Magnetized inflow accreting to center of Milky Way galaxy

milky way
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Are magnetic fields an important guiding force for gas accreting to a supermassive black hole (SMBH) like the one that our Milky Way galaxy hosts? The role of magnetic fields in gas accretion is little understood, and trying to observe it has been challenging to astronomers. Researchers at the Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASIAA), Taiwan, led by Dr. Pei-Ying Hsieh, have obtained a good measurement by using the instruments on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT). Their result provides clear evidence that the orientation of the magnetic field is in alignment with the molecular torus and ionized streamers rotating with respect to Sagittarius A*—the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. The findings are published in Astrophysical Journal in 2018 August.

Sgr A*—The Best Laboratory to Study Black Hole Feeding in the Sky

Sagittarius A* (Sgr A*), being the nearest SMBH to Earth, has been targeted by many scientists to understand the nature of gas accretion in recent decades. Observing gas accretion onto SMBHs is critical to understanding how they release such tremendous energy.

The circumnuclear disk (CND) is a molecular torus rotating with respect to Sgr A*, within which are ionized gas streamers called mini-spirals (also called Sgr A West) filling the molecular cavity. The mini-spiral is hypothesized to originate from the inner edge of the CND. The CND, being the closest "food reservoir" of Sgr A*, is therefore critical to understanding the feeding of Sgr A*. However, looking for the physical evidence to connect the CND and the mini-spiral has puzzled astronomers since they were discovered 35 years ago.

Intensive measurements of dynamical movements orbiting Sgr A* have been conducted in recent decades, but its magnetic field has not been widely studied. This is solely because the weak polarized signal generated by the magnetic field from dust emission is difficult to measure. However, the magnetic field is expected to be important for material orbiting within and around the CND as the magnetic stress acting on the rotating disk can exert a torque to extract angular momentum from rotating gas, and thus drive gas inflows. Additionally, the magnetic tension force can also pull the gas back from the black hole. Taking advantage of the excellent atmospheric conditions of Mauna Kea at 4,000 meters, and the large aperture size of the JCMT (15 m in diameter), the submillimeter polarization experiments were successfully obtained at the galactic center to understand the role of the magnetic field.

Tracing Magnetized Accreting Inflow

The astronomers utilized the dust polarization data obtained by the JCMT-SCUPOL instrument to image the orientation of the magnetic field. A detailed comparison with higher-resolution interferometric maps from the Submillimeter Array (SMA) reveals that the magnetic field aligns with the CND. Moreover, the innermost observed magnetic field lines also appear to trace and align with the mini-spiral coherently. This is the first attempt to reveal the footprint of inflow linking the CND and the mini-spiral since they were discovered 35 years ago. The comparison of the model and data reinforces the key idea that the CND and the mini-spiral can be treated as a coherent inflow system.

They found that the magnetic field is dynamically significant toward the CND and the mini-spiral. This finding indicates that the magnetic field is able to guide the motion of the ionized particles originated in the CND, and produce the observed spiral pattern of the mini-spiral. The results have shown that the is critical to explaining the inflow structure and will also help researchers to understand the inflow picture in other galaxies hosting similar to Sgr A*.


Explore further

Magnetic field traces gas and dust swirling around supermassive black hole

More information: Pei-Ying Hsieh et al. A Magnetic Field Connecting the Galactic Center Circumnuclear Disk with Streamers and Mini-spiral: Implications from 850 μm Polarization Data, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacb27 , https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.02719
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal

Provided by East Asian Observatory
Citation: Magnetized inflow accreting to center of Milky Way galaxy (2018, August 17) retrieved 20 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-08-magnetized-inflow-accreting-center-milky.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
297 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 17, 2018
I wonder how long it will be before we get to study one in both active and non-active states to compare the two and watch either the wind-up or wind-down of the whole process. If it happens to be Sgr A, I am excited for our descendants.

Aug 17, 2018
For all those people who said that there 'Were NO Magnetic fields of galactic or larger size' some years ago, here in these forums, have had their noses rubbed in it again and again that Magnetic forces in the gas and plasma within galaxies exerts much more force and controls more things than we have, in the past, given it credit for. Those of you Anti Electro-Mag Universe have got a lot rethinking to do.

I noted few commented on the plasma-dust experiments from the ISS showing a much more complicated relationship with the plasma and dust as in the solar winds.

Cosmology without a re-think of magnetism and electrical events within the Universe is missing at least half of what is going on, and some of the smarter, younger doctoral students and experimenters are working on this particular field BECAUSE it has been ignored for so long. We now have the tools, and are using them, and finding that many things that we thought were known solid data are fuzzier than thought.

Aug 17, 2018
@steel
For all those people who said that there 'Were NO Magnetic fields of galactic or larger size' some years ago, here
like whom?
links/references/posts?
Those of you Anti Electro-Mag Universe have got a lot rethinking to do
not really
those usually "Anti Electro-Mag Universe" request evidence which isn't there for eu
the above doesn't support eu claims in any way

more importantly, the article discusses measurements of SgrA (something many of the Electro-Mag Universe deny even exists)

lastly, this validated the "Anti Electro-Mag Universe" statements that astrophysicists study plasma physics and incorporate it into MS, something the eu cult categorically denies, repeatedly all over the interwebz

and you even propagate in your above statement, mind, with
Cosmology without a re-think of magnetism and electrical events
that is blatantly wrong and demonstrably so as modern astrophysics/cosmology most definitely takes this into consideration

see above


Aug 17, 2018
Stumped, you keep putting up fake strawmen that YOU think the EU crowd believes in (but does not), you keep putting fake words in our mouths and then try to tear us apart using your own commentary, as such your input in this is ignorant as always, which is Why you are typically on Ignore, as you only troll people who are following up-to-date information with these explorations while you still seem stuck back in the 70's with your arguments.

There are nuts out there who do not understand the scientific pinnings to these arguments, and for you to go conflating some of the idiots with real researchers does YOU no credit at all, so why not duck back to your troll bridge and leave us modern science folks, who are REALLY figuring things out over the top of the mistakes of the past who ignored important data sets and not included them in their studies. Such is being found now and corrected, which means some of your dearly held stuff is Wrong.

Aug 17, 2018
...us modern science folks, who are REALLY figuring things out over the top of the mistakes of the past who ignored important data sets and not included them in their studies. Such is being found now and corrected, which means some of your dearly held stuff is Wrong.


Really? Plesae refer us to the EU papers that predicted this effect. And then show the real papers that got it 'wrong'.
What you are doing is seeing certain words in an article and equating that with the Velikovsky inspired crap of EU.
A quick read of the paper would have shown;

The magnetic field (B-field) is expected to be important for material orbiting within the CND (Aitken et al. 1986; Werner et al. 1988; Hildebrand et al. 1990, 1993) as the B-field cannot only make the gas resist more against gravity but also helps accretion by removing angular momentum.


Perhaps you need to check out those references, yes?

Aug 17, 2018
^^^^And maybe this one, from 1953:

Magnetic Fields in Spiral Arms.
Chandrasekhar, S.; Fermi, E.
http://adsabs.har...18..113C

A couple of non-event mainstream plodders doing their best, 65 years ago!

Aug 17, 2018
@steel
you keep putting fake words in our mouths
no, I don't
cantdrive, one of the more prolific eu posters here, has repeatedly denied black holes, like here: https://phys.org/...ger.html

plus the other BS he states I can readily quote from various sources on PO alone, like: https://phys.org/...ggs.html

but if that isn't bad enough, I can simply quote from eu sources which he repeatedly links, as such your input in this is ignorant as always

it's not like I can't support my claims with evidence, whereas you have yet to actually show where any MS science supporter has stated there "Were NO Magnetic fields of galactic or larger size"
You made a claim
I asked for evidence
I am being tolerant of your beliefs (for the moment), but I think you're lying
and for you to go conflating some of the idiots with real researchers does YOU no credit at all
you mean like you just did in your comment?

Aug 17, 2018
Here's another, from 1979;

Cosmical magnetic fields: Their origin and their activity.
Parker, E. N.
http://adsabs.har...k.....P,

The same Parker who now has his name on a probe heading for the Sun. Probably clueless though :)

Aug 17, 2018
@idiot-steel cont'd
and for you to go conflating some of the idiots with real researchers does YOU no credit at all
didn't you just claim
Cosmology without a re-think of magnetism and electrical events within the Universe is missing at least half of what is going on
and yet, as JonesDave notes, the argument you, specifically, made is demonstrably false, thus you're propagating a fallacious belief
see also: https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

and leave us modern science folks, who are REALLY figuring things out over the top of the mistakes of the past who ignored important data sets
another blatantly false claim without evidence based upon your delusional cult teachings

what is next?
ya gonna tell us how modern astrophysicists don't learn plasma physics?

you're an idiot troll at this point and acting like an illiterate as well
go here: https://scholar.google.com

skip the idiot eu crap


Aug 17, 2018
And to continue:
https://phys.org/...ets.html
https://phys.org/...ars.html
https://phys.org/...ant.html
https://phys.org/...ink.html
https://phys.org/...ion.html
https://phys.org/...ard.html
https://phys.org/...-ic.html

And those are just the ones that they still have on file. One of the majorones that irked me was with a pic showing the Perseus Cluster, and one of the 'elliptical' galaxies at the top right of the pic shows a clear but faint shape of a magnetic field outlines in stars as the shells, showing the elliptic core, flared ends, and then you can see the rest of the magnetic field of that galaxy. I was told, at the time, by you or another of the anti EU trolls (contd)

Aug 17, 2018
(Continued, with apologies)

That magnetic fields did not propagate over such distances. There have been a whole slew of articles and papers that show coherent magnetic fields along entire cosmic dust lanes with strings of galaxies all lines up with their jets magnetically aligned in the same directions, WELL more than just a single galaxy's magnetic field as I had posted about.

We now have ways to see the magnetic fields based on polarities of photons coming from those regions, as well as being able to see the effects of magnetism helping to aid gravity in attraction, as well as even just chemical valence of atomic hydrogen following field lines so as to cluster easier than molecular Hydrogen, in the formation of stars. This has also been proven.

So, Mr Stumped, please quit your attempts at using an outdated set of info to try to trash people doing real science with real modern ideas, rather than defend your dead papal decrees, like we are still the center of the universe.

Aug 17, 2018
@steel an idiot
1- Jones asks for a reference. that's it
2- Jones points out your fallacious claim
3- Jones/Barakn point out fallacious claims - ask for evidence
4- 691Boat asks questions, requests evidence; Zzzz points out the logical fallacy
5- RNP, DS and Imp9 explain a paper, provide references
6- ?
7- DS et al explain with references, the eu makes delusional claims with no evidence

I'm seeing a trend here so far, and it's not in support of your claim that
Cosmology without a re-think of magnetism and electrical events within the Universe is missing at least half of what is going on
nor is it
those people who said that there 'Were NO Magnetic fields of galactic or larger size'
maybe instead of a gish-gallop where the evidence is actually supporting my claim so far, perhaps you should quote and link specifics that people stated?

or is that too hard?

Aug 17, 2018
@steel confused but posting
And those are just the ones that they still have on file
to prove what, exactly?
so far it proves exactly what I said: modern astrophysicists know plasma physics and take it into consideration

moreover, it directly refutes your claims noted above
I was told, at the time, by you or another of the anti EU trolls...
then by all means, provide the quote where I made the statement
thanks
please quit your attempts at using an outdated set of info to try to trash people doing real science with real modern ideas
funny thing here: you're the one making the blatantly fallacious claims, but you're claiming that I am doing it

I don't trash research, nor do I trash legitimate science
I do not, however, see where the eu is doing anything legit, let alone doing actual science

in point of fact, your links demonstrate where they've made fallacious claims and are blatantly false in the face of real science

and it makes ya look a mite stupid

Aug 17, 2018
I was pointing out how modern science has evolves, even recently to recognize that there is a much greater effect from magnetism and electricity flows along plasma filaments which further propagates more magnetics and more current flow. Pretty basic stuff, yet 15 years ago, when I started posting I got laughed at for thinking that electricity and magnetics had anything other than a very local effect. Now, with stuff we are learning STILL about solar wind, how it is not very neutral at all as it seems to form pockets of opposite charges and due to heat and speed, are unable to recombine either electromagnetically nor chemically, and this is raising all kinds of problems with the NON EU crowd as it challenges their assumptions.

I am not responsible for any of the other posters, ones who Dont understand the sciences, nor ones who try to bait with strawman arguments akin to 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?' So you trying to link me to others falls flat.

Aug 17, 2018
So, Mr Stumped, please quit your attempts at using an outdated set of info to try to trash people doing real science with real modern ideas, rather than defend your dead papal decrees, like we are still the center of the universe.


You have linked to mainstream science. By mainstream scientists. What has any of that got to do with EU woo? I asked for a reference for where they have written this up. Where is it? Or have they never done it, due to having nobody sufficiently qualified to do it?


Aug 17, 2018
.......about solar wind, how it is not very neutral at all as it seems to form pockets of opposite charges....


The solar wind is neutral at scales > the Debye length. About 10m in interplanetary space.


Aug 17, 2018
Since the time I was told, back in 2012 or so, that there was No Evidence of Galactic Scale Magnetic Currents, there have been a huge number of articles detailing just that, massive magnetic fields that cover mega parsecs of cosmic web, ones that show details of magnetic fields within galaxies, and showing how some galaxies are directly linked, whole chains of them, by magnetic fields along the cosmic filaments that join galaxies.

So, over the time, the sciences have proven what I stated back then, and even your boorish trolling takes nothing of that away from me and, in fact, since you STILL attack me, just for posting something true, it really makes You appear the stupid one if all you can do is troll others. Do you have a conscience, or is your attack mode pathological, or are you plain a psychopath who HAS to attack others you perceive smarter than you, but can never admit?
Treat that as a science inquiry.

Aug 17, 2018
......and this is raising all kinds of problems with the NON EU crowd as it challenges their assumptions.


I would classify the 'non-EU crowd' as anyone with an IQ above that of a brain damaged trilobite. Perhaps you could tell us who the EU crowd are? What have they published? What are their qualifications? As far as I can see, there is nobody within that sad cult who is worth listening to.


Aug 17, 2018
@steel
yet 15 years ago, when I started posting I got laughed at for thinking that electricity and magnetics had anything other than a very local effect
well, that is not what you claimed above
you claimed that I (and others) directly poo-poo'ed this

I''ve just taken the time to read through all your links and not one of them supports the claims that I *literally* quoted above from you

in point of fact, they *literally* support the fact that "modern science has evolves" and accepts evidence to change, just like I've always claimed it did
I am not responsible for any of the other posters...So you trying to link me to others falls flat
1- I made my point clear using your own words

2- so long as you claim you're an eu believer, I can link you - your religion uses the same bible

3- you have yet to actually substantiate your claims that I quoted, which is the exact same tactic the other eu posters use, linking you to them directly by action

Aug 17, 2018
Since the time I was told, back in 2012 or so, that there was No Evidence of Galactic Scale Magnetic Currents,....


WTF is a 'magnetic current'? If you mean electric current, then point to this galactic scale current in the literature.


Aug 17, 2018
@steel cont'd
Since the time I was told, back in 2012 or so, that
by whom? where? links?
So, over the time, the sciences have proven what I stated back then
opinion isn't science, and hypothesis requires testing and evidence
IOW - science works, and now you're complaining because you didn't have evidence in the past supporting your belief? and it's science's fault?
in fact, since you STILL attack me, just for posting something true
except I just proved you posted something blatantly false
I think I may have even quoted you...Hmmm, let me look...
Yup!
quoted you!

that false claim makes "You appear the stupid one"

(and if you're not talking to me, you should specify, otherwise, I will take it as a continuation of our conversation as you're also not quoting anything)

you're not doing well in the evidence department, bubba

Aug 17, 2018
So all that the stump can do is troll, well proven, and the articles I posted were to show how others have kept naysaying me whilst the data keeps pouring in that magnetics and the inherent charge in differentiated plasmas is an attractive-repulsive force on a similar order of gravity, yet it gets ignored as such since so many people are still wrapping their heads around space not being empty, as our Dr Parker has shown with solar wind, and we have seen vastly differentiated solar wind with recent satellite observations. No, I wont post links, I am not writing a dissertation, so you, as a troll, can go choke on that. And even if you try to go an link together old posts out of context then you are just making yourself look worse

More and more of the Mainstream is moving towards higher end magnetics, the electric fields that produce them, and the plasmas which conduct and sustain them. They are getting much more attention since they are coming out with Proofs, DM has Zero.

Aug 17, 2018
Stump, if ALL you are doing is trying to come on to this site and protect you dearly held dogmas, which have been being disproven daily with modern, mainstream science, then I would suggest that you take up a different hobby, say stamp collecting or maybe model building, because you seem to be working with a long-time frozen mindset that is nowhere near as open as a scientifically minded person Needs to have: filter junk, but be aware that some that you have classified junk may turn around and bite you, such as your iPhone or clone, stuff people told us Was Not Possible only a short time ago. We are doing DNA testing for family lines at under $100 a pop, we are moving quickly to electric cars, about 40 years late, but getting there.

And cosmology has not stood still either, we are now finding extreme magnetic fields over vast distances, seemingly small gauss per area, but when carried over a gigaparsec, that becomes a LOT of attraction, and we have been finding such.

Aug 17, 2018
@steel illiterate
the articles I posted were to show how others have kept naysaying me
most of what I read were either requests for evidence that you couldn't provide or explanations about the science which you ignored
none of the articles validated your claims that I quoted from you above, making you a blatant liar and fraud
No, I wont post links
you usually don't post links supporting your claims
you didn't above
how is that different?
if you try to go an link together old posts out of context
show me one post or link I just made that is out of context
oh right, you can't, and you won't actually link evidence of your claims, so...
DM has Zero
wrong, making you an illiterate moron fraud
if ALL you are doing is trying to come on to this site and protect you dearly held dogmas, which have been being disproven daily with modern, mainstream science
but... all I believe in is the scientific method, so how is that possible?
oh right! You're a liar

Aug 17, 2018
...in that magnetics and the inherent charge in differentiated plasmas is an attractive-repulsive force on a similar order of gravity,....


Honestly? WTF does that mean? Burke. Where is it written up, moron? Give us a break, woo boy; you are a bit clueless, n'est-ce pas?


Aug 17, 2018
And cosmology has not stood still either, we are now finding extreme magnetic fields over vast distances, seemingly small gauss per area, but when carried over a gigaparsec, that becomes a LOT of attraction, and we have been finding such.


Are we? Care to point us to these papers? Who wrote them? The idiot Thornhlil? Or the idiot Scott?
Do give us a clue, dear. Lol.


Aug 17, 2018
Chill out, guys! We now have mainstream working more seriously on cosmic electric currents and magnetic fields. That should please everybody, on all 'sides'. :)

Aug 17, 2018
One can always bet that if one is dealing with an EU loon, then one is dealing with a complete moron. I don't think that there is anything controversial in that statement. Eh? Anybody disagree?

Aug 17, 2018
Chill out, guys! We now have mainstream working more seriously on cosmic electric currents and magnetic fields. That should please everybody, on all 'sides'. :)

Aug 17, 2018
Chill out, guys! We now have mainstream working more seriously on cosmic electric currents and magnetic fields. That should please everybody, on all 'sides'. :)


Really? Where is this happening, that it wasn't before?

Aug 17, 2018
If you mean electric current, then point to this galactic scale current in the literature.

jonesdumb obviously didn't read the paper associated with this article. It described electric currents at multiple scales as shown by the data.

Aug 17, 2018
@jonesdave.

The necessary telescopes/instruments didn't exist until recently; since discovered that space plasma is more active, ubiquitous and important on scales encompassing whole galaxy systems. Recent discovery of toroidal pattern magnetic field around whole galaxy is especially active/important when central galactic nuclei are actively creating jets that reach out into intergalactic space, and the 'closed loop' magnetic fields reach right back to the galactic equatorial regions. It's all in the recent literature if you look.

By the way, your earlier links to @Steelwolf were for studies covering stellar/interstellar scale, and planetary/interplanetary scale plasma/magnetic-field etc dynamics/patterns; and studies for the plasma/magnetic-field etc dynamics/patterns in Spiral Arms scales.

Whereas @Steelwolf particularly alluded to whole-galaxy/intergalaxies plasma/magnetic field dynamics/patterns etc.

ps @Forum: Chill and enjoy the exciting science discourse, guys! :)

yep
Aug 18, 2018
No black holes just plasmoids.
https://www.holos...ig-bang/


Aug 18, 2018
I was pointing out how modern science has evolves, even recently to recognize that there is a much greater effect from magnetism and electricity flows along plasma filaments which further propagates more magnetics and more current flow. Pretty basic stuff
Hes right. Posting 60yo refs and then following up with crud like
I would classify the 'non-EU crowd' as anyone with an IQ above that of a brain damaged trilobite
-IS pretty ignorant.

To the EUs credit, there does seem to be more and more evidence popping up all the time, like the above article. They would do better to drop that stuff about electric dust devils carving the Grand Canyon tho-

Where there's plasma there's current, and there's plasma everywhere.

Aug 18, 2018
To the EUs credit, there does seem to be more and more evidence popping up all the time, like the above article. They would do better to drop that stuff about electric dust devils carving the Grand Canyon

There is no doubt the evidence is piling up fast, but electric geology goes hand in hand with the rest of Electric Cosmology. The same electric currents that arise in plasmas affects the bodies immersed in those same plasmas in similar ways.

Aug 18, 2018
The one that covers 100million light years plus is here, so this is no 'local effect'
https://phys.org/...rse.html

Aug 18, 2018
And I am not one of the outer edge nutters in the EU crowd, too many of them cannot even do basic math. I have given this plenty of study and used to think mainstream science was The Thing, but there were too many questions they glossed over where the answers could be found with just a little bit of playing around, even as a teen I knew there was a lot more to cosmology than they said, but then, they were still finding out the basics about local space, and still did not have the tools for further exploration as we do now.

The FACT that magnetism and electricity plays a large part in cosmology is the compilation of accumulated facts based on reproducible experimentation and observations. This IS becoming a mainstream view, where 20 years ago it was heretical, as some of the old boys posting here still show.

But we DO have better data today, and they most certainly show magnetic fields (and thus electric current) covering hundreds of millions of light years.

Aug 18, 2018
@steel reaching for eu confirmation
The one that covers 100million light years plus is here, so this is no 'local effect'
and as noted by RNP in the comments
No astrophysicists say; "Magnetics cannot span that sort of distance"
directly contradictory to your specific quote of
Those naysayers that have shot down various ideas because "Magnetics cannot span that sort of distance"
you built a strawman in that thread and you built a similar strawman here

also note: just because a magnetic field is large doesn't mean there is an electric sun let alone no black holes

.

To the EUs credit
@otto
sorry, but IMHO, no
we may be getting new evidence, this is true, but it doesn't actually support most versions of eu

it's just science gathering evidence doing what it always does, but if the word "electric" or "plasma" is mentioned at all, the eu cult creams themselves thinking it supports their claims

see above and steel's links for that one

Aug 18, 2018
@steel lying
and used to think mainstream science was The Thing, but there were too many questions they glossed over
I am contesting this
just because you don't know about the research being done doesn't mean science is in any way glossing over anything
This IS becoming a mainstream view, where 20 years ago it was heretical, as some of the old boys posting here still show
and again, this is blatantly false
your assumptions come from your dislike of scientific challenge to your beliefs
Jones, RNP, and many others have repeatedly demonstrated that plasma and "electric" effects were being researched quite a long time ago
But we DO have better data today
this is true
it does not, however, support the eu claims

examples:
what is a black hole?
explain the sun in eu terms (the thunderdolts website is an abject failure, as is Scott)
which has more influence locally, a BH or the "electric" effects
how are dust devils created?

Aug 18, 2018
.........show magnetic fields (and thus electric current) covering hundreds of millions of light years.


Wrong.


Aug 18, 2018
What is funny is that the entire line of discussion here, started with me once saying that a galaxy in the Perseus Cluster looked specifically as if it had been formed by it's own magnetic field, as it has the bar central shape and loops that configured to magnetic loops.
I was 'shot down' by one of the standard sock puppets here who stated, at the time, that 'there was No evidence of galactic scale magnetic fields'.

Since that time there has been tons of scientific papers coming out showing magnetic fields not just galactic size, but also covering such space as 10 million light years, WAY bigger than any galaxy or most clusters.

So, I laugh heartily as you Anti EU folks get all lathered up and start attacking without even going to the basic science. Will I post sources, no need, most of them are here in Phys-org, YOU can do the study if you are so lathered up. I already Have done the study, been following close and adding to my base of data. That IS how science is done.

Aug 18, 2018
Where there's plasma there's current, and there's plasma everywhere.


And all that shows is that you know Jack about plasma physics. What is the current in the solar wind? What does Debye length mean? What is that length in interplanetary space? In interstellar space? And why does it matter?

Aug 18, 2018
What is funny is that the entire line of discussion here, started with me once saying that a galaxy in the Perseus Cluster looked specifically as if it had been formed by it's own magnetic field, as it has the bar central shape and loops that configured to magnetic loops.


Well, you were wrong. No way is a galaxy formed by its magnetic field. No way are galactic rotation curves influenced by magnetic fields. Peratt tried that nonsense, and it explains precisely nothing. It was a dumb idea.


Aug 18, 2018
And No, I am not a thunderbolts fan, there is a spectrum of folks and beliefs as well as actual intelligence. Thunderbolts has some correct data, but they have other stuff which is highly suspect. DONT go lumping me with them.

That is a BIG part of your problem, stump, is categorizing people based on some statements and not bothering to pay attention after doing so.

Your attacks on anyone who brings up Charged Plasma fields and the attraction that they may impart makes you look like you are a paid anti-real-science troll in a dedicated facility like they use in Israel for political purposes. Your handful of friendly sock puppets tend to give you away as well and most of the other people who come here looking for SCIENCE and not BS argument are getting tired of seeing you pop up here in the comments section with NO Science to give, Just BS put down of others. Really makes ya look great, eh? Rethink your attacking everyone You know less than you think.

Aug 18, 2018
That IS how science is done.


Really? Please show where EUists have done any science.

Aug 18, 2018
@steel deluding yourself about modern astrophysics
DONT go lumping me with them
Ok, Point heard and I will try to remember you're not a thunderdolt
is categorizing people based on some statements and not bothering to pay attention after doing so
when have you ever stated to me that you're not a thunderdolt?
links please
Your attacks on anyone who brings up Charged Plasma fields and the attraction
no
my "attacks" are to people who claim eu status as you did, but more importantly, you made quite a few blatantly false claims which I quoted
not taken out of context
not mistaken
not misquoted
direct, verbatim statements from you
Your handful of friendly sock puppets tend to give you away
I have no socks and only one profile here, unlike others

I am going to reiterate:
just because you don't know about the research being done doesn't mean science is in any way glossing over anything

and just because it's plasma or electric doesn't mean it supports eu

Aug 18, 2018
Thunderbolts has some correct data


Really? Where have they got this? Anything that isn't already known to mainstream science? Nope.

Aug 18, 2018
@steel wrong
Will I post sources, no need, most of them are here in Phys-org, YOU can do the study if you are so lathered up. I already Have done the study, been following close and adding to my base of data. That IS how science is done
1- this demonstrates confirmation bias, not science
Science would collect all the data. you're inferring that you're collecting stuff that confirms your bias
just a heads up

2- you make the claim, you provide the evidence, otherwise it's just your belief
That IS how science is done
You know less than you think
unlike you, I am very familiar with my limitations
you, however, demonstrate classic signs of Dunning-Kruger, much like benji, cd and other fanatical true believers of a cult

point is: you made a blatantly false claim so I challenged you and requested evidence
you even proved it was false with your own links
you still can't support your claims
period

PS - science learned from history
you didn't

Aug 18, 2018
What I'd like to know is what version of EU does Steel subscribe to? What does it claim? Where are these claims made? Does it involve the idiotic, mythology based woo promoted by Thornhill and Talbott? What about the ludicrous claims of electric Suns made by Scott, based on Juergen's stupid idea? What about Steel's version of EU is different? Where can I read about it?

Just in case Steel has me on ignore, then maybe somebody else can quote this post.

Aug 18, 2018
@Steel
Jonesdave posted this to you
What I'd like to know is what version of EU does Steel subscribe to? What does it claim? Where are these claims made? Does it involve the idiotic, mythology based woo promoted by Thornhill and Talbott? What about the ludicrous claims of electric Suns made by Scott, based on Juergen's stupid idea? What about Steel's version of EU is different? Where can I read about it?

Just in case Steel has me on ignore, then maybe somebody else can quote this post.
I would like to know this myself

where is your hypothesis posted?
which version are you following?
are you a plasma cosmologist or electric universe?
more importantly, where are the specifics on your [the] belief that can be tested against the data or so we can see where predictions can be made?


Aug 18, 2018
jonesdumb cannot explain why these 'magnetized flows of ionized matter' are not electric currents. Just the typical hand wavy name calling childishness. Pathetic display of gravity only pseudoscientific dogmatic protectionism.

Aug 18, 2018
Since that time there has been tons of scientific papers coming out showing magnetic fields not just galactic size, but also covering such space as 10 million light years, WAY bigger than any galaxy or most clusters.


Since what time? It doesn't really matter what somebody may have posted on here. It is an irrelevance.
Have you, or anybody with EU beliefs asserted something, prior to mainstream scientists, and been shown to be correct? No, you haven't.

Cosmic radiation and cosmic magnetic fields. II. Origin of cosmic magnetic fields. (1951)
Biermann, L. & Schlüter, A.
https://journals....v.82.863

On the origin of cosmic magnetic fields (1970)
Brecher, K. & Blumenthal, G. R.
http://adsabs.har....6..169B

Cosmical magnetic fields: Their origin and their activity. (1979; cited by 3216)
Parker, E. N.
http://adsabs.har...k.....P,

You are telling us something that we already knew.

Aug 18, 2018
jonesdumb cannot explain why these 'magnetized flows of ionized matter' are not electric currents. Just the typical hand wavy name calling childishness. Pathetic display of gravity only pseudoscientific dogmatic protectionism.


Really? Where are the currents? What is their strength? What are they doing? How did we detect them?
And a 'magnetised flow of ionised matter' describes the solar wind. What is the current in the solar wind?

Aug 18, 2018
There is no doubt the evidence is piling up fast, but electric geology goes hand in hand with the rest of Electric Cosmology
Like stumpy says it's not direct evidence for a lot of whatever EU is supposed to be. And it certainly isnt evidence that for instance electrons rather than gravitons are holding planets in their orbits.

That's just wacked. And crap-laden inferences and conclusions like these
Where are the currents? What is their strength? What are they doing? How did we detect them?
And a 'magnetised flow of ionised matter' describes the solar wind. What is the current in the solar wind?
-are not helpful. Just because we do not have instruments in place to get measurements YET, let alone theories to explain it, doesnt mean there is nothing to be measured.

But like I said, plasma means current. That is undeniable. So what is the significance? What is it doing?

Per the article above, scientists acknowledge this and are looking into it. Whatever its called.

Aug 18, 2018
No way is a galaxy formed by its magnetic field. No way are galactic rotation curves influenced by magnetic fields
Current certainly does affect the behavior of plasma. Look what it does in tokamaks. And there's no reason to assume that it doesnt operate on interstellar scales; plasma EXISTS on interstellar scales.

And it's not just sitting there; its generating current. It would be surprising if this current had no effect in the formation of celestial bodies at many scales. See the above article.

Aug 18, 2018
Just because we do not have instruments in place to get measurements YET, let alone theories to explain it, doesnt mean there is nothing to be measured.


Utter nonsense. We have had hundreds (?) of spacecraft travelling the solar system for six decades. Many of them are/ were equipped with instrumentation purely dedicated to plasma measurements. If there was a current there, we would measure it. We don't.

But like I said, plasma means current. That is undeniable. So what is the significance? What is it doing?


And like I said, that just shows that you know nothing about plasma physics. Don't take my word for it - go ask a plasma physicist.

Aug 18, 2018
Utter nonsense. We have had hundreds (?) of spacecraft travelling the solar system for six decades. Many of them are/ were equipped with instrumentation purely dedicated to plasma measurements. If there was a current there, we would measure it. We don't
"Their result provides clear evidence that the orientation of the magnetic field is in alignment with the molecular torus and ionized streamers rotating with respect to Sagittarius A*"

-Read current. You deny this?

Aug 18, 2018
And it's not just sitting there; its generating current.


No. It really isn't. And that is easily shown by looking for the signature that such currents would show in such measurements as all-sky surveys of synchrotron radiation. Or by looking for its effect due to the Stark effect.

Aug 18, 2018
Don't take my word for it
Dont worry mr spittle, that ain't gonna happen.
go ask a plasma physicist
Alright.

"Plasma is an electrically neutral medium of unbound positive and negative particles (i.e. the overall charge of a plasma is roughly zero). Although these particles are unbound, they are not "free" in the sense of not experiencing forces. Moving charged particles generate an electric current within a magnetic field, and any movement of a charged plasma particle affects and is affected by the fields created by the other charges. In turn this governs collective behaviour with many degrees of variation."

-So yeah, there's current.

Aug 18, 2018
-Read current. You deny this?


I've read the paper. The word 'current' appears precisely once;

Although we cannot further elucidate on these comments with only these few data points and the current limited resolution and sensitivity,........


So, it's not only me denying it. The solar wind is a stream of magnetised ionised gas that is rotating (Parker spiral). It is not a current.

Aug 18, 2018
So yeah, there's current.


No, there isn't. That isn't to say small scale (in terms of space) currents cannot occur. I would suggest that you familiarise yourself with Debye length. Or go post your erroneous beliefs on a physics forum. Might I suggest International Skeptics, or Cosmoquest? I can guarantee you will get a reply from a plasma astrophysicist on those forums, and he will tell you what he has been telling EU idiots for years.

Aug 18, 2018
The solar wind is a stream of magnetised ionised gas that is rotating (Parker spiral). It is not a current.

jonesdumb shouts his ignorance from the rooftops! From wikistupidia;

"The heliospheric current sheet[1] is the surface within the Solar System where the polarity of the Sun's magnetic field changes from north to south. This field extends throughout the Sun's equatorial plane in the heliosphere.[2][3] The shape of the current sheet results from the influence of the Sun's rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium (solar wind).[4] A small electrical current flows within the sheet, about 10−10 A/m². The thickness of the current sheet is about 10,000 km near the orbit of the Earth.
The underlying magnetic field is called the interplanetary magnetic field, and the resulting electric current forms part of the heliospheric current circuit."

As usual, jonesdumb is patently wrong.

Aug 18, 2018
I would suggest that you familiarise yourself with Debye length.

jonesdumb still believes in maths based nonsense shown to be wrong decades ago. Debye length is regularly violated in natural plasmas. See lightning, Birkeland currents like those measured in the paper above, and galactic jets which can extend many parsecs. jonesdumb's willful ignorance blinds him.

Aug 18, 2018
The heliospheric current sheet[1]


Idiot. The HCS has sod all to do with the solar wind, other than the fact that the solar wind carries the IMF along with it. The field has a different orientation between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun. It is these oppositely directed magnetic fields interacting in the equatorial plane that creates a current. I'll repeat, for the hard of thinking - the solar wind is not a current.

Aug 18, 2018
Jonesdumb still believes in maths based nonsense shown to be wrong decades ago...


Really? And which measurements were made of the current in the solar wind? For the especially stupid, if there were a net current, then the Sun would charge up either negatively or positively, depending on the sign of the current. What do you think would happen then, thicko?

Aug 18, 2018
The transformation in time
In that in only the shortest of time did it not take, such a transformation in ones subtlety of textural inkiness, did in such a short while, it is wondrous as to why the point in time he thought it necessary to have such outburst in the instance of firsts that it was totally unnecessary as all that angst was vented to no avail for now we see such a change, the question is this a possibility in future times when he cannot fathom these textural scribing drive the reformation out his guise to what in reality he truly always was in his apparition in March 9, 2013.

Aug 18, 2018
So, it's not only me denying it. The solar wind is a stream of magnetised ionised gas that is rotating (Parker spiral). It is not a current
Ha no, they're obviously saying we dont yet know while you're saying there definitively isnt.

And you're apparently unaware what the difference is between these 2 conclusions.

Sad.

Aug 18, 2018
So, it's not only me denying it. The solar wind is a stream of magnetised ionised gas that is rotating (Parker spiral). It is not a current
Ha no, they're obviously saying we dont yet know while you're saying there definitively isnt.

And you're apparently unaware what the difference is between these 2 conclusions.

Sad.


And you are obviously clueless about plasma physics. Stop digging, you only make yourself look ignorant. What current do you calculate for x ions and x electrons, heading in the same direction at the same velocity? Just like the solar wind, the net current = 0. Try to understand.

Aug 18, 2018
What current do you calculate for x ions and x electrons, heading in the same direction at the same velocity? Just like the solar wind, the net current = 0

Non sequitur, strawman nonsense. The conditions you are claiming do not exist in reality. Again, your willful ignorance is pervasive.

Aug 18, 2018
Non sequitur, strawman nonsense. The conditions you are claiming do not exist in reality. Again, your willful ignorance is pervasive.


Hey, thicko, how about showing some evidence for your assertions? What is the measured current of the solar wind? Go.


Aug 18, 2018
Magnetized Inflow Accreting to the centre of Milkyway June 21, 2006

"Black holes - gravity alone isn't enough to send matter tumbling into the centre of one. Magnetism provides the final nudge, a new study finds.
The research, detailed in the July 22 issue of the journal Nature, confirms a theory put forth in 1973 that magnetic fields drive both the in fall of matter into black holes and the production of light energy created by the process. https://www.space...les.html "

Chandra's X-ray Observatory GRO J1655-40 a binary system 7mass blackhole attracts gas from the stars surface accumulating in the blackholes accretion disk the orbiting gas generates its own magnetic field which powers a wind of charged particles blowing away from the black hole. Chandra detected this wind transferring angular momentum from the inner regions of the disk outward. This slows down some of the spinning gas, allowing it to fall onto the black hole

Aug 18, 2018
Actually Stump, and jd, my basic ideas on cosmology call for a static universe, rather than a big bang, as the something from nothing is a Religious overtone directly from the Catholic Church. That argument is separate though.

Where I went to considering more of the EU type platform, without the so called arcing between planets etc, but with as much plasma mass as is out there, at temperatures too high to recombine, and knowing that the electrons will move faster than the positive ions, then there WILL be zones of differentiation, and thus zones of different charge. Stars also, by way of creating elements in their core and the way solar wind expels a higher number of electrons (due to them being lighter vs the photon pressure) stars themselves will gain charge and thus have an attraction potential akin to gravity, especially when the mass around them is also charged and we also find matter accreting along magnetic field lines, (contd)

Aug 18, 2018
(contd)
and the atomic hydrogen has been shown to follow those field lines, and been detected Because they DID follow those fieldlines. I am not into self-confirmatory science opinion, if I find something that changes something I thought solid, I rework things all the way though, and that is what happened when I started finding that there was being a LOT more magnetic and electrical activity being found and proven and so I have had to change along with the science. If something contradicts what I have believed, I study it further, and if it has proper merit, I add it to my thinking, same if something seems to verify, I check it carefully, and sometimes discard it as it is only close but not really fitting.

So, over time I have seen a number of ideas that I have had upheld, and a number of them fall by the wayside because the data did not fit. But, more and more often, as we develop better equipment that can see more, I have more of my ideas vindicated in great detail.

Aug 18, 2018
So, when modern mainstream science keeps showing more and more, bigger and more detailed charts of magnetic field lines and the needed electrical potentials to form them, it has been widely transforming our understanding of how the Universe works.

It is not so much that the "EU" crowd, which some of you only think of the Thunderbolts crowd, when there is actually a huge number of cosmologists with their doctorates etc that understand that there is a great deal we still do not know about the attractive potentials of the small but very widespread magnetic fields that permeate the Universe.

They are coming to the conclusion that gravity alone is not enough to create stars and planets, that there has to be a charge disparity in order to bring ions together enough to form molecules and then crystals or ices large enough to then start collecting by gravity AND charge differentials. Gravity alone has been proven insufficient without some other force.

Aug 18, 2018
@steel
my basic ideas on cosmology call for a static universe, rather than a big bang
based upon what evidence?
the current MS evidence demonstrates this is highly unlikely, especially considering the CMBR

how would a static universe explain the CMBR?
Where I went to considering more of the EU type platform, without the so called arcing between planets etc, but with as much plasma mass as is out there, at temperatures too high to recombine, and knowing that the electrons will move faster than the positive ions, then there WILL be zones of differentiation, and thus zones of different charge
if you're making the statement that there are plasma's out there and plasma physics is important, this isn't new to astrophysics, which is a repeated point I've made many times to various eu supporters
in point of fact, it's a *requirement* to get a degree as an astrophysicist
https://ocw.mit.e...ophysics


Aug 18, 2018
@steel cont'd
So, over time I have seen a number of ideas that I have had upheld, and a number of them fall by the wayside because the data did not fit
but that is not eu, nor is it plasma cosmology
that is how science works, and neither of the aforementioned systems are adherents to that statement that I quoted
when there is actually a huge number of cosmologists with their doctorates etc that understand that there is a great deal we still do not know about
it should stop there

and I don't have a problem with any of that (nor did I rate it)

that isn't how you started this discussion, though, is it?
you started it with statements which I inquired evidence for, and some statements that were blatantly false

more importantly: none of the mainstream electric/plasma beliefs are science
they may contain *some* science, but they don't adhere fully to the principle's,making it pseudoscience by definition

and none of that is a slam on plasma physicists

Aug 18, 2018
Accretion disk frictionally induced electromagnetic radiation
An accretion disk is a structure (often a circumstellar disk) formed by diffused material in orbital motion around a massive central body. The central body is typically a star. Friction causes orbiting material in the disk to spiral inward towards the central body. Gravitational and frictional forces compress and raise the temperature of the material, causing the emission of electromagnetic radiation https://en.wikipe...ion_disk

Aug 18, 2018
Transformation in time
In that in only the shortest of time did it not take, such a transformation in ones subtlety of textural inkiness, did in such a short while, it is wondrous as to why the point in time he thought it necessary to have such outburst in the instance of firsts that it was totally unnecessary as all that angst was vented to no avail for now we see such a change, the question is this a possibility in future times when he cannot fathom these textural scribing drive the reformation out his guise to what in reality he truly always was in his apparition in March 9, 2013.

Thank you for taking your valuable time in reading this textural observation, I hope it goes some what in the larger schemes, to absolving those dusty corners of electrical spontaneity of thought to rationalised acceptance, as life treads it slow unrelenting path to immortally.

Aug 18, 2018
They are coming to the conclusion that gravity alone is not enough to create stars and planets, that there has to be a charge disparity in order to bring ions together enough to form molecules and then crystals or ices large enough to then start collecting by gravity AND charge differentials. Gravity alone has been proven insufficient without some other force.


Which is why we can look at one of the most primordial bodies in the solar system, a comet, and see what magnetic field it has, as this will tell us about the influence of magnetic fields when the solar system formed. Result? It is totally negligible.

The non-magnetic nucleus of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko
Auster, H-U. et al.
https://spiral.im...3201.pdf


Aug 18, 2018
....solar wind expels a higher number of electrons (due to them being lighter vs the photon pressure) stars themselves will gain charge and thus have an attraction potential akin to gravity, especially when the mass around them is also charged and we also find matter accreting along magnetic field lines, (contd)


Complete nonsense. There are slightly more electrons than ions, because some of the ions (i.e He2+) are multiply ionised. The number of electrons in the solar wind balances the positive charge of the ions. If it didn't, then the Sun would be losing more negative charge carriers than positive ones. The Sun would therefore accumulate a huge positive charge. Even an idiot can see what would happen then.


Aug 18, 2018
The Sun would therefore accumulate a huge positive charge. Even an idiot can see what would happen then.

Only if it weren't part of a circuit, however even mainstream science agrees there is a heliospheric circuit.

Aug 18, 2018
There are slightly more electrons than ions, because some of the ions (i.e He2+) are multiply ionised. The number of electrons in the solar wind balances the positive charge of the ions. If it didn't, then the Sun would be losing more negative charge carriers than positive ones. The Sun would therefore accumulate a huge positive charge. Even an idiot can see what would happen then.

Hello, idiot here!
First, you say there are more electrons than ions but then in the next sentence say they balance the charge.
Just to say that the sun is going to be one charge or the other is dumb. The sun ejects both charged particles (not one) outward into space so the charge buildup CAN'T happen.

If you wait long enough even a wise person will look dumb.

Aug 18, 2018
Hello, idiot here!
First, you say there are more electrons than ions but then in the next sentence say they balance the charge.


You got the first part right! How many electrons to balance the charge from O7+? Seven, yes? What about C6+? You see where we're going here?


Aug 18, 2018
Only if it weren't part of a circuit, however even mainstream science agrees there is a heliospheric circuit.


Which doesn't help you at all. The current density is balanced by + and - components. It has to be.


Aug 18, 2018
And you are obviously clueless about plasma physics. Stop digging, you only make yourself look ignorant. What current do you calculate for x ions and x electrons, heading in the same direction at the same velocity? Just like the solar wind, the net current = 0. Try to understand
BTW
currents would show in such measurements as all-sky surveys of synchrotron radiation
"If the particle is non-relativistic, then the emission is called cyclotron emission. If, on the other hand, the particles are relativistic, sometimes referred to as ultrarelativistic, the emission is called synchrotron emission."

-What makes you think these ions need to be traveling at relativistic velocities in order to generate current? Is that really what you think?

Funny - every time I check with a plasma physicist about your postings, I find out you're full of crap.

Maybe you should take your own advice and vet your crap before you post it.

Aug 18, 2018
Maybe you should take your own advice and vet your crap before you post it.


Maybe you should go post on a physics forum, yes? Or too scared of showing your ignorance in such a place?
What makes you think that there is any current? What is causing the charge separation? Why? Why is it not being cancelled out within the relevant Debye length?

Aug 18, 2018
Utter nonsense. We have had hundreds (?) of spacecraft travelling the solar system for six decades. Many of them are/ were equipped with instrumentation purely dedicated to plasma measurements. If there was a current there, we would measure it. We don't
...But you yourself cited the paper

"Although we cannot further elucidate on these comments with only these few data points and the current limited resolution and sensitivity,........"

-written by actual plasma physicists who state pretty plainly that we haven't yet applied the proper instrumentation necessary to collect the necessary data to reach any conclusions.

You contradict the very citations you yourself post.

Wassup widdat?

Aug 18, 2018
Maybe you should go post on a physics forum, yes? Or too scared of showing your ignorance in such a place?
What makes you think that there is any current? What is causing the charge separation? Why? Why is it not being cancelled out within the relevant Debye length?
You imply that you're competent to post in such forums but you dont seem to know such rudiments as the difference between cyclotron and synchrotron.

Who do you think youre fooling?
https://www.dicti.../pissant

Aug 18, 2018
"Although we cannot further elucidate on these comments with only these few data points and the current limited resolution and sensitivity,........"


Idiot. I posted that to show that that was the only time the authors mention the word "current" in the paper. In other words, they don't you dope.


Aug 18, 2018
You imply that you're competent to post in such forums but you dont seem to know such rudiments as the difference between cyclotron and synchrotron.


Yes I do, shit for brains. It is you who is making crap up. Answer the question I asked way back; what current is generated when you have sum positive + sum negative = 0, and the charges are moving at the same velocity? It really isn't difficult.


Aug 18, 2018
Idiot. I posted that to show that that was the only time the authors mention the word "current" in the paper. In other words, they don't you dope
Ahaahaaaa so you didnt realize you debunked yourself.

I get it haha
https://www.vocab...posturer

...and the reason you're not posting over on those big deal physforums is...?

Aug 18, 2018
Answer the question I asked way back; what current is generated when you have sum positive + sum negative = 0, and the charges are moving at the same velocity?

It has already been pointed out to you that your fanciful question is a strawman, it doesn't exist as you claim.

Aug 18, 2018
Idiot. I posted that to show that that was the only time the authors mention the word "current" in the paper. In other words, they don't you dope
Ahaahaaaa so you didnt realize you debunked yourself.

I get it haha


WTF are you on about, you loon? Go away, and converse on a subject about which you have some knowledge. Because it isn't plasma physics, dumbo.

Aug 18, 2018
WTF are you on about, you loon? Go away, and converse on a subject about which you have some knowledge. Because it isn't plasma physics, dumbo
Are you arguing with yourself now?
And like I said, that just shows that you know nothing about plasma physics. Don't take my word for it - go ask a plasma physicist
???

"Posters should refrain from posting while drunk or stoned."
-Comments guidelines

Aug 18, 2018
Answer the question I asked way back; what current is generated when you have sum positive + sum negative = 0, and the charges are moving at the same velocity?

It has already been pointed out to you that your fanciful question is a strawman, it doesn't exist as you claim.


So, dumbo, found out what the measured current is in the solar wind yet? Thought not. Another idiot.

Aug 18, 2018
Idiot. I posted that to show that that was the only time the authors mention the word "current" in the paper. In other words, they don't you dope
Ahaahaaaa so you didnt realize you debunked yourself.

I get it haha
https://www.vocab...posturer


What current is generated when you have sum positive + sum negative = 0, and the charges are moving at the same velocity? It really isn't difficult.

Why are you incapable of doing that? https://rationalw...r_effect

Answer the question, dickweed.

Oh, and I do post at ISF. And occasionally at Cosmoquest. You are welcome to join up, and put your extremely limited knowledge to the test.


Aug 18, 2018
@jonesdave.

Please take a moment to ponder the implications for charge-sorting; and positive/negative charge current flow patterns produced by the sun's magnetic field pattern on the plasma of the solar wind. Here, latest modeling of sun's magnetic field pattern:

https://phys.org/...eld.html

Take your time in studying it, and pondering its implications for your stance/discussion. Just as Earth's equatorial/polar magnetic field pattern 'sorts' and 'accelerates' (-)electrons and (+)ions charges and causes them to form currents/streams going in opposite directions at different velocities, the sun's magnetic field will do similarly, and much more strongly. Perhaps this will help you see that you may be working from old naive/simplistic view of the solar wind as a 'steady gentle outwards breeze' without the turbulence and looping flows which actually must be going around/back into the sun via it's overall magnetic field pattern 'circuits'.

Aug 18, 2018
^^^^^^^^Another idiot who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about! What is the Debye length, and why would it matter? Now go away.

Aug 18, 2018
What current is generated when you have sum positive + sum negative = 0, and the charges are moving at the same velocity?

What is the Debye length, and why would it matter?

jonesdumb keeps repeating strawman arguments as if he doesn't remember it has been pointed out to him numerous times. Moron says what?

Aug 18, 2018
@jonesdave.
^^^^^^^^Another idiot who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about! What is the Debye length, and why would it matter? Now go away.
The sun's magnetic field induced charge sorting and flowing makes such questions immaterial. I just pointed out that it's not as straightforward and simplistic as you seem to believe. Please stop kneejerking and getting all angry, it doesn't help. And if you keep it up like that, you'll surely have a stroke or a coronary. Chill, mate. :)

ps: Did you at least look at that linked article re modeling of sun's magnetic field pattern?

Aug 18, 2018
jonesdumb keeps repeating strawman arguments as if he doesn't remember it has been pointed out to him numerous times. Moron says what?


No, thicko, nothing has been pointed out. Just your idiot self making assertions. Show me the paper where it is stated that the Debye length does not apply to the solar wind.


Aug 18, 2018
@jonesdave.
^^^^^^^^Another idiot who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about! What is the Debye length, and why would it matter? Now go away.
The sun's magnetic field induced charge sorting and flowing makes such questions immaterial. I just pointed out that it's not as straightforward and simplistic as you seem to believe. Please stop kneejerking and getting all angry, it doesn't help. And if you keep it up like that, you'll surely have a stroke or a coronary. Chill, mate. :)


Then stop talking crap about things you obviously don't understand. I'm not interested in what you think. If you think there is a relevant, peer-reviewed paper that explains your ramblings, then link it.

Aug 18, 2018
@jonesdave.
@jonesdave.
Another idiot who hasn't got a clue what he's talking about! What is the Debye length, and why would it matter? Now go away.
The sun's magnetic field induced charge sorting and flowing makes such questions immaterial. I just pointed out that it's not as straightforward and simplistic as you seem to believe. Please stop kneejerking and getting all angry, it doesn't help. And if you keep it up like that, you'll surely have a stroke or a coronary. Chill, mate. :)
Then stop talking crap about things you obviously don't understand. I'm not interested in what you think. If you think there is a relevant, peer-reviewed paper that explains your ramblings, then link it.
Why are you here, jd; if you can't even be bothered to think for yourself for a moment based on the information already given/linked and then connecting the obvious inescapable non-controversial dots accordingly? Take it easy with the 'attitude', or you'll blow a gasket!

Aug 18, 2018
Why are you here, jd; if you can't even be bothered to think for yourself for a moment based on the information already given/linked


Errm, what information has been given/ linked? I see a bunch of woo merchants making baseless, unsupported assertions.


Aug 18, 2018
Show me the paper where it is stated that the Debye length does not apply to the solar wind.

Nobody claimed it doesn't apply, only that it is violated regularly. Birkeland currents detected connecting to Earth which reach all the way back to the Sun.
https://science.n...oct_ftes
Debye length violated. And these same types of currents have been detected at both Jupiter and Saturn. Debye length violated. jonesdumb will claim these are induced and local, he is lying. These are coherent structures within the solar wind, such as this;
https://agupubs.o...JA014271

Aug 18, 2018
Nobody claimed it doesn't apply, only that it is violated regularly. Birkeland currents detected connecting to Earth which reach all the way back to the Sun.


Jesus H. Christ. The currents do not originate at the Sun, for Christ's sake! The solar bloody wind originates at the Sun. It is quasi-neutral. The currents only form because of the interaction of the SW with the magnetosphere. They only exist within the magnetosphere.


Aug 18, 2018
They only exist within the magnetosphere.

Patently false, as shown be already linked paper and article.

And this article which shows structure in the corona, those tubes reach all the way back to the Sun as described.


Aug 18, 2018
Article....

https://www.nasa....r-corona


Which has absolutely nothing to do with the FTEs, and has nothing whatsoever to do with non-existent currents. It merely proves that you are incapable of understanding even press releases on plasma physics, let alone the scientific papers. No wonder you lot were so easily conned.

Here is the paper on the FTEs:

https://agupubs.o...JA013189

And no, the currents do not come from the Sun! Lol.

Aug 19, 2018
Here is the paper on the FTEs:

https://agupubs.o...JA013189

And no, the currents do not come from the Sun! Lol

The paper doesn't remark on the origins of the BC's other than that they are fully formed structures prior to hitting Earth's magnetosphere.
Also, the article doesn't agree with your claim;

"They enter by following magnetic field lines that can be traced from terra firma all the way back to the sun's atmosphere."

These 'flux tubes' or Birkeland currents have been observed at the corona, .5 AU, at Earth, to a least 5AU and they have been observed at Saturn. They likely remain as coherent structures all the way to the edges of the heliosphere. You are wrong.

Aug 19, 2018
Here is the paper on the FTEs:

https://agupubs.o...JA013189

And no, the currents do not come from the Sun! Lol

The article doesn't agree with your claim;

"They enter by following magnetic field lines that can be traced from terra firma all the way back to the sun's atmosphere."

These 'flux tubes' or Birkeland currents have been observed at the corona, .5 AU, at Earth, to a least 5AU and they have been observed at Saturn. They likely remain as coherent structures all the way to the edges of the heliosphere. You are wrong.


No I'm not. Email the lead author if you don't believe me. I'm reasonably familiar with his work. Better still, why not join an actual physics forum where you could discuss your erroneous beliefs with people who actually understand plasma physics and astrophysics far better than you do? I think we all know the answer to that. The current doesn't exist until the SW interacts with a planet's magnetic field. Period.

Aug 19, 2018
"They enter by following magnetic field lines that can be traced from terra firma all the way back to the sun's atmosphere."


Yes, the bloody magnetic field that is carried by the solar wind, which reconnects to the magnetic field lines of the Earth, allowing the solar wind access to the magnetosphere, where it travels down the field lines to the poles. That is where the current is created. As Tony Lui says:

When an interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) line reconnects with a closed geomagnetic field line, two open magnetic field lines in opposite hemispheres are formed, giving rise to FTEs seen in both hemispheres.


Pretty bloody self-explanatory, I'd have thought.

https://agupubs.o...JA013189


Aug 19, 2018
When an interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) line reconnects with a closed geomagnetic field line, two open magnetic field lines in opposite hemispheres are formed, giving rise to FTEs seen in both hemispheres.

He gets all kinds of pseudosciencey with his 'open' and 'reconnecting' field lines. LOL!

Aug 19, 2018
When an interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) line reconnects with a closed geomagnetic field line, two open magnetic field lines in opposite hemispheres are formed, giving rise to FTEs seen in both hemispheres.

He gets all kinds of pseudosciencey with his 'open' and 'reconnecting' field lines. LOL!


Errr, no. You're the one promoting pseudoscience. I would suggest reading up on the generation of Birkeland currents. Here is an image that might help:
http://www.imageb...50391324

It is from the paywalled paper:
A Source for Field-Aligned Currents at Auroral Latitudes
Schield, et al. (1969)
https://agupubs.o...01p00247

The figure is reproduced from Alfven's 1939 paper, 'Theory of magnetic storms', which I can't find anywhere.

As can be seen, the quasi-neutral SW flows in on the left, and it is only after this that charge separation occurs.

Aug 19, 2018
A bit more from the EU hero Alfven, from:

On the Electric Field Theory of Magnetic Storms and Aurorae (1955)
https://www.tandf...7i1.8769

Before the beam reaches the earth's magnetic field we must in average have n+ ~ n- = n0 in order to avoid very large space charge.


In other words, before encountering the Earth's magnetic field, there is no charge.

Aug 19, 2018
Magnetically bound light year Filaments
A high resolution map of the magnetic field lines in gas and dust swirling around the black hole at the centre of our Galaxy, published by Royal Astronomical Society by Professor Pat Roche of the University of Oxford a map using the CanariCam infrared camera attached to the Gran Telescopio Canarias sited on the island of La Palma covering a region 1 Lyr either side the black hole showing intensity of infrared light, and traces magnetic field lines within filaments of warm dust grains and hot gas, which appear as thin lines reminiscent of brush strokes in a painting
The filaments several light years long meet close to the black hole 25,000 light years distant for the first time shows magnetic fields in detail Despite the strong winds flowing from these stars, the filaments remain in place, bound by the magnetic field within them https://phys.org/...html#jCp

Aug 19, 2018
Magnetically bound light year Filamentary Fields
Is this research published by Royal Astronomical Society by Professor Pat Roche of the University of Oxford going to result in condemnation of Professor Pat Roche purely astronomical observation in the magnetic field lines emanating from blackhole accretion disc with the blackholes equivalent of a stars solar wind where frictionally induced magnetic fields are also produced as these magnetic fields connect to galactic stellar blackholes produce electric fields and their accompanying magnetic fields light years into the galactic stellar medium or is Professor Pat Roche going to receive full glittering starry credit in the club of golden stars
A stark and rational choice for rationality of mind to those who have made the reformation of their guise in true reality there reformed guise and not the their apparition on first apparitioning in those now long forgotten distant times

Aug 19, 2018
Is this research published by Royal Astronomical Society by Professor Pat Roche of the University of Oxford going to result in condemnation of Professor Pat Roche...blah, blah


Why would it?


Aug 19, 2018
Why would it
Is this research published by Royal Astronomical Society by Professor Pat Roche of the University of Oxford going to result in condemnation of Professor Pat Roche...blah, blah

Why would it?

Normally I would not even remotely consider the notion as it would not occur to me, but we have a system that condemns by multiples of one and Professor Pat Roche would be so disappointed if he found his research rated so.

Aug 19, 2018
A bit more from the EU hero Alfven, from:

On the Electric Field Theory of Magnetic Storms and Aurorae (1955)
https://www.tandf...7i1.8769

Before the beam reaches the earth's magnetic field we must in average have n+ ~ n- = n0 in order to avoid very large space charge.

In other words, before encountering the Earth's magnetic field, there is no charge

LOL, that "beam" that you gave no context of is in fact an electric current. Your attempts to use Alfvén to support your POV will always only result in shooting yourself in the foot as Alfvén's work is always relevant to Plasma Universe which led him to develop the theory.

Aug 19, 2018
LOL, that "beam" that you gave no context of is in fact an electric current.


Lol. You really are dense, aren't you? Did you not understand the diagram? Did you not understand the words I copied for you? That is - 'Before the beam reaches the earth's magnetic field we must in average have n+ ~ n- = n0 in order to avoid very large space charge.'
What does that mean to you, you dolt? God you people are thick.

Aug 19, 2018
Your attempts to use Alfvén to support your POV will always only result in shooting yourself in the foot as Alfvén's work is always relevant to Plasma Universe which led him to develop the theory.


What theory? Electric Sun? Nope, he knew the Sun was powered by fusion. Electric comets? Nope, he knew they were ice and dust. Double layers everywhere? Since been shown not to be likely. Matter-Antimatter universe? Nope, shown to be wrong. No magnetic reconnection? Shown to be wrong.
So, what exactly is this theory?


Aug 19, 2018
@cd the illiterate eu cult proselytizer
Your attempts to use Alfvén to support your POV will always only result in shooting yourself in the foot as Alfvén's work is always relevant to Plasma Universe which led him to develop the theory.
to present *your own words* back at you:

Your big mistake is projecting, attempting to think you know what is being suggested

The fact that you need to resort to ad hominem attacks and name calling shows you see [mainstream science] as a threat. You dread to accept the realization that your [eu] cosmology is a pseudoscientific pipedream

Once again, your projection is bupkis

Before you try to 'debunk' that which you don't comprehend you should try and get a clue

Aug 19, 2018
Those who are interested in the history/ science of auroral theories (as opposed to making stuff up) may find the 1955 terella experiments by L. P. Block interesting. This work is referenced by Alfven in his 1955 paper linked upthread. Block was oft referenced by Alfven and Falthammar, and was at the same institution in Sweden at the time.
He wanted to test Alfven's theory as initially laid out in 1939. All jolly interesting stuff. In particular, his recommendation for future experiments. As he says:

The ***neutral*** beam from the Sun constitutes the most important difference between nature and experiment. Therefore, experiments arranged as in fig. 20 may be more like nature.


Fig. 20, and the rest of the paper, can be accessed free here:

Model Experiments on Aurorae and Magnetic Storms
Block, L.
https://www.tandf...7i1.8768

Aug 19, 2018
Hello, idiot here!
First, you say there are more electrons than ions but then in the next sentence say they balance the charge.


You got the first part right! How many electrons to balance the charge from O7+? Seven, yes? What about C6+? You see where we're going here?

Wow, And I thought I was DUMB.
One more time, the charges are balanced regardless of the element.

Aug 19, 2018
Hello, idiot here!
First, you say there are more electrons than ions but then in the next sentence say they balance the charge.


You got the first part right! How many electrons to balance the charge from O7+? Seven, yes? What about C6+? You see where we're going here?

Wow, And I thought I was DUMB.
One more time, the charges are balanced regardless of the element.


Let's try this for the really, really stupid; if the solar wind consisted, hypothetically, of 10 H+ ions, and 2 C3+ ions, what is the sum of the positive charges? How many electrons are needed to balance that charge? It it 12 (10 + 2)? No, it isn't. Each of the H+ ions has lost 1 electron = 10 e. Each of the C3+ ions have lost 3 e = 6e. So our hypothetical solar wind, reducing things to the level a primary school student could understand, consits of 12 ions and 16 electrons. And is therefore charge balanced.
Short of drawing a piccie I don't think I can make it any plainer than that.

Aug 19, 2018
What is it with these EU loons? We have one nutter who thinks mainstream science that goes back decades is somehow a win for EUs unscientific nonsense. We have another who thinks the Birkeland currents forming the Auroura start off as a current at the Sun! And another fruit loop who can't understand that a multiply ionised ion needs more than 1 electron to balance its charge!
Seriously, these people are hopelessly ignorant of the area in which they claim to be interested.
They cannot understand grade school science, simple scientific articles (papers? Forget it!), and routinely fail to understand, or misinterpret the people that they hero worship.
A more hopeless, pathetic bunch it is hard to imagine. They should stick to Velikovsky - anything else appears to be beyond them.

Aug 19, 2018
Why would it?
jonesdave> What is it with these EU loons? We have one nutter who thinks mainstream science

jonesdave> Is this research published by Royal Astronomical Society by Professor Pat Roche of the University of Oxford going to result in condemnation of Professor Pat Roche...blah, blah
Why would it?

granville583762> rated so.

Despite your assurance jonesdave, Professor Pat Roche is so disappointed as his research is rated so low by your logical friend shall we include him your little list of EU loons jonesdave, he certainly has earned full status as a EU loon down grading Professor Pat Roche of the University of Oxford jonesdave

Aug 19, 2018
Jonesdave and his logical friend
Now the truth is out jonesdave, your logical friend is taking absolutely now heed of which professors he tramples on
It says a lot for your insistence and reputable sources written by professor such of the University of Oxford jonesdave and any other university he can get his logical mind on .
Does this mean jonesdave that any references that you bring up your logical friend has all ready rubbished
We cannot rely on you as a reputable commenter and your friend as you have just become as bad as the EU Loons you profess to condemn
Good look with your logical friend jonesdave and your EU loons.

Aug 19, 2018

Wow, And I thought I was DUMB.
One more time, the charges are balanced regardless of the element.


Let's try this for the really, really stupid; if the solar wind consisted, hypothetically, of 10 H+ ions, and 2 C3+ ions, what is the sum of the positive charges? How many electrons are needed to balance that charge? It it 12 (10 + 2)? No, it isn't. Each of the H+ ions has lost 1 electron = 10 e. Each of the C3+ ions have lost 3 e = 6e. So our hypothetical solar wind consits of 12 ions and 16 electrons. And is therefore charge balanced.
Short of drawing a piccie I don't think I can make it any plainer than that.
Yep, You are well-schooled I see.
Better draw a picture cause you really are going to need it.

Aug 20, 2018
Better draw a picture cause you really are going to need it.


Pointless. You are obviously too thick to understand it if I did. What was my original comment? I said that there would be slightly more electrons than ions. Correct? So, answer me this, loony tunes; how many electrons are needed to balance the charge of O6+? That is also written as O VII. One could, for the hard of thinking, write it as O++++++. Do you need one electron to balance that charge? Come on, this is primary school stuff.

Aug 20, 2018
Now the truth is out jonesdave, your logical friend is taking absolutely now heed of which professors he tramples on
It says a lot for your insistence and reputable sources written by professor such of the University of Oxford....


WTF are you prattling on about? There is nothing wrong with Roche's paper. It is fine. Try speaking English and make your point, instead of writing impenetrable, cryptic crap.


Aug 20, 2018
Now the truth is out jonesdave
granville583762 > Now the truth is out jonesdave, your logical friend is taking absolutely now heed of which professors he tramples on
It says a lot for your insistence and reputable sources written by professor such of the University of Oxford....


jonesdave> WTF are you prattling on about? There is nothing wrong with Roche's paper. It is fine. Try speaking English and make your point, instead of writing impenetrable, cryptic crap.

Is it just you're self and you're club of golden stars and logical friends, as no one else has any difficulty in deciphering my inky texts jonesdave!

P.S. Do I need to translate what I have just written, or are you okay with your English lessons so far J.D

Aug 20, 2018


P.S. Do I need to translate what I have just written, or are you okay with your English lessons so far J.D


Yes. WTF are you on about, you idiot?

Aug 20, 2018
Current is "how many" free electrons pass at point in time. To say the solar wind isn't a current is silly.

Aug 20, 2018
Current is "how many" free electrons pass at point in time. To say the solar wind isn't a current is silly.


Idiot. Look up 'quasi-neutral'. If you think otherwise, tell us what is the measured current in the solar wind? There isn't one, dope.

Aug 20, 2018
Locality and Quasi-Neutral in the Solar Wind
Old_C_Code> Current is "how many" free electrons pass at point in time. To say the solar wind isn't a current is silly.

jonesdave> Idiot. Look up 'quasi-neutral'. If you think otherwise, tell us what is the measured current in the solar wind? There isn't one, dope.

The solar wind in totality is quasi-neutral, in regional locality as electrons and protons flow side by side with the solar wind velocity, locally there are electric currents and magnetic fields!
The art of Obfuscation.

Aug 20, 2018

The solar wind in totality is quasi-neutral, in regional locality as electrons and protons flow side by side with the solar wind velocity, locally there are electric currents and magnetic fields!
The art of Obfuscation.


The art of being thick! This has already been discussed. Look up Debye length. And we know there is a magnetic field, you idiot. It is called the IMF (Interplanetary Magnetic Field). It is carried by the solar wind. Now bugger off, and stop prattling on about things that you don't understand.

Aug 20, 2018
A Circular argument by a logical member of The Five Star Club
jonedave> we know there is a magnetic field, you idiot. It is called the IMF (Interplanetary Magnetic Field). It is carried by the solar wind

jonesdave> Idiot. Look up 'quasi-neutral'. If you think otherwise, tell us what is the measured current in the solar wind? There isn't one, dope

A typical circular argument
We know there is a magnetic field, you idiot - the measured current in the solar wind? There isn't one, dope
What we down trodden stupid masses fail to fathom including our logical friend is this is one of the infamous logical circular Five Star Club arguments
To have electrons and positive ions travelling at the velocity of the solar wind - two oppositely charged particles moving in a magnetic field you have the basis for an electric current.
Consequently despite the quasi-neutrality of the solar wind, you have electric currents in the solar wind considerably larger than the Debye length

Aug 20, 2018
Consequently despite the quasi-neutrality of the solar wind, you have electric currents in the solar wind considerably larger than the Debye length


You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Show me where this has been measured. You know, a scientific paper from a mission that measured it? Otherwise STFU about stuff that is well beyond you.


Aug 20, 2018
Research papers required proving charged particles moving in a magnetic field produce an electric current.
I've been asked many things, but asked to prove moving charged particles in a magnetic field produces electric currents.
Consequently despite the quasi-neutrality of the solar wind, you have electric currents in the solar wind considerably larger than the Debye length


jonesdave> You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Show me where this has been measured. You know, a scientific paper from a mission that measured it? Otherwise STFU about stuff that is well beyond you.

You mean a research paper that your unmentionable logical friend has almost certainly rubbished.

Aug 20, 2018
You mean a research paper that your unmentionable logical friend has almost certainly rubbished.
I will find one your unmentionable logical friend has not rubbished.


Either speak in proper English, or piss off. Idiot.


Aug 20, 2018
Research papers required proving charged particles moving in a magnetic field produce an electric current.


Wrong, thicko. When the sum (+ charge) + sum (-charge) = zero, you have got no current. Why do you think hundreds of spacecraft have failed to measure it? Go back to school.

Aug 20, 2018
You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Show me where this has been measured. You know, a scientific paper from a mission that measured it?

jonesdumb doesn't understand he has already proven himself wrong when he linked to a paper that Ulysses measured an electron beam at a large distance from the Sun. Both the quasi-neutral conditions and Debye length are violated in the same instance.

Aug 20, 2018
You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Show me where this has been measured. You know, a scientific paper from a mission that measured it?

jonesdumb doesn't understand he has already proven himself wrong when he linked to a paper that Ulysses measured an electron beam at a large distance from the Sun. Both the quasi-neutral conditions and Debye length are violated in the same instance.


So link the paper.

Aug 20, 2018
This is bit ridiculous, requesting a research paper proving charged particles moving in a magnetic field produce an electric current.
All be it the solar wind, you know me better than that jonesdave - I am going to find one, but it is not going to emerge instantly out the quantum fluctuations
You should have an interest in finding a research paper also J.D. You do not become an EU loon just because you show an interest in the scientific aspect of magnetised electric currents in solar wind activity J.D.
Take myself for example, none of all your rhetoric or the EU loonery has rubbed off on me.
When my instincts say so, I backtrack – I have no theories as theories are all in the mind and come back and bite you when your theories fall flat.
Consequently J.D I can believe anything, then backtrack and throw my beliefs in the bin when it's over, then start from scratch all over again

Aug 20, 2018
^^^^^What a load of piffle. Complete and utter gibberish. You are the one who is an EU loon, if you think the solar wind is a current! There is a physics forum attached to this site; go to the Q & A section, and ask somebody other than me. Or try Cosmoquest, or International Skeptics, or Quora, or Physics Stack Exchange. They will tell you what I have told you; a) you're clueless, and b) the solar wind is not a current.
Try again.

Aug 20, 2018
^^^Better still, download this:

Introduction to Plasma Physics
Emilia Kilpua and Hannu Koskinen
https://mycourses...inen.pdf

In particular, try to understand section 2.2.

Aug 20, 2018
You're coming to the same erroneous conclusions J.D.
jonesdave> You are the one who is an EU loon if you think the solar wind is a current.

You insist in not reading comments through J.D. If you read and interpret sources in the same light you will come to the same erroneous conclusions - What did I just say J.D - I said "Consequently J.D, I can believe anything, then backtrack and throw my beliefs in the bin when it's over". You are coming to a conclusion, then not modifying it as you progressively continue through the text.
Concerning solar wind is a current, again J.D - I said "charged particles moving in a magnetic field produce an electric current." It is you who thinks everyone believes the solar wind is a current J.D.

Aug 20, 2018
^^^^^^Mate, just stop talking crap, and go away with your idiotic ramblings. You know Jack about plasma (or much else), that much is obvious.

Aug 20, 2018
@jonesdave.

Chill! You're letting your emotions and biases 'dumb down' your own critical thinking faculties. Have you 'forgotten' the school lessons re electric currents in all sorts of media? Consider what @granville/others have been pointing out above and for some time now; ie: electric currents in both 'neutral wires' and in 'quasi-neutral plasma' occur because the electron is lighter-massed and hence more 'mobile' under voltage/magnetism acceleration forces than is the heavier ion. Which is why recent plasma studies of lab and cosmic plasma dynamics have now highlighted the importance of FAST electron dynamics/flows (these are most readily observed in Fusion Power devices where 'fast electrons' flows/shock fronts etc cause destabilization/turbulence etc and breaking of magnetic confinement). I also earlier pointed out the 'charge sorting' occurring in the 'complex looping' circuits of sun's magnetic field pattern. It's not as 'simplistic' as you seem to think, jd. :)


Aug 20, 2018
^^^^^Show me the measured current in the solar wind.

Aug 20, 2018
For RC, or any other idiot, go to a physics forum, and ask your questions about whether the solar wind is a current. Link back to it here. Got the cojones? Nah, thought not.

Aug 20, 2018
@jonesdave.
go to a physics forum, and ask your questions about whether the solar wind is a current
Your angry and demanding elitism attitude is blunting your ability to discern subtle aspects, and leading you to gross/simplistic 'paint by the numbers' type sketches of reality.

@jd, consider: Gross/simplistic 'measures' of solar wind constituents/quantities etc relates to that overall PORTION of plasma (ions/electrons) generally 'escaping' into far space; but a great portion does NOT escape the magnetic trapping, sorting and returning via mag-fields! And THAT does not make it out of the sun's vicinity, at least not on the first go; as it is recycled via surface/coronal dynamical processes and then rejoins the solar wind again. This repeats, the general 'wind' represents the ongoing portion that escapes during any particular emission/ejection-history experienced.

FYI, @jd, old simplistic/naive assumptions/interpretations are now being revised by mainstream. :)

Aug 20, 2018
Your angry and demanding elitism attitude is blunting your ability to discern subtle aspects, and leading you to gross/simplistic 'paint by the numbers' type sketches of reality.


No, I'm basing my responses on actual measurement, and answers from actual plasma physicists. You are just talking crap, on the other hand.

https://physics.s...-current

https://physics.s...1#253491

And the profile of that respondent:

https://physics.s...e-vivere

So, the solar wind is not a current, although there can be short-lived, spatially small currents within the solar wind.


Aug 20, 2018
And if you want to know why my summation is necessarily simplistic, it is due to idotic statements like the one below from some loon or other.

Current is "how many" free electrons pass at point in time. To say the solar wind isn't a current is silly.


That, and the restriction of 1000 characters. I would suggest discussing this on a physics forum if you have something to say, but you are liable to run into actual plasma physicists there, and I can see why you wouldn't want to do that.


Aug 20, 2018
@jonesdave.
Your angry and demanding elitism attitude is blunting your ability to discern subtle aspects, and leading you to gross/simplistic 'paint by the numbers' type sketches of reality.


No, I'm basing my responses on actual measurement, and answers from actual plasma physicists. You are just talking crap, on the other hand.

https://physics.s...-current

So, the solar wind is not a current, although there can be short-lived, spatially small currents within the solar wind.

"Spatially small"? Did you have a look at the magnetic fields of the sun, and think about how they would trap, sort and accelerate different charges in different directions back to the sun? Did you consider just how NOT "spatially small" such circuits are in reality? Perhaps you should be critically assessing what you read from those links before just basing your 'understandings' on same without demur. :)

Aug 20, 2018
"Spatially small"? Did you have a look at the magnetic fields of the sun, and think about how they would trap, sort and accelerate different charges in different directions back to the sun?


Just point me to the paper where these currents are observed/ hypothesised. I have no interest in your piss poor understanding of the subject.


Aug 20, 2018
Quasi-neutrality- https://www.plasm...utrality

Note, it mentions quasi-neutrality is violated at double layers;
https://www.ncbi....4476280/

And particle beams, (using the paper jonesdumb conveniently "forgot");

http://adsabs.har...35..295B

Aug 20, 2018
^^^^^^ I would suggest that you research papers on DLs in the solar wind. A chap called Raadu (iirc) might be a good place to start. They are weak, and transient, only can only extend to ~ 10 Debye lengths, i.e. 100m. The paper you referenced is for the Earth's radiation belt, which is not relevant to the solar wind in interplanetary space.
And the Ulysses paper says nothing about currents nor breaking of quasi-neutrality. I would suggest in this case that you flag up the paper on a physics forum, and get some expert help in understanding it.

Aug 21, 2018
Okay, here's a paper on DLs possibly observed in the solar wind:

Weak Double Layers in the Solar Wind and their Relation to the Interplanetary Electric Field
Salem, C. et al.
https://www.resea...ield.pdf

As expected, they are weak and extend only to a few 10s of Debye lengths.

Aug 21, 2018
They are weak, and transient, only can only extend to ~ 10 Debye lengths,

Yep, they are weak due to the low density. But they are there, they have the same effects, and they violate quasi-neutrality.
And the Ulysses paper says nothing about currents

LOL! An electron beam, a magnetic field, and radio waves but the beam isn't an electric current? Denial ain't a river in Egypt...

Aug 21, 2018
They are weak, and transient, only can only extend to ~ 10 Debye lengths,

Yep, they are weak due to the low density. But they are there, they have the same effects, and they violate quasi-neutrality.
And the Ulysses paper says nothing about currents

LOL! An electron beam, a magnetic field, and radio waves but the beam isn't an electric current? Denial ain't a river in Egypt...


And that just shows that you know zip about the subject. Like I said, look for some expert advice, because you are not capable of understanding the paper to the degree required. Neither am I. However, I know people who are, and would ask them if I needed it explained. Given that I'm not the one drawing conclusions based on a vanishingly small knowledge of plasma physics, and coming to conclusions that are not mentioned in the paper, then that is rather up to you to do, rather than making assertions that you are not qualified to make.

Aug 21, 2018
Nice dodge, observed DL's and particle beams both of which violate quasi-neutrality and Debye length. Now that it has been shown you are wrong you change the subject and pretend you knew it all along. Laughable!

Aug 21, 2018
Nice dodge, observed DL's and particle beams both of which violate quasi-neutrality and Debye length. Now that it has been shown you are wrong you change the subject and pretend you knew it all along. Laughable!


No, it isn't a dodge, loony tunes. You are crap at plasma physics, as shown, and are incapable of understanding that paper. I repeat, the solar wind is not a current, and it is quasi-neutral. Go to a physics forum, and prove me wrong.

Aug 21, 2018
Nice dodge, observed DL's and particle beams both of which violate quasi-neutrality


So, i guess you missed the parts of the paper where they say;

We show that extrapolating this result leads to a total potential difference of 300 to 1000 Volts between the solar corona and 1 AU, which is in the range of values needed to maintain charge neutrality in the solar wind plasma


They only say it 4 times, so easily missed, I suppose. What does charge neutrality mean to EU loons?
And what do you want this piss weak current to do? Throw us into orbit around Saturn?

Aug 21, 2018
We show that extrapolating this result leads to a total potential difference of 300 to 1000 Volts between the solar corona and 1 AU

That would be an acknowledgement of a large scale electric field. You're not helping your argument.

Aug 21, 2018
That would be an acknowledgement of a large scale electric field. You're not helping your argument.


And....? I keep telling you; the solar wind is not a current; quasi-neutrality holds. You cannot even tell us what you want this tiny current to do. Spell it out.

Aug 21, 2018
And what do you want this piss weak current to do?

Now you admit it's there?
It's another means of energy transfer, a complex network of plasma filaments, particle beams, "flux tubes" (all electric currents) separated by DL's/sheaths interacting with magnetic fields and charged bodies. Nothing like you'd like to portray.

Aug 21, 2018


Now you admit it's there?
It's another means of energy transfer, a complex network of plasma filaments, particle beams, "flux tubes" (all electric currents) separated by DL's/sheaths interacting with magnetic fields and charged bodies. Nothing like you'd like to portray.


I already said there can be currents WITHIN the solar wind, but the solar wind is net neutral. The rest of your comment is just made up bullshit, as usual. Stick to mythology.


Aug 21, 2018
I already said there can be currents WITHIN the solar wind, but the solar wind is net neutral. The rest of your comment is just made up bullshit,

Constantly moving the goalposts. You said currents were possible at the Debye length, about 10m or so right? I showed you how quasi-neutrality is violated regularly and now you have been shown incorrect you claim to have said it all along. What a pathetic display.

Aug 21, 2018
I already said there can be currents WITHIN the solar wind, but the solar wind is net neutral. The rest of your comment is just made up bullshit,

Constantly moving the goalposts. You said currents were possible at the Debye length, about 10m or so right? I showed you how quasi-neutrality is violated regularly and now you have been shown incorrect you claim to have said it all along. What a pathetic display.


Which I already knew. Being on another forum where one of your fellow cultists is forever banging on about DLs (what is it with EUists and DLs?) and charge separation, and continually being corrected by an actual plasma physicist, tends to raise awareness of these stupid EU arguments.
These currents are spatially small, short lived, piss weak, and act to preserve overall charge neutrality.
What do you want them to do? Make craters on Mars?

I'll repeat; the solar wind is net neutral. It is not a current.

Aug 21, 2018
I'll repeat; the solar wind is net neutral. It is not a current

The quasi-neutrality of the plasma does not preclude the considerations that tha solar wind is a current.
Quasi-neutrality is not the same as neutrality.

Aug 21, 2018
@jonesdave.
Just point me to the paper where these currents are observed/ hypothesised.
Jd, mate, you just 'pointed yourself' to it! As per your above response to @cantdrive, wherein YOU quoted from that paper:
We show that extrapolating this result leads to a total potential difference of 300 to 1000 Volts between the solar corona and 1 AU, which is in the range of values needed to maintain charge neutrality in the solar wind plasma
Now, jd, calmly consider the implications of that 'voltage' aspect, and of the NECESSITY of some CONTINUOUS CURRENT of 'charge transfer' from one location to the other in order to 'maintain' an 'overall quasi-neutrality 'dynamically', in 'catch up' manner, because of the constant buildup of a sustained 'voltage potential' between said locations!

See how your elitist/emotional etc 'attitude' makes you miss the import of your own 'reading', and so impairing your otherwise innate ability to 'connect the (subtle) dots' for yourself? :)

Aug 21, 2018
so...... best case is 1000V between Earth and the Sun. Currently per http://www.sws.bo...olar/1/4 , the density is 5 p/cc. That doesn't seem to me like a whole lot of current carrying capability in large scale. At least, definitely not enough to power planets, carve out canyons, and do all the fancy electrochemistry at comets to make a plethora of water. am I wrong?

Aug 21, 2018
am I wrong?

Yes!
You are ignoring the filamentary aspects of plasma, the known connections of all the planets, the high variability of the SW, and the energy storing ability of plasma/charged bodies and the bursty release of that energy.

Aug 21, 2018
so...... best case is 1000V between Earth and the Sun. Currently per http://www.sws.bo...olar/1/4 , the density is 5 p/cc. That doesn't seem to me like a whole lot of current carrying capability in large scale. At least, definitely not enough to power planets, carve out canyons, and do all the fancy electrochemistry at comets to make a plethora of water. am I wrong?
says 691

The science is only NOW (in the 21st century) being evaluated and carried forth to conclude what physicists deem to be correct measurements/data. But the Earth is ~4.5 billions of years old and, within that timeframe far more extreme changes (increase and decrease) could have occurred that could tilt the scale either way. All we have is in the NOW.

It will take much more time to fully understand all the evidence that is still 'out there', present and future. We can only hope for more exciting news.

Aug 22, 2018
am I wrong?

Yes!
You are ignoring the filamentary aspects of plasma, the known connections of all the planets, the high variability of the SW, and the energy storing ability of plasma/charged bodies and the bursty release of that energy.


Crap. Where is this written up? What has filamentary got to do with anything? What connection between the planets? What 'bursty' release'? What does variability do? The solar wind has no net charge. End of story.

Aug 22, 2018
solar wind has no net charge. End of story.

From jonesdumb;
"We show that extrapolating this result leads to a total potential difference of 300 to 1000 Volts between the solar corona and 1 AU, which is in the range of values needed to maintain charge neutrality in the solar wind plasma..."

Amusing he doesn't get the implication of the extrapolation. LOL!

Aug 22, 2018
which is in the range of values needed to maintain ***charge neutrality in the solar wind plasma****..."

Amazing that one could be so thick as to quote that, and not understand it!
Listen, thicko, if you think the solar wind has a net current, just link to the distinguished plasma physicist that says that it does, in the scientific literature, yes? That would save all these pixels, wouldn't it? If you can't do that, then just admit that it is merely a baseless assertion required by your quasi-religious cult.

Aug 22, 2018
JD, if there are no currents with solar winds, which, in a galaxy would be adding together and creating further magnetic fields and shaping the environment around them then there would be no articles and papers out like this, right?:

https://phys.org/...tml#nRlv

You might also pay attention to what different satellites and science programs have found about solar wind, how it interacts with the solar magnetic fields, and how those attach to and connect circuits to our planet and the others for streams of high energy electrons and and mass plasma bursts (known as Coronal Mass Ejections, usually heavy ions).

It is a much more interactive area of sciences than they had previously considered, and are having all kinds of non-intuitive results coming out, such as whistler signals from incoming solar electrons impacting our magnetic field and being further energized.

Stop the angry posting here, go do some real study.

Aug 22, 2018
JD, if there are no currents with solar winds,


And if you read what I wrote, I have not said that. There can be currents WITHIN the solar wind. That is well known. What I said is the the solar wind itself is not a current, and is overall net neutral.
And believe me, I have studied, formally and informally, which is how I know that I'm right.

Aug 22, 2018
in a galaxy would be adding together and creating further magnetic fields and shaping the environment around them then there would be no articles and papers out like this, right?:

https://phys.org/...tml#nRlv


And that paper does not mention currents. They are measuring a magnetic field.

https://www.aanda...2-14.pdf


Aug 22, 2018
And that paper does not mention currents. They are measuring a magnetic field.

jonesdumb is as ignorant of plasma as the rest of the plasma ignoramuses, he still doesn't get it that if there is a magnetic field the must be an electric current creating them. Magnetic fields are not magic, and the frozen-in condition is pure unadulterated pseudoscience.

Aug 22, 2018
And that paper does not mention currents. They are measuring a magnetic field.

jonesdumb is as ignorant of plasma as the rest of the plasma ignoramuses, he still doesn't get it that if there is a magnetic field the must be an electric current creating them. Magnetic fields are not magic, and the frozen-in condition is pure unadulterated pseudoscience.


Wrong, woo boy. Current = magnetic field. Magnetic field does not = current. Learn some science, instead of trotting out the same tired crap from your Velikoskian cult.
Read the paper I linked, and then, when you have failed to understand word one of it, you can come back and ask the good people here what an alpha-omega dynamo is.

Aug 22, 2018
Current = magnetic field. Magnetic field does not = current.

LOL! Magnetic fields are magical according to jonesdumb.

Aug 22, 2018
Current = magnetic field. Magnetic field does not = current.

LOL! Magnetic fields are magical according to jonesdumb.


As I thought - paper was beyond you!

Aug 22, 2018
An electron has a magnetic field and an electric field, the electron does not have to flow for there to be a magnetic field - its magnetic field is independent to its electric field - it is part of its magnetic dipole moment
The same as ferromagnetic metals do not have electric currents but have magnetic fields

Aug 22, 2018
@granville583762.
An electron has a magnetic field and an electric field, the electron does not have to flow for there to be a magnetic field - its magnetic field is independent to its electric field - it is part of its magnetic dipole moment
The same as ferromagnetic metals do not have electric currents but have magnetic fields
That takes us into the Quantum realm where an intrinsic SPIN applies, and mainstream doesn't yet know how the fundamental charge and spin etc arise in the first place, let alone the underpinning 'electro-magnetic field' itself. So since the electric/magnetic/plasma phenomena under discussion here is at the 'macro-scales' (stellar-to-galaxy-to-cosmic scales), I suggest it's best to stick to the 'macro' electro-magnetic considerations, so as to avoid confusion/conflation between quantum/macro scale principles/behavior etc. Cheers. :)

Aug 22, 2018
@jonesdave.
What I said is the the solar wind itself is not a current, and is overall net neutral.
But that's simplistic 'overview' which ignores important things going on within its many parts. Similar to view that universe is 'flat overall' and ignoring important things going on in stellar/galactic/gal-cluster/gals-supercluster gravitational etc phenomena across observable universal regions.
...if you think the solar wind has a net current,..
You're still treating the phenomena as simple and one-way behavior, jd. Consider the solar plasma, wind/magnetic-field pattern, system reality: Any current filament must be in a circuit; and any 'net overall' current aspect must be measured across the WHOLE LOT of filamentary circuits in 3-d spherical distribution of the stellar wind (outgoing/incoming) 'turbulence/flow circuits'. :)

ps to @all: Ignore silly/simplistic PAST claims by EU/mainstream; concentrate on objective discussion of what is NOW becoming apparent. :)

Aug 22, 2018
But that's simplistic 'overview' which ignores important things going on within its many parts.


Listen, f*ckw*t - I have said this enough times, you tosser; there can be currents within the solar wind. The solar wind is overall net neutral. If it fu**ing wasn't, you idiot, the Sun would be gaining a charge. Yes? Figured that out? Got past primary school science, have we? Now bugger off, you burke. Please.

Aug 22, 2018
I'm starting a poll;

At what age do you think RC stopped doing science lessons?

Possible answers:

a) 0-5 yrs.
b) 5-10 yrs.
c)10-15 yrs.

My bet is b.

Aug 22, 2018
@jonesdave.
f*ckw*t - I have said this enough times, you tosser; there can be currents within the solar wind. The solar wind is overall net neutral. If it fu**ing wasn't, you idiot, the Sun would be gaining a charge. Yes?
You missed that the LOOPING magnetic field patterns bring charges BACK to the sun too. I also told you that solar wind that reaches far space is that portion of plasma wind that escapes this complexly looped circuits of mag-field pattern that 'trap' and 'sort' and 'accelerate' in various flow loop iterations before maybe escaping next time through that dynamical system.
At what age do you think RC stopped doing science lessons?
Possible answers:
a) 0-5 yrs.
b) 5-10 yrs.
c)10-15 yrs.
My bet is b.
When did you lose your mind and so stopped thinking for yourself, jd? You remind me of @Da Schneib, insulting, ranting like you are now; when I tried to tell him about plasmoids in the sun. He (eventually) found I was correct and he incorrect. Now you. :)

Aug 22, 2018
I also told you....


Hey, sh*t for brains, you don't need to tell me anything. Dickweed. I might just be qualified in this sh*t, yes? Why do you think I can spot you as a Dunning-Kruger affected loon? Huh? Because, dear, I might just know what I'm talking about, you idiot, and I can spot a fake like you miles away. Yes? Now p*ss off, you blowhard.

Aug 22, 2018
You remind me of @Da Schneib, insulting, ranting like you are now....


Yep, and DS had the right idea. That is, not giving idiots like you the time of day. Bugger off.

Aug 22, 2018
@jonesdave.
Hey, sh*t for brains, you don't need to tell me anything. Dickweed. I might just be qualified in this sh*t, yes? Why do you think I can spot you as a Dunning-Kruger affected loon? Huh? Because, dear, I might just know what I'm talking about, you idiot, and I can spot a fake like you miles away. Yes? Now p*ss off, you blowhard.
Being "qualified" but then being "wrong" is not unheard of in scientific circles, jd. It's better to be correct regardless of claims to qualifications, else it's just 'appeal to authority' which may be old/incomplete/erroneous. Try to discuss/comprehend politely fairly, objectively; instead of just 'blowing up' all the time when someone/something doesn't 'fit' your own old/naive/simplistic 'understandings'. :)
You remind me of @Da Schneib, insulting, ranting like you are now....
Yep, and DS had the right idea. That is, not giving idiots like you the time of day. Bugger off.
So, my being correct didn't matter? D-K indeed. :)

Aug 22, 2018
^^^And if you think this loon isn't in the terminal stages of D-K syndrome! Read the above. Lol. Go away, you tosspot.

Aug 22, 2018
I have edited jonesdumb's comment to be redirected right back at him.
To jonesdumb;
Listen, f*ckw*t - I have said this enough times, you tosser; there *are* currents within the solar wind and *the solar wind constitutes a current within the larger solar circuit*. The solar wind is overall *quasij-neutral, which doesn't mean neutral. If it fu**ing wasn't, you idiot, the Sun would be gaining a charge. *No!* *Because it is part of a larger circuit which as you know, maintains quasi-neutrality.* Figured that out? Got past primary school science, have we? Now bugger off, you burke. Please.


Aug 22, 2018
@jonesdave.
^^^And if you think this loon isn't in the terminal stages of D-K syndrome! Read the above. Lol. Go away, you tosspot.
The @forum can readily make judgement as to who is the "loon" here, jd; because you avoided answering that last question I put to you in my last; to wit:
You remind me of @Da Schneib, insulting, ranting like you are now....

Yep, and DS had the right idea. That is, not giving idiots like you the time of day. Bugger off.

So, my being correct [and DS incorrect] didn't matter? D-K indeed. :)
Why did you not answer that, jd? Is being correct somehow a D-K 'criterion' in your 'version' of D-K syndrome? :)

Aug 22, 2018
@The loon CD,
^^^^Err, idiot! What a tosser. Care to back your crap up with some references, yes? Christ you f*ckwits are tiresome. Ever get beyond high school? Any of you?

Aug 22, 2018
@jonesdave.
^^^And if you think this loon isn't in the terminal stages of D-K syndrome! Read the above. Lol. Go away, you tosspot.
The @forum can readily make judgement as to who is the "loon" here, jd; because you avoided answering that last question I put to you in my last; to wit:
You remind me of @Da Schneib, insulting, ranting like you are now....

Yep, and DS had the right idea. That is, not giving idiots like you the time of day. Bugger off.

So, my being correct [and DS incorrect] didn't matter? D-K indeed. :)
Why did you not answer that, jd? Is being correct somehow a D-K 'criterion' in your 'version' of D-K syndrome? :)


Mate, nobody gives a shit what you wrote on here. Yes? Show me what you have published in the scientific literature, or STFU. Yes?

Aug 22, 2018
I have edited jonesdumb's comment to be redirected right back at him.
To jonesdumb;
Listen, f*ckw*t - I have said this enough times, you tosser; there *are* currents within the solar wind and *the solar wind constitutes a current within the larger solar circuit*. The solar wind is overall *quasij-neutral, which doesn't mean neutral. If it fu**ing wasn't, you idiot, the Sun would be gaining a charge. *No!* *Because it is part of a larger circuit which as you know, maintains quasi-neutrality.* Figured that out? Got past primary school science, have we? Now bugger off, you burke. Please.



Mate, you are just so thick that it isn't even funny any more. Fancy a little visit to a physics forum, dear? Hmmm? Bet you can't manage that, can you? Science is way beyond you, isn't it thicko? All you can do is parrot crap from idiots like Thornhill on comments sections such as this. Unlikely you finished high school, I'm guessing.

Aug 22, 2018
Question I asked of cantthink, some time back: "What do you think a collisionless plasma is?"
Cantthink: "It's a double layer."
Seriously! This is how thick these loons are. Really, really, thick. Eh, cantthink?