<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have nothing unique to offer, I am a nobody. However I will interject the works of other thinkers who have taken these concepts to rational conclusion you won't be be very successful at invalidating to either the learned or casual observer. I don't mean that as a challenge, Lord knows I have no interest in antogonizing you, I mean it in all sincerity, it simply will be intellectualy tough for you to score in the eye of rational laypeople when what I plan to post will be so authentic, real and rational as compared to figments of the imaginations such as black holes and the like. Having named that, how about this:"If matter collapses to infinite density at a singularity, what distinguishes one collapsed mass from another? Wouldn't that mean that space was infinitely curved at that point? Isn't it more likely that matter collapses to some very highly dense but still finite state (quark star, string star etc) at the centre of a black hole, resulting in the different sizes of the event horizons?I don't understand where the assumption that matter must collapse to a singularity comes from when we still don't know how to reconcile General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. Posted by pendelton By what action can a black hole interact with "outside bodies"? First, the fundamental black hole is obtained as a solution for Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that is, by definition, empty - there is no matter present. So the alleged black hole can interact with nothing because its associated spacetime is empty - it precludes the presence of any matter. So there are no "outside bodies" present, by hypothesis. Furthermore, Einstein's theory of gravitation is non-linear and so the 'Principle of Superposition' does not apply. It does apply in Newton's theory. These are fundamentally different theories, and so one cannot simply insert lumps of matter into any spacetime of Einstein by an analogy with Newton's theory. So the notion of black holes at the centres of galaxies is nonsense. This is why the alleged black hole collisions, mergers and binaries are also nonsense. Each black hole is obtained separately as a solution to Ric = 0. The one black hole cannottherefore be in the spacetime of another black hole and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by definition contains no matter; yet the black holers would have us all believe that claptrap. On another simple level the black hole is inconsistent with the Theory of Relativity. The alleged singularity of the black hole is infinitely dense. Now Special Relativity forbids infinite density because infinite density implies that a material body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum (or equivalently that there is infinite energy), which violates the fundamental premise of Special Relativity. General Relativity, by definition, cannot violate Special Relativity, and so it too forbids infinite density. Thus, the Theory of Relativity forbids infinitely dense point-mass singularities and hence forbids black holes. Consequently, discussion of lensing by black holes, medium sized black holes, and all alleged black hole phenomena, are meaningless. Black holes are not predicted by any theory. The hypothetical Michell-Laplace dark body of Newton's theory is not a black hole because it possesses an escape velocity, whereas the black hole has no escape velocity; it does not require irresistible gravitational collapse, whereas the black hole does; it has no infinitely dense point-mass singularity, whereas the black hole does; it has no event horizon, whereas the black hole does; there is always a class of observers that can see the dark body, but there is no class of observers that can see the black hole. Thus the Michell-Laplace dark body does not possess the signatures of the alleged black hole and so it is not a black hole.Nobody has ever found a black hole because nobody has ever found an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and nobody has ever found an event horizon. Moreover, it takes an infinite amount of time for an observer to establish the presence of an event horizon, but nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time. All claims for the discovery of black holes are patently false. Bear in mind that billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted and continue to be wasted on the search for black holes and gravitational waves produced by them. Such projects are destined to detect nothing. The funding of them is just a gravy train for the participants, who are never short of excuses to get more out of the taxpayer. " <br /> Posted by colesakick</DIV></p><p>Why are you cross posting someone elses spam. I've seen this junk copy n pasted several different places now. Nothing more than a bitter person that can't get published or recognized. The least you could do is link back to his website where the original is at as per the rules of the forums. </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>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why are you cross posting someone elses spam. I've seen this junk copy n pasted several different places now. Nothing more than a bitter person that can't get published or recognized. The least you could do is link back to his website where the original is at as per the rules of the forums. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I thought that sounded familiar...</p><p>Listen, I respect your right to believe an alternative theory. But you have to realize that when you start making outlandish claims like aether really exists and black holes can't exist, backing such claims up with wishy-washy conceptual arguments, the mainstream is not going to pay any attention. The great thing about physics is if something is true, you can prove it. You can show it analytically, or if it is too complex, you can show it numerically. The "Old Boys Club" won't let you publish because nobody from EU has done this yet. The same old boys club accepts and respects Birkeland's work and Alfven's work...but they take it for what it is. There is no prejudice against EU, as I said, the publication barrier is entirely self-imposed. If michael can form a good paper on this topic, then great, it'll get published. It won't show EU is correct, since magnetic reconnection is a very narrow field and he isn't really proposing any changes to the theory besides what we call it, but it would be interesting to have another approach to take on it mathematically, which can be tested in simulations to see if anything changes. Believe me, I want this paper to exist but so far it's still in the "what if..." stage.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In the APM, mass is induced to be a linear dimension, whereas charge is induced to be a distributed dimension. Distributed (squared) quantities increase in magnitude quicker than linear quantities. And just as the reciprocal of a cubed quantity is less than the reciprocal of a squared quantity, the force acting on a distributed dimension will drop off much quicker than the force acting on a linear dimension.I don't buy the argument about localized currents. As the scale of the system increases its density decreases. The idea about localized currents is therefore misleading since the assumption is that current density will be the same for a satellite laboratory and galactic electric filaments. This is not true. Galactic or Intergalactic electric currents passing through space seem almost impossible to measure with a satellite because the density is so sparse. Yet, the current flows through a much greater volume of space than would an Earth-based lightning bolt, for example. We look at the Crab Nebula from clear across the galaxy and think we are looking at an object. If we flew a spacecraft into it we would find nothing but empty space. The dust and photons are so sparse that we can see through it even from our present vantage point. I think the real problem of why the Electric Universe is not accepted by the mainstream is because cosmologists are not appreciating the effect of scale on what they are observing. For some reason, they seem to think that a low local current density or low local magnetic flux density means the electric and magnetic physics are non-existent. It would be like an amoeba exploring the human body looking for some sign of intelligence. There are all these stupid cells connected to each other reacting to some other cells, but none of them seem to be self sufficient like the amoeba. The concept the amoeba would need to understand is the concept of scale. What modern cosmologists need to understand is how low current density can produce effects on scales much larger than our solar system and even larger than the Milky Way. One does not need high current density to create a huge current over a huge volume of space. In fact, a large scale electric current cannot stay structured if the current can interact meaningfully at a local scale. BTW, I agree that magnetic fields and electric fields must always coexist, however, I do not see any basis why the electric field should be primary to the magnetic field. One would have to assume that an object is more real than the environment containing it to make such a statement. But the environment must exist before it can be populated with something physical. The APM shows that both environment and matter are created simultaneously. However, observation shows that space can exist without matter, but matter cannot exist without space. Electric particles have a particulate characteristic, whereas magnetic fields have an environmental characteristic. Electric particles are electrons and protons, whereas magnetic fields are surrounding Aether units which have been magnetically oriented toward the magnetic structures of the electron and proton. The real question is whether moving particles are the only source of action, or whether Aether can have an inherent vibration of its own, which can affect the movement of matter through it. Personally, I believe it is possible to alter the behavior of the Aether without first causing matter to move through it. To understand this requires studying the structure of the Aether and how conductance affects both Aether and matter. And to be fair about not hiding what I'm leading up to, conductance can be manipulated both by moving matter and by something non-material that can make choices (like the mind). If people would like to see physical demonstrations of the latter, they need to watch Alain Nu bend spoons while other people are holding them. Brant just recently shared a very interesting link about a Russian physicist who has performed scientific experiments along these lines. Regardless of whether we can ever agree on whether electric fields are more primary to magnetic fields, I think we can all agree the main problem with the EU not being accepted is that people have not grasped the concept of scale. A plasma demonstration in a lab has identical physics to plasmas in space, but the size of the space plasmas demand a corresponding reduction in plasma density. Secrets of the Aether, Dave Thomson's comments above. www.16pi2.com Intellectual honesty means being willing to challenge yourself instead of others <br />Posted by colesakick</DIV></p><p>This is complete and utter nonsense. No science, no logic, not even interesting mysticism. Just rubbish. Rather like the rantings of an asylum inmate.</p><p>The main problem with acceptance of EU theory has nothing to do with scale, with primacy of fields or any other non-concepts. It has to do with the fact that it is internally inconsistent and blatantly contradicted by classical physics.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have nothing unique to offer, I am a nobody. However I will interject the works of other thinkers who have taken these concepts to rational conclusion you won't be be very successful at invalidating to either the learned or casual observer. I don't mean that as a challenge, Lord knows I have no interest in antogonizing you, I mean it in all sincerity, it simply will be intellectualy tough for you to score in the eye of rational laypeople when what I plan to post will be so authentic, real and rational as compared to figments of the imaginations such as black holes and the like. Having named that, how about this:"If matter collapses to infinite density at a singularity, what distinguishes one collapsed mass from another? Wouldn't that mean that space was infinitely curved at that point? Isn't it more likely that matter collapses to some very highly dense but still finite state (quark star, string star etc) at the centre of a black hole, resulting in the different sizes of the event horizons?I don't understand where the assumption that matter must collapse to a singularity comes from when we still don't know how to reconcile General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. Posted by pendelton By what action can a black hole interact with "outside bodies"? First, the fundamental black hole is obtained as a solution for Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that is, by definition, empty - there is no matter present. So the alleged black hole can interact with nothing because its associated spacetime is empty - it precludes the presence of any matter. So there are no "outside bodies" present, by hypothesis. Furthermore, Einstein's theory of gravitation is non-linear and so the 'Principle of Superposition' does not apply. It does apply in Newton's theory. These are fundamentally different theories, and so one cannot simply insert lumps of matter into any spacetime of Einstein by an analogy with Newton's theory. So the notion of black holes at the centres of galaxies is nonsense. This is why the alleged black hole collisions, mergers and binaries are also nonsense. Each black hole is obtained separately as a solution to Ric = 0. The one black hole cannottherefore be in the spacetime of another black hole and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by definition contains no matter; yet the black holers would have us all believe that claptrap. On another simple level the black hole is inconsistent with the Theory of Relativity. The alleged singularity of the black hole is infinitely dense. Now Special Relativity forbids infinite density because infinite density implies that a material body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum (or equivalently that there is infinite energy), which violates the fundamental premise of Special Relativity. General Relativity, by definition, cannot violate Special Relativity, and so it too forbids infinite density. Thus, the Theory of Relativity forbids infinitely dense point-mass singularities and hence forbids black holes. Consequently, discussion of lensing by black holes, medium sized black holes, and all alleged black hole phenomena, are meaningless. Black holes are not predicted by any theory. The hypothetical Michell-Laplace dark body of Newton's theory is not a black hole because it possesses an escape velocity, whereas the black hole has no escape velocity; it does not require irresistible gravitational collapse, whereas the black hole does; it has no infinitely dense point-mass singularity, whereas the black hole does; it has no event horizon, whereas the black hole does; there is always a class of observers that can see the dark body, but there is no class of observers that can see the black hole. Thus the Michell-Laplace dark body does not possess the signatures of the alleged black hole and so it is not a black hole.Nobody has ever found a black hole because nobody has ever found an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and nobody has ever found an event horizon. Moreover, it takes an infinite amount of time for an observer to establish the presence of an event horizon, but nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time. All claims for the discovery of black holes are patently false. Bear in mind that billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted and continue to be wasted on the search for black holes and gravitational waves produced by them. Such projects are destined to detect nothing. The funding of them is just a gravy train for the participants, who are never short of excuses to get more out of the taxpayer. " <br />Posted by colesakick</DIV></p><p>More gibberish.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>More gibberish. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You think we're rough? Check out BAUT's total ravaging of APM. Especially on page 4 when user 'Celestial Mechanic' treats the dissection of the paper as a skit. Hilarious stuff. </p><p>http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/74859-aether-physics-model-4.html</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I will respond to only three points in this gibberish. 1. Light is an electromagnetic wave. That laser beam, and electromagnetic waver, persists and carries energy long after the current flow in the circuit that created it has ceased to exist. </DIV></p><p>I don't recall ever denying any such thing. The energy in that case however also came from the original circuit and was simply passed along to the photons. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The energy is in the field,in this case the electromagnetic wave or group of photons depending on how you want to look at it.</DIV> </p><p>I prefer to look at it as "stored kinetic energy", just like you find in "magnetic fields" around plasma filaments. That stored kinetic energy comes from the circuit in both instances. The only difference is that the plasma in the thread is still connected to the power source, whereas photons are not. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2. I have read Alfven's book, Cosmical Electrodynamics. </DIV></p><p>That book does not explain EU theory, nor is it the book I recommended to you. If you want to understand PC/EU theory, you'll have to eventually read Cosmic Plasma. If you intend to continue to play devil advocate on this subject, it would be prudent to at least first understand it from the guy that developed the concept.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The fact that you think this is the "wrong" book is utterly irrelevant. </DIV></p><p>It's the "wrong book" if you're trying to understand EU theory and the "wrong book" in the sense that in his later book he explained some of the evolution in his thinking since the time of the first book. As long as you remain living in the past, you'll never understand how his beliefs changed and evolved over the years. You'll also never understand EU theory because that is the book that explains EU theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have also read several of Alfven's papers. </DIV></p><p>Yes, and? I"ve read several of Priest's papers not and I've not claiming to be an "expert" on the topic. I haven't stopped reading material on this topic only because I didn't like Priest's approach.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>3. Your attempt to "educate" me or anyone else in MHD seems to lack a foundation in basic physics, </DIV></p><p>The "basic physics" is found in Cosmic Plasma. I've read the book, and you have not. It's you that lack an understanding of the basics because you refuse to educate yourself. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>particularly electrodynamics. </DIV></p><p>This comment comes from a guy that told me that plasma doesn't have "wires" and "circuits". Hoy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have consistently ignored that subject and focused on semantics and not physics.</DIV></p><p>No, I focused on the physics. It's not my fault Preist (falaciously) invoked monopoles in his presentation(s). I haven't found any significant problems yet with Birn's approach. Scientific terms are important. Some papers are just better written than others.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The examples that I have given you are completely relevant, but you seem to not know enough physics to even recognize that fact. </DIV></p><p>You haven't "given me" anything but kinetic energy, something I already know is present. You don't seem to comprehend the value and imprortance of kinetic energy in these "reconnection" events IMO. You certainly don't seem to understand the importance of the energy contained in the *whole circuit*.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You focused absolutely nothing on science, and in fact have completely ignored scientific principles in favor of utter fantasies that are demonstrably false. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>IMO you simply don't know what you're talking about because you refuse to eductate yourself. You tell me things like plamsa dosn't have wires and ciruits don't apply to plasma and all sorts of irrational and false statements. I had to point out to you that Chapter 3 of Cosmic Plasma is entitiled "circuits". The problem here DrRocket is that I keep having to explain every single basic concept about plasma to you because you refuse to study EU theory from the perspective if the individual that developed it, a Nobel prize winning scientist in the realm of plama physics. The demonstratebly false statements have been coming from you. and almost exclusively from you. Plasma certainly forms filamantary "wires" that carry the currents through the plasma. It certainly forms 'circuits" that disconnect and reconnect. Plasma doesn't contain any monopoles sources, or any magic magnetic fields that connect or disconnect. Only particles and circuits can disconnect and reconnect in plasma. Period.</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You think we're rough? Check out BAUT's total ravaging of APM. Especially on page 4 when user 'Celestial Mechanic' treats the dissection of the paper as a skit. Hilarious stuff. http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/74859-aether-physics-model-4.html <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Don't even get me started on a website that virtually executes all of it's most vocal critics. Sheesh. That place is pitiful.</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I thought that sounded familiar...Listen, I respect your right to believe an alternative theory. But you have to realize that when you start making outlandish claims like aether really exists and black holes can't exist, </DIV></p><p>FYI, Einstein also doubted that black holes achieved infinite density at a "point". I think the infinite density at a point concept is problem most critics have with that particular theory, including Einstein.</p><p>Some versions of QM theory treat the subatomic quantum realm as containing all wavelengths of photons, photons being the carrier particle of EM fields. In essense, most EU theories presume that intergalactic space contains a preexisting EM field which can be seen as a type of EM aether. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't recall ever denying any such thing. The energy in that case however also came from the original circuit and was simply passed along to the photons. I prefer to look at it as "stored kinetic energy", just like you find in "magnetic fields" around plasma filaments. That stored kinetic energy comes from the circuit in both instances. The only difference is that the plasma in the thread is still connected to the power source, whereas photons are not.</DIV></p><p>Actually, that's not even necessarily true. Photons are in fact presumed to be the carrier particle of EM fields, so for all I know, that photon is also connected to another "circuit" somewhere. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is complete and utter nonsense. No science, no logic, not even interesting mysticism. Just rubbish. Rather like the rantings of an asylum inmate.</DIV></p><p>Man are you a trip. The moment you hear something you don't quite grasp, or don't quite agree with, you go all personal. At least now we know it's not related to me or to her, but rather it's one of your "behaviors".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The main problem with acceptance of EU theory has nothing to do with scale, with primacy of fields or any other non-concepts. It has to do with the fact that it is internally inconsistent and blatantly contradicted by classical physics. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>No, it's not. It's supported by "classical physics" including those 'classical' experiments that Birkeland performed in his lab. It's supported by "classical MHD theory" as Alfven taught it. It's supported by "classic" concepts of "emprical testing" and plasma physics. You make all these outrageously false statements because you utterly refuse to educate youself. You only have yourself to blame. You've turned your own mind into an incarcerated inmate and you conciously deprive it of new knowledge and new understanding. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This simply amazing. You are replying to YOURSELF, and you are off the mark both times. Not only is there energy in the magnetic field,</DIV></p><p>Yes, there is stored kinetic energy in the particles that makeup the flowing field lines, just as there is stored kinetic energy in the circuits and threads of an ordinary plasma ball. It's *kinetic energy*.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>it is propagated through space and allows recovery of that energy at a location remote from the current source that produced it. </DIV></p><p>Yes indeed. The kinetic energy of the plasma particles have an impact at the remote location, just like the kinetic energy in the photons has an impact at the receiving end. It's all a kinetic energy transfer process, irrespective of whether we're talking about photons or moving charged particles. </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It can exist and do work long after the current has gone to zero,</DIV></p><p>The kinetic energy has to go somewhere, even if the circuit is cut. The kinetic energy in the plasma thread will necessarily be transfered to the surrounding plasma in some form or another if only "heat". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>hardly a simple reflection of kiinetic energy of the electrons, or positive charges, that represent the current. </DIV></p><p>See, this is why it's hard to talk with you about these topics, because you really don't comprehend the role of circuits and the transfer of kinetic energy in various particles. It all seems to be a "magnetic" process in you mind, when in fact it's an "electromagnetic" process involving lots of forms of kinetic energy, including photons and other moving charged particles. It's EXACTLY a kinetic energy transfer process from start to finish, not "hardly" anything else. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is true that the energy stored came from movement of charges particles in an electromagnetic field and that the work involved in creating that motion is reflected in the energies involved (in other words energy is conserved), but it is quite a bit more than just the kinetic energy of the charged particles, it is a complex interaction between the particles, their velocities and the electromagnetic fields. </DIV></p><p>Didn't I just say that? The kinetic energy can be transfered to other charged particles, to photons and to subatomic particles when positrons and electrons anihillate one another. It's a very complicated process, but it is *physical* and *kinetic* in nature.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When you deny energy storage in the fields you also deny energy content in photons, which are the same thing.</DIV></p><p>When did I *deny* either the kinetic energy storage in magnetic fields or the kinetic energy storage in photons? This is another of your ridiculous strawmen.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> But it is rather clear that photons transfer energy. </DIV></p><p>Yes, I noted that. They transfer *kinetic* energy between *particles* that 'reconnect". and interact electrically and kinetically.</p><p>The rest of your post is just more of the same ridiculous strawman, and I'm done playing that game with you. </p><p>You are *underestimating* the importance of the *energy content of the whole circuit* and you're understimating the importance of seeing this as a *kinetic energy* transfer process. Charged particles rarely run into one another, but they do transfer kinetic energy to one another by their electrical attraction and repulsion of other charged particle. Photons can also transfer kenetic energe between *circuits*. Induction is such a process. It's still all a kinetic energy process that requires *current flow* to operate and "circuits" to make it all work!</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Don't even get me started on a website that virtually executes all of it's most vocal critics. Sheesh. That place is pitiful. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>A jaded opinion. Considering you were one of the executionees, I understand. My interpretation is that a hypothesis was put forth and it was completely dismanted in short order. The proponent of the hypothesis had absolutely nothing to offer in the way of rebuttals. It is the job of scientists to critique new hypotheses and determine wheter they warrant further review. It's the natural, skeptic nature of scientists to do so. How you consider that 'pitiful' is beyond me. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How you consider that 'pitiful' is beyond me. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>It is pitiful that they prattle on about inflation, dark energy, etc, and yet one cannot discuss the full content of Birkeland's emrpical experiments beyond 30 days. Pitiful. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, there is stored kinetic energy in the particles that makeup the flowing field lines, just as there is stored kinetic energy in the circuits and threads of an ordinary plasma ball. It's *kinetic energy*.Yes indeed. The kinetic energy of the plasma particles have an impact at the remote location, just like the kinetic energy in the photons has an impact at the receiving end. It's all a kinetic energy transfer process, irrespective of whether we're talking about photons or moving charged particles. The kinetic energy has to go somewhere, even if the circuit is cut. The kinetic energy in the plasma thread will necessarily be transfered to the surrounding plasma in some form or another if only "heat". See, this is why it's hard to talk with you about these topics, because you really don't comprehend the role of circuits and the transfer of kinetic energy in various particles. It all seems to be a "magnetic" process in you mind, when in fact it's an "electromagnetic" process involving lots of forms of kinetic energy, including photons and other moving charged particles. It's EXACTLY a kinetic energy transfer process from start to finish, not "hardly" anything else. Didn't I just say that? The kinetic energy can be transfered to other charged particles, to photons and to subatomic particles when positrons and electrons anihillate one another. It's a very complicated process, but it is *physical* and *kinetic* in nature. When did I *deny* either the kinetic energy storage in magnetic fields or the kinetic energy storage in photons? This is another of your ridiculous strawmen.Yes, I noted that. They transfer *kinetic* energy between *particles* that 'reconnect". and interact electrically and kinetically.The rest of your post is just more of the same ridiculous strawman, and I'm done playing that game with you. You are *underestimating* the importance of the *energy content of the whole circuit* and you're understimating the importance of seeing this as a *kinetic energy* transfer process. Charged particles rarely run into one another, but they do transfer kinetic energy to one another by their electrical attraction and repulsion of other charged particle. Photons can also transfer kenetic energe between *circuits*. Induction is such a process. It's still all a kinetic energy process that requires *current flow* to operate and "circuits" to make it all work! <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I note that once again you pick and choose among in individual sentences, and in fact individual phrases and respond only to those and not to complete thoughts.</p><p>The basic problem is that I do understand circuit theory, I do understand field theory, I understand the relationship between the two, and your prattle is utter rubbish. You have again latched onto some cartoon version of physics and are ignoring the basic structure of electromagnetic theory, and and completely distorting the physics.</p><p>Maybe you ought to stop looking at the pictures in Alfven's book and actually read the words and the mathematics. Two half truths do not make a whole truth and you have diced and shredded physics beyond all recognition. You have a most unique (bizarre) version of kinetic energy to say the least. Please go learn some physics. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe you ought to stop looking at the pictures in Alfven's book and actually read the words and the mathematics. Two half truths do not make a whole truth and you have diced and shredded physics beyond all recognition. You have a most unique (bizarre) version of kinetic energy to say the least. Please go learn some physics. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Oh the irony of your comments! At least I have the pictures to look at because I own the book and I've read it, math, pictures, circuits and everything! The reason you don't "get it" DrRocket is because you never "read it" to begin with. To learn plasma phyiscs one has to actually study plasma physics. The kinetic energy and the circuit energy are the driving forces in all these "reconnection" events. The *total circuit energy* must be explicitly accounted for in these "reconnection" events. At their most fundamental level these are kinetic reconnection interactions between charged particles and carrier particles of the EM field. The whole thing is one big kinetic energy exchange that occurs at the particle physical level. The reconnection process is *kinetic* in nature as the particles and circuit reconnect. Not a single magnetic line is disconnected or reconnected, just as Alfven suggested. </p><p>The part that absolutely floors me is that you would profess to be some kind of "expert" on plasma physics, MHD theory and plasma cosmology theory without even bothering to read the book that explans the theory in complete detail, and explains how it relates to events in space. You have no credibility whatsoever with me DrRocket. Based on the things you've said in this tread, it's quite clear that you know nothing at all about the *physical* properties of plasma and the plasma physical processes that are actually occuring in these kinetic energy exchanges that occur inside of current carrying plasma. You will never have any credibility with me until you've actually read the book Cosmic Plasma, pictures, math and every chapter of it.</p><p>I strongly suggest that if you are too strapped for time to go to the libarary and too strapped for cash to buy Alfven's book, that you at least go out a buy yourself an ordinary plasma ball from Walmat. You will at least be able to observe all the little "circuits" that disconnect and reconnect to different points on the various surfaces of the inner and outer spheres. You can "experiment" with "circuit reconnection" by flipping the little switch on the side of the ball and turning off the power. You can turn on the current flow again and watch the little "circuits" form again inside the plasma. You can see these circuits of moving plasma spin and you can watch the filaments get "pinched" into little twisting, tornado-like filaments inside the plasma. All of these events are "circuit/current driven" events, and you can prove it to yourself with a $20 investment in your education. For goodness sake DrRocket, invest some time or invest a few bucks in your plasmas education and stop making so many silly comments. Hoy!</p><p>It is you that have a "cartoon" understanding of these ideas, not me. That is directly related to the fact, that unlike me, you have never bothered to actually sit down and read the material that I suggested. Its been over a full year of making that suggestion to you, over and over and over again, and still you refuse to do so. I'm not your math mommy DrRocket. Go get yourself an education. The plasma ball is actually quite a nice little office ornement, and it comes in very handy while reading the book, staring with Chapter 2 where Alfven explains the math and draws some pretty pictures. You can see his drawings and mathematical models in motion inside the plasma ball, z-pinch filaments, circuits, circuit reconnection and everything.</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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh the irony of your comments! At least I have the pictures to look at because I own the book and I've read it, math, pictures, circuits and everything! The reason you don't "get it" DrRocket is because you never "read it" to begin with. To learn plasma phyiscs one has to actually study plasma physics. The kinetic energy and the circuit energy are the driving forces in all these "reconnection" events. The *total circuit energy* must be explicitly accounted for in these "reconnection" events. At their most fundamental level these are kinetic reconnection interactions between charged particles and carrier particles of the EM field. The whole thing is one big kinetic energy exchange that occurs at the particle physical level. The reconnection process is *kinetic* in nature as the particles and circuit reconnect. Not a single magnetic line is disconnected or reconnected, just as Alfven suggested. The part that absolutely floors me is that you would profess to be some kind of "expert" on plasma physics, MHD theory and plasma cosmology theory without even bothering to read the book that explans the theory in complete detail, and explains how it relates to events in space. You have no credibility whatsoever with me DrRocket. Based on the things you've said in this tread, it's quite clear that you know nothing at all about the *physical* properties of plasma and the plasma physical processes that are actually occuring in these kinetic energy exchanges that occur inside of current carrying plasma. You will never have any credibility with me until you've actually read the book Cosmic Plasma, pictures, math and every chapter of it.I strongly suggest that if you are too strapped for time to go to the libarary and too strapped for cash to buy Alfven's book, that you at least go out a buy yourself an ordinary plasma ball from Walmat. You will at least be able to observe all the little "circuits" that disconnect and reconnect to different points on the various surfaces of the inner and outer spheres. You can "experiment" with "circuit reconnection" by flipping the little switch on the side of the ball and turning off the power. You can turn on the current flow again and watch the little "circuits" form again inside the plasma. You can see these circuits of moving plasma spin and you can watch the filaments get "pinched" into little twisting, tornado-like filaments inside the plasma. All of these events are "circuit/current driven" events, and you can prove it to yourself with a $20 investment in your education. For goodness sake DrRocket, invest some time or invest a few bucks in your plasmas education and stop making so many silly comments. Hoy!It is you that have a "cartoon" understanding of these ideas, not me. That is directly related to the fact, that unlike me, you have never bothered to actually sit down and read the material that I suggested. Its been over a full year of making that suggestion to you, over and over and over again, and still you refuse to do so. I'm not your math mommy DrRocket. Go get yourself an education. The plasma ball is actually quite a nice little office ornement, and it comes in very handy while reading the book, staring with Chapter 2 where Alfven explains the math and draws some pretty pictures. You can see his drawings and mathematical models in motion inside the plasma ball, z-pinch filaments, circuits, circuit reconnection and everything. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>1. I have read Alfven's <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics, </em>as well as quite a few other physics texts, and have actually passed physics and electrical engineering courses. I'm sorry if I have not read the only book that appeals to you. Too damn bad.</p><p>2. My objection is to your notions that clearly contradict known physics. Yes, there is such a thing as kinetic energy. No it does not explain everything. There is also classical electrodynamics, classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and a host of other physical theories. Plasma physics is a, specialized, discipline that involves primarily a combination of fluid mechanics and electrodynamics. It is not simpy an exercise in kinetic energy.</p><p>3. There are several good accounts of plasma physics. Alfven has written at least one. Jackson and Landau and Lefshitz also treat MHD and plasma physics in their books on electrodynamics and pay adequate homage to Alfven. You need the mathematics to go along with the pictures. It is the mathematics that explains those pictures, and when they are applicable and when they are not. You really do need to come to grips with Maxwell's equations. </p><p>4. I really don't care much how long you have said anything, but your clock is about as much in error as are your ideas regarding physics. Get a grip. You attempt to distract attention from your inability to produce the paper refuting "mainstream" physics in the form of the Priest paper is just pathetic.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>1. I have read Alfven's Cosmical Electrodynamics, as well as quite a few other physics texts, and have actually passed physics and electrical engineering courses. I'm sorry if I have not read the only book that appeals to you. Too damn bad.2. My objection is to your notions that clearly contradict known physics. Yes, there is such a thing as kinetic energy. No it does not explain everything. There is also classical electrodynamics, classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and a host of other physical theories. Plasma physics is a, specialized, discipline that involves primarily a combination of fluid mechanics and electrodynamics. It is not simpy an exercise in kinetic energy.3. There are several good accounts of plasma physics. Alfven has written at least one. Jackson and Landau and Lefshitz also treat MHD and plasma physics in their books on electrodynamics and pay adequate homage to Alfven. You need the mathematics to go along with the pictures. It is the mathematics that explains those pictures, and when they are applicable and when they are not. You really do need to come to grips with Maxwell's equations. 4. I really don't care much how long you have said anything, but your clock is about as much in error as are your ideas regarding physics. Get a grip. You attempt to distract attention from your inability to produce the paper refuting "mainstream" physics in the form of the Priest paper is just pathetic. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>My problem with the argument about not having read "the" book yet is that it likely won't change my, and I'd imagine your(DrRocket), opinion on the subject. So even if we did shell out 150 dollars to buy this book and spent a few weeks reading it, the argument would turn from "why haven't you read the book yet" to "why didn't you read it the right way". The only way I can see this argument ending is us agreeing with michael, which, without any significant development from the EU camp, is never going to happen. Alfven may have been the first great scientist in the field of plasma physics, but that does not mean his texts should be required reading in undergrad/grad level courses. Do you ever see atomic physics classes using Bohr's volume of texts as their basis? No, because a lot of what is in these seminal texts is outdated. You accuse us of living in the past, but then EU speaks of aether and great, but dead, scientists. Really, who is living in the past? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My problem with the argument about not having read "the" book yet is that it likely won't change my, and I'd imagine your(DrRocket), opinion on the subject. So even if we did shell out 150 dollars to buy this book and spent a few weeks reading it, the argument would turn from "why haven't you read the book yet" to "why didn't you read it the right way". The only way I can see this argument ending is us agreeing with michael, which, without any significant development from the EU camp, is never going to happen. Alfven may have been the first great scientist in the field of plasma physics, but that does not mean his texts should be required reading in undergrad/grad level courses. Do you ever see atomic physics classes using Bohr's volume of texts as their basis? No, because a lot of what is in these seminal texts is outdated. You accuse us of living in the past, but then EU speaks of aether and great, but dead, scientists. Really, who is living in the past? <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV><br /><br />Not only are you correct, but the situation is stranger than you might realize. I have actually purchased and read the salient portions of Alflven's book <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics</em>, the second revised edition (of the origina from 1948) written in 1963 when Alfven was closer to his prime and closer to the time when did the plasma physics work for which he received the Nobel Prize -- he received the prize in 1970 for work done largely in the 30's, 40's and early 50's and after he had become interested in space physics in 1956. <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics </em>is a good book and is often referenced in the mainstream literature. What is amazing is that Mozina has not read this book, and bases all of his assertions on the later book <em>Cosmic Plasma</em>which one does not often see referenced in the plasma physics literature and was written in 1981 when Alfven was 73 ( he died in 1995 at the age of 86) and had become an outspoken dissident in the world of physics. His plasma physics and predictions regarding the aurora have been fully validated, but his later theories regarding cosmology have been rejected on physical and experimental grounds.</p><p>So Mozina's contention is not that we not read Alfven's work and his book, but that we have read the wrong papers and the wrong book. For instance the notion of frozen magnetic field lines, in certain plasmas, which Mozina rails against was actually invented by Alfven. He goes to some lengths in <em>Cosmical Electrodynamics</em>to identify the plasma conditions under which the approximation is valid and conditions under which it is not. Some astrophysicists have applied the notion carelessly and the community has come to understand that it must be applied with some care. According to Alfven the notion is valid in what he calls "high-density plasma" -- plasma in which the mean free path is much smaller than the Larmor radius of the electrons. He also finds it generally valid in medium density plasmas -- plasmas in which the electron mean free path is greater than the Larmor radius but less than the characteristic length for the phenomena being studied. He cautions against use of the notion in "low density plasma" -- plasma in which the mean free path is much larger than the Larmor radiius. He notes that in solar physics one is dealing with high-density and medium-density plasmas. Mozina (although moderating slightly in a few later posts) simply rails against any and all applications of the idea of frozen magnetic field lines.</p><p>Sorry if I read the wrong book, but I prefer the one written during a period when I know that Alfven was still lucid and doing good physics. It does have a lot of nice diagrams and pictures, and all backed up with the mathematics of classical electrodynamics, and justifiable approximations from magnetohydrodynamics and plasma physics. It is a good solid physics text, and not an endorsement of the "Electrical Universe". It is a pretty good text, but is too specialized for an undergraduate, or even a first-year graduate, class. I would not call it outdated, but I wuld say that there has been much progress since it was written and for use in a formal class it would probably now serve better as a suplement than as the main textbook -- besides it is rather long out of print. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My problem with the argument about not having read "the" book yet is that it likely won't change my, and I'd imagine your(DrRocket), opinion on the subject. So even if we did shell out 150 dollars to buy this book and spent a few weeks reading it, the argument would turn from "why haven't you read the book yet" to "why didn't you read it the right way". </DIV></p><p>No, thre wouldn't be a problem to begin with if he actually read the book, because he would not say ridiculous things like circuits don't apply to plasma. If you don't comprehend the basics, it's really tough make any scientific headway. As long as he actually had noticed that chapter 3 is entitiled "circuits", he could not have "read it the wrong way". Its the fact he says all these outrageously false statements from a place of "authority" no less, that makes him sound abusrd.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only way I can see this argument ending is us agreeing with michael, which, without any significant development from the EU camp, is never going to happen.</DIV></p><p>To agree with me that "magnetic reconnection" could also be accurately called "circuit reconnection" should not require any further development on the part of the EU camp. Birkeland *personally* demonstrated this with *emprical experiments*, something nobody has ever done for "magnetic reconnection". The fact you think that more is required from the EU side is simply upside down in terms of logic, common sense, and emprical physics.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven may have been the first great scientist in the field of plasma physics, but that does not mean his texts should be required reading in undergrad/grad level courses. </DIV></p><p>If DrRocket wants to play devil's advocate of EU theory, then it would only be rational to try to understand it by the guy that developed the theory, don't you think? That may not apply to *everyone* in every field of science, but if someone intends to debate EU theory for more than a year on a public website, one would expect that individual to educate themselves somewhere along the line. It's only logical. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you ever see atomic physics classes using Bohr's volume of texts as their basis? No, because a lot of what is in these seminal texts is outdated. You accuse us of living in the past, but then EU speaks of aether and great, but dead, scientists. Really, who is living in the past? <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Well, I know it's not me that's living in the past because I've read Alfven's later books. I've read these magnetic reconnection papers too. I can see that what Birn, Hesse and Schindler are calling "magnetic reconection" is actually simple circuit reconnection by a different name. For all I know these authors may in fact agree with me, and I'd like to know their answer before we proceed. IMO their paper is very well writen. I see nothing in it that violates the laws of physics as was the case with other papers on this topic. It's a good paper. The only problem seems to be in their use of terms, specifically the term "magnetic" when they talk about "reconnection". The helix shape they refer to is a direct result of the E component, and they seem to realize that fact. It's called a "Birkeland current" and it's a "classic" sign of circuits in plasma.</p><p>As far as I can tell, your authors and I only have a conflict at the term "magnetic" when they talk about reconnection. That's what I actually expected would occur with Priest's paper too. This paper did not try to simplify everything to B but did explicitly note the role of E. As far as I know they are accurately describing the physics of what happens during "circuit reconnection", in which case, IMO It's would be worthy of a Nobel prize in plasma physics. It should however be called "circuit reconnection" otherwise some translation will always be required, and individuals like yourself may percieve "magnetic reconnection" and "circuit reconnection" to somehow be different. I don't think your authors necessarily agree. I'd like to understand their position on this point. It seems like a criitical issue. If we both agree their math and physics are correct, then all we're discussing here is a use of terms and the confusion caused by a use of terms. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Cosmical Electrodynamics is a good book and is often referenced in the mainstream literature. What is amazing is that Mozina has not read this book, and bases all of his assertions on the later book Cosmic Plasma</DIV></p><p>Bzzt. Actually I own both books DrRocket, and I have at least read many parts of the earlier book. I tend to reference Cosmic Plasma however because it represents his work in EU theory and that is mostly what I diecuss online. It also represents an *evolution* in his understanding of plasma physics over the years, and he addresses many of the same issues we've been discussing online, including those "circuits" that you tried to claim were not associated with plasma physics. Gah!</p><p>FYI Cosmic Plasma is every bit as "scientific" and informative as his earlier work. The fact you won't bother to read it, yet attempt to play devils advocate against EU theory only makes you look absurd. You shouldn't be claiming that plasma doesn't have "wires" or "circuits". You should already understand these principles of plasma physics. I should not have to babysit you on these issues DrRocket. Circuits are *absolutely* a part of plasma physics. You shouldn't have the slightest doubt about this point and I should not have been required to correect you. The fact I always have to correct you makes you angry and it leads to a viscious cycle of hurt feelings. Go get a real education on EU theory if you expect to continue to debate me on the merits of EU theory. If you refuse to do that, you're forever going to be angry at me for having to correct your basic mistakes. It's irrational for you to do that and we're both paying a price for your stubborness. Our conversations should go a lot smoother, but when you claim circuits aren't a part of plasma physics, I want to scream. You don't have a clue what you're talking about when it comes to plasma in space because you've never read the book that actually explained it. You think you know something about plasma physics based on what you've read, but then you say outrageously false things all the time.</p><p>There are "wires" and "circuits" in plasma that are composed of twister-like moving filaments in the plasma. The z-pinch process is a direct result of the E field. The helix shape is a classic Birkeland current, something Birkeland himself wrote about over 100 years ago. I should not have to explain this to you, you should already know it based on the *free* PDF files I have provided you with. If you don't read them, I then have to continue to state the obvious, over and over and over again. It makes our conversations tedious and annoying for both of us.</p><p>At least read *all* his work if you're going to critique it. Otherwise you sound ridiculous. </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>
I've had a little bit to drink(give me a break, it's Florida football gameday), but I'd like to clarify something. What exactly is it you want me ask Birn? I'm not sure how to phrase the question. If I asked him, for example, "Can your work be explained mathematically as being equivalent to a circuit?" that would be pretty vague. If you'd like to email him yourself, it's just his name basically...edited out just to be safe now that he has already been emailed. Keep in mind english is not his first language(he's very german...I think, maybe bulgarian, something like that), so if you want to ask him something be explicit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've had a little bit to drink(give me a break, it's Florida football gameday), but I'd like to clarify something. What exactly is it you want me ask Birn? </DIV></p><p>I would like you to ask him it if would be equally valid to call this process "circuit reconnection" based on the importance of the E field in this particle physical kinetic energy transfer event. I don't see any problem in their presentation of this physical process, and I appreciate the fact that they understand the importance of the E field in these energy exchanges. I see that they seem to recognize the importance of the "stored kinetic energy" in the magnetic field and the kineitic energy transfier process going on inside the helix vortex that are caused by Birkeland currents. About the only thing I have an problem with is the use of the term "magnetic reconnection" only because it's not congruent with the importance of the E field and the importance of keeping all branches of science on the same page when it comes to uses of terms. I believe that it is scientifically valid to call the process the describe as "circuit reconnection", and I would like their opinion on that point. I can otherwise find no other "beef" with their presentation, and I appreicate the fine details of this presentation. IMO the only difference between us seems to be just as Yevuad first suspected, it's a simple difference of opinion about what this process should be called. </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>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've had a little bit to drink(give me a break, it's Florida football gameday),</DIV></p><p>FYI , I'm glad you are enjoying your weekend. 
Go Gators..... </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>
Go Gators..... </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><p>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080828172835.htm</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> A highly collimated jet, aligned with the spin axis of the pulsar and a bright radiating torus around the pulsar, are also seen. The Crab is known to accelerate electrons, and possibly other particles, to extremely high energies, both along the jet and around the torus, where they can be traced in the gamma-ray domain. </p><p>Looking into the heart of the neutron star with a gamma-ray telescope on the European Space Agency's INTEGRAL spacecraft orbiting Earth, the researchers made a detailed study of the high energy radiation to assess their polarization. They deduced that the majority of the gamma-rays are derived directly from the jet.</p> <p>They analysed data from over 600 individual observations of the Crab by the INTEGRAL spectrometer to assess the polarization of the gamma-rays and compared this data to the output from a sophisticated computer model.</p> <p><strong>The results show polarization with an electric vector aligned with the spin axis of the neutron star,</strong> demonstrating that a significant fraction of the high energy electrons responsible for the polarized photons are produced in a highly ordered structure close to the pulsar.</DIV></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>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 190
-
-
How 2024 brought us deeper into the world of particles- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
Mars opposition 2025: How to see the Red Planet at its biggest and brightest
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Question How Could Einstein Come Up With Quantum Entanglement
- Started by Space Hunter
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram