Something new under the sun

[Zeuzzz]

Hi Zuezz, when asked for the scale it was not forth coming, when asked for the force and scale it was not forthcomming. So what phenomena that you pointed to is scalable, what scale do you use and how does it translate into the observed behavior of cosmic objects.

So you choose the events that you say is a model for a cosmic scale event, tell us the forces in the smaller model, then give us the conversion to the cosmic event.

Such as Perrat and the plasma galaxy thing, what size if Perrat's plasma, what strength is the field, how do you scale that up to a galaxy?

In my opinion some of the most striking resemblances between Birkelands also produced various sun spot like objects on his terella, as well as very accurate creation of the suns polar coronal hole, and the equatorial plasma torus, all of which are clearly visible in the following picture;

compare to SOHO's picture of the equatorial plasma torus: external image

And also compare the sphere on the left to the various new pictures revealing the coronal polar hole, which is when the visible corona above the poles greatly diminishes, an effect not currently explainable by standard models. external image

What do you think is going on here on Birkelands Terrella?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Thanks to Belz... and MattusMaximus for answering my questions.

That leaves BeAChooser, Reality Check, and Zeuzzz ... and Tubbythin (if you'd like to have a go).

Here are the questions again:

Way back when the underlying cause(s) of electricity and magnetism were not known. Fast forward a century or two and today we know about electrons, ions, electron spins, orbitals, etc, etc, etc.

If you look at plasma processes in terms of what the electrons and ions (and neutral atoms/molecules too) are doing, how does a magnetic field arise (excluding externally imposed fields)? Given that moving charges create such fields, does the existence of such magnetic fields - in the solar wind say, or the Sun - automatically mean that there are currents (in terms of contemporary physics)?

Is there a quantum mechanics version of Maxwell's equations?

I'm quite interested in all folk who've been actively participating in this thread recently to reply to the these questions; I'm particularly interested to hear from iantresman, Zeuzzz, and BeAChooser on the extent to which you think Alfvén, Birkeland, Peratt, Scott, Thornhill, et al. modified/extended plasma physics (a branch of classical physics) to incorporate the reality of the actual charge carriers (electrons and ions).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

First, a somewhat belated thanks to sol invictus, iantresman, and Dancing David for their comments on my (belated) reply to Zeuzzz.

As iantresman has been so forthcoming - like robinson in the Thunderbolts thread - I will follow up on the topic with him, even though it may - as Dancing David pointed out - involve shifting the discussion some.

For BeAChooser and Zeuzzz I'd rather wait at least until they have responded to some of my recent questions to them; another reason is that it's pretty clear (to me at least) that iantresman's "plasma cosmology" (or whatever) differs substantially from BeAChooser's and Zeuzzz' (and they may well differ substantially from each other too).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

double post

 

[DeiRenDopa]

.
Also good questions. But as sol invictus has pointed out, while some people here are "professional physicists", people like myself are not.

But I have a couple of degrees, and can read a paper, and will respectfully refer you to Peratt's peer-reviewed paper, who can explain plasmas far more accurately than I can. See: "Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas", Astrophysics and Space Science, 242, 1997, (Abstract and Full text, PDF).

Peratt, Alfvén, Langmuir, and other pioneers of the Plasma Universe, were professional physicists, and have a far better understanding of the Plasma Universe than I ever will.

If you are, as you say, not a professional physicist, how do you go about evaluating stuff that people like sol invictus post here?

How did you determine which professional physicists were pioneers of the PU, and which were not?

How do you evaluate a published paper to work out whether it is a Plasma Cosmology, Plasma Universe, or a Alfvén-Klein Cosmology one?

And to take one specific case, which Zeuzzz has brought up many times, how would you go about working out whether Scott's paper is good physics, bad physics, or something in between?

For example, several people (other than Zeuzzz) have commented on it, in one way or another; what did you make of their comments?

 

[Zeuzzz]

If you look at plasma processes in terms of what the electrons and ions (and neutral atoms/molecules too) are doing, how does a magnetic field arise (excluding externally imposed fields)?

Given that moving charges create such fields, does the existence of such magnetic fields - in the solar wind say, or the Sun - automatically mean that there are currents (in terms of contemporary physics)?

Is there a quantum mechanics version of Maxwell's equations?

I'm quite interested in all folk who've been actively participating in this thread recently to reply to the these questions; I'm particularly interested to hear from iantresman, Zeuzzz, and BeAChooser on the extent to which you think Alfvén, Birkeland, Peratt, Scott, Thornhill, et al. modified/extended plasma physics (a branch of classical physics) to incorporate the reality of the actual charge carriers (electrons and ions).

Magnetism is caused only by the flow of charge. Magnetism and electricity are inextricably linked via maxwells equations. This is addressed in the publication I keep quoting (and will continue to until someone actually shows why it is wrong)

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

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 not Alfvén, Birkeland, Peratt, Scott, Thornhill, et al, that need to modify their physics to account for the reality of the actual charge carriers, their work is firmly based on this; electric currents (or Birkeland currents) and the magnetism that these circuits produce in space.

In contrast, astronomers seem to often ignore the complementary electrical component that always accompanies magnetism. They will talk of the interstellar magnetic field, without any reference to the currents producing it, they will tak about the chaotic magnetic field of the sun, without any reference to the persistant electrical currents that must sustain it.

No real magnetic field can exist anywhere without an associated moving charge (electric current). Conversely, any electric current will create a magnetic field. The applicable Maxwell equation describes this inherent interrelationship, i.e.,


[latex]\nabla.H=j+\epsilon\frac{dE}{dt}[/latex]


where j is the current density, and the second term on the right is the displacement current, which is often neglected. However, it is sometimes convenient to account for the kinetic energy of a magnetized plasma by introducing the effective permittivity, i.e.,


[latex]\epsilon\Rightarrow\epsilon[1+(c/V_{MH})^2][/latex]


where c and VMH are the velocities of light and of hydrodynamic waves. If this is done, the displacement current can be large [1]. In any event, all terms in the equation are expressed in amperes per square meter. Magnetic flux density B = μH (where μ is the magnetic permeability of the medium). Equation (10) defines the inherent coupling of magnetic fields and electric currents. The classroom interpretation of this relationship is called the “right-hand rule.” Point your right thumb in the direction of the current density vector; your fingers show the direction of the magnetic field (and vice versa). Although magnetic fields are often included in astronomical hypotheses, the inherently associated electric currents are rarely mentioned. In addition, as is true in the proposed reconnection mechanism, the behavior of cosmic magnetic fields and the release of energy from those fields can only be understood by referencing the behavior of their causative electric currents.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

.
Anthony Peratt covers this in his book, Physics of the Plasma Universe, where he notes that "Plasmas are prodigious producers of electromagnetic radiation", and describes how plasmas produce gamma rays and x-rays, ultraviolet, visible, infrared, submillimeter and microwave, and radio waves. He then devotes entire chapters to synchrotron radiation because it is very characteristic of pasmas, and the transport of cosmic radiation.

Peratt also covers "Radiation Characteristics of the Plasma State", and, "Synchrotron Radiation" in his paper "Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas", Astrophysics and Space Science, 242, 1997, (Abstract and Full text, PDF), which makes for a good general overview.

Thanks for this.

I have read the 71 page Peratt paper, but could find only relatively little on radiation. Section 4 has three topics: synchrotron radiation, transition radiation, and thermal radiation. In all cases it is clear that the particle nature of the charge carriers (electrons) is critical.

What makes this paper a "plasma cosmology" (or plasma universe) one?

Also, I've been reading up on what's on your website, and am curious about why you give such prominence to Birkeland. Sure he did some great work on aurorae, but almost all of his terella experiments lead him to conclusions that we now know to be quite wrong.

 

[Dancing David]

What do you think is going on here on Birkelands Terrella?

I don't know I see some bright spots and some filiment type things. Which part of the solar process is that relating too? Then we can talk about how the scale on Birkelands machine corresponds to which solar process. Do you want to talk about the spots, the filaments or the hazy layer above the surface? And then which solar porcess is it related too?

Thanks for the answer, we are getting closer here to a dialouge.

 

[Dancing David]

doppo

 

[Zeuzzz]

Thanks for this.

I have read the 71 page Peratt paper, but could find only relatively little on radiation. Section 4 has three topics: synchrotron radiation, transition radiation, and thermal radiation. In all cases it is clear that the particle nature of the charge carriers (electrons) is critical.

What makes this paper a "plasma cosmology" (or plasma universe) one?

I'm not sure exactly what your looking for here, you think that Peratt has come up with an entirely new way of creating visible light?

We know where most of the visible light comes from, stars.

Infact, having a quick look around, he does directly address the creation of the visible spectrum of radiation in "Physics of the Plasma Universe"

Visible light comes from solid bodies such as planets, but to a much larger extent cones from stellar photospheres, whίch are typically plasmas with low energies—less than 10eV. Hence the visual universe is almost synonymous with the low-energy ρlasma universe. The energy density of visible light in the uniνerse is ~10^-15 Jm^-3.

lnfared radiation is emitted from the photospheres of stars. For example, 52% of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the Sun falls between 100 and 1 mm. The energy density of radiation in the infared approaches 10^-14 Jm^-3 The infrared background radiation is a component of the cosmic background radiation that also includes the submillimeter and microwave backgrounds.
[....]

 

[Ziggurat]

Magnetism is caused only by the flow of charge. Magnetism and electricity are inextricably linked via maxwells equations. This is addressed in the publication I keep quoting (and will continue to until someone actually shows why it is wrong)
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf

I have done so with one of their errors, more than once. Others have pointed out other errors. You have failed to respond every time. That you pretend no one has pointed out the errors in this paper when they have multiple times makes you a liar.

I will once again point out the mistake I pointed out before. They state:
"Note that no electric currents exist near or at the neutral point. If they did, the point would no longer be magnetically neutral."
This is trivially falsified by one of the most basic magnetic configurations any first-year physics student studies: uniform current density in a circular wire. The center of the wire has nonzero current but zero magnetic field - it is a neutral point with electric current.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

If you look at plasma processes in terms of what the electrons and ions (and neutral atoms/molecules too) are doing, how does a magnetic field arise (excluding externally imposed fields)?

Given that moving charges create such fields, does the existence of such magnetic fields - in the solar wind say, or the Sun - automatically mean that there are currents (in terms of contemporary physics)?

Is there a quantum mechanics version of Maxwell's equations?

I'm quite interested in all folk who've been actively participating in this thread recently to reply to the these questions; I'm particularly interested to hear from iantresman, Zeuzzz, and BeAChooser on the extent to which you think Alfvén, Birkeland, Peratt, Scott, Thornhill, et al. modified/extended plasma physics (a branch of classical physics) to incorporate the reality of the actual charge carriers (electrons and ions).

Magnetism is caused only by the flow of charge. Magnetism and electricity are inextricably linked via maxwells equations.

.

Thanks very much for this Zeuzzz!

I am gradually coming to understand at least some parts of the disconnect between you (and, probably, BeAChooser) and people like ben m; and this pretty clearly illustrates one part (well, it does to me anyway).

You see, I asked about how the modern understanding of the causes of electricity and magnetism relates to Maxwell's equations and the classical view.

You replied with a very firm, very clear, no-room-for-misunderstanding answer, for which I thank you once again.

However, magnetism arises by at least one mechanism other than the flow of charge - unpaired electron spins in atomic orbitals, which you did not mention.

Now I'm sure you know this (and much more) about magnetism, so one reason for the breakdown of communication evident in this thread is your failure to include sufficient context or scope, at least for your statements which come across as so firm and clear (or so it seems to me).

.

This is addressed in the publication I keep quoting (and will continue to until someone actually shows why it is wrong)

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

.

As I mentioned in my reply to iantresman earlier today, several people have commented on Scott's paper, and some have (I think) pointed out why it is wrong.

Perhaps to better understand one reason why this thread is so long, I will attempt to gather all the responses (and your comments on them) together into one post. If nothing else that would likely give me greater insight into why you think no one has explained why Scott is wrong despite the fact that at least one person thinks just such an explanation has been given.
.

It is not Alfvén, Birkeland, Peratt, Scott, Thornhill, et al, that need to modify their physics to account for the reality of the actual charge carriers, their work is firmly based on this; electric currents (or Birkeland currents) and the magnetism that these circuits produce in space.

In contrast, astronomers seem to often ignore the complementary electrical component that always accompanies magnetism. They will talk of the interstellar magnetic field, without any reference to the currents producing it, they will tak about the chaotic magnetic field of the sun, without any reference to the persistant electrical currents that must sustain it.

.

Actually, ben m has already addressed this directly, in commenting on my post on iantresman's one in which he quoted Alfvén:

sol invictus and and ben m: do you think Alfvén, in the bit iantresman quoted, is right about the equivalence of treatment (B vs i), and the possible loss of some important aspects by using B instead of i?

This is where I keep tearing my hair out: space plasma physicists aren't ignoring anything. My colleagues who work on the WIND spacecraft have lots of data on the "lunar wake": there's an electric field behind the Moon due to the fact that moon casts a "shadow" in the Solar Wind, and this shadow is filled in more rapidly by electrons than by protons. They deal with non-equilibrium plasmas where the protons and electrons have different temperatures. They talk to tokamak experts for whom the currents are the most important parameters. The "plasma waves" they talk about are not disembodied magnetic fields: they're a coupled system of currents, fields, and densities/pressures. If these wave modes are the appropriate degrees of freedom, then it's fine to only talk about one marker of the waves---it's like talking about a pendulum's motion by describing its "amplitude". ("Amplitude? You forgot about momentum-space", says the pedant. No I didn't---if we're talking about a pendulum with an oscillation period, the momentum is in there.) Are these waves "appropriate" degrees of freedom? Generally, half of the history of physics has been describing complex systems as the sum of a bunch of wave modes---we're quite good at identifying the benefits and pitfalls of this approach, and plasma people talk a lot about which degrees of freedom to use where.

Nonetheless, the PC persecution-fantasy requires them to think that we're leaving something out. So they make stuff up. You're leaving out electric fields! (Not where they exist, we're not.) You're leaving out the particle properties! (Nope.) You're leaving out the currents! (Where do you think we got the fields from?) You're leaving out the charge on the Sun! (Because it isn't there.) You only think it isnt there because you ignore electric fields! (Lather, rinse, repeat.)

The PC argument you mention---"You should use my technique, your technique is ignoring several effects"---hasn't actually been advanced at all on this board, since BAC and Zeuzzz are busy convincing us that magnetic field lines don't really exist. The hypothetical argument would be more impressive if the arguers could actually show examples where (a) their effect is actually ignored, causing (b) the results to disagree with observations. I haven't seen anything to convince me.

.

Perhaps you missed this?

In any case, ben m seems to be saying, quite clearly, that astronomers do not, generally, ignore the complementary electrical component.

Further, his answer seems quite plausible, because he (and others) very clearly stated how magnetic fields arise in plasmas ... and his answer is also in line with what Alfvén said (that iantresman quoted).

Perhaps one reason this thread is so long is because you don't understand what ben m wrote? or that you don't believe him?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I'm not sure exactly what your looking for here, you think that Peratt has come up with an entirely new way of creating visible light?

We know where most of the visible light comes from, stars.

Infact, having a quick look around, he does directly address the creation of the visible spectrum of radiation in "Physics of the Plasma Universe"

.

Thanks for responding, Zeuzzz.

If you follow the chain back to its source, you'll see that I was curious to know whether plasma cosmologists had addressed the question of what the physical mechanisms for plasmas giving off light (or radio or x-rays etc) are. This comes from wondering how stuff that plasma cosmologists do can be tested, in astronomy, when all you've got is light (and radio, and x-rays, etc), and from the fact that Maxwell's equations alone are not enough (as I now know) - you need specific details of the charged (and neutral) particles which make up the plasma too.

One thing I'm curious about, now that you answered my post, and seeing as the 71 page Peratt paper is on your long list, what makes this paper a "plasma cosmology" (or plasma universe) one?

And what makes the second quote (from the Plasma Universe by Peratt) a plasma universe one?

I mean, wouldn't you find the physics content of Peratt's paper in any standard plasma physics textbook? And how is Peratt's paragraph any different than what you'd find in any university astronomy textbook?

As a side note, do you know anything about transition radiation? Where, in the sky, can it be seen?

 

[Tubbythin]

Thanks to Belz... and MattusMaximus for answering my questions.

That leaves BeAChooser, Reality Check, and Zeuzzz ... and Tubbythin (if you'd like to have a go).

Here are the questions again:

Hi. I'm not sure I can add much to the debate that hasn't already been said. Mattus Maximus' response seems to answer your questions as well as I could.

 

[iantresman]

What makes this paper a "plasma cosmology" (or plasma universe) one?

.
I think I've already mentioned that defining "plasma cosmology" and the "plasma universe" is not precise. has written that "'Plasma Cosmology', the study of the plasma universe" which makes them almost synonymous. On the other hand Alfvén has applied what he calls the Plasma Universe, to Cosmology (Ref, full text).

I have asked certain scientists in the past whether they consider themselves "Plasma Cosmologists", only to be told that they consider themselves plasma astrophysicists.

Personally, I consider the "Plasma Universe" to be a general emphasis on the importance of the plasma, but which often includes reference to some of the basic phenomena mentioned by Alfvén in his book, Cosmic Plasma, and summarized in Carl-Gunn Fälthammar's paper "The Plasma Universe" (abstract and full text). So this would include the importance of double layers, electric circuit analogies, pinches, electric field acceleration of jets etc.

Also, I've been reading up on what's on your website, and am curious about why you give such prominence to Birkeland. Sure he did some great work on aurorae, but almost all of his terella experiments lead him to conclusions that we now know to be quite wrong.

.
Because of his work on the aurora, his prediction that space was a plasma, his general laboratory work, and a unique resource on some of his work, and his numerous other contributions.

 

[iantresman]

If you are, as you say, not a professional physicist, how do you go about evaluating stuff that people like sol invictus post here?

.
Same as everyone, on the sum of my knowledge and experience, ask around, read a bit, and keep an open mind.

How did you determine which professional physicists were pioneers of the PU, and which were not?

.

• "Stockholm, August 1956, Revisited", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Apr 1989, Volume: 17, Issue: 2, page(s): 69-72. ("The author believes that the modern-day foundations of the plasma universe can be traced to a significant degree to the International Astronomical Union Symposium number 6 held in August, 1956, in Stockholm." 1956 Conference proceedings and contributors
• Anthony L. Peratt, "Guest editorial sixth special issue on space and cosmic plasma" (2003) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Dec. 2003, Volume: 31, Issue: 6, Part 1, pages 1109-1111 (Full text PDF)
• Anthony L. Peratt, "Guest Editorial, Electrical Engineering, Plasma Science, and the Plasma Universe", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Volume 14, Issue 6, Dec. 1986 Page(s):613 - 615 (full text PDF)

 

[MattusMaximus]

Thanks to Belz... and MattusMaximus for answering my questions.

No problem.

 

[Reality Check]

Hi Zeuzzz, Rather than posting screeds of text on Dancing David's question on plasma scaleabilty, you should point him to the Wikipedia article on plasma scaling, its applications and limitations.

 

[ben m]

.
Personally, I consider the "Plasma Universe" to be a general emphasis on the importance of the plasma, but which often includes reference to some of the basic phenomena mentioned by Alfvén in his book, Cosmic Plasma, and summarized in Carl-Gunn Fälthammar's paper "The Plasma Universe" (). So this would include the importance of double layers, electric circuit analogies, pinches, electric field acceleration of jets etc.

Hmm. Yet somehow "Plasma Cosmology" is different than "nuclear astrophysics" or "high-energy astrophysics" or "condensed matter physics", all of which have a "general emphasis on the importance of X". You see, most subfields of physics don't declare that a large fraction of the work outside of their emphasis is wrong. Ultracold atom researchers do not, by and large, write long anti-LHC articles in their atomic physics journals, nor accuse astrophysicists of ignoring cosmic Bose condensates.

The crux of plasma cosmology, if it has one, is its disagreement with mainstream physics. Otherwise it's just astrophysics. Can you list, Iantresman, several key points where plasma cosmology thinks mainstream cosmology is wrong? I can think of a few reasons why you might not be able to make such a list:

• You, Iantresman, have a vague sense that you ought to disagree with some parts of mainstream astrophysics. Indeed, you have a list of topics in mind. However, you fear that your list probably contains some real howlers---inexcusable, indefensible crackpottery---but that you can't tell which ones they are. You feel personally unqualified to tell the difference between good and bad plasma physics, so you're hoping to wait and see before you make any declarations: you don't want to commit yourself to a list that will embarrass you later. "(aside) Oh, geez, I was thinking of listing solar Z-pinches but I guess that was rubbish all along. (to audience, confidently) Solar Z-pinches are not plasma cosmology. (aside) It looks like there's some wiggle room around aurorae. (aloud) PC thinks plasmas are important in the Earth's magnetosphere."
  
  I don't quite know how to express how wrong that is. If that's how it works, Plasma Cosmology is of no more use than a stopped watch that's right twice a day. It means that any confident pro-plasma statements are, in a certain sense, pure bluster. Plasma cosmology sounds like it knows what it's talking about, not because it actually knows, but because it was designed to sound that way.
  
  You should seriously consider this possibility, Ian, and if it's true it should worry you.
• It's possible that "Plasma Cosmology" does not, in fact, differ from regular plasma physics---it's just regular science, sullied by the actions of anti-big-bang crackpot usurpers. If you look at "real" plasma cosmology, you'll find that it basically agrees with regular plasma physics. If this is the case, Ian, you should worry about your web page.
• You know what Plasma Cosmology says about many things, like coronal heating, rotation curves, Sun-Earth connection, etc., but you don't know what the mainstream says, or the mainstream view is complicated, hence you don't know if there is a disagreement. In this case, it looks like PC is more of a fandom than a science---it's possible to be a Thomas Kinkade fan without the benefit of a comparative analysis showing that Kinkade is better than Max Ernst. (I mean, hypothetically possible. ) But that's not how science is supposed to work. A failed hypothesis isn't supposed to survive like a cult punk band, providing retro cred for indier-than-thou fans---it's supposed to fade away into science history lore.
• Maybe plasma cosmologists believe all sorts of different things, and you want to be very big-tent about it. Good for you. You should be arguing with each other, then, because some of you are right (maybe) and some of you are wrong. And say so when you're presenting yourself---it's a perfectly standard thing to begin a physics colloquium with, "Now, there's a lot of debate in the X community about whether Y is ruled out. Here's the lay of the land, and here's where I stand." Don't talk about PC as though it were a party, with a party platform, if the platform doesn't exist. It's OK to go back to being "a bunch of astrophysicists with interest in plasma scaling".

If none of those is the case ... well, please make the list. Can you list several key points where plasma cosmology thinks mainstream cosmology is wrong?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

What makes this paper a "plasma cosmology" (or plasma universe) one?

.
I think I've already mentioned that defining "plasma cosmology" and the "plasma universe" is not precise. has written that "'Plasma Cosmology', the study of the plasma universe" which makes them almost synonymous. On the other hand Alfvén has applied what he calls the Plasma Universe, to Cosmology (Ref, full text).

I have asked certain scientists in the past whether they consider themselves "Plasma Cosmologists", only to be told that they consider themselves plasma astrophysicists.

Personally, I consider the "Plasma Universe" to be a general emphasis on the importance of the plasma, but which often includes reference to some of the basic phenomena mentioned by Alfvén in his book, Cosmic Plasma, and summarized in Carl-Gunn Fälthammar's paper "The Plasma Universe" (abstract and full text). So this would include the importance of double layers, electric circuit analogies, pinches, electric field acceleration of jets etc.

Also, I've been reading up on what's on your website, and am curious about why you give such prominence to Birkeland. Sure he did some great work on aurorae, but almost all of his terella experiments lead him to conclusions that we now know to be quite wrong.

.
Because of his work on the aurora, his prediction that space was a plasma, his general laboratory work, and a unique resource on some of his work, and his numerous other contributions.

.

Thanks for this iantresman.

I think there's a typo in the first part; it should read "I think I've already mentioned that defining "plasma cosmology" and the "plasma universe" is not precise. Anthony Peratt has written [the last three words should have been a link?] that "'Plasma Cosmology', the study of the plasma universe" which makes them almost synonymous."

In any case, back in post number 1104, in respect of Zeuzzz' long list of material, you wrote:
.

It depends on what is meant by:

* Plasma Cosmology
* Plasma Universe
* Alfvén-Klein Cosmology

.
It would seem that the first two are not really all that distinct, except, perhaps, to someone doing a history of ideas project; what about the last one?

Also, when you were deciding what to put on your website, how did you choose what to include and what to leave out?

Finally, there were two other questions I asked you:
.

And to take one specific case, which Zeuzzz has brought up many times, how would you go about working out whether Scott's paper is good physics, bad physics, or something in between?

For example, several people (other than Zeuzzz) have commented on it, in one way or another; what did you make of their comments?

.
How would you decide whether Scott's paper should be referenced on your website?

Those two questions might also be a good way to introduce an answer to ben m's last post.