From UT LINK


And

My bold



I would have asked this in the Q&A forum but would end up here anyway, So I'll preempt our more senoir members, and start the thread here.

So my question is, mainstream (gravity centric) model explains it how? remember the range of masses involved here!

Northwind, not everything in the universe is due to gravity like not everything is due to electric forces. The Universe is runs of a combination of the four forces the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravity. This effect like electric Io maybe due electricmagnetic forces but it does not mean everything in the Universe is due electromagnetism. Your reasoning is if A caused B then A must also cause C which is incorrect.

__________________
If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.
Contact Carl Sagan

http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

You are correct Davidlpf, so how does a galaxy and a brown dwarf do this?

and in the small print down the bottom of the page from the link

and from wiki

LINK My bold

Fair to say EM is the dominate force at play here, Davidlpf?

Usually beams emanating from central objects, like in the case with a black hole and an accretion disk around it, are "driven" by magnetic fields that get wound up and stick out of the central objects along the rotational axis. In this case it is a brown dwarf, with still part of a protostellar disk around it, with all the dynamics that happens in such a disk. There is turbulence in such a disk, creating magnetic fields in it, whcih can escape through buoyancy and because the disk rotates, the magnetic fields get wound up. And plasma can get shot out along these wound up fields (a rather simplified explanation).

The presence of forbidden lines, that is spectral lines created by electrons skipping from one shell in an ion to another, for which the probability is very low. Not all shell changes are allowed, because sometimes some quantum numbers will change in a fashion that is not allowed.
This means that there are very few collisions, fewer that the characteristic time for such a forbidden skip to take place, basically the inverse of the chance. This is a completely quantum mechanic process. And therefore the conclusion that EM is the dominating force is incorrect.

__________________

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)

Thanks for answering that I was pretty sure that was the answer but not 100 % sure, and you put it a lot better then I would.

__________________
If it's just us, it seems like an awful waste of space.
Contact Carl Sagan

http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

So turbulence is a magnetic field generator? Please explain No maths needed, word salad will do.

Escape through buoyancy? And into "jets"?

And spinning, wound up magnetic fields last time I read about this effect, was in the Jovian system....you know Io Something about 5 billion amps or some nonesense

I predict some very ad hoc explanations coming up! and the one theory that seamlessly integrates this "surprise" is utter taboo here, even in the ATM section

I have officially had it with that particular line. It's not taboo. If someone came up with a real, reasonable model of the EU--with math!--we'd take it seriously. However, no one ever has. They've had decades to do it, and no one ever has. Whose fault is that?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Quit it with the smileys Northwind you are starting to come back into your old persona again.

You really want to have an explanation? Okay you can have it, but I doubt you will like it or understand it.

A disk around this brown dwarf (or for that matter around a black hole) rotates differentially (which means that the rotation rate is different when you move outward) and is turbulent (which means that there are all kinds of waves and eddies in the plasma). There are ALWAYS small scale currents (oops this is electric, guess I am not allowed to say this) in the plasma and these create small magnetic loops. Now, normally these loops will shrink because the current dissipates, but now and then a loop gets caught in what is called an alpha-omega dynamo. Because of the turbulence and because of the differential rotation the loop get stretched (do this with an elastic band) twisted and folded back on itself (you will see with the elastic band that you now have two strands going around instead of one). This is dynamo action, part of the rotational energy is being transformed into magnetic energy (which is the same as increased local currents).
Now as the magnetic field increases, the magnetic pressure (proportional to the square of the magnetic field) increases. With the plasma in pressure equilibrium, this means that in that magnetic loop the plasma pressure (dependent on temperature and density) must decrease. As the plasma is in temperature balance, this means that the density must decrease in the loop. Thus the loop becomes lighter than its surroundings, and thus buoyant. This is the same if you put a closed off empty plastic bottle into water, if it is totally submerged it will have an upward force, the one we know as the Archimedean force. (a body wholly or partly emerged in a fluid or gas will experience an upward force proportional to the mass of the displaced fluid or gass).
So, the magnetic loops rise and break through the surface of the disk and can extend upward creating what looks like coronal loops on the sun. These get transported towards the central object and most likely one footpoint will first get to the last stable orbit and fall in. Because of the rotation it cannot fall in directly and now some effects start to act and most often the footpoint of the loop gets transported away from the central object along its rotational axis. With the other footpoint still connected in the rotating disk one gets a wound spiral magnetic field along the rotational axis of the central object along which plasma will also flow out.

Now this whole stuff has completely NOTHING to do with the situation at Io, but I doubt you will understand that. At Io there is a strong magnetic field just passing by the moon and generating Alfven wings which carry currents. This is something completely different, although the same Maxwell equations are used. There are no wound up magnetic fields in the Jovian magnetosphere. And it is no nonsense about the millions of amps that flow through the Io flux tube, because it has been measured, but you would not know about that, would you now?

What is sickening is your bickering with Oh, mainstream does not believe in electrical currents and other nonsense like Oh, a plasma is neutral, that means it cannot have any currents (according to mainstream). I should force you to read several of my papers dealing totally with electric currents, specifically stating that there are currents flowing and which have been published in mainstream journals. Isn't that strange, that I get published in mainstream journals while mentioning currents and electricity? Something must be wrong, it is possibly my connections to the PeeTayBees that have loads of money and that buy off the referees into accepting my papers. The one theory that seamlessly integrates the "surprise" as you say, has been invoked all along, already for over 15 years in the explanation of this jet phenomenon, and it is the dynamics of magnetic fields (AND THUS CURRENTS) in the plasma surrounding the object.

I hope this was enough wordsalat for you, Northwind, (or Sol or Magman or what ever you wanna call yourself)

The following papers of mine will be of interest to you, mentioning specifically currents in astrophysical plasmas:

Volwerk et al., Magnetic flares near accreting black holes, Astronomy and Astrophysics 270, 265-274, 1993
Benz et al., Particle acceleration in flares, Solar Physics 153, 33-53, 1993
Volwerk & Kuijpers, Strong double layers, exisitence criteria and annihilation: An application to solar flared, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 90, 589-593, 1994
Volwerk et al., Solitary kinetic Alfven waves: A study of the Poynting flux, Journal Geophysical Research 101, 13335-13343, 1996
Chust et al., Electric fields with large parallel component observed by the Freja spacecraft: Artifacts or real signals? Journal Geophysical Research 103, 215-224, 1998.
Volwerk et al., Europa's Alfven wing: Shrinkage and displacement influenced by an induced magnetic field, Annales Geophysicae 25, 905-914, 2007

I think this will suffice, I have let out the papers dealing with the Earth's magnetotail current sheet.

__________________

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)

So sorry Gillianren, but you can not hide behind maths on this one!

You know those pesky magnetic fields mainstream talk about? where is the other half of Ampère's Circuital law or Faraday's law of induction LINK

The LAW (and in mathematical equation too) states one MUST have the other, must must must, unequivocally MUST have both. You can not have a cosmic magnetic field without invoking a cosmic electric field!

And mainstream goes on and on about magnetic fields, so where is the associated electric field? not a word mentioned! is it not important?

I'd say EU or not, but mathematicians are going to have a real hard time getting their equation to "fit" observations!

But you/we do have Maxwells (see link above) to work from, do the maths on a cosmic magnetic field and see what electrical power it can produce and vice a versa!

So you should be able to work out one or the other from one or the other? Easy

And magnetic fields are HUGE like this LINK

And further down Surprised!!! really

Very difficult to explain

So Gillianren, I have officially had it with that particular line, "I'm surprised, very surprised" and "difficult to explain" because the EU has consistently predicted these findings!

I see mainstream has absolutely no idea, or they would not be surprised, because we see it in their press releases all the time.

Your court

And most probably to Tusenfem's horror, HANNES ALFVÉN had this to say all those years ago LINK Scroll to page 12

He was on to it 40 years ago, and all the new technology and data has proven him correct!

And "mainstream" are still surprised <shakes head in total disbelief>

Can you show that quantitatively?

No?

Gosh, now, that's surprising. After all, your crowd have by your own admission had 40 years to work it out, and none of you have.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

It seems tusenfem answered to OP question. If anyone wants see where EU has been talked about nearly endlessly, see here:

Electric Universe Model.,

If anyone wants to ask real questions (not just ask questions as a lead-in to whine again about EU), go to Q&A. Now, is anyone actually going to provide a new ATM proposal in this thread? Remember, we will ask questions and you will be expected to answer questions about it.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

First to Gillianren, Meh

And then to Tusenfem, what happened, that post was light years ahead of your others regarding this subject. Excellent

I'd like to, when I get a bit of time, is go through a few things with you on your explanation.

first I'll reword if I may just for fun this sentence

A Torus of dusty plasma around this brown dwarf (or for that matter around a black hole) rotates differentially (which means that the rotation rate is different when you move outward) and is turbulent (which means that there are all kinds of waves and eddies, along with double layers and regions of charge separation in the plasma). There are ALWAYS large and small scale currents (oops this is electric, guess I am not allowed to say this (you have now)) in the plasma and these create large/small magnetic loops, which in turn influence the remaining dusty plasma along with passive and active plasmas.

and

Now, normally these loops will shrink/grow because the current dissipates/increases, but now and then a loop gets caught in what is called an alpha-omega dynamo or Faradays law of induction. Because of the turbulence and because of the differential rotation the loop get stretched (do this with an elastic band) twisted and folded and moved against a magnetic field, back on itself, generating a current further energizing the system (you will see with the elastic band that you now have two strands going around instead of one). as the current it produce's self organize into filaments and Birkeland currents

This is dynamo action of turbulent magnetic fields which twist, fold and move against part of the rotational energy is being transformed into magnetic energy (which is the same as increased local currents/generate more magnetic fields and further make the system dynamic and hard to predict).

and

Little confused here as I would assume being more bouyant would imply a down and an up? So wich way would be up?

So I would say the increased magnetic "pressure" would form double layers and plasma instabilities that are looking for electrical equilibrium not "pressure" equilibrium.

and

So, the magnetic loops/double layers try and seek equilibrium through charge exchange in the process recombining and compressing matter between the Birkeland currents.

These get transported towards the central object and most likely one footpoint will first get to the last stable orbit and fall in. Because of the rotation it cannot fall in directly and now some effects start to act and most often the footpoint of the loop gets transported away from the central object along its rotational axis. With the other footpoint still connected in the rotating disk one gets a wound spiral magnetic field along the rotational axis of the central object along which plasma will also flow out.

Ya loose me a bit there at the end, but on the whole I can nearly agree on what you wrote

So I'll have another read tomorrow at work (I'm tired now, work sucks) and see what else "fits"

EEEEEEENNNT!! Wrong.

Lets actually look at Maxwells equations

Divergence E= charge density
Divergence B= 0
Curl E= -dB/dt
Curl B= mu0 J + dE/dt

Curl E: This says a changing magnetic field causes an electric field. so, currents are generally caused when the field changes.

Curl B: This says that magnetic fields are caused by currents, or changing electric fields. If there are no electric fields to start (there will be later, making all sorts of other effects) Then the field is made by a current. The most common current is caused by an electric field, but not all. Plasma [i]gravitationally[i] orbiting will cause a current, therefore making a field.

And again you would be wrong. If you knew what boyancy was, this would be obvious. Taking a cross section through the disk, you have vaccum above and below the disk, and some pressure higher than vaccum in the center of the disk. The pressure will fall from center to edge, leading to a pressure gradient, leading to boyancy. We would take you much more seriously if you would at least try to understand freshman physics.
Try learning physics first

I see Northwind has started his thread again.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Northwind, EnoughDarkStuff: what - specifically - is the ATM idea being presented in this thread?

Just first impressions here, since I am not well versed in Alfven's EU ideas, but had a thought to share. Mainstream cosmology seems to think of magnetic fields more on the model of a standing magnet, that the magnetic fields exist independent of electric currents. The old school bar magnet with iron filaments comes to mind here. However, the dynamics of magnetic fields in our Sun, or magnetic dynamics within hot plasma, or galactic magnetic fields, or even planetary magnetic fields, may be more complex than merely ‘standing magnetic fields’ independent of electric currents. Rather, we may have figured it out with the ‘dynamo’ effect for planets, and possibly the Sun, while observations are showing us it is more complex. The brown dwarf stars add another observation, showing energy jets, so again something new and puzzling to consider. What magnetic fields can exist independent of electric currents on such large scale phenomena? Something is being missed.

I suspect we got the whole ‘standing magnetic field’ effect wrong; I also suspect the ‘dynamo effect’ is not what we think, so just a simplistic explanation. How do temperatures inside the Sun and Earth above Curie temperature levels generate a dynamo effect, for example? There is a greater likelihood that these magnetic field phenomena, including the strong magnetic fields of the gas giant planets, have to do with their internal electric currents, though at present we have no idea how or why that works. As an alternative theory, yet one encompassing magnetic fields generated by super massive galactic black holes, as well as produced by hot stars and warm planets, is that perhaps the electric-magnetic relationships exist due to reasons of very energetic gravity centers inside these bodies. At present this is never considered, because we do not think of gravity centers as anything other than a constant force, the weakest of the four known forces, so dismiss it as merely a passive universally constant force. But if that is not so, that gravity centers of warm bodies, or hot stars, or super galactic centers, all generate an electro-magnetic force, regardless of the Curie temperatures, then this is something that could be considered for any future models (using math) to understand their dynamics observed. If so, then brown dwarfs, as failed stars with low electro-magnetic radiant energy output, but high gravity centers output, would make sense as strong magneto-stars, with strong magnetic fields, for reasons that are more EU in nature. However, that would require the idea that gravity centers for these bodies are not based upon the known physics of a universally constant G, but rather one that is somehow influenced by the e.m. forces generated. If I were to pick on one aspect of the math that should come in handy for the future study of EU type forces in the universe, it would be the Maxwellian derived: c = 1/ (UoEo)^1/2, as a function of light speed times the square root of the permittivity and permeability of space equals unity of one. I do not like the Lorentzian: F = q(E+v x B) equation, because it may not be universally the same for all universal systems equally, if G is not equally everywhere the same, so what may be true on Earth may not be what is true on the Sun, or for 'electric brown dwarfs', etc., due to different internal e.m. energy dynamics. But these are just seat of the pants, intuitive first impressions... so don't mind. Now I have to dive into my low cal, low cholesterol bowl of oatmeal, boring lunch.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

Pretty much you have it exactly wrong. Mainstream cosmology thinks that magnetic fields come from currents at some point or another. Even the residual ferromagnetism in natural iron can be traced back to some other current somewhere.

The curie temp only applies to ferromagnetism if I remember right. It dosent apply to fields generated by currents. A current will always make a magnetic field. One problem frequently encountered here is that some dont seem to understand that the field has a great extent, and what is happening in one part of the field may have no effect on the generating current, and may be nowhere near the generating current.

Brown dwarfs probably have magnetic fields for the same reason as the sun and Jupiter do. Dynamo currents inside the body. All it takes to make a field is a charge carrier and rotation. In the sun it is plasma, in Jupiter it is metallic hydrogen, in the Earth it is molten iron.

Both finding c using the electromagnetic constants and the lorentz force both come from solving Maxwell's equations. Your liking or disliking them is irrelevant. Also, if you are worried about the lorentz force not being the same because G may be variable, then c will change also when the EM constants change.

Am I the only one confused by statements like "You can't hide behind math this time?" and "Mainstream has a monopoly on the math"?

Math is not an excuse...nor is it optional, or imaginary. Math is a common language--in fact, the most common language--to describe the world arround us. 1 apple is always 1 apple. Add 1 orange and you'll always have 2 objects. Split the apple and the orange into 4 parts each and you'll always have 8 parts.

Physics is more math than it is science. Infact, it can be argued that physics, which goes hand in hand with astronomy, is nothing BUT math. So stop using your lack of knowlege in the subject as an excuse.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Nope, you're wrong.

The magnetic properties in condensed matter are mostly due to the spins of the electrons and their interactions.
You can't use is in cosmology, even just as a picture or analogy.

The Curie temperature and similar concepts are about ordering of magnetic moments.
The dynamo effect is about charged particles in motion, not about magnetic moments.

Your post is yet another example of how little PC/EU proponents actually know about electrodynamics.

__________________
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)

Well, yes, I admit my lack of knowledge on EU, but would not blanket my ignorance on the rest of those whose ATM ideas run counter to mainstream cosmology. Granted, I was making a case (with 'standing' magnetic fields) to explain how cosmologists can find acceptable the idea of magnetic fields irrespective of electric currents running through space plasma. Is this not what EU claims, that the electric currents run through space? And if so, does it not stand to reason that your counter-argument to mine actually proves Northwind right, as per his post here? Just musing along, after my satisfying lunch.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

You are just one of the many I have seen, and you're no exception in your ignorance about general physics.


You were not making a case, but a strawman.



No, the EU claims boil down to: "We are right: just look at the pictures! The mainstream censors electricity!"



No, Northwind is just using your same strawman and whining about how bad the mainstream is.

But it is clear that you were not trying to make a substantial contribution to the thread, despite the length of your post. "Yanking the chain" describes more appropriately to your behaviour.

__________________
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)

If it is the 'dynamo' effect causing large body magnetic fields, what drives it in brown dwarfs? Or for that matter, what drives it in neutron stars, or SMBHs at galaxy centers? Molten iron above Curie temp inside the Earth may still generate magnetic fields, not ferromagnetism, but due to electric current generated by Earth's spin. My question on this 'dynamo' effect is this: does the Earth spin at the same rate in its molten metal core as the surface, or slower, or faster? What does the math say for electric current generated by this 'dynamo', at what rate, to effect the magnetic field measured? And then, finally, would that same math be applied to a brown dwarf, if we know its spin?

Here's a page which may offer some insights into kinematic dynamo theory of brown dwarfs: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/..._Dynamo_Theory

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

These are all interesting questions!

Why not ask them, in BAUT's Q&A section?

What relevance do they have to this, ATM section thread?

If you take a bar magnet, you cannot twist the magnetic field.

The only twist I have ever seen in any magnetic field has to do with the right hand rule. Current flowing through a wire has a twisted magnetic field around it.

(If you want to go the EU route, then you would say that rotation of the magnetic field around the central current flow is responsible for the rotation of the disc.
The twist in the magnetic field leaving the "blackhole" is from the rotation of the magnetic field around a current flow.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Magnetic_rope.png

I mean these are basic laws. Why come up with anything else?

Just because you dont believe in current flow, you come up with something outside basic laws?

That like saying if I wind a random ball of wire on a generator core, it will produce a coherent magnetic field.

A circulating ring current in the disc might do it, but that would only produce a magnetic field like the earths, it would not produce a "jet".

The only other way is if the magnetic field is following a current flow.

Think about it. It would have to be a flux tube or 2 flux tubes to twist a magnetic field. It would not happen out of the end of a bar magnet.

If it is collimated plasma, then there is a current flow and a right hand rule accompanying wrapped magnetic field.

I am being tutored by a real engineer that actually knows the math.

He said it will take some time for me to learn be able to quantify my discussions with Maxwell's equations.
He told me that the proper approach is E X J with the E being the causality.

He also told me that the whole geodynamo thing is very unstable. For it to work would take a extraordinary set of real conditions.

He said anything else is guessing.

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

"Freedom is popular." -Ron Paul

I must say upriver, I really do admire your persistence. It's like pushing a herd of elephants up a hill to get the mainstream to recognize electrical flow when they observe it. If these guys had been required to take a few electronics classes in college you might actually have some hope of getting through to some of them. As it is, I get the impression that the math formulas they were handed in college related to GR are all that they understand. It's like trying to talk to a caveman about how your cellphone operates. Electrical energy? What's that?

Thanks, I'll have to visit Q&A and see what's up there.

About 'relevance' of my ATM questions, it has to do with material jets observed in 'brown dwarfs', which I believe was raised as a question in the OP's link. By what mechanism can such jets be generated? If electrical, how?

I just came by for a visit, not to "yank someone's chain" as someone unkindly ad hominemed earlier. Just curious, sometimes find discussions interesting, stimulating ideas.

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

Are those evil mainstreamers making your life difficult??

Woe is you...

So you're basically calling those who do not agree with you stupid.

Nice ad hom...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov