Sparky wrote:Then I suggest that if you are arguing with anyone who has not seen it and given it serious consideration, but are dismissive and unwilling to attempt to understand, extend to them the same courtesy. A curt, "cultish nonsense", is all they deserve in reply to some arrogant consensus claim.
bancor wrote:Good morning everyone!
As a (quite)absolute newbie, and above all a layman, might I suggest to damabo to catch the problem by the head and not by the tail, and to read before all some paper by Hannes Afvén?
Many of them may be found for free on ADS database, other (as Cosmic Plasma) are books rather expensive you may find on Abebooks site, however Worlds-Antiworlds - Antimatter in Cosmology is a very cheap book indeed.
I deem, damabo, that you'll be able to realize what Alfvén thought about plasma, electricity in space, and other cosmic phenomena; and you'll know, at last, what "double layers" are: actually they are well known by any beginner in plasma physics, be him or not a Plasma Universe adept.
Cheers from Italy!
damabo wrote:what would alfvens book tell me about relativity and quantum physics? I don't think he has ever adressed any of those.
damabo wrote:1. cosmic microwave background radiation (it is of course small in comparison with "95% of the universe is of unknown nature" (dark matter and dark energy))
damabo wrote:Also, what are these "double layers"?
bancor wrote:damabo wrote:what would alfvens book tell me about relativity and quantum physics? I don't think he has ever adressed any of those.
Absolutely true, damabo, you''re right on this point, but since the first thing yet unexplained by plasma cosmology you posted starting this thread was:damabo wrote:1. cosmic microwave background radiation (it is of course small in comparison with "95% of the universe is of unknown nature" (dark matter and dark energy))
I guessed this question could find an answer, at least in a way you might regard as simplistic, in those Alfvén's works.
I may be wrong, obviously, even though your subsequent query to nick c:damabo wrote:Also, what are these "double layers"?
laid deep in the way paved just by Alfvén's research.
Have a good week-end.
bancor wrote:I'm so sorry, damabo; I finally realize that I must apologize to you.
Evidently, I thought to suggest you something useful to answer your questions, while you did already know everything about them; about "double layers" the issue -applied to cosmic plasmas- is (at least IMHO) a little more pregnant than the plain description you quoted from Wikipedia, though.
But you know: I'm a newcomer and a layman, and I cannot face a debate with learned people; I hope you'll forgive me for having uselessly bored you suggesting to waste time reading books, quite unaware of the plenty of resources on the net.
I promise that this was the first and the last time; absolutely my fault, no doubt: I pay for my scot.
bancor wrote:Not at all, damabo, I'm not sarcastic; and in replaying your last post my aim is to point it.
Actually, if I may be so bold, were instead your former responses to betray a slight taste of dismissal towards my suggestions.
But this, like the rest of the Poet, is silence.
Let me say, however, that -because of your preferences for conciseness- it may be much more easy, and much less annoying, to download and read some Alfvén's papers from ADS Data base.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests