When Physicists DON'T Focus Their Lives On DM

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.
BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

When Physicists DON'T Focus Their Lives On DM

Unread post by BeAChooser » Thu Dec 15, 2022 4:05 am

It’s a shame that so many mainstream physicists have focused on studying dark matter rather than electromagnetic effects on plasma. One can only wonder what amazing inventions have gone undiscovered as a result. Fortunately, a few (rare) plasma physicists are still out there, experimenting.

https://thedebrief.org/plasma-propulsio ... oration/on
The helicon double-layer thruster (HDLT) is a prototype plasma thruster propulsion system that works by injecting gas into an open-ended source tube, where radio frequency AC power produced by an antenna surrounding it electromagnetically ionizes the gas. Within this highly charged plasma, a low-frequency electromagnetic helicon wave is excited by the antenna’s electromagnetic field, further heating the plasma.

… snip …

The HDLT, which was originally based on technologies developed by Rod W. Boswell, also one of the paper’s co-authors, employs a combination of an accelerating electric field and a lack of any need for a neutralizer. These make its use advantageous as a means of plasma propulsion, although there are still issues that could limit how soon the HDLT might be implemented in actual spaceflight systems.
Wikipedia says this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicon_d ... r_thruster ):
A helicon double-layer thruster (HDLT) is a type of plasma thruster, which ejects high velocity ionized gas to provide thrust to a spacecraft. In this thruster design, gas is injected into a tubular chamber (the source tube) with one open end. Radio frequency AC power (at 13.56 MHz in the prototype design) is coupled into a specially shaped antenna wrapped around the chamber. The electromagnetic wave emitted by the antenna causes the gas to break down and form a plasma. The antenna then excites a helicon wave in the plasma, which further heats the plasma.

The device has a roughly constant magnetic field in the source tube (supplied by solenoids in the prototype), but the magnetic field diverges and rapidly decreases in magnitude away from the source region, and might be thought of as a kind of magnetic nozzle. In operation, there is a sharp boundary between the high density plasma inside the source region, and the low density plasma in the exhaust, which is associated with a sharp change in electrical potential. The plasma properties change rapidly across this boundary, which is known as a current-free electric double layer. The electrical potential is much higher inside the source region than in the exhaust, and this serves both to confine most of the electrons, and to accelerate the ions away from the source region. Enough electrons escape the source region to ensure that the plasma in the exhaust is neutral overall. Like most ion propulsion devices, the HDLT is a low thrust, high specific impulse (Isp) thruster.

A prototype 15 cm diameter thruster, operated in low-magnetic field mode, underwent initial thrust testing in 2010, however, a more complete testing method would be necessary to properly calculate the total thrust. Currently, the final thruster prototype is undergoing tests at the space simulation facility dubbed "Wombat XL" located at the Australian National University (ANU) Mount Stromlo Observatory.

The HDLT has two main advantages over most other ion thruster designs; first, it creates an accelerating electric field without inserting unreliable components like high voltage grids into the plasma (the only plasma-facing component is the robust plasma vessel). Secondly, a neutralizer is not needed, since there are equal numbers of electrons and (singly charged) positive ions emitted. So, with neither moving mechanical parts nor susceptibility to erosion, Dr Charles explains, 'As long as you provide the power and the propellant you can go forever.'
Oh my goodness. Double Layers!

Here's a good article on it by the inventors ...

And some pictures of what might result ...

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/St ... -in-an.png

https://www.assemblymag.com/ext/resourc ... 14AIA6.jpg

Now I bet the budget for this development was pitiful compared to what's spent on mainstream gnomes. Actually, I suspect this discovery only happened because Rod Boswell (the inventor) is an old school plasma physicist (i.e., got his education back in the 60s and 70s, before the Dark Matter gnomers took over the universities) and Professor Christine Charles (co-inventor and primary researcher, apparently) was his colleague and thus not under their influence.

What led to my interest is this recent paper by the inventors on it …

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101032.htm
Can plasma instability in fact be the savior for magnetic nozzle plasma thrusters

Date: December 7, 2022

Summary: Magnetic nozzle plasma thrusters are thought of as the future of space travel. But one problem has hampered their development -- plasma detachment. A recent study has shown that spontaneously excited plasma waves help magnetic nozzles overcome the plasma detachment problem, a rare instance of plasma instabilities having a positive effect on engineering.

A research group has demonstrated that spontaneously excited plasma waves may be the solution to a long-associated problem with magnetic nozzle plasma thrusters, turning conventional thinking on its head.
So, once again, as in controlled fusion efforts, the solution may be to take advantage of plasma instabilities, rather than try to fight them … sort of like the universe at large evolved to do long ago. Eh? ;)

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: When Physicists DON'T Focus Their Lives On DM

Unread post by jackokie » Fri Dec 16, 2022 6:19 am

This is a great find, @BAC. Interesting that these folks are doing applied or engineering physics, with real-world benefits. Obviously the black sheep of the physics community.
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

mcfc16
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:52 pm

Re: When Physicists DON'T Focus Their Lives On DM

Unread post by mcfc16 » Sat Dec 17, 2022 10:30 pm

BeAChooser wrote: Thu Dec 15, 2022 4:05 am It’s a shame that so many mainstream physicists have focused on studying dark matter rather than electromagnetic effects on plasma. One can only wonder what amazing inventions have gone undiscovered as a result. Fortunately, a few (rare) plasma physicists are still out there, experimenting.
Sorry? What has this got to do with the overwhelming evidence for dark matter? And who are these plasma physicists with alternate models? Let's cut the cr@p and jump to the evidence, yes?

How do these PPs, of whom I am one, explain the lensing observations of colliding galaxy clusters? In the peer-reviewed literature? Hasn't happened, has it? Rhetorical.

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: When Physicists DON'T Focus Their Lives On DM

Unread post by jackokie » Sat Dec 17, 2022 10:52 pm

@mcfc16 "Overwhelming evidence for dark matter"? Then where is it? The EU model accounts for the observed rotational velocity of galaxies and a great deal more, like the hexagonal shape of the auroras at the poles of Jupiter and Saturn. Do you think "dark matter" is responsible for that as well? I'm with Richard Feynman's when he says

"The test of all knowledge is experiment." ~ Richard P. Feynman

The material you've posted here, like so much of consensus physics these days, requires misunderstanding the phenomena, with some handwaving tossed in; there is little rigor and no credible experiments, but lots of Appeals to Authority and gatekeeping with