Argument for Electrodynamics in Cosmology...

[MGmirkin]

A new article just recently came up on the front page of Now Public.

(An Argument for the Consideration of Electrodynamics in Cosmology [Opinion])
http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/argum ... gy-opinion
http://digg.com/space/Argument_for_Elec ... gy_Opinion

It just happens to be by yours truly. Needed to get a few things off my chest. Apparently my fans agreed that it was a very worthwhile article. We'll see how long it stay up there...

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[junglelord]

Congradulations. Your ability to take this complex issues and make them readable and enjoyable and powerful is a unique gift. I am very proud of your work.

[MGmirkin]

Congratulations. Your ability to take these complex issues and make them readable and enjoyable and powerful is a unique gift. I am very proud of your work.

Thanks, man.

Appreciate it! I do my best. This one came out of an accidental trip over to the Physics Forums, which led to my feeling I needed to respond emphatically. I'd been meaning to run down the issue previously, but somehow in responding on PhysicsForums, the issue kind of gelled in my mind. I mean, it really comes down to the definition of a magnetic field. at least 3-4 independent moderately to very reliable sites all say he same thing:

Electric fields are to concentrated more-or-less stationary charges as magnetic fields are to electric currents (moving charged particles).

Electric fields are more or less in the realm of electrostatics (charged bodies and voltages) whereas magnetic fields derive from electrodynamics (moving bodies and currents).

The fact that astronomers seem to have no understanding of this seems to be the root of their astronomical ills. IE, they recognize magnetic fields, 'cause they're easy to detect. But they fail to trace magnetic fields back to the required source currents.

Part of the problem is the idea of "frozen-in field lines" and/or magnetic reconnection, which seem to try to erroneously give primacy to the magnetic fields themselves. But that seems to be an erroneous course of action according to Hannes Alfvén and Don Scott (and Wal Thornhill, of course; I just mention the other two 'cause there are easily available peer-reviewed papers for both of them, and that makes it convenient). Both Alfvén and Scott are of the opinion than an electrical solution is more appropriate and more technically correct.

Once "reconnection" and "frozen-in field lines" are finally discarded, we get back to the actual solution (since it's the only one left): electric currents (electrodynamics).

It's bloody simple, once one frames the debate correctly. My opinion, of course.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[junglelord]

Yes it is very elementary in fact. The opposition it normally receives is not logical, scientific, or educated.


Your quite right, we are talking BASICS. Their inability to know that, to understand that, to accept that, to incorporate that, well, its downright amazing.


The classical mess is so confusing, that with so much specilization going down, people in general know a whole lot about nothing....I believe Mead said that, but it might have been Feynman. There appears to be several factors involved.


I mentioned this fact to Dave Smith today. I will keep them to myself due to a (cough) "need to know basis"...


Our job is to point out glaring mistakes and obvious observations, no matter what it reveals, dispite "need to know basis".

This is in my view why so much that is on this forum is not mainstream. Its all very accurate and probably domain of "need to know". They would surpress the public's awareness if this was truly the case. I wonder how many toes we might step on?


Glad we are making headway into the public consciousness. Great effort and great results.

[MGmirkin]

Glad we are making headway into the public consciousness. Great effort and great results.

It seems the debunker(s) don't like where this is leading. Seem to have acquired a nay-sayer who's a bit all over the place (going in several directions). I've simplified the argument for him.

A "scientific" opinion has to be based on scientific facts, and not on the amateurish interpretation of their esoteric arrangement.

To be clear:
The "scientific fact," as referenced by at least four independent sites, is that magnetic fields are derived from electric currents. Period. If magnetic fields are considered to be of paramount importance to understanding the cosmos, then an understanding of the genesis of magnetic fields is also of paramount importance.

That is the basis and premise of the article. Subsidiary discussions (of plasma cosmology, failures of the big bang, etc.) are of secondary or tertiary importance (simply serving as illustrations), so long as that relationship between magnetic fields and electric currents is recognized.

As an aside, I do not abide the use of veiled ad hominems nor bulverism in what you allege to be a scientific discussion. If you've a point to make, please leave unsavory personal remarks, such as calling things "amateurish," out of the discussion. It's completely unnecessary.

Again, regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

Best to keep things on topic. The article isn't about promoting EU / PC, but in recognition that electric currents underlie the magnetic fields so ubiquitous throughout the cosmos, according to scientific definition.

Granted, a recognition of electricity in the cosmos would certainly have particular implications for the genesis, structure and current functioning of the cosmos. But I suppose that's part of the point too.

Which cosmological position holds the stronger argument, should that recognition hit astronomers, is certainly up for debate by the experts...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[StevenO]

Hi Micheal,

Congratulations on your courage! You know that the thruth is no match for belief, so I hope you don't expect any rewards...
Still, giving the right people some idea in the back of their mind might one day inspire them to put it forward at the right opportunity. (If it saves them from another embarresment ).

I wrote:
To be clear:
The "scientific fact," as referenced by at least four independent sites, is that magnetic fields are derived from electric currents. Period. If magnetic fields are considered to be of paramount importance to understanding the cosmos, then an understanding of the genesis of magnetic fields is also of paramount importance.

The scientific facts are that we know electric fields and magnetic fields. The movement of electric charge in matter induces magnetic fields in matter and vice-versa, that is what is expressed by the Maxwell equations. In open space with very little matter magnetic fields and electric fields can expected to be only loosely coupled and I would expect electrostatics to be the main driving force, except close to matter. Point is that there is even more misconceptions about electrostatics than about electromagnetics. (How to explain lighting for instance?) So I expect the road ahead still to be long...

[StefanR]

This is a small sample from the superconducting -thread:

Magnetic fields are everywhere. They arise from the beating of a human heart and the fiery motion of the Earth's molten core. They issue from creatures large and small, and every star and planet in the heavens. Anywhere there is an electrical current flowing, there is a magnetic field surrounding it. Measuring the magnitude of a magnetic field or detecting unusual fluctuations can yield a wealth of valuable, even life-saving, revelations -- irregularities in the heartbeat of an unborn child; flaws within the steel supports of a highway overpass or bridge; the migration patterns of bacteria and microbes through the environment; faults in the crust of the earth, deep below the planet's surface; possibly even the identity of the invisible "dark" matter that seems to comprise the bulk of our universe.

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Res ... index.html

If these debunkers like "authority" here's some extra ammo. I suppose

John Clarke, a physicist in Berkeley Lab's Materials Sciences Division and a professor in the Physics Department on the University of California's Berkeley

knows what he is talking about??

[MGmirkin]

The scientific facts are that we know electric fields and magnetic fields. The movement of electric charge in matter induces magnetic fields in matter and vice-versa, that is what is expressed by the Maxwell equations. In open space with very little matter magnetic fields and electric fields can expected to be only loosely coupled and I would expect electrostatics to be the main driving force, except close to matter. Point is that there is even more misconceptions about electrostatics than about electromagnetics. (How to explain lighting for instance?) So I expect the road ahead still to be long...

Keeping in minds that, if I've read correctly, electrostatics has to do with more-or-less stationary charges and electric fields. IE charges on separate bodies set up a voltage potential. The bodies are more or less at rest (the "static" part) with respect to each other. On the other hand, electrodynamics has to do with charges in motion (electric currents, generally). IE, when the voltage potential becomes so great that charges begin to move in order to equalize or balance the charges. That motion of charged particles (generally in a circuit) then falls under the purview of electrodynamics (the study of charges in motion).

For example, your question about lightning. Overly simplistically, the starting situation has to do with electrostatics. You have a cloud deck with a specific charge at it base, and you have the Earth as the opposite plate of the discharge with an opposing charge. Between them you have a voltage potential (I'm still learning, so I'm hoping I'm describing this correctly)... If the voltage potential gets high enough, the insulating medium (air) begins to electrically break down. Charges begin moving (we transition from electrostatics to electrodynamics). One charge moves one way (from the base of the clouds downward) and the opposite charge moves the other way (from the ground to the clouds). These are the "stepped leaders" and "positive streamers" (if I recall correctly). Once a stepped leader from the clouds connects up with a streamer from the ground, a circuit is established, and the ground discharges heavily back up the channel. Lots of charge is transferred very quickly, large magnetic fields are generated. Essentially an EM pulse. Hence why every time the lightning struck during the lightning storm here a couple days ago, the TV reception would cut out for several seconds before returning. Lots of EM noise going on.

Anyway. Again, ti's the massive flow of charged particles (electrodynamics) that generates the magnetic fields. Electric fields exist regardless. Magnetic fields are only generated when charges flow. As such, I'd say that your pointer above to electrostatics may be in error with respect to the cosmos. I think that, indeed, electrodynamics (moving charges) is the only way to go in dealing with magnetic fields in the cosmos. Magnetic fields only come from the motion of charged particles, not simply stationary charge on disparate objects. That will play a role too, of course. But the only way to deal with magnetic fields is to deal with the flowing charged particles (net flows of like-charged stuff in the same direction, more-or-less). The bigger the flow of charged particles, the stronger the generated magnetic fields will be.

So, charges may well be separated and attached to objects. But only when the charges get moving, do the magnetic fields arise. That's my reading of the definitions thus far. Hope that clears things up.

Good lord, I sort of sounded smart there for a few minutes. How'd that happen? Dang, I guess if you read enough, it starts to sink in. Cool!

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[junglelord]

APM is the only model I know of that clarifies and explains both charges.
http://www.16pi2.com/two_types_of_charges.htm

Orders of complexity would reveal a little concept....4 DNA base pairs, 3 subatomic units, 2 fundamental charges, 1 Gforce.
As we go lower in complexity and get smaller, the number of "fundamental items" reduce.

Like I have started to message out, the strong nuclear force is an expression of EM charge. The weak force is a relationship between both charges, ES & EM. This gives us a three force model, two charges and gravity.

15. What replaces the gluons in APM?
Answer Page 39
According to the standard model gluons carry the strong force in quarks, and pions carry the strong force in nuclei. In APM, the strong force carries by strong charge. Strong charge is related to elementary charge, but it has a different geometry, spin and magnitude. Strong charge notates as e emax for the electron, e pmax for the proton, and e nmax for the neutron. But as in the case of elementary charge, Strong charge is always distributed. So for example, electron strong charge would notate as e emax^2

16. What is the weak interaction in APM?
Answer. Page 39
The weak interaction is the proportion of the elementary charge to the strong charge. The weak interaction is equal to 8pi times the fine structure of the onn. The relationship of the elementary charge, strong charge, and weak interaction for each onn appears as follows where * (alpha), p, n are the fine structures of the electron, proton and neutron respectively.
Electron onn = e^2/e emax^2 = 8pi *
Proton onn = e^2/e pmax^2 = 8pi p
Neutron onn = e^2/e nmax^2 = 8pi n

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... ?f=8&t=506

Proper dimensional analysis and proper definitions of "measurement", "unit", "constant", "dimension" are critical to get away from the mix and match of the classical mess.

4 of the 5 dimensions of APM are measurments in the MKS SYSTEM

The quantum level, has five dimensions, length, frequency, mass, charge, spherical geometry. Dimensions increase in complexity as the orders of reality become more complex. The key to understanding the quantum level of existence lies in more precise and simple definitions of the terms “dimension”, “measurement” and “unit”. There are four fundamental dimensions in the MKS system of measurement: mass, charge, length and frequency. This very example of mismatching terms shows the classical mess of modern theory.

It is from the fundamental dimensions that units are constructed. The unit of area is equel to length dimension squared. The unit of volume is equal to length dimension cube. A unit of volume therefore has three dimensions of length.

Lq^3 = volm

However, there are also three dimensions in a unit of momentum. Mass times length times frequency.
m(e) X Lq X Fq = momt

So it is more accurate to call “3-D” objects Volumetric than three dimensional. Technically, an object with three dimensions of length, is three dimensional, but three dimensions need not mean three dimensions of length.

Secrets of the Aether/page 93
Dave Thompson