The differences between the LCDM model and GR theory.

[BeAChooser]

You guys keep trying to ignore the circuit energy.

Those guys are ignoring lots of stuff. But what else can they do, Michael, if they are to keep up the pretense that they ... being modern day *degreed* physicists ... are smarter than anyone else, present or past?

[BeAChooser]

FYI, it's laughable that you're trying to dismiss my use of Alfven as an "authority" on this topic when he wrote MHD theory and has a Nobel Prize for it. Meanwhile, in another thread, you both act like your physics degree makes you some sort of physics demigod compared to anyone else on planet Earth. LOL!

That is indeed laughable. Especially when they demand examples yet seem completely unable in case after case to provide links or explanations for even the simplest observed phenomena. They're now running from discussions involving filaments, helically wound filaments, galactic rotation curves, non-baryonic mass estimates, how solar systems form and distribute momentum, ... just to name a few examples. Because to acknowledge those problems with the mainstream model might mean they'd have to accept that they wasted a whole lot of money on those *physics degrees* they are so proud of ... .

[Higgsy]

It's not just *one* author that rejects your nonsense. Here's at least three different papers by three different authors criticizing the mainstream's misuse of the concept of "magnetic reconnection"

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973Ap%26SS..23..261H
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/Alfve ... 0Lines.pdf
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976JGR....81.4019A

And yet the concept of magnetic reconnection is routinely used in understanding phenomena from the interaction of the solar wind with Earth's magnetosphere to the solar corona to plasma confinement, is theoretically described in modern plasma physics textbooks, is studied in the laboratory by the world's leading plasma physics facility and is rejected in this bizarre emotional way only by those EU advocates who treat Alfven as a holy man whose infallible words are to be found in his infallible pronouncements.

So yes, your irrational and impotent campaign against the concept is grotesque, wrong-headed and uninformed.

And we're still waiting for a single specific example of the abuse of MHD theory by the mainstream.

[Bob_Ham]

And we're still waiting for a single specific example of the abuse of MHD theory by the mainstream.

Prediction: Michael will only reply to the rest of your comment, ignoring this part, since he doesn't have a single example of "mathematical abuse" of MHD theory (because he doesn't understand the calculations done in MHD theory). He will continue to avoid this, hoping we will stop asking him for it.

[Michael Mozina]

And we're still waiting for a single specific example of the abuse of MHD theory by the mainstream.

Prediction: Michael will only reply to the rest of your comment, ignoring this part, since he doesn't have a single example of "mathematical abuse" of MHD theory (because he doesn't understand the calculations done in MHD theory). He will continue to avoid this, hoping we will stop asking him for it.

I just handed you three different published papers by three different authors that describe that abuse. What do you want, egg in your beer?

If you continue to ignore all the circuit energy that is flowing in the whole filament, you'll never fully understand solar flares. It's just that simple. The million degree sustained heat source of a coronal loop is the current that is flowing through it, which sustains a single loop at those high temperatures for hours on end, not 'magnetic reconnection'. Your pseudosciece tries to put the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse and you can't figure out why it doesn't work right. Sheesh.

[Bob_Ham]

What do you want, egg in your beer?

No, I want you to show me which equations are improper or have been improperly used. You claimed that MHD theory is a victim of "mathematical abuse." Show me what you think has been abused. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect you to show me an equation or two that is either incorrectly derived or used, since you are claiming that it exists. Prove it. Show me a specific equation that is involved in this abuse.

[BeAChooser]

So ... tell us, Higgsy ... Bob, how do you two modern-day *degreed physicists* explain this?



How do you do that without throwing in gnomes?

You can't, can you?

No, you have to concoct a fantasy involving gnomes ...

... black holes, magnetic reconnection, frozen-in magnetic fields and more!

So it's simply hilarious to hear you demand examples or proof of ANYTHING.

How far the mighty modern-day *physicist* has fallen.

Because the answer has been staring the *priesthood* of Big Bang cosmology in the face for years.

The answer can even be found in observations close to home …

https://ase.tufts.edu/cosmos/view_picture.asp?id=1174

An electric current of five million amperes flows along Io’s flux tube.

And at times, some of you have even come so close to the answer …

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0506221.pdf

Dynamic and Stagnating Plasma Flow Leading to Magnetic Flux Tube Collimation

If only you folks could abandon the “frozen-in” and “magnetic reconnection” nonsense.

If only you'd open yourself to wisdom like this ...

http://electric-cosmos.org/IEEE-TransPl ... ug2007.pdf

Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos

… snip …

Alfvén’s original motivation for proposing “frozen-in” fields stemmed from another one of Maxwell’s equations, i.e., ∇ × E = −dB dt . (12)

This implies that if the electric field in a region of plasma is identically zero valued (as it would have to be if the medium had zero resistance—perfect conductivity), then any magnetic field within that region must be time invariant (must be frozen). Thus, if all plasmas are ideal conductors (and thus cannot support electric fields), then any magnetic fields inside such plasmas must be frozen in, i.e., cannot move or change in any way with time.

The electrical conductivity of any material, including plasma, is determined by two main factors, namely: 1) the density of the population of available charge carriers (free ions and electrons) in the medium and 2) the mobility of these carriers. Most, if not all, cosmic plasmas are magnetized (contain large and long internal magnetic fields). In any such plasma, the transverse (perpendicular to this field) mobility of charge carriers is severely restricted because of the spinning motion that is imposed on their momentum by Lorentz force (3). Mobility in the parallel (and antiparallel) direction, being unaffected by this transverse force, is extremely high because electrons and ions have long mean-free paths in such plasmas. However, the density (the number per unit volume) of these charge carriers may not be at all high, particularly, if the plasma is a very low pressure (diffused) one. Therefore, conductivity is less than ideal, even in the longitudinal direction, in cosmic plasma.

Laboratory measurements demonstrate that a nonzero-valued electric field in the direction of the current (Eparallel > 0) is required to produce a nonzero current density within any plasma no matter what mode of operation the plasma is in. Negative-slope regions of the volt-ampere characteristic (negative dynamic resistance) of a plasma column reveal the cause of the filamentary properties of plasma, but all static resistance values are measured to be > 0.

Thus, although plasmas are excellent conductors, they are not perfect conductors. Weak longitudinal electric fields can and do exist inside plasmas. Therefore, magnetic fields are not frozen inside them.

When, in his acceptance speech of the 1970 Nobel Prize in physics, Alfvén pointed out that this frozen-in idea, which he had earlier endorsed, was false, many astrophysicists chose not to listen. In reality, magnetic fields do move with respect to cosmic plasma cells and, in doing so, induce electric currents. This mechanism (which generates electric current) is one cause of the phenomena that is described by what is now called plasma cosmology.

Alfvén said, “I thought that the frozen-in concept was very good from a pedagogical point of view, and indeed it became very popular. In reality, however, it was not a good pedagogical concept but a dangerous ‘pseudo pedagogical concept.’ By ‘pseudo pedagogical’ I mean a concept which makes you believe that you understand a phenomenon whereas in reality you have drastically misunderstood it.”

Now, we know that there are slight voltage differences between different points in plasmas. Many astrophysicists are still unaware of this property of plasmas, and so, we often still read unqualified assertions such as “Once a plasma contains magnetic fields, they move with the plasma as if the magnetic field lines were frozen in [18].”

Or this …

https://www.libertariannews.org/2011/03 ... lly-exist/

Then, you *degreed physicists* might actually begin to truly understand what you see ...

... understand the implications of news like this …

https://phys.org/news/2015-06-magnetic- ... .html#nRlv

https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net ... icfiel.jpg

Astronomers making a detailed, multi-telescope study of a nearby galaxy have discovered a magnetic field coiled around the galaxy's main spiral arm. The discovery, they said, helps explain how galactic spiral arms are formed.

… snip …

The scientists studied a galaxy called IC 342, some 10 million light-years from Earth, using the National Science Foundation's Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (VLA), and the MPIfR's 100-meter Effelsberg radio telescope in Germany. Data from both radio telescopes were merged to reveal the magnetic structures of the galaxy.

The surprising result showed a huge, helically-twisted loop coiled around the galaxy's main spiral arm. Such a feature, never before seen in a galaxy, is strong enough to affect the flow of gas around the spiral arm.

"Spiral arms can hardly be formed by gravitational forces alone," Beck said. "This new IC 342 image indicates that magnetic fields also play an important role in forming spiral arms."

The new observations provided clues to another aspect of the galaxy, a bright central region that may host a black hole and also is prolifically producing new stars. To maintain the high rate of star production requires a steady inflow of gas from the galaxy's outer regions into its center.

"The magnetic field lines at the inner part of the galaxy point toward the galaxy's center, and would support an inward flow of gas," Beck said.

https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net ... icfiel.jpg

… and this …

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-giant-mag ... verse.html

Giant magnetic fields in the universe

… snip …

"We discovered the so far largest ordered magnetic fields in the universe, extending over 5-6 million light years", says Maja Kierdorf from MPIfR Bonn, the project leader and first author of the publication.

… snip …

The new Effelsberg telescope observations show that the polarization plane of the radio emission from the relics turns with wavelength. This "Faraday rotation effect", named after the English physicist Michael Faraday, indicates that ordered magnetic fields also exist between the clusters and, together with hot gas, cause the rotation of the polarization plane. Such magnetic fields may be even larger than the clusters themselves.

… observations of phenomena that Alfven and other plasma cosmologists predicted half a century ago!

Instead, you continue to cling to the gnomes of dark matter, black holes and yada yada yada.

So pardon us, if we choose to laugh at you now rather than respond to your *degreed* *demands*.

[Michael Mozina]

What do you want, egg in your beer?

No, I want you to show me which equations are improper or have been improperly used. You claimed that MHD theory is a victim of "mathematical abuse." Show me what you think has been abused. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect you to show me an equation or two that is either incorrectly derived or used, since you are claiming that it exists. Prove it. Show me a specific equation that is involved in this abuse.

Every MHD equation that evokes "magnetic reconnection' is made irrelevant and obsolete by Alfven's double layer paper, and therefore it's a mathematical abuse of MHD theory.

We both know that Maxwell's equations can be solved for E or for B, so mathematically you are free to interchange between the two at will. At the level of real empirical physics however, there's a distinct difference between claiming that resistance to electrons which continuously flow through a current carrying thread are continuously heating the ions in that thread, and claiming that 'magnetic reconnection did it". Give me a break. At the level of empirical physics, you have the magnetic cart in front of the electric horse. It's the electric field, currents, resistance, and circuit orientation of plasma physics that you folks seem to be clueless about.

Bob, have you ever even read Cosmic Plasma?

[Zyxzevn]

Just in practical sense: get a plasma globe.
I tested how plasma currents in such a globe interact with magnetism.
A common magnet has far greater magnetism than even earth's, so you should
see how plasma reacts to it.
Well..
The magnetic field only bends the path of the current, but does not determine where
it connects. It is clear that a globe in space would just be an attractor for any
magnetic current.

So only with this experiment it is clear that magnetic reconnection is useless.

Magnetic reconnection is the reconnecting of magnetic field lines (within plasma),
after a magnetic field changes. This is easy to do: use 2 magnets
and move them around the plasma globe. Rotate them too.
Now you are breaking and connecting magnetic field lines with even more power
than on the sun.
Does anything change in the plasma globe?
Hell no.
The lines just go towards the same points as always.
And you will not see any of the predicted explosions in the plasma.
It is as if plasma does not really care about the magnetic field.

So with some simple experiments you can totally debunk the magnetic reconnection theory
and put it in the trash-can where it belongs.

[celeste]

Do you think you could give us a specific example of the mathematical abuse of MHD theory, and explain, in detail, why you consider it to be an abuse?

I would also like to see a specific example.

Bob,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_reconnection
See that paragraph that says, "A current problem in plasma physics is that observed reconnection happens much faster than predicted by MHD in high Lundquist number plasmas: solar flares, for example, proceed 13-14 orders of magnitude faster than a naive calculation would suggest, and several orders of magnitude faster than current theoretical models that include turbulence and kinetic effects."
I would not point that out, except that you are the one who bashes Michael for being orders of magnitude off.
Now believe me, I am very glad that there are people like you and Higgsy here (strongly opinionated, yet lacking the knowledge of what is wrong with the mainstream ideas that you are trying to defend). This helps bring the issues into focus.

Now Michael,
I'm interested in your take here. I'll list points distinctly, and feel free to comment on where I may have made a mistake:
1. Solar arcades are indeed current carrying filaments
2. Therefore, the Bessel function applies, and we should see charged particles spiraling around the filament axis (not just along the filament).
3. This should be detected as a spread of redshifts in the filament itself (observed).
4. When the filament fails, we should expect particles ejected from the filament radially.This would be similar to the lab experiments with the water bridge, where the failure of the water bridge leaves the ions thrown off radially (and explosively, rather than gradually)
5.So what actually happens in the solar arcade,(rather than the magnetic reconnection that Bob_Ham and Higgsy rigorously defend even though it is off by many orders of magnitude), is that when the filament itself fails, the particles themselves are not in fact accelerated to those velocities, but those velocities (tangent to the filament, as opposed to along the filament), were already in the filament itself.

Michael, It may disturb you, but I'm glad for the trolls here. When Bob insulted me by suggesting that I didn't know what a galactic rotation curve was (ironic, but probably karma in a way since I was personally responsible for teaching this dark matter/rotation curve B.S. to hundreds of undergraduates), it actually gave me reason to revisit a number of issues with magnetic reconnection. I was growing complacent, with just knowing the failures of MHD, magnetic reconnection, frozen in magnetic field lines,etc. But it is imporantant to always know what they "think" they are seeing. We need people like Bob and Higgsy, to remind us not just that the standard model is wrong, but specifically what is wrong with that model.

[Michael Mozina]

Now Michael,
I'm interested in your take here. I'll list points distinctly, and feel free to comment on where I may have made a mistake:
1. Solar arcades are indeed current carrying filaments
2. Therefore, the Bessel function applies, and we should see charged particles spiraling around the filament axis (not just along the filament).
3. This should be detected as a spread of redshifts in the filament itself (observed).
4. When the filament fails, we should expect particles ejected from the filament radially.This would be similar to the lab experiments with the water bridge, where the failure of the water bridge leaves the ions thrown off radially (and explosively, rather than gradually)
5.So what actually happens in the solar arcade,(rather than the magnetic reconnection that Bob_Ham and Higgsy rigorously defend even though it is off by many orders of magnitude), is that when the filament itself fails, the particles themselves are not in fact accelerated to those velocities, but those velocities (tangent to the filament, as opposed to along the filament), were already in the filament itself.

You got it. All the magnetic field energy of the whole circuit can be instantly converted into explosive particle kinetic energy. Alfven tried repeatedly to get them to pay attention to the whole "circuit energy", not just the magnetic field energy at any one point along the loop. You need fast current, and short circuits to get that kind of speed. Even James Dungey referred to the "magnetic reconnection" process as an electrical discharge solar flares in the 1950's, so at some level they must know that the two processes are intimately related. The problem for them is that Alfven's double layer paper explains the energy exchange process in current carrying plasma without even evoking the term "magnetic reconnection". There isn't a unique or different type of magnetic field energy transfer to particle kinetic energy in plasma. It's simply a form of ordinary induction, but you can't just ignore the current in the filament and expect to understand the power of solar flares.

The dead give away is that it's really the electric field doing the real work is the fact that the vast majority of the mainstream experiments on magnetic reconnection in the lab begin and end with electric fields. The 'classic' experiment is to use an electric field to create two *current carrying threads*, and then they move the two current carrying threads into close proximity to watch them "rewire" themselves. Turn off the electricity in their classic experiment and *of course* there is no possibility of "magnetic reconnection' or anything of the sort. The whole thing is driven by an electric field, and the only things that are disconnecting and 'reconnecting" are the circuits, not magnetic field lines.

I have seen one experiment that used laser beams to create two moving "currents" which of course create EM fields in their wake, but there are no lasers in coronal loops to start with, and it's still the "currents" that "reconnect".

Michael, It may disturb you, but I'm glad for the trolls here. When Bob insulted me by suggesting that I didn't know what a galactic rotation curve was (ironic, but probably karma in a way since I was personally responsible for teaching this dark matter/rotation curve B.S. to hundreds of undergraduates), it actually gave me reason to revisit a number of issues with magnetic reconnection. I was growing complacent, with just knowing the failures of MHD, magnetic reconnection, frozen in magnetic field lines,etc. But it is imporantant to always know what they "think" they are seeing. We need people like Bob and Higgsy, to remind us not just that the standard model is wrong, but specifically what is wrong with that model.

That doesn't disturb me at all. I agree that open skepticism and honest conversation is good for science. I enjoy skeptical discussions and open debate. What I resent sometimes is their 'tude, their constant personal attacks, and the constant deflection of the conversation off of the topic and onto the individual.

I discovered many years ago from my conversations over at JREF/ISF that while astronomers might understand some areas of physics, and certainly gravity, they are virtually clueless about plasma physics. What the EU/PC haters seem to actually know about plasma physics could fit in a thimble, and what they don't know about it could fill volumes.

For instance, Higgsy seems to believe that the ionization state of the ion doesn't contribute at all to it's temperature, but even the mainstream uses the terms "hot", "warm" and "cold" to describe those different ion temperature states. Higgsy also irrationally tries to ignores the EM field effects on charged particles when he tries to whip up a bogus calculation about collision rates of light plasma. It's interesting to see where they make their silly mistakes, but after awhile I get tired of them trying to claim to 'school' me on plasma physics when it's clear that they don't have a clue how it actually works in the first place.

Bob and Higgsy seem to understand a lot more about metaphysics and pseudoscience than they seem to know about plasma physics. 99 percent of the known universe (even the part they know about) is in the plasma state. The fact they're so naive and wrong about plasma physics is simply mindboggling to me. How can they even be considered to be 'experts' on the topic of astronomy if they don't understand the basics of plasma physics, or understand circuit theory as it is applied to plasma?

Those physics degrees they have really only seem to relate to the study of gravity as far as I can tell. After the hater posse at JREF claimed for months on end that they could get "magnetic reconnection" in a vacuum devoid of plasma, I'm not convinced that they even have a good understanding of basic EM field theory. I think the engineers must take electromagnetic theory and plasma physics classes and the "theorists/astronomers" must skip them entirely and jump right into GR theory. The hater posse at JREF literally could not tell the empirical physical difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum, and the process of converting magnetic field energy into particle kinetic energy in plasma known as "magnetic reconnection". It's really that bad.

I used to give astronomers *way too much* credit, but now I realize that they really don't even understand the first thing about plasma physics, which is why they're still babbling on about pseudoscience, instead of applying circuit theory to plasma. That's also why Birkeland beat them to creating a working model of a solar corona, coronal loops, solar flares, solar wind, electron beams and "strahl" by 100 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

I guess since Birkeland and Alfven couldn't convince them of their errors, I shouldn't be surprised that I can't either, but the amount of pure ignorance that comes out of astronomer's mouths sometimes is simply astounding, not to mention depressing.

[Bob_Ham]

As predicted, not a single equation has been discussed.

[Michael Mozina]

As predicted, not a single equation has been discussed.

Not all errors in physics are necessarily mathematical errors Bob. I already noted that Maxwell's equations solve in both directions, but replacing all the E's with B's in a mathematical equation doesn't instantly turn an electrically caused event into a magnetically caused event! That's essentially what you're conceptually trying to do, and it's why your "rate" formulas are too slow.

Resistance to current flowing through the filament is what lights up and heats up the filaments, not 'magnetic reconnection" occurring up and down the thread. When two or more million degree Bennett Pinches in plasma generate an electrical discharge between the loops, it's still a discharge, not just a 'magnetic' event!

Birkeland's terella experiment *destroys* your claims. Not only did he offer you folks an obvious empirical solution to your never ending full sphere corona heat source problem, he predicted that "strahl" we observe from the sun, those electron beams we observe, solar flares, coronal loops and solar wind, and he simulated them all in his lab 100 years ago! Why the heat source of the corona still remains a mystery to you is beyond me, but it has a logical and well demonstrated solution. You certainly can't duplicate his work using 'magnetic reconnection".

I also have no idea why you folks run around erroneously claiming absolute knowledge about the net neutrality of the solar wind when we don't even presently have the tools to fully measure it in the first place and the particle flow of strahl and electron beams is much faster that ordinary solar wind.

Honestly Bob, I really don't believe that it's necessarily the math they got wrong, it's the conceptual physics which they screwed up royally as Birkeland's terella experiments demonstrate.

In terms of mathematically *abusing* MHD theory however, any and all use of 'magnetic reconnection" mathematical models was made irrelevant and obsolete by Alfven's double layer paper. It's just old useless pseudoscientific math, and you folks have the physics all wrong.

When it comes to heating the corona and coronal loops, the electric horse does the work, and drives the kinetic energy processes Bob. The magnetic cart is just along for the ride. You're trying to explain the motion with the cart!

[celeste]

And 13 orders of magnitude off, either is a math error,or they have the wrong concept to begin with

[Zyxzevn]

As predicted, not a single equation has been discussed.

The equations are used totally wrong.
Like michael already mentioned, the B and E are mixed up.
But there are many more steps in which the equations are used in a wrong way.

It is like when you are on a bike and drive backwards.
You can use the same equations as driving forward,
but in practice you will fall.
Because the balance does not work in the same way.
In theoretical physics one could argue that the time moves backwards.
Or that some invisible matter is causing the fall.

By staring blind on the equations, one becomes blind of the reality.