One lab test is worth a thousand "expert" opinions.

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

One lab test is worth a thousand "expert" opinions.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Mar 11, 2019 11:34 pm

https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.04050

Theoretically, several historical models had initially considered the electric current to be an input parameter. For example, “circuit models” for solar flares prescribed the total current I as it is in laboratory experiments (see e.g. Alfvén & Carlqvist 1967; Spicer 1982). More generally, one approach to plasma physics that is often used in the magnetospheric community (and is advocated by e.g. Melrose 1995; Heikkila 1997) is to make every calculation with the equations that use the electric field E and the current densityJas variables. This is the so-called “E;J paradigm”. But both circuit models and the E;J paradigm have been criticized throughout the years (see Parker 1996a,b, 2001). Inthisline,E.N.Parker argued that they should be substituted by the“B;v paradigm”in MHD. In the latter,the current densities J merely result from the generation of a finite curl of themagnetic field B through Ampère’s equation, as a direct result of plasma flows v through the ideal induction equation. So, the current is not a prime variable, since it does not even appear in the governing equations of MHD. For this reason, electric currents have been underlooked for years.


If you read the full paper, you'll see that they continue to "underlook" the role of electric currents. :(

The biggest problem with the mainstream is their severe and palpable fear of taking their theories to the lab and seeing how they work out in real life experiments. Instead they sit around and whip up computer models that put the magnetic cart in front of the electric work horse and they "pretend" that is a valid substitute for real life experiments. If and when the mainstream can ever manages to produce high temperature "magnetic ropes" that stay at high temperatures for hours on end in a real lab experiment, I'll have some real faith in their "computer models". As it stands, I think they're so deathly afraid of laboratory failure that they refuse to even put their beliefs to the test in real life plasma physics experiments in the lab.

The only experiments I've seen to date based on so called "magnetic reconnection" theory either started with an electric field to produce the "ropes" or they lasted a second or two before all the so called "magnetic energy" was dissipated and gone. Never have I seen a real lab experiment on "magnetic reconnection" recreate a high temperature plasma thread and sustain it at high temperatures for hours on end and produced sustained high temperature current sheets.

As the saying goes, one test is worth a thousand expert options. In this case however I think it's more like one laboratory test is worth 8,000 expert opinions and a 1000 computer models.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: One lab test is worth a thousand "expert" opinions.

Unread postby Metryq » Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:09 am

Math is Truth™
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: One lab test is worth a thousand "expert" opinions.

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:28 am

The magnetic field is always caused by a current, and this current
always needs a strong electric field, because the creation of a
magnetic field costs energy.
The problem is that they are using equations in many invalid ways.
So they get magnetic fields from nothing.
Free energy.

All beautiful computer models and calculations are just as valid as Disney's.

All stable plasma-ropes that I have seen are electric currents caused by electric fields.
There are no others.
On reddit I have collected many experiments that show
how magnetism influences electrons and currents.
Here we can see that the electric field always dominates.

If we look at the sun, we can see that the plasma-ropes move from
one dark spot to another. From these observations, it appears to me
that one spot is positively charged, and one negatively charged.
Any strong magnetic field would affect the current and create a
homopolar motor, but we do not see that.
So we have electric field and not much of magnetic field in sunspots..
So from these observations I concluded that the zeeman-effect
in sunspots are mostly caused by stark-effect. They look the same,
but zeeman-effect is related to magnetic fields, stark-effect is
related to electric fields.
The presence of an electric current will surely add some magnetic
fields too, but they are not so dominant as we can see in the
experiments.
Thanks to the experiments of the Safire project, we know
that strong electric fields can exist in plasma. So we should
expect to see strong stark-effects at double-layers and surfaces.

one test is worth a thousand expert options

But we are talking about astronomy here.
I am not considering astronomy a science, instead it is a religion.
If they can't get the first star right, it does not bother to discuss
anything beyond that.

As a solution I am thinking about a computer model of plasma.
One without MHD.
With the equations of Lorentz and Coulomb and Stokes one would
surely get the plasma ropes very quickly, and model much
of the sun's behaviour without much hassle.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: One lab test is worth a thousand "expert" opinions.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:46 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m58-CfVrsN4

Circuit theory can *easily* be shown to produce a *SUSTAINED* full sphere hot solar corona, *sustained* coronal loops, solar flare discharges, polar jets, solar wind, *sustained* planetary aurora, and all the key observations that we see in SDO imagery.

On the other hand, the mainstream *cannot* and *will not* put their computer models to the test in a real laboratory experiment because their models have no correlation to anything in the real world. They're based entirely upon "pseudoscience" as Alfven explained to them *decades* ago.

If they won't trust the guy that they gave the Nobel prize to for developing MHD theory, they'll never believe anyone. Aflven didn't try to use MHD theory to explain *sustained* high temperature events in plasma. He used circuit theory like Birkeland used circuit theory because it actually *works in the lab*!

Solar physicists can't get their models to work in the lab to produce *sustained* high temperatures in plasma. They can only produce an induction process that last for a second or two and fizzles out. That's always going to be the case too. Unless and until they include *sustained circuit energy* in their computer models, their computer models will never work correctly in the lab to produce *sustained* high temperature plasma structures, like *sustained* coronal loops,or *sustained* current sheets.

Astronomers are afraid of the lab because their computer/mathematical models are dismal laboratory failures. They only work in a "sim world', not in the *real world*.
Last edited by Michael Mozina on Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: One lab test is worth a thousand "expert" opinions.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:50 am

Metryq wrote:Math is Truth™


Ya, just like Ptolemy was "truth". :(
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA

Re: One lab test is worth a thousand "expert" opinions.

Unread postby neilwilkes » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:51 am

Michael Mozina wrote:
Metryq wrote:Math is Truth™


Ya, just like Ptolemy was "truth". :(


I think the superscript TM shows this remark is meant ironically?
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: One lab test is worth a thousand "expert" opinions.

Unread postby Michael Mozina » Mon Mar 18, 2019 8:00 am

neilwilkes wrote:
Michael Mozina wrote:
Metryq wrote:Math is Truth™


Ya, just like Ptolemy was "truth". :(


I think the superscript TM shows this remark is meant ironically?


I assumed that was the intent. :)

The biggest problem in astronomy is that astronomers place *far* too much emphasis on mathematical models, and far too little emphasis on empirical cause/effect justification in the lab. Ptolemy was one of those instances where the math worked out ok, but the model itself was utterly wrong, and therefore the math was simply misleading. That's the same problem today with the LCDM model. It may work out on paper relatively (not totally) well, but the physics is simply atrocious. It's far more likely for instance that photons simply transfer some of their momentum to the spacetime medium and all energy is preserved rather than photon redshift being caused by three different metaphysical constructs and the process violates the conservation of energy laws. A recent study shows that photons can even interact with themselves:

http://atlas.cern/updates/physics-brief ... ring-light
Michael Mozina
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:35 am
Location: Mt. Shasta, CA


Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron