NASA and Government Discuss EU

[Nereid]

Nereid:

If it's not a hypothesis, what is it?

An approximation.

Do you agree that "the Electric Double Layer process...has been fully resolved qualitatively & quantitatively and reduced to the formalism of mathematical equations"?

I don't know what this means; can you elaborate please?

[Anaconda]

Nereid:

If it's not a hypothesis, what is it?

An approximation.

Do you agree that "the Electric Double Layer process...has been fully resolved qualitatively & quantitatively and reduced to the formalism of mathematical equations"?

I don't know what this means; can you elaborate please?

Has the Electric Double Layer process been fully resolved qualitatively & quantitatively and reduced to the formalism of mathematical equations in laboratory plasma physics?

real plasmas are not classical, nor do they have zero resistance

But the Princeton website uses "frozen-in" magnetic fields in an infinitely conductive plasma as an a priori assumption, a false assumption, as you readily admit, one that fails to describe space plasma or laboratory plasma.

Why do you cite the Princeton website when you disagree with the premise of it's experiments?

Real space plasma and laboratory plasma has resistivity, and, thus, can sustain an electric field.

This is the framework of the analysis & interpretation employed by scientists studying the Electric Double Layer process in laboratory plasma physics and space plasma physics.

The Electric Double Layer analysis & interpretation employs formal mathematical equations which encompass all the forces and particles encountered in the plasma environment.

Magnetic reconnection uses a misleading "approximation" that doesn't treat plasma dynamics as it exists and behaves in nature, both the laboratory and space.

How can a theoretical model which relies on an "approximation" which doesn't exist in nature, and, thus, fails to consider all the forces present in nature, still be valuble analytical tool for understanding how plasmas behave in nature?

Doesn't Science wants to understand plasma as it actually behaves in laboratory experiments and in space plasmas?

[Nereid]

Has the Electric Double Layer process been fully resolved qualitatively & quantitatively and reduced to the formalism of mathematical equations in laboratory plasma physics?

Thanks.

I'm still having trouble understanding you; can I take it one part at a time please?

What do you mean by "fully resolved qualitatively & quantitatively"?

real plasmas are not classical, nor do they have zero resistance

But the Princeton website uses "frozen-in" magnetic fields in an infinitely conductive plasma as an a priori assumption, a false assumption, as you readily admit, one that fails to describe space plasma or laboratory plasma.

Why do you cite the Princeton website when you disagree with the premise of it's experiments?

Real space plasma and laboratory plasma has resistivity, and, thus, can sustain an electric field.

Perhaps it's worth quoting the relevant part of that website:

In plasma physics, it is well known that magnetic field lines are "frozen-in" to an infinitely conductive plasma. Since charged plasma particles are confined to circular orbits around magnetic field lines, this means that infinitely conductive plasmas will not diffuse across field lines and mix. Conversely, two distinct field lines will remain separate since they cannot penetrate the intervening plasma. In most cases, solar and magnetospheric plasmas can be described very accurately with such a theory since they are both very conductive. However, straightforward application of the theory would remove the possibility of ejected solar plasma penetrating the magnetosphere since the plasmas would not be allowed to mix. Nevertheless, based on observations and known technological disruptions, we know that they must mix, but how?

The answer resides in the fact that when plasmas carrying oppositely directed magnetic field lines are brought together, a strong current sheet is established, in the presence of which even a vanishingly small amount of resistivity in a small volume can become important, allowing plasma diffusion and, thus, magnetic reconnection to occur.

It would seem that the explanation given, for magnetic reconnection, recognises that the 'frozen in' approximation is invalid, in terms of understanding the observed phenomena.

Or, more simply, you are agreeing with what's on that webpage.

[Goldminer]

The point is that there is no Magnetic Disconnection in the first place. What part of dipole don't you understand?

[mharratsc]

The answer resides in the fact that when plasmas carrying oppositely directed magnetic field lines are brought together,

Read that as "an electrical current",

a strong current sheet is established,

Read that as "a double layer",

in the presence of which even a vanishingly small amount of resistivity in a small volume can become important, allowing plasma diffusion and, thus, magnetic reconnection to occur.

Read that as "an exploding double layer".

Semantics seem to be key. It seems more and more evident that they concept that they are studiously and with great effort attempting to avoid mention of... is electrical currents flowing in space.

Do you suppose they will truly re-write all the technical jargon in their industry to say 'electrical currents' in a way that they think no one will catch or something? It seems so childish. :\

[Anaconda]

To Nereid:

Has the Electric Double Layer process been fully resolved qualitatively & quantitatively and reduced to the formalism of mathematical equations in laboratory plasma physics?

And, Nereid responded:

Thanks.

I'm still having trouble understanding you; can I take it one part at a time please?

What do you mean by "fully resolved qualitatively & quantitatively"?

In scientific discourse, the term, "qualitatively", or "qualitative analysis", is defined as analysis which merely determines the constituents of a physical process without any regard to the quantity of each ingredient; -- contrasted with quantitative analysis. So, in this case, "qualitatively", means that all the particles, in this case, charged particles, and, forces, in this case, the magnetic & electric fields, have been identified in the Electric Double Layer process.

But, more important, is the term, "quantitatively", or "quantitative analysis", is defined as the analysis of a physical process to determine the amounts and proportions of the particles, in this case, charged particles, and, forces, in this case, the magnetic & electric fields, have been identified in the Electric Double Layer process.

Hopefully, this helps, but if not, please be specific in stating what you don't understand regarding the question.

So, here, again, is the question:

Has the Electric Double Layer process been fully resolved qualitatively & quantitatively and reduced to the formalism of mathematical equations in laboratory plasma physics?

[Nereid]

Do you suppose they will truly re-write all the technical jargon in their industry

Technical jargon has its own life and logic; as part of a living language it is subject to the same linguistic influences as the broader language in which it is immersed.

In other words, you might just as well ask that we spell 'fish', in English, 'ghoti' ('gh' as in 'enough', 'o' as in 'women', and so on); or that astronomers stop calling carbon, oxygen, nitrogen (etc), 'metals'; or ...

to say 'electrical currents' in a way that they think no one will catch or something?

Huh? It almost seems you think there's some sort of giant conspiracy going on!

It seems so childish. :\

Perhaps childishness is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder?

[mharratsc]

Ms. Nereid said:

mharratsc wrote:
Do you suppose they will truly re-write all the technical jargon in their industry

Technical jargon has its own life and logic; as part of a living language it is subject to the same linguistic influences as the broader language in which it is immersed.

In other words, you might just as well ask that we spell 'fish', in English, 'ghoti' ('gh' as in 'enough', 'o' as in 'women', and so on); or that astronomers stop calling carbon, oxygen, nitrogen (etc), 'metals'; or ...

No, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask astrophysicists to utilize already existent terminology from plasma physics. Unless it is your goal to re-invent the wheel.

to say 'electrical currents' in a way that they think no one will catch or something?

Huh? It almost seems you think there's some sort of giant conspiracy going on!

Where have you seen anyone outside of the IEEE/plasma cosmology/Electric Universe talk about current flow in the interstellar medium? Is it still not the consensus of mainstream opinion that there is no charge separation of space that has any effect on the interstellar (or any) environment?
Radio telescopes have traced out the magnetic fields in the dusty plasma filaments between galaxies and stars. It is proven over and over again ad naseaum that these magnetic fields are not magical- they must be sustained by electric currents, even as they are here on Earth. Have standard model proponents accepted this, and moved on with their lives?

No.

Conspiracy? No... a sad scenario in which people have blindly swallowed false information and faithfully, dogmatically held onto these ideas and defended them religiously?

What do you think, ma'am? You are indeed the cornucopeia of links to just about any information regarding the Standard Model... what do you think the answer to that question is?

It seems so childish. :\

Perhaps childishness is, like beauty, in the eye of the beholder?

No, I think it's more sociological than anything.

[David Talbott]

Huh? It almost seems you think there's some sort of giant conspiracy going on!

I really don't think Mike was talking conspiracies. Today's theoretical science is highly centralized, and fundamental mistakes are surely costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. There's an observed tendency to cover for mistakes by acknowledging them as slowly as possible, and only through the back door. From one surprise to another, theoretical science is moving toward discussion of electrical events in space. But the one thing that would bring down the theoretical edifice as a whole is the idea of electric currents across interplanetary, interstellar, and intergalactic distances. So it's only human nature to equivocate as the challenges increase. As evidence for electricity in space accumulates, the details will be presented in ways that tend to minimize the the effect. As a rule, the theorist must find the cause within an insulated island, preserving neutrality across larger distances.

Hence, acceleration of the solar wind must be due to something going on inside the Sun. Acknowledge an electrical influence on the Sun from outside itself, and the gravity-only paradigm is finished. What fully employed scientist would dare to suggest that the overarching assumption—no electricity across cosmic distances—could be wrong? Simple survival instinct, not to mention the other motivating factors, will encourage theorists to use every available escape route, starting with, "It's all being done by magnetism." Surely many solar physicists already see through the ruse.

[webolife]

I still think, as I have posted numerous times before, that it is significant to make a distinction between the concept of electric currents, eg. as measured in amperes in a wired circuit, and the concept of plasma currents, eg. Birkeland currents, streams of plasma in intergalactic space, the solar wind, aurorae, etc. What drives them both is EMF, or voltage, operating at whatever scale... is this not a major point of confusion in any discussion of EU vs. the "no electricity in space" ? Does this question need a different thread?

[mharratsc]

I think it would be fascinating and enlightening if someone could put together a small model of what an intergalactic Birkeland current consisted of, morphology, and dynamics... just to maybe clarify the points that Webo mentioned above...

Any takers?

[Lloyd]

* Maybe the point is too obvious to get much comment, normally. Plasma isn't a solid, like a wire conductor. But fluids are also used as conductors, like mercury. If space is like a solid, then plasma is somewhat like a current going through a solid conductor [of space]. Plasma makes its own insulation, called a space charge sheath, plasma sheath, or double layer, etc. I think the charges in each layer move in opposite directions, which maybe helps keep the charges from neutralizing each other. The inner layer is one charge, moving in one direction along the plasma stream; the outer layer is the opposite charge, moving in the opposite direction. Actually, the entire stream consists of many separate small streams, each as separate conductors; isn't that correct?
* I guess large objects, like planets, get "swallowed" by these plasma streams within the double layers, like an egg swallowed by a snake. Or maybe it's more like 2 snakes [= 2 layers], one inside the other, moving in opposite directions, with the large egg directly inside the inner snake.

[Nereid]

I still think, as I have posted numerous times before, that it is significant to make a distinction between the concept of electric currents, eg. as measured in amperes in a wired circuit, and the concept of plasma currents, eg. Birkeland currents, streams of plasma in intergalactic space, the solar wind, aurorae, etc. What drives them both is EMF, or voltage, operating at whatever scale... is this not a major point of confusion in any discussion of EU vs. the "no electricity in space" ? Does this question need a different thread?

It definitely needs clarifying, because there is no ambiguity in published papers on plasma physics (or applying it) in the fields of astrophysics and space science (which is, crudely, plasma physics applied to the solar wind/interplanetary medium, planetary magnetospheres, the Sun's corona, and interactions between these).

One potential challenge that I can see is that this forum is not set up to easily display some of the symbols we'd need in order to have a more unambiguous discussion, such as the sum (capital sigma) and integral signs.

[webolife]

My point is that electrons do not flow through wires in the sense of particles moving from one end of the wire to the other. Particle velocity would have to be incomprehensibly large. So the analogy of plasma currents to wired electric current must be carefully articulated.

[David Talbott]

I still think, as I have posted numerous times before, that it is significant to make a distinction between the concept of electric currents, eg. as measured in amperes in a wired circuit, and the concept of plasma currents, eg. Birkeland currents, streams of plasma in intergalactic space, the solar wind, aurorae, etc. What drives them both is EMF, or voltage, operating at whatever scale... is this not a major point of confusion in any discussion of EU vs. the "no electricity in space" ? Does this question need a different thread?

It definitely needs clarifying, because there is no ambiguity in published papers on plasma physics (or applying it) in the fields of astrophysics and space science (which is, crudely, plasma physics applied to the solar wind/interplanetary medium, planetary magnetospheres, the Sun's corona, and interactions between these).

True enough, there is "no ambiguity" in published astrophysics papers on space plasma. For scientists attracted to the Thunderbolts Project, and for so many well educated readers, this is the heart of the problem. Taking the Sun as an example: by endlessly elaborating an underlying paradigm, with increasing levels of specialization and sophistication, mainstream astrophysicists are holding in place an illusion that the paradigm itself must be valid. The actual question of validity is not even being addressed. Hence the appearance that all is well, except for a few fundamental, curiously unresolved questions such a polar jets, coronal heating, and acceleration of the solar wind.

But when one considers the Sun from a higher vantage point, the entire range of defining features are the unresolved questions. In The Electric Universe chapter on the Sun there must be some two dozen of these dominant features cited, all anomalous under the standard model. But are there any duly employed solar physicists who could safely announce that an explanation for these features might be available, one that can be tentatively substantiated by simple, common sense, but would change the paradigm altogether?

Is it possible that the truth could be very unnerving — that mathematical sophistry is actually displacing attention from the heart of the problem? Could the elegant equations and computer modeling be keeping solar physicists from asking the most essential questions, the questions that logically precede mathematical modeling? Is the standard model really working? I've never seen that question posed in any published astrophysics paper.