Jonathan Ng, a Princeton University graduate student at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), has for the first time applied a fluid simulation to the space plasma process behind solar flares northern lights and space storms. The model could lead to improved forecasts of space weather that can shut down cell phone service and damage power grids, as well as to better understanding of the hot, charged plasma gas that fuels fusion reactions.

The new simulation captures the physics of magnetic reconnection, the breaking apart and snapping together of the magnetic field lines in plasma that occurs throughout the universe. The simulations approximate kinetic effects in a fluid code, which treats plasma as a flowing liquid, to create a more detailed picture of the reconnection process.

Previous simulations used fluid codes to produce simplified descriptions of reconnection that takes place in the vastness of space, where widely separated plasma particles rarely collide. However, this collisionless environment gives rise to kinetic effects on plasma behavior that fluid models cannot normally capture.

**Estimation of kinetic behavior**

The new simulation estimates kinetic behavior. "This is the first application of this particular fluid model in studying reconnection physics in space plasmas," said Ng, lead author of the findings reported in August in the journal *Physics of Plasmas*.

Ng and coauthors approximated kinetic effects with a series of fluid equations based on plasma density, momentum and pressure. They concluded the process through a mathematical technique called "closure" that enabled them to describe the kinetic mixing of particles from non-local, or large-scale, regions. The type of closure involved was originally developed by PPPL physicist Greg Hammett and the late Rip Perkins in the context of fusion plasmas, making its application to the space plasma environment an example of fruitful cross-fertilization.

The completed results agreed better with kinetic models as compared with simulations produced by traditional fluid codes. The new simulations could extend understanding of reconnection to whole regions of space such as the magnetosphere, the magnetic field that surrounds the Earth, and provide a more comprehensive view of the universal process.

**Explore further:**
Physicists uncover clues to mechanism behind magnetic reconnection

**More information:**
Jonathan Ng et al, Simulations of anti-parallel reconnection using a nonlocal heat flux closure, *Physics of Plasmas* (2017). DOI: 10.1063/1.4993195

## cantdrive85

Such as claims like;

Utterly pseudoscientific!

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Maggnus

Cantthink and Gish-galloping Chris. I can;t think of a worthier combination to ridicule.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Maggnus

No GG Chris, you are presenting his material as if nothing has been learned in the 40+ years since he said those things. You are a fraud.

## Maggnus

40 years ago. Fraud.

## shavera

Even if no experiment has ever been undertaken to make this measurement, are there any actual predictions that someone could, in principle, test?

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Maggnus

No, dumdum, it is the study of the subject over time that will add the to knowledge we have of the subject - including corrections of past mistakes and misunderstandings.

Well, except for those associated with the Giant Lightning Bolt Cult of Phanidiots, who think knowledge over time does not grow.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Maggnus

Yep. Good for a laugh! They have gotten nothing right, and they change their "predictions" whenever they are proven wrong.

Can you show a prediction they got wrong GG Chris?

## Maggnus

You are a fraud.

## Maggnus

Gish gallop.

## Da Schneib

Still haven't seen any realistic response to my discussion of reconnection many months ago. The #physicscranks never responded with any rational refutation of it.

Happy to reprise it if anyone has a realistic explanation of it, but mere denials without evidence deserve no response and will receive none. Tired of dealing with #physicscranks.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Da Schneib

C'mon, #physicscranks, explain why magnetic reconnection is wrong in detail instead of just saying "it's wrong" over and over.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Da Schneib

Try some more and see what you get. I'm here waiting.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Da Schneib

If you have no better than this it's apparent reconnection is correct and you can't even make a coherent argument against it because you don't even understand what it means.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Da Schneib

You can't make up lies about mathematical theorems like you can about physical theories. If you have the error in the proof show the math and present it, if you can't you're full of sxxt. It's as simple as that.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Da Schneib

You haven't presented that either. Until you do you're full of sxxt and there's no way to deny that. Bring the math or admit, tacitly or actively, that you're lying. No questions, no doubts, no horsepucky. Either you got the math or you don't, and quotes ain't it.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Da Schneib

Theorems are not theories, and the difference is your point of ignorance. To disprove a theorem you have to show an error in the math. If you don't have any then you are shown to be lying. It's as simple as that.

I'm looking for a mathematical disproof. You aren't giving one. The conclusion is obvious. It doesn't matter whether you have the personal integrity to admit it or not; anyone who knows math knows about you from your own statements:

1. Alfven's Theorem is a lie.

2. I don't have any proof.

OK, we accept your lack of proof. Where do you want to go from here?

## Maggnus

## Maggnus

Gish gallop.

## Da Schneib

That's OK. I'm willing to let #physicscrank @Reeve flail while trying to pretend to "facts" it doesn't have; I think this is more revealing when it is elicited from the #physicscrank. Let them flail and thrash around trying quoting people instead of posting the math, and trying to pretend mathematical theorems aren't proven with mathematics. At least the smarts will get it, I don't expect to convince stupids like #physicscrank @Reeve #denier.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

You'll want to look at Faraday's and Ampere's Laws. Gauss' Laws merely define the electric and magnetic flux.

## Da Schneib

You'll need to know enough math to derive it from Maxwell's Equations, but it's not very difficult. I'd venture to say that if you can't figure it out you shouldn't be talking about plasmas in the first place since you don't know enough about EM to do so.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Da Schneib

The proofs for Newton's Laws are just as good today as they were when he wrote the Principia 300 years ago.

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

If your ability to visualize 3D is good, that picture will tell you everything you need to know. It's when two magnetic fields combine, at the point where they combine. Neither one gets canceled; they reconnect, forming two new fields. They can't cancel; no real magnetic field is shaped right to do that.

## 691Boat

Kind of a side note here, but if you ever get the chance to read Newton's "Opticks", I highly recommend it just for the reason of being able to see his observations from his own point of view, which were extremely fascinating. I could feel the excitement in his writing about the visible spectrum experimentation he conducted.

## Da Schneib

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Da Schneib

Pythagoras' Theorem, if it was invented by the Babylonians as has been mooted by a recent article here on physorg, is getting on close to 4,000 years old. And it's as true today as it was then.

Math is math. Get over it.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Da Schneib

Math is math. There isn't any "worldview," there isn't any "selection," there is only a mathematical proof (or in your case, the lack of one). That's the thing about math.

a² + b² = c²

Alfven's Theorem rests on a foundation just as solid.

There simply isn't any more.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Da Schneib

On a computer in order to post your disproof on the Internets. A computer designed and built using Maxwell's Equations.

Good luck with that. Just sayin'.

## Da Schneib

If you're an EE tell me how you are disproving Maxwell's Equations to render Alfven's Theorem invalid. I'm waiting here. You haven't said anything that requires all that EE training you claim to have had. Why is that?

## Da Schneib

∫(S) B ∙ dS = k

Note the use of the B field; this is a vector equation, where B and S are vectors. k is a constant, indicating that the vectors of B and S are jointly conserved across the dot product. You can see the fully vectorized equation in the section of the Wikipedia article on Alfven's Theorem I linked above.

Once again, if you claim the derivation is incorrect, #physicscrank #mathcrank @Reeve #denier, please show your work. If you can't then everyone knows you are lying. That's the thing about math; everyone can tell if you lie. There is no place to run, and no place to hide.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 08, 2017## Da Schneib

As I discussed above, in a real plasma, the resistance is non-zero, so this equation is not precisely correct for a real plasma, and in addition one must define the surface so that the volume is constant not in spatial terms but in terms of the number of particles of the fluid enclosed, in order to keep the charge enclosed constant. The reasons for these constraints will be obvious to anyone who knows Gauss' Laws from the Maxwell Equations.

#physicscrank #mathcrank @Reeve #electronicsdenier it must be comforting to imagine that math is wrong because you're #toodumbtogetmath even though you're posting your BS on the Internets.

## Da Schneib

The math is all on this thread. Not one peep of math from this supposed "EE." Sounds like a degree from The Air University, the same one that gives degrees in Air Guitar.

## Da Schneib

## MRBlizzard

## Da Schneib

## Da Schneib

The magnetic field lines along the axis are open due to their speed approaching the speed of light as they diverge from the poles of the pulsar. Magnetobremsstrahlung (synchrotron radiation) is extremely likely to cause most of the radiation, as the electrons are accelerated along the open but still curved field lines that pass through the cone in which they must hit the speed of light due to the rotation of the pulsar and become open; these electrons will emit bremsstrahlung until they can break away from the curved field lines. This accounts well for the observed radiation properties of the pulsars and the calculations of their spin axes from other properties.

You can find an extensive discussion of this here: http://www.cv.nra...ars.html Look in the "Emission Mechanisms" section. They call the magnetobremsstrahlung "curvature radiation."

That's the best I got.

## Da Schneib

This is some very interesting stuff, but pretty complicated, and the complete mechanism is not understood. But it seems pretty clear that we know a lot about the dynamics in these areas because we can see them with radiotelescopes. Meanwhile, your Word for the Day is magnetobremsstrahlung. Have fun.

And in any case, it seems unlikely that magnetic reconnection has anything to do with any of this.

## Ojorf

I though experimental data inspires and selects the equations.

## Maggnus

## Maggnus

## cantdrive85

Examples;

General Relativity- 1915 or so, and prior to the scientific plagerist (Einstein) the 17th century. Definitively pre-space age.

Stellar internal fusion beliefs/guesses- Eddington 1925 or so. Also definitively pre-space age.

Belief in pseudoscientific black holes and faerie dust dark matter- Both invented in the '30's, pre-space age.

It would seem as if maggnuts prefers revisionism and lies to reality and truth.

## cantdrive85

It did preceed the space age, by folks such as Alfven and Birkeland, however it was by no means generally accepted by the scientific community as the very reason Birkeland's and Alfven's predictions (auroral dynamics/origin, galactic magnetic fields, etc.) were derided because these could not work in the vacuum of outer space.

More revisionism, lies, and obfuscation by maggnuts. Good job!

## Maggnus

## cantdrive85

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 09, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 09, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 09, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 09, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 09, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 09, 2017## cantdrive85

You mean such as the following nonsensical blather?

1st, you are wrong again. As the following paper states;

https://www.googl...zCGn174Q

2nd, the Catholic priest Georges Lemaître proposed his 'creatio ex nihilo' church supported creation event (Big Bang) back in 1927, 30-years prior to the Space-Age.

Lies, revisionism, and further obfuscation by maggnuts.

## Maggnus

## cantdrive85

After he makes this statement before trying to change the subject again;

and;

Pot, meet kettle...

What lies are you gonna tell now?

## Maggnus

Chris is just delusional, and writes about science as if his opinion and worldview make some difference to the facts and observations. He seems to think that if he orates well enough that he will somehow overcome the actual observations.

Can'tthink is just stupid and has demonstrated a capacity to believe anything as long as it prima facie supports his world view that scientists are in cahoots with each other against the rest of humanity.

That's describes a world view Chris, not this sacerdotal posturing you are doing here on behalf of a laughable religionistic pseudoscience.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 10, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 10, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 10, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 10, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 10, 2017## Da Schneib

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 10, 2017## RealityCheck

I previously tried to make DS aware of that salient point which Chris has just stressed for DS's benefit. But will the point get through DS's 'one track math' blinkers/filters sufficiently for him to realize that Maths and Physical Reality may not equate/coincide? If DS can stop trolling/ego-tripping and read up re that point (made by all truly great physicists, including Einstein, who made a remark about that very point), then maybe DS can come back and tell us he finally 'gets it'. Good luck to him. :)

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 11, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 11, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 11, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 11, 2017## 691Boat

@Reeve:

Where is all the math for EU? As a self-proclaimed EE, I feel you should easily be able to show that math for the "circuitry" that apparently makes up our known universe, including the voltage sources and grounds. Seems pretty straight forward, no?

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 11, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 11, 2017## 691Boat

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 11, 2017## 691Boat

It was discovered? Or was it suggested? Is this the whole 'Tang and Zhang' redshift thing that was proven false a decade ago?

## Benni

So Schneibo, what is your degree in? I recall you one time alluded to having a degree of some kind in something to do with Information Technology, not exactly physics related is it..........CRANK.

## Da Schneib

Pro Tip™, @Reeve: Arp doesn't have anything to do with it.

## RealityCheck

FYIs to help mutual understandings re issues you're discussing:

- The universal totality is infinite, hence always OPEN CIRCUIT OVERALL due to immense time delay overwhelming phenomena via REGIONAL/EPOCHAL 'localized circuits' arising/subsiding due to Quantum perturbations and further feedback forces (gravity, electro-magnetic dynamics EXCURSIONS within/between various local sources and sinks in intergalactic/galactic/interstellar/interplanetary etc charged/neutral material media bodies/expanses).

- we now know Fast Electron dynamics create "butterfly effect' ranges of localized/long distance flows/swirls etc; which CURRENTS chaotically arise in plasma previously 'calm' for short period (which is a relative term, depending on spatial/temporal extent and evolutionary trajectory of the plasma features/processes under study).

- PPPL simulations/approaches now acknowledge transient/localized "closed circuit' effects/factors in space plasmas.

Complex!

## RealityCheck

In short: neither of you is particularly tenably based re if your respective arguments depend on old/falsified 'redshift' and 'cmb' etc MISUNDERSTANDINGS as to their real meaning/implications in actual phenomena observed.

New discoveries/reviews are seriously questioning all big bang/inflation/redshift/cmb INTERPRETATIONS and hypotheses/claims; so take a step back and review your OWN RESPECTIVE 'side's arguments to check whether both of you are speaking from 'falsified' stances/interpretations or not. Cheers. :)

## Da Schneib

I feel like I'm discussing the existence or non-existence of bicycles with people who don't know what a "wheel" is and don't believe they exist.

## Da Schneib

I'm thinking we're dealing here with folks who have never seen anything like this, and have no idea how it works. Hard to believe; not only did I have a kit like this, most of the kids I knew did too. And if they didn't they saw it in science class in school, generally before they were eight years old.

## RealityCheck

Your stupid and ignorant attempt to ridicule based on your own stupidity/dishonesty is now become too much. You've been using such tactics to denigrate those who are MORE CORRECT and KNOWLEDGEABLE than you; and to distract from the fact you won't engage fairly but insult and troll in order to 'win' despite being so ignorant of the actual KNOWN and EVOLVING science involved.

Your further attempts at mischaracterizing and strawmanning are LAME even for you, DS. The issue was not about open/closed circuits per se; but whether circuits arise in space plasmas, as PPPL has just simulated.

## Benni

Hey, RC, you're trying to have a dialogue with an overage Trekkie, you know, those guys who dress up in tin foil hats & prance off a couple times a year to those Trekkie Conventions.

## Da Schneib

You made it obvious you have no more idea of what an open or closed circuit is than any of the rest of the #physicscranks. They teach this stuff in elementary school. To little kids. Who seem to understand it better than you do.

There isn't any lie you can tell, there isn't any grandiose claim you can make, and there isn't any insult you can throw that will help you conceal your appalling, abysmal ignorance and overwhelming arrogance after you said something that stupid. There just isn't.

But it sure is funny watching you try, so feel free.

## Da Schneib

## Benni

What is really funny is the funny farm science hapless cranks like you try to come up with to prove Infinite Wells of gravity & infinite density of material CAN EXIST ON THE SURFACE OF A FINITE MASS, that you actually believe gravity is not mass dependent in spite of what we know about General Relativity.

Gee, Schneibo, this is fun.....keep the entertainment coming old man.

## Da Schneib

This is absolutely foundational to the understanding of electricity. No one can discuss a plasma without knowing how electricity works. If they do there is no point in listening to them; they're simply spouting nonsense. Electric currents don't just appear out of nowhere. It's like claiming that mass or motion appear out of nowhere.

## Da Schneib

I mean, seriously.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## Da Schneib

If you can't figure out a lightswitch nobody cares what you claim about plasmas.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## Whydening Gyre

A little off topic, there, CR...

## jonesdave

Magnetospheric Substorms and Solar Flares

Mishin, Banin, Lunyushkin & Falthammar (1996)

http://adsabs.har...89..731M

Magnetic-field aligned electric fields in collisionless space plasmas – a brief review

Falthammar (2002)

http://www.redaly...3210.pdf

......TBC in Reevesque Gish gallop style.....

## jonesdave

On the Concept of Moving Magnetic Field Lines

Falthammar & Mozer (2007)

http://onlinelibr...0002/pdf

The Earth's Magnetosphere as a Key to the Plasma Universe

Falthammar (2010)

http://www.diva-p...XT01.pdf

So, can we finally get this question answered from the EU loons? Is Falthammar a crank?

## jonesdave

An Evaluation of Plasma Astronomy

Faulkner, D.R.

https://pdfs.sema...5956.pdf

## 691Boat

But I was under the impression that modern astrophysics is based on the false assumption that space is empty, just like your "charge-loaded metal sphere in a VACUUM." How can you possibly use that as a comparison?

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## jonesdave

What debate?

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## jonesdave

So what electrical charge is on the Sun? Bear in mind that equal numbers of electrons and ions are leaving it at the same speed, and in the same direction.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## jonesdave

Velikovsky was a loon. A scientifically unqualified loon, at that. He thought Venus should be hot because it was recent, having flown out of Jupiter, before doing a grand tour of the inner solar system, with numerous physics defying handbrake turns on the way. That stuff is for the fairies. Lol.

## jonesdave

Crap. As is the rest of your mythology based woo.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## jonesdave

Scott is clueless. That is a given. Ask any relevantly qualified scientist to review his unpublished nonsense, and you will get the same answer. That is why it is unpublished.

As for Venus, Velikovsky was beaten to the 'Venus is hot' argument by a real scientist. Doing real science:

Photochemistry of Planetary Atmospheres

Wildt, R. (1937)

http://adsabs.har...86..321W

## Maggnus

Gish galloping Reeve the EU Acolyte.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## jonesdave

WTF is that? Lol. No, Reeve, we are talking about science. So, let's get back on topic, eh? Generally speaking, you do science by firstly having an hypothesis. You can then test that hypothesis in a lab, if practical. Then you can get in-situ observations that will either confirm or deny your hypothesis. Take magnetic reconnection - it went through all those steps, and is now a proven fact.

## 691Boat

"It's not that EUers are wrong; they're not even on the bus." -Michael Shermer

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## 691Boat

You tell me, since you are so keen on the history of things, like how Venus was a comet at one point, right?

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 12, 2017## Da Schneib

## RealityCheck

As you have OFTEN and LOUDLY BOASTED, DS, you still don't read or still ignore/don't care to comprehend what's being said.

DS, you LEFT OUT the REAL KNOWN SCIENCE which makes your simplistic twaddle so LAME.

I said the UNIVERSE may be infinite and hence OPEN CIRCUIT, however, there is LOCALLY TIME/SPACE variability and LAG between 'events' across the entirety of the universe. Hence the KNOWN plasma SCIENCE involving transiently arising FAST ELECTRON CURRENTS (as PPPL and all the labs are NOW increasingly seeing in experiments).

Listen and Learn, DS. :)

## Da Schneib

It's really easy to see that if you can't understand how a lightswitch works you're never going to understand plasma, and no one should be listening to you. It was an incredibly stupid thing to say, and now you have to pay for it.

The EUdiots can't figure out how a lightswitch works. That's the end of that.

## Benni

And you can't figure out Einstein's Field Equations that gravity is MASS DEPENDENT, not DENSITY DEPENDENT.......end of that.

## Da Schneib

## Whydening Gyre

Yeah, but....

When is mass NOT dependent on density of contributing massive entities?

## Da Schneib

All anybody has to do is look up the Einstein Field Equations on Wikipedia and look at the equation. Let's do that: https://en.wikipe...quations

On the right side, we have the stress-energy tensor. If we look this up, we find that it is determined by the mass density, energy density, and field density: https://en.wikipe...y_tensor

Which would make the EFE-- and therefore GRT as a whole-- density dependent.

And you're still a moron. This time you're a math moron. Not that it's unusual for you.

## jonesdave

And of what relevance is it?

Radiation in the Atmosphere of Venus

Titov et al. (2007)

http://lasp.color...EVTP.pdf

So, what would you have them do? Just publish the initial data, despite the fact that they have discovered an instrument error? That wouldn't be very scientific, would it? Either way, none of this is at all helpful to anyone stupid enough to believe Velikovsky's unscientific ramblings.

## Benni

Hey, Schneibo......doing a circuit analyses using Kirchoff's circuit laws is a far more challenging prospect of analytics for a novice than a calculation using a simple simple plugin equation like calculating the force due to gravity between two masses where G is the gravitational constant........but how would you know how to calculate potential rises & drops in any kind of circuit analyses.

## Da Schneib

And if you understand Kirchoff's Laws so well, how come you keep making up fairy tales about currents that don't go anywhere?

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 13, 2017## Benni

Really?......... When? ..........You're the head of the flow of anything that goes nowhere, for example your Black Hole Math that Einstein so completely destroyed in his 1039 paper: "On Stationary Systems with Spherical Symmetry consisting of many Gravitating Masses"

Old man, you're a dreamer. You need to first start with some high school level physics & learn how to calculate gravitational attraction between gravitating bodies before you try Kirchoff's laws of circuit analyses with this Electrical Engineer.

,

## Whydening Gyre

1039?!? Almost a thousand years ago?!?

You're trying to warp time, Benni...

## Da Schneib

## Benni

I have an FTL vehicle that has such tremendous velocity that I can fly right past photons & catch up to the ones that left the planet in year 1039, I can slow down my FTL machine to match 1039 photons & view anything in the open atmosphere of the planet for that year, cloudy weather & rooftops do create viewing problems, but what the hell do I care about what goes on inside bedrooms.

I got the idea for my FTL from reading Schneibo's dissertations for calculating infinite gravity based on Schwarzschild Black Hole Math. I figured if those two know how to create infinite gravity using a given volume the size of one of my pickup trucks, then I'm not about to be outdone those two novices.

So, I went to work on a gravity generator system using ultra high pressure to increase density of materials to the point of density whereby I create infinite gravity that I use as my FTL energy source.

## Whydening Gyre

You drinkin' or something, today?

Again, only your interpretation of the math produces infinite gravity. Maximum is the limit. No more, no less...

You ARE drinkin'...

## Whydening Gyre

And I STILL would like an answer from you on when mass is NOT a function of density...

## Da Schneib

Fg = Gmm'/r²

See that r²? See how it's on the bottom of the fraction? That means the force of gravity (Fg) increases as the distance (r) decreases, proportional to the square of the radius. So if you take the same masses (say, m is Earth and m' is you), then if you shrank the Earth to be half as big without changing its mass or yours, the gravity on the surface would be four times greater.

And, of course, it would also be denser; same mass, smaller radius, that's pretty simple for anyone to figure out.

See? No relativity even needed for that one.

## Da Schneib

V = 4πr³/3

Now, density is mass per unit volume,

D = m/V

So for a sphere (convenient because most celestial bodies are stars or planets, which are spheres more or less) we can substitute the right hand side of the volume equation for the volume, and say

D = 3m/4πr³

Notice how r is in the bottom of the fraction again? Once again we have a quantity increasing as r decreases, this time proportionally to the cube of r.

So as r decreases given the same mass, both Fg and D increase. None of this is the least bit controversial. It's just basic physics; the definition of density, the definition of volume, and Newton's TUG. All known for hundreds of years at least, some of it for thousands.

Now, if @Lenni can't do math then perhaps it can find something to lie about, but to anyone who knows any physics it will be transparent.

## Benni

You just said : gravity is a function of density.

Ok, where is that found in General relativity? According to YOUR laws of Physics, one atom can be squeezed into a volume of such high density that it can actually exceed the gravity of the Sun. Proven by your equation: Fg = Gmm'/r²........you pipe dreamer. All you're doing is bending every law of physics to fit your mis-application of the math you're putting up.

## Benni

Your Schwarzschild Black Hole Math is a simple as you are stupid. It isn't possible to apply any of your concocted slop & swill math to the laws of physics to create an atom that can exceed the gravity of all the mass of atoms inside the Sun simply by making that atom occupy a smaller volume of space, yet this is what your explanation of your math concurs.

Idiot, take a Nuclear Physics course & you'll learn real quick why your versions of math can never comport with the Laws of Physics, oopps, that's right, you'll need Differential Equations for that & high school algebra is as far as you ever got.

## Da Schneib

And the left-hand side is the gravity.

The EFE are the field equations of gravity, @Lenni. Got yer density right here, got yer gravity right there. Simple as that.

The EFE use tensors. Tensors are differential geometry, which are calculated using systems of differential equations. There's your differential equations, @Lenni.

You really don't know any math, do you? Pretty embarrassing not recognizing TUG on sight, @Lenni. Are you denying Newton now, along with Einstein?

## RealityCheck

Please, DS, just STOP your stupid/dishonest 'tactics'; just LISTEN and LEARN. :)

ps: FYI, yet another of MY predictions/observations confirmed by new/recent MAINSTREAM discoveries/reviews: https://phys.org/...rgy.html

LISTEN and LEARN. :)

## jonesdave

Give up Benni boy. You can't even understand what visible light does. Lol. As proven.

## jonesdave

Lol. There is NO EU maths. If any of the idiots involved with that brainless cult actually understood maths, then they wouldn't believe in EU, would they?

Take the idiot Thornhill's claim of no ice or H2O at comets. It's all caused by an impossible reaction involving H+ hurtling into non-existent O- at 400 km/s! What a tosser! Not going to happen, is it dears? Not only is it bloody impossible, the maths is way off. Isn't it? Burkes.

## jonesdave

## jonesdave

## jonesdave

Knobs.

## jonesdave

OUCH.

http://www.diva-p...XT01.pdf

So, let's hear it EU geniuses. Why is Falthammar a pseudoscientist? Come on - there must be at least one of you nutjobs with the cojones to explain this. Go ahead. We are waiting........

## jonesdave

YIKES.

Come on dears; why is Falthammar a pseudoscientist? What is Scott & Thornhill's claim to fame? Lol.

## Benni

......and your problem is that you don't understand the Laws of Physics behind Einstein's GR. You still imagine you can take one atom of something, apply your version of density dependent gravity & come up with something that is infinite in magnitude, alias BHs. To get that you need MASS that is infinite but you think by sleight of an irrelevant equation that infinite gravity can be attained by simply shrinking the radius of the gravitating body.

You should take one of those For Dummies courses that are offered online, you'll at least get a grade school level of fundamental laws of physics, way more than what you have now.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 13, 2017## Whydening Gyre

DS, I used the wrong word.

I understand that without a sufficient density, you cannot have sufficient mass to present sufficient gravity to (at some point) effect light gravitationally.

I just wanted Benni to answer my previous question -

"When is mass NOT dependent on density of contributing massive entities?"

## Da Schneib

You asked where the density is in GRT and I told you.

Nobody applies GRT to atoms. GRT is not a quantum theory and to talk about atoms you need a quantum theory. So you made something up again. And it's just as transparent as I said it would be.

This is why I don't generally bother paying attention to what you say.

## Whydening Gyre

Crucial point, here. One atom, no. (An insufficient amount of baryonic matter to present the mass required).

A really massive collection of atoms, yes. A side effect of that is that they get compacted REALLY close to each other.(They call that - density)

Nope. You just need a LOT of mass. Not infinite, by any means.

C'mon, Benni... Even I get the relationship between radius, density and gravity felt at a surface...

## Maggnus

There is no math Acolyte, That's the whole point. EU is the bizarre imaginings of a loon bolstered by the pure greed of charlatans. And you, Mr Reeve, promote it.

I wonder, what does that make you?

## Maggnus

Really Acolyte, that is what you post to support your cult's position? Surely you have read enough by now to see the assumptions made and the flaws those assumptions MUST lead you to in this "paper"?

Do you understand what peer review is? What "worldview" allows you to overlook such poorly crafted work and then hold it out as if it is the support for your cult's imaginings? Have you actually read that tripe Acolyte??

## cantdrive85

Another thing "worldview" allows you to do is invent five-times more faerie dust than real matter. Not to mention the fact that "worldview" is missing ~96% of it's Universe.

Other than some hand waving there is no comment on the claims other than nu-huh...

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 14, 2017## Da Schneib

The only other two EUdiots involved, @RC and @Lenni, don't understand enough math to deal with Kirchoff's Laws and Thevenin's and Norton's Theorems. @Reeve has already proven incompetent at math.

What we basically have here is Rebels Without a Clue. Just keep slinging mud against the wall and maybe something will stick.

If you got it bring it; if you can't everyone competent will know. It's really just that simple.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 14, 2017## Maggnus

I think you should re-read what I asked of you Acolyte.

What is the underlying assumption that MUST be true for this gobblygook to be relevant?

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 14, 2017## Chris_Reeve

Sep 14, 2017## Da Schneib

Like all #physicscranks, you post nothing then claim you posted something. Quote it or admit (as usual tacitly) that you got nothing.

## cantdrive85

Dodge, duck, dive, and dodge...

Add another for the fifth D, DARK!

## 691Boat

From the paper:

"The probe has been measuring the speed of the solar wind and for the first time in its

journey, the wind now "blows back at us." "

That still means that up to 18 billion km from the sun, net flow is outwards, not in.

## 691Boat

## Da Schneib

No circuit no current; no tickee no laundry.

Get over it.

## Maggnus

Us? You more than one person? You do post like you are schizoid, but I thought that was just your posting style.

The article you listed assumes there to be an incoming current powering the Sun. Of course, you know this, you're just being purposefully obtuse, as usual. The assumption is, of course, wrong.

The rest is gobblygook.

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 14, 2017## Da Schneib

Get over it.

#physicscrankscantcount.

## Maggnus

No, actually it is exactly on point. At 18 BILLION KM out, the probe finally (for EU advocates) measures an "incoming" electron flow. At a point beyond the heliopause.

Your whole Cult is silly!

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 14, 2017## cantdrive85

"The magnetic field lines along the axis are open due to their speed approaching the speed of light as they diverge from the poles of the pulsar."

Then goes on to say...

"No circuit no current; no tickee no laundry."

Somehow magnetic fields have "open field lines" according to the moron da schnied.

## Maggnus

Talk about silly!! Ok, WonderAcolyte, where would those charged particle arise? What is their nature?

What a stupid comment Acolyte, you should consider what you are saying before you press Submit.

## 691Boat

So, the sun takes nothing from within 18 billion km of itself, converts all that nothing into huge currents to power the rest of the solar system through open circuits with electrical magic??

Really solid theory!

## Maggnus

## Da Schneib

## Chris_Reeve

Sep 14, 2017## RealityCheck

## cantdrive85

So a closed electric circuit which must be present to create the currents to produce the magnetic field can produce "open field lines"? That's nifty!

## Da Schneib

Let's start with Gauss' Laws for the E and B fields:

∇ ∙ E = ρ/ε0

∇ ∙ B = 0

These two equations show why a closed electric current creates open magnetic field lines; the magnetic field lines must add up to zero far from the source of the field, whereas the electric field lines cannot due to their requirement to express the charge within, unless the charge is zero. They also show why there are electric monopoles, but no magnetic monopoles.

These equations (or their equivalents) were first shown in the 1850s by James Clerk Maxwell, and are the basis of electrical field theory, as well as a great deal of modern physics. No one has disproven them in nearly two hundred years.

The fact you're typing messages on a computer is proof they're right, @cantthink69.

## Da Schneib

The divergence of the E field is equal to the charge density divided by the permittivity of space.

The divergence of the B field is zero.

It's the charge density term in the E field equation that makes it behave the way it does, and the lack of it in the B field equation that guarantees there are no monopoles.

And it is the lack of monopoles that guarantees there can be open magnetic field lines.

As usual, @cantthink69 doesn't know the math. You have again demonstrated that you are an innumerate moron, @cantthink69.

## Steelwolf

## cantdrive85

You must live in some bizarro fantasy world where black is white, up is down, slavery is freedom, and you are not a moron. The lack of monopoles guarantees the the field lines have no beginning or end.

From some grade school textbook somewhere;

"Gauss' Law for Magnetism states that "the total magnetic flux out of a closed surface is zero".

Unlike electric flux which originates and terminates on charges, the lines of magnetic flux are closed curves with no starting point or termination point."

Clearly you are the moron and even concepts such as this are too much for your brain cell to handle.

## Da Schneib

"The total magnetic flux out of a closed surface is zero" is exactly the same thing as "There are no monopoles."

And you obviously don't know why.

And BTW they don't teach that in grade school because it requires calculus. So to top it all off you lied too.

Good one. What do you do for an encore, gargle peanut butter?

## cantdrive85

Agreed, why are you trying to convince everyone this is wrong by stating there are "open field lines"? You obviously don't understand the implication of you claiming that "open field lines" exist means you are also claiming magnetic monopoles do exist. Your confusion is only matched by your stupidity.

ROTFLMAO, now you think you are an EE? Did you get your "degree" in a box of Cracker Jacks?

Lest we not forget, you are the one claiming Guass' Law gaurantees "open field lines" in spite of the fact it prevents monopoles. Cap'n Stoopid had better watch out as there is a new Major Stoopid who has usurped his rule.

## cantdrive85

## RealityCheck

- there are no such things as magnetic field "lines". These are abstractions for graphic representation of magnetic FORCE VECTORS in the region of 'electro-magnetic' energy-space under consideration;

- there are also illustrative abstraction "lines" of LEAST ACTION to depict the 'axial direction' of some TEST CHARGES' SPIRALING MOTION due to the effect of magnetic field on said charged particle.

IN SHORT:

- these 'mag-field lines' and 'mag-effect lines' DO NOT actually exist in reality as energy-space manifestations of any kind; these are merely ABSTRACT 'connect-the-dots' MAPPING LINES to convey 'frame-of-reference' ORIENTATIONAL and MOTIONAL INFORMATION about TEST PARTICLE dynamics/interactions within the energy-space volumes/areas/distances involved in the system under analysis.

- these abstract "illustrative lines" have NO REAL physical existence as 'contiguous' physical 'paths' or 'things'.

OK? Cheers. :)

## Da Schneib

Getting boring here.

## cantdrive85

So you believe magnetic monpoles exist, got it. And you think you are an EE? Truly laughable!

## Da Schneib

Almost as boring as @RC.

## cantdrive85

Hey lyin' schnied, if the "field lines" don't return to the closed surface, as required by Guass' Law for zero sum flux, how exact do you explain your claim the field lines "stretch to infinity"? You are truly delusional if you don't understand how that implies a monpole.

## Da Schneib

Boringer.

## cantdrive85

If hypothetical field line "A" exits the surface as arbitrary value "+1", then to equal a zero sum field line "A" must then retun through the surface as "-1" and complete a circuit. As such Field line "A" is defined as having no beginning and no end. This supports there being no monopole as the "line" closes onto itself. It has a +1 and a -1 or a N and a S.

In your view of an "open field line at the pole", the hypothetical pole field line "D" (for dumbass) exits the surface as "+1" and wanders off to infinity ne'er to return to balance the sum to zero. That field line flapping out in the magnetic breeze "connected" to infinty suggests it is connected to N and not S. You're describing a monople with one end exiting the surface never returning to complete the zero sum process. You're describing pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo, a personal religious belief (although seemingly shared by the plasma ignoramuses) based on your own ignorance.

## RealityCheck

You two are arguing over "magnetic field lines" that DON'T EXIST as real physical entities as such!

Here, I will explain what actually DOES EXIST and how it is working; but FIRST read my last post REMINDING all re ABSTRACT "lines" depicting magnetic FORCE FIELD VECTORS; and re ABSTRACT "lines of magnetic LEAST ACTION VECTORS of test particles.

Ready? Here we go:

- abstract 'lines' conventionally coming from N and going to S 'poles' are depicting LEAST ACTION axial orientations for test particles and magnetizable iron filings etc. They are NOT 'lines' of the magnetic field per se!

- real magnetic FIELD per se is the WHOLE magnetic-field-affected energy-space acting on NOTHING UNTIL a test particle/iron filings etc are introduced into that energy-space volume so affected; and THEIR ORIENTATION (iron filings) OR MOTION PATH (ie, electron spiraling around/along a 'least action' axis/direction) is what is OBSERVED.

Argue REAL THINGS, guys. :)

## Da Schneib

You might also note that the reference I brought says the same things I do and is astrophysicists who study neutron stars.

I'll take those astrophysicists over some random dude with a bad attitude on the Internets any time.

Considering also that you attempted to deny this on the grounds that it included open field lines when all the field lines from an isolated electric charge are open, I would say that your lack of knowledge is manifest.

## cantdrive85

## cantdrive85

From that same grade school textbook;

All magnetic flux lines entering a region via a closed surface must leave the region elsewhere on the same surface. A region cannot have any sources or sinks.

I understand these aren't circuits but they are loops with no beginning or end. There is no "open magnetic flux" at the poles, there is however (such as with the Earth) field-aligned electric currents flowing into the poles creating the magnetic field.

Ooh, your "experts" who study the pseudoscientific neutron stars are your "authority", also known as plasma ignoramuses.

## cantdrive85

We aren't discussing electric fields here da schnied, why are you trying to change the subject. You have been talking about B fields all along. I am also well aware an isolated electric charge flux terminates at "infinity".

You have yet to explain your open magnetic flux lines and how those work. You know, the ones tied to that magnetic monopole you keep trying to push.