Yip, you're a privileged person tusenfem , did you make any corrections ?
No. why should I? Did you find any mistakes?
If you had asked, I could have sent you the whole paper.
Sure you know ! The emphasises in placed on magnetism and the electric part is down played and rarely mentioned.
When they say the magnetic field lines pile up on the comet nucleus and wrap / drape around it's a joke ! Magnetic field LINES don't exist !!! They are a conceptual visual aid NOT a reality. It's like the contour lines on a map they don't exist on the real landscape. Plasma physics already has a clear picture of what happens when a charged body moves in a plasma electric field.
Naturally, this is utter nonsense, which is impossible to explain to the EU gang. Both descriptions of plasma physics: the vB and the jE descriptions are equally valid, because the come from the same four Maxwell equations. It depends on what you want to do which formalism you take. Usually the vB formalism is chosen, because they are "better behaved", however, if you want to study e.g. double layers you have no choice but to use the jE description.
My student studies the Earth's magnetotail with in the vB (and derives currents from the magnetic field measurements, because currents in space are very difficult to measure). My colleague in Sweden studies the same things as my student and she concentrates on the jE, both studies fit very well together and enhance each other.
And what do you actually think my student and my colleague are doing for a job? Drink coffee eat doughnuts and then boink a new paper is ready? No, they are doing plasma physics, using real measured data from space satellites.
Field lines are a great tool for visualizing what is happening, specifically for draping, a thing that actually
Alfvén published in his ground breaking paper on cometary tails in 1957. Of course they are like contours of a map, but if you see that the contours are closet together you know you are in for a steep climb. The field lines just follow the local direction of the magnetic field, and if you measure the field around e.g. a comet, then you see that there is field draping just like Alfvén envisioned it.
Sure tusenfem, I'm just speculating from what I have read of this paper and from previous mainstream papers.
No, you are claiming, based on a paper that you cannot read whole, that stuff is not discussed or mentioned, where in reality the ARE in the paper. You just show your lack of knowledge and your disdain for professional scientist based on your premise that "mainstream will most likely have it wrong and my thunder friends are always right".
If, as you hint, "it has almost everything in it, what you claim it does not" then that is a huge departure from the Dirty Snowball comet model with ices sublimating to something akin to the Electric Comet hypothesis but with a magnetic slant.
What's that saying that comes to mind ....
you can bring a horse to water but you cannot make him drink?
Dirty snowball from Fred Whipple from 1951, waaaayyyy before we had any spacecraft actually visiting comets.
CosmicaI electrodynamics Second approach
Space plasmas have often a complicated inhomogeneous structure
yes and ...
oh I am glad that my magneto plasma is so simple I could not deal with a second approach plasma
u depends on current and often suddenly becomes o, E,, often # o
oh my oh my
too bad I am working in the first approach, so my double layer paper will probably be nonsense, because I am not allowed to have E ≠ 0
Frozen-in picture often completely misleading.
If you use it wrongly indeed.
So I better tell Tony Lui that he should retract this paper
It is equally important to draw the current lines and discuss the electric circuit.
Yes, if you want to have a circuit description of your process, or if you want to look at currents. It all depends on what you want to investigate.
So I guess I was not allowed to write this mainstream paper, because I use like ... circuits!
Electrostatic double layers are of decisive importance in low density plasmas.
This should be
CAN be of decisive importance, it depends what you are looking at. These kind of generalities are as bad as what you accuse mainstream of.
Currents produce filaments or flow in thin sheets.
Yes, so what? You think we don't know that?
Tell that to my good friend Thomas Chust.
Theories still not very well developed and partly phenomenological.
Yes, in 19 frakking 70!
Do you really think there have been no developments since Alfvén gave his lecture? Well, then you might as well throw everything in the can that was "published" by your heroes Perratt, Thornhill, etc. etc.
So what did the paper say (in brief) about ALL the charged bodies (Sun , Planets, Comets) having Plasma Sheaths then ?
As it is a paper on cometary magnetospheres, is says nothing about other bodies, which is to be expected. However, the cometosheath is well discussed.
I read enough to get the gist of it and my comment still stands "We should recognise the common origin of these phenomena and stop treating them separately and inventing new jargon to describe the same effects Plasma (physics) has already named in the lab"
YOU are inventing new jargon, my dear Haig, the mangetic version of the electric comet fantasy. We are using in our papers EVERYTHING that is developed in the laboratory and in theory on PLASMA PHYSICS. Heck, I just posted pictures of the double layer experiments I made in Alfvén's laboratory in Stockholm, Sweden!
You apparently have no idea how science works, develops itself. Plasma physics is one of the most beautiful parts of all physics. We can do stuff in the lab, other things we cannot do in the lab we can do in outer space. We have theory in various degrees of "difficulty" which can completely describe what we see to a very good accuracy.
What do you have? Youtube videos and a 1970 speech.
Gee tusenfem, the date is stated in the paper header as is the word "recent"
Yes, I know, but maybe you could have put some effort in getting more "recent" results?
So you think science papers have a "sell by date" and newer papers are automatically better ?
Unlike the people on thunderdolts, where everything is a given electric, real physics is in constant motion and further development. Not saying it is better, but it stops at least 5 years before I even started working on my PhD on double layers.
Can you link to it here ?
Most of the wiki on double layers is the introduction to my thesis. All other chapters are published papers.
The thing is how many are still NOT recognised by mainstream NOW ... and ... worse ..... they STILL cling to many elements of the wrong First approach !!!
