http://www.rense.com/general69/comets.htm

Comet break-ups above the elliptical plane need a lot of energy to cause such huge separations and such powerful jettisons of material.

Thank you for your swift and frank response.

I'm left wondering what the purpose of your original post was.The terms used in science nearly always have specific meanings. Often, those meanings will change - sometimes subtly, sometimes not - as the field develops (and for other reasons). To those unfamiliar with the 'doing' of science, the insistence by scientists on precision and narrowness of terms may seem like pedantry; to those 'doing' the science, the sloppiness or misuse of terminology is infuriating, when that sloppiness is accompanied by vitriol (as one finds on so many Thunderbolts and Electric Universe webpages).You may have just, unintentionally, given an example ... the term, or terms, that you should use are those which have the precise meanings that you intend, in the field of science in which you are working (or commenting on). If you don't know what the correct (or best) term to use is, and you chose your own, then it would be a very good idea to spell out - in some detail - exactly what you mean.

Note too that terminology has no necessary requirement to be 'historically justified' - after all, it's called the Kuiper Belt, not the Edgeworth-Kuiper Belt.Ian, it is your claim!

(the question of what your purpose is comes to mind, again).

On this specific point, the disconnect seems huge - Peratt wrote about 'galactic dimensional Birkeland currents', Fiege and Pudritz about 'filamentary molecular clouds'; Robinshaw's observations were of the Orion Molecular Cloud, Peratt's paper Fig.6 shows Fornax A (NGC 1316), 3C192, 3C310, 3C315 (i.e. DRAGNs; I can't resolve the remaining two 2355+490 and 0844+319 - can anyone help please).

In light of the extensive clarifications you've made, would you be kind enough to state your specific claim(s) again please iantresman? Please limit yourself to only those you feel you can defend, per the ATM BAUT Rules (my emphasis):

Let's see. Force on Earth due to gravity = Lots
Force on Earth due to coulomb = 0

If you feel like picking a nit then change the 0 to so small as to be 0

Reconnection is a hot topic in space physics, but it is very hard to see. Unless you are looking in the right direction at the right time, you arent going to see the reconnection. So until we make a space probe that can sit still, or have enough probes to continually cover the proper areas, they will be somewhat poorly understood.

The Sun, ir any star for that matter, is not a reconnection event. The Sun has a very noticable dipole that switches polarity every 11 years. If it were a reconnection, it wouldnt look like a dipole.

When plasma whysics is applied to a dying star, the fields inferred around most compact objects agrees fairly well with theory, as in a frozen in dipole field, not a reconnection event.

And you would be very wrong. First, the solar wind is not electrically charged, it is neutral. This statemant look like a non-scientist writing down what they are told and not quite getting it right. Heck, both of the Spaceflight Now articles look like they are not written by someone who knows what they are talking about.

Getting on to your statement. Solar wind is not electrically accelerated. It may be ion cyclotron accelerated, or it may be magnetic divergence accelerated, or there may be any number of other ways, but it isnt electric. We would see the fields. The solar wind also dosent create field. It is neutral, so it cant. The plasma in the solar wind can, however, lock in the solar field and drag it around, or drag around the Earth's field. If you really want the equations, I can look them up.

I am confident that reconnection will show up in alot of places, but that our basic knowledge of how the universe works is pretty good, and that the universe is dominated by gravity.

I have a great lack of "ignorance of basic physics" tho.

An interesting contribution, Fr. Wayne.

May I ask if you intend to defend the ideas on the webpage you have given us a link to?

Another 'rense' link? Safe to rule that out as nonsense.

Ian, and other interested people. To get a really good overview of the different paradigms of space plasma physics with focus on the Earth's magnetosphere, I would like to point out the paper by Parker: The alternative paradigm for magnetospheric physics, J. Geophysical Research, 101(5), pp. 10,587 - 10,625, 1997. Here he describes very well the good and the bad of the B-v (magnetic fields and velocities) paradigm and the E-j (electric fields and currents) paradigm.

Nothing against Hannes, but his books are a bit dated :-)

Have fun!
M

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

I guess I have to disagree here with these models. I think it is a nice wave of creating CMEs and the like, but the explosive nature that is proposed, would, in my opinion, not lead to a nice steady solar wind. But I may be wrong, I would have to study the papers more, for which I do not have time at the moment (coz I have to work hard now, so I can go skiing next week :-) )

Also, this is not what upriver meant, I think. Upriver just wants a radial electric field accelerating the plasma outward from the sun.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Just wanted to provide a link to the reference you provided, an abstract can be found at:

• The alternative paradigm for magnetospheric physics, J. Geophysical Research, 101(5), pp. 10,587 - 10,625, 1997.

Can't argue with that.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Really? Could you explain how we would see these fields?

Cheers.

Natural Particle Accelerator Discovered
http://www.universetoday.com/am/publ...r.html?1912006

"A fleet of NASA and European Space Agency space-weather probes observed an immense jet of electrically charged particles in the solar wind between the Sun and Earth."

"The newly discovered interplanetary jets are far larger than those occurring within Earth's magnetic shield. The new observation is the first direct measurement indicating magnetic reconnection can happen on immense scales."

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Voltmeters?
What do you think it takes to measure electric fields?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Yes, apart from the Voltmeters exactly my question.

Cheers.

Mine too. How exactly would we go about measuring these electric fields and, for that matter, how can we quantify any electrical energy involved?

As far as I am aware, any type of probe inserted into a plasma -- however tenuous -- tends to form a sheath, thus isolating itself, and making it difficult to take any kind of measurements.

This, however, is no basis for the a priori assumption that there are no electric fields of any significance in space, which is clearly papagenos attitude.

My recent post comparing the press release "Magnetic Slinky in Space to work by Alfvén, Carlqvist, Peratt and others plasma physicists, was merely to show

• There are similarities between the new observations, and work carried by the plasma physicists, to the extent that I considered it significant.
• It seemed relevant to this electric universe thread

OK, I see where you're coming from. Incentally, 2355+490 and 0844+319 look correct and correspond to those in Peratt's book.

One of the reasons that I didn't pay too much attention to the scales, is a presumption that certain plasma phenomenon scale across a wide range of scales, and Birkeland currents (current carrying filaments) appears to be one of them. Peratt mentions this on the first page of his paper (top second column), where he writes:

Laboratory analogs to the magnetospheric Birkeland currents and a tabulation of possible occurences of Birkeland currents in astrophysical plasma, with dimensions ranging from 10² to nearly 10²¹m, and currents of 10⁵ to 10¹⁹A, have been given[5] (Referencing "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets", A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660 [in full, PDF])

So I see Peratt's galactic example as one example of from a range of possible scales. Plasma physicists can demonstrate this is in the laboratory for Birkeland currents, have had it observed in the magnetosphere, and extrapolate further.

I am more confident of this scaleability, because of papers which deal precisely with helical structures and filaments in molecular clouds, such:

• Manifestations of electric currents in interstellar molecular clouds (1992) Carlqvist, P.; Gahm, G. F., [Abstract] where they write: "Filamentary structures in molecular clouds and the existence of subfilaments of sinusoidal shape and also of helixlike structures are investigated. For two dark clouds, the Lynds 204 complex and the Sandqvist 187-188 complex, such shapes and the possible existence of helices wound around the main filaments are studied. " (my emphasis)
  .
• Helical structures in a Rosette elephant trunk (1998) Carlqvist, Per, et al; [Abstract | In full] where they write: "We discuss small-scale, helical, interstellar filaments on the basis of optical observations of an elephant trunk in the Rosette nebula." [My emphasis, ...and the elephant trunk is a molecular cloud?]

So I stand by my first post, that the papers by Carlqvist, et al, are relevant to the press release on the magnetic slinky in space.

If I was an astronomer, I'd at least find it interesting.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

Electric fields in plasmas are notoriously difficult to meaure, except in situ. As soon as you stick a probe in a plasma, the fast moving electrons get aborbsed by the probe resulting in a negative charge (contenious quip: the same as what happens on the Moon, and with dust particles). The plasma reacts to the negatively charged probe by forming a sheath around it (like a double layer). A special probe is required, called a Langmuir probe.

This is why it took sol long to confirm the existance of auroral Birkeland currents.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

A rather amazingly simple electric field detector

y'all have just kinda proved that there is no electric field in space. If any charge concentration creates a sheath, then the electric field is nullified outside the sheath. This works for any charge concentration, not just a sheath created by an object.

But to anwer VanderL's question (proving I am not a woo woo?)

Basically, to measure electric field, you take several voltmeters (these arent just off the shelf devices, we make them ourselves) and place them some distance apart from one another. then spin the hole setup and record the changing voltages. when you analyze the data (at this point you do the really annoying calculations that subtract the sheath around your probe), you can get the divergence of the potential, which is the electric field.

If your probe array is moving, or you have more than one probe array, you can use the vector data to trace the E field back to its source.

If the sun were electrically accelerating the solar wind, the probe would show a big field coming from the sun. This has never been seen (this is technically an assumption, but I am pretty sure it would have been mentioned to me at some point, since I am getting a PhD in space physics. Come to think of it, since I have built a few E field experiments for antarctic ballon campaigns, I am certain I would have had mentioned to me to set the compensation fot the solar field if there was one)

Did nobody see the link I posted, or did I completely miss the point of that article?

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

The article talks about the observation of a magnetic reconnection event.
Currently most of the discussion seems to be about a steady electric field accelerating the particles of the Solar Wind.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

No, just asking out of curiosity, and to learn something.


Thanks for the clarification, why do you expect a big electric field? How strong does the radial electric field, centered on the Sun have to be in order to accelerate the solar wind particles? Maybe the E-fields are too weak to detect in this way?

Cheers.

Well, you could start here.

Ian answered this question.

But I thought we were talking about an electric field accelerating the particles, not the "internal" electric field of the plasma.


EDIT to add: The absence of significant electric fields in the interplanetary space that can accelerate the particles of the Solar Wind is not an a priori assumption.
You cannot accelerate with one electric field charges of opposite sign in the same direction.
Therefore the observation that both electrons and protons move away from the Sun is not compatible with the idea that such motion is the result of an electric field throughout the Solar System.

No, I dispute the claim that the particles in the Solar Wind are accelerated by an electric field throughout the interplanetary space, as it seems to be implied by the context of this exchange:

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Wouldn't the radial electric field be what you call the "internal" electric field of the plasma, if we think of the heliosphere as the plasma in question?
In that case the Sun is the anode and the heliospheric boundary is the cathode, most of it's content is nearly neutral plasma with a weak radial electric field.

Cheers.

As "internal field" I meant the microscopic field between the charged particles of the Solar Wind, not the macroscopic electric field which is supposed by somebody to accelerate the particles.
Anyway, the Solar Wind is composed of both electrons and protons.
Once this field has separated positive charges on one side and negative charges on the other side, what would happen? After all, charges of opposite sign attract each other.
How would you get a steady flow in one direction, for particles of opposite charges?


Except that if there was a net electric field throughout the Solar System, we would observe positive charges move in one direction and negative charges move in the opposite direction.
Not to mention that it would be necessary to keep this field in place somehow, otherwise both the Sun and the heliosphere boundary would end up electrically neutral, thanks to the charged particles of the opposite sign streaming towards them.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Come on now. Do particles in an AC current have to rampage in any particular direction to transfer electrical 'energy'?

As you know only too well; they don't. In a wire, for example, they can transfer energy with relatively little movement/vibration.

How can we begin to measure this type of wavelength, energy transfer?

May I remind you, the MM exp. did not throw a null result, ideological preferences aside !

So there is a gradient of electrons in addition to the one that exists between the sun and the heliosphere;

"ABSTRACT

Using the Large Angle Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO) aboard the SOHO spacecraft, we have imaged polar plumes extending 30 R from disk center in the image plane and ~45 R in three-dimensional space, a factor of 2-3 farther than previous measurements and well into the constant-velocity regime of wind flow. We find that the plumes maintain their overall linear morphology and density enhancement to at least this altitude range. Using LASCO photometry and a modeled cylindrical plume geometry, we derive the density excess within the plumes 30 R above the Sun (in three dimensions). The excess electron densities are a factor of 20-30 times greater than the average total electron density estimates obtained from extrapolation of in situ measurements by Ulysses at 1 AU."
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~defores...rs/deep-lasco/

And a dynamic process that happens;

"Fighting against a solar wind outflow of about 120 kilometers per second the cloud seems to be moving inward at 50-100 kilometers per second. Occasionally appearing as often as once per hour, the clouds, seem to be dragged in by collapsing magnetic field loops rather than gravity alone."
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap011129.html

And this is what Peratt says;


"The acceleration of a charged particle is achievable only by means of an electric field. An electric field can arise from a number of processes that include the motion of plasma across magnetic fields lines, charge separation, and time varying magnetic fields.

Acceleration of charged particles in laboratory plasmas is achieved by applying a potential gradient between metallic conductors (cathodes and anodes); by producing time varying magnetic fields such as in betatrons; by radio frequency (RF) fields applied to accelerating cavities as in linear accelerators (LINACS); and by beat frequency oscillators or wake-field accelerators that use either the electric field of lasers or charged particle beams to accelerate particles. "
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/elec_fields.html


And here is the result;


"Abstract. Alfvén waves have long been known to be a major component of the turbulence measured in situ in the interplanetary medium. Until recently, however, observations had been limited to the ecliptic plane, where the solar wind structure is complicated by the interaction of fast and slow solar wind streams, the Alfvénic turbulence being essentially limited to high-speed streams in well defined magnetic sectors. The Ulysses spacecraft has shown how this structure disappears with increasing latitude, leading to a relatively constant high-speed stream originating from polar coronal holes. Within this region the radial magnetic field appears to be relatively constant with latitude, and the fluctuations are everywhere dominated by large-amplitude Alfvén waves propagating away from the sun, covering a broad band of wavelengths. Here we discuss the origin and evolution of solar wind Alfvén waves; the possible role played by such fluctuations in the heating of the corona and acceleration of the high-speed wind is explored in the light of both analytical models and numerical simulations. "
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0741-3335/39/12B/024

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

Reconnection(pinches) will generate all the blackhole signals without the ill effects of singularity. It solves the cosmic ray problem.



They have been observed in the magnetotail for years.

Yes.
Electric Universe Model.,
Electric Universe Model.,


Have you not been following along? Do you not understand the implications of what is being discussed?


Absolutely.

I find the ESA site a little more cutting edge along with their programs.


If the bird were to put his foot on one wire and on an adjacent wire, he would be fried, but by sticking to one wire the bird is not completing the circuit.
The wire offers less resistance than the bird in the case of one wire, whereas the bird offers less resistance than the air in the case of 2 wires and gets fried.
If we were to attach a probe to the solar polar plumes and to the heliosphereic current sheet I think you would see a huge potential.
To measure current flow you would need something like a resistor or a set of probes.


To measure a potential the probes must be separated by some finite distance
at the same time the measurement is made.

Thats why the Cluster mission is amazing , because it can measure potential differences in real time in situ with its 4 probes.
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/are....cfm?fareaid=8

__________________
"Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible." - M. C. Escher

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

A magnetic field accelerating particles away from the sun has nothing to do with electric fields?

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Good that you've cleared that up.

However, it is important to keep in mind what the purpose of this ATM section of BAUT is (see #13 in Rules For Posting To This Board).

Specifically, if you post a claim, you must be prepared to defend it; as you chose to post in this Electric Universe thread, we will assume you are defending the idea (unless you state otherwise)I mean, these designations seem to be lacking a key code (the radio survey from which they were taken?) - they are not standard names. Worse, Peratt does not give his source for Fig 6.You've made this 'scale assumption' before, and been told that it's unwarranted without careful validation (here and here, for example).

And wrt Birkeland currents, are you now claiming that Peratt's paper demonstrates 'galactic scale' versions of these? What other extrapolations (beyond the magnetosphere) do you claim?You've lost me - how did you get from a statement in a paper by Peratt about the scalability of Birkeland currents to the validity of scaling for 'helical structures and filaments in molecular clouds'?

I mean, to what extent did you check out the scaling laws (for Birkeland currents, for filamentary structures), and confirm that there is good observational evidence for magnetic field strengths etc in the appropriate ranges? (we've discussed this before; here is a quick OOM calculation of the kind I would expect you could provide).Good, please show that the scaling is reasonable.

I had asked you this:Can you please confirm that this post of yours, to which I'm replying, contains your specific claim(s).

The particles in the Solar Wind do not move as under the influence of an AC voltage either.
We are not talking about the transfer of energy: we are talking about the motion of particles in interplanetary space.

Transfer of energy occurs from one system to another: what kind of energy transfer do you have in mind in this case (Solar Wind)?
From the Sun to the charged particles? From the charged particles to the rest of the Solar System? From charged particles to other charged particles?
Once you have specified what you meant, you can explain what your analogy with a conducting wire has to do with it.


You should start to be more specific: what "type" of wavelength? What energy transfer.


We were talking about the Solar Wind, not the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Now, can you address my point:Are you disputing the observations about the Solar Wind, that is, that it is composed of both positive and negative charged particles moving in the same direction?


EDIT to fix quote attribution.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

Do magnetic reconnection events produce the relatively steady Solar Wind?

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)