Satellites to study fundamental phenomenon of magnetic reconnection

Feb 26, 2014
Diagram of MMS spacecraft with communication components identified. Credit: NASA

First thing every morning, the engineering team for NASA's Magnetospheric Multiscale mission gathers for a 10-minute meeting. A white board sits at the front of the room with the day's assignments – who will wrap tape around the wires, which instruments need to be installed where, which observatory needs to undergo its next test.

This is the nerve center for the MMS engineers and technicians at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Goddard is tasked with an unprecedented feat for the center: building four identical observatories simultaneously. The four will launch together on a single rocket and then maneuver out into a pyramid configuration to orbit Earth. On its journey, MMS will observe a little-understood, but universal phenomenon called magnetic reconnection, responsible for dramatic re-shaping of the magnetic environment near Earth, often sending intense amounts of energy and fast-moving particles off in a new direction. Not only is this a fundamental physical process that occurs throughout the universe, it is also one of the drivers of at Earth. To truly understand the process, requires four identical spacecraft to track how such reconnection events move across and through any given space.

Building four spacecraft at once has many advantages. It saves on time and mission cost. However, such a massive undertaking requires meticulous logistical planning.

"This is the first time NASA has ever built four satellites simultaneously like this," said Craig Tooley, project manager for MMS at Goddard. "It feels like we're planning a giant game of musical chairs to produce multiple copies of a spacecraft. One instrument deck might be 2/3 finished, while another one is 1/3 finished, and the same people will have to test a nearly complete deck one day, and install large components on another one another day."

One of the earliest important feats for this group of engineers and technicians came during the design phase. Each spacecraft must carry, in addition to the navigational and power instruments, 25 scientific instruments. These had to be carefully laid out so that each instrument had a full range of view and so that the eight booms sticking out from the spacecraft would not interfere with any other instrument's line of sight or electromagnetic systems.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.

The instruments themselves were constructed and assembled around the world at a variety of institutions. Each one was then shipped to Goddard to be placed in its specific spot on what's called the instrument deck.

Each spacecraft contains two decks, one for the science instruments and one for the power and navigation tools. The decks are made of two aluminum sheets bonded on either side of an inner, honey-comb-shaped layer also made of aluminum. The second deck is called the spacecraft deck. It supports a power box, a computer, transmitters and receivers, a star tracker to help with orientation, and batteries for power during solar eclipses. The two decks are attached to struts, with the instruments facing each other in the middle. A central thrust tube carries four propellant tanks. Solar arrays span the space in between the decks.

Above and beyond installing all the instruments, each spacecraft sports hundreds of wires that connect the instruments to the main computer and power sources, as well as the instruments to each other. Not only does this entire harness need to be installed, but technicians must hand wrap every wire in insulation to shield the sensitive instruments from electrical interference.

"The sheer amount of labor just to put in all these connections is stunning," said Gary Davis, spacecraft systems engineer for MMS at Goddard. "When you're building four at a time, the team doesn't get a break. If one spacecraft is in testing, then the team works on a different observatory."

It is just this kind of juggling that must be done every day: Which engineer goes where and which spacecraft goes into which cleanroom, as each follows its journey of instrument insertion, wiring, testing, and more engineering.

In addition to the physical engineering, the software on board must be tested too. Such testing requires that the spacecraft be powered up, which consequently prohibits simultaneous mechanical or electrical work.

"The work is so interesting and even fun, but with a schedule this complicated we have to make some careful choices about who is doing what," said Davis. "We also have to make sure the team pushes ahead at the right pace. We want to move ahead as quickly as safely possible, but no faster." Safety is, indeed, the team's number one concern.

Since May 2013 all four observatories have been integrated with all necessary science instruments and flight hardware. Since then, they have undergone a wide range of ground tests – rigorous electrical, vibration, acoustics and thermal testing to ensure they can withstand the launch and extreme environments of space and launch conditions.

After testing is complete, the four observatories will be shipped, two at a time, isolated on a truck bed with exquisite air and temperature control, to Astrotech in Titusville, Fla., for launch processing and then to NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida for launch. Engineers will complete the final closeout. The propellant will be loaded into the tanks. The spacecraft will be carefully encapsulated into the rocket fairing for launch. And, at last, after four years of engineering, the four obseratories will finally fly.

Explore further: Latest GOES-R instrument cleared for installation onto spacecraft

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Instrument integration begins at Goddard on MMS spacecraft

Jun 08, 2012

(Phys.org) -- The decks have arrived. Engineers working on NASA'S Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS) mission have started integrating instruments on the first of four instrument decks in a newly fabricated cleanroom ...

NASA's MMS team assembles final observatory

May 30, 2013

On May 20, 2013, the Magnetospheric Multiscale, or MMS, mission team at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., reached an unprecedented milestone. The team mated the instrument and spacecraft ...

Landsat data continuity mission becomes an observatory

Jul 17, 2012

(Phys.org) -- Engineers at Orbital Sciences Corporation, Gilbert, Ariz., have installed the Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS) instrument back onto to the Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM) spacecraft. With ...

MAVEN on track to carry out its science mission

Feb 04, 2014

The MAVEN spacecraft and all of its science instruments have completed their initial checkout, and all of them are working as expected. This means that MAVEN is on track to carry out its full science mission ...

Recommended for you

Light of life

2 hours ago

A fluorescent microscopic view of cells from a type of bone cancer, being studied for a future trip to deep space – aiming to sharpen our understanding of the hazardous radiation prevailing out there.

Local model better describes lunar gravity

8 hours ago

Two satellites orbiting the Moon as a part of NASA's Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission have been mapping its inner structure by measuring subtle shifts in the pull of gravity on the ...

User comments : 179

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2014
"Magnetic reconnection is pseudo-science..." Hannes Alfven
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2014
" candrive85 is a pseudo-scientific troll" Captain Stumpy
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2014
Hey this quote mining thing is fun! Lets try a couple of more:

"Alfven's warnings are not being taught because we know, and is has been conclusively proven beyond doubt, that Alfven was dead wrong in his claims about magnetic reconnection, and his claims about the frozen flux approximation are no longer relevant. My knowledge trumps your bias every time." - Tim Thompson

"In other words, Verschuur has been deluded by apophenia, and you got suckered into believing him." - barakn



cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2014
"My knowledge (bias) trumps your bias every time." - Tim Thompson

LOL
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2014
" candrive85 is a pseudo-scientific troll" Captain Stumpy

@Maggnus
you made me spit coffee all over my laptop! LMFAO

"My knowledge trumps your bias every time." - Tim Thompson

@Cant think
this is absolutely TRUE
you post about speculative non-science and support it with PSEUDOSCIENCE

but there is hope... try this link i just got from furlong

http://farside.ph...res.html

as for alfven:

http://engineerin...-mission

http://web.physic...nnection

you & EU proponents are illiterate
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2014
Haha thank you thank you!
"My knowledge (bias) trumps your bias every time." - Tim Thompson

LOL
Poor old cantthink, he doesn't even know the difference between knowledge (it has been proven, here is the proof) and bias (no it hasn't cause this guy said so). Hmmm, there has to be a quote I can mine from somewhere:

""Mary (cantdrive) wished to say something very sensible, but knew not how."
― Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
GSwift7
5 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2014
"Magnetic reconnection is pseudo-science..." Hannes Alfven


You really need to find a new hobby. Have you ever been to a bible study group?

My question is; Of all the dumb-ass fringe theories out there, why did you latch onto one of the worst ones? You know, you COULD just create a new account and pretend that you're someone else, and nobody would ever know that you supported PC. You could switch to AWT or String or something, and you could start over fresh.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2014
From Stumped's link...
"formed from "reconnected" magnetic field lines" and "magnetic field lines break and reconnect".
That's the definition of pseudo-science, thanks for proving the point. Those mathematical constructs reifying themselves into real objects that move around and break and such again...
Of all the dumb-ass fringe theories out there, why did you latch onto one of the worst ones?

Because I'm not an astrophysicist latching onto Fairy Dust (Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories).
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2014
That's the definition of pseudo-science, thanks for proving the point. Those mathematical constructs reifying themselves into real objects that move around and break and such again...

@cant think
and so you prove once again your immense stupidity.
See:

http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

guess you REALLY SHOULD have read the other links too.. there was one ( http://farside.ph...res.html ) that would actually TEACH you something and allow you to intelligently talk...

guess I was offering pearls to swine
Because I'm not an astrophysicist

true
you are an ignoramus latched onto a religious cult-like philosophy
GSwift7
5 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2014
"formed from "reconnected" magnetic field lines" and "magnetic field lines break and reconnect".
That's the definition of pseudo-science, thanks for proving the point


Call it whatever you want, but there's a real life phenomenon happening and we observe it. Unfortunately for Hannes Alfven, he didn't have any tools capable of observing this, and he made the mistake of not trusting what the math told him. Einstien made a similar mistake in not believing in black holes.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2014
"Magnetic reconnection is pseudo-science..." Hannes Alfven

Surely by now you realize that the rest of world properly understands that what you have to say about magnetic reconnection, or just about anything else regarding physics, is a joke (and usually not a very good one). Both you now, and Alfven then, are & were dead wrong. And yes, my knowledge does trump your bias every time, since bias is all you have to offer. As I have explained elsewhere, to you an others, over the last decade at least, magnetic reconnection is a real consequence of Maxwell's equations, and it is the acknowledge standard throughout the communities of physics & engineering.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2014
I have already explained in detail elsewhere how the claims that magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience are themselves pseudoscience. Follow the several links here, which reference various textbooks, published papers and laboratory experiments (unfortunately, the equation server no longer functions, so my equations don't show up as they should):
http://www.cesura...hompson/

Mathematician William Clinger (College of Computer Science, Northeastern University; PhD, M.I.T.) provides a 5-part derivation of the mathematics of magnetic reconnection, starting here:
http://www.cesura...dex.html

Galileo never accepted elliptical orbits, and Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics. They were both wrong. The history of science is not short of famous scientists being wrong. On the matter of magnetic reconnection, Alfven was wrong, and we know that as a conclusively proven fact.
Tim Thompson
4.8 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2014
The Magnetic Reconnection Experiment, at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory is here:
http://mrx.pppl.gov/

In this experiment magnetic reconnection is routinely observed in situ in laboratory plasmas. This is heavily documents on their publications page, which is linked from the page above (of particular interest: "Magnetic Reconnection"; Yamada, Kulsrud & Ji, Reviews of Modern Physics 82 (2010), number 15 on the publications list.

I have also made numerous posts to the point of magnetic reconnection in the discussion of the Higgs boson. Just search for my name on this page:
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Feb 28, 2014
See the PhD thesis "Experimental Study of 3-D, Impulsive Reconnection Events in a Laboratory Plasma", Seth Dorfman, 2012. If one is going to meaningfully assert that magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience, then the claimant should be able to read this thesis, and point out how that which was apparently observed was not actually observed. Absent that, the claim obviously has no meaning. This thesis comes out of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory and the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment.
http://dataspace....m80hv36s
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2014
Mr. Thompson sort of exemplifies the point - magnetics are what are at the heart of all of it. Everything else is just a property of magnetics.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2014
It is pseudoscience to describe reconnecting "field lines" or reconnecting magnetic fields. Speaking of the "topology" of the field is meaningless, it's just another attempt to reify mathematical constructs.

It is not pseudoscience to describe the exploding circuit that Alfven described so many years ago.

The electric circuit is the primary, the magnetic field won't exist without it. The "flux tubes" they observe at all scales are the Birkeland currents creating the magnetic fields. When they become unstable they can explode and all of the inductive energy within that circuit will be explosively released. If there is particle acceleration then double layers will be involved. Those circuits can also nearly instantaneously "reconnect" and create NEW magnetic fields, the configuration of which will likely be altered by the different currents that arise. Describing the electric circuit as Alfven did does not require one to reify field lines into existence.

Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
Nice rebuttal there cantdrive85 - word salad, insults, repetition and no cites or links to peer reviewed papers or any other support.

If you represent the best that the EU pseudoscience supporters have, its no wonder no one thinks they are credible.

Hey did you see the article on the IEEE? You know, that place where ALL of your guru's articles are published? Seems they may be cleaning house soon, no doubt ridding themselves of pseudoscientists' papers such as those from Thornhill and Scott.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
The electric circuit is the primary, the magnetic field won't exist without it.

Wrong. try door number 2?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
The electric circuit is the primary, the magnetic field won't exist without it.

Wrong. try door number 2?

No, only the standard theory requires the "magic" required to explain preexisting magnetic fields. Without electricity there is no field, they are a unitary phenomena which go hand in hand...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
Nice rebuttal there cantdrive85 - word salad, insults, repetition and no cites or links to peer reviewed papers or any other support.

If you represent the best that the EU pseudoscience supporters have, its no wonder no one thinks they are credible.

Hey did you see the article on the IEEE? You know, that place where ALL of your guru's articles are published? Seems they may be cleaning house soon, no doubt ridding themselves of pseudoscientists' papers such as those from Thornhill and Scott.

Sorry, I anticipate folks have a modicum of intelligence with the ability to look something up. I should know better with folks like you around.
http://www.diva-p...XT01.pdf

BTW, that article you mentioned is several years old, and sadly for your own bias it in no way affects the papers written by Thornhill and Scott. They are still protected behind the IEEE's paywall...
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
Holy cantdrive, look at you go! A 28 year old paper that Tim has already provided several papers to disprove, some of which are as recent as 2013, and an incorrect claim that the scandal at the IEEE is several years old.

Here, read about the scandal: http://www.hngn.c...line.htm Notice the date cantdrive.

You should spend a little time learning about that which you claim your pseudo-science is superior to. Won't look so foolish so often that way.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
... magnetic fields. Without electricity there is no field, they are a unitary phenomena which go hand in hand...


just a quick question here Cantdrive

explain where the electrical field is in all the magnets that I have hanging on my metal work bench

according to your comments above, there should be a continual electric current in order for those magnets to work.

Mr. Thompson, a physicist, has given you explanation after explanation, with studies/papers to support his conclusions, and all you have is word salad, insults etc from a crank site pushing a religious philosophy

GIVE PROOF
that article you mentioned is several years old, and sadly for your own bias it in no way affects the papers written by Thornhill and Scott. They are still protected behind the IEEE's paywall

1- you've posted papers from near half a century old before
2- you assume that the papers/cites cant affect from behind paywall, as though we/others cant pay and DL a paper and see it? WTF?
HannesAlfven
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2014
Re: "On the matter of magnetic reconnection, Alfven was wrong, and we know that as a conclusively proven fact."

It's really sad to watch people invest so much energy into the defense of models for the Sun and galaxies which were originated prior to the development of the modern discipline of plasma physics. Tim, it's really just sad to watch you, Bridgman and Ellenberger convince people to refuse to ask fundamental questions in physics. You are conveying the attitude that there is something wrong with asking fundamental questions in science which are at the very core of our beliefs about how the universe works. You are basically cultivating ignorance.

I have to imagine that you do good things in your life, but in regards to your longstanding crusade to convince people to want to be ignorant on these fundamental questions in science, I think history will view you as a pathetic footnote.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
Tim, I've watched you over the years, and it's really just sad to watch you, Bridgman and Ellenberger convince the world to refuse to ask fundamental questions in physics.
No, what is really sad is watching your lame attempts to parlay a mystical, fantastical, pseudo-scientific based zealotry into some semblance of the physical reality that underpins the theories you are attempting to supplant. Your allegations against Bridgeman et al arise not because they are wrong, but because they will not subscribe to the fiction of Scott and Thornhill's bastardizations of Velakovski's (probably) drug-induced imaginings and Alfven's dated musings on mysteries that were present in the 70's.

The pseudoscience that is Electric Universe theory was shown to be untenable years ago. It is only because of the gullibility of people like you falling for the cleverly written imaginings of the book's authors that it is being discussed now.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
It's really sad to watch people invest so much energy into the defense of models for the Sun and galaxies which were originated prior to the development of the modern discipline of plasma physics

@Alfven
you assume that plasma physics (PP) is not included in current models (it is included)
you assume that PP includes functional understanding that is missed by current models (it does not- as it is a PART of modern astrophysics)
your assumption that PP explains things that modern astrophysics does not is entirely based upon several factors:
1- appeal to authority (being electrical engineers) and the assumption that they understand PP better than astrophysicists (in an X-box, yes; in astrophysical models, no)
2- wrongful extrapolation/scaling (Grand Canyon/Moon Craters)
3- lack of ability to comprehend physics
4- inability to comprehend data provided and come to logical conclusions
5- assumption of fallacies (the belief that PP is not taught in astrophysics)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
You are basically cultivating ignorance.

@Alfven
actually, the reverse is true.
It is YOU who are cultivating ignorance with your adherence to a known fallacy and support of a known pseudoscience (for whatever reasons you have)

the only thing you (as well as CD, et al) have shown is that you are strict acolytes for a religious like cult that believes (without regard to factual presentations) in a system that has been proven, time and again, to be wrong

you exhibit signs of all religious cult's in your inability to accept KNOWN and PROVEN FACTS, and ignoring all data that supports said facts

this is why you cannot even hit some schools and check the curriculum
and then it leads you to make ignorant statements like: schools dont teach PP in astrophysics (which is simple enough to check and verify)

your actions are thus: if it is against your delusion then it must be wrong

and then you transfer this to others, like us...
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2014
Basically, what Tim Thompson wants to stop is people asking if cosmic plasma models should be based upon our observations of laboratory plasmas. It's important that we not let the discussion become so ambiguous that those who might be following along are allowed to forget that what astrophysicists are claiming is that cosmic plasmas should be modeled as though they generally exhibit infinite conductivity, precluding the formation of electric fields as we observe within the laboratory. Tim and the others here would like the public to accept this mathematical trick to simplify the cosmic plasma models as though it is a reflection of reality, and in contradiction to the laboratory observation that plasmas do indeed exhibit some small -- but vitally important -- electrical resistance.

But, not only that, you guys want to treat people who question the accuracy of what is truthfully a modeling trick as somehow deviating from ordinary scientific practice.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
what Tim Thompson wants to stop is people asking if cosmic plasma models should be based upon our observations of laboratory plasmas

@Alfven
I call BULLSH*T on this one
he has cited plasma physics as well as experiments
But, not only that, you guys want to treat people who question the accuracy of what is truthfully a modeling trick as somehow deviating from ordinary scientific practice

calling BS again
questioning authority/studies etc is how science works
then they find the reasons why something does what it does

AGAIN you are here making assumptions based upon your INABILITY to check the facts present already... re-read all Mr. Thompson's arguments. easy enough to do! Click his link, go to the threads he is commenting in, and re-read!

Instead, you make a blanket accusation/claim w/o evidence

worse: it is the REVERSE that is true... it is EU who wants to obfuscate reality with their cult of acolytes pushing known fallacies in their PSEUDOSCIENCE
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
Re: "I call BULLSH*T on this one. he has cited plasma physics as well as experiments"

Honestly, Captain Stumpy, it doesn't appear to me that you understand what the cosmic plasma models are saying that is causing people to get upset. There is nothing at all pseudoscientific about questioning models which make sweeping assumptions about plasmas which deviate from our observations of laboratory plasmas. Read the two Parks papers I've posted. It explains the situation very clearly.

When you model plasmas as though they lack any electrical resistance, you are basically taking away that which makes them a plasma. So, there is something which is fundamentally nonsensical about Tim's stance, which you guys have permitted yourselves to become swept up into.

All of cosmology hinges on the accuracy of these models. The case that we should avoid questioning them is extraordinarily weak.

You guys are trying to convince people to refuse to question these highly questionable models.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
Let's recap the situation, in an attempt to convey to everybody here why this whole conversation is just silly:

There is a traditional worldview which is very, very old, which suggests that the universe works just like what we see around us down here on the surface of the Earth: According to mechanical processes involving fluids, gravity and largely neutral matter. Our models for how the Sun and galaxies work is basically an extension of this very old worldview for how our universe works. Magnetic reconnection is part of this worldview.

Now, somewhere around the 50's, it became apparent that there are charged particles in space. Astrophysical textbooks at this current point in time basically accept that 99%+ of what we see in space is matter within the plasma state. It stands to reason that how we model this plasma is incredibly important.

Now, based upon careful observations of laboratory plasmas, we can see that plasmas exhibit an electrical resistance.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2014
Take a look at VI diagram for plasma at http://fascistsou...gram.jpg

Notice that nowhere on this lab-generated curve does the voltage ever actually touch zero. V/I, in all instances along this curve, is non-zero.

Now, this is not at all some minor point, for if we were to engage in the THOUGHT EXPERIMENT of setting V/I -- the resistance -- to zero, the implication would be that any charge imbalance which might emerge would instantaneously neutralize. Clearly, in such a situation, there is NOT EVEN THE POSSIBILITY that an electric field can form. How could an E-field ever form if any buildup of charge is instantaneously neutralized?

But, note that what we just did was a thought experiment. It's not actually what plasmas tend to do within the laboratory. In the lab, we observe that plasmas have some minute electrical resistance, which makes the thought experiment of instantaneous charge-neutralization a moot point.
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
So, we have this worldview that we live in a mechanistic universe, which is clashing with this realization that most of what we see in space is largely plasmas. Our models for the Sun and galaxies largely predate this realization that we live in a universe filled with plasma, and they largely predate our experiences with plasmas within the laboratory -- such as this VI curve.

And, so what we have is a situation where astrophysicists have been forced to admit that, yes, what we see must -- by definition -- be matter in the plasma state. But, at the same time, they are still operating on this, truthfully, ancient worldview that basically just assumes that the universe is fundamentally a mechanical system. And their inclination is to model the cosmic plasma as though it is fundamentally a mechanical gas or fluid -- rather than a plasma.

But, what is the root motive? It's that ancient assumption that the universe is mechanical just like down here on Earth.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
@ Hannes,

Are ya still pushing that "world view" gobbledygook? There are no "world views" in science. Ya probably mistook this for a philosophy or religious forum, it's not. So now ya know.

But if your purpose is to annoy people because ya were rejected, could ya at least try to put a little more effort into it? Ya failed in life, so to soothe your hurt feelings, ya try to annoy, bother, and vandalize. Does it really make ya feel better?
HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2014
So, do astrophysicists have a right to claim that their models for cosmic plasmas -- which deviate from our laboratory experiences with plasmas -- are accurate? Upon what basis? I think the answer here is that it suits the mechanistic assumption inherent to their worldview. And that's it. There actually is no solid basis upon which to base this thought experiment.

And really, what we have here is a contradiction which is generated by the astrophysicists themselves: They basically want to model the cosmic plasmas as magnetized gases and fluids. Is this accurate? Does it make any sense to want that?

This is basically the situation. Are people who point to laboratory plasmas as the correct view for how to model cosmic plasmas pseudoscientists? I would argue that this just goes to show how confused people are. The critics did not create this situation. They are simply pointing out how contradictory all of this is.

Either it is a plasma. Or it is not. Which is it?
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
So, do astrophysicists have a right to claim that their models for cosmic plasmas -- which deviate from our laboratory experiences with plasmas -- are accurate? Upon what basis? I think the answer here is that it suits the mechanistic assumption inherent to their worldview. And that's it. There actually is no solid basis upon which to base this thought experiment.


When are ya going to work up some new material? Are all the plasma cosmologists so short on ideas that all they can do is repeat the same tired complaints over and over and over? Maybe that's why they are left out of the conversation, all they can do repeat the same whimsical complaints over and over and over.

Hannes, ya are a vandal without imagination. It's the same tired thing over and over and over.

HannesAlfven
1 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2014
Re: "There are no "world views" in science."

The belief that where electricity and magnetism is observed in space, that it is always a 2nd-order, localized side effect of other 1st-order mechanical or gravitational forces, is an example of a worldview in science. There is nothing at all about that belief which directly follows from science itself. It is simply an assumed hypothesis -- aka a worldview -- for how the universe works.

Now, what we DO have is models which strive to demonstrate this worldview. But, despite one of the most intense efforts made in the history of man to demonstrate any model, the best that can be done is to identify 5% of the matter which would be required for this worldview to be true.

And so, rational people will justifiably question whether or not the models, and the worldview which inspired them, are actually accurate. The problem is not the people questioning the models. The problem is that the models can only identify 5% of the universe.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
OK all forumers!...cantdrive85 said...
The electric circuit is the primary, the magnetic field won't exist without it. The "flux tubes" they observe at all scales are the Birkeland currents creating the magnetic fields. When they become unstable they can explode and all of the inductive energy within that circuit will be explosively released. If there is particle acceleration then double layers will be involved. Those circuits can also nearly instantaneously "reconnect" and create NEW magnetic fields, the configuration of which will likely be altered by the different currents that arise.
...and Whydening Gyre/Tim Thompson et al say...
Magnetics are what are at the heart of all of it.


Easily settled scientifically. Can anyone present at least one objectively observable confirmed example where magnetic effect is NOT ultimately dependent on some form of underlying angular (spin) and/or linear (streaming) 'current/orientation' of electron/field itself? Go to it, guys! :)
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014

Easily settled scientifically. Can anyone present at least one objectively observable confirmed example where magnetic effect is NOT ultimately dependent on some form of underlying angular (spin) and/or linear (streaming) 'current/orientation' of electron/field itself? Go to it, guys! :)

This ought to be good...
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014

Easily settled scientifically. Can anyone present at least one objectively observable confirmed example where magnetic effect is NOT ultimately dependent on some form of underlying angular (spin) and/or linear (streaming) 'current/orientation' of electron/field itself? Go to it, guys! :)

This ought to be good...
yea, about the smartest thing you've said on these forums, albeit for the wrong reasons.....
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
No, only the standard theory requires the "magic" required to explain preexisting magnetic fields. Without electricity there is no field, they are a unitary phenomena which go hand in hand...

Wrong again. It's - without magnetism, there is no electric field! Magnetic fields generate the electricity
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
Easily settled scientifically. Can anyone present at least one objectively observable confirmed example where magnetic effect is NOT ultimately dependent on some form of underlying angular (spin) and/or linear (streaming) 'current/orientation' of electron/field itself? Go to it, guys! :)


Not me, arguing with Hannes or cantdrive is like arguing with an endless looped recording of the same copy/paste quotes. There is nothing more to be said, only things to be repeated.

But I was wondering something. When ya posted the other day, that was the first I'd seen from ya for ages. I hope ya haven't been ill or anything. Or did ya get lost in the forum's new management change over? It had me stumped at first also.

How's that TOE work going? Is it about ready yet?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
@ Hannes,

Are ya still pushing that "world view" gobbledygook? There are no "world views" in science. Ya probably mistook this for a philosophy or religious forum, it's not. So now ya know.

But if your purpose is to annoy people because ya were rejected, could ya at least try to put a little more effort into it? Ya failed in life, so to soothe your hurt feelings, ya try to annoy, bother, and vandalize. Does it really make ya feel better?

A little harsh, q?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
I think what might be screwing some people up is the "mirror effect". In the Western world we've been trained and educated to view from left to right. If you BE the item being observed (looking back at the observer), it is actually working from right to left(counterclock-wise, left chirality). Maybe I'm wrong on this, but it seems plausible...
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
@ Hannes,

Are ya still pushing that "world view" gobbledygook? There are no "world views" in science. Ya probably mistook this for a philosophy or religious forum, it's not. So now ya know.

But if your purpose is to annoy people because ya were rejected, could ya at least try to put a little more effort into it? Ya failed in life, so to soothe your hurt feelings, ya try to annoy, bother, and vandalize. Does it really make ya feel better?

A little harsh, q?


The proof is in the 1000's and 1000's of posts he's boilerplated on this site in just the last two years. He's a mainstream academia reject, he got tossed because he didn't have what it takes to succeed,,,, discipline. He thought he should instruct his professors, and be allowed to disrupt them in doing their job. Don't take my word for, ask him.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
No, only the standard theory requires the "magic" required to explain preexisting magnetic fields. Without electricity there is no field, they are a unitary phenomena which go hand in hand...

Wrong again. It's - without magnetism, there is no electric field! Magnetic fields generate the electricity


As stated above;
Easily settled scientifically. Can anyone present at least one objectively observable confirmed example where magnetic effect is NOT ultimately dependent on some form of underlying angular (spin) and/or linear (streaming) 'current/orientation' of electron/field itself? Go to it, guys! :)

RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
Not me, arguing with Hannes or cantdrive is like arguing with an endless looped recording of the same copy/paste quotes.

When ya posted the other day, that was the first I'd seen from ya for ages. I hope ya haven't been ill or anything.

How's that TOE work going? Is it about ready yet?
Don't you remember my reply to you at the time:
Been reading-only. Busy integrating the new reality-contextual maths/axioms into my reality-based physics/postulates 'from scratch' ToE for publication in full all in one go....etc
Lot of work doing ALL the work the 'professional theorists' have failed to do for the complete ToE to this day!

Come on, Q-S, why so backwards coming forwards? The challenge NOW here in this thread is a straightforward opportunity for you to dazzle cantdrive with your brilliant example as requested which proves him wrong. Surely you can't resist THAT...so just present that requested example and you will shut him up as you have wished for so long! Go on. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014

Easily settled scientifically. Can anyone present at least one objectively observable confirmed example where magnetic effect is NOT ultimately dependent on some form of underlying angular (spin) and/or linear (streaming) 'current/orientation' of electron/field itself? Go to it, guys! :)

This ought to be good...
yea, about the smartest thing you've said on these forums, albeit for the wrong reasons.....
We note you failed to 'show him the science' by presenting the requested example. Why add to the noise like that while complaining about cantdrive doing it? You were asked to bring the science or shut up and sit down....just as you and others have told cantdrive ad nauseam. So fair is fair, mate. Either give the required example that refutes cantdrive's claim, else sit quietly while others try to do that. It's the only way to settle the matter once for all reasonably and scientifically and swiftly. Yes? Thanks.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
No, only the standard theory requires the "magic" required to explain preexisting magnetic fields. Without electricity there is no field, they are a unitary phenomena which go hand in hand...

Wrong again. It's - without magnetism, there is no electric field! Magnetic fields generate the electricity
Not so fast, mate. The permanent magnets in the old DC generators had the internal 'spins/orientation' of the ELECTRICALLY CHARGED atoms/domains to thank for that magnetism; while the current AC alternators use the electron CURRENTS in wires to set up the mag fields; and it's the MOTION of the component parts that 'cross/cut' these electrical spin/current-derived so-called 'magnetic lines' that creates NEW CURRENT in other wires which will be accompanied by their own newly-electric-current-generated 'mag fields' Yes? :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
Come on, Q-S, why so backwards coming forwards? The challenge NOW here in this thread is a straightforward opportunity..

Liking your direction, RC...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
No, only the standard theory requires the "magic" required to explain preexisting magnetic fields. Without electricity there is no field, they are a unitary phenomena which go hand in hand...

Wrong again. It's - without magnetism, there is no electric field! Magnetic fields generate the electricity
Not so fast, mate. The permanent magnets in the old DC generators had the internal 'spins/orientation' of the ELECTRICALLY CHARGED atoms/domains to thank for that magnetism; while the current AC alternators use the electron CURRENTS in wires to set up the mag fields; and it's the MOTION of the component parts that 'cross/cut' these electrical spin/current-derived so-called 'magnetic lines' that creates NEW CURRENT in other wires which will be accompanied by their own newly-electric-current-generated 'mag fields' Yes?

Try again. :)

To whom were you referring, RC?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
No, only the standard theory requires the "magic" required to explain preexisting magnetic fields. Without electricity there is no field, they are a unitary phenomena which go hand in hand...

Wrong again. It's - without magnetism, there is no electric field! Magnetic fields generate the electricity
Not so fast, mate. The permanent magnets in the old DC generators had the internal 'spins/orientation' of the ELECTRICALLY CHARGED atoms/domains to thank for that magnetism; while the current AC alternators use the electron CURRENTS in wires to set up the mag fields; and it's the MOTION of the component parts that 'cross/cut' these electrical spin/current-derived so-called 'magnetic lines' that creates NEW CURRENT in other wires which will be accompanied by their own newly-electric-current-generated 'mag fields' Yes?:)

To whom were you referring, RC?
Your example, mate. :)
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
Come on, Q-S, why so backwards coming forwards? The challenge NOW here in this thread is a straightforward opportunity for you to dazzle cantdrive with your brilliant example as requested which proves him wrong. Surely you can't resist THAT...so just present that requested example and you will shut him up as you have wished for so long! Go on. :)


It's all been said before. Nothing will shut him up. I can't think of anything new to say that hasn't been said by me own self, and dozens of others. After the dozenth time, even someone as unfortunate as me realizes an effort in futility. At this point in the long relationship, all I can hope to do is point out that Hannes and cantdrive have one agenda, trolling vandalizing and trying to annoy.

But I'd love to hear your take on the "what comes first - electricity or magnetism" issue that is plaguing the world of modern physics. Me? I'm partial to the primacy of the electric charge with the magnetism coming in as the stepchild.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
But in case anyone is truly interested,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Until they discover a true magnetic monopole in nature,,,, the electric charge will always precede the magnetic field. I thought this was elementary physics. Am I wrong? Is anyone really debating this in the 21st century?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
After the dozenth time, even someone as unfortunate as me realizes an effort in futility. At this point in the long relationship, all I can hope to do is point out that Hannes and cantdrive have one agenda, trolling vandalizing and trying to annoy.

they're not doing intentionally, Q. It's a limit, either set by genetics or education or maybe even both...

But I'd love to hear your take on the "what comes first - electricity or magnetism" issue that is plaguing the world of modern physics. Me? I'm partial to the primacy of the electric charge with the magnetism coming in as the stepchild

I'm on the mag side of the fence m'self, but I, too, would LOVe to hear your opinion....
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
Hi Q-S. :)
Me? I'm partial to the primacy of the electric charge with the magnetism coming in as the stepchild.
So, taking it on its own terms, you DO AGREE with what cantdrive has observed about the PRIMACY of the elecrtic charge/Field phenomena wherever Magnetic phenomena arises? Ok. Does that mean you also agree from that same understanding of your there, the point of cantdrive's claims/observations that ALL 'magnetic fields/phenomena', EVEN IN DEEP SPACE and over vast regions, ultimately has at its roots in SOME SORT of 'electric current' (be it positive protons or negative electrons or mixed plasma types of both) of/in some material?

Since I seem to be 'refereeing' this particular side-challenge requesting examples that may refute this particular claims SCIENTIFICALLY, I keep my own stance out as irrelevant. I'll only comment on validity(or not) of proffered examples. :)
Q-Star
4.7 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
Since I seem to be 'refereeing' this particular side-challenge requesting examples that may refute this particular claims SCIENTIFICALLY, I keep my own stance out as irrelevant. I'll only comment on validity(or not) of proffered examples. :)


Well, if that's a thing ya enjoy, have at it. (I suspect it will be a lonely game though.)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
I'm on the mag side of the fence m'self, but I, too, would LOVe to hear your opinion....

As to my opinion, I am 'refereeing' this bout, so I keep my observation to myself except to make comment on validity or otherwise of preferred examples which 'experts' can 'refute' (or not) this particular claim by cantdrive about currents in/of something must be happening for any magnetic phenomena to arise, even in deep/vast space regions/phenomena relating to 'hot gas/plasma' etc 'interpretations' by astro-physics and plasma physicists etc.

So you and Q-S AGREE with cantdrive on this one at least?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
I'm on the mag side of the fence m'self, but I, too, would LOVe to hear your opinion....

As to my opinion, I am 'refereeing' this bout, so I keep my observation to myself except to make comment on validity or otherwise of preferred examples which 'experts' can 'refute' (or not) this particular claim by cantdrive about currents in/of something must be happening for any magnetic phenomena to arise, even in deep/vast space regions/phenomena relating to 'hot gas/plasma' etc 'interpretations' by astro-physics and plasma physicists etc.

So you and Q-S AGREE with cantdrive on this one at least?

The quote you used indicates not. I believe electric charge derives from magnetics. They then work together . An evolution, if you will.
However, it all boils down to charge differential, regardless of what the "charge" is.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
I'm on the mag side of the fence m'self, but I, too, would LOVe to hear your opinion....


Nature provides an electric monopole. No magnetic monopole exists. At the most fundamental quantum level electric charge is an intrinsic property of particles made from quarks and leptons, but no magnetic charge state is found there, ergo, electric charge resides in the most fundamental particles, magnetism is absent. Nature itself tells us, electric charge is more fundamental than magnetism.

This really is mid - 20th century physics, it's not cutting edge or even questioned.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
Since I seem to be 'refereeing' this particular side-challenge requesting examples that may refute this particular claims SCIENTIFICALLY, I keep my own stance out as irrelevant. I'll only comment on validity(or not) of proffered examples. :)


Well, if that's a thing ya enjoy, have at it. (I suspect it will be a lonely game though.)

Well, someone has to do it, hey? Or is the continual insults exchange the only 'science' here from either 'side' on this bone of contention between cantdrive/Hans Alfven and you/others who complain but do not refute this particular claim/observation of theirs with science examples?

But now that both you and WHydening Gyre DO AGREE WITH cantdrive/Hans on this, then how about building on that agreement and explore the rest of the IMPLICATIONS of their claims/observations in light of this MONUMENTAL AGREED stance on that electric currents-come-before-magnetism issue?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
The quote you used indicates not. I believe electric charge derives from magnetics. They then work together . An evolution, if you will.
However, it all boils down to charge differential, regardless of what the "charge" is.

Sorry, mate; I interpreted your position, regardless of which side of the fence you are on PERSONALLY, to SCIENTIFICALLY MUST agree with Q-Star's further point made to all:
Until they discover a true magnetic monopole in nature,,,, the electric charge will always precede the magnetic field. I thought this was elementary physics. Am I wrong? Is anyone really debating this in the 21st century?


