Electric universe theories here.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Observations have shown that these loops have axially uniform cross‐sections (Bellan 2003). Their very small inverse aspect ratios are often used to justify the neglect of curvature and to model them as straight cylinders, which is known as the thin flux tube approximation (see Zhugzhda 1996; Van der Linden & Hood 1999; Lothian & Browning 2000, and references therein). Coronal loops are line‐tied to the photosphere (Berger 1991). As such, boundary conditions at the ends of the cylindrical axis are important, as the coronal physics are influenced by conditions at the photosphere and chromosphere (Aschwanden, Nightingale & Alexander 2000). As the solar wind moves away from the Sun, it carries the coronal flux tubes along with it.

More specifically, coronal mass ejections (Low 2001) form solar flux ropes (also known as interplanetary magnetic clouds) as they move in the solar wind away from the Sun.

Usually the plasma β≪ 1 for these flux ropes (Burlaga 1988), and Shimazu & Vandas (2002) have shown that as the flux ropes expand due to the ambient pressure decrease with distance from the Sun, they maintain a force‐free state. As such, the flux ropes are modelled locally as infinitely long cylinders described by linear force‐free magnetic fields (Burlaga 1988; Lepping et al. 2001; Berdichevsky, Lepping & Farrugia 2003).
Click to expand...

Cylindrical linear force‐free magnetic fields with toroidal flux surfaces G. J. J. Botha, E. A. Evangelidis


Jd116, you may benefit from jotting this down somewhere….

More specifically, coronal mass ejections (Low 2001) form solar flux ropes (also known as interplanetary magnetic clouds) as they move in the solar wind away from the Sun.


They, being the multitude of electric currents and current driven instabilities.

Plasma is not a gas and the solar wind is not quasi neutral.

;)
 
Sol88 said:
No.

Scott hit the nail on the head… the hang up was here, as I recall;



Scott Currents? Less turbulent plasmas.

Highly turbulent plasmas like the solar wind close to the stars, HH objects, AGN’s, quasars…, flux ropes seems the most common term used. Happy to call them Parker Currents. Seems these currents have not had time to get field aligned.

Birkeland current in planetary plasmaspheres. :thumbsup:

ALL need an electric field.
Click to expand...

Scott's 'paper' was crap. As has been pointed out here and elsewhere. He screws up the equations at the start, and it just gets worse from thereon. If that were possible. He is not a plasma physicist, and is utterly clueless about the subject. Not to mention a whole bunch of other physics. Because he's an engineer. Not a physicist. He is suffering from a terminal case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Which seems to be contagious in EU circles. You and Thornhill have certainly caught it.
 
Sol88 said:
Jd116, you may benefit from jotting this down somewhere….
Click to expand...

And you may benefit from high school physics. And then trying to understand basic plasma physics, which you have completely failed to do after umpteen years.

and the solar wind is not quasi neutral.

;)
Click to expand...

Yes it is, and nobody sane is claiming differently. And you cannot point to anyone sane making such a claim.
 
As the solar wind moves away from the Sun, it carries the coronal flux tubes along with it.

More specifically, coronal mass ejections (Low 2001) form solar flux ropes (also known as interplanetary magnetic clouds) as they move in the solar wind away from the Sun.
Click to expand...

Are you saying, you, are a plasma physicist? Or that G. J. J. Botha, E. A. Evangelidis don’t know what they are talking about?

You seem to be hung up on a 1939 paper by a pioneer in plasma physics.
 
As the solar wind moves away from the Sun, it carries the coronal flux tubes along with it.

More specifically, coronal mass ejections (Low 2001) form solar flux ropes (also known as interplanetary magnetic clouds) as they move in the solar wind away from the Sun.
Click to expand...

Are you saying, you, are a plasma physicist? Or that G. J. J. Botha, E. A. Evangelidis don’t know what they are talking about?

You seem to be hung up on a 1939 paper by a pioneer in plasma physics.
 
Sol88 said:
Are you saying, you, are a plasma physicist? Or that G. J. J. Botha, E. A. Evangelidis don’t know what they are talking about?

You seem to be hung up on a 1939 paper by a pioneer in plasma physics.
Click to expand...

They are not saying that the solar wind is a net current. Learn to read. Nobody sane is claiming that. If you are claiming that these two authors are making such a claim, then accept the challenge I offered - I'll email them and see what they say about the net neutrality of the solar wind. Loser never posts here again. Deal?
 
Sol88 said:
That is the electric Universe.

Currents flowing everywhere to try and maintain charge balance. :D

Ie. electromagnetism is far more import than gravity.
Click to expand...

No, that's just quasi-neutrality.

Heck, why do you think the charges might tend to get separated in the first place? Gravity is one reason.
 
jonesdave116 said:
They are not saying that the solar wind is a net current. Learn to read. Nobody sane is claiming that. If you are claiming that these two authors are making such a claim, then accept the challenge I offered - I'll email them and see what they say about the net neutrality of the solar wind. Loser never posts here again. Deal?
Click to expand...

Sure if it make you feel any better.

Not really even sure if that will clear up the point that the solar wind may be considered quasi neutral at the scale of the solar system.

I'd be more interested on their take of the pervasive electric currents that thread the solar wind.

Are you able to ask them that as well?

Notable events

From May 10 to May 12, 1999, NASA's Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) and WIND spacecraft observed a 98% decrease of solar wind density. This allowed energetic electrons from the Sun to flow to Earth in narrow beams known as "strahl", which caused a highly unusual "polar rain" event, in which a visible aurora appeared over the North Pole. In addition, Earth's magnetosphere increased to between 5 and 6 times its normal size.[64]
Click to expand...


Or you saying the solar wind can not contain any current because of its (the solar wind) quasi neutrality?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Or you saying the solar wind can not contain any current because of its (the solar wind) quasi neutrality?
Click to expand...

For frak's sake! quasi-neutrality and currents are not related, apart from that they work with the same paricles.

quasi-neutral:

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex? \Sigma_k n_k q_k = 0

with k meaning all species of ions and electrons, n is density and q is charge, and the sum over an appropriately large volume, i.e. several times the largest Larmor radius.

A current:

http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex? {\bf J} = \Sigma_k n_k q_k {\bf v}_k

where v is the velocity, and there is no volume involved.

I am sure jonesdave116 is fully aware of these definitions and also that the two are independent (for example one is a scalar and one is a vector). So, NO JD did not say what you think he is saying.

(not sure why (La)TeX is not working for me)
 
Last edited:
Great. :D

Don’t won’t to talk anymore about quasi neutrality in the bulk solar wind as jd116 natters about.

The BIRKELAND CURRENTS (field aligned, force free, electron flux ropes) and the shinanigans the zoo of current driven plasma instabilities causes in astrophysical plasmas.

Throw some nanodust into the mix…
 
Sol88 said:
Sure if it make you feel any better.

Not really even sure if that will clear up the point that the solar wind may be considered quasi neutral at the scale of the solar system.

I'd be more interested on their take of the pervasive electric currents that thread the solar wind.

Are you able to ask them that as well?




Or you saying the solar wind can not contain any current because of its (the solar wind) quasi neutrality?
Click to expand...

And Sol chickens out. As predicted! Go back a number of pages and you will see where I said the solar wind can contain currents. I also said that the solar wind is quasi-neutral at macroscopic scales. And it is.
You will also see where I dealt with the strahl. Which part of this are you incapable of understanding?;

Halekas said:
As at greater heliocentric distances, the core has a sunward drift relative to the proton frame, which balances the current carried by the strahl, satisfying the zero-current condition necessary to maintain quasi-neutrality.
Click to expand...

Electrons in the Young Solar Wind: First Results from the Parker Solar Probe
Halekas, J. S. et al (2020)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4365/ab4cec/pdf

As previously noted, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. And neither does Scott. Get over it.
 
Sol88 said:
The BIRKELAND CURRENTS (field aligned, force free, electron flux ropes) and the shinanigans the zoo of current driven plasma instabilities causes in astrophysical plasmas.

Throw some nanodust into the mix…
Click to expand...

What Birkeland currents? Who is claiming to see them outside of planetary magnetospheres within the solar wind? Nobody sane.
 
jonesdave116 said:
What Birkeland currents? Who is claiming to see them outside of planetary magnetospheres within the solar wind? Nobody sane.
Click to expand...
“Birkeland currents” is just Sol88’s shorthand for “something electrical”. He said so himself. It was easier than to find out which actual phenomenon he is dealing with. And it sort of sounds as if it supports EU.
 
Go back a number of pages and you will see where I said the solar wind can contain currents. I also said that the solar wind is quasi-neutral at macroscopic scales. And it is.
Click to expand...

Mark this in the books crew, a momentous occasion…jd116 and I agree, 100%. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom