The differences between the LCDM model and GR theory.

[Bob_Ham]

Could someone please show where E's and B's have been mixed up?

[Michael Mozina]

Could someone please show where E's and B's have been mixed up?

The fact that you still have serious speed problems related to the rate of particle acceleration is all the evidence we need. Alfven's double layer paper should also suffice to explain your error.

We all know the equations mathematically solve in both directions, but in terms of actual physics, there's a big difference between claiming that the process is caused by, and sustained by electric fields and claiming that the same exact process in driven by, and sustained by magnetic fields.

I'm really curious now Bob. Did either you or Higgsy attend actual classes and study basic EM/circuit theory and MHD theory in college while you were getting those physics degrees?

[Bob_Ham]

And yet again, not a single example of an equation. It's pretty obvious that you can't back up your claims of "mathematical abuse."

I'm really curious now Bob. Did either you or Higgsy attend actual classes and study basic EM/circuit theory and MHD theory in college while you were getting those physics degrees?

I can't speak for Higgsy, but I certainly did. I didn't jut stop at an undergraduate degree either.

[Michael Mozina]

And yet again, not a single example of an equation. It's pretty obvious that you can't back up your claims of "mathematical abuse."

I'm really curious now Bob. Did either you or Higgsy attend actual classes and study basic EM/circuit theory and MHD theory in college while you were getting those physics degrees?

I can't speak for Higgsy, but I certainly did. I didn't jut stop at an undergraduate degree either.

It's good to know that you had such a formal education. I was starting to wonder if that was even typical in the formal education process in physics. Was MHD theory part of your required curriculum or was it an elective?

In Higgsy's case it's hard to believe that he actually passed any MHD classes without knowing that ionization states also affect the temperature of the ions, and that he can't treat plasma like a neutral gas when predicting collisions and interactions in thin plasma. He seems pretty weak on plasma physics even if he does understand basic EM theory.

During my discussions at JREF/ISF, I discovered that the whole EU/PC hater posse could not tell the physical difference between ordinary magnetic flux in a vacuum, and the transfer of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration in plasma known as 'magnetic reconnection". Skeptics of EU/PC theory don't seem to have a very firm grasp of MHD theory in my experience. That would explain why you're still resorting to pseudoscience to try to describe high energy discharge events in plasma, particularly if you (as a group) can get so many other important theoretical aspects so wrong.

In your specific case, I'll reserve judgement because I haven't heard you say anything I directly disagree with yet. We'll have to wait and see how you justify your faith in "magnetic reconnection" when you can't even create a working solar atmospheric model with it yet, and you haven't explained to us why your rates of reconnection are too slow to explain many solar flare events.

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

[Bob_Ham]

Was MHD theory part of your required curriculum or was it an elective?

Basic plasma physics is taught in the electrodynamics courses as the institution I attended, along with other topics. There are three semesters dedicated to electrodynamics (which, obviously includes magnetism). There is also an additional course dedicated entirely to plasma physics that can be taken as an elective. I don't know if this is the case at all institutions, but I know it's pretty common at decent ones. Being someone who has taken courses which delve into topics like hydromagnetic waves, I can say that what is taught in the required electrodynamics courses at my undergraduate institution is adequate for giving a student the tools needed to study plasma physics in detail.

[Michael Mozina]

Was MHD theory part of your required curriculum or was it an elective?

Basic plasma physics is taught in the electrodynamics courses as the institution I attended, along with other topics. There are three semesters dedicated to electrodynamics (which, obviously includes magnetism). There is also an additional course dedicated entirely to plasma physics that can be taken as an elective. I don't know if this is the case at all institutions, but I know it's pretty common at decent ones. Being someone who has taken courses which delve into topics like hydromagnetic waves, I can say that what is taught in the required electrodynamics courses at my undergraduate institution is adequate for giving a student the tools needed to study plasma physics in detail.

After my conversation around the internet I wonder how many astronomy students actually avail themselves of those elective classes in MHD theory. I really can't understand how so many *basic* aspects of plasma seem to be mysteries to the mainstream, and why they don't recognize a field aligned Birkeland current when they see one. They've been observed in the lab for 100 years.

I've heard them called everything from "dark matter filaments" (at the largest scales), "magnetic slinky", "magnetic portal", "Steve", a "magnetic rope", etc. At least the magnetic rope term ties back to Alfven's work with current carrying filaments. All the terms they use try to minimize the electrical aspects of the filamentation process by using the term "magnetic" rather than say "electromagnetic".

I really can't understand how the mainstream cannot see and recognize the electrical aspects of what they observe. It seems so obvious that electric fields and huge current and resistance to that current is involved in heating the plasma of the corona, particularly when you're trying to sustain a million degree full sphere corona on top of a relatively cool 6000 K surface. Since the mainstream won't introduce an electric field and resistance into their equations, they're still mystified by simple things which Birkeland simulated in the lab over 100 years ago.

Astronomers attempt to use gravity and magnetism like sledgehammers rather than incorporating electric fields into their models. It's a lot easier to explain the million degree temperatures of individual coronal loops in the solar atmosphere based on resistance and circuit theory rather than to try to explain them by 'magnetic reconnection'. We all know that electricity can create and sustain million degree plasma, but when have you seen a 'magnetic reconnection' experiment sustain a single plasma filament at even 1,000 degrees for an hour based *only* on 'magnetic reconnection'? Come on. How can you folks be so unwilling to use circuit theory to describe high energy events in light plasma?

It really doesn't make much sense.

[Zyxzevn]

..
I really can't understand how the mainstream cannot see and recognize the electrical aspects of what they observe.
..

You will encounter such problems whenever you try to join different fields of science.
The science and its education is fragmented. And each fragment is specialized in
one direction, with their own laws and rules.
People that are only trained in one aspect of science can't think of another way
of approaching a problem than they always did.
To someone trained with a hammer everything looks like a nail.

But the problem is not just the education or specialization. The people that are deep
in the specialized areas are also using their specialization to create a separate area
within a community. It is a way of marking your territory and to grow in your
career. Your specialized area is strengthened with citations and peer-review.
It is a way to create your own culture.
And with the creation of a specialization and culture,
the people create their own little religion.
In this case the religion of magnetic reconnection.

The reason that there are so many people falling for this religion has nothing to do with real science.
It is due to the popularisation of mythical theories in popular science.
In real science there is not really any progress, except that we see null-results appear
once in a while. And null-results are great for science if people would actually deal
with them accordingly.

The massive ignorance of those null-results just shows how much these theories
have become a religion.

[Bob_Ham]

Astronomers attempt to use gravity and magnetism like sledgehammers rather than incorporating electric fields into their models.

Electric and magnetic fields are always incorporated into astrophysical models; it's just that sometimes their effects are negligible. Plasmas cool by several different mechanisms (bremsstrahlung, inverse Compton, etc.), and these are considered. Can you tell me a place where electric/magnetic fields are prevalent but not accounted for and how you know this to be the case?

[BeAChooser]

Electric and magnetic fields are always incorporated into astrophysical models

You're either totally ignorant or a liar, Bob. Electromagnetic influences are not ALWAYS incorporated into mainstream modeling of galaxies. In fact, they rarely are in ANY form since mainstream *degreed* physicists argue is that there are no electric currents and that plasmas can be regarded as neutral so they have no effect on galactic behavior (such as rotation).

For example, here’s a 2014 paper on the state of the art in modeling galaxies: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.2712.pdf . Read it and you’ll find plenty mention of gravity, dark matter, black holes and “gas”. But you won’t find mention of “plasma”, electromagnetism, electric current, homopolar motors, plasmoids or any other phenomena that plasma scientists suggest affect galaxies.

The Millennium Run model (https://wwwmpa.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galf ... illennium/ ) that Higgsy tried to throw in my face does NOT incorporate those phenomena either. They consider only gravity and (sometimes) hydrodynamic effects like you would find in water or wind on earth. They do NOT consider the impact of current flowing through plasmas.

In fact, I challenge you, Bob, to back up this claim of yours.

But I bet you ignore me like you've been doing on other related topics.

[Higgsy]

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.

Nope, no specific examples of mathematical abuse of MHD theory here.

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!

This is conceptual nonsense. You can't say that a particular process is driven by electricity and that magnetism is along for the ride. As the Maxwell equations make clear (to those who understand them, and you'd need to be fully conversant with multi-dimensional integral and differential calculus to understand them, and there appears to be few here who do), the electric and magnetic effects are so intertwined that it is ludicrous to talk about an electric horse and a magnetic cart.

[Higgsy]

Could someone please show where E's and B's have been mixed up?

The fact that you still have serious speed problems related to the rate of particle acceleration is all the evidence we need. Alfven's double layer paper should also suffice to explain your error.

We all know the equations mathematically solve in both directions, but in terms of actual physics, there's a big difference between claiming that the process is caused by, and sustained by electric fields and claiming that the same exact process in driven by, and sustained by magnetic fields.

I'm really curious now Bob. Did either you or Higgsy attend actual classes and study basic EM/circuit theory and MHD theory in college while you were getting those physics degrees?

No examples of where E's and B's have been mixed up here.

I don't know what you mean when you say "the equations mathematically solve in both directions". E and B are not interchangeable in any form of Maxwell's equations.

And to your questions, the answers are yes, I took two courses on electromagnetism (a introductory and a more advanced cousre), and yes, a course on plasma physics which included MHD.

[Higgsy]

In Higgsy's case it's hard to believe that he actually passed any MHD classes without knowing that ionization states also affect the temperature of the ions, and that he can't treat plasma like a neutral gas when predicting collisions and interactions in thin plasma. He seems pretty weak on plasma physics even if he does understand basic EM theory.

Rubbish. The only weakness here is your ignorance of an elementary thing like the definition of temperature in a gas or plasma. See the other thread where your doubling down on ignorance is exposed for what it is. Ionisation states don't affect the temperature of a plasma, they are a consequence of it. Sheesh!

[Bob_Ham]

Electromagnetic influences are not ALWAYS incorporated into mainstream modeling of galaxies. In fact, they rarely are in ANY form since mainstream *degreed* physicists argue is that there are no electric currents and that plasmas can be regarded as neutral so they have no effect on galactic behavior (such as rotation).

This is what I mean about negligible terms. For example, the Earth orbits the sun. We take into account the electric and magnetic fields in this case, but since they are tens of orders of magnitude weaker than gravitational effects, they can be left out of calculations. Just because something is found to be negligible doesn't mean it wasn't ever considered at any point. If you think there is an instance where we should be including electric or magnetic fields where we are not, then let me know where you think that is, and we can go through the calculation together, with and without those fields, to see if they are important.

[BeAChooser]

This is what I mean about negligible terms. For example, the Earth orbits the sun. We take into account the electric and magnetic fields in this case, but since they are tens of orders of magnitude weaker than gravitational effects, they can be left out of calculations.

Not during the formation of the solar system, when there was LOTS of plasma hanging around ... which is why you and Higgsy ran from my question about the momentum distribution in the solar system. You can't explain it so you RAN. Which the mainstream community has been doing for 50 years now. You seem to have forgotten ... oh *degreed* *physicist* ... that 99.999% of the visible universe is made of plasma ... not rock or "gas". And contrary to what you appear to think, electromagnetic effects on plasma are FAR from "negligible". Just saying ...

[Bob_Ham]

Not during the formation of the solar system, when there was LOTS of plasma hanging around

How much plasma was there? We can calculate the electromagnetic effects from the plasma you propose and see whether it is negligible or not.

And contrary to what you appear to think, electromagnetic effects on plasma are FAR from "negligible".

That is not contrary to what I think. I clearly explained that there are cases in which electromagnetic effects are negligible. I never said that a plasma in general was one of these cases.

Please tell me how much plasma you think there was during the formation of the solar system and why you think that.