Unless you have a scientifically supported argument why you disagree with that, then your personal fence-position is neither here nor there in this case. Unless you have a scientific example of primacy of mag over electron/field spin/current?

Sorry, I should have made that clear in my previous. But text space was short and at a premium. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
Sorry, mate; I (WG insert - mis)interpreted your position. Regardless of which side of the fence you are on PERSONALLY, to SCIENTIFICALLY MUST agree with Q-Star's further point made to all: Until they discover a true magnetic monopole in nature,,,, the electric charge will always precede the magnetic field.

Key word - Scientifically. You mean with math and experimental validation and all? Not sure is possible.
Unless you have a scientifically supported argument why you disagree with that, then your personal fence-position is neither here nor there. Unless you have a scientific example of primacy of mag over electron/field spin/current?

Artist, not scientist. Answer - Balance. 1 an 2/3rds. Not the numbers, but the relation of them to each other. That's all you get.

Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
Oh.... I forgot. There is no Fight Club....
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
Key word - Scientifically. You mean with math and experimental validation and all? Not sure is possible.

Artist, not scientist. Answer - Balance. 1 an 2/3rds. That's all you get. Sorry, I should have made that clear in my previous. But text space was short and at a premium. :)
No swear, mate. :) And all that a scientific refutation HERE of that particular cantdrive claim/observation requires merely that you/others present an example recognized/supported by scientific mainstream which you may quote or link to. No need for you to start a project all on your own to rediscover what has already been discovered by science to date on that particular aspect at issue between cantdrive/Hans and you/others. Just a quick example and references will do. Then you can say you scientifically refuted cantdrive/Hans claims. Isn't that possibility worth any amount of trouble for you and others to go find and support a scientific example as requested?

Whaddyaknow, just enough text space! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
Oh.... I forgot. There is no Fight Club....

What with all the ballyhoo up till now getting nowhere near scientific rebuttals but plenty of screaming for blood of the heretics, could have fooled anyone it WAS some sort of Fight Club going down here!

I note the screaming has died down a tad since I asked for scientific example rebuttals of cantdrive/Hans claim/observation on this Electric-before-mag issue. Why is that, I wonder? Have the cops raided the place? :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
RC. Was editing my comment as you responded. please re-read.
As to what you request - a little of the devil's advocate yourself, aren't ya...:-)
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
RC. Was editing my comment as you responded. please re-read.
As to what you request - a little of the devil's advocate yourself, aren't ya...:-)

No sweat. :)

Yeah, there comes a time when someone has to step up and do that thankless job, if any 'gems' are to be salvaged from the 'dross' of what sometimes passes for 'scientific discourse' on forums!

Think of it as my doing my objective/personal duty to the ongoing science/humanity discourse as amicus curiae (friend of the court). Would that there were more (foolhardy?) observers willing to act as such more often on the forums generally!

Gotta go for now, mate. Read back through later/tomorrow. Cheers! :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 01, 2014
Gotta go for now, mate. Read back through later/tomorrow. Cheers! :)

Looking forward to it...:-) Cheers!
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
No swear, mate. :) And all that a scientific refutation HERE of that particular cantdrive claim/observation requires merely that you/others present an example recognized/supported by scientific mainstream which you may quote or link to. No need for you to start a project all on your own to rediscover what has already been discovered by science to date on that particular aspect at issue between cantdrive/Hans and you/others. Just a quick example and references will do. Then you can say you scientifically refuted cantdrive/Hans claims. Isn't that possibility worth any amount of trouble for you and others to go find and support a scientific example as requested?


Ain't nobody swearing Skippy. Yet. Why you ask everybody to explain what the Hannes and cantdrive Skippys say? Maybe you should ask the Hannes and cantdrive to explain what they said. Good luck with one Cher, they is two couyon, eh?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy, and watch yourself in the tall grass.

Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
Think of it as my doing my objective/personal duty to the ongoing science/humanity discourse as amicus curiae (friend of the court). Would that there were more (foolhardy?) observers willing to act as such more often on the forums generally!


What kind of foolishment is that Skippy? Does that mean something in the english? Some bad karma points for you.
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
Everyone better only say "smarts stuffs", it appears he's back. (I sure hope I don't have to wear the "silly looking pointy cap".)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
I'm on the mag side of the fence m'self, but I, too, would LOVe to hear your opinion....


Nature provides an electric monopole. No magnetic monopole exists. At the most fundamental quantum level electric charge is an intrinsic property of particles made from quarks and leptons, but no magnetic charge state is found there, ergo, electric charge resides in the most fundamental particles, magnetism is absent. Nature itself tells us, electric charge is more fundamental than magnetism.

This really is mid - 20th century physics, it's not cutting edge or even questioned.


So to achieve stellar or galactic sized magnetic fields, stellar/galactic sized electric Birkeland currents MUST be present to create such fields... That sounds like an interesting notion, one put forth by PC/EU for some time now. It's also surprising to see Q-Star on Alfven's side of the "reconnection" argument.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
Ain't nobody swearing Skippy. Yet. Why you ask everybody to explain what the Hannes and cantdrive Skippys say? Maybe you should ask the Hannes and cantdrive to explain what they said. Good luck with one Cher, they is two couyon, eh?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy, and watch yourself in the tall grass

Look who's back!
He wasn't asking anyone to verify what they DO say. He asked someone to present the opposite. Which I did to the best of my artistic and limited math ability.
WB, you cantankerous creole ...:-)
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
Everyone better only say "smarts stuffs", it appears he's back. (I sure hope I don't have to wear the "silly looking pointy cap".)


@ Q-Skippy, I haven't had to put the silly looking pointy cap on you because you were always nice to me when I asked stupid questions, like the Captain Skippy and the Whydening Skippy were.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Q-Skippy.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 01, 2014
Nature provides an electric monopole. No magnetic monopole exists. At the most fundamental quantum level electric charge is an intrinsic property of particles made from quarks and leptons, but no magnetic charge state is found there, ergo, electric charge resides in the most fundamental particles, magnetism is absent. Nature itself tells us, electric charge is more fundamental than magnetism.

Okay, I'll bite. what creates the electric charge?
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2014
Which I did to the best of my artistic and limited math ability.
WB, you cantankerous creole ...:-)


It's okay to call the Ira cantankerous even though I have the sweet disposition,,,, so how you been here with the geniuses and too smarts peoples?

Oh yeah. I'm not the creole no. Coonass or Cajun. Not creole..
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
Oh yeah. I'm not the creole no. Coonass or Cajun. Not creole..

creole was the only alliterative word I could come up with on a short notice.

Doin ok with all, I think. Kinda wonder, tho, if I'm just viewed as a crazy ol bastard, and they are just humoring me...:-)
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2014
Sure got awful quiet around here...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2014
Surely you can't resist THAT...so just present that requested example and you will shut him up as you have wished for so long! Go on

@RealityCheck
surely you jests!
if CD and Alfven cannot be shut up even in the light of empirical data and studies, then no amount of "forum cheer-leading" is going to do it!
even with the obvious lie that astrophysicists dont know anything about plasma's, and then having NOT ONLY the authors give them proof, but studies supporting it (especially given that one co-author is considered one of the LEADING plasma physicists/mathematicians around) and with proof of schools having it in their curriculum (again, direct refute) then there is no way you are going to convince them now...
it will only make them worse/stupider

I would side with Qstar on this

@Uncle Ira
that you Zeph fan? :-) welcome back
missed the "skippy's", Ira
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
So, do astrophysicists have a right to claim that their models for cosmic plasmas -- which deviate from our laboratory experiences with plasmas -- are accurate?

Factually false statement. There is no "deviation" of any kind between plasma phenomena as observed in terrestrial laboratory experiments and the accepted practices of space physics and plasma astrophysics.

And really, what we have here is a contradiction which is generated by the astrophysicists themselves: They basically want to model the cosmic plasmas as magnetized gases and fluids. Is this accurate? Does it make any sense to want that?

Yes it is accurate and yes it does make sense, except of course, that not all plasmas are magnetized plasmas. However like any other tool for physical analysis it has its limits. MHD fluid dynamics works fine in many but not all situations. When it does not work, we revert to the kinetic particle models.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
Tim, it's really just sad to watch you, Bridgman and Ellenberger convince people to refuse to ask fundamental questions in physics.

You are describing yourself, not me. You are the one who is proud & arrogant in your deep & abiding ignorance of plasma physics. I have no hope for you, and really don't care about you one way or the other. But I do care that other people who see a discussion like this have a point/counterpoint and not a one-sided display of fool's errands. Real physics will always win in the end, and you will always lose. Really, you already have lost.

but in regards to your longstanding crusade to convince people to want to be ignorant on these fundamental questions in science …

I have always sought out the fundamentals, that's why I became a physicist, because physics is fundamental. I never discourage questions, especially fundamental questions. But you don't ask questions, you just make assertions that were known to be wrong years & decades ago.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
When you model plasmas as though they lack any electrical resistance, you are basically taking away that which makes them a plasma. So, there is something which is fundamentally nonsensical about Tim's stance, which you guys have permitted yourselves to become swept up into.

Astrophysicists do not model plasmas as if they lack resistance, unless that approximation is supported by the phenomenology. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Astrophysicists have the sense to know the difference. Really, you keep making up silly stories about plasma astrophysics. I understand you are wedded to a silly idea, but you could at least try to get the simple facts right once in a while.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
It is pseudoscience to describe reconnecting "field lines" or reconnecting magnetic fields. Speaking of the "topology" of the field is meaningless, it's just another attempt to reify mathematical constructs.

Reification has nothing to do with anything. The relationship between physics and mathematics is deep enough to make them one and the same thing. Once you deny any validity for the mathematical description of a physical phenomenon, then you deny the fundamental validity of all scientific thought. Maybe you think that is a good idea, but I do not.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
Astrophysicists do not model plasmas as if they lack resistance, unless that approximation is supported by the phenomenology. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Astrophysicists have the sense to know the difference.

So you agree astrophysicists model plasma in direct conflict to laboratory findings in favor of their theoretical POV? And they "sense" when the plasma isn't really a plasma and when it is? They "sense" it like they are plasma Jedi, we know that those who use the "force" cannot be wrong!

Once you deny any validity for the mathematical description of a physical phenomenon, then you deny the fundamental validity of all scientific thought.

Strawman. There is a mathematical description of Alfven's models.

BTW, I'm curious as to your stance here;
OK all forumers!...cantdrive85 said...

The electric circuit is the primary,

...and Whydening Gyre/Tim Thompson et al say...

Magnetics are what are at the heart of all of it.

Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
So you agree astrophysicists model plasma in direct conflict to laboratory findings in favor of their theoretical POV?

No. Read what I wrote just a few posts back up the page:
There is no "deviation" of any kind between plasma phenomena as observed in terrestrial laboratory experiments and the accepted practices of space physics and plasma astrophysics.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, whether of not a plasma is modeled as if it were without resistance, is well known to be an *approximation*. Since when are approximations disallowed in science, when the circumstances are appropriate? The rate at which magnetic fields diffuse through a plasma is inversely proportional to the conductivity of the plasma. If the time scale for the phenomenon you are studying is short compared to the diffusion time scale, then there will be no significant change in magnetic flux during that time interval, and the approximation is valid.
Maggnus
4 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
We note you failed to 'show him the science' by presenting the requested example. Why add to the noise like that while complaining about cantdrive doing it? You were asked to bring the science or shut up and sit down....just as you and others have told cantdrive ad nauseam. So fair is fair, mate. Either give the required example that refutes cantdrive's claim, else sit quietly while others try to do that. It's the only way to settle the matter once for all reasonably and scientifically and swiftly. Yes? Thanks.
No! I will not get involved in yet another string of useless banter with these gurus of the EU religion, any more than I would argue with catholic priests about their perception of the correct means to get to heaven. It is NOT fair to continue to give these pseudoscientists yet another platform to preach their gospel when their misunderstandings, mysticisms and empty boasts have been so thoroughly debunked already. Its a game of whack-a-mole, nothing more.
Maggnus
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
Oh, and welcome back Ira! Hope you brought a whole gaggle of pointy hats with you, there is need to be handing them out!
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
BTW, I'm curious as to your stance here ...

Why ask? You already saw this:
http://phys.org/n...ous.html


In his paper, "Why space physics needs to go beyond the MHD Box", Parks says explicitly "our view is diametrically opposed to that of Parker (1996)". Parker asserts that the correct way to model magnetospheric physics is to use the magnetic field & velocity (B,v) rather than the electric field and current density (E,j). Parker's alternative is still not without controversy, but I have discussed this with Parker and I agree with him.

Parker's Paper:
http://adsabs.har...0110587P

My discussion of the Parker alternative:
http://forums.ran...unt=6136
http://forums.ran...unt=6138
http://forums.ran...unt=6156


All magnetic fields are generated by the motion of electrically charged particles. But the particles & fields are not necessarily co-located.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
but I have discussed this with Parker and I agree with him.

Well, I guess since you agree with the controversial POV that qualifies as it is settled? The Park's model adheres to the findings of Alfven, Peratt, et al, models which are based upon lab experiments and that are used by the thermonuclear plasma physicists (such as Peratt) in re to their treatment of plasma physics of the nuclear weaponry the DOE trusts to their stewardship. You may claim there is no controversy in plasma physics (incorrectly), but you cannot rewrite history and claim there was no "thermonuclear crisis" as Alfven described in his Nobel lecture. You cannot also claim that astrophysics has had a similar event, if it had astrophysicists would use the same models as the thermonuclear scientists use (Alfven, Peratt's, et al).

All magnetic fields are generated by the motion of electrically charged particles. But the particles & fields are not necessarily co-located.

"Spooky" magnetism at a distance?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
All magnetic fields are generated by the motion of electrically charged particles.

That statement alone nullifies and contradicts any possibility of "magnetic reconnection". Only electric circuits can "reconnect".
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
All magnetic fields are generated by the motion of electrically charged particles. But the particles & fields are not necessarily co-located.

Not quite in agreement here, Tim. Magnetic field interaction creates electrical charge that then amplifies magnetic field which then reamplifies electrical charge, and so on. Til critical point arrives, becomes the electromagnetism and system moderates or dissipates. At least as far as I see it, anyway... Call me a crackpot...
think e=mc2, where the constant is charge, not necessarily speed/momentum of light.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2014
All magnetic fields are generated by the motion of electrically charged particles. But the particles & fields are not necessarily co-located.

Not quite in agreement here, Tim. Magnetic field interaction creates electrical charge that then amplifies magnetic field which then reamplifies electrical charge, and so on. Til critical point arrives, becomes the electromagnetism and system moderates or dissipates. At least as far as I see it, anyway... Call me a crackpot...
Well ok, you're a crackpot - but only cause you asked!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
All magnetic fields are generated by the motion of electrically charged particles. But the particles & fields are not necessarily co-located.

Not quite in agreement here, Tim. Magnetic field interaction creates electrical charge that then amplifies magnetic field which then reamplifies electrical charge, and so on. Til critical point arrives, becomes the electromagnetism and system moderates or dissipates. At least as far as I see it, anyway... Call me a crackpot...
Well ok, you're a crackpot - but only cause you asked!

Added to my comment while you responded... Dang, you're fast!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
Well ok, you're a crackpot - but only cause you asked!


Ex nihilo expo facto or whatever it is, works because nothing is point of highest charge of nothing IN THE CENTER and decreasing gradient of nothing is a field surrounding it. Nothing is the monopole. Why we'll never see it. The immediate surrounding field is anapolic, which is then surrounded by dipolic field (US, Our Visible Universe). Don't even ask me what comes outside that...:-)
Maggnus
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
Don't even ask me what comes outside that...:-)
An Electric Universe?

>_< :>)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2014
Don't even ask me what comes outside that...:-)
An Electric Universe?

>_< :>)

Guess that would make me a dreaming android...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2014
"Spooky" magnetism at a distance?


Get used to it...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
"Spooky" magnetism at a distance?


Get used to it...

I should qualify my statement, EM is undoubtedly the longest range force. But there is no magic involved, electricity creates magnetism.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
"Spooky" magnetism at a distance?


Get used to it...

I should qualify my statement, EM is undoubtedly the longest range force. But there is no magic involved, electricity creates magnetism.

aww, sorry, Bob. wrong answer. magnetic field INTERACTION creates electricity. Electricity and magnetism then combine to make MORE magnetism, then more electricity...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2014
"Spooky" magnetism at a distance?


Get used to it...

I should qualify my statement, EM is undoubtedly the longest range force. But there is no magic involved, electricity creates magnetism.

aww, sorry, Bob. wrong answer. magnetic field INTERACTION creates electricity. Electricity and magnetism then combine to make MORE magnetism, then more electricity...

actually, it's a little (prob'ly a LOT) more complicated than my analogous phrasing, but - it's a good place to start...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (1) Mar 02, 2014
"Spooky" magnetism at a distance?


Get used to it...

I should qualify my statement, EM is undoubtedly the longest range force. But there is no magic involved, electricity creates magnetism.

aww, sorry, Bob. wrong answer. magnetic field INTERACTION creates electricity. Electricity and magnetism then combine to make MORE magnetism, then more electricity...

And where did you learn this? And where is your evidence?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
And where did you learn this? And where is your evidence?

Dang... Knew you were gonna ask that question....
Didn't learn it. REALized it. After examining number systems, et al from an un-mathematical point of view - I'm a computer engineer turned artist....
You must always remember that we exist in a" hall of mirrors" reality.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
Please don't take my response style as indicative of an egotistic or know it all person. I like to have fun and play a little.
Stick around a while tonite. I think Reality Check might have a few interesting things to say later on. Or not...:-)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
Please don't take my response style as indicative of an egotistic or know it all person. I like to have fun and play a little.
Stick around a while tonite. I think Reality Check might have a few interesting things to say later on. Or not...:-)


Or yes! Good call, mate. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
Captain Stumpy, Maggnus et al. :) I'm still in my referee hat, and this is the second round. We have Q-Star pointing out the fundamentality of electric charge and electric current. Please read his posts above if you missed them. Q-S agrees with cantdrive about the primacy of electric spin/current, and that mag effect emerges as further dynamical outcome of moving/changing etc 'spin/orientation' of that fundamental electron/field 'features/particles' themselves.

So, Captain, Magnuss et al, do you also agree with Q-Star and cantdrive on that SPECIFIC PARTICULAR issue as to which is primary and which is secondary effect/phenomena/property FUNDAMENTALLY? Please try to leave aside all OTHER GENERAL disagreements you may have about FURTHER phenomena/interpretations at the astro-physical scales. Just let's get some consensus one way or the other once and for all on THE SPECIFIC FUNDAMENTAL issue above.

So, has anyone an example of fundamental magnetic status to refute as requested, or not?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2014
"Spooky" magnetism at a distance?


Get used to it...

I should qualify my statement, EM is undoubtedly the longest range force. But there is no magic involved, electricity creates magnetism.


Do you mind if I make a further refinement to that 'understanding', mate? As follows:

EM is the longest range TWO-WAY (- or + .....towards/away from source particle/body in isolation, depending on charge) acting/interacting 'force'/phenomenon/effect etc.

HOWEVER, GRAVITY seems to be longest range ONE-WAY force (always towards a body in isolation, irrespective of resultant force effects in many-body circumstances involving particles/bodies RESPECTIVE one-way gravity WELL interactions) affecting surrounding space ONE WAY ONLY.

Gotta go again. Cheers, cantdrive, everyone. Try to sort out consensus on electric/magnetic 'primacy' issue and THEN see where that takes the astro-physical applications/possibilities...with a view to seeing where EU may/or not 'break down'. :)
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2014
Captain Stumpy, Maggnus et al. :) I'm still in my referee hat, and this is the second round.


Real Skippy you going to find yourself sitting the corner wearing the silly looking pointy cap if you don't quit telling everybody what do and what to say. What you think Cher, are you the big man here, eh? Let the smart peoples speak for themselves, sit down you might learn something from them.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy.

P.S. I'm not really the scientist me. But the peoples here sometimes think that I am. The Ira uses the google to seem smarter than he is, I suggest that you try to do that too you. And let the smart peoples speak for themself, eh?

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
Captain Stumpy, Maggnus et al. :) I'm still in my referee hat, and this is the second round.


Real Skippy you going to find yourself sitting the corner wearing the silly looking pointy cap if you don't quit telling everybody what do and what to say. What you think Cher, are you the big man here, eh? Let the smart peoples speak for themselves, sit down you might learn something from them.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy.

P.S. I'm not really the scientist me. But the peoples here sometimes think that I am. The Ira uses the google to seem smarter than he is, I suggest that you try to do that too you. And let the smart peoples speak for themself, eh?

I'll agree. He is being rather cryptic.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2014
but you cannot rewrite history and claim there was no "thermonuclear crisis" as Alfven described in his Nobel lecture.

I don't really know what Alfven is talking about with his "thermonuclear crisis", which he dates to about a decade before he gave his talk in 1970. The only thing that makes sense is the solar neutrino problem, which was not actually realized to be a serious problem until 1972 at the earliest, after Alfven's talk. So, since I don't know what he is talking about, I can't confirm or deny anything. But I can say that the real solar neutrino problem has been solved, and I will point out for the record that the astrophysicists were right all along, and the particle physicists were obliged to change their physics models of neutrinos.

http://www.tim-th...ion.html
http://www.tim-th...l_1.html
http://www.tim-th...sun.html
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
So, has anyone an example of fundamental magnetic status to refute as requested, or not?
Logically Oriented Values of Equivalence.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
By the way. I was expecting more from RealityCheck. He did such a great buildup last nite.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2014
All magnetic fields are generated by the motion of electrically charged particles. But the particles & fields are not necessarily co-located.
"Spooky" magnetism at a distance?

Is a bar magnet spooky to you? The magnetic field of a bar magnet is generated by atomic scale electric currents inside the magnet, but extends into space far from the magnet. The motion of charged particles inside a star generates magnetic fields, but the fields likewise reach out and away from where they are generated. Just look at your own favorite "Z-pinch". The current flow generates the solenoidal field that wraps around it, but it is also flowing along magnetic field lines parallel to the current, which cannot possibly be generated by the same current. The parallel magnetic field must be generated somewhere else.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 02, 2014
By the way. I was expecting more from RealityCheck. He did such a great buildup last nite.

The fact that E=mc2 can be modified in any 6 different ways is the key.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2014
All magnetic fields are generated by the motion of electrically charged particles. But the particles & fields are not necessarily co-located.

Okay, I get your direction. Magnetic field(s) in motion (kinetics) creating electric charge.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2014
Magnetic field interaction creates electrical charge that then amplifies magnetic field which then reamplifies electrical charge, and so on.

Electric charge is fundamental and is not created by magnetism. This should be obvious from Maxwell's thoroughly confirmed equations of classical electromagnetism, where the divergence of the magnetic field is always zero, while the curl of the magnetic field is proportional to the current density and the time derivative of the electric field. Magnetic field "interaction" does not create electric charge, but Maxwell again tells us that a time variable magnetic field will induce an electric field, and this may be what you are thinking of ("field" not "charge"). This is where any electric field in a plasma will usually come from; not from charge separation, but from the time derivative of a magnetic field.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2014
So, has anyone an example of fundamental magnetic status to refute as requested, or not?
Logically Oriented Values of Equivalence.


Whydening Skippy. Hoooweee, I tried to get it from the google but must not be asking it right. But hey podna, I bet the Captain Skippy, the Maggus Skippy or the Q Skippy could probably tell you that. Or at least tell the Ira how to google it up. I'm not sure that the Really Skippy can help you with the right answer because he seems to use a lot words to say nothing. And I know the can'tdrive Skippy and the Hannes Skippy won't be no help no, they are just the two couyon.

Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2014
You cannot also claim that astrophysics has had a similar event, if it had astrophysicists would use the same models as the thermonuclear scientists use (Alfven, Peratt's, et al)

Astrophysicists do in fact use exactly the same models as thermonuclear scientists do now. Alfven's work is over 40 years old; some of his claims are now useless anachronisms (such as his ideas regarding magnetic reconnection) and are ignored throughout thermonuclear fusion science. I am unaware of Peratt working on nuclear fusion, but his ideas in plasma cosmology are very shaky and ignored for good reasons.

You keep trying to assert that astrophysicists do not use the same rules of plasma physics as revealed in laboratory experiments, or as used by engineers & plasma scientists. That assertion on your part is gloriously false in every sense of the idea.

I have no idea what you mean by a "similar event" in astrophysics.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
Whydening Skippy. Hoooweee, I tried to get it from the google but must not be asking it right. But hey podna, I bet the Captain Skippy
&
@Uncle Ira
Mr. Thompson is a physicist formerly of JPL

Q-Star, Maggnus and Tim Thompson are educated and in the field, whereas I am a simple firefighter who is trying to learn the right stuff while wading through a virtual cesspool of pseudoscience posts

to tell the truth, I would respectfully defer to their judgment...
I also believe that if we pay CLOSE attention to Mr. Thompson's posts, we could learn a GREAT DEAL...
I know I HAVE SO FAR!!!!
THANKS Mr. Thompson!
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2014
All magnetic fields are generated by the motion of electrically charged particles.
That statement alone nullifies and contradicts any possibility of "magnetic reconnection". Only electric circuits can "reconnect".

Wrong again. The fact that magnetic fields are generated by moving charged particles is quite independent from what magnetic fields do on their own, once they are generated. Just consider two bar magnets. When they attract, the magnetic field lines from the two magnets connect, and when they repel, all of the magnetic field lines are disconnected. If you rotate from one orientation to the other, then connected field lines must disconnect, or disconnected field lines must connect. This is magnetic reconnection in a vacuum, which I have discussed & described elsewhere.

Still pictures
http://forums.ran...=7205407

Movies
http://www.coolma...tion.htm

More Stuff
http://forums.ran...unt=6687
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2014
I'm still in my referee hat, and this is the second round.
Before we go any further (well, before you go any further) you need to read the links Tim has put up here: http://phys.org/n...ous.html here: http://www.tim-th...eas.html and here: http://www.tim-th...l_1.html
Perhaps then you can author some more serious questions.

Hey Ira bien revenue! tes réponse etait moniqué!
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2014
I also believe that if we pay CLOSE attention to Mr. Thompson's posts, we could learn a GREAT DEAL...
I know I HAVE SO FAR!!!!
THANKS Mr. Thompson!


That's why I give you the good karma points. You always tell me the truth about which smart peoples to listen too. I'll put the Tim Thompson on the smart list. He was already getting on my smart list because he seems to know that Hannes Skippy and can'tdrive Skippy are just the bioque and is able to tell us where they are wrong. It is to bad he don't seem to be any better at telling the Hannes Skippy and the can'tdrive Skippy where they are wrong no. Nobody can do that yet, eh?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2014
Q-Star, Maggnus and Tim Thompson are educated and in the field
I appreciate the equivalence, but my field is far away from physics now. Q-Star is smarter than your average bear, but he, too, is in a field outside of physics. Our resident expert is Tim, and in physics (and maybe chess too!) he is a head and shoulders above me and, while I don't wish to speak for Q-Star, given his more than adequate ability to speak for himself, I think he would agree that Tim is a good head above him too (maybe not Mrs Q-star though lol! Right Q?)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2014
It is to bad he don't seem to be any better at telling the Hannes Skippy and the can'tdrive Skippy where they are wrong no

@Uncle Ira
I am not entirely sure that is possible, Ira
But what he IS doing is giving us PROOF that can be used and learned, so that we dont ever have to fall for the idiocy of Electric Universe (EU) stupidity... and that is worth it!

I dont think that Hannes or CD will be able to accept the truth, even in light of the empirical data being presented
for them, the EU is like a religion
no matter HOW much proof you throw at them, they have already decided to ignore it, according to what I am seeing
it is like an alligator with no eyes... that gator cant see anything, and will eventually go away, but it sure will raise a ruckus while it is still around
You always tell me the truth about which smart peoples to listen too

I learned the hard way
it's not fair to make everyone else do the same if I have the ability to share/help
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2014
I appreciate the equivalence, but my field is far away from physics now. Q-Star is smarter than your average bear, but he, too, is in a field outside of physics

@Maggnus
but you've held your own quite well...
MY experience with physics (besides not remembering most of my classes back in the 80's) has been using formula's to investigate fires/deaths/etc or to interpret what forensics gives me... which is WAY off! Therefore, yall are even heads and shoulders above me!
I DO agree that Mr. Thompson is WAY above me, too...
most people are (I'm short! lol)
I am ignorant about a great many things, and I have issues that make certain things very difficult. I know my limits, and I must work around them.
Trying to do better with classes on-line, but still having issues.
My strengths seem to be in other area's than physics, for all my love off it

REALLY appreciate the help from all yall too! THANKS
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2014
I'll put the Tim Thompson on the smart list.

I appreciate the collective vote of confidence.
Hannes Skippy and can'tdrive Skippy are just the bioque

They are bioque beyond repair. I have no hope of ever curing them of their bioqueness. I do this partly because I can learn things myself when I am obliged to consult references to prove how bioque they really are, and partly to make sure that the real physics can be made known as a counterpart to the perversions of physics that they try to fob off on those who are less informed about the true beauty of the natural universe.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
Electric charge is fundamental and is not created by magnetism. This should be obvious from Maxwell's thoroughly confirmed equations of classical electromagnetism, where the divergence of the magnetic field is always zero, while the curl of the magnetic field is proportional to the current density and the time derivative of the electric field. Magnetic field "interaction" does not create electric charge, but Maxwell again tells us that a time variable magnetic field will induce an electric field, and this may be what you are thinking of ("field" not "charge"). This is where any electric field in a plasma will usually come from; not from charge separation, but from the time derivative of a magnetic field.

Tim
Thanks. Well described. Not quite sure I totally agree on electro fundamentalism, but I don't have the math background to thoroughly peruse his equations. I do know he had a silver hammer..:-)
That said, when Methode' arrives, I'll make sure you have a seat if ya want it.:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
So, has anyone an example of fundamental magnetic status to refute as requested, or not?
Logically Oriented Values of Equivalence.


Whydening Skippy. Hoooweee, I tried to get it from the google but must not be asking it right. But hey podna, I bet the Captain Skippy, the Maggus Skippy or the Q Skippy could probably tell you that. Or at least tell the Ira how to google it up. I'm not sure that the Really Skippy can help you with the right answer because he seems to use a lot words to say nothing. And I know the can'tdrive Skippy and the Hannes Skippy won't be no help no, they are just the two couyon.

Was a Joke of sorts, Ira. L.O.V. E. is acronym of my answer - a rationalized metaphor for un explained attraction.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
Was a Joke of sorts, Ira. L.O.V. E. is acronym of my answer - a rationalized metaphor for un explained attraction.
Well knock me over with a brick! LOL a good joke, now that it's been explained to me!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
Was a Joke of sorts, Ira. L.O.V. E. is acronym of my answer - a rationalized metaphor for un explained attraction.
Well knock me over with a brick! LOL a good joke, now that it's been explained to me!

Thanks, Mag...:-)
It's an example of what's been happening in my head, lately. So many disconnected things seem to be connecting in a flow. And I get it all. It's - for lack of better word - Fantastic!
What are y'all doin up so late, anyway? sheesh...:-)
GSwift7
5 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2014
You guys are trying to convince people to refuse to question these highly questionable models


No. I'm refuting the EU/PC model because it's wrong. End of story.

Whether or not any other theory is correct is irrelevant. Pointing out problems with current models of space plasma doesn't mean that you can replace them with an absurd model of your own.

If you're going to pick an absurd model, why go for EU or PC? Why not pick one that's more dramatic or fun? The ones with lots of extra dimensions are cool, for example. Then you can just explain problems with your theory as resulting from things happening in another dimension and you just can't see it. For example, the conservation of energy problem with EU/PC can be solved by placing an opposite charge/current in a mirror dimension, so they balance out. See? You don't even need math that way!
GSwift7
5 / 5 (6) Mar 03, 2014
in light of this MONUMENTAL AGREED stance on that electric currents-come-before-magnetism issue?


Not electric currents. Electric 'charge' is fundamental. Currents and magnetism are a consequence of the properties of charged particles.

Since the electric and magnetic theories are unified, current and magnetism are just different expressions of the same thing. You can convert one into the other any way you like as long as you conserve the total energy of the system. It really doesn't make any sense to talk about whether current or field comes first. Charge comes first, and produces currents and fields.

This really is mid - 20th century physics


Maybe even 19th, depending on what part you're talking about.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
Not electric currents. Electric 'charge' is fundamental.

Great catch and call, G.
Currents and magnetism are a consequence of the properties of charged particles.

Still not sure I buy into this, but as good as any for now...

Since the electric and magnetic theories are unified, current and magnetism are just different expressions of the same thing. You can convert one into the other any way you like as long as you conserve the total energy of the system. It really doesn't make any sense to talk about whether current or field comes first. Charge comes first, and produces currents and fields.

Nicely put.
Maybe even 19th, depending on what part you're talking about.

Now you're getting into a whole 'nother loop...:-)
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2014
What are y'all doin up so late, anyway? sheesh...:-)
I have a bad cold, so I'm both off work and not able to sleep much. I think Uba cursed me!! :)
Q-Star
5 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
This really is mid - 20th century physics


Maybe even 19th, depending on what part you're talking about.


I was talking about the charge of fundamental particles, quarks and leptons.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
Guys, guys! Why do you care or encourage what that scientifically illiterate "Uncle Ira" troll says/opines about things he knows nothing about? Are you that desperate to find 'friends' that agree with you despite being totally clueless himself? Drop the 'me too' and 'cheerleading squad' type silliness and stick to the point raised for determination on the facts. Ok? :)

That troll says 'sit down and let the smart people talk'...and that's what I was doing when refereeing and asking the 'smart people' for that example to refute cantdrive's claim about primacy of electric charge spin/streaming current over magnetic phenomena emerging from that.

And smart people have spoken: Q-S rightly points out (and hence agrees with cantdrive) that the electron charge comes first, then motion (spin/linear) of that forms the magnetic phenomenon which is associated with the electric monopole. No magnetic monopole exists, hence it's dependent on electric phenomena.

Uncle Ira' is irrelevant troll. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2014
Charge comes first, and produces currents and fields.
More correctly, Motion/change electric charge (which IS the electron) creates all other emergent extended-field E-M magnetic phenomena. They can be interconverted VIA motion and interaction with OTHER motion of charges (as in a wire), but there can exist NO extended magnetism component before charges that spin/linearly change/move to create extended e-mag effects/fields. Extended 'composite E-M field' is what constitutes whole electron 'feature' quantum. At its core is electron charge monopole, and its motion spin/linear effects then perturb the extended E-M field to create 'magnetism' feature whose core 'generator' is the electron charge feature changing/moving states. Photons are 'exchange particles' between EXTENDED e-m field of two particles. Electrons interact VIA 'photonic' subunits of extended mag-field component. But without spin (in situ) or linear (across space), no photons/interactions via e-mag extended field. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2014
Now, if the 'smart people' have come to a consensus with cantdrive/Alfven on that fundamental issue, how about going on to discuss between you smart people how far that fundamental phenomena applies in lab/astronomical 'circuitry' of charged/overall 'neutral' plasma/currents of deep space material/fields etc etc.

Once you all smart people including cantdrive/Alfven, having agreed on that first fundamental, you surely can TOGETHER explain your evidence for/against all the rest of UE claims based on that initial understanding of that fundamental issue now agreed between you smart people?

I'll be reading your 'smarter people' discussions from the sidelines, and I trust that Uncle Ira troll will not be humored any longer by either 'side'? Else how 'smart' would you be then, associating/cheering that ignorant/irrelevant troll who doesn't follow his own advice to "shut up and let the smart people get on with the discussion"? Go to it, smart people on all 'sides'; show how smart you are! :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
RC. This still all boils down to charge differential.
Please explain what causes the "motion"... momentum is a mass property, no?
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
Uncle Ira' is irrelevant troll. :)


Really-Skippy you think you are the big man here Cher? P'tit boug why you thinking that you are going to be directing the things here, eh? You go to the special school to learn the internet parade marshal you? Maybe you have the gouche uniform to go with that?

I might be the irreverent troll but you still get the bad karma points, eh, couyon? Now sit down and be quiet you are making the boique of yourself, with your silly looking pointy cap on your pointy head.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Skippy, you just been kicked by the coonass mon ami.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
RC. This still all boils down to charge differential.
Please explain what causes the "motion"... momentum is a mass property, no?

Even if it is also energy property, still does not explain where the charge SPIN comes from in the first place...
No worries, Ira. He just took your banter too personally.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
RC. This still all boils down to charge differential.
Please explain what causes the "motion"... momentum is a mass property, no?

Two clues from mainstream observations/theories:

1) GR aspect where even neutral bodies at great distances cause motion towards each other and create the macro-micro 'near miss' type 'dance dynamics' observed even without charge considerations at all;

2) Quantum Theory aspect where energy-space itself creates virtual particles which cause 'Chaos Theory level' dynamics such that no 'absolute zero' temp or absolute rest states.

In 1) the gravity phenomena/gradients cause both charged and uncharged particles to move/change 'processing' (electron spin/linear') states;

In 2) virtual/transient and real/persistent 'photonic' and other extended-E-mag field perturbations/exchanges cause temps/momentum changes of states in the core electric monopole in situ spin and/or linear propagation across space.

Chaotic dynamics + electrons=e-mag field effects. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
Even if it is also energy property, still does not explain where the charge SPIN comes from in the first place...
No worries, Ira. He just took your banter too personally.

Whyde, that will be part of my ToE explanation. Can't say any more than I have above because of risk of being plagiarized/gazzumped by unscrupulous types (the news is full of such, so that risk is quite real/high).

And your humoring that Uncle Ira troll is as bad as it gets. Such silly noise and personal prejudicial overtones/atmosphere is NOT needed in a science discourse site.

So please stop feeding that silly troll.

Concentrate on the smart-people inputs from yourself and other really smart people who have already agreed about what Q-S and cantdrive regarding primacy of LOCALIZED electric monopolar charge, and its spin/linear motion upon which extended E-M field magnetic/photonic phenomena depends ultimately.

Back in couple days if I can to read what the smart people on all 'sides' have resolved. :)
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
And your humoring that Uncle Ira troll is as bad as it gets. Such silly noise and personal prejudicial overtones/atmosphere is NOT needed in a science discourse site.

So please stop feeding that silly troll.


Apology accepted Really Skippy. Now sit down and quit disrupting the smart peoples and we'll let bygoings be bygones. No hard feelings podna.

Back in couple days if I can to read what the smart people on all 'sides' have resolved. :)


Marci cher, that's what everyone one was just dying to know about. When you come back in a couple days see if you can mind your manners more you. Cause the Ira will be watching. Leave the silly looking pointy cap at the door for the next couyon.

Laissez les bons temps rouler Really Skippy, and watch yourself in the tall grass, eh?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
And your humoring that Uncle Ira troll is as bad as it gets. Such silly noise and personal prejudicial overtones/atmosphere is NOT needed in a science discourse site

@Reality
if it bothers you, then ignore it

but if we ignore all irrelevance, then that would also mean anyone stepping into a moderators position without authority to do so, wouldnt it?

Not trying to be a d*ck here, but you cant have it both ways
it is bad enough that we have pseudoscience represented on the site pushing known idiocy, especially when given ample evidence to show where they are wrong
I've even left links to sites so that EU can LEARN about EM so that they could understand why their EU was based upon a fallacy, but it still has not stopped them from posting

I appreciate your attempts to moderate a discussion, but it will come to naught, as EU refuse to acknowledge legitimate physics, as already proven

I await more input...
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2014
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)

To correct your first impression there, mate, when I was offered a position as moderator I declined because I did not have the time to do it justice.

I only stepped in at this point in the discussion because all the threads were just a slanging match with people on both 'sides' just screaming at each other, meanwhile I saw no actual resolution of the fundamental question of which comes first, electric or magnetic. If that basic question was not settled first, then how can anyone pretend they are having a 'smart discussion' on the science?

So I, as an ordinary member, and in the spirit of "amicus curae" (friend of the court), merely ASKED smart people to actually present refutations of that initial question/claim from cantdrive85.

Guess what? Q-S and others agree with cantdrive on that specific, so cantdrive joins the 'smart people' at least on that item. So move the discussion on that agreed basis and stop rehashing the old generalized/personal stuff? :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
(1) GR aspect where even neutral bodies at great distances cause motion towards each other and create the macro-micro 'near miss' type 'dance dynamics' observed even without charge considerations at all;

What neutral bodies are you referring to?
2) Quantum Theory aspect where energy-space itself creates virtual particles which provide dynamics such that no 'absolute zero' temp or absolute rest states.

I've already said this.
In 1) the gravity phenomena/gradients cause both charged and uncharged particles to move/change 'processing' (electron spin/linear') states;

by what mechanism?
In 2) virtual/transient and real/persistent 'photonic' and other extended-E-mag field perturbations/exchanges cause temps/momentum changes of states in the core electric monopole in situ spin and/or linear propagation across space.

The only true monopole in our universe is an absolute state of - nothing. Which, coincidentally, cannot be observed because -
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2014
if it [Uncle Ira troll] bothers you, then ignore it


Mate, I am ignoring it. The problem seems to be you are not doing likewise. You reply and exchange snide derogatory irrelevancies with it. :)

I suspect strongly that it's out of fear of being ridiculed and downvoted by that troll. Yes? No?

Else why do YOU care/respond to HIM as if what 'lite/Uncle Ira or any other 'incarnation' of that stupidity personified has any proper part to play in the 'smart people' conversation I ask for here, as an ordinary member?

You may like the silly irrelevancies, but I come here for the 'smart people' exchanges between you, Q-S, cantdrive/Alven etc. Only when irrelevant silliness and feeding trolls recurs, does it behove any member to speak up and ask politely for the 'smart people' contributions and ignoring that troll.

Anyhow, I trust the conversation goes more productively STEP by STEP from that initial agreed consensus on electric charge/motion before extended e-m field. :)
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
To correct your first impression there, mate, when I was offered a position as moderator I declined because I did not have the time to do it justice.


Hoooweeyi, Really Skippy, you are the funny man you. Now you tell us the taller tale that the nice peoples physorg tried to sign you as the moderator? You don't seem so the type to be a moderator maybe on the cartoon channel, but not on the physorg.

@ The Captain Skippy, is this guy always like this? How did I miss him before I want to know because he sure seems like couyon I usually notice right off. He acts like the Big Chief in a Mardi Gras parade (but he don't have the flag boy or the spy boy), I wonder do he have the Indian costume with the feathers and the bells?

Laissez les bons temps rouler Captain Skippy, we go into Town for the big one tomorrow you? (I'll be the bracque coonass in the purple tailcoat and top hat.)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
That said, it is easier (for me) to believe in "ex nihilo yada yada" nothing monopole surrounded by a gradient "field" of anapolic nothing which then gradiates into a layer of dipolic "something". Which then has sufficient potential differential to generate kinetic charge which can then generate electrical charge. And so on....
Damn. I should have taken the blue pill. This is making me even loopier than I already am. Which ain't an easy thing to do, I gotta tell ya....
RC, your concern of plagiarism indicates an ego - something else a true scientist must let go of to be truly a scientist.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
I suspect strongly that it's out of fear of being ridiculed and downvoted by that troll. Yes? No?

Who cares? It's simply humorous digression. Not enough of that in this world. The voting system is just another diversion from the task at hand. If you give a crap about it, then you aren't a scientist.

Anyhow, I trust the conversation goes more productively STEP by STEP from that initial agreed consensus on electric charge/motion before extended e-m field. :)

From what does the charge and motion derive? It's not TOE unless you explain that.

Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2014
Mate, I am ignoring it. The problem seems to be you are not doing likewise. You reply and exchange snide derogatory irrelevancies with it. :)


Really Skippy you really ought to rein in that habit of telling peoples what they say and who they say it to you. Why you think anyone here is going to let you direct the show? Now Skippy, you take that referring hat off your head and put the silly looking pointy cap back on.

Anyhow, I trust the conversation goes more productively STEP by STEP from that initial agreed consensus on electric charge/motion before extended e-m field. :)


Well you are a trusting couyon if you think that you are going to direct these smart people's conversations. They are really smart and don't need your help deciding on what they agree on. Let 'em do their own agreeing.

P'tit boug quit trying to cause the trouble you. You don't want the Ira boude' with you no. I'm not always this nice and jolly.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2014
P'tit boug quit trying to cause the trouble you. You don't want the Ira boude' with you no. I'm not always this nice and jolly.

And you Ira, didn't always sound so coonass cajun. An affectation of some kind I am assuming. What is up with that?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
When they attract, the magnetic field lines from the two magnets connect, and when they repel, all of the magnetic field lines are disconnected. If you rotate from one orientation to the other, then connected field lines must disconnect, or disconnected field lines must connect.

That's pseudoscience, field lines don't do a thing! They cannot move, break, connect, dance, twist, or any other such nonsense. When you move a magnet around you are changing the configuration of the field, but as Alfven said and I will continue to repeat, trying to reify "field lines" into doing work is purely pseudoscience.

There is no "deviation" of any kind between plasma phenomena as observed in terrestrial laboratory experiments and the accepted practices of space physics and plasma astrophysics.

Really? Yet there is almost nary a mention of double layers, pinches, sheaths, Birkeland currents, circuits, electric fields, and any number of other phenomena that are ubiquitous to plasma. Weird!
RealityCheck
1.3 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2014
Hi Whydening Gyre. :)
RC, your concern of plagiarism indicates an ego - something else a true scientist must let go of to be truly a scientist.
Just as one should 'not feed the trolls', one should likewise 'not feed the plagiarists'. You wouldn't be so sanguine if you spent decades on a complete and consistent ToE which explains everything without ad hoc fixes and gaps like gravity, inertia etc.

Who cares? It's simply humorous digression. Not enough of that in this world. The voting system is just another diversion from the task at hand. If you give a crap about it, then you aren't a scientist.
No it's not, and you know it. It's malicious trolling to bait/disrupt and intimidate (even you?) into treating that troll as if he mattered at all in the science discourse.

From what does the charge and motion derive? It's not TOE unless you explain that.

The professional theories don't say. Mine does, and more. Does your theory say? Discuss. Bye. :)

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
so cantdrive joins the 'smart people' at least on that item

@Reality
I CAN read
CD has agreed to it in the past as well... doesn't mean that he will be able to comprehend the aspects of physics that will be provided in the future
I left a link in one comment (feb) from another physicist for an open course on EM and Maxwell, etc. HAD he read that link, this conversation would NOT be happening
Thompson has left more than 30 links explaining physics, and quite a few on this topic: CD still has not comprehended WHY his precious EU religion is skewed

Therefore it is the motivations of certain individuals that I am questioning
AND
I really DONT like to waste precious time
IF I were to agree to moderation, it would be IN PERSON
and considering the demonstrations of CD, et al, they would not be so keen on THAT idea

if you wish to continue, fine... just offering you fair warning
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
The problem seems to be you are not doing likewise

@Reality
I like Ira.
I also like Wydening Gyre, because as an artist, his vision can be wonderfully out-of-the-box, and thus precious to me for perspective
I also enjoy some of our conversations, RC, but you have been labeled a troll in the past too

and just because I call someone out for pseudoscience doesnt mean I dont like them
in all honesty, they dont matter enough to me to like or dislike
it is the PSEUDOSCIENCE that I dont like
and I thought once that ANYONE can learn... but I have been proven wrong with certain people, like CD, jvk, and Zeph

by the way, RC... Ira just calls it as he sees it
anything that you attach (motivation, etc) to his conversations is internal to you
if it is not relevant to you, it will not bother you
concentrate on what you want and move on

Didnt you give me essentially the same advice when dealing with Zeph a few months ago?
:-)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)
Therefore it is the motivations of certain individuals that I am questioning
AND
I really DONT like to waste precious time
IF I were to agree to moderation, it would be IN PERSON
and considering the demonstrations of CD, et al, they would not be so keen on THAT idea

if you wish to continue, fine... just offering you fair warning
All I ask is that, now Q-S and Thompson have effectively agreed with cantdrive on that ONE first item, you and all the smart people take it one step at a time, covering each successive issue/aspect and reaching some consensus (either way) along the way; so that at some point the discussion reaches a stage where either the science presented at each stage builds to a confirmation OR a rebuttal of the overall EU claims as a whole once the details have been discerned in their own right along the way. That way the discussion can have a hope of avoiding repetitive personal/general t-and-fro irrelevances, and confirm/falsify EU theory. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
is this guy always like this? How did I miss him before I want to know because he sure seems like couyon I usually notice right off

@Ira
Laissez les bons temps rouler indeed, Ira
I forgot that it was Mardi Gras! Apologies!
Drink a cold one on me!
Reality has his moments. You may not always agree with him but there are times when he can dispense wisdom
he DOES have an infuriating habit of slipping in coy remarks to a TOE (Theory Of Everything) that he is working on, but he will never really talk physics about it to prevent losing the first publication
whether or not this is legit is out of my hands
some people think not, but I cant make a judgement on something that I cant find information on, so...
He means well in the attempt to moderate the discussion, but with CD85 and the Electric universe bunch, it will be like herding cats

Amusez-vous à Mardi Gras. La vie est une fête digne d'être vécue!
I hope Google translate did this right! :-)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
I like Ira.
I also like Wydening Gyre, because as an artist, his vision can be wonderfully out-of-the-box, and thus precious to me for perspective
I also enjoy some of our conversations, RC, but you have been labeled a troll in the past too

and just because I call someone out for pseudoscience doesnt mean I dont like them
in all honesty, they dont matter enough to me to like or dislike
it is the PSEUDOSCIENCE that I dont like...

by the way, RC... Ira just calls it as he sees it
Your personal likes or dislikes are not the point. Science debate and objective resolution is the point. Troll is what troll does. This is a science site. Polite exchanges asides are ok, sure; but nasty trolling intended to denigrate and clutter/intimidate etc is not. And who is the one labeling me 'troll'? It is important to note that it is the troll "lite/Uncle Ira etc" or others distracting from the science and making it 'personal' so that you and others yell at each other. That feeds the troll. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
you and all the smart people take it one step at a time

@Reality
I will observe and try...
will be hard considering you have CD saying things like
Yet there is almost nary a mention of double layers, pinches, sheaths, Birkeland currents, circuits, electric fields, and any number of other phenomena that are ubiquitous to plasma

knowing full well he is full of bullsh*t
especially given that I have personally linked copies from universities, as well as other places, showing him that, As Thompson put it
There is no "deviation" of any kind between plasma phenomena as observed in terrestrial laboratory experiments and the accepted practices of space physics and plasma astrophysics

Its hard to be still when there is so much stupid claimed by CD
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2014
Your personal likes or dislikes are not the point

@Real
I beg to differ
you said I should ignore him, and I told you why I dont
just answering your post
Science debate and objective resolution is the point

I agree. Get on with it
making it 'personal' so that you and others yell at each other

I disagree
1- it is pseudoscience that makes me post usually
2- given that I am collecting data then it is relevant that I also include the asides that feed the debate
3- what feeds the troll is getting angry, the rest is irrelevant (even the replies- that only serves to make it worse for the trolled)

But this is gone on long enough... address the science
you will not change my mind about Ira
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2014
The problem is that both 'sides' still make grand generalization claims/counterclaims. That's what I'm trying to avoid, and get the discussion from both 'sides' treating ONE item at a time, not a whole generalized 'bunch of claims'. See? While both 'sides' keep coming back with wide and open generalized 'dismissals' en-masse, they are not actually treating each NEXT item until that's sorted and then proceeding to the next. Just like Q-S and cantdrive settled that first item, the 'smart people' on both 'sides' should just stick to the next indicated item. And go step by step from there until the EU hypothesis is either confirmed or falsified at some point. If all continue the general yell-backs, scientific resolution of the matter EITHER WAY is the loser. I have no personal position an any partial theory, irrespective of provenance; including EU, Big Bang, GR/SR math/geometry abstractions, or any other eccentric theories. My ToE subsumes all 'correct bits' from ALL partial theories. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Mar 03, 2014
@Captain Stumpy. :)

Fair enough, mate. You know what you're here for. Enjoy your science discussions and your asides/humorous content. But "don't feed trolls' is still the watchword of all science sites. Good luck on that score. Sorry, gotta go for a bit; very busy on you-know-what; so won't be posting again for a couple weeks. Stay well. Cheers! :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2014
The problem is that both 'sides' still make grand generalization claims/counterclaims.

@Reality
I hope you see this before you leave...
follow Thompsons link and go thru the threads... most arguments against Alfven/CD are a point by point refute using logic and real physics, studies, links etc

read up on that before coming back to argue with CD and the other EU guys
Q-Star
5 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2014
All I ask is that, now Q-S and Thompson have effectively agreed with cantdrive on that ONE first item, you and all the smart people take it one step at a time, covering each successive issue/aspect and reaching some consensus (either way) along the way;


I wish ya would quit using me as an example of anything. I never agreed with cantdrive on anything. I have agree with people much more intelligent than him. Even a moron or idiot like CD sometimes says something "correct", but it doesn't make them less the moron or idiot.

I tried on two occasions to offer the olive branch, I even publicly apologized for making rough characterizations on my part. After asking if he would like to discuss astrophysics from a less emotional discourse, he told me it would be a waste of time, all astrophysicists were ignorant, that I was nothing more than a metaphysicist, that nothing I learned was useful, etc, etc, for post after post before I could respond. He's an idiot that parrots idiocy.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2014
From what does the charge and motion derive? It's not TOE unless you explain that.
The professional theories don't say. Mine does, and more. Does your theory say? Discuss. Bye. :)

Not a mathematician. verbalist and artist. My "TOE" is 3d and constantly in motion. My screen name is exactly my "theory". I stated previously here or in another thread, that einstein's GR equation had six possible manipulations (in the first layer), if you include the answer as part of the equation.
Best I can tell you. IT ROTATES 3d. if y' all can comprehend it, plagiarize away. My gift to all of you.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2014
sorry for the repeat.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 04, 2014
. I have no personal position an any partial theory, irrespective of provenance; including EU, Big Bang, GR/SR math/geometry abstractions, or any other eccentric theories. My ToE subsumes all 'correct bits' from ALL partial theories.

hope you fill in all the necessary holes... Actually, any statements made here can be considered a "poorman's copywright" since it is dated when made.
And I think there is more to Ira than he lets on.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 06, 2014
Sayeth "cantdrive85":
When they attract, the magnetic field lines from the two magnets connect, and when they repel, all of the magnetic field lines are disconnected. If you rotate from one orientation to the other, then connected field lines must disconnect, or disconnected field lines must connect.
That's pseudoscience, field lines don't do a thing! They cannot move, break, connect, dance, twist, or any other such nonsense. When you move a magnet around you are changing the configuration of the field, but as Alfven said and I will continue to repeat, trying to reify "field lines" into doing work is purely pseudoscience.


Sayeth me:
All completely wrong. Alfven was, and you are, already *conclusively proven* to be wrong, as I will continue to repeat. Theory and experiment prove you utterly wrong.

Watch the movies.
http://www.coolma...tion.htm

More stuff:
http://forums.ran...unt=6687
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (2) Mar 06, 2014
Sayeth "cantdrive85":
Really? Yet there is almost nary a mention of double layers, pinches, sheaths, Birkeland currents, circuits, electric fields, and any number of other phenomena that are ubiquitous to plasma. Weird!

Nary a mention?

"Coronal Electron Confinement by Double Layers"; Li, Drake & Swisdak, Astrophysical Journal 778(2): id. 144 (December 2013)
http://adsabs.har...78..144L

"Megavolt Parallel Potentials Arising from Double-Layer Streams in the Earth's Outer Radiation Belt"; Mozer, et. al., Physical Review Letters 111(23), id. 235002 (December 2013)
http://adsabs.har...11w5002M

I found 453 more like this since the year 2000. That's a lot for "nary a mention". You keep claiming that space & astrophysicists never pay attention to these things when in fact the astrophysical literature is littered with them. Is there anything about which you are not dismally ignorant?
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2014
"You keep claiming that space & astrophysicists never pay attention to these things when in fact the astrophysical literature is littered with them."

I hear that. Recently posted to arXiv was a review paper titled "Electric Current Circuits in Astrophysics" that reviews said circuits in the context of pulsars, solar flares and terrestrial magnetic storms:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.0795

According to cantdrive, this paper(and refs therein) and the ones Tim linked don't exist, as astrophysicists supposedly ignore plasmas/circuits etc. and are wedded to their "gravity-only" theories. I should add that it's not just cantdrive that is ignorant of this work but also the main purveyors of this woo (Scott, Thornhill et al) that really should know better if they did their due diligence as scientists. Their intellectual dishonesty precedes them (and in turn is parroted by the likes of cantdrive, hannes alfven etc.).
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2014
In re to, "Megavolt Parallel Potentials Arising from Double-Layer Streams in the Earth's Outer Radiation Belt"; Mozer, et. al., Physical Review Letters 111(23), id. 235002 (December 2013)

In this article an astrophysicist shows the disconnect I claim;

http://physics.ap...s/v6/131

From the article;
"This prompts new questions: Why are electron acoustic waves and the associated double layers formed? Why do double layers occur in streams of thousands? What conditions allow such large electric potential differences to exist? What drivers of the magnetospheric dynamics can also be found in other astrophysical systems?"

If there were such an complete knowledge of plasma physics the answers to these questions would be obvious. It is getting to the point where studying the electrical nature of the cosmos is unavoidable, but the "how", "why", and "what" is still misunderstood. It will also be curious to see how those finding are incorporated to the "standard" theory, if it can...
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2014
"You keep claiming that space & astrophysicists never pay attention to these things when in fact the astrophysical literature is littered with them."

I hear that. Recently posted to arXiv was a review paper titled "Electric Current Circuits in Astrophysics" that reviews said circuits in the context of pulsars, solar flares and terrestrial magnetic storms:


First sentence of abstract;
"Cosmic magnetic structures have in common that they are anchored in a dynamo"

Bzzzzt, pseudoscience!
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (2) Mar 07, 2014
hope you fill in all the necessary holes... Actually, any statements made here can be considered a "poorman's copywright" since it is dated when made.
And I think there is more to Ira than he lets on.

Hi Whydening. :) I make no more INTERNET FORUMS 'piecemeal disclosures' from my ToE because I don't have time, energy, health or inclination for the snowstorm of partial discussions all over the place that would ensue! Also, risk of being plagiarized/gazzumped, getting mired in tedious 'after the event' arguments over priority. Beware: Don't depend on internet forum publishing for priority record. The 'other site' had/has a crazy mad moderator who DELETED others' POST RECORD to cover his own misdeeds against a genuine poster, thus effectively destroying such 'priority' record. No internet site/record is 'safe' from malicious 'doctoring' by those in charge. Best to publish 'hard copy' book of complete ToE and send 'legal deposit' copies to relevant libraries/institutions. Bye! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2014
Hi cantdrive. :)


First sentence of abstract;
"Cosmic magnetic structures have in common that they are anchored in a dynamo"

Bzzzzt, pseudoscience!


Sorry, very busy, so briefly...

I would be interested how the HOMOPOLAR GENERATOR system dynamics/flows etc would be described in your/Alfven's Plasma Physics perspective/dynamics. Is that another form of 'dynamo', or is that qualitatively/effectively different 'generator' system which has different effects/phenomenal results in the plasma analytical/physical construct?

Gotta go! Busy! Will be reading through again in a few days. Good luck and enjoy your discussions, cantdrive, everyone! Bye. :)
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2014
First sentence of abstract; "Cosmic magnetic structures have in common that they are anchored in a dynamo". Bzzzzt, pseudoscience!


Your problem is that you are monumentally ignorant of all things physics, especially plasmas, so all you can do is repeat buzzwords as if you understood them & rules of thumb as if they were laws of physics. But you are not fooling anybody with your false bravado.

Now you are trying to convince us that dynamo theory is "pseudoscience", but the only champions of pseudoscience around here are you and the champions of EU, and you work really hard at being as pseudoscientific as you can.

You try to argue that magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience and you blow the horn of laboratory plasma physics, but you cry foul when it is pointed out to you that magnetic reconnection is seen in real laboratory plasmas in real time. You are yourself the true soul of pseudoscience, and proud of it!
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2014
We are told that magnetic reconnection is pseudoscience, yet we see that magnetic reconnection is observed in real time experiments with real laboratory plasmas, such as the Magnetic Reconnection Experiment at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, Princeton University:
http://mrx.pppl.gov/

Now we are being told by the same messenger that dynamo theory is also pseudoscience. But we can see functioning dynamos in real time in just the same manner.

The Madison Dynamo Experiment uses liquid sodium to mimic a planetary dynamo:
http://plasma.phy...ckground

The Madison Plasma Dynamo Experiment uses plasma to mimic the dynamo generation of astrophysical magnetic fields.
http://plasma.phy...edu/mpdx

Is it not reasonable to apply the label "pseudoscientist" upon those who deny the possibility of that which is observed to happen?
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (4) Mar 07, 2014
I have already shown the dynamo in practice. Here is the dynamo in theory.

"Fluid Dynamics and Dynamos in Astrophysics and Geophysics"; Soward, et al., editors, CRC Press 2005. Reviews emerging from the Durham Symposium on Astrophysical Fluid Mechanics, July 29 to August 8, 2002.

"Stellar Magnetism"; Leon Mestel, Oxford University Press 2003. This book is an extensive description of the generation and transport of magnetic fields in stellar interiors.

These are only two examples, but that's enough. Both magnetic reconnection, and dynamo action have decades of theoretical advance to support them, and both are observed to happen in real time laboratory environments. So one must seriously question how deeply one should trust the messenger who calls them "pseudoscience". My advice is don't trust them at all.
Whydening Gyre
not rated yet Mar 08, 2014
Hi Whydening. :) I make no more INTERNET FORUMS 'piecemeal disclosures' from my ToE because I don't have time, energy, health or inclination for the snowstorm of partial discussions all over the place that would ensue! Also, risk of being plagiarized/gazzumped, getting mired in tedious 'after the event' arguments over priority. Beware: Don't depend on internet forum publishing for priority record. The 'other site' had/has a crazy mad moderator who DELETED others' POST RECORD to cover his own misdeeds against a genuine poster, thus effectively destroying such 'priority' record. No internet site/record is 'safe' from malicious 'doctoring' by those in charge. Best to publish 'hard copy' book of complete ToE and send 'legal deposit' copies to relevant libraries/institutions. Bye

Let me know where I can pick one up....