NASA and Government Discuss EU

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
David Talbott
Site Admin
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: NASA and Government Discuss EU

Post by David Talbott » Wed Jan 05, 2011 1:35 pm

webolife wrote: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.
A very important observation. The electric wire is the better analogy for the solar currents as power source. And these currents are almost certainly undetectable within the turbulence of the Sun's plasma domain. As I've already noted, the EU model does not involve particles zipping by the Earth at relativistic velocities. Aggregate electron movement of a couple of inches per hour might be in the ball park, with a fair amount of wiggle room until various questions are answered concerning the geometry of the solar circuit. This profound ambiguity is why attention must remain on justifying the investigation (or asking solar physicists to broaden their vision and entertain the the most fundamental questions), rather than creating new problems through premature modeling. If the Sun is electrical in the sense we've proposed, then all of the extravagant modeling of the Sun from the 1930s onward is the best example we could ask for, illustrating how premature modeling will tend to reinforce tunnel vision. There's something about seeing an imaginary world in a computer simulation that really does seem to make it real.

Of course, the picture is complicated by the fact that plasma in motion generates regional currents, and these can actually reinforce the illusion that observed electric phenomena are entirely local. This is why the big picture of the Sun must not be ignored, and that means all of the principle attributes of the Sun: they are the unresolved enigmas, the trunk, the arms, and the legs of the elephant in the living room.

jjohnson
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: NASA and Government Discuss EU

Post by jjohnson » Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:59 pm

This is a test, Nereid.

∑ ∰ ∛ ⊂ ≪ ≫ A∙B

∆ ∫ ∮ ⋍ √ ≈ Ω

I am inserting some of the symbols available in various fonts from a Mac computer, using its character viewer utility. I'd like some feedback as to whether or not they convert properly via HTML into recognizable symbols on other people's browsers. I've learned that there are differences in what one computer readily displays or enters, and another one using a different browser or operating system. Feedback welcome from several people to determine if this forum might be able to display some symbols, or if there are problems with it on some browsers. Please list your browser and type computer OS (PC/Windows 7/Unix or Linux, etc., Mac, Cray, etc.) Just kidding about the Crays, I think!

This is obviously not in the class of MathType or LaTeX typesetting programs, but it's not bad for simple equation writing if one needs to, and can forego inserting limits on integral signs and other niceties.

Guessing at the math literacy level likely to be found in any large group of lay persons, myself included, forum contributors should carefully consider the level of math and associated equations they might want to post. Sometimes a link to a site where the math is found could let a reader gauge quickly whether or not they want to pursue the enquiry. Communication is the goal here; not simply showing off chops.

Jim

mharratsc
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: NASA and Government Discuss EU

Post by mharratsc » Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:07 pm

Looks good in Windows 7, Internet Explorer 8 128-bit, Jim
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington

User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: NASA and Government Discuss EU

Post by Siggy_G » Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:11 pm

David Talbott wrote: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.
I'm currently reading a book called "Dark Matters" by Dr. Percy Seymour, because I like to get some hands on insight into the history and reasoning behind dark matter and dark energy. In the last chapter he mentions:
There are four type of models used by scientists and engineers: iconic, symbolic, mathematical and analogous. [A following description of each]
An important point about all models is that they are constructs of the human mind, and thus they have their own limitations. Einstein once said, in The Meaning of Relativity, "The only justification of our concepts and our system of concepts, is that they serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have no legitemacy."
The main point I wish to make in this chapter is that in certain physical systems, such as our Milky Way galaxy, and in our towns and cities, it would be impossible to represent the behaviour of the various subsystems by a unified mathematical model. [A following description on alternative takes is given]
One point Nereid (and many others, should I call them, standard model proponents (?)) make, is that an astrophysical or cosmological model must be quantitative. That I wouldn't refute. There is at some point neccesary and desireable to have a fully quantitative EU model to the extent that is possible. In other words, if some values within a given volume of a system (around the Sun or within the galaxy) are known, then one can calculate the outcome at a later, internal or extended stage. But that is a mathematical model one only can fully derive after many questions have been answered. As such, the standard cosmological model isn't sufficient as a mathematical model either. The Ancient Greeks tried to establish a mathematical model of the planetary orbits, that described the motions somewhat accurately (epicycles), but surely didn't represent reality, as we later know. If one didn't allow for some unanswered questions, or allow new takes on them, I don't see how dark matter and dark energy would have made it into the astrophysical community. This is also why I don't see why no one seems to grasp the EU model and do further research directly related to various scenarios. Also, I don't see why only a final mathematical model is the only approach that is satisfying, apparently, when the steps towards one is including other type of models and research along the way.

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: NASA and Government Discuss EU

Post by webolife » Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:42 pm

What Siggy said.
In addition, the type of mathematical model is important... is it an algebraic model? geometric? non-euclidean, non-cartesian? vectoral? is it a set of probabilities? symbolic logic? indirect argument? "pure" or ideal? rigorous? does it allow "imaginary numbers"? fractal or scalable?
I would say again, the choice of mathematics type is highly determined by the underlying presuppositions. Whose cup of tea does the scientific world have to drink in order to be "acceptable"?
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Anaconda
Posts: 460
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:32 am

Re: NASA and Government Discuss EU

Post by Anaconda » Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:25 pm

Nereid wrote: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).
With all due respect to David Talbott's comments, which I generally agree with, in my opinion, Nereid's above statement is false.

There is, indeed, "ambiguity", as there are two rival schools of thought, the Current Disruption Theory (aka Circuit Theory championed by Hannes Alfven) and the Magnetic Reconnection Theory. These, as far as I know, are mutually exclusive schools of thought.

So-called "magnetic reconnection" has not been quantified and there are even disagreements among "magnetic reconnection" supporters about how the "process" actually works.

In contrast, there is agreement among Current Disruption Theory supporters about the process, that is why they have been able to reduce the process to the formalism of mathematical equations which encompass all the constituent physical particles and forces, i.e., charged particles, magnetic fields and electric fields.

The Electric Double Layer process is encompassed by the Current Disruption Theory.

That is why I asked Nereid this question:
Anaconda wrote:Has the Electric Double Layer process been fully resolved qualitatively & quantitatively and reduced to the formalism of mathematical equations in laboratory plasma physics?
I have yet to receive an answer.

Now, I understand David Talbott is specifically referring to the Electric Sun hypothesis. But it is clear that so-called "magnetic reconnection" is a theory which focuses on local or "island" conditions without regard to the idea that a circuit or current of charged particles drives the phenomenon which are observed within the solar system.

In fact, it's my suspicion that the attractiveness of "magnetic reconnection" to astrophysicists is specifically because it does not depend on the presence of a circuit, so leaves unchallenged the idea that stars and galaxies are isolated "islands", whereas, the Circuit Theory suggests the possibility that stars and galaxies are connected in circuits, and the Fundamental Force of Electromagnetism is what drives these circuits, not the Fundamental Force of Gravity.

I recently looked at a relatively new astromonical review paper on galaxies, and nowhere did it even mention magnetic fields (even though galaxy-wide magnetic fields have been observed), let alone electric fields, or the necessity of flowing currents of charged particles which support the observed galaxy-wide magnetic fields (and, of course, no mention of magnetic fields observed connecting galaxies).

It is my opinion that NASA is under the influence of "magnetic reconnection" supporters because "magnetic reconnection" is not a threat to the conventional gravity "only" model of the Universe, thus, it can be safely incorporated within the conventional model without falsifying the paradigm. The conventional gravity "only" model is the overarching influence of the astronomical community, of which NASA is only a part.

The problem for the "reconnection" camp is that the Current Disruption Theory and the Electric Double Layer component (I would argue as Hannes Alfven did that the Electric Double Layer is the primary driving force) answers too well the various unanswered observed anomalies and NASA is bumping into this uncomfortable fact.

(And, as Hannes Alfven has noted, what happens within the solar system is likely to be the appropriate model for what happens beyond the solar system, thus, the resistence to the Circuit Theory in many quarters.)

On a side note, Since David Talbott mentioned the acceleration of the solar wind, I thought linking a peer-reviewed published paper on solar wind acceleration might be appropriate:

Acceleration of the solar wind, Egil Leer, Thomas E. Holzer and Tor Flå, published in Space Science Reviews:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l72q04465w270073/

This paper, beyond discussing the acceleration of the solar wind, also notes that charged particles flow out from the surface of the Sun and INTO the surface of the Sun (noteworthy for discussion of the Electric Sun hypothesis). ;)
Last edited by Anaconda on Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jjohnson
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: NASA and Government Discuss EU

Post by jjohnson » Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:38 pm

This subject of currents and circuits and wiring in a cosmic setting is very important to us here, I venture to say. If we posit that plasma is a conducting medium with small but finite resistance, so that it is neither a superconductor nor do its accompanying magnetic field lines get "frozen in" as theory might allow, then physically what is possibly happening?

As a caveat emptor, let me advise readers that this is a pretty imaginative exercise. One does not normally "see" an electric current in visible light, although visible light is sometimes emitted by phenomena caused by a current of charged particles, such as lightning, or synchrotron radiation. —and the radiation is not always in the visible wavelengths to us, but may be to our instruments, and so can be shifted mathematically to representative "false" (but visible) colors so we can bring our pretty clever eyes and brain to bear on the identification. Currents are accompanied by something else, too: magnetic fields. "Fields" are also not visible, but that doesn't mean that they are undetectable, either.

We can view visible images of the magnetic field(s) on the Sun's disk at http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/rea ... mages.html obtained with an instrument called an imaging vector magnetograph. Current flows (on the Sun's disk) can be inferred from the magnetic field values (polarization and intensity from the measured amount of splitting of what are called Zeeman lines) by calculating the 'curl' of the magnetic field and applying Maxwell's equations, according to the web site for the University of Hawaii's astronomy department.

Magnetic fields are also able to be measured and mapped on a galactic scale through the same general approach, using radio telescopes. http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/staff/wshe ... ssier.html If you'll take the leap with me, identifying where and how strong the magnetic fields along the arms and elsewhere around a galaxy lets you infer where the electric currents are that cause those fields. If electrons are moving relative to an observer, as has been discussed on this Forum in the recent past, they A) constitute what is called a current, and B) always have an accompanying magnetic field. Non-moving electric charges, such as may be stored in a battery or in a capacitor, don't exhibit a magnetic field.

Dave Talbott is spot on in saying that it is not (necessarily) charged particles in a current moving near the speed of light that constitute the current; it is their drift velocity which constitutes a current. The more, say, electrons drifting along through a given cross-section or area during a (standardized) 1 second period, the more "current" you have flowing. Current, measured in amperes, is basically charges per second through an area which is fixed relative to the observer.

If one thought that the "wires" or cables in space were just gas particles bouncing around, it seems clear that they would tend to expand and dissipate and to try to get their "pressure" to match that of the surrounding "empty space". Pop a balloon in space and where would the gas atoms or molecules go? Away! They wouldn't line up into a narrow tube or filament and start conducting electricity! Gravity doesn't make them do something like that, even if we assume it is acting on them. ;)

If you have a volume of low density, ionized material in space, possibly ionized by, say ultraviolet light from a nearby star, particularly if it is in a region in which a magnetic field may exist, its state is that of plasma. Plasma will tend to distribute itself and subdivide itself into regions of (slightly) different net charge, separated by double layers which tend to act as insulators, and diode-like, prevent the passage of low-energy charged particles from one area into an adjacent one. Charge separation begets electric fields, so now forces start to be exerted on charged particles simply from the self-separating rules of plasma physics. A fluorescent light does this same thing in your garage or office.

Plasma will subsequently tend to change from a tenuous volume into separated sheets, and those in turn will start to pinch themselves into filamentary shapes which are generally long and twisty, sometimes feathery and sometimes branching and angular. Watch a plasma ball at work, and this is clearly demonstrated. The electrons being forced, by the large voltage differential, into the low pressure gas in the ball excite and heat it to a plasma state, and then plasma physics takes over and the plasma pinches itself into glowing filaments which conduct the electrons from the center to the more positively charged outer glass globe.

Electric currents in an evacuated space form their own long, thin shapes. There may be many intertwined plasma filaments oriented in the same direction, twisting and wrapping around each other in pairs (Biot-Savart attraction) while being separated by their double layers and the repulsive force from electrostatic repulsion when they get "too close" together, and repulsion overcomes attraction. They are like nerves conducting electric impulses, made up of innumerable neurons, each carrying part of the signal along the pathway. The EU model says that it is these Birkeland currents which operate like cross-country power cables, accompanied by the same sorts of magnetic fields that accompany high-tension lines. and transporting the electric currents which power and sustain the stars and galaxies.

It is the Birkeland currents which feed electric power into the ionosphere and power the auroras, and bring electric power into the planet itself, and jet it back out to space around the poles to rejoin the solar plasma filling the heliosphere. It is Birkeland currents generated at the Sun's surface that help eject billions of tons of plasma away from the solar surface and gravity, out into space as coronal mass ejections (CMEs). It is likely Birkeland currents on a rather grand scale which move through space, creating stars at intervals and weaving together galactic forms in the process. We circle our stars, separated by silent lightyears of distance, all held tightly in the warp and weft of the currents in space.

Not to put too fine a point on it, it should be able to be described by plasma physics and by observing and documenting what plasmas do on and near our planets and our Sun. It's just that it's not that easy.

Jim

jjohnson
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: NASA and Government Discuss EU

Post by jjohnson » Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:44 pm

Thanks, Mike. Between you and me, we probably have covered 85% of the computers in use here, although no one's commented yet on someone running Linux, or a Cromemco on C/PM with a z80 chip :D

Oops; time warp moment, there...

jjohnson
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: NASA and Government Discuss EU

Post by jjohnson » Wed Jan 05, 2011 5:05 pm

Siggy,
Much as I agree with Nereid and you and almost anybody else who has thought about it, that astrophysics should be a quantitative as well as qualitative exercise in order to be considered "successful", I've given a lot of thought to modeling in the last couple of years, as I've considered the ramifications of being introduced to the EU model.

I think that a "full" or "complete" mathematical description of our galaxy is way beyond our grasp, for the foreseeable future (a time which, by definition is not "foreseeable"). Here is why. There are too many variables and too many degrees of freedom to be tractable and accurate at the same time. The more accurate you are in considering all the variables, the closer your output approaches real time. So, what good is a real time model, when what you want, at large scales, is something speeded up so you can spot trends, and "get answers" more quickly than having to, say, wait for a galaxy simulation to make one real-time revolution, or to wait for computed conditions to converge and create a nova.

We cannot predict our own weather accurately more than a day or two in advance, on a limited, local basis. We certainly have no way of modeling all the action going on simultaneously in our solar system. Scaling up to a galaxy would mean almost unthinkably more interactions to operate and get right, and keep on getting right lest it spiral off into chaos and ruin the simulation. I am not sure if an accurate plasma simulation of a plasma ball could actually be run successfully. (An emulation might be feasible, which is what CGI has done for movies, but at the subatomic particle scale of "keeping track", the problems are many orders of magnitude greater.)

Nonetheless, we are driven to try, and the time-honored practice of breaking large, difficult problems down into tractable pieces can, if done well on enough different pieces, can spell more understanding and a probability of a more successful or "scientific" interpretation of how things work in such systems. I have hope that plasma physics will help, but it's not the only thing, and it does not do anything that helps understand the underlying "component" reactions - the quantum and tinier scales. Central to success would be more constructive evaluation and critical thinking and open-mindedness in science today. My reading leads me to believe that astrophysics is not the only area where some self-doubts and criticism of lack of progress and worries about dogmatic recitation of standard models and wondering if there isn't a better way are creeping in. Medicine, geophysics and weather and climate seem to be suffering, too.

It will be interesting to watch and see if open-minded scientists will carefully consider what the EU paradigm might be able to offer them. The road less taken, as Robert Frost might say...

Jim

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: NASA and Government Discuss EU

Post by webolife » Wed Jan 05, 2011 6:08 pm

Excellent, as usual, Jim J. Great synopsis of electrical field attributes and plasmic currents.
Charges per second "through" a relatively fixed area, while analogous to particles moving through a resistant medium, do not necessarily require movement across that area, but may be indicative of the cumulation of Newton's cradle-like effects. They are ascribed "slightly less than light speed" velocities due to the presumptive premise/attribution of the c-rate as a limiting constant, but are observably [virtually] instantaneous. The heating effects of charge action [discharge] across a resistant medium indicate a time differential, eg. as seen in time lapse lightning shots, yet the path[s] of the lightning are predisposed [by field dynamics] before the discharge occurs.

Sorry to others on thread... I have taken this way off topic... :oops:
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Nereid
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: NASA and Government Discuss EU

Post by Nereid » Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:11 am

webolife wrote: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.
There are a lot of posts since this one, including - as usual - some excellent (but long) ones by Jim. :)

Right now I'd like to simply point out that, even among Thunderbolts Forum members, there is some confusion and misunderstanding about what a "current" is, in something like the interplanetary medium. For example, charges - mostly electrons and protons - most definitely do move (from our perspective, here on the surface of the Earth); we call such moving charges the solar wind. However, that movement does not, necessarily, constitute an electric current. Now in case what I just wrote causes some misunderstanding, I hasten to add that members such as Siggy_G, jjohnson, webolife, and David Talbott do understand - and understand well - the distinction between bulk motion of a plasma and an electric current.

Similarly, I think there is much scope for confusion and ambiguity in the term "plasma current". Think of the Gulf Stream ... it's a current, i.e. bulk motion of water; by analogy, a "plasma current" may be thought of as bulk motion of a plasma. However, webolife clearly intends the term to refer to electric (or electrical - what's the difference?) current.

David Talbott
Site Admin
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: NASA and Government Discuss EU

Post by David Talbott » Thu Jan 06, 2011 12:40 pm

Nereid, your comfortable posture in this last post is nice to see. For me it confirms that this discussion has the potential to become increasingly productive. Numerous folks tracking the Forum must already sense the breadth of knowledge you possess. We have an opportunity here to clarify the strengths and weaknesses of the EU hypothesis through patient comparisons of two vantage points, weighing the predictive power of two positions from the ground up. We can also help readers assess fundamental issues as to model formulation and the constructive time and place for mathematics.

I would hope that all readers understand your point about the solar wind. We confuse the concept of plasma in motion if we call it a current. A mechanically driven plasma can generate electricity, even though an electric field would not be the driving force behind the motion. To be an electric current a net movement of electrons will occur within a defined region. If a drift current is involved across the heliosphere, there must be some aggregate movement of electrons occurring under the influence of an electric field. But in the case of the Sun, can we detect this field amidst the turbulence of the Sun's extended plasma environment?

Given the nearly infinitesimal electric field at planetary distances from the Sun, we are required to ask how and where that field would most likely be measurable. The EU model requires a measurable field close to the Sun across a plasma double layer. It's possible, perhaps even likely, that the field has already been detected and measured, but confused with the electric fields generated by local plasma turbulence. The research that is called for here would explicitly identify the tests for distinguishing turbulence-induced currents from a larger current flow that could not be the result of local turbulence.

Thanks for the constructive contribution.

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: NASA and Government Discuss EU

Post by GaryN » Thu Jan 06, 2011 2:21 pm

Thanks, Mike. Between you and me, we probably have covered 85% of the computers in use here, although no one's commented yet on someone running Linux, or a Cromemco on C/PM with a z80 chip
∑ ∰ ∛ ⊂ ≪ ≫ A∙B

∆ ∫ ∮ ⋍ √ ≈ Ω

Looks good on Ubuntu(Linux) using the Opera or Firefox browser.
My TRS80 runs a z80, don't think I'll bother testing it out though. :-)
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

jjohnson
Posts: 1147
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
Location: Thurston County WA

Re: NASA and Government Discuss EU

Post by jjohnson » Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:54 pm

Thanks, everyone who's commented on the symbology from a variety of platforms and OS's. It seems likely that calling up text and symbols in different fonts may be sufficient for posting simple equations here, when relevant. There are obvious limitations with HTML and its variants, so go easy or else link to, say, a supporting paper or reference which can put up typeset equations.

Jim

User avatar
webolife
Posts: 2539
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: NASA and Government Discuss EU

Post by webolife » Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:48 pm

What David T said...
But to clarify, Nereid, I am urging a that distinction be made between birkeland currents and wired electric current, and am continually bothered by statements like, "moving charge is by definition an electric current", and similar references, some in the books/articles, some in the TPODs, some in thread posts... this is a topic that seems to need its own thread...
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests