Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

DrRocket · Apr 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmologyThe primary theoretical difference in opinion begins with the primary energy source of the sun.  While fusion may play a role in the total output of the sun, most EU theories begin with the premise that the electrical current running through the physical universe is the primary energy source of stars.Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Ok.  Let us suppose that there is a current from the universe at large running through the sun and providing the necessary power.</p><p>Here is a very simple model.  No detailed predictions but it ought to be accurate enough to illustrate the orders of magnitude involved.  The output of the sun is of extreme interest to climatologists and is fairly well known to be 3.9x10^26 Watt.  As you say, plasmas are very good conductors.  So, let's model the sun, as a resistor as a copper cylinder with length the diameter of the sun and radius half the radius of the sun.  That has a resistance of about 6x10^-7 ohms.  I would expect the actual resistance to be less the current flow calculated next to be correspondingly higher.  Using that resistance and the power disipation as (I^2)R we find a current of 2.55x10^21 amps.  Looking at that as an infinite line current at the distance of the sun from earth we calculate a B field of 3.4x10^3 Tesla.  That is at least 57x10^6 times the value of the magnetic field of the Earth at the surface of the Earth.  That ought to be detectable.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

origin · Apr 30, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, that is a reasonably accurate description of my views.  You are actually more attentive to detail than I gave you credit for.  <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>High praise indeed....</p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

doubletruncation · May 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland's solar model works well in a lab and it's been well tested to work in a lab.  Hydrogen fusion doesn't seem to be sustainable in a lab.  FYI, the solar model I favor is the same one that Birkeland himself favored over 100 years ago.</DIV></p><p>Hydrogen fusion in the core of the sun is incredibly slow. At the core temperature and densities hydrogen fusion only releases 276 microwatts per cubic centimeter (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion) which according to the wikipedia article is about a quarter of the volumetric rate at which a resting human body generates heat. But given the mass of the Sun, this energy generation rate sums up to an enormous energy output (it's good for us as well that the Sun isn't burning through its hydrogen so rapidly). Also given the mass of the Sun it's easy to see that the core would have to be hot (10s of millions of K) and dense (~160 gm/cm^3) to oppose gravitational collapse. Hydrogen fusion in a lab for energy generation on Earth must operate at substantially higher temperatures to produce an interesting amount of energy. In the lab you don't have 2e33 grams of material handy to rest on top of your plasma to keep it very hot and dense... it's a very difficult technical challenge to heat your plasma and keep it confined to the point where you can get self-sustained fusion. Nonetheless this has been done (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak ).</p><p>Birkeland's model, so far as I can tell, agrees with observations of the actual Sun only to the extent that the arcs coming off his charged ball kind of resemble prominences and flares. But it's just as convincing as holding a picture of a network of neurons up to the results of a cosmological simulation and saying that this proves that the universe is a giant brain ( http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/pc/brain-universe.html ). As DrRocket nicely points out - there are many other things that should be easily detectable (such as an enormous magnetic field at the surface of the Earth, or in fact the actual in situ current measurements ) if the Sun really were a big conductor that is heated up by a current from somewhere running through it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I had no idea he created million degree temperatures in the lab! <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>http://www.livescience.com/technology/060308_sandia_z.html</p><p>

 </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · May 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes.  Thank you.  Most enlightening.But, doesn't that Wikipedia article answer the question that is the title of this thread ?If an electrical current is responsible for the energy of the stars, including the sun, then since the plasma of the sun and of the stars is indeed a really good conductor, would not the implied ohmic heating require a gigantic current ?  And if there were such a tremendous current flow, wouldn't there be an equally gigantic magnetic field resulting from it ?  Such a field ought to be readily detected.</DIV></p><p>Yes, it would require a large amount of current flow, and yes, it does create strong magnetic fields which are easily observable.  It also heats the solar atmosphere into the millions of degree in what we call "coronal loops".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>To substantiate this notion one would expect to see a calculation of the current involved, the resulting field and experimental detection of that field.  Does such a calculation exist ?</DIV></p><p>Birkeland himself actually did that over 100 years ago. Alfven did that too as I recall.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it consistent with observed magnetic fields ?</DIV></p><p>Yes.  Magnetic fields do not "make and break" connections. They form a full continuum.  Electrical circuits however do make and break connection, and that is consistent with the behaviors we see in the solar atmosphere and in the magnetic fields around the sun.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is the form of this current ?</DIV></p><p>Electrons and moving ions.   Birkeland called them "flying ions".

</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is it electrons alone flying through space, or is it a flow of positive and negative charged particles in opposite directions ? </DIV></p><p>I would presume that the electrons are producing the bulk of current flow, but any moving charged particle is techincally a type of "current flow".  There is likely to be a lot of movement of various types of ions moving in various directions depending on their charge and the local conditions.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In the former case, one ought to be able to detect the electric field associated with such a net negatively charged region of space. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>We tend to observe the spiraling electromagnetic pattern of "Birkeland currents" running through various areas of space.  Notice that the "slinky" shape of these magnetic fields follows the same spiraling Birkeland current pattern that Birkeland himself first observed in plasma in lab.  The current flow and the magnetic fields tend to flow in a rotating parallel direction, or a tornado like shape.  The larger the current flow, the greater the strength of the magnetic field. </p><p>http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2006/01/12_helical.shtml</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current</p><p>By the way, you're asking all the right kinds of questions. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · May 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok.  Let us suppose that there is a current from the universe at large running through the sun and providing the necessary power.Here is a very simple model.  No detailed predictions but it ought to be accurate enough to illustrate the orders of magnitude involved.  The output of the sun is of extreme interest to climatologists and is fairly well known to be 3.9x10^26 Watt.  </DIV></p><p>Ok, but let's note that this is simply an energy output figure in Watts.  It's handy that it's in Watt by the way.

</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As you say, plasmas are very good conductors.  So, let's model the sun, as a resistor as a copper cylinder with length the diameter of the sun and radius half the radius of the sun. </DIV></p><p>Actually, you'd have to model it as a Nickel/Iron sphere at about .995R, surrounded by concentric plasmas layers in order to simulate the conditions on the Sun.</p><p>http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com</p><p>I don't want to get into a big discusion about solar theory in this thread however.  Suffice to say the sun itself is a sphere and any model would need to view it that way.  I will dig up the solar thread I started here a few years ago, after I update my blog page tomorrow. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That has a resistance of about 6x10^-7 ohms.  I would expect the actual resistance to be less the current flow calculated next to be correspondingly higher.  Using that resistance and the power disipation as (I^2)R we find a current of 2.55x10^21 amps.  Looking at that as an infinite line current at the distance of the sun from earth we calculate a B field of 3.4x10^3 Tesla.  That is at least 57x10^6 times the value of the magnetic field of the Earth at the surface of the Earth.  That ought to be detectable. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I'm afraid this model is a bit too simplistic.  The sun creates a powerful EM field around itself.  This field has a sheldtering effect on the inner planets.   These currents flow through the sun the way the aurora flow into the Earth, namely there is a stronger flow of current at the poles than the equator.   That is why ws see faster solar wind speeds in the northern and southern poles.  The net result is that the EM field around the sun creates a nice shielding effect from these currents. There is still a current flowing through the Earth, but that current is also mostly centered around the magnetic poles of the planet.   </p><p>You might take a look at Birkeland's early lab work and notice the shapes he was able to create by changing the polarity of the sphere, and by changing the strength of the magnetic fields.  When he charged the sphere negatively he created aurora around the poles of the sphere. When he charged it positively he created powerful "coronal loops" that traversed the surface that are nearly identical to the ones we observe in solar satellite images today.  You'll find an example of these compared images on the first page of my website. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · May 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, but let's note that this is simply an energy output figure in Watts.  It's handy that it's in Watt by the way.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">The Watt is the proper unit for energy per unit time (power), at least if the calculation is going to be done in the usual metric system.  It is not only "handy" it is pretty much required.</font></p><p> 

Actually, you'd have to model it as a Nickel/Iron sphere at about .995R, surrounded by concentric plasmas layers in order to simulate the conditions on the Sun.http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.comI don't want to get into a big discusion about solar theory in this thread however. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">For the issue that I was addressing, I am not trying t model the conditions on the Sun.  I am trying to address  your contention of an external current flowing through the Sun and from that assumption drawing conclusions about effects that might be seen from Earth.  My model has nothing to do with conditions internal to the Sun.  Secondly, at the temperatures you are talking about, one would not expect a solid nickel/iron core at all.  In any case the issue is not the atomic constituency, but only the DC resistance.  It really isn't an issue of shape either.  My assumption was just a simple, and probably very conservative one, to get a handle on the rough level of resistance -- very, very low as you would expect from a large chunk of highly conductive stuff.  One might quibble that there is more going on than simple ohmic heating, but I think that approximation is good enough to get some idea of the magnitude of the current involved.</font></p><p> Suffice to say the sun itself is a sphere and any model would need to view it that way.  I will dig up the solar thread I started here a few years ago, after I update my blog page tomorrow. I'm afraid this model is a bit too simplistic.  The sun creates a powerful EM field around itself.  This field has a sheldtering effect on the inner planets.   These currents flow through the sun the way the aurora flow into the Earth, namely there is a stronger flow of current at the poles than the equator.   That is why ws see faster solar wind speeds in the northern and southern poles.  The net result is that the EM field around the sun creates a nice shielding effect from these currents. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">The Sun doesn't create a field like some genii.  It is current flow and charge distribution that create EM fields.  It is precisely the EM field created by a simple model of a current flow that you postulated that was the subject of my calculatio.  It would appear that not only do you reject the Big Bang, you are also rejecting Maxwell's Equations and classical electrodynamics.</font></p><p>There is still a current flowing through the Earth, but that current is also mostly centered around the magnetic poles of the planet.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">If there is current flowing through the Earth or through the Sun in a similar manner, from the perspective of a somewhat distant observer, it is not centered anywhere.  It must come in somewhere and leave somewhere.  The precise path may be important to someone on the Earth (or a hypothetical someone on the Sun), but the far field effects don't depend on such niceties.</font> </p><p>  You might take a look at Birkeland's early lab work and notice the shapes he was able to create by changing the polarity of the sphere, and by changing the strength of the magnetic fields.  When he charged the sphere negatively he created aurora around the poles of the sphere. When he charged it positively he created powerful "coronal loops" that traversed the surface that are nearly identical to the ones we observe in solar satellite images today.  You'll find an example of these compared images on the first page of my website.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">You might want to take a look at any good book on electromagnetic field theory.  Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics is the gold standard.  Marion's Classical Electrodynamic Radiation is also quite good, as is Hayt's Engineering Electromagnetics.   It seems to me that if your contentions have validity, then they must be consistent with at least most of physics.  If you mean to throw out the entire body of physics, then you need to explain what takes its place. A few pictures do not constitute a physical theory.</font></p><p><br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · May 1, 2008

<p>I think that I have now learned enough to be able to address the question that is the title of this thread.  Ok, I'm slow and it took me a while.  Sometimes I need a little more information than quicker minds to reach a conclusion, but I usually, eventually, get there .   I think that there is now enough info in the various postings to this thread and the links contained therein for me to have developed an informed opinion.  For a little more data,  I pulled up Google and typed in "Michael Mozina".</p><p>Now, as to the question "Why is 'electricity' the forbidden topic of astronomy":</p><p>1.  I see no evidence that there are ANY "forbidden" topics in astronomy.  Astronomers are basically physicists and as a population seem to have the open minds required of any good research scientist.</p><p>2.  I see quite good evidence in links provided by doubletruncation that the fundamental ideas of the EU notion have been evaluated and found wanting on firm physical grounds.  I am quite confident that if a good case can be made for a change in that assessment, using valid physical arguments, that such arguments will be heard and considered.</p><p>3.  I see some evidence that the EU notion is a bit diverse, and that the EU label is applied to a somewhat fluid hypothesis.  But I see no evidence of any clearly defined and supported theory that unifies the area.  I see some very good work in plasma physics cited, but no connection whatever between that work and cosmology or astronomy, beyond the accepted fact that stars have the necessary conditions for the plasma state of matter and therefore that plasma physics is important in the explanation stellar behavior.  Yep, stars are pretty hot.</p><p>4.  I do see evidence of an EU viewpoint being put forth via obfuscation and evasion of significant physical issues.  Well-supported, classical, physics seems to often be totally ignored.  In place of logical arguments based on established physics and validated experiments I see appeals to anecdotal reports apparently taken out of context.  I see real physics taken totally out of context and cited to support crackpot notions.  Plasma physics is real physics.  It does not support mysterious, and massive, unexplained currents flowing through a universe that seems to be viewed as a giant "motherboard."</p><p>5.  The failure to engage in logical dialogue is a tactic commonly taken by quacks.  Serious scholarly journals have very limited publishing capacity and, rightly, use editorial policies to use the available capacity efficiently.  Neither the journals, nor their subscribers have the time or inclination to deal with crackpots.  There are are too many real issues and too many significant open questions to be dealt with to waste much time with the ludicrous.  There is no intent to stifle free speech, just a need to exercise responsible stewardship of a scholarly publication.  Besides, in the current world there are plenty of places for the publication of oddball opinions -- if one wants to, one can publish almost anything, somewhere.</p><p>6.  Scientists must, can and do keep an open mind.  However, they are usually also astute enough to recognize a nut case after a few exposures, and smart enough to ignore the nut case on subsequent reappearances.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · May 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Besides, in the <strong><em>current world</em></strong> there are plenty of places for the publication of oddball opinions --  <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>[above emphasis mine] </p><p> </p><p>Pun intended? <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

origin · May 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Scientists must, can and do keep an open mind.  However, they are usually also astute enough to recognize a nut case after a few exposures, and smart enough to ignore the nut case on subsequent reappearances. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Oh boy, here comes the metaphysics rant....</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

lildreamer · May 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, but let's note that this is simply an energy output figure in Watts.  It's handy that it's in Watt by the way.

Actually, you'd have to model it as a Nickel/Iron sphere at about .995R, surrounded by concentric plasmas layers in order to simulate the conditions on the Sun.http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.comI don't want to get into a big discusion about solar theory in this thread however.  Suffice to say the sun itself is a sphere and any model would need to view it that way.  I..............ound the poles of the sphere. When he charged it positively he created powerful "coronal loops" that traversed the surface that are nearly identical to the ones we observe in solar satellite images today.  You'll find an example of these compared images on the first page of my website. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Cut for brevity sake...</p><p>Excuse me Gentlemen for stepping half way into the conversation but... </p><p>I went to your links and found the first paragraph...</p><p class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2">The sun's photosphere is often mistakenly referred to as the surface of the sun.  In reality however, the sun's photosphere is only a "liquid-like" plasma layer made of neon that covers the actual surface of the sun.  That visible layer we see with our eyes is composed of penumbral filaments that are several hundred kilometers deep.   This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere, and a thicker, more dense atmospheric layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun.  The visible photosphere covers the actual surface of the sun, much as the earth's oceans cover most of the surface of the earth.   In this case the sun's photosphere is very bright and we cannot see the darker, more rigid surface features below the photosphere without the aid of satellite technology. </font></p><p> </p><p><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000">layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, </font><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000">calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun</font><font color="#ff0000"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2">.  The </font></font></p><p><font color="#ff0000"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#000000">this point - you are referring to the Sun to have an actuall physical surface similar to the earth? An actual "rocky" physical layer -  What evidence if any that you have that can substantiate this claim....</font><br /></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think that I have now learned enough to be able to address the question that is the title of this thread.  Ok, I'm slow and it took me a while.  Sometimes I need a little more information than quicker minds to reach a conclusion, but I usually, eventually, get there .   I think that there is now enough info in the various postings to this thread and the links contained therein for me to have developed an informed opinion.  For a little more data,  I pulled up Google and typed in "Michael Mozina".Now, as to the question "Why is 'electricity' the forbidden topic of astronomy":1.  I see no evidence that there are ANY "forbidden" topics in astronomy. </DIV></p><p>If that were so, you would not see completely different rule systems applied to that single topic on various message boards related to astronomy.  You would not find a pure absense of material assocatied with EU theory being published by the APJ.   I'm afraid that's an ideal belief that you have rather than practical reality.  Go over to BAUT and read their rule system one time and tell me that EU gets treated the same way as any other topic in astronomy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Astronomers are basically physicists and as a population seem to have the open minds required of any good research scientist.</DIV></p><p>You seem to be assuming that EU theory is taught in school or that everyone is exposed to EU theory.  If there is no published material on the subject in the APJ, where do you figure all these open minds are finding the material they need to make an informed choice?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2.  I see quite good evidence in links provided by doubletruncation that the fundamental ideas of the EU notion have been evaluated and found wanting on firm physical grounds. </DIV></p><p>DU did provide some excellent links that were not exactly "EU" related. They didn't presume the presense of an all pervasive current flow, so it's not even fully applicable to EU theory to begin with.  It's interesting material none the less, particularly that part about physical objects taking on a positive charge over time based on gravity.  I found it interesting, but not directly related to EU theory in a broader sense. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I am quite confident that if a good case can be made for a change in that assessment, using valid physical arguments, that such arguments will be heard and considered.</DIV></p><p>When you use the term "valid physical arguement", I'm not sure what you mean.  Plasma has been shown to be emprically affected by EM fields, and electrical current.  There is no doubt that these forces can affect the movement of a universe that mostly filled with plasma.  I see no "valid physical arguement" (in terms of emprical evidence) to believe that inflation, dark energy or dark matter have any empirical effect on plasma in lab, and therefore I find them physicall lacking in emprical evidence.   I therefore see no possible way that they could have any effect on a universe that filled with plasma.  Now, keep in mind that I'm not asking that anyone give up believing in these things if they want to, but I don't see any evidence that standard theory is in any way superior to EU theory.  There should be no descrimination, and yet there is one.  Other publications have no trouble finding EU material to publish.  What the APJ's problem?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3.  I see some evidence that the EU notion is a bit diverse, and that the EU label is applied to a somewhat fluid hypothesis. </DIV></p><p>That could just as easily be applied to "black holess", "inflation", "dark energy", "dark matter", etc.  There tends to be diversity within the EU field of science, but there is a commitment in EU theory to emprical science.  To me, that issue alone is enough to get my attention.   Birkeland didn't simulate aurora in his lab with "magnetic reconnection". The created them with "electrical current", and he showed how EM fields affected physical objects, and plasma in a vacuum.  Most of astronomy today has nothing to do with emprical physical testing and lab work.  It's mostly math in computer simulation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But I see no evidence of any clearly defined and supported theory that unifies the area. </DIV></p><p>You mean besides those multi-million degree coronal loops?  Isn't the easiest way to create high temperature plasma on Earth involve running electrical current through the material?  Usuing Occum's razor as a guide here, show me a "better' scientifc way to heat plasma to millions of degrees that we might expect to see sustained in light plasma like we find in the solar atmosphere?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I see some very good work in plasma physics cited, but no connection whatever between that work and cosmology or astronomy, beyond the accepted fact that stars have the necessary conditions for the plasma state of matter and therefore that plasma physics is important in the explanation stellar behavior. </DIV></p><p> Well, we seem to agree about the fact that plasma physica plays a major factor in stellar physics.  The thing here to note is that plasma has very specific properties.  One of those specific properties is that it is an excellent (near perfect) conductor of electrical current.  It therefore should be no suprise to use that plasma stars might conduct current. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yep, stars are pretty hot.</DIV></p><p>Ya, but they aren't hottest at the surface of the photosphere.  Why not?  If all the energy is coming from core, why do we see million degree layers sitting *above* thousand degree layers?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>4.  I do see evidence of an EU viewpoint being put forth via obfuscation and evasion of significant physical issues.  Well-supported, classical, physics seems to often be totally ignored.  In place of logical arguments based on established physics and validated experiments I see appeals to anecdotal reports apparently taken out of context.</DIV></p><p>My jaw dropped when I read this part.  You should try walking in my shoes for awhile and I think you'd see why.  I was taught phyiscs in the "old school" method, the emprical method of science. BB theory when I was in college was devoid of "inflation", "dark energy", "dark matter" was just another name for missing mass, and monopole theory was fringe science.  Birkeland was my type of emprical scientist.  It wasn't enough that he hiked around the northern polar regions taking methodical measurements of the earths magnetic fields.  He even build a lab to test his theories to make sure that the worked in real life.  Alfven was also a "hands on" kind of emprical scientist, and he wrote MHD theory.  These are the pioneers of EU theory.   It's strength is that it is rooted in emprical science, not fringe theory.</p><p>Inflation does not exist.  It has never been shown to have any effect on plasma in a controlled scientific experiment.  That is true of "dark energy", "dark matter". "mond theory", "monopoles", "black holes" and a plethora of things that have never been shown to emprically exist in nature.  When it comes to physical science, EU theory beats today's brand of metaphysical science hands down IMO.  It's not even a contest.  I may disagree with other EU theoriests about the makeup of a sun, but we would both place a very high emphasis on emprical science irrespective of our theoretical differences.  I can hardly even get two astronomers to even explain "magnetic reconnection", let alone get them to tell me what physical energy release prcoess is unique to "magnetic reconnection" that might be emprically distingushable from ordinary electrical interactions in plasma.   The weakness of current theory is that it is totally lacking in emprical physical evidence.  It is completely predicated upon an umproven assertion and math formulas.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I see real physics taken totally out of context and cited to support crackpot notions.  Plasma physics is real physics.</DIV></p><p>So in your opinion Alfven was both a Nobel prize winning physicist, and also a crackpot?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It does not support mysterious, and massive, unexplained currents flowing through a universe that seems to be viewed as a giant "motherboard."</DIV></p><p>You see no signs of electrical currents running through our universe?  What else creates those persistent magnetic fields around the light plasma threads of our universe in your opinion?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>5.  The failure to engage in logical dialogue is a tactic commonly taken by quacks. </DIV></p><p>Which EU proponent are you suggesting wasn't logical, or was a quack?  Alfven wasn't a "quack".  He published a bunch of material on this subject and was pretty much it's founding father when it comes to basic theory and mathematical presentation of basic theory.  Birkeland could integrate derivatives with the best of them, and he was an emprical scientist.   These are the two guys that created the EU idea and theories that followed.   The most common fallacy used in debate is the use of the ad hominem.  The most common tactic of the mainstream is to call everyone who promotes a less popular idea a "quack".  That is a poor debate tactic IMO. It shows signs of desparation IMO.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Serious scholarly journals have very limited publishing capacity and, rightly, use editorial policies to use the available capacity efficiently.</DIV></p><p>Have you read some of the stuff that the APJ has published recently?  I'm not asking them to set aside a whole publication devoted to EU theory, I'm asking them to publish some articles on EU theory once in a while.  If they can publish papers related to all sorts of metaphysical entities like mond theories, black hole theories that change over time, MECO theories, inlfation, etc, surely they can find some space of an EU paper once in a while.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Neither the journals, nor their subscribers have the time or inclination to deal with crackpots. </DIV></p><p>I never asked them to deal with anyone in particular, I only asked them to deal with a specific subject.   Are you suggesting that every single EU proponent over the past 100 years has been  a 'crackpot"?  Based on some tangible laws of physica, how exactly would you define a "crackpot idea"? How might "inflation" for instance be exlcuded from a "crackpot" label, wheras a concept that is rooted on plasma physics be a "crackpot idea"?  </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are are too many real issues and too many significant open questions to be dealt with to waste much time with the ludicrous.  There is no intent to stifle free speech, just a need to exercise responsible stewardship of a scholarly publication.  Besides, in the current world there are plenty of places for the publication of oddball opinions -- if one wants to, one can publish almost anything, somewhere.6.  Scientists must, can and do keep an open mind.  However, they are usually also astute enough to recognize a nut case after a few exposures, and smart enough to ignore the nut case on subsequent reappearances. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>That is IMO, that is a poor justification for the APJ and other mainstrean astronmy publications from excluding a single topic within a specific industry.  If it's "ok" to publish yet another article about "inflation" which has never been emprically demonstrate to have any effect on matter, then surely it's "ok" to publish a paper based on pure plasma physica.  I fail to see how any of this can be used as a justification for applying unique rule systems to the topic of EU theory, or to exclude EU topics from mainstream publication.  No one has ever shown that "MOND" forms of gravity are "real" in any way.  These are theoretical constructs at best case.   I'm not asking for anything other than parity with other theories as it relates to the mainstream publications and the mainstream astronomy websites.</p><p>The only reason I can even have this conversation on this message board is because it is the rare professional exception in an otherwise very hostile, unprofessional and dogmatically authoratarian industry.  I couldn't even engage in this particular conversation at other mainstream astronomy forums because it would go against their authotarian and dogmatic rule system.    That's not real science, that's religion.  Dogma shouldn't affect science and what get's published in scientific publications, but does. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · May 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Cut for brevity sake...Excuse me Gentlemen for stepping half way into the conversation but... I went to your links and found the first paragraph...The sun's photosphere is often mistakenly referred to as the surface of the sun.  In reality however, the sun's photosphere is only a "liquid-like" plasma layer made of neon that covers the actual surface of the sun.  That visible layer we see with our eyes is composed of penumbral filaments that are several hundred kilometers deep.   This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere, and a thicker, more dense atmospheric layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun.  The visible photosphere covers the actual surface of the sun, much as the earth's oceans cover most of the surface of the earth.   In this case the sun's photosphere is very bright and we cannot see the darker, more rigid surface features below the photosphere without the aid of satellite technology.  layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun.  The this point - you are referring to the Sun to have an actuall physical surface similar to the earth? An actual "rocky" physical layer -  What evidence if any that you have that can substantiate this claim.... <br /> Posted by lildreamer</DIV></p><p>Unfortunately, it's not exactly a brief topc of converstion.

  Here's a thread on this topic that I started a couple of years ago. </p><p> http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3ac7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum%3ad148ee4c-9f4c-47f9-aa95-7a42941583c6Discussion%3ad8ff4c44-f22a-4eb2-9b30-374c5b847f39</p><p>I would prefer it if we keep my solar theories separate from the larger scope of this particular thread.  I don't want to see this thread get hijacked.  If you have other questions about my solar model, ask me in the other thread.  There are many reason why someone might not agree with some or all of my solar views, yet still support EU theory.  EU theory is bigger than me personally, and bigger than simply a solar theory.  It should be noted that this solar theory is not my solar theory, but rather it is the same solar model that Kristian Birkeland experimented with in his lab over 100 years ago.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

lildreamer · May 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Unfortunately, it's not exactly a brief topc of converstion.

  Here's a thread on this topic that I started a couple of years ago. http://www.space.com/common/community/forums/?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3ac7921f8b-94ec-454a-9715-3770aac6e2caForum%3ad148ee4c-9f4c-47f9-aa95-7a42941583c6Discussion%3ad8ff4c44-f22a-4eb2-9b30-374c5b847f39Iwould prefer it if we keep my solar theories separate from the larger scope of this particular thread.  I don't want to see this thread get hijacked.  If you have other questions about my solar model, ask me in the other thread.  There are many reason why someone might not agree with some or all of my solar views, yet still support EU theory.  EU theory is bigger than me personally, and bigger than simply a solar theory.  It should be noted that this solar theory is not my solar theory, but rather it is the same solar model that Kristian Birkeland experimented with in his lab over 100 years ago.  <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>fair enough</p><p> - its just you posted that link both as a sig line and as a link to substantiate your efforts behind a EU Theory - therefore I thought it was valid to look at and question it...</p><p>play on....</p><p>oh and thanks for the other link...i'll dig into that one then....</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

neilsox · May 1, 2008

<p><font size="3">My guess is a thin wall iron-nickel sphere 2150 miles thick with a radius of 430,000 miles would be very fragile, even hydrogen filled to the optimum pressure. The mass of the hydrogen would exceed the mass of Earth by thousands of times assuming 2000 degree c for the average hydrogen temperature. More hydrogen mass if  the hydrogen has a lower average temperature. Calcium ferrite melts at 1250 c</font></p><p><font size="4">Neon at low pressure and modest current flow produces a redish orange glow. Does neon produce white light like our sun at high efficiency  and high plasma current? If so, why don't we use neon for illumination instead of sodium vapor lights? If the efficiency is 50% how does the sun dispose of 3.9 times 10E26 watts of waste heat?   Neil</font></p>

michaelmozina · May 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">For the issue that I was addressing, I am not trying t model the conditions on the Sun.  I am trying to address  your contention of an external current flowing through the Sun and from that assumption drawing conclusions about effects that might be seen from Earth. </font><br /></DIV> </p><p>Ok.  The first thing we might expect to observe is an acceleration of charged particles twoards the heliosphere which has a relatively (negative) charge relative to the photosphere.  We might expect the currents around the sun to be stronger at the poles like it is here on Earth. Just as the Earth is bombarded with charged particles from the sun, the sun is bombarded with charged partciles (mostly electrons) from the galactic wind.</p><p>We should also expect to see powerful electrical discharges on larger physical bodies, and particularly the sun's atmosphere.  Low and behold we observe both of these things, neither of which is "predicted" in standard theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></p><p><font color="#0000ff">The Sun doesn't create a field like some genii.  It is current flow and charge distribution that create EM fields.  It is precisely the EM field created by a simple model of a current flow that you postulated that was the subject of my calculatio.  It would appear that not only do you reject the Big Bang, you are also rejecting Maxwell's Equations and classical electrodynamics.</font></p><p></DIV></p><p>Keep in mind that the sun may only be a conductor in a larger circuit, but it may also generate energy (even electrical energy) locally as well.   I do not reject BB theory, though I reject do reject inflation and dark stuff.  I certainly don't reject Maxwell equations, or classic electrodynamics as someone like Hannes Alfven would have taught it.  Hannes Alfven rejected ideas like "magnetic reconnection" because he understood electrical theory.  Magnetic fiels always form a full continuum.   EU theory is predicated on plasma phyisca, Maxwell equations and classical electrodynamics.  I have no idea why you think I reject any of these things. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">If there is current flowing through the Earth or through the Sun in a similar manner, from the perspective of a somewhat distant observer, it is not centered anywhere.  It must come in somewhere and leave somewhere.  The precise path may be important to someone on the Earth (or a hypothetical someone on the Sun), but the far field effects don't depend on such niceties.</font> </DIV></p><p>The bulk of that current flows through the aurora and through the Earth.  It comes from the sun in the form of charged partilcs, and from the currents that flow around the sun. </p><p> </p><p></DIV><font color="#0000ff">You might want to take a look at any good book on electromagnetic field theory.  Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics is the gold standard.  Marion's Classical Electrodynamic Radiation is also quite good, as is Hayt's Engineering Electromagnetics.   It seems to me that if your contentions have validity, then they must be consistent with at least most of physics.  If you mean to throw out the entire body of physics, then you need to explain what takes its place. A few pictures do not constitute a physical theory.</font></p><p> <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I don't know where you got the impression that EU theory is based on anything other than electrodynamic field theory and MHD theory and plasma physics theory. That's the whole premise in fact.  What specifically do you think I disagree with?  I get the feeling that you're either badly misunderstanding something I said (or something I simply mistated), or you simply assumed something that wasn't true.   EU theory is all about classic phyiscs and classic field theory.  In classic field theory, magnetic fields always form a full continuum. They don't make and break connections.  That is way Alfven rejected that idea.  He carefully explained that these high energy events were electrically driven events in plasma.  The whole concept of EU theory is based on classic physica.  That is why I am attracted to EU theory in the first place.</p><p> </p><p>(Editied to add the word "negative" to a critical sentence) </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · May 1, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>....So in your opinion Alfven was both a Nobel prize winning physicist, and also a crackpot?...   <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I don't know enough about Alfven himself and his personal statements on the EU idea to know the answer to this question, but based on some of your representations I cannot rule out that possibility.  It has happened before.  John Nash was a spendid mathematician, and received a Nobel Prize in economics for his work on game theory.  He made even deeper contributions to mathematics and probably should have received a Fields Medal as well.  He seems to have recovered recently, but for a large portion of his life he was crazy as a bedbug. Certifiable and certified.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 2, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't know enough about Alfven himself and his personal statements on the EU idea to know the answer to this question, </DIV></p><p>You might then want to check out his work, including his work on MHD theory.  He was certainly a smart guy.   If you study Birkeland's writings, you'll find he was able to integrate derivatives with the best of them, and he was pretty much the "quintisential" scientist.  These are the two guys that really came up with EU theory to begin with. Birkeland's interest in astronomy started with his interest in the Aurora.  Alfven was an electrical engineer by trade, and studied plasma in a lab.  He pretty much wrote the book on plasma movements and he developed the mathematical explanations behind plasma movement.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>but based on some of your representations I cannot rule out that possibility.  It has happened before.  John Nash was a spendid mathematician, and received a Nobel Prize in economics for his work on game theory.  He made even deeper contributions to mathematics and probably should have received a Fields Medal as well.  He seems to have recovered recently, but for a large portion of his life he was crazy as a bedbug. Certifiable and certified. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The problem with this whole line of reasoning is that you are tyring to find a problem with the individual rather than with the scientific presentations that came from the individual.   </p><p>The mainstream has no problem glorifying Alfven's work on MHD theory, and using it wihen it suits them.  They seem intent on attributing "magnetic reconnection" to MHD theory, in spite of the fact that Alfven himself rejected the idea and was a huge critic of the idea.  The moment however that someone points out that he was also the father of EU theory, mainstreamers immediately attempt to discredit the man.  That is a fairly irrational response IMO.  He certainly understood the properties of plasma, and the univererse is mostly made of plasma.  The one part of Alfven's work that mainstreamers do not wish to embrace is his work on electrically conducting plasma.   This is because electricity is the forbidden word in astronomy in spite of the fact that plasma is a nearly perfect conductor of electrical current. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · May 2, 2008

<p> If you study Birkeland's writings, you'll find he was able to integrate derivatives with the best of them, </p><p><font color="#0000ff">That ought to be pretty easy -- rather like inverting fractions isn't it ?  (The integral of the derivative of f is f, within a constant, for any differentiable function f)</font></p><p>The problem with this whole line of reasoning is that you are tyring to find a problem with the individual rather than with the scientific presentations that came from the individual.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Not so.  You are the one who was attempting to justify statements by appealing to Alfven's Nobel Prize, rather than to hard science.  I was merely pointing out that the prize in and of itself is not a reason to accept his opinions.  It is not impossible for someone to be both a Nobel Laureate, and insane -- and I provided a known example.  I have no idea of Alfven's personal situation, and I don't care.  What I care about are the ideas and their validity -- which has little to do with the man.</font></p><p>The mainstream has no problem glorifying Alfven's work on MHD theory, and using it wihen it suits them. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Good work is good work and ought to used and built upon.  That is the way it works.  No mystery there.</font> </p><p> They seem intent on attributing "magnetic reconnection" to MHD theory, in spite of the fact that Alfven himself rejected the idea and was a huge critic of the idea. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">It doesn't matter who said what.  What counts is whether or not the physics is correct.  In any case magnetohydrodynamics is not the work of only man.  S. Chanddrasekhar, who was at least the equal of Alfven, wrote a book on the applications of that subject to stellar physics.  He too played a major role in the developent of MHD.</font></p><p>The moment however that someone points out that he was also the father of EU theory, mainstreamers immediately attempt to discredit the man.  </p><p><font color="#0000ff">It is silly to discredit a man.  What counts is the validity of the theory.  EU is neither true nor false because of any connection with Alfven.  It is completely possible that Alfven's views on EU are out to lunch while his work on plasmas was foundational.  His views on EU need not reflect on his views on plasma physics, and vice versa.  EU should stand or fall on its own merits.  </font> </p><p>...  He certainly understood the properties of plasma, and the univererse is mostly made of plasma.  The one part of Alfven's work that mainstreamers do not wish to embrace is his work on electrically conducting plasma.</p><p><font color="#3366ff"><font color="#0000ff">I</font></font><font color="#0000ff"> don't think your statement that the universe is mostly made of plasma is proven.  There seems to be a lot of mass missing in the universe and we don't know what it is.  It might be dark matter, although I share your skepticism about that stuff.  There is a lack of observed matter sufficient to provide the gravity to hold observed rotating galaxies together.  If it were plasma, we ought to be able to detect it. </font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">Also, I don't understand your statement regarding conducting plasmas.  I am not aware of any non-conducting plasmas.  Perhaps you are refering to something more subtle in Alfven's work.  What is it that is not accepted ?</font></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That ought to be pretty easy -- rather like inverting fractions isn't it ?  (The integral of the derivative of f is f, within a constant, for any differentiable function f)</DIV></p><p>Ok, I obviously should have added "and do (devivatives)" to that sentence.  You do however get the idea.  There was nothing lacking in Birkeland's mathematical skills.  The same can be said of Alfven.  Both of them were mathemacically oriented, and both of them were emprically oriented (laboratory oriented).  Whatever beef you might have with either of them, mathematical skills, and emprical testing cannot possible be one of your complaints. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You are the one who was attempting to justify statements by appealing to Alfven's Nobel Prize, rather than to hard science.</DIV></p><p>The hard (empirical) science is what earned Alfven a Nobel prize to begin with.  If you believe that Alfven was wrong about a specific topic related to MHD theory, one would expect you to be able to demonstrate he was wrong emprically.  If not, I'll have to defer to his focus (and Birkeland's focus) on emprical testing of an idea.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was merely pointing out that the prize in and of itself is not a reason to accept his opinions.  It is not impossible for someone to be both a Nobel Laureate, and insane -- and I provided a known example.  I have no idea of Alfven's personal situation, and I don't care.  What I care about are the ideas and their validity -- which has little to do with the man.</DIV></p><p>I was merely pointing out that Alfven was a world renown mathematician, and an emprical scientist who's work speaks for itself.  What astronomers fail to embrace from his work with plasma is the current carrying side of his work.  The irrational aspect of that behavior is directly related to a basic properties of plasma, namely that it is a nearly perfect conductor of electrical current, and it's behaviors are directly affected by electrical currently.<br /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Good work is good work and ought to used and built upon.  That is the way it works.  No mystery there. </DIV></p><p>Well I agree with you on that point, but then his work on current carrying plasma is also good work.  The mystery is why the mainstream ignores it, and actively surpresses it, and misrepresents it in paper after published paper. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It doesn't matter who said what.  What counts is whether or not the physics is correct. </DIV></p><p>The only way for his phyiscal ideas to be proven incorrect is for someone to do that emprically with plasma in lab.  That part has never been done.  No physicist on the planet has ever explained or demonstrated the unique physical energy release mechanism of "magnetic reonnection" that is demontratebly different from normal electrical processes in plasma.  Electrical current can and has created superheated plasma in a lab.   "Magnetic reconnection" is nothing more than misnomer, a concept based on ignorance of the behaviors of plasma in controlled conditions.</p><p>That's the basic problem with the mainstream in a nutshell. They refuse to verify anything empirically in a lab before slapping the concept into a math formula and stuffing it into a computer simulation.  Where's the detailed emprical testing to verify that Alfven was incorrect on this topic?  According to electrical theory, magnetic fields always form a full continuum.  They don't make and break connections like electrical circuits and charged particles.  We might expect charged particles in plasma to make and break electrical connections, but no electrical engineer is going to claim that magnetic fields make and break connections.  They always from a complete and full continuum. Period.  </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In any case magnetohydrodynamics is not the work of only man.  S. Chanddrasekhar, who was at least the equal of Alfven, wrote a book on the applications of that subject to stellar physics.  He too played a major role in the developent of MHD.</DIV></p><p>There is a distinct difference between "mathematical theory" and emprical science.  Alfven was a student and proponent of emprical science.  So was Birkeland for that matter.  It wasn't good enough for either of them that something looked right on paper, they went the extra step. They built controlled scientific tests to emprically verify their ideas worked in the real world.   Magnetic reconnection proponents skipped that last step entirely.   </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It is silly to discredit a man.  What counts is the validity of the theory.  EU is neither true nor false because of any connection with Alfven.  It is completely possible that Alfven's views on EU are out to lunch while his work on plasmas was foundational.  His views on EU need not reflect on his views on plasma physics, and vice versa.  EU should stand or fall on its own merits. </DIV></p><p>And it certainly does stand on it's own merits.  You can't take MHD theory however, and twist it like a pretzel, remove the add-ons one slaps onto that theory from emprical testing entirely, and then try to claim that Alfven's work supports 'magnetic reconnection" theory.  Nothing could be further from the truth. That is a grossd distorion of scientific fact, and historical fact.  Period.  The only way to disprove Alfven on this particular point, or any point related to MHD theory, is in a lab where it was created, not in a comptuter simulation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't think your statement that the universe is mostly made of plasma is proven.  </DIV></p><p>Oddly enough, I find myself in agreement with you on this point for purely personal (solar theory) reasons. It is however accepted dogma that stars are mostly made of hydrogen and helium plasma, and that stars contain more than 97% of the mass of our solar system.  Even with my solar model, the vast majority of a star might be made of plasma.  We all seem to agree that the universe is filled with hydrogen and helium plasma.   Whatever the properties of plasma, they will certainly have a direct effect on how the universe operates and functions.   </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There seems to be a lot of mass missing in the universe and we don't know what it is.  It might be dark matter, although I share your skepticism about that stuff.  There is a lack of observed matter sufficient to provide the gravity to hold observed rotating galaxies together.</DIV></p><p>Yes, but from my perspective that is only because the mainstream grossly underestimate the makup of stars and the mass of stars, and also the overall mass of a galaxy.  It's simply "missing mass" that they observe, nothing more, nothing less.  We don't need any new metaphysical entities to explain some missing mass.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If it were plasma, we ought to be able to detect it. Also, I don't understand your statement regarding conducting plasmas.  I am not aware of any non-conducting plasmas.  Perhaps you are refering to something more subtle in Alfven's work.  What is it that is not accepted ?  <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>There is anything 'subtle' about it.  The mainstream astronomers today outright ignore his work on current carrying plasma, or they simply misrepresent his theories entirely by attributing "magnetic reconnection" to his work on MHD theory.  It's about as subtle as a sledge hammer.   Alfven chastized the whole idea of "magnetic reconnection" because he was an electrical engineer by trade. He studied current carrying plasma for his entire life.   He understood electrical engineering.  He understood the full properties of plasma because he was an "old school" scientist that believed in emprical testing.  He didn't just settle for a computized math simulation to verifiy his ideas, he emprically tested his ideas in the real world.  You can simulate anything on a computer, including how many elves might fit on the head of a pin.  A mathematical computer simulation is a poor substitute for emprical testing. </p><p>Today, astronomers seem to think it's just fine to create a computer simulation of a concept and skip the emprical testing aspect of science entirely. I'm afraid that isn't the way science actually works. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

DrRocket · May 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was merely pointing out that Alfven was a world renown mathematician, and an emprical scientist who's work speaks for itself.  </p><p><font color="#0000ff">So far as I have been able to determine, Alfven was an electrical engineer who made great contributions to plasma physics and received a Nobel Prize in physics for that work.  What I have read indicates that he considered himself primarily an engineer.  Neither a physicist nor an engineer is a mathematician.  Einstein was not a mathematician either, and in fact he was slowed down in some of his research in general relativity by a lack of background in mathematics.  So, the fact that Alfven was not a mathematician is not particularly important.  However, it is perhaps important to keep the facts straight and avoid excess hero worship in evaluating his ideas on an objective basis.</font> </p><p>What astronomers fail to embrace from his work with plasma is the current carrying side of his work.  The irrational aspect of that behavior is directly related to a basic properties of plasma, namely that it is a nearly perfect conductor of electrical current, and it's behaviors are directly affected by electrical currently. Well I agree with you on that point, but then his work on current carrying plasma is also good work.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">I still do not understand your point, other than that you feel there is a lack of acceptance of some idea.  What, PRECISELY, is that idea?  Plasmas are composed of mobile, charged particles.  Plasmas, not conduct current well, in a very real sense they ARE current.  All current is is the flow of charged particles.  Charge begins E fields.  Current begits B fields.   Moving charged particles feel a force from both that is described by the Lorentz force equation.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">F = q( E + VXB )</font></p><p> </p><p>The mystery is why the mainstream ignores it, and actively surpresses it, and misrepresents it in paper after published paper. The only way for his phyiscal ideas to be proven incorrect is for someone to do that emprically with plasma in lab.  That part has never been done.  No physicist on the planet has ever explained or demonstrated the unique physical energy release mechanism of "magnetic reonnection" that is demontratebly different from normal electrical processes in plasma. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Maybe what we need here is a sound definition of "magnetic reconnection".  Perhaps my understanding of that term is wrong.  What I thought was mean by "magnetic reconnection" is basically a change in the geometry of the magnetic field, due to ordinary processes.  Also I am not sure what you mean by normal electrical processes since you seem to have an aversion to things magnetic.  The electric field and the magnetic field are just two sides of the same coin.  They are both operating in plasmas.  Magnetic phenomena are a part of "normal electrical processes."</font> </p><p>Electrical current can and has created superheated plasma in a lab.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Yep.  And depending on what you mean by "superheated" that happens every time you throw a switch and create an ard.  In fact, that is the practical reason that electrical engineers have for much of their interest in plasmas.  Interruption of large currents creates a plasma arc, and to complete that process the arc must be "quenched."  It is an important issue to electrical utilities.  No mystery here, everyday stuff in fact.</font> </p><p>"Magnetic reconnection" is nothing more than misnomer, a concept based on ignorance of the behaviors of plasma in controlled conditions.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Precisely, what behavior do you believe astronomers and mainstream physicists are ignorant of?  I mean, what specific physical phenomena.  No generalities, just specifics.  They must know something, else they could not have nominated and awarded Alfven for his prize.  You seem to also have ignored my mention of the very good work of Chandrasekhar, a mainstream physicist, on magnetohydrodynamics and specifically on MHD processes in stars.  </font></p><p>That's the basic problem with the mainstream in a nutshell. They refuse to verify anything empirically in a lab before slapping the concept into a math formula and stuffing it into a computer simulation.  Where's the detailed emprical testing to verify that Alfven was incorrect on this topic? </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Which topic ?  I don't see any resistance to is work on plasma physics.  On the other hand if you are referring to some notion that the universe is a giant motherboard and the sun a big resistor, then I fail to see how anyone, Alfven included can address that notion in an earthbound laboratory.  Please state your case plainly.  The issue is not Alfven.  The issue is an hypothesis, and you have not stated the hypothesis.  You complain that the hypothesis is banned from hournals, but you refuse to clearly what it is.</font></p><p> </p><p> According to electrical theory, magnetic fields always form a full continuum.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Actually, magnetic fields lines are believed to always form closed loops -- topological circles.  A continuum is a different concept.  A continuum is simply set of points or numbers with "no gaps".  The real numbers are a continuum, while the rational numbers are not (in mathematics the notion is made precise with the definition of a complete metric space).  Continuum mechanics is a model for materials that pretends that materials are infinitely divisible, and ignores the existence of atoms -- a useful model at a macroscopic scale.</font></p><p>They don't make and break connections like electrical circuits and charged particles.  We might expect charged particles in plasma to make and break electrical connections, but no electrical engineer is going to claim that magnetic fields make and break connections.  They always from a complete and full continuum. Period. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">This is perhaps where we need a clear understanding of magnetic reconnection.  I am not aware of any classical physical theory that would have individual magnetic field lines breaking from closed loops.  However, noting in the theory prevents the totality of those field lines from changing geometry markedly -- sort of like drawing closed field lines on a sheet of rubber and then deforming the rubber.</font></p><p>There is a distinct difference between "mathematical theory" and emprical science.  Alfven was a student and proponent of emprical science.  So was Birkeland for that matter.  It wasn't good enough for either of them that something looked right on paper, they went the extra step. They built controlled scientific tests to emprically verify their ideas worked in the real world.</p><p>Magnetic reconnection proponents skipped that last step entirely.   And it certainly does stand on it's own merits.  You can't take MHD theory however, and twist it like a pretzel, remove the add-ons one slaps onto that theory from emprical testing entirely, and then try to claim that Alfven's work supports 'magnetic reconnection" theory.  Nothing could be further from the truth. That is a grossd distorion of scientific fact, and historical fact.  Period. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Again here is I have to insist that we make our terms and assertions clear.  </font> </p><p>The only way to disprove Alfven on this particular point, or any point related to MHD theory, is in a lab where it was created, not in a comptuter simulation.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">I have to disagree with this.  Both laboratory work and theoretical calculations (computer or otherwise) are important.  It is important that they agree, or that the discrepancies be explained.  Both can be in error.  Calculations can be in error because the underlying theory is wrong or because of numerical problems in the computer approximations or because the calculator made a mistake.  Laboratory data can be wrong due to errors in technique or problems with instrumentation or because the experiment is influenced by unrecognized outside influences.</font> </p><p> Oddly enough, I find myself in agreement with you on this point for purely personal (solar theory) reasons. It is however accepted dogma that stars are mostly made of hydrogen and helium plasma, and that stars contain more than 97% of the mass of our solar system.  Even with my solar model, the vast majority of a star might be made of plasma.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Your assertion was that the majority of the mass in the universe, not the solar system, was plasma.  I merely pointed out that there is a big problem with the observed mass in the universe, and that there is a real possibility that we have no idea what most of the mass in the universe is.</font> </p><p>  We all seem to agree that the universe is filled with hydrogen and helium plasma.   Whatever the properties of plasma, they will certainly have a direct effect on how the universe operates and functions.   Yes, but from my perspective that is only because the mainstream grossly underestimate the makup of stars and the mass of stars, and also the overall mass of a galaxy.  It's simply "missing mass" that they observe, nothing more, nothing less.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">I think that this is what I said.</font></p><p>We don't need any new metaphysical entities to explain some missing mass.There is anything 'subtle' about it.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">On the contrary, given our apparent ignorance as to what the mass is it seems to be very subtle.  If not, a non-subtle shoud be forthcoming.  My topology professor once stopped a student who claimed that an assertin was obvious by saying "If it is obvious, then there is a obvious proof.  Provide it."  I offer you the same challenge, if this issue is not subtle, please provide a non-subtle complete explanation.  What is the mass ? Where is the mass ? And why is it not detectable except by its apparent gravitational effect ?</font> </p><p> The mainstream astronomers today outright ignore his work on current carrying plasma, or they simply misrepresent his theories entirely by attributing "magnetic reconnection" to his work on MHD theory.  It's about as subtle as a sledge hammer.   Alfven chastized the whole idea of "magnetic reconnection" because he was an electrical engineer by trade. He studied current carrying plasma for his entire life.   He understood electrical engineering.  He understood the full properties of plasma because he was an "old school" scientist that believed in emprical testing.  He didn't just settle for a computized math simulation to verifiy his ideas, he emprically tested his ideas in the real world.  You can simulate anything on a computer, including how many elves might fit on the head of a pin.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">I do not believe that you can simulate the working of a star in the laboratory, at any meaningful level for any significant perioid of time, with our current technology.  If you could do that then we could generate much cheaper and much cleaner energy.  Work in producing a sustained, contained, controlled fusion reaction has been ongoing for many years, with no large-scale success to date.</font></p><p> A mathematical computer simulation is a poor substitute for emprical testing. Today, astronomers seem to think it's just fine to create a computer simulation of a concept and skip the emprical testing aspect of science entirely. I'm afraid that isn't the way science actually works.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">See earlier comments above.  You are only partially correctd.</font></p><p><br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

DrRocket · May 4, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  "Magnetic reconnection" is nothing more than misnomer, a concept based on ignorance of the behaviors of plasma in controlled conditions.That's the basic problem with the mainstream in a nutshell. They refuse to verify anything empirically in a lab before slapping the concept into a math formula and stuffing it into a computer simulation.  Where's the detailed emprical testing to verify that Alfven was incorrect on this topic?  According to electrical theory, magnetic fields always form a full continuum.  They don't make and break connections like electrical circuits and charged particles.  Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection</p><p>Here is a Wikipedia discussion of magnetic reconnection.  I do not see in this discussion any indication that magnetic field lines are not closed.  The figure does not describe the entire field.</p><p>What I do see is a discussion of the topology of complex field with several drivers of the field and quick changes in that topology, but not an opening and closing of individual field lines.  I also see that the author admits that there are some open issues to be resolved in terms of the rate with which the topologies can change.</p><p>I see no indication that anyone is contemplating opening and closing of field lines, or making and breaking of connections as you put it.</p><p>I think that maybe you are objecting to an argument that no one has made.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · May 5, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnectionHere is a Wikipedia discussion of magnetic reconnection.  I do not see in this discussion any indication that magnetic field lines are not closed. [/quote]</p><p>It's not a matter of being "closed" or open, it's a matter of forming a full continuum vs. making and breaking connections like an electrical circuit.  Magnetic fields always form a full continuum.  Accordingb to electrical theory, magnetic fields don't make and break connections like electrical circuits and charged particles.   </p><p>Note that the only place you could demonstrate such a thing accually occurs is in a lab in controlled conditions.  Instead, astronomers simply point to the sky, plug in some math formulas into a computer program and claim that electrical theory is flawed!  That's ridiculous.  You can't do that.  That is mathematical myth making at it's finest, it is not empirical science.  The dead give away is the fact that no one one Earth has ever identified and isolated the key "reconnection" of magnetic reconnection that is specifically unique to magnetic reconnection.  There is no possible way to differentiate normal electrical processes in plasma from "magnetic reconnection" because there is no phyiscal energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection" that is in any way unique.  The whole concept is a misunderstood, and ill concieved idea, at least according to the author and creator of MHD theory.  The only way to prove Alfven was incorrect is in a lab, not by pointing to the sky and a computer software program. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The figure does not describe the entire field.What I do see is a discussion of the topology of complex field with several drivers of the field and quick changes in that topology, but not an opening and closing of individual field lines.  I also see that the author admits that there are some open issues to be resolved in terms of the rate with which the topologies can change.I see no indication that anyone is contemplating opening and closing of field lines, or making and breaking of connections as you put it.I think that maybe you are objecting to an argument that no one has made. </p><p> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>But that is exactly the argument they are making. They draw an "X" and claim that one field line "reconnects" with another.  That could only happen if the plasma was carrying current and the current flow rerouted itself in the process.  Magnetic field lines in and of themselves do not "reconnect" or release excess energy in such a process.  Alfven directly refuted that idea, and showed the lab work that related to current carrying plamsa. </p><p>FYI, I'll probably pick at your other post today as I get time.  I may break it up into a couple of responses depending on how busy it gets at work today. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · May 5, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">So far as I have been able to determine, Alfven was an electrical engineer who made great contributions to plasma physics and received a Nobel Prize in physics for that work.  What I have read indicates that he considered himself primarily an engineer.  Neither a physicist nor an engineer is a mathematician.  Einstein was not a mathematician either, and in fact he was slowed down in some of his research in general relativity by a lack of background in mathematics.  So, the fact that Alfven was not a mathematician is not particularly important.  However, it is perhaps important to keep the facts straight and avoid excess hero worship in evaluating his ideas on an objective basis.</font>  <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>IMO astronomers are overly reliant upon pure mathematics, and far too disconnected from empircal controlled testing.  They are used to creating software simulations relating to mathematical theories, without ever testing such things in a lab.  In some cases that may be necessary, but not in all cases.  In the case of "magnetic reconnection" theory, there is not logical way to excuse oneself from doing the lab work.  Unfortunately every paper ever written about "magnetic reconnection" lacks any emprical support in a lab, it's all trumped up math and no empircal testing of concept.</p><p>They need to role up their sleaves, get their hands dirty and do some real scientific testing. That's not happening.  No one has ever identified a unique energy release mechanism called "magnetic reconnection" that would ever explain sustained million degree plasmas.   The only thing that would do that is "electrical discharge" through the plasma.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

michaelmozina · May 5, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">I still do not understand your point, other than that you feel there is a lack of acceptance of some idea.  What, PRECISELY, is that idea?  Plasmas are composed of mobile, charged particles.  Plasmas, not conduct current well, in a very real sense they ARE current.  All current is is the flow of charged particles.  Charge begins E fields.  Current begits B fields.   Moving charged particles feel a force from both that is described by the Lorentz force equation.</font><p><font color="#0000ff">F = q( E + VXB )</font></p><p> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The problem in a nutshell is that you (and pretty much most of the astronomy community) are under a very mistaken impression about plasma IMO.    Plasma is an *excellent* conductor of electrical current.  The particles do in fact "move around" and form current carrying threads, but electrons will traverse atomic plasma in a highly efficient manner, with little or no resistance.  </p><p>When astronomers look at the plasma in the solar atmosphere, they see a magnetic field.  The reason they see that field is because electrons are flowing through the plasma and forming filaments in the plasma. The current is what creates the magnetic field.  It's like looking at a copper wire with a magnetic field gauge. While the current is flowing through the copper wire, there will be a magnetic field around the wire.   Astronomers imagine it is the magnetic field that is the doing the work, when in reality, they have the cart before the horse.  it is the flow of electrons in the wire that creates the magnetic fiend around the wire.  Likewise, it is the electrons flow through the plasma that creates current carrying threads in the plasma which therefore have a magnetic field around them.</p><p>The mainstream does not understand plasma because they never expermiment with it in a lab like Birkeland did and like Alfven did.  Alfven understood the properties of plasma and electrical theory.  He also understood the value and importance of emprical testing.  Using standard tools of science he explained the mathematical properties of plasma, including current carrying plasma.  The mainstream simply ignored the whole current carrying aspect of his work entirely.  They forgot emprical science entirely, and focused only on computer simulations.  That isn't good enough. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

DrRocket

Guest

origin

Guest

doubletruncation

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

origin

Guest

lildreamer

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

lildreamer

Guest

neilsox

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page