Watch This Movie! Birkeland Curents Verified

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Watch This Movie! Birkeland Curents Verified

Unread postby freedomrox » Wed Jun 04, 2008 10:52 pm

Dear Posters,

I implore you to watch the following video first with the sound off, then if so desiring, to watch with sound on. What I see is a confirmation of the magnetic resonance fields and Birkeland CURRENTS as described by the authors of this site as well as the many legendary plasma scientist's who have come before.

Not only do you see the Electromagnetic currents interact, but grow with resonating frequencies and companion electron sublimation. Forget that the ones conducting the experiment are saying that this is just a by-product of nuclear fusion-fission, nebulous nuclear engine of destruction that somehow gives life, ummmm, duhhh.

Maybe I am mistaken in my observations,but this one scientific lab controlled experiment released on the web verifies all my hypothesis from over 10 years ago of this being a truly electr-magnetically unified Universe and not a random set of nuclear explosions defined by gravity.

CHEERS!

Magnetic Movie

http://www.animateprojects.org/films/by ... mag_mov/1/
freedomrox
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: WATCH THIS MOVIE! BIRKELAND CURRENTS VERIFIED

Unread postby junglelord » Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:13 am

The link is not available.
If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.
— Nikola Tesla
Casting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.
— Junglelord.
Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.
— Junglelord
User avatar
junglelord
 
Posts: 3693
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:39 am
Location: Canada

Re: WATCH THIS MOVIE! BIRKELAND CURRENTS VERIFIED

Unread postby freedomrox » Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:58 am

freedomrox
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: WATCH THIS MOVIE! BIRKELAND CURRENTS VERIFIED

Unread postby MGmirkin » Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:27 am

Watched the myspacetv video, with sound off, but didn't get much more than "magnetic fields are dynamic" (which is kind of a duh statement). Was there more that I missed? Wasn't quite sure what the black and red blobs were supposed to be in the video?

Anyway, I still think the THEMIS results re: northern lights and electrical currents between Earth and the sun ("magnetic flux tubes") are the most direct confirmation of currents in space and Birkeland's work in general.

~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: WATCH THIS MOVIE! BIRKELAND CURRENTS VERIFIED

Unread postby freedomrox » Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:32 pm

The original link was 4 minutes long and showed the natural tendency of electrical fields lines to propagate and to snake out in long tendrils seeking resonance, with the closest like equivalent of polarity,not at all like a contained Tesla Coil. It says on the first website that the vid is temporarily disabled. Strange, and that was just after I posted it here. Oh, no conspiracy, but one heck of a coincidence.

If it doesn't come back up,then I will purchase the vidoe from wherever and try to repost at a later time. A lot of this video is by using artistic license to come up with ways to see the invisible currents. Pity that the vid is disabled, because it makes me look very silly.

:oops:

You can watch the overview of the Magnetic Movie and the artists reveal how they made the images based on scientific observations and real sound. You can actually make out the Z-pinches and so much more. Although animated,it is based entirely on scientific data recorded in the laboratory.

http://www.animateprojects.org/films/by ... 7/atv_semi
Last edited by freedomrox on Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
freedomrox
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: WATCH THIS MOVIE! BIRKELAND CURRENTS VERIFIED

Unread postby MGmirkin » Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:37 pm

Well, we'll hope they repost it... :)

~Michael
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: WATCH THIS MOVIE! BIRKELAND CURRENTS VERIFIED

Unread postby freedomrox » Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:45 pm

At the original link the Stills are still posted and some of what I described is contained there. Also I wholeheartedly agree Michael.

http://www.animateprojects.org/films/by ... s?offset=1
freedomrox
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: WATCH THIS MOVIE! BIRKELAND CURRENTS VERIFIED

Unread postby Solar » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:41 pm

That impressed me more as an artistic interpretation of a scientific explanation. A moving version of "artist renderings" that accompany some astrophysical theories. I did see the original long version. You can get an explanation by watching the interview. I thought it was very promising but the 'magnetic tentacles' reaching out for something to grab onto was odd. It had that 'open magnetic field line' interpretation written all over it.

The "hair" effect looked more like an unstable electric field surrounding a sphere than the elongated tail of a magnetosphere (Venus' Langmuir sheath). Neither did it covey the 'magnetic domains' separated by Bloch walls both of which form the constituent parts of a "magnetic field". If one could 'sense' that via touch then it probably would, at close proximity, feel 'hairy'.

Interesting though.

Apologies, but this film has had to be temporarily removed from the site


Animated photographs, using sound-controlled CGI and 3D compositing.

I guess I missed any Birkeland current relevant renderings in that.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: WATCH THIS MOVIE! BIRKELAND CURRENTS VERIFIED

Unread postby MGmirkin » Thu Jun 05, 2008 4:47 pm

Solar wrote:I thought it was very promising but the 'magnetic tentacles' reaching out for something to grab onto was odd. It had that 'open magnetic field line' interpretation written all over it.


Darn, you beat me to it... ;) Knew I forgot something. The second or third time through it (once I found a YouTube version of some other parts of the video [though no full version]), I was like "what are all these unconnected field lines doing flailing about?" Not very realistic.

Much like electric circuits, magnetic field lines must close in a circuit. Which makes sense, since the underlying circuit must close. IE, electric current generally must "flow" in a circuit. If the circuit is broken, no more current. No current, no magnetic field. Snap a field line, snap a circuit. Circuit collapses, no more current flow, no more magnetic field. Yes?

~Michael
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: WATCH THIS MOVIE! BIRKELAND CURRENTS VERIFIED

Unread postby rcglinsk » Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:48 pm

MGmirkin wrote:
Solar wrote:I thought it was very promising but the 'magnetic tentacles' reaching out for something to grab onto was odd. It had that 'open magnetic field line' interpretation written all over it.


Darn, you beat me to it... ;) Knew I forgot something. The second or third time through it (once I found a YouTube version of some other parts of the video [though no full version]), I was like "what are all these unconnected field lines doing flailing about?" Not very realistic.

Much like electric circuits, magnetic field lines must close in a circuit. Which makes sense, since the underlying circuit must close. IE, electric current generally must "flow" in a circuit. If the circuit is broken, no more current. No current, no magnetic field. Snap a field line, snap a circuit. Circuit collapses, no more current flow, no more magnetic field. Yes?

~Michael


Not if it reconnects! Whatever that's supposed to mean. Does EU theory have anything like magnetic reconnection? I've been told that magnetic reconnection allows ions to exit the nozzle of the VASIMR engine, but that may just be a proposed explanation.
rcglinsk
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:06 pm

Re: WATCH THIS MOVIE! BIRKELAND CURRENTS VERIFIED

Unread postby MGmirkin » Fri Jun 06, 2008 9:42 am

rcglinsk wrote:Not if it reconnects! Whatever that's supposed to mean. Does EU theory have anything like magnetic reconnection?


Heck of an if... ;o)

My understanding is that "reconnection" is simply a faulty premise. In fact, I just recently turned up a paper from 1976 that says as much and suggests a simple "circuit" model is more appropriate based upon lab results...

(Impulsive Flux Transfer Events and Solar Flares)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976GeoJ...46..259B
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/ab ... alCode=gji
http://tinyurl.com/3u2wdk

The abstract wrote:Experimental and theoretical aspects of the fundamental process of magnetic flux transfer ('field line reconnection') are reviewed. Explosively rapid events are observed in a laboratory magnetoplasma device designed to test certain aspects of neutral point theories of the solar flare mechanism. In these events, ultra-fast release of magnetic energy through reconnection of field lines is effected by a conduction mode instability in which an abrupt upward transition to anomalous resistivity takes place in the neighbourhood of the X-point. The events are triggered when the X-point current density exceeds the conduction mode instability threshold. The energy that is released is that which is associated with the induced current system that supports field line reconnection under ordinary quiescent conditions. Many characteristics of the laboratory events and their associated phenomena, when appropriately scaled, show remarkable agreement with corresponding flare observational data. Some new directions for further development of flare theory are therefore recommended.

These experiments indicate that a number of assumptions commonly made in theoretical analysis of the reconnection process are inappropriate. The flux transfer process can be well understood theoretically in terms of a simple circuit analogue which models the laboratory process.


Taken together with Don Scott's paper:

(Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos)
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-Tr ... ug2007.pdf

they seem to put magnetic reconnection in its place as an inappropriate fiction that ignores the underlying currents in which the magnetic fields in plasma find their genesis.

Alfvén (the "father of MHD"), too, noted that BOTH reconnection AND "frozen-in" field lines were faulty concepts and should be dispensed with in favor of modeling the underlying currents. Keep in mind that Alfvén was the one who initially promoted the "frozen-in" concept of field lines (he later realized the error and recanted, essentially; sadly only a few seem to have gotten the message[s]).

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: WATCH THIS MOVIE! BIRKELAND CURRENTS VERIFIED

Unread postby rcglinsk » Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:44 am

MGmirkin wrote:
rcglinsk wrote:Not if it reconnects! Whatever that's supposed to mean. Does EU theory have anything like magnetic reconnection?


Heck of an if... ;o)

My understanding is that "reconnection" is simply a faulty premise. In fact, I just recently turned up a paper from 1976 that says as much and suggests a simple "circuit" model is more appropriate based upon lab results...

The abstract wrote:These experiments indicate that a number of assumptions commonly made in theoretical analysis of the reconnection process are inappropriate. The flux transfer process can be well understood theoretically in terms of a simple circuit analogue which models the laboratory process.


Taken together with Don Scott's paper:

(Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos)
http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-Tr ... ug2007.pdf

they seem to put magnetic reconnection in its place as an inappropriate fiction that ignores the underlying currents in which the magnetic fields in plasma find their genesis.

Alfvén (the "father of MHD"), too, noted that BOTH reconnection AND "frozen-in" field lines were faulty concepts and should be dispensed with in favor of modeling the underlying currents. Keep in mind that Alfvén was the one who initially promoted the "frozen-in" concept of field lines (he later realized the error and recanted, essentially; sadly only a few seem to have gotten the message[s]).

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

(FMV 6-6-08: Corrected quote tags.)

I'm having some cognitive dissonance. Mathematically speaking I can't see what difference it makes if you model magnetic field line diffusion and tensions on those lines or if you model current flows and regions of spiky conductivity. You start with the same constituent equations either way and you end up with the same answers, you just picked different assumptions; followed a different path in between. If a model makes more accurate and useful predictions than its competitors should it matter if it says magic leprechauns are behind it all? Everyone says there's some kind of dispute between "Electric Universe" and "Big Bang" on this issue, but is it semantics, where's the beef? is it anything more than mainstream astronomers not wanting to call an organized flux of net charge a current?
rcglinsk
 
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:06 pm

Re: WATCH THIS MOVIE! BIRKELAND CURRENTS VERIFIED

Unread postby MGmirkin » Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:08 pm

MGmirkin wrote:Alfvén (the "father of MHD"), too, noted that BOTH reconnection AND "frozen-in" field lines were faulty concepts and should be dispensed with in favor of modeling the underlying currents. Keep in mind that Alfvén was the one who initially promoted the "frozen-in" concept of field lines (he later realized the error and recanted, essentially; sadly only a few seem to have gotten the message[s]).

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin


Couldn't find the reference at the time, but there's one of Alfvén's papers where he specifically treats both "frozen-in flield lines" and "reconnection."

(Double Layers in Astrophysics)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi. ... 013880.pdf

See pages 8-9 (PDF pages 17-18). Specifically the sections entitled:

III. DOUBLE LAYERS AND FROZEN-IN MAGNETIC FIELD LINES
A. Frozen-in Field Lines - A Pseudopedagogical Concept
B. Magnetic Merging - A Pseudoscience

Similar treatment can be found here:

(Double layers and circuits in astrophysics)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-b ... ..14..779A

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: WATCH THIS MOVIE! BIRKELAND CURRENTS VERIFIED

Unread postby MGmirkin » Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:35 pm

rcglinsk wrote:I'm having some cognitive dissonance. Mathematically speaking I can't see what difference it makes if you model magnetic field line diffusion and tensions on those lines or if you model current flows and regions of spiky conductivity. You start with the same constituent equations either way and you end up with the same answers, you just picked different assumptions; followed a different path in between.


But, in science we also want to understand the ACTUAL processes involved, and how they interact. Trying to get as close to "reality" as possible. If we trace the causes back to "second cause" but fail to trace it back a step further to "first cause," can we really say that we've understood the process that's going on? I think that science really does want to get back to "first cause" in order to understand the underlying process and to have an understanding down to the lowest level so that we can use the understanding to get as refined models / predictions as possible. So, why leave out a major force of nature that may be "first cause" of a number of processes?

rcglinsk wrote:If a model makes more accurate and useful predictions than its competitors should it matter if it says magic leprechauns are behind it all?


But, has "magnetic reconnection" made physically accurate statements? Especially where it states that magnetic field lines can merge, twist, break, coil up, act like springs, etc. Don Scott's paper appears to bring a bit of realism back to the science of it all. Field lines are not "real" entities any more than the lines on a weather map or the lines of latitude and longitude are "real" objects. They're only a conceptual tool and can no more be "broken" or "coiled up" than a few unbound atoms in the air that happen to line up in a similar direction.

When they ascribe to the magnetic fields characteristics or behaviors that are not supported by observations of ACTUAL currents and magnetic fields, then it seems like there's a problem...

rcglinsk wrote:Everyone says there's some kind of dispute between "Electric Universe" and "Big Bang" on this issue, but is it semantics, where's the beef? Is it anything more than mainstream astronomers not wanting to call an organized flux of net charge a current?


I think you've nailed it on the head. Astronomers often don't want to call an organized net flux of charge a current. They don't want to have to deal with electrodynamics unless they're forced to. But if they ignore the electrodynamics, then it seems they're ignoring the root CAUSE of many of the things they're trying to figure out.

In some ways it may be semantics. In some ways not. If astronomers refuse to acknowledge underlying electric currents, and attempt to divorce magnetic fields from them, it can't help but lead to confusion.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Re: WATCH THIS MOVIE! BIRKELAND CURRENTS VERIFIED

Unread postby MGmirkin » Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:49 pm

Sure, they've noted the million ampere current between Io and Jupiter, since they flew a probe through it. And they've passingly mentioned a 650,000 Amp current with respect to the "magnetic flux ropes" between Earth's auroras and the sun (however, only in an illustration on the multimedia accompaniment and not in the main press release). But, it rarely gets mentioned as even a possibility elsewhere in any mainstream press releases re: structures in space, etc. They talk about magnetic fields, magnetic coccoons, etc. But there's no mention that the magnetic fields may have been created electrically, and even when they mention magnetic coccoons (or magnetic this that & the other) they seem to be in the dark about how it formed to begin with... Same thing with helical filaments of plasma discovered all over the place. Helical formations are not surprising in plasma when considering current though the plasma. It's a more-or-less expected formation.

(Plasma-universe.com: Filamentation)
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Filamentation

So, there does really seem to be a bit of a conceptual gap, as opposed to necessarily just a "semantic" gap. IE, they seem to literally only think in terms of the "magnetic field," doing things and NOT in terms of the flows of charged particles (and the various configurations that might take in a plasma).

Just my opinion, of course.
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
 
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest