NASA denies report that Voyager left solar system

Mar 20, 2013 by Kerry Sheridan
Artist's concept of NASA's Voyager spacecraft. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

The US space agency on Wednesday denied a claim made in a scientific study that its Voyager 1 spacecraft had left the solar system, describing the report as "premature."

Scientists are eagerly awaiting signs that the craft, which was launched in 1977 on a mission to study planets, has become the first man-made object to leave the boundaries of our .

A scientific paper that purported to describe this departure appeared on the 's web site.

It said 1 "appears to have traveled beyond the influence of the Sun and exited the heliosphere," or the of charged particles that surround the solar system.

Researcher Bill Webber, one of the article's authors, acknowledged that the actual location of the spacecraft—whether in or just an unknown region beyond the solar system—remained a matter of debate.

"It's outside the normal , I would say that," said Webber, professor emeritus of astronomy at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, according to the AGU's web site.

"We're in a new region. And everything we're measuring is different and exciting."

Shortly after the study appeared, NASA spokesman Dwayne Brown told AFP the report was "premature and incorrect."

The Voyager science team reported in December 2012 the craft was in a new region called the "magnetic highway," but changes in the magnetic field to show a departure from the solar system have not yet been observed, NASA said.

"The Voyager team is aware of reports today that NASA's Voyager 1 has left the solar system," said Edward Stone, Voyager project scientist based at the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California.

"It is the consensus of the Voyager science team that Voyager 1 has not yet left the solar system or reached interstellar space," he said.

"A change in the direction of the magnetic field is the last critical indicator of reaching interstellar space and that change of direction has not yet been observed."

Voyager 1 and its companion Voyager 2 set off in 1977 on a mission to study planets. They have both kept going, and both are on track to leave the solar system, NASA has said.

For months, experts have been closely watching for hints that Voyager 1 has left the solar system and most have estimated that this will happen in the next year or two.

NASA has described Voyager 1—now 11 billion miles (18 billion kilometers) away from the Sun—and its companion Voyager 2 as "the two most distant active representatives of humanity and its desire to explore."

The Voyager craft are both carrying gold-plated phonograph records and cartridges on which to play them.

They contain 115 images of Earth life, sounds made by whales, thunder and surf, spoken greetings in various languages and printed messages from former US president Jimmy Carter and former UN chief Kurt Waldheim.

Explore further: Watch the Falcon 9 rocket booster descend into the ocean for its "soft" landing (w/ Video)

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Voyager 1 may have left the solar system

Oct 09, 2012

While there's no official word from NASA on this, the buzz around the blogosphere is that Voyager 1 has left the Solar System. The evidence comes from this graph, above, which shows the number of particles, ...

Signs changing fast for Voyager at solar system edge

Aug 03, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Two of three key signs of changes expected to occur at the boundary of interstellar space have changed faster than at any other time in the last seven years, according to new data from NASA's ...

Five things about NASA's Voyager mission

Apr 27, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Here are five facts about NASA's twin Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft, the longest continuously-operating spacecraft in deep space. The Voyagers were built by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in ...

Recommended for you

Heat testing the miniature Aausat 4 satellite

3 hours ago

The miniature Aausat satellite undergoes repeated temperature variations in a vacuum chamber, cooling the CubeSat to –10°C and heating it to +45°C for more than two weeks. This harsh baptism will make ...

New meteor shower "just a memory" of what once was there

4 hours ago

The weak display of last month's Camelopardalids meteor shower, the result of the close passage of comet 209P/LINEAR, may have disappointed backyard observers, but this never-before-seen shower now has scientists ...

New launch date set for ISS delivery vessel

20 hours ago

A robot ship will be launched from Kourou, French Guiana, after a five-day delay on July 29 to deliver provisions to the International Space Station, space transport firm Arianespace said Tuesday.

The heart of an astronaut, five years on

22 hours ago

The heart of an astronaut is a much-studied thing. Scientists have analyzed its blood flow, rhythms, atrophy and, through journal studies, even matters of the heart. But for the first time, researchers are ...

User comments : 101

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

vacuum-mechanics
1 / 5 (19) Mar 20, 2013
"A change in the direction of the magnetic field is the last critical indicator of reaching interstellar space and that change of direction has not yet been observed."


By the way, it is interesting to note that nowadays scientists still do not know what the interstellar magnetic field is! Maybe this physical view could help to understand…

http://www.vacuum...=7〈=en
alq131
2.3 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2013
They should read their own website dated 2010
http://voyager.jp...ary.html

"Voyager 1 has crossed into the heliosheath and is leaving the solar system, rising above the ecliptic plane at an angle of about 35 degrees at a rate of about 520 million kilometers (about 320 million miles) a year. Voyager 2 is also headed out of the solar system, diving below the ecliptic plane at an angle of about 48 degrees and a rate of about 470 million kilometers (about 290 million miles) a year."
d_robison
4.8 / 5 (13) Mar 20, 2013
They should read their own website dated 2010
http://voyager.jp...ary.html

"Voyager 1 has crossed into the heliosheath and is leaving the solar system...(about 290 million miles) a year."


This is stating that it is in the process of leaving...If one is in the process of leaving it means it has not left yet. When you are talking about astronomical distances leaving may take months.
MandoZink
4.8 / 5 (12) Mar 20, 2013
They should read their own website dated 2010

As far as I ever knew, the edge of the solar system is considered to be the heliosphere, which is where the solar system's influence ends. This is beyond the heliopause which is beyond the heliosheath. Voyager 1 was just recently reported to have enter the heliopause, still short of the actual heliosphere.

As far as the "leaving the solar system" statement in 2010, it was and still is. If I have departed my house to visit relatives across the country, I am definitely "leaving the state", but I am not "out of the state" until I actually drive across the state line. The heliosphere is one long damn drive away.
Telekinetic
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 20, 2013
"They contain 115 images of Earth life, sounds made by whales, thunder and surf, spoken greetings in various languages and printed messages from former US president Jimmy Carter and former UN chief Kurt Waldheim."

First Alien to the second Alien upon finding the messages: "Kurt Waldheim- wasn't he a Nazi?"
jmlvu
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2013
On the recording the whales are asking aliens to saw them from man.
Mayday
not rated yet Mar 20, 2013
Supposing a craft about the size of the Galileo probe, what is the maximum velocity such a craft could be slingshot out of the Solar System? Of course without getting too close to the Sun and getting fried.
StarGazer2011
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2013
isnt the Oort cloud further out than this, and isnt it part of the solar system?
katesisco
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2013
93 million equal 1 AU so rounding to 1 billion and V has traveled 11 billion. Wiki says size of Oort cloud varies :

The Oort cloud is thought to occupy a vast space from somewhere between 2,000 and 5,000 AU (0.03 and 0.08 ly)[12] to as far as 50,000 AU (0.79 ly)[3] from the Sun. Some estimates place the outer edge at between 100,000 and 200,000 AU (1.58 and 3.16 ly).[12]

So V has traveled 10 AU? Wish NASA would use comparable to Oort distances in pub info.
GSwift7
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2013
mayday:

Supposing a craft about the size of the Galileo probe, what is the maximum velocity such a craft could be slingshot out of the Solar System? Of course without getting too close to the Sun and getting fried.


You can't use the sun to slingshot away from the sun. Slingshots only work with planets. The mass of your spacecraft doesn't really matter unless it is actually massive enough to significantly slow a planet down (that would be BAD).

The most speed you can gain from a gravity assist is limited by the speed of the planet you use and how close you can get without its atmosphere slowing you down. However, there's another key limitation, since the gravity boost also gives you a change in direction. The planet will pull you along in the direction of its orbit, perpendicular to the direction away from the sun. The more boost you take, the more perpendicular you end up. Voyager 1 was lucky and got a nearly ideal boost due to planet alignments at that time.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Mar 21, 2013
93 million equal 1 AU so rounding to 1 billion and V has traveled 11 billion. Wiki says size of Oort cloud varies :

The Oort cloud is thought to occupy a vast space from somewhere between 2,000 and 5,000 AU (0.03 and 0.08 ly)[12] to as far as 50,000 AU (0.79 ly)[3] from the Sun. Some estimates place the outer edge at between 100,000 and 200,000 AU (1.58 and 3.16 ly).[12]

So V has traveled 10 AU? Wish NASA would use comparable to Oort distances in pub info.


Rounding 93,000,000 to 1,000,000,000???? COUNT YOUR ZEROS

Ya are off by a factor of more than 10. Saturn is only about 9.5 AU. Voyager more than a 120 AU away.

Heliosphere and Solar System are not synonymous terms. Most of the Oort Cloud is outside of the heliosphere, but still part of the solar system. The Sun's gravitational influence dominates space out to the point where P. Centori's gravitational influence becomes the greater of the two.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2013
The Sun's gravitational influence dominates space out to the point where P. Centori's gravitational influence becomes the greater of the two.


Dominates space? And here I thought you didn't have a favorite force...

GSwift7
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2013
Continued:

So, in answer to your question, the velocity of Voyager 1 is roughly our speed limit with existing technology. We could get something going a small percentage faster than V1 if simply going fast was a mission goal, but there are few reasons to do that. Maybe one day Red Bull will sponsor a spacecraft just to break the all time speed record? lol.

With our best current technology, even if you allow for development of a couple things we haven't engineered yet, but should be do-able, our best travel time to our nearest neighbors is somewhere between 1 and 2 thousand years. I assume that's what you were thinking about?

As for the boundary of our solar system, that's just a matter of how you want to define it. If you include the Oort Cloud as part of our solar system, that's like saying that a lunar lander is still in Earth orbit. It's technically still orbiting the Earth, after all. Once you get past the heliosheath, things don't change much till you get to another star.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (14) Mar 21, 2013
Dominates space? Blah, blah, blah...


Still struggling with language? Why don't ya take a break on the cutting edge TRUTH IN SCIENCE that ya are sharing with us and work on your basic language skills.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2013
You're right, maybe I should start with "dominate";

dom·i·nate (dm-nt)
v. dom·i·nat·ed, dom·i·nat·ing, dom·i·nates
v.tr.
1. To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power: Successful leaders dominate events rather than react to them.
2. To exert a supreme, guiding influence on or over: Ambition dominated their lives.
3. To enjoy a commanding, controlling position in: a drug company that dominates the tranquilizer market.
4. To overlook from a height: a view from the cliffside chalet that dominates the valley.
v.intr.
1. To have or exert strong authority or mastery.
ETC...

Well, that seems to be exactly what I expected the definition to be, and the others words you wrote seem pretty clear. Did you mean what you wrote, or is that the Picasso "abstract" style of writing? What you wrote is no different than the claims made by plasma physicists that; WITHIN A PLASMA, EM DOMINATES. Somewhere that obvious line of reasoning is lost on you.
GSwift7
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2013
Cantdrive:

Dominates space? And here I thought you didn't have a favorite force...


Oh come on, I think gravity is quite attractive, don't you?

Haha.

Of course, gravity isn't actually a force, but I know what you meant.
Q-Star
3.1 / 5 (15) Mar 21, 2013
You're right, maybe I should start with "dominate"

Blah, Blah, Blah,,,,

What you wrote is no different than the claims made by plasma physicists that; WITHIN A PLASMA, EM DOMINATES. Somewhere that obvious line of reasoning is lost on you.


Well if gravity wasn't out there dominating all those balls of plasma (the foolish call them comets) then there would be even more earthquakes and global warming to worry over than we have now. And it's gravity that keeps those balls of pure EM energy (the foolish call them asteroids) in check so we only have to deal with one mass extinction every few millions of years.

Ya should thank your lucky balls of non-neutral plasma (the foolish call them stars) the much overrated gravity manages to so much with so little ability.

If I had my choice, I'd rather live in a gravitational field than in a ball of plasma. (Oops, I got my wish, how's what ya are wishing for working out?)
GSwift7
2.8 / 5 (11) Mar 21, 2013
What you wrote is no different than the claims made by plasma physicists that; WITHIN A PLASMA, EM DOMINATES. Somewhere that obvious line of reasoning is lost on you.


Yeah, but since gravity isn't actually a force, it does things that EM (or any other force) can't do. For example the gravitational lensing caused by galaxy clusters. EM field cannot do that. EM also needs an active power source to be sustained or it is eventually consumed. Gravity, since it isn't actually a force, but in stead a property of space and time, isn't consumed when it acts on something. So yes, EM is more powerful than gravity in some ways, but it's only a force that acts within the framework of space and time, while gravity actually IS space and time.

In many ways, it's unfortunate that Newton ever described gravity as a force. It's still confusing people to this day, because most people think of gravity as a force. You can't understand it until you abandon that old mistake.
Infinion
1.7 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2013

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

straw man: creating a false scenario and then attacking it. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2013
Your inability to reason is astounding for someone who claims Caltech and Feynmann as a source of knowledge, well maybe not! You claim to not have a favorite force, but continuously apply the force of gravity to every situation regardless of the properties of the matter involved. I prefer to apply the appropriate forces where they apply; two non-plasma bodies, gravity; two charged bodies, EM.

If I had my choice, I'd rather live in a gravitational field than in a ball of plasma. (Oops, I got my wish, how's what ya are wishing for working out?)


Being that the heliosphere is in FACT a "ball" of plasma and we know for a FACT that EM DOMINATES within a plasma, I think your wish is as convoluted as your reasoning.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Mar 21, 2013
Your inability to reason is astounding for someone who claims Caltech and Feynmann as a source of knowledge,


I would worried if ya agreed with me.

You claim to not have a favorite force, but continuously apply the force of gravity to every situation regardless of the properties of the matter involved. I prefer to apply the appropriate forces where they apply; two non-plasma bodies, gravity; two charged bodies, EM.


But according to ya, only 0.000001% of the universe exists in neutral conditions.

Being that the heliosphere is in FACT a "ball" of plasma and we know for a FACT that EM DOMINATES within a plasma, I think your wish is as convoluted as you reasoning.


Well if that is the FACT that explains why I'm falling up, and the moon is moving in a straight line, and why Jupiter is speeding it's way to Andromeda.

How many electron ducks can habitate the same pond of aether (assuming the aether is pure plasma)?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2013

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

straw man: creating a false scenario and then attacking it. Painting your opponent with false colors only deflects the purpose of the argument.

Q is the master at both. Perfect example above. That's dark energy causing you to fall up off the Earth.
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2013
Being that the heliosphere is in FACT a "ball" of plasma and we know for a FACT that EM DOMINATES within a plasma, I think your wish is as convoluted as your reasoning


But your EM is chaotic/random, not uniform. You can actually 'listen' to it with a simple radio antena. The reason it sounds like static/white noise is because it is random. The massive currents you imagine have never been observed on the large scales you imply. Alfven himself admitted that it was a mistake to extrapolate the EM forces we observe on small scales in the sun up to interstellar scales. Your idea that features like the Grand Canyon could have been created by EM discharge is preposterous.
GSwift7
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2013
Qstar:

Well if that is the FACT that explains why I'm falling up, and the moon is moving in a straight line, and why Jupiter is speeding it's way to Andromeda.


You actually could describe an orbit as being a straight line through curved spacetime, but that may cause some brain damage.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2013
But your EM is chaotic/random

Do you mean the force of EM, or the particles that constitute the plasma? Regardless of your answer, plasma is not random, it is highly complex (beyond the cognition of astrophysicists), but is not random.
The massive currents you imagine have never been observed on the large scales you imply

Only if you ignore the data, the filamentary structures found throughout the Universe are exactly expected in a Plasma Universe.
Alfven himself admitted that it was a mistake to extrapolate the EM forces we observe on small scales in the sun up to interstellar scales.

This is a completely false statement, Alfven was one of the first to suggest the scalability of plasma, this is the foundation that Plasma Cosmology is based.
Your idea that features like the Grand Canyon could have been created by EM discharge is preposterous.

Well I guess since it's beyond your "imagination" it must be false? Your beliefs don't matter, just the data.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2013

You actually could describe an orbit as being a straight line through curved spacetime, but that may cause some brain damage.

You got it backwards, it's brain damage that allows one to think so oddly. Orbits about the Sun are helical or spiral as the Sun itself is on the move. Reality is 3D, not 2D.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2013
Do you mean the force of EM, or the particles that constitute the plasma? Regardless of your answer, plasma is not random, it is highly complex (beyond the cognition of astrophysicists), but is not random.


I know we've been over this ground before, but once again you have proven that you do not understand the nature of interstellar plasma in the vaccum of space.

The primary forces at work in the kind of plasma you are talking about are the gas laws that govern temperature, pressure and density. The largest effect of static electromagnetic charge will be in the form of chemistry, such as helping carbon form bonds with hydrogen. The net charge in space plasma should be neutral. The idea that there's some difference in voltage potential across interstellar or intergalactic space is totally unsuported by any evidence. You would need such a difference in potential in order to cause current flow. If that was actually the case, it would have observable effects. It does not.
Q-Star
3.3 / 5 (14) Mar 21, 2013
Qstar:

Well if that is the FACT that explains why I'm falling up, and the moon is moving in a straight line, and why Jupiter is speeding it's way to Andromeda.


You actually could describe an orbit as being a straight line through curved spacetime, but that may cause some brain damage.


I quite agree. I am of the school which uses the classical "gravity is force model" when dealing with big slow things,,,,,

And switch to the "gravity is a property of spacetime model" when dealing very, very big/very very fast things.

Sorry if I confused anyone. Some tools work best for one job, and less well for others. And then there are other tools which work best for the others, and less well for the one.
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2013
Oh how timely. Our good ol' friend, the Planck observatory, has just released another nail in the already closed, sealed, burried and decayed coffin of electric universe theory.

Notice the nice smooth galaxy, totally free of large electric current structures on galactic scales:

http://phys.org/n...rse.html

Your intergalactic cuttents would stand out on the Planck map like highways on an atlas, if they existed. Argument over. Done.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 21, 2013
Oh how timely. Our good ol' friend, the Planck observatory, has just released another nail in the already closed, sealed, burried and decayed coffin of electric universe theory.

Notice the nice smooth galaxy, totally free of large electric current structures on galactic scales:

http://phys.org/n...rse.html

Your intergalactic cuttents would stand out on the Planck map like highways on an atlas, if they existed. Argument over. Done.


It is timely. Penzias & Wilson convinced the really smart people. COBE brought in the average smart people, WMAP convinced the not so smart people, Planck it seems is left to working on the really really truly challenged people. Begs credulity.

Some people will not be convinced even if given a ride into interstellar & intergalactic space with their Radio Shack voltmeter.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2013
The primary forces at work in the kind of plasma you are talking about are the gas laws that govern temperature, pressure and density

Ummmm, no. Plasma is plasma and it will behave as such. You are unwittingly proving Alfven's assertion that those who are tasked with studying astrophysics don't have a clue.

The net charge in space plasma should be neutral.

I also know we've been over this before, space plasma is QUASI-neutral, it is unlike solids where the charges "cancel out".

The idea that there's some difference in voltage potential across interstellar or intergalactic space is totally unsuported by any evidence.

Unsupported only if you ignore such things as the Sun's heliosphere and differences in temperature (potential) in interstellar HI clouds, which totally contradicts your statement.

You would need such a difference in potential in order to cause current flow.

Alfven was clear that is exactly what will be expected in inhomogeneous plasmas.

GSwift7
3 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2013
I quite agree. I am of the school which uses the classical "gravity is force model" when dealing with big slow things,,,,,

And switch to the "gravity is a property of spacetime model" when dealing very, very big/very very fast things.


Too bad more people don't have a better grasp of physics. I'd really like to try getting out of a speeding ticket by pointing out that there's no such thing as instantaneous speed, as the speed of anything at any given quanta of time, is by definition zero. Therefore, the police officer's decision to pick an arbitrary pair of quanta and average my change of position between those two times is unfair. It should be equally valid to choose any two other points in time and do the average change in distance between them, therefore my speed is entirely arbitrary and cannot be measured emperically. :)

Besides that, my exact position at any time is equally arbitrary and I'm lucky I haven't popped out of existence entirely.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 21, 2013
Unsupported only if you ignore such things as the Sun's heliosphere and differences in temperature (potential) in interstellar HI clouds, which totally contradicts your statement.


@ cantdrive,,,

I'm asking in good faith, not my usually smarty alex way of such,,,

Was that quote I pasted above accurate? Is that what ya really mean to write?

If it is would ya explain what ya mean by temperature potential? I'm not arguing with it, but it's new to me, I think.

Also the HI, HI is neutral atomic hydrogen.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2013
Oh how timely. Our good ol' friend, the Planck observatory, has just released another nail in the already closed, sealed, burried and decayed coffin of electric universe theory.

Notice the nice smooth galaxy, totally free of large electric current structures on galactic scales:

http://phys.org/n...rse.html

Your intergalactic cuttents would stand out on the Planck map like highways on an atlas, if they existed. Argument over. Done.

Assuming the CMB is as what is proposed, assumption is not a problem for you is it?
One fact is the the Universe is currently filamentary and cellular, just as one would expect from plasma.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2013
Unsupported only if you ignore such things as the Sun's heliosphere and differences in temperature (potential) in interstellar HI clouds, which totally contradicts your statement.


That's exactly the falacy I'm talking about. You're looking at things we know happen in small scales like the Sun or a planetary nebula, and extrapolating those things to interstellar and intergalactic scales without any evidence to support such an idea, and in contradiction to all the evidence which says it isn't true.

The Planck observations I linked just above prove you wrong. If you still think these imaginary currents are real, then you are tilting with windmills.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2013
If it is would ya explain what ya mean by temperature potential?

Were talking plasma here, correct? In plasma, what does temp (measured in ev) imply? Total energy? Two adjacent plasmas of different temps will have different potential, as such a current will be expected. This is the meaning of Alfven's comment about inhomoegeous plasmas.

Also the HI, HI is neutral atomic hydrogen

Yes, but as Gerrit Verschuur has shown, those HI clouds are in fact plasma contrary to the "neutral" claims. The filamentary and cellular features along with the magnetic fields and radiation emitted prove conclusively they are not "neutral" clouds.
GSwift7
3 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2013
Unsupported only if you ignore such things as the Sun's heliosphere and differences in temperature (potential) in interstellar HI clouds, which totally contradicts your statement


Any such differences in potential instantaneously self-equalize, as they are governed by Maxwell's laws. This is fairly basic stuff. The density can be very accurately calculated using the balance between gravity/pressure and temperature. Without gravity it would simply disperse, and without Maxwell Boltzman distribution properties, it would collapse.

You know, if you don't believe me, you can look all this up on wiki.

I know your next point. You're going to try to claim that the movement of plasma is a current, but it isn't. It's not being driven by Ohm's law and won't follow that equation. It isn't what we define as a current if you can't calculate the voltage potential and resistance as exact fractions. This is simple gas law mechanics at work. Not electric current.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2013
Unsupported only if you ignore such things as the Sun's heliosphere and differences in temperature (potential) in interstellar HI clouds, which totally contradicts your statement.


That's exactly the falacy I'm talking about.
The Planck observations I linked just above prove you wrong. If you still think these imaginary currents are real, then you are tilting with windmills.


HI clouds are some of the largest structures known, yet display such phenomenon. Intergalactic "jets" are observed from most galaxies in one wavelength or another, jets that exhibit all the morphology of said currents. Then there is the position and movement of galactic clusters that cannot be easily explained w/o inventing DM. The rotation of galaxies is another example, simply applying the proper considerations of interacting plasmas and their EM fields plainly describes observed motions. There is volumes of evidence that EM fields operate on such scales, but denial is a powerful foe of truth.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2013
Any such differences in potential instantaneously self-equalize, as they are governed by Maxwell's laws. This is fairly basic stuff.

We're talking about plasma, not solids. Your ignorance of plasma is your downfall, please, I implore you to educate yourself to basic plasma physics.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 21, 2013
Were talking plasma here, correct? In plasma, what does temp (measured in ev) imply? Total energy? Two adjacent plasmas of different temps will have different potential, as such a current will be expected. This is the meaning of Alfven's comment about inhomoegeous plasmas.


Uuuuh, OK. So ya using temperature potential as one would use voltage potential, meaning difference? Are ya suggesting that electric potential & a difference in absolute temperature are one thing? Or analogous to each other?

Yes, but as Gerrit Verschuur has shown, those HI clouds are in fact plasma contrary to the "neutral" claims. The filamentary and cellular features along with the magnetic fields and radiation emitted prove conclusively they are not "neutral" clouds.


Vershuur SUGGESTED that. I will admit his credentials/level of learning. But much of his work is considered "fringe", way out of the conventional.To describe his work as "has shown" and "prove conclusively" is just a tad to strong.
GSwift7
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2013
We're talking about plasma, not solids. Your ignorance of plasma is your downfall, please, I implore you to educate yourself to basic plasma physics


With all due respect, which isn't much, you are the one who does not understand the nature of the plasma you are talking about. This hot plasma in the vaccum of space has almost nothing in common with dense plasmas that you see in laboratories here on earth or around the sun.

Why did you bring a solid into this? I'm specifically telling you that your plasma is mainly moving due to the rules of temperature and pressure in a vaccum. The fact that some of the particles are charged is so insignificant that it can be ignored in order to reach a really good approximation of the net motions and properties. Once again, we're back to me explaining to you about all the little atoms whizzing around and bouncing off one another at a million kelvin. This is gas law mechanics.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2013
Any such differences in potential instantaneously self-equalize, as they are governed by Maxwell's laws. This is fairly basic stuff.

This is not the case, when you have two adjacent plasmas with differing potential, a double layer will form, instantaneously. That double layer will have an electric field and a current will arise to begin the process of "equalization" of the two plasmas. This is a well established FACT established countless times in the laboratory starting with Birkeland and Langmuir over a hundred years ago. These are exactly the types of "plasma concepts" that have been known for many years that caused Alfven to state the comment about astrophysicists not knowng their ass from a hole in the ground.
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2013
This is not the case, when you have two adjacent plasmas with differing potential, a double layer will form, instantaneously. That double layer will have an electric field and a current will arise


See, there you go again. Once again, you have forgotten that you are talking about plasma in space, and not dense plasma in a lab or in the sun. The clouds in interstellar space are so dispersed that there's only a few atoms per square mile. And once again, I'd like to point out that the temperature of those atoms is a measure of the average speed of the atoms. They bounce around like billiard balls against each other in random directions. They are moving too fast and are too chaotic to form the organized structures you're talking about. The only situations where those double layers appear is when the plasma is dense and cool enough to allow it, such as around Saturn, the Sun or in a lab. Gas pressure/temperature determines the structures in space.
rubberman
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2013
GS7 - The average atomic density in space is 1 per cm3 for hydrogen.

http://hypertextb...ai.shtml

Although it is an average, it isn't uniformly distributed. Even the matter/energy at this sparse concentration still organizes structurally. If it didn't then the REALLY big picture wouldn't look like this:

http://www.window...ogy.html

Not enough density for measurable current to flow in most regions, definitely filamentary and cellular in appearance...from a perspective millions of light years out.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2013
That's quite the claim that something is what it is not. Please point me in the direction of the peer-reviewed paper that supports your claim. I won't hold my breath. It's funny you bring that point up, some astrophysicists try to force Alfve'sn MHD to explain the dispersed inter-stellar/galactic plasma, Alfven used his Nobel speech to warn against such a thing. He was quite clear that MHD was not appropriate for this situation, for this you are correct. However, this is not to say that plasma is not plasma.
Here are a couple papers that discuss the plasmas you claim are not really plasmas;
http://www.plasma...cesI.pdf

Many astrophysicists try to force the square peg of gas laws into the round hole of plasma physics, is it any wonder why the need for inventing things such as dark matter, I think not.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2013
Gas pressure/temperature determines the structures in space.


If interstellar/galactic space is in fact plasma, which there is little or no debate, then you absolutely must consider the electrodynamic/electromagnetic properties of that plasma along with other variables. The gas laws you insist must be used ignores these properties are incomplete in describing the full properties of such matter.
GSwift7
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2013
However, this is not to say that plasma is not plasma.
Here are a couple papers that discuss the plasmas you claim are not really plasmas


Wow, you really don't understand the basics of fluid dynamics? Plasma acts the same as a gas in terms of fluid dynamics. It will expand to fill any space it occupies and in a situation where its volume is not constrained, its density will be a function of temperature. Saying that plasma follows Maxwell's gas laws doesn't mean plasma isn't plasma. Plasma is nothing more than super-heated gas; it is just a special type of gas where the atoms are so hot that they lose their outer electrons. It is not incorrect to call plasma an ionized gas, so get over yourself about that. In most laboratory plasma experiments, and in flourescent lightbulbs, the gas is ionized by electric currents and/or magnetic fields in stead of heating it.
GSwift7
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2013
rubberman:

GS7 - The average atomic density in space is 1 per cm3 for hydrogen.


Thanks; I missed that. I meant meter, not mile. BTW, that density of 1/cm3 isn't for intergalactic space. That's the estimate for the space in the spiral arm of a galaxy. The space between spiral arms is 0.1/cm3, and the filaments that connect galaxies is thinner than that. When Cantdrive talks about intergalactic currents, he's talking about the filaments. I can't find any density numbers, but a few atoms per meter sounds about right.

I frankly can't imagine what he thinks would generate a current in the filaments, or how the filaments would still exist if there was a current. I guess he thinks that plasma is magical and can generate its own current spontaneously and it just keeps going without any energy input, like a giant perpetual motion machine. Same goes for planetary orbits; if they are electrical they would have stopped ages ago.
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2013
This is the crux of Alfven's statement;

"Students using astrophysical textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of plasma concepts, despite the fact that some of them have been known for half a century. The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of astrophysicists who have gotten their main knowledge from these textbooks. Earthbound and space telescope data must be treated by scientists who are familiar with laboratory and magnetospheric physics and circuit theory, and of course with modern plasma theory."
[Lamenting the traditional neglect of plasma physics]
— Hannes Alfvén

You clearly don't have a clue, fluid dynamics is to be applied to gas. Plasma, which is a DISTINCT STATE OF MATTER, is far more complex than gas and fluid dynamics comes woefully short in explaining the behavior. Please, once again, point me in the direction to the peer reviewed paper that suggests that plasma should not behave as plasma should. Basics, basics!
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2013
Oh how timely. Our good ol' friend, the Planck observatory, has just released another nail in the already closed, sealed, burried and decayed coffin of electric universe theory.

Notice the nice smooth galaxy, totally free of large electric current structures on galactic scales:

http://phys.org/n...rse.html

Your intergalactic cuttents would stand out on the Planck map like highways on an atlas, if they existed. Argument over. Done.


Once again, an ill-informed statment, what a surprise!

These findings support the predictions of the Plasma Universe proposed by Anthony Peratt. This from his paper 'Plasma Cosmology II': "In an infinite universe of filamentary plasma, the microwave background from synchrotron sources would necessarily be very smooth." Peratt

http://www.plasma...mp;I.pdf

Funny, exactly what was observed, another prediction confirmed!
rubberman
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2013
@ GS - Watching the back and forth between you and CD, you're both correct in specific instances. Fluid dynamics can't apply to plasma at the concentrations we find in interstellar space. There the motions are dictated by charge and the pervading magnetic fields. In denser plasma flows, fluid dynamics and the Maxwellian interpretation play a much larger part. CD, you can follow the structures from the surface of the sun out past the Heliosphere in the plasma and actually see fluid dynamics in the structures, they go from waves and filaments to small "bubbles" which get larger as the particle density drops.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2013
Rub,
You are correct that some of the morphology of plasma interactions resemble the properties of fluid dynamics, however in plasma those properties are driven by the electrodynamics of the plasmas involved. As a matter of fact, due to advances in plasma physics we have a much more refined understanding of fluid dynamics, not the other way around.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2013
You clearly don't have a clue, fluid dynamics is to be applied to gas. Plasma, which is a DISTINCT STATE OF MATTER, is far more complex than gas and fluid dynamics comes woefully short in explaining the behavior


That depends on the properties of the plasma in question. For a given plasma it will act more like an ideal gas and follow the rules of statistical mechanics and fluid dynamics as the temperature gets higher and/or the density gets lower. A very difuse plasma at high temperature can be treated almost exactly as though it is an ideal gas. There are some plasma characteristics, but they are so weak under these conditions that they may be ignored. Fussing over the difference between a gas and a plasma under these conditions is similar to my humorous post earlier in regard to the orbit of the moon. The true orbit of the moon must be calculated with GR, but the Newtonian results are so close that it doesn't matter. Space plasma is like this in regard to thermodynamics.
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2013
Obviously, that is your claim, and that is all it is, is a claim. I have asked over and over again to provide something peer-reviewed to support your claim. To no avail. Just the same reaction of plasma isn't really a plasma. Until you provide some evidence to support your claim i will use a little nugget you have used on me before, STFU until you come with evidence!
GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2013
Watching the back and forth between you and CD, you're both correct in specific instances. Fluid dynamics can't apply to plasma at the concentrations we find in interstellar space. There the motions are dictated by charge and the pervading magnetic fields. In denser plasma flows, fluid dynamics and the Maxwellian interpretation play a much larger part.


You have it backwards. The more dense the plasma, the less it acts like an ideal gas. This is because plasma at higher density will have more EM interactions between particles per unit volume. With temperature, it acts more like an ideal gas at lower temperatures. The third factor that determines whether a plasma may be treated as an ideal gas is the % of ionization.

Earth's ionosphere is relatively cool and dense, which should make it act like a plasma more than a gas, but it is only partially ionized. In the daytime, it becomes more ionized and does things like radio wave difraction, as a plasma will do, but not at night
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2013
Perhaps a better example of gas acting more like plasma at higher density would be a flourescent lightbulb. They fill them with gas at elevated pressure to get them to work, which is why they pop when you break them.
GSwift7
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2013
Okay, here's a chart from a source you should trust. Hannes Alfven made this chart which compares the properties of different kinds of plasma to ideal gas.

Take a look at the chart titled "Classification of Magnetic Cosmic Plasmas" about 2/3 down the page. The far right column is the properties of an ideal gas, and the one next to it "low density plasma" is the kind of plasma in interstellar space. Notice they are almost identical in every way. Also notice the bottom row titled "Magnetohydrodynamics suitability". That property is whether the plasma will respond to magnetic fields or not. For low density plasmas the answer is "no". That's straight from Hannes Alfven.

http://en.wikiped...eristics

That chart should provide proof regarding my assertion that Rubberman had it backwards regarding density also.
rubberman
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2013
"Fluid models are often accurate when collisionality is sufficiently high to keep the plasma velocity distribution close to a Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution. Because fluid models usually describe the plasma in terms of a single flow at a certain temperature at each spatial location, they can neither capture velocity space structures like beams or double layers, nor resolve wave-particle effects..." Wiki

Yeah I know it's wiki but it is accurate, the collisionality drops as the plasma density drops: " The Vlasov equation may be used to describe the dynamics of a system of charged particles interacting with an electromagnetic field...."

The Vlasov equation describes "long range" interaction in plasma.

You had me second guessing myself on that one because it has been quite awhile since researched this....but I was pretty sure.

Increasing the density until current flows is a world all it's own. But a really cool one to image when and where it happens using todays tech.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2013
Until you provide some evidence to support your claim i will use a little nugget you have used on me before, STFU until you come with evidence!


???
rubberman
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2013
As Q likes to remind me, we have to consider all of the variables. Temperature, charge, energy density...... It would seem as though there are ranges where the various theories apply that aren't constrained simply to the plasma density...

(EDIT) And you also stated this above....sorry
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2013
You had me second guessing myself on that one because it has been quite awhile since researched this....but I was pretty sure


It's been a really fun couple of days looking stuff up here too. There's surprising few sources of simple basic information regarding this topic.

Yeah, your quote seems to be saying the opposite of Alfven's chart. I wonder what circumstances are different between each situation? I'm guessing the source you quoted is talking about plasma that is way more dense than interstellar plasma. I can see how that would make sense. Perhaps the fluid dynamic behavior peaks at both ends of the density spectrum, but the electrohydrodynamic behavior seems to drop off to nothing at extremely low density and high temperature. Perhaps that's the reason for the aparent conflict?

BTW cantdrive, I think you have me confused with someone else about that STFU comment. I don't ever recall treating you like that. I don't say stuff like that often. Maybe antialias?
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2013
Shoot rubberman, I've been second guessing myself over this stuff all the way through the thread. You wouldn't believe how many times I wrote posts and then deleted them before I posted them because I remembered some other factor that might come into play. Then I would spend a couple hours reading stuff and writing a completely different post. I had some technical paper from the Department of Energy about waves in dense plasma torroids with me at lunch time. I didn't find a single bit of what I was looking for, but it was a good read. lol
rubberman
2 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2013
Agreed GS. The variables contributing to bulk motion of plasma and it's differing reaction to each varible create quite the complex range of behaviours. The electron/ion density in space plasma was one of the first things I ever looked up because I wanted to see if current could actually be produced....the answer was no unless a powerful enough magnetic field could accelerate them....sorry CD.
Infinion
1 / 5 (4) Mar 22, 2013
GSwift7: Your idea that features like the Grand Canyon could have been created by EM discharge is preposterous.


Why is it preposterous? What evidence would make it preposterous compared to the geologic abduction that all sinuous channels are formed by flowing liquids? Let's entertain the question.

The Colorado River is held generally responsible for carving out the Grand Canyon through erosion over an unimaginable time-frame.

What caused the Colorado River to make several right-angle turns in its journey to the sea?

The Colorado River flows west from the Rockies and encounters a raised plateau known as the Kaibab Upwarp. Instead of turning away from that barrier it continues through the plateau. How could it do that?
The river is much younger than the Kaibab Upwarp so at one point it would have been necessary for the river to flow uphill while punching through a stoney mountain range, which could not have progressively cut the Canyon even if the land rose very slowly.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Mar 22, 2013
alq has difficulty comprehending the difference between the words "leaving" and "left".

"They should read their own website dated 2010" - alq

Remedial education is his best choice.
Infinion
1 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2013
Where did the eroded soil go? According to the Grand Canyon Symposium 2000, there are 140 to 160 Ma worth of the canyon's missing strata.

There is also a lack of a delta. Why is there no accumulation of sediment in the Sea of Cortez downstream?
Earth aside, sinuous channels (aka 'rilles') are found on several planets and moons where flowing liquids are absent, like
Valles Marineris on mars http://muse.jpl.n...3500.jpg
Noting that major volcanic features are lacking, as well as the prior abandoned idea that it was formed by water erosion since evidence for it and ponding are missing
Europa http://math.ucr.e...ropa.jpg
http://photojourn...1664.jpg
Rimae Aristarchus on the Moon http://astromacie...bp_3.jpg

Noting the braided Lichtenberg figures surrounding the crater, extending outward for a hundred kilometers
And Tycho http://i.imgur.com/XTyx33E.jpg
Infinion
1 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2013
Ganymede http://education....ede3.gif
http://pds.jpl.na...limb.jpg
Enceladus http://www.paulan...eb05.jpg
And back to Earth http://loveopium....n/24.jpg

If sinuous rilles were formed by electric discharge machining, we should see similar features in scaled-down versions of them. and we do, in uncontrolled EDM like in electric treeing, tracking, and partial discharges.
Extensive tracking within a cast resin circuit breaker spout http://www.eatech...5984.jpg
Partial Discharge activity http://www.eatech...05d8.jpg
Lichtenberg figure scars by lightning http://ist1-2.fil...lit6.jpg
From an anode http://k34.kn3.ne.../5C8.jpg
Electrical Treeing http://www.youtub...v0_4sw78
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2013
GS, you're correct about the STFU, I confused you with someone else and many apologies indeed. I would suggest you check this video out of Bill Nichols of the NWS. Mr. Nichols spent his career first in the military then in government research projects at the highest levels. It's not entirely pertinent to the discussion other than the analog of accounting for the electrical nature of Earth's environment and atmosphere in dealing with problems such as nuclear explosions, stealth, SDI, etc.. Those same aspects are overlooked if the electrodynamics of the particles are not accounted for. Point being, sure I agree, you can get real close to the expected values in certain situations if you use the laws you describe. However, take a large scale example of a galaxy, in the standard model you need to add DM to account for the observed discrepancies, and it's not just a little, it requires orders more matter than what is observable. (con't)

http://www.youtub...o4WJJL90
Infinion
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2013
There are countless other sources of pictorial evidence on the internet as well as other accounts of crater formation and close to every other geologic feature. But I digress, considering the environments that these features exist in, it is 'perposterous' to assume that all sinuous channels are formed from flowing liquids.
Q-Star
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 22, 2013
Where did the eroded soil go? According to the Grand Canyon Symposium 2000,


A good place to stop reading, if ya realize that if ya Google "Grand Canyon Symposium 2000" you'd get a mixed bag or returns, some legit with an extra word between Canyon & Symposium. But I suspect that ya are meaning THE "Grand Canyon Symposium 2000"? The one held by the "Electric Universe" people?

There is NO peer reviewed work that even hints at the evidence ya offer up for the "Grand Canyon was formed by electricity theory". There is not a rational mechanism offered up for it.

The simplest answer is probably correct. Gravity pulled raindrops down from the sky, and the water flowed from higher elevations to lower, wearing down the surface as it did so, some rock was softer or denser than other rock, the water followed the path of least resistance (meandered to the literary minded). All the while, fault lines helped decide various tracks, and did the wind patterns, & a billion years later,,,
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2013
(con't)
P-I-C simulations of interacting plasmas gives a very accurate model of galaxy formation and evolution right down to the particle jets observed in many galaxies, without any need for DM. If you don't account for the entirety of the properties of the plasma, you will indeed need to invent a invisible and as yet undetectable matter to hold it all together. Then again, you can account for the full range of the properties of the plasma (electrodynamics as well) and the need to invent something to account for the observations simply evaporates. I'm choosing to side with Occam on this one and simply admit that applying the known principles to the matter in consideration will allows us to keep it simple stupid.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2013
There is not a rational mechanism offered up for it.

There's those beliefs popping up again. Since when is science rational? The mechanism very definitely exists, all of those features are produced on a daily basis in our modern society using plasma technologies (EDM, etc). Your "rational" belief system has determined it can't happen on those scales, that's the only discrepancy. The evidence is all around, drive around the Four Corners region including the Grand Canyon and really analyze the morphology of the entire region. It's quite clear that many of the explanations of the various geological features cannot fit as well as EDM.
Infinion
1 / 5 (2) Mar 22, 2013
A good place to stop reading, if you realize that if you Google "Grand Canyon Symposium 2000" you'd get a mixed bag or returns


Yeah I realize that, there's a lot of creationist mumbo jumbo from that source. They may draw their own conclusions but they weren't the only source saying that the strata was missing.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikiped...e_Canyon

who references [26] is Kiver, Eugene P.; Harris, David V. (1999). Geology of U.S. Parklands (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-33218-6

which is a reputable scholarly source that says the same thing.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2013
[26] is Kiver, Eugene P.; Harris, David V. (1999). Geology of U.S. Parklands (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-33218-6

which is a reputable source that says the same thing.


I agree, Kiver is a very reputable source, but I disagree that he says the same thing. He DOES NOT offer the electrical stuff as a mechanism. He DOES NOT even suggest it. He DOES NOT even hint at it. He offers "poorly understood conditions", "inadequate data", "so far undiscovered" as the reasons for the "missing strata".

It's disingenuous to offer him as supporting the electrical stuff created the Grand Canyon. He doesn't. And he never has.
Infinion
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2013


It's disingenuous to offer him as supporting the electrical stuff created the Grand Canyon. He doesn't. And he never has.


I never said he was supporting the 'electrical stuff', when I said they were saying the same thing, I was referring to the acknowledgement of the missing strata.

What are your thoughts on the rest of what I posted?
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (11) Mar 22, 2013
What are your thoughts on the rest of what I posted?


Honestly? To be honest I will first have to acknowledge that this is a field I am greatly lacking in. So I can only offer quasi-informed "opinion".

I would think that the Grand Canyon is best explained in purely geological terms. Water erosion, wind erosion, former seabed conditions, gravity, material distribution, fault & seismic activity, and 100's of millions of years.

That sounds, feels better, then some super-duper, never before documented, totally un-modeled, mother-of-all lightening bolts. That begs my credulity.

But as I say, it's not my field, so the best I can say is: I just can't believe electricity could/would do it. I won't say NO, just I don't think so.
Q-Star
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 22, 2013
There is not a rational mechanism offered up for it.

There's those beliefs popping up again. Since when is science rational?


With all due respect cantdrive, rational science has been around continually since the first person ever threw a rock at someone/something. And it's gotten more rational every year since.

The mechanism very definitely exists, all of those features are produced on a daily basis in our modern society using plasma technologies (EDM, etc). Your "rational" belief system has determined it can't happen on those scales, that's the only discrepancy.


I agree with ya on that one. Yes, it is the scale that prevents me from rationally accepting it. That is the difference between ya and me. I don't say it CAN NOT be that way, only that as I far as I know it is UNLIKELY to be that way. Not ya, not me, nor anyone else has ever documented geo-electrical event that could make a feature 0.001 the size of the Grand Canyon.
Q-Star
3 / 5 (16) Mar 22, 2013
There's those beliefs popping up again. Since when is science rational?


P.S. cantdrive, let me take this opportunity to publicly apologize for my demeanor of the past. As much as we disagree we can still try to be more civil.

For me it was the blanket, broad brush statements that astrophysicists don't know/don't study/completely ignore/completely ignorant, that set me off. I apologize for responding in the extreme.

Ya needn't be so hard, so categorical with the astrophysical community. There are hundreds, thousands of dedicated astrophysicists that have spent decades, entire careers studying nothing else but plasma-electromagnetic-electrodynamics aspects of astrophysics. It's true. All I would of ya ask is give them a fair chance. Give some modicum of respect for the years and effort they have devoted to the study of your favored phenomena as it applies to astrophysics. Maybe they disagree with ya but they worked hard, very hard at what they do. It's not an easy endeavor.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (3) Mar 22, 2013
wow, lots of activity since my last post. I'd really like to address several pieces in there, but it's gonna take multiple posts and I have a birthday party to get to in a bit. I'll try to respond either tonight or tomorrow.

The things about the Grand Canyon are a fruitful topic. First, glaciers played a prominent role. Next, wind will erode and cary the material away without a delta. Much of the grand canyon is shaped by wind. Next, expansion and contraction of the surface of the earth in response to multiple ice sheets that covered large parts of that continent continue to cause rift valleys to this day. The Vallis Marinaris on Mars that you mentioned was formed by a crack in the crust as mars cooled. BTW, when you said that there's no volcanic activity on Mars, please be aware that Olympus Mons (on Mars), is the largest volcano in the entire solar system. It basically sticks up beyond the atmosphere of Mars, or near enough. So no, Mars hasn't always been geologically dead.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 22, 2013
If you have ever seen the Delaware Water Gap, you'll see how glaciers and geological activity can provide a path for a river to form right in the middle of a mountain ridge. Look that one up, it's an amazing feature that almost defies reason. And that one goes through granite bedrock, not soft limestone sediment.

There are all kinds of things that seem odd in Noth America due to the ice ages and changes to land elevation. Right now, the central US is still expanding from the last ice age and North/South cracks are forming all over the place, such as the faults in the St Louis area. If the Missouri river finds its way into one of those cracks, it will change the geography vastly.

The entire central US was an ocean in the last interglacial. If you go to any freeway cutout in Kansas, you'll see all kinds of marine fossils in the rocks. The river delta from the grand canyon could be burried by many layers of sediment now, and it could now be under Phoenix or Las Vegas.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2013
cantdrive:

sure I agree, you can get real close to the expected values in certain situations if you use the laws you describe. However, take a large scale example of a galaxy, in the standard model you need to add DM to account for the observed discrep


Yeah, I'm not fond of the bandaid term of DM. That doesn't justify throwing the baby out with the bath water though. As Alfven's chart I linked to earlier shows, interstellar and intergalactic plasma isn't capable of conduting, so no current flow. That is completely proven fact. There's no current flow in the intergalactic plasma.

So that leaves us with an open question about why galaxies seem to rotate as rigid structures in stead of differentially as they should, and accounting for the apparent missing mass. I'm betting on mis-interpretation of observations and small differences in constants. If our estimate of absolute brightness of quasars is off, that could solve the whole paradox of missing mass. Occam's razor stuff there
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2013
GS,
According to Alfven's chart, intergalactic and interstellar plasmas land in the "medium density" range. In addition to that, note at the top of the chart where it denotes in the plasma columns, "Note that density does not refer to only particle density". They are pointing out how charge density is also significant, it is discussed further in 'Cosmical Electrodynamics'. Anthony Peratt, Alfven's protege', along with Gerritt Verschuur and several others have written several papers on currents flowing in both interstellar and intergalactic space. The filamentary, cellular, knotty, magnetic, and radiative properties of a current flowing in plasma are all present, on unimaginable scales. Once this realization is accepted, accepting whether planetary electric discharge is possible becomes a whole lot more palatable.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2013
BTW, when you said that there's no volcanic activity on Mars, please be aware that Olympus Mons (on Mars), is the largest volcano in the entire solar system.

Well, it kinda looks like a volcano, except when you really analyze the morphology on the entire mountain and region. A closer examination reveals it has all the characteristics of a fulgamite or lightning blister on an immense scale.

http://www.thunde...mons.htm
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2013
P.S. cantdrive, let me take this opportunity to publicly apologize for my demeanor of the past. As much as we disagree we can still try to be more civil.

No problem, I post here in the hope for honest discussion of the topic o' the day. Occasionally due to the standard response proffered by many to my opinions I respond with sass and sarcasm, it's what I do , I'm human and fallible.
However, many of those astrophysicists studying plasma concepts are not employing a complete knowledge of plasma physics. Magnetic reconnection is a perfect example, it is a reinvention (poor one at that) of a previously described phenomenon, discovered by Alfven. That mechanism is caused by an interruption of the current in the circuit, when that happens the total energy of the circuit is released in a catastrophically explosive event. Alfven and others postulated in the 60's this theory, apparently not noticed by others.
http://garfield.l...0001.pdf
MandoZink
5 / 5 (3) Mar 23, 2013
Perhaps a better example of gas acting more like plasma at higher density would be a flourescent lightbulb. They fill them with gas at elevated pressure to get them to work, which is why they pop when you break them.

Bad example. The pressure in a fluorescent bulb is very low - about 0.3% of atmospheric pressure. Really.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2013
So that leaves us with an open question about why galaxies seem to rotate as rigid structures in stead of differentially as they should, and accounting for the apparent missing mass.
You must know I have an answer for you. As retired Professor of Electrical Engineering Don Scott wrote:
"In 1986, Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven postulated both an electrical galactic model and an electric solar model. Recently physicist Wal Thornhill has pointed out that Alfven's circuits are really scaled up versions of the familiar homopolar motor that serves as the watt-hour meter on each of our homes. The simple application of the Lorentz force equation ('crossing' the direction, v, of the current into the direction, B, of the magnetic field) yields a rotational force. Not only does this effect explain the mysterious tangential velocities of the outer stars in galaxies, but also (in scaled down version) the observed fact that our Sun rotates faster at its equator than at higher (solar) latitudes."
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Mar 23, 2013
However, many of those astrophysicists studying plasma concepts are not employing a complete knowledge of plasma physics.


cantdrive that is just not true. They are employing everything known about plasma physics to their work.

What ya should say is "they are reaching different conclusions than I do". They disagree with ya.

They have worked on their field of study for years, many have dedicated decades to the study of astrophysical plasmas. It's an entire sub-discipline of study. They (or any scientist worth the name) uses ALL the available knowledge to shape their work. The most ya can say is most of them have reached different conclusions based on the available information.

Alfven and others postulated in the 60's this theory, apparently not noticed by others.


"Not noticed" & "not supported by consensus" are not the same thing. The later is true, the former is not true. His work was noticed, he's a Nobel Laureate.

"disagrees with" isn't the same as "ignorant of"
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2013
The ignorance lies in the inability to truly understand the concepts. The whole notion of reconnection is pseudo-science. There are no "lines" to reconnect, it is a field which is either there or not. Such is an example of the ignorance of the concepts involved. As I said, the mechanism is in place it is just not acknowledged. Ironically, Alfven got his Nobel 30 years after he wrote his paper, in the mean time he was ridiculed and ignored, as is the case to this day.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (13) Mar 23, 2013
The ignorance lies in the inability to truly understand the concepts. The whole notion of reconnection is pseudo-science. There are no "lines" to reconnect, it is a field which is either there or not. Such is an example of the ignorance of the concepts involved. As I said, the mechanism is in place it is just not acknowledged.


Wouldn't it be just as true for me to say: Only 1% of the astrophysical community and only 10% of the plasma physics community accept the Plasma Universe model. That small percentage study controlled plasma in the lab and assume that it must be the same in nature without learning the complete astrophysical subject. We are fortunate that such a small percentage of them are such sloppy scientists.

That's more true than any blanket accusation ya have made about astrophysicists.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2013
Last I checked, science isn't an exercise in the democratic process. The advantage those "sloppy scientists" have is TANGIBLE evidence, that which can be reproduced in a lab.
"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla

MandoZink
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2013
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla

That's why Tesla thought Einstein was full of crap. We all know how that turned out. Tesla was a wonderful "hands on" kind of guy, but math and equations are damn fine tools.

Einstein did think Tesla was pretty cool though. So do I. But Tesla was arrogant about scientific methods he wasn't into. Too bad.
Whydening Gyre
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2013
The discussions I've been reading here are interesting discourse. Informative and questioning at the same time. Kudos to all of you involved.
However, back to topic - Elvis has left the building, but you can still catch him in the parking lot...(can't remember where he parked his car)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 23, 2013
That's why Tesla thought Einstein was full of crap. We all know how that turned out. Tesla was a wonderful "hands on" kind of guy, but math and equations are damn fine tools.
Yep, we use many of Telsa's inventions today, real tangible inventions that are vital to modern day life and technology. Some of which are still classified to this day by the federal government because of their extraordinary nature. Then there's Einstein, a man who developed a theoretical belief system that has usurped nearly the entire field of astrophysics, a belief system that has provided very little to any actual tangible technological advancement. I wonder how different the last 100 years would look like if Tesla hadn't been so idealistic in his approach to provide free energy to the world. The Morgan machine destroyed Tesla in his day, and the paradigm continues to this day. Einstein's belief system is very safe for the control paradigm, they know there's little to fear from the dead end road of GR.
MandoZink
5 / 5 (1) Mar 23, 2013
Einstein's contributions are, by their nature, outside the range of practical tangibility - so far. GPS would not be possible without the combined application of both General Relativity and Special Relativity. Einstein is the necessary step beyond Newton, who's principles became extensively tangible.

I also must say the world could greatly benefit from a "Son of Tesla" sequel.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2013
Reminder to all regarding comparable effects of gravity and E-M forces: It's a matter of scale/domain of applicability for Gravity and E-M forces.

E-M forces can produce 'edge diffraction' focusing images analogous to the 'Eisntein Ring' forcused images produced by gravity on larger scale.

Also the quasar jets involve E-M forces which counteract the gravity forces outside the BH event horizon.

Moreover, the E-M force of Electron-Electron repulsion holds up whole SUN mass against gravity effect.

See? It's all how one distinguishes the scale/domain of gravity/E-M as to which is the 'dominant' or the 'analogous' force/effect.

Be nice and co-operate to overcome the old 'personal antagonisms' here, for the sake of science and humanity discourse and advancement, if not for your own sakes also, hey?

Sorry, still very busy, so I can't predict when I will have time to post again. But cheers until then, everyone! :)
pianoman
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2013
Piffle
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2013
Hi pianoman:
Piffle

Thanks for your input. :)
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2013
Reminder to all regarding comparable effects of gravity and E-M forces: It's a matter of scale/domain of applicability for Gravity and E-M forces.

Blah, blah, blah.


Just a reminder to all,,,,, He managed to get just about everything wrong in that post.

Be nice and co-operate to overcome the old 'personal antagonisms' here, for the sake of science and humanity discourse and advancement, if not for your own sakes also, hey?


For the sake of science and anyone who would like to understand these articles be nice and quit posting gobbledegook.

Sorry, still very busy, so I can't predict when I will have time to post again. But cheers until then, everyone! :)


Don't go away mad, just know it WILL be cheery until then.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2013
Just a reminder to all,,,,, He managed to get just about everything wrong in that post.
For the sake of science and anyone who would like to understand these articles be nice and quit posting gobbledegook.
Don't go away mad, just know it WILL be cheery until then.
That was 100% 'personal content' post from you there, Q-Star. No scientific counter-points argued by you or your kind of 'personality-before-science' troll. Keep that up and your claim to being 'scientist' will have 'nill' credibility, if you ever had any such to begin with before you opted to treat this site as a social media personality-obsessed site (instead of a site for courteous science discussion on the points not the person). Your choice. So far not a good one for your credibility no matter how 'smart-ass' you act.

Try to be 'just smart' instead. Argue the points not troll the person.:)
Maggnus
not rated yet Mar 26, 2013
Wouldn't it be just as true for me to say: Only 1% of the astrophysical community and only 10% of the plasma physics community accept the Plasma Universe model. That small percentage study controlled plasma in the lab and assume that it must be the same in nature without learning the complete astrophysical subject. We are fortunate that such a small percentage of them are such sloppy scientists.


Why yes. yes it would be just as true. In fact, truer.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
Just a reminder to all,,,,, He managed to get just about everything wrong in that post.
For the sake of science and anyone who would like to understand these articles be nice and quit posting gobbledegook.
Don't go away mad, just know it WILL be cheery until then.
That was 100% 'personal content' post from you there, Q-Star. No scientific counter-points argued by you or your kind of 'personality-before-science' troll. Keep that up and your claim to being 'scientist' will have 'nill' credibility, if you ever had any such to begin with before you opted to treat this site as a social media personality-obsessed site (instead of a site for courteous science discussion on the points not the person). Your choice. So far not a good one for your credibility no matter how 'smart-ass' you act.

Try to be 'just smart' instead. Argue the points not troll the person.:)

It's what they do, it's really the only footing the standard theory has in most scientific arguments.