnetism/full.html "The free movement of charges makes plasma highly conductive, thereby causing magnetic field lines to be "frozen" into the plasma. In reconnection, fluid motions in plasma bring together two "frozen" and oppositely directed magnetic field lines. These field lines then reconnect into a lower energy state." They also maintain that "magnetic fields can store energy. Energy is stored in reconnection when the 'frozen' field lines become distorted as a result of fluid motion. Reconnection reduces the amount of distortion, which in turn causes energy to be released."

So right off, we see major differences between your experiment and what is hypothesized by those who champion magnetic reconnection as an explanation for uncounted astronomical phenomena, like solar flares, CMEs and coronal temperatures. For one, your experiment is not being conducted in a plasma. That's important because plasmas conduct electricity. Currents flowing through them can generate magnetic fields Magnetic fields can generate currents in plasma. These currents can in turn generate additional magnetic fields. Second, where are the "frozen-in" magnetic fields that are hypothesized to store energy in your experiment? Third, is the distortion of the magnetic fields as one brings the bar magnet closer to the compass equivalent to the distortion talked about in the citation above? Hmmmm? If so, where is the energy release when reconnection occurs? Shouldn't there be some? Has any energy release been detected in your experiment? No.

Mainstream astronomers (for example http://www.spacedaily.com/news/stellar-02d.html ) say "Magnetic reconnection should occur wherever magnetic fields clash". I guess that would include your example. They say "as the fields try to bend around one another, the field lines break and recombine like a short-circuit in space, sending out jets of electrons and ions moving at speeds of hundreds of miles per second." Any jets detected in your experiment? Any emissions whatsoever? No. And by the way, magnetic fields can be "bent" only by the presence of a strong electric current. Oh oh.

But regardless, note that the mainstream also makes the same mistake as you of treating fields lines as if they are real entities. They are not. THEY ARE NOT. Magnetic fields are a continuum.

Furthermore, magnetic fields cannot be "frozen" into light plasma. That's according to a real expert in this subject, Hannes Alfven, who developed the concept of "frozen in" field lines in the first place and then later concluded it was bogus because his initial assumptions WERE WRONG. In fact, I challenge you to provide a molecular basis for light plasmas retaining a magnetic field after current stops flowing. And keep in mind the length of time that astrophysicists claim these magnetic fields are "frozen-in" to plasmas in order to explain phenomena like coronal heating. Sorry ... it just doesn't happen. Not in labs on earth. Not in space. It's a figment of Big Bang supporting astrophysicists. It's a gnome.

And finally, the magnetic fields created by currents in plasmas do NOT store the vast amounts of energy claimed by astrophysicists in their reconnection models of solar flares and CMEs ... no more than the magnetic fields created by wires in your house stores vast amounts of energy. The thought problem I offered you earlier proves that. And no energy is stored at the neutral point (sepratrix) of your reconnection event . There can be no energy release from any location at which no energy is stored.

Now Donald Scott takes the various misconceptions held by astrophysicists apart in this peer reviewed IEEE article:

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

He explains in detail why the concepts of open field lines, magnetic reconnection and "frozen-in" magnetic fields are fictions. He explains why energy is not stored in the sepratrix. I highly recommend that you read it.

Now let me also point out one more statement made on the Stanford University website about magnetic fields I first quoted: "Since magnetic reconnection occurs in plasmas, which cannot be feasibly produced in a high school lab, will have to be content with an activity using rubber bands to model magnetic reconnection.". Well gee ... I wonder why they didn't use your example, Man?

 

[Wolverine]

Wrong. Sources even say it's composition is "atypical". Here:

http:arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3314.pdf "The unique nature of the recent outburst of 17P does indicate that its composition and other properties must be atypical in some marked way."

My usage of "composition" came specifically in response to your original complaint/question about water content. In the paper you've provided here, the author is describing Holmes to be "especially heterogenous" compared to other comets in terms of various metals, minerals, and potentially gases -- so it's perhaps "atypical" in that sense (overall composition). But you'll notice he also states its mantle is water-rich. The paper is replete with descriptions of water, both in content and as a catalyst. As such, this provides no basis for arguing that the comet is water-deficient, which is where you were trying to go the whole time (i.e., once again attempting to cast aspersion on the prevailing model).

Also, it's not only ironic but pretty funny that you selected this paper to try and make such a point, because guess what the author provides? A model possibly explaining Holmes's outburst, which could apply to other short-period comets as well. That's the intent. And you cite this, "A novel mechanism for outbursts of Comet 17P/Holmes and other short-period comets", after proclaiming that mainstream astronomers "are shrugging and saying we 'may never know the cause'".

http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/comet_worldbook.html " A comet (KOM iht) is an icy body that releases gas or dust. ... snip ... The nucleus of a comet is a ball of ice and rocky dust particles that resembles a dirty snowball. The ice consists mainly of frozen water"

http://www.planetary.org/explore/topics/near_earth_objects/asteroids_and_comets/comet_facts.html "Comets are small, irregularly shaped objects composed of a mixture of rocks, dust, and what astronomers refer to as “ice” -- frozen water, methane, and ammonia."

http://www.noao.edu/education/igcomet/igcomet.html "Chemical composition of the nucleus by number, based on coma observations: • H2O ice is the main component (80-90%)"

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1996/6/96.06.03.x.html "The nucleus consists primarily of water ice and solid carbon monoxide, with additional small quantities of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia, nitrogen, formaldehyde, and hydrogen cyanide."

For that matter, name a comet that mainstream astrophysicists have concluded contained no water.

Since we were discussing water "abundance" versus "deficiency", I was using "wet" to mean "primarily composed of water ice". I wasn't attempting to suggest comets contain no water.

Preceding this...

You: And the mainstream model seems to need them to be all wet.
Me: I don't recall see anything requiring all comets to be wet.

I noted last time that you're reading too much into what these pages state. They're written like encyclopedia entries that speak generally about cometary characteristics. You're making the mistake of concluding from these rather brief synopses that in order to jibe with the mainstream model, they're required to contain a certain percentage of water (or other) content with no little or no deviation.

The descriptions provided reflect cumulative observations, not some absolute measure of what a comet has to be. It would be equally misguided to pull up an article on asteroids and conclude that they all must yield a specific albedo, or an article on spiral galaxies and assume they all must fit a specific constraint on size or mass.

Since it doesn't seem to be sinking in, I'll say it again: with additional observations and measurements those estimates may be refined, and should that be the case these articles will be appropriately amended to reflect such.

You misstate the amount they found. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/deepimpact/media/deepimpact_water_ice.html. "The ice covered less than 1% of Comet Tempel 1’s surface and of that area only 6% consisted of pure water ice."

Not intentionally. I was referring to the observed on the nucleus but typed it out incorrectly without qualification. Regardless, what I was pointing out was the methodology involved, and my inadvertent mistake doesn't change its validity.

The only comet they've penetrated with a lander was Tempel 1.

And they can apply their findings to the distribution of water ice on other comets, comparing them against additional observations.

They did watch Schumacher Levy break up and saw no evidence of water.

Shoemaker-Levy 9. And, I don't think that's accurate (see here).

Based on the ASSUMPTION that detected OH came from water. Electric comet theorists have suggested another possible source for OH.

You have this predictably backwards, most likely due to parroting the claims from sources like Thunderbolts without recognizing why they're wrong or understanding the ramifications.

The incorrect assumption being made here is by the EU proponents, who assert the solar wind carries a net positive charge. That's the basis for their attempt to explain the presence of hydroxyl in cometary observations, further claiming that they result from positively charged hydrogen in the solar wind somehow coupling with negatively charged oxygen from comet nuclei. But the solar wind is demonstrably electrically neutral, and these claims completely ignore or defy a myriad of observations. This attempted extension of their electrically-driven ideas to comets fails because their underlying assumptions fail.

Multiple, independent observations confirm that comets are the source of the hydrogen that's seen rather than what EU-ers claim. Photodissociation of water isn't some new, mysterious thing that's been haphazardly invoked to explain observed processes in comets. It's supported by a tremendous amount of evidence. Your claim that this is just some wild guess being made simply has no merit. While I'm certainly no expert in astronomy or chemistry, this is fairly basic stuff. With very little effort you can pull up journal articles describing precisely why this is what astronomers see.

It's rather insulting that you repeatedly attempt to marginalize empirical methodologies as mere "ASSUMPTIONS" while eagerly accepting truly wild, ridiculous assumptions and assertions from EU claimants. They advance egregious premises that wholly contradict existing observations and data, include alleged phenomena which have never been observed, and fail to make any measure of cogent, reliable prediction.

But it's bogus to claim this confirms there is lots of water in all comets. And if there isn't, then explaining the jets in those cases becomes problematic for the mainstream model. Wouldn't you agree?

Nope.

Then how does a mainstream comet create a tail full of OH if there's not lots of water?

Please take the time to format your quotes correctly. The text in red is yours I quoted in a prior post. The text in blue is the one word of my answer you bothered to include.

The comet you describe in this part of the exchange is Tempel 1. Ample quantities of water exist in Tempel 1 to account for the observed OH.

Then here's another challenge for you. Find a mainstream source that does lay out a believable mechanism by which the ice deep in a comet can be vaporized by heat from the sun to create those stunning jets and tails given the excellent insulating characteristics of the surface materials on comets.

You already linked to one hypothesis applicable to short-period comets, perhaps without even realizing it. I already stated that the specific cause of cometary outburst events is not known, and is being studied. That however does not negate what is known about comets, nor does it require we discard the sum of physics and chemistry to embrace your fringe cosmology.

Your introduction of this issue is just a diversionary tactic anyway. Going on the MAINSTREAM BAD! offensive by making others jump through unnecessary hoops keeps the focus off of why the EU ideas, to which you're so attached, fail. Whack-a-mole is particularly tiresome as is and that's exacerbated when when you go on to ignore or reject the explanations, references, and resources which negate your position. You display a consistent penchant for attempting to shift the burden of proof.

That's a mighty important item ... too important to have no other answer than "study continues". I hope they don't invent another gnome to explain it.

If you'd bother to look, you could find articles devoted to the study of cometary jets (it took me about five seconds to find several entries like this). The specific mechanisms are not known yet, but will be better understood in time, if not specifically identified. This process takes time because we have somehwat limited opportunities to observe comets in comparison to other celestial bodies. What you're doing yet again is focusing one small aspect of a large picture and trying to leverage an unknown to dismiss that which is known. You have completely unrealistic expectations. If you put half the effort into understanding physics and astronomy that you do bashing it, you might have a better grasp of why EU claims don't withstand scrutiny.

They based that claim of 4500 tons on OH measurements. But as I've noted, electric comet theorists suggest there is another explanation for that OH ... one that doesn't involve water.

And that alternate explanation is untenable for reasons already described.

And the SWIFT team concluded that 250,000 tons was released. That's quite a difference from the other estimate.

Yes, it is -- because they used different instruments on different spacecraft over different time spans.

And they based that on the ASSUMPTION that x-rays that were measured were the result of water being lifted into the solar wind.

I think you similarly underestimate the accuracy of this observational method. Refer to this (Thompson explains it far better than I could hope to).

First of all, charge exchange doesn't require the neutral atoms be water. Second, electric theorists have suggested a different source of the electrons producing x-rays in comets ... one that doesn't require water or neutral atoms. Third, sources on these SWIFT results have noted that the long period of increased X-ray emission is puzzling because views of the comet at optical wavelengths suggest out-gassing died down relatively shortly after the impact.

What we have are different interpretations from scientists studying the same observations. I don't know how close they've come to rectifying their views in the time since the article was published.

Your line of argument sidesteps the original point though, and you're choosing to focus on more minutiae. Regardless of the methodologies employed by the Deep Impact mission and contributing observatories, no matter how you slice it, plenty of water has been observed in the case of Tempel 1.

More importantly, even if all the analyses were somehow discovered to be flatly wrong, no veracity is added to the claims made by EU proponents as a result, cometary or otherwise, because those fail on their own (lack of) merit. As has already been brought to your attention, there's nothing resembling an actual "electric" model for comets presented by the sources you insist on citing -- just a lot of handwaving from people who don't understand or wrongly reject established science (including the overwhelming evidence which contradicts their claims).

Fourth, have you done a calculation of how big 250,000 tons of ice would be? Even without considering the very low density that the mainstream astronomers claim the Tempel 1 comet has, that much ice would be bigger than the crater they claim has been carved out of the comet. Explain that, please.

I think you (like McCanney) mistakenly assume that the volume of water ice observed by the SWIFT team would have to be confined to the ejecta released from impact. From their published results:

It could be that either this water was produced from the surface several days after impact or the impact liberated the water as slow moving ice grains rather than gas. Ice grains with sizes in the range 1-10 µm were observed in the ejecta of the impact, but the lifetimes of grains this size are only a few hours.
...
Similar areas of other volatiles including carbon dioxide may have been exposed by the impact producing a temporary increase in the molecular outgassing rate. A thin ejecta blanket deposited on the comet surface by the impact to form evaporating ‘‘snow banks’’ would be difficult to see in reflected light but could be responsible for a significant
increase in the outgassing rate.
...
If this outburst was caused by the DI impact, water ice or other volatiles must have been exposed at the surface by the collision or initially shed as small grains rather than neutral gas. The exposed surface and/or the grains then sublimed over a period of 12 days.

 

[The Man]

Are you being sarcastic?

No, not at all.

I don't get what you are saying. "we must examine all aspects, especially those we may not agree with", what does that mean? We may not agree with? How can you not agree with an aspect of something?

In addition to the comments and examples given by Dancing David and Molinaro, catastrophic gravitational collapse, when first calculated by Chandrasekhar, was an aspect of general relativity that was not agreed with by some of the leading physicists at the time including Einstein himself. Others, like Oppenheimer and Hartland in 1939, used general relativity to calculate that such a catastrophic gravitational collapse would result in a black hole.

 

[The Man]

So you wish to argue against my contention that there are no experiments that show magnetic reconnection is uniquely different from known electrical behaviors IN PLASMA by offering an experiment that DOES NOT INVOLVE PLASMA? That makes perfect sense.

Although you are attempting to be satirical your statements ironically demonstrate that difference, since it is “an experiment that DOES NOT INVOLVE PLASMA”.

In any case, let's take a look at your "experiment". You claim that if you place a compass needle (a small bar magnet) in the Earth's magnetic field so that it aligns itself with Earth's north pole and then bring another bar magnet towards the compass needle with it's north/south poles aligned at right angles to the compass needle, then when the compass suddenly swings towards the bar magnet, you have demonstrated magnetic reconnection. In other words, you claim that the field lines of earth's magnetic field directly connect to the field lines of the compass magnet (at least those coming from the poles) in the initial configuration and then open and reconnect to the field lines of the bar magnet as it is brought closer to the compass. Right?

Now I'm curious about the notion that a field line (treating them as real entities for the sake of argument) of the compass connects to a field line from the earth and then later the bar magnet. Aren't the magnetic fields of all three bodies of different strength? How does one transition from one strength to another? Sorry, but earth's magnetic field lines do NOT connect to the compasses magnetic field lines, nor the compasses to the bar magnets, nor the bar magnet's to the earth's. Instead, the magnetic field of the Earth and the field of the compass ... and bar magnet ... add and subtract from each other depending on the directions of the fields. That is how they interact. And when the bar magnet is brought in close to the compass, no field lines open and reconnect. The compass merely aligns it's axis with the stronger field in the environment ... that of the bar magnet.

And here we have both your problem with understanding magnetic reconnection and your straw man for opposing it, “treating them as real entities”. Field lines are just a graphical representation of the magnetic vector field. The direction of the lines at any point represents the direction of the local magnetic field vector and the density of the lines is proportional to the magnitude of the local field vector. The term “Reconnection” refers to the change in topography of that magnetic vector field or specifically to a change in directions of the vectors in that vector field and where the poles are that the field lines representing that vector field would seem to connect. The compass needle aligns itself to the direction of the local magnetic field vectors. When pointing to Earths north pole a representation of local the magnetic field vectors would have some lines running from the compass needle to the Earth’s north pole. When pointing at the bar magnet a representation of local the magnetic field vectors would have some lines running from the compass needle to the bar magnet.

And you seem to think your example proves the type of magnetic reconnection used to explain phenomena like solar flares and CMEs? Well let's see if that's true ...

Here's the way most mainstream astronomy sources describe magnetic reconnection in astrophysics. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/magnetism/full.html "The free movement of charges makes plasma highly conductive, thereby causing magnetic field lines to be "frozen" into the plasma. In reconnection, fluid motions in plasma bring together two "frozen" and oppositely directed magnetic field lines. These field lines then reconnect into a lower energy state." They also maintain that "magnetic fields can store energy. Energy is stored in reconnection when the 'frozen' field lines become distorted as a result of fluid motion. Reconnection reduces the amount of distortion, which in turn causes energy to be released."

So right off, we see major differences between your experiment and what is hypothesized by those who champion magnetic reconnection as an explanation for uncounted astronomical phenomena, like solar flares, CMEs and coronal temperatures. For one, your experiment is not being conducted in a plasma. That's important because plasmas conduct electricity. Currents flowing through them can generate magnetic fields Magnetic fields can generate currents in plasma. These currents can in turn generate additional magnetic fields.

Well that was the point, to demonstrate that magnetic reconnection is fundamentally different from known electrical behaviors in plasma since it does not require plasma.

Second, where are the "frozen-in" magnetic fields that are hypothesized to store energy in your experiment?

I never said there were “frozen-in” magnetic fields in the experiment I descried. “Frozen-in” magnetic field lines are not required for energy to be stored or released by magnetic fields as demonstrated in one of the experiments in the link you provided.

Third, is the distortion of the magnetic fields as one brings the bar magnet closer to the compass equivalent to the distortion talked about in the citation above? Hmmmm?

Yes, the magnetic field of the earth in the local vicinity between the bar magnet and the compass becomes distorted.

If so, where is the energy release when reconnection occurs? Shouldn't there be some? Has any energy release been detected in your experiment? No.

Of course there is, it is exemplified by the realignment of the compass needle. Naturally it takes very little energy to rotate a compass needle, but what were you expecting, a coronal mass ejection from a bar magnet and a compass?

Mainstream astronomers (for example http://www.spacedaily.com/news/stellar-02d.html ) say "Magnetic reconnection should occur wherever magnetic fields clash". I guess that would include your example. They say "as the fields try to bend around one another, the field lines break and recombine like a short-circuit in space, sending out jets of electrons and ions moving at speeds of hundreds of miles per second." Any jets detected in your experiment? Any emissions whatsoever? No.

This experiment is in an insulating media, our atmosphere, and not a highly conductive media like plasma. It was also specifically intended to show that magnetic reconnection is fundamentally different from known electrical behaviors in plasma since it does not require plasma. Without plasma there are no free electrons or ions for the magnetic reconnection to drive. Would you really expect such “jets of electrons and ions moving at speeds of hundreds of miles per second” from an experiment with a bar magnet and a compass, even if it was preformed in a plasma?

Don’t look now but your straw man is on fire.

And by the way, magnetic fields can be "bent" only by the presence of a strong electric current. Oh oh.

Not true, a magnetic field can be “bent” by an opposing magnetic field generated by that current or by any other opposing magnetic field.

But regardless, note that the mainstream also makes the same mistake as you of treating fields lines as if they are real entities. They are not. THEY ARE NOT. Magnetic fields are a continuum.

No, “treating fields lines as if they are real entities” is your mistake and your straw man, it only exemplifies your lack of understanding of electromagnetism.

Furthermore, magnetic fields cannot be "frozen" into light plasma. That's according to a real expert in this subject, Hannes Alfven, who developed the concept of "frozen in" field lines in the first place and then later concluded it was bogus because his initial assumptions WERE WRONG. In fact, I challenge you to provide a molecular basis for light plasmas retaining a magnetic field after current stops flowing. And keep in mind the length of time that astrophysicists claim these magnetic fields are "frozen-in" to plasmas in order to explain phenomena like coronal heating. Sorry ... it just doesn't happen. Not in labs on earth. Not in space. It's a figment of Big Bang supporting astrophysicists. It's a gnome.

Well I’m glad to see you say Alfven might have been wrong about something but of course it is just Alfven saying he was wrong. I think I hear a chipmunk?

And finally, the magnetic fields created by currents in plasmas do NOT store the vast amounts of energy claimed by astrophysicists in their reconnection models of solar flares and CMEs ... no more than the magnetic fields created by wires in your house stores vast amounts of energy.

You must be trying to build another straw man the way you are clutching at straws in that analogy.

The thought problem I offered you earlier proves that.

Would that be this thought problem?

The mainstream continually claims that the energy released in their mythical reconnection events is stored in magnetic fields. So what happens if the current flowing in the plasmas at these locations stops flowing? Can you tell us? Are the magnetic fields "frozen in" the plasmas or do they just disappear? And if they just disappear, what happened to the energy you claimed was stored in them? Hmmmmm?

Well, it certainly proves that you have difficulty thinking or a “thought problem” and your lack of understanding of electromagnetism.

And no energy is stored at the neutral point (sepratrix) of your reconnection event. There can be no energy release from any location at which no energy is stored.

So because of your “thought problem”, your inapplicable house wire analogy and your general lack of understanding of electromagnetism you conclude that no energy is stored in magnetic fields and therefore can not be released by magnetic reconnection. Your only consistent argument continues to be your own ignorance.

Now Donald Scott takes the various misconceptions held by astrophysicists apart in this peer reviewed IEEE article:

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

He explains in detail why the concepts of open field lines, magnetic reconnection and "frozen-in" magnetic fields are fictions. He explains why energy is not stored in the sepratrix. I highly recommend that you read it.

Unfortunately I can not link to that document on this computer, but I will look at that article as soon as I can.

Now let me also point out one more statement made on the Stanford University website about magnetic fields I first quoted: "Since magnetic reconnection occurs in plasmas, which cannot be feasibly produced in a high school lab, will have to be content with an activity using rubber bands to model magnetic reconnection.". Well gee ... I wonder why they didn't use your example, Man?

Again they were modeling magnetic reconnection in plasma the example I gave is in an insulating media, our atmosphere, and not a highly conductive media like plasma. It was also specifically intended to show that magnetic reconnection is fundamentally different from known electrical behaviors in plasma since it does not require plasma. So, one of your repeated criticisms is that I was making my point.


This site has an animated simulation of magnetic reconnection that may help you see how the energy is released.


http://www.dartmouth.edu/~bpsullivan/recon.html

 

[BeAChooser]

The bullet cluster observation directly observed dark matter

No, the bullet cluster observations did NOT directly observe dark matter. DM was ONLY INFERRED from them. Observations of dim dwarfs and red giants around other galaxies did directly detect one form of DM ... but only 4-10% of the DM needing to exist according to mainstream astrophysicists. And it's only presumed that the bullet cluster has a similar percentage of such objects. That 4-10% is not a gnome and never has been because we know for a fact that dwarf stars and red giants exist ... as well as cool plasma clouds and stellar remnants. We can see them in nearby space. But the other 90-96% of DM (consisting of God Knows What) is still a gnome, used to explain observations that may very well be due to electromagnetic effects. Mainstream astrophysicists use the DM gnome to explain the rotation curves of galaxies. But we KNOW that electromagnetic effects on plasmas could explain the rotation curves of galaxies. Simulations using proven codes based on known physics have demonstrated that fact. And your side of the house has simply ignored that work. Not proven it wrong. Ignored. That's very telling, if you ask me.

Anyway, neutrinos do have mass, there's no question about it. Unfortunately they don't seem to have enough to account for DM.

http://universe-review.ca/R15-13-neutrino.htm "Neutrinos could constitute anything from 0.1 to 7 per cent of the mass of the universe (the dark matter). This range corresponds to the heaviest neutrino being in the mass range 0.05 to about 1 eV. " Scientists currently put the neutrino mass at a fraction of an eV. So your still missing at least 85-90% of the dark matter that's claimed to exist.

By the way, similar problems arose at least ten times in the last century, and the "bizarre, unproven, particles" necessary to resolve them were in each case discovered (sometimes promptly, sometimes it took decades).

The problems weren't similar. In the case of the other particles, experiments could be done here on earth to directly observe the particle and it's effects. And were. And they didn't just ignore electromagnetic effects in the course of their inferences and experiments. And most particles were found within a few years of beginning the search for them. They've been looking for dark matter for nearly 40 years now.

Inflation provides a mechanism for producing the initial conditions we know are necessary to produce our universe. How much explanatory power it really has is open to debate. The usual logic is that one expects a big bang without inflation to produce universes that are very inhomogeneous and anisotropic, unlike ours, but which would contain many things like the axis of evil (and worse).

Like I said, without inflation you can't make the Big Bang universe fit the observations. It's an essential part of the mainstream model.

 

[Ziggurat]

But we KNOW that electromagnetic effects on plasmas could explain the rotation curves of galaxies. Simulations using proven codes based on known physics have demonstrated that fact. And your side of the house has simply ignored that work. Not proven it wrong. Ignored. That's very telling, if you ask me.

The EU folks are proposing models which violate thermodynamics on every level, they can't come up with a charge for the sun which can power it without exploding, and you expect us to take your word for it that these simulations they've performed are dependable?

No, I don't think so.

As long as the EU folks can't figure out why a steady-state universe is impossible (regardless of whether or not the Big Bang is correct), why shouldn't they be ignored? Why do they deserve any more attention than believers in perpetual motion machines? Because that's exactly what a steady-state universe is.

 

[The Man]

Now Donald Scott takes the various misconceptions held by astrophysicists apart in this peer reviewed IEEE article:

http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

He explains in detail why the concepts of open field lines, magnetic reconnection and "frozen-in" magnetic fields are fictions. He explains why energy is not stored in the sepratrix. I highly recommend that you read it.

Well I have looked at that document and it is nothing more then a poor attempt at quote mining to build up straw men in order to knock them over. The best aspect of the paper was the mainstream reference links that the straw man quotes were mined from. Too bad the author obviously did not read through those links.

2.2 Physical significance of magnetic field lines
Many of the statements collected under the heading magnetic topology are simply mathematical consequences of the first-order ordinary differential equation (1 ). These same properties apply to integral curves found in other areas of physics, such as phase-space trajectories, flow stream lines or vortex lines. Unlike these more abstract curves, however, magnetic field lines are often closely related to physical structures, so that their topological properties can have direct physical significance.
It goes without saying that the magnetic field is physically significant in many situations. It is not so clear, however, how magnetic field lines themselves, the integral curves satisfying Equation (1 ) at a single instant, have physical significance. Indeed, elementary physics texts often contain the warning that lines of force (i.e. field lines) are not physically meaningful. There are certain circumstances in space physics, however, in which this warning may be disregarded and field lines are related to physical properties of the plasma. The list below mentions a few mechanisms by which field lines are rendered physically meaningful. We will have occasion to revisit these circumstances in order to decide which topological properties are truly relevant.

I don’t wonder why he did not include this section from one of the mainstream reference links since it indicates that magnetic field lines are not considered real, but unlike more abstract curves they are often closely related to physical structures such as with field aligned or Birkeland currents.

2.5 Topological changes: Reconnection
Field lines may be found for any magnetic field whatsoever, by integrating Equation (1 ) from a set of initial points. Only, however, in cases with frozen field lines (i.e. a perfect conductor) can a given field line be unambiguously followed in time (Newcomb, 1958). In the frozen-field-line case each field line moves with the plasma itself. Provided the flow field is reasonably continuous, each field line will be continuously deformed by the flow. Continuous deformation precludes any topological changes. This means, for example, a closed field line will always remain closed and an isolated positive null point will always remain an isolated positive null point. Herein lies the utility of field line topology: Each field line’s topology is preserved by arbitrary plasma motion, provided the plasma is a perfect conductor.
As soon as the assumption of perfect conductivity is abandoned it becomes impossible to unambiguously follow field line from one time to the next, and topology loses its practical utility8. Since plasmas are generally very good at eliminating electric fields it is common to retain the assumption of perfect conductivity everywhere with the possible exception of a few localized regions where . The perfectly conducting approximation can be justified by estimating the magnitudes of each term which might balance in the generalized Ohm’s law (see Vasyliunas, 1975 , for one discussion of this scaling). Such estimates assume that all fields, including , vary on length scales comparable to those of the global geometry. In certain cases, however, the self-consistent dynamical solution will spontaneously develop localized structure on much smaller scales, such as a shock or a tangential discontinuity. Revised estimates using this much smaller length scale reveal that significant electric fields are possible within these localized structures. We will not delve into the literature (already substantial and rapidly expanding) concerning the self-consistent generation of due to various terms in Ohm’s law. Instead we will merely assume that it is possible for , but only within localized non-ideal regions. In this modified picture a field line may be followed up to the time it encounters, along some part of its length, a non-ideal region. During this encounter, the field line is “cut” into two distinct pieces, each ending at the outside of the non-ideal region, and moving with the flow outside. When these pieces later decouple from the region each will most likely find itself connected to some other partial field line. This is the topological manifestation of reconnection: Field lines are “cut” and then “reconnected” to other segments (Vasyliunas, 1975; Hesse and Schindler, 1988 ). The discontinuous change, the cutting and reconnecting, must occur within the non-ideal region since that is the only place not bound by the frozen flux rule.
While it is not possible to follow a field line identified within the non-ideal region, it is possible to trace field lines into this region, which gain their identity from outside. Doing so provides a view of kinematic reconnection, capturing the topological change in action (Greene, 1988 ; Hesse and Schindler, 1988; Lau and Finn, 1990 ; Priest et al., 2003). This generalization of field line evolution can provide valuable insight into reconnection, but one should always bear in mind that the field-line motion within the non-ideal region is basically a useful fiction. One consequence of the ambiguity inherent in this fiction is the following. Field lines traced from one side of the non-ideal region evolve differently from those traced from the other side.

This section from the same mainstream reference link clearly indicates consideration of electrical fields in a inhomogeneous model and stating that the actual magnetic reconnection occurs in those regions of no zero electric field (non frozen field lines), all opposing the straw men that the author has stitched together.

The author is quite fond of saying what magnetic field lines cannot do; as such he is giving them real limitations and must consider them real. He tries to belie his ascription of reality to magnetic field lines by claiming the mainstream are the ones considering them real and he tries to ascribe real interpretations to the representation of the magnetic vector field by those field lines. If he would just give up his predilection for considering them real and understand that they are just representations of the magnetic vector field he would realize that they only do what is required to represent changes in, or a limitation in knowledge to, the local magnetic vector field under consideration.

 

[BeAChooser]

Despite your repeated attempts to smear the idea of postulating the existence of anything we haven't directly observed, there is in fact a long history of such successful predictions. Is dark matter really any more exotic than antimatter once was? No, I think not.

There's no comparison. In 1927 Dirac developed a relativistic equation for an electron (a particle we knew for a fact existed) for which there were negative energy solutions. We do not know that big bang is a fact. And there are non-Big Bang solutions to the equations of General Relativity. Based on the negative energy solutions, in 1930 Dirac then postulated the existence of positrons. Their existence was confirmed just a few years later ... in 1932 ... by Carl David Anderson. And he confirmed their existence in cloud chambers HERE ON EARTH. Astrophysicists are still looking for Dark Matter after more than 30 years of fruitless searching. And the only "confirmation" they have are observations in the distant universe which it turns out may have much more mundane explanations. So sorry ... no comparison.

Likewise, the existence of neutrinos was postulated more than a decade before its existence was first experimentally observed.

In 1930 Pauli proposed a solution to the missing energy in nuclear beta decay which was subsequently named the "neutrino". Again, beta decay was something they could actually study here on earth. They knew that beta decay was a real phenomena. You don't really know that the Big Bang actually occurred. They knew that energy really was really missing in beta decay experiments here on earth. You don't really know that mass is missing out there in the distant universe. It was 1956 before evidence proving it's existence was obtained. Technology had to catch up. But again, the proof was obtained here on earth. Not inferred from distant observations.

Likewise, our current theories about stellar mechanics, gallactic evolution, and cosmology are likely incorrect as well. But the places where they're likely wrong are on the margins.

On the margins? I'm not pecking around the margins, Ziggurat.

And wouldn't it be ironic if your search for dark matter ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/21/scicosmos121.xml "Mankind 'shortening the universe's life'".

 

[Ziggurat]

On the margins? I'm not pecking around the margins, Ziggurat.

When you drone on and on about comets proving a theory that can't produce a stable sun, yes, you're pecking around the margins. You cannot find a charge for the sun which can provide sufficient energy while still being contained. And the gap isn't small, it's many orders of magnitude. Any charge sufficiently large will cause the sun to explode, at relativistic speeds. And any charge small enough to be contained cannot provide enough energy to power the sun for even a single day, let alone a few billion years. Ignore that all you want to, but it's not going away. The only source of power with sufficient energy is fusion. No ifs, ands, or buts. Whatever else astronomers may have wrong, they've got that right. And until you can address that, I really don't have anything else to talk to you about. I've wasted enough time on you already.

 

[sol invictus]

How about the top quark, whose existence was predicted back in 1973, but wasn't discovered until 1995? Or neutrino masses, which again were predicted (from solar physics, our favorite topic) in the 1960's, and only verified recently? Of course there are many more examples of such things - black holes are another good one.

From the bullet cluster observations (which were a direct detection) plus three or four other independent indirect observations we know DM exists, so it's now down to the question of what exactly it is. It might not be a new massive elementary particle, although that is probably the simplest possibility.

 

[Wolverine]

I'd like to thank Ziggurat, sol invictus, and The Man for their contributions to this thread. You each deserve accolades for taking the time to refute astronomical & cosmological woo. Kudos.

 

[robinson]

It is clear that a rigorous understanding of the real physical
properties of magnetic fields in plasmas is crucial for astrophysicists
and cosmologists. Incorrect pronouncements about
the properties of magnetic fields and currents in plasma will be
counterproductive if these conceptual errors are propagated into
publications and then used as the basis of new investigations.
There are some popular misconceptions.

1) Magnetic “lines of force” really exist as extant entities in
3-D space and are involved in cosmic mechanisms when
they move.

2) Magnetic fields can be open ended and can release energy
by “merging” or “reconnecting.”

3) Behavior of magnetic fields can be explained without any
reference to the currents that produce them.

4) Cosmic plasma is infinitely conductive, so magnetic fields
are “frozen into” it.

It is clear that a rigorous understanding of the real physical
properties of magnetic fields in plasmas is crucial for astrophysicists
and cosmologists.

I would like to know about this. Why is something so basic and well understood as plasma and magnetism an issue in cosmology?

I checked, and "mainstream" scientist keep saying things like "we were baffled" in regards to new discoveries. They almost never say things like, "according to our understanding of magnetic fields and plasma, this is what we expected".

I think there is some truth to the claims that many scientist just don't understand electricity and magnetism, much less plasma physics. They just don't take those classes in school.

 

[Ziggurat]

I checked, and "mainstream" scientist keep saying things like "we were baffled" in regards to new discoveries. They almost never say things like, "according to our understanding of magnetic fields and plasma, this is what we expected".

That's because when they see something they expect, which is most of the time, it's not news. They go searching for new things that they don't understand, and it's hardly a surprise that they run into them, or that those are precisely the things that get reported on.

I think there is some truth to the claims that many scientist just don't understand electricity and magnetism, much less plasma physics. They just don't take those classes in school.

Electromagnetism classes are required for pretty much any physics or astronomy major anywhere in the country, at both the undergraduate and graduate level. If you want to talk about people just not understanding a topic, it's not electricity and magnetism, it's general relativity: the electric universe folks have absolutely no clue about it. Which is understandable, since it's a difficult topic which even most physicists don't study in depth (but cosmologists do), and even those who do don't usually start on it until graduate school, but that makes the EU folks' statements on the topic ill-informed, to put it mildly. So it's quite ironic for them to talk about how the mainstream doesn't know what electricity and magnetism can do when they're so transparently clueless about what gravity can do.

 

[sol invictus]

I think there is some truth to the claims that many scientist just don't understand electricity and magnetism, much less plasma physics. They just don't take those classes in school.

Just to amplify what Zig said: that's utter nonsense. It's just manifestly false, as you could find out for yourself in 30 seconds if you actually cared.

Check any physics or astrophysics curriculum at any university. I've never heard of one that didn't require at least a semester (often a year) for undergrads, and another semester or year as a beginning Ph.D. student. Those are courses focussed exclusively on the theory of electricity and magnetism, but students also spend time learning about those subjects in high school and the intro physics series they take when they first arrive at university, and often in math methods and more specialized courses too.

E&M is essential to just about every area in physics, including astro, and every physicist knows at least the basics very thoroughly. Plasma physics is somewhat more specialized, but there are many "mainstream" astrophysicists that are experts in the topic, including some that started in plasma physics proper and later moved into astro.

 

[robinson]

Electromagnetism classes are required for pretty much any physics or astronomy major anywhere in the country, at both the undergraduate and graduate level.

http://www.physics.sunysb.edu/physics/ugwebpage/ug/ug.pdf
Undergraduate Program in Physics & Astronomy
Stony Brook University

search for "plasma"
no results

search for "electromagnetism"
no results

search for "electricity"
no results

search for "magnetism"
no results

Hmm... can you provide any evidence to back up your claim? What courses teach about plasma, electricity and electromagnetism in space?

 

[sol invictus]

Hmm... can you provide any evidence to back up your claim? What courses teach about plasma, electricity and electromagnetism in space?

Is google a new concept to you?

http://www.physics.sunysb.edu/Physics/ugwebpage/ug/
http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/dugs/ug_courses.html

There are tons of courses in there on E&M, including applications courses and a full year series on the subject in its pure form. Looks like one semester of that is required for the undergrad major.

PHY 300 Waves and Optics

PHY 301 Electromagnetic Theory I

PHY 302 Electromagnetic Theory II

PHY 335 Electronics and Instrumentation Lab

PHY 408 Relativity

PHY114 Electromagnetism, Waves and Radiation for Sports Science

PHY 112 Light, Color, Vision

PHY 131 Classical Physics I and the rest of that series

PHY 452 Lasers

AST 341 Stars and Radiation

AST 346 Galaxies

AST 443 Observational Techniques

etc. etc.

 

[Ziggurat]

http://www.physics.sunysb.edu/physics/ugwebpage/ug/ug.pdf
Undergraduate Program in Physics & Astronomy
Stony Brook University

search for "plasma"
no results

search for "electromagnetism"
no results

search for "electricity"
no results

search for "magnetism"
no results

Hmm... can you provide any evidence to back up your claim? What courses teach about plasma, electricity and electromagnetism in space?

Electricity and electromagnetism are not any different in space than on earth. The laws are all the same. And your inability to search a pdf document (I'll assume you've got bad software) isn't my fault, or an indicator of what physics or astronomy majors study.

So instead of just trying an automated search which evidently didn't work (since I found "electromagnetism" easily enough), let's look at the actual list of courses required for a major (page 5). What do we find? PHY 301: Electromagnetic theory 1. Well, it says "electromagnetic" instead of "electromagnetism" (though even that word appears at least once elsewhere in the text), but I think that's pretty clearly the same thing, isn't it?

In fairness, it does appear that PHY 301 isn't required for the astronomy major (page 6). But they are required to take multiple unspecified 300-level classes, and while some of them might skip 301, it's not likely all of them would. In fact, later in that pdf it outlines a suggested course sequence, and in advises taking both PHY 301 and PHY 302 (the sequel to 301) for astronomy majors (page 11). So most astronomy majors will probably have taken an entire year of electromagnetism. Furthermore, while there don't appear to be any plasma-specific course, astronomy majors do need to take a course on "stars and radiation". Want to bet that covers plasmas?

 

[robinson]

Furthermore, while there don't appear to be any plasma-specific course, astronomy majors do need to take a course on "stars and radiation". Want to bet that covers plasmas?

I don't know. That is why I asked. None of the astronomy courses I took ever mentioned plasma or electricity in regards to stellar events. Do any current ones? What courses actually teach plasma physics, electromagnetism (in regards to stars/galaxies), or electricity in regards to outer space?

Electricity and electromagnetism are not any different in space than on earth. The laws are all the same. So most astronomy majors will probably have taken an entire year of electromagnetism.

I'm sure electromagnetism in and around stars is one of the least understood branches of science. The recent discovery that the earth is connected to the sun by twisted magnetic fields (see thread here http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3244095#post3244095) is a good example of how little we know, much less can teach, about electromagnetism in regards to both high temperatures, intense gravity, and nuclear reactions.

I asked several recent graduates and none of them were taught anything about plasma physics, much less electromagnetism in regards to solar physics.

 

[ben m]

I am sitting in an office three doors down from an astrophysics lab specializing in high-energy plasmas; the PI studies both magnetized accretion disks and laboratory tokamak plasmas and fusion. (Oh, and he teaches two semesters of a graduate-level class called "Plasma Astrophysics".) I am three buildings over from a heliosphere lab, where they built many of the plasma instruments for spaceflights like Voyager and WIND, and analyze data from Ulysses, STEREO, etc. I am across two streets from a building full of laboratory plasmas, including magnetic reconnection experiments.

Could the plasma-cosmology people please stop insisting that astrophysicists don't understand plasma? This is not true at all. The astrophysicists for whom plasmas are important know a heck of a lot about plasmas. The astrophysicists for whom plasmas are peripherally important know a little bit about plasmas. The astrophysicists for whom plasmas are irrelevant---N-body modelers, perhaps?---know less about plasmas. All of these people are talking to each other all the time, during which exchanges they agree on where plasma details are important. They're also talking to laboratory-plasma experimentalists and theorists. Everyone involved agrees in general terms---the stellar astrophysicists, plasma astrophysicists, solar-system plasma physicists, laboratory plasma physicists, galactic astronomers, and cosmologists have all been to one another's seminars, and all seen one another's data. None of them think that the Sun is statically charged, isodensity, powered by electric current, or steered around the Galaxy by electromagnetism.

If you're going to invoke some sort of "conspiracy of ignorance", in which cosmologists are ignoring Plasma Cosmology only because they're too ill-educated to know about Birkeland currents---well, unfortunately, you're accusing almost every full-time plasma expert in the world of ignorance, too, since these people are also telling you you're wrong.