Electric universe theories here.

[Ziggurat]

You have never explained to me what you think these formulas relate to (physically) if not the electrons, ion and photons of the EM field. I'm really curious now what you believe all this math relates to exactly?

And you've never explained to me how many photons I need to add up to create a 1 Tesla field. There's a reason I'm asking that question, Michael, and it isn't in the hopes that you'll give a wrong number.

As a matter of fact, you've never quantified any of your ideas. I'm still waiting.

 

[Reality Check]

If it were "quasi-neutral", it would not create the persistent magnetic fields. Hoy. What doublespeak.

Hoy. What ignorance.
Turbulent flows in plasma create magnetic fields, e.g. the Sun's magnetic field.

No, I didn't think you'd take me seriously to the point of absurdity. Sure you probably underestimate the mass of electrons in the ISM just like you underestimate everything else, but I do not believe all the missing mass is found in the lowly electron, and not all forms of "current flow" involve "electrons".

Then the question is moot.
ETA: Well almost !
Astronomers look at the radiation of electrons in the ISM to determine its density. What you are asserting is that there are non-radiating electrons in the ISM. Let us call these dark electrons.
What is your evidence for the existence of dark electrons?
What is your estimate for the amount of "underestimate the mass of electrons in the ISM"?
Is this important enough for a separate question or is it just a random unsupported assertion?

Care to answer either to the two questions I posed to everyone else yet? I've never seen the whole lot of you get so quiet so fast. You must all be scared silly. I guess the moment you admit it's all related the movement of charged particles and carrier particles of the EM field, you'll have to cop to the fact it's "particle reconnection" and ultimately "circuit reconnection". Is that the reason nobody else wants to answer these questions?

Not scared at all. The answers are so obvious that a child can inderstand them.
Even I know that MHD is an approximation to actual plasma physics.
Even I know that the equations of MHD are fluid equations (that is the approximation - treating the plasma particles as a fluid) where there are no such things as particles.

 

[sol invictus]

Before we can talk about what "connects" and "reconnects" at various locations, I need to ask you two basic "physics" questions, starting with the same question I put to tusenfem.

In other words, you don't know enough math to understand even simple vector notation, so you'll try to change the subject.

In terms of actual "physics" and physical things, what exactly *DO* you think these formulas relate to *if* not the charged particles of the plasma and not the photons of the EM field?

Does the formula I wrote "relate" to the charged particles in some plasma? Maybe, maybe not - that field could exist in a plasma, but it could also exist somewhere else. If it's in a plasma, then yes, obvious, it "relates" to it.

I wrote a formula for the magnetic field. That tells you everything you need to know - you can calculate the current, if any. Or rather, someone who knows basic calculus could.

In terms of what "physically reconnects", what *physical things(s)* are you claiming is 'reconnecting' at *ANY* location in plasma?

We're talking about magnetic field line reconnection, Michael, which you claimed was impossible. So why are you asking this stupid question?

Here's what you said:

The full continuum that is the magnetic field is physically incapable of "disconnecting' or "reconnecting' to other magnetic field lines.

That is flat-out wrong. There's no way around it - you can squirm and flipflop and try to confuse things by asking meaningless questions, but you're wrong, and we all know it.

 

[sol invictus]

MHD theory is all about the study of the particles

No. MHD is an approximation in which one treats a conductive fluid using hydrodynamics coupled to electromagnetism. It's precisely NOT about the study of particles, any more than studying tsunamis is about hydrogen dioxide molecules.

The only "things" that MHD theory describe or can describe are the particles of plasma (the electrons/protons/ect) and the photons that make up the EM field.

It describes, approximately, an extremely large number of such particles moving coherently. That's the only situation in which it's useful. It cannot describe those particles individually or in small numbers, and it tells you almost nothing about what they are or what properties they have.

So, as usual, you're wrong. And as usual, you're wrong about physics, not math (you're never wrong about math because you never do any, because you don't know enough to balance a checkbook, let alone handle any physics equations).

 

[Michael Mozina]

In other words, you don't know enough math to understand even simple vector notation, so you'll try to change the subject.

No, in other words, your "problem" has nothing to with math (as usual) and everything to do with your poor understanding of the physics (as usual).

That is flat-out wrong. There's no way around it - you can squirm and flipflop and try to confuse things by asking meaningless questions, but you're wrong, and we all know it.

It's not "flat out wrong", it's exactly why Aflven called such stuff "pseudo-science". You can't understand the math because you don't understand the physics. Let me demonstrate that for you in Alfven's own words and your next post.....

 

[Tubbythin]

No, in other words, you "problem" has nothing to with math (as usual) and everything to do with your poor understanding of the physics (as usual).

Says the person who's alternative solution for the CMBR got the peak temperature wrong by a factor of 700 million.

 

[Michael Mozina]

No. MHD is an approximation in which one treats a conductive fluid using hydrodynamics coupled to electromagnetism.

Ok.

It's precisely NOT about the study of particles, any more than studying tsunamis is about hydrogen dioxide molecules.

False. Let's start with Alfven's own words. Let's start with Cosmical Electrodynamics.

2 .2 . Motion of a charged particle in a homogeneous static magnetic
field
2 .2 .1 . Unperturbed motion
Consider a particle of rest mass m and charge e in a homogeneous
magnetic field B . The velocity v of the particle has the component vii
parallel to the magnetic field and the component v t perpendicular to
it . The momentum of the particle is.......(more of that math you love but refuse to accept)

Page 18, 2nd Chapter.

Now we know why you don't understand anything at all. You don't have the first clue that Alfven himself applied his formulas to *INDIVIDUAL* particles. Sheesh. You folks are *SAD*.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Says the person who's alternative solution for the CMBR got the peak temperature wrong by a factor of 700 million.

I'm sure that strawman vaguely relates to some previous conversation we had, but I can't for life of me figure out how you created that strawman exactly. Care to enlighten me?

 

[Reality Check]

Evidence for the existence of "dark" electrons

First asked 28 July 2008

No, I didn't think you'd take me seriously to the point of absurdity. Sure you probably underestimate the mass of electrons in the ISM just like you underestimate everything else, but I do not believe all the missing mass is found in the lowly electron, and not all forms of "current flow" involve "electrons".

Astronomers look at the radiation of electrons in the ISM to determine its density. What you are asserting is that there are non-radiating electrons in the ISM. BTW: The Wikipedia article has a nice image of the H II (ionized hydrogen) distribution in the Milky Way and a chart including how the various components of the ISM are measured (including neutral hydrogen).

Let us call these "non-radiating electrons" dark electrons.

What is your evidence for the existence of dark electrons?

 

[Reality Check]

Ok.
False. Let's start with Alfven's own words. Let's start with Cosmical Electrodynamics.
Page 18, 2nd Chapter.

Now we know why you don't understand anything at all. You don't have the first clue that Alfven himself applied his formulas to *INDIVIDUAL* particles. Sheesh. You folks are *SAD*.

Sheesh. You really are *SAD* MM.

I do not even have to have to have book to see your mistake.
"Motion of a charged particle in a homogeneous static magnetic field" obviously refers to the motion of a charged particle in a homogeneous static magnetic field, i.e. has nothing to do with MHD which has no particles by definition.

Let me guess - Alfven is stating the basic laws of electromagnetism and showing some examples before going onto the actual MHD theory.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm sure that strawman vaguely relates to some previous conversation we had, but I can't for life of me figure out how you created that strawman exactly. Care to enlighten me?

Your solution to the origin of the CMBR was:

The CMBR was originally calculated in 1926 by Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington using the formula E = σT4 which predicted an ambient temperature of 3 K - very near the measured value of 2.73 K. In other words, It fits perfectly.

But this was never ever a prediction of the CMBR. And quite obviously has nothing to do with the CMBR.

I was merely suggesting you should think twice before telling people they have a poor understanding of physics. You don't exactly have a record to be proud of.

 

[Tubbythin]

Ok.

False. Let's start with Alfven's own words. Let's start with Cosmical Electrodynamics.

Page 18, 2nd Chapter.

Now we know why you don't understand anything at all. You don't have the first clue that Alfven himself applied his formulas to *INDIVIDUAL* particles. Sheesh. You folks are *SAD*.

And... err... that proves your point how?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Sheesh. You really are *SAD* MM.

I do not even have to have to have book to see your mistake.

This "not reading" thing seems to be a familiar pattern with you folks. I don't suppose you ever actually read the book I cited or Cosmic Plasma, or is this another pure argument from ignorance thing?

Let me guess - Alfven is stating the basic laws of electromagnetism and showing some examples before going onto the actual MHD theory.

Let me guess....you never actually read Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3 etc of *ANY* of his books?

 

[Reality Check]

Your solution to the origin of the CMBR was:

But this was never ever a prediction of the CMBR. And quite obviously has nothing to do with the CMBR.

I was merely suggesting you should think twice before telling people they have a poor understanding of physics. You don't exactly have a record to be proud of.

MM may not remember this because he posted it here in the Plasma Cosmology Woo or Not thread.
MM was just repeating the mistake that he read in a rather bad paper about the history of the CMBR predictions. The paper's mistake was that
Eddington was calculating the effective temperature of non-thermal integrated star light, which peaks in the visible or near ultraviolet, and does not show any sign of thermal equilibrium (which point Eddington makes explicitly).
The CMB is not non-thermal integrated star light.

Of course there is MM's classic response when this was pointed out:

A totally bogus paper that makes the same mistake Mozina made, by insisting that Eddington had predicted the background temperature, when he clearly did not. Just read Eddington. He was calculating the effective temperature of non-thermal integrated star light, which peaks in the visible or near ultraviolet, and does not show any sign of thermal equilibrium (which point Eddington makes explicitly). But the CMB must have a Planck Law shape, a trait common to all big bang theories based on general relativity.

So you stuff a theory with metaphysical entities to "make it fit", is that the idea?

 

[Tubbythin]

Says the person who's alternative solution for the CMBR got the peak temperature wrong by a factor of 700 million.

Oops. That should in fact have been got the intensity at close to the peak wavelength wrong by a factor of 700 million.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And... err... that proves your point how?

I'm personally mystified as to why you're even engaged in this conversation, or why you would join this sinking rat infested ship. I don't suppose you've read Alfven's books?

If you don't agree that MDH theory is the study of plasma and the carrier particles of the EM field, then exactly what does all that math physically relate to in your opinion?

 

[Tubbythin]

MM may not remember this because he posted it here in the Plasma Cosmology Woo or Not thread.
MM was just repeating the mistake that he read in a rather bad paper about the history of the CMBR predictions. The paper's mistake was that
Eddington was calculating the effective temperature of non-thermal integrated star light, which peaks in the visible or near ultraviolet, and does not show any sign of thermal equilibrium (which point Eddington makes explicitly).
The CMB is not non-thermal integrated star light.

What really illustrated how badly Michael failed to understand what he was talking about, however, was that he still completely failed to see a problem with Eddington's result as a solution even after it being handed to him -very explicitly - on a plate.

 

[Reality Check]

This "not reading" thing seems to be a familiar pattern with you folks. I don't suppose you ever actually read the book I cited or Cosmic Plasma, or is this another pure argument from ignorance thing?

Let me guess....you never actually read Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3 etc of *ANY* of his books?

That is correct - I have not.
That is why I have to work from your quote (which is obviously nothing to do with MHD) and a guess as I stated ("I guess").

ETA: I have noticed in the past that you tend to take things literally. So I am not saying that Cosmical Electrodynamics is not about MHD. I am saying that any author of a scientific textbook will cover the basics before going onto their subject. Thus Alfven would have covered the basics in his textbook. That includes looking at charged particles in magnetic fields.

I also find it strange that (according to you) Alfven leaps straight into MHD on page 18. I would have expected that he would have first stated the basics, e.g. the effects of magnetic fields on particles. But then that it what you quote !

2 .2 . Motion of a charged particle in a homogeneous static magnetic
field
2 .2 .1 . Unperturbed motion
Consider a particle of rest mass m and charge e in a homogeneous
magnetic field B . The velocity v of the particle has the component vii
parallel to the magnetic field and the component v t perpendicular to
it . The momentum of the particle is ...

Why don't you give a more complete quote, e.g.

• What is the title of section 2.2?
• What is the title of section 2.1.1?
• What is the math that you are not showing us?
• Does the math involve fluids (MDH) or particles (electrodynamics)?

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm personally mystified as to why you're even engaged in this conversation, or why you would join this sinking rat infested ship.

Your quote doesn't support your argument. I was making that point. It doesn't mention MHD anywhere. And since its not called "A Book on Magnetohydrodynamics and Absolutely Nothing Else" I have no reason to believe you are quoting Alfven on MHD.

I don't suppose you've read Alfven's books?

Nope.

If you don't agree that MDH theory is the study of plasma and the carrier particles of the EM field, then exactly what does all that math physically relate to in your opinion?

The coupling of Maxwell's equations and the Navier-Stokes equations. Ie the dynamics of a "fluid" plasma (and such like).

 

[Michael Mozina]

That is correct - I have not.

So let me see....

You're an expert on MHD therory and you don't have to read Alfven at all evidently. You're an expert on RD images, but I had to show you where to find the RD SOHO images and how to pick out real stars in SOHO images. Is there anything else that you're really good at but never have studied before that I should be forewarned about?

I'm really amazed at how many of you are arguing from a place of complete and total ignorance.

That is why I have to work from your quote (which is obviously nothing to do with MHD) and a guess as I stated ("I guess").

Well, it's not a very good guess even from the quote I picked out. It's an "uneducated" guess, and those are typically the worst kind of guesses. If you ever expect to comprehend the "magneto" part of MHD theory, you'll have to understand the affect of the EM field on individual and collective groups of charged particles. If you can comprehend why one particle "flows" in a spiraling Birkeland current, it becomes easier to understand how groups of charged particles flow in similar patterns. The H part of MHD theory isn't all that matters.

I also find it strange that (according to you) Alfven leaps straight into MHD on page 18.

He doesn't. He's starting with the "basics" as you suggest, the "basics" as it relates to the EM field and it's effect on individual particles. The following chapter is where he puts the magneto part together with fluid dynamics.

I would have expected that he would have first stated the basics, e.g. the effects of magnetic fields on particles. But then that it what you quote !

It's rather eye-popping and telling to me that you would ignore the particle aspects of MHD theory. Alfven spends the whole of Cosmic plasma talking about MHD theory from the "particle" and "circuit" orientation of MHD theory. Since you folks rarely if ever seem to read his material, I guess this all should not surprise me in the least, but then hey, I guess I just gave you too much credit. My bad.

Why don't you give a more complete quote, e.g.

Why don't you go to the library and find a more complete quote for us, one that somehow supports your beliefs. Why do I have to spoon feed you his words? Why not just accept these words?

http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfven/Double Layers In Astrophysics.pdf

B. Magnetic Merging -- A Pseudo-Science

Since then I have stressed in a large number of papers the danger of using the frozen-in concept. For example, in a paper "Electric Current Structure of the Magnetosphere" (Alfv6n, 1975), I made a table showing the difference between the real plasma and "a fictitious medium" called "the pseudo-plasma," the latter having frozen in magnetic field lines moving with the plasma. The most important criticism of the "merging" mechanism of energy transfer is due to Heikkila (1973) who with increasing strength has demonstrated that it is wrong. In spite of all this, we have witnessed at the same time an enormously voluminous formalism building up based on this obviously erroneous concept. Indeed, we have been burdened with a gigantic pseudo-science which penetrates large parts of cosmic plasma physics. The monograph CP treats the field-line reconnection (merging) concept in I. 3, II. 3, and I1.5. We may conclude that anyone who uses the merging concepts states by implication that no double layers exist. A new epoch in magnetospheric physics was inaugurated by L. Lyons and D. Williams' monograph (1985).

They treat magnetospheric phenomena systematically by the particle approach and demonstrate that the fluid dynamic approach gives erroneous results. The error of the latter approach is of a basic character. Of course there can be no magnetic merging energy transfer.

I was naive enough to believe that such a pseudo-science would die by itself in the scientific community, and I concentrated my work on more pleasant problems. To my great surprise the opposite has occurred; the "merging" pseudo-science seems to be increasingly powerful. Magnetospheric physics and solar wind physics today are no doubt in a chaotic state, and a major reason for this is that some of the published papers are science and part pseudoscience, perhaps even with a majority for the latter group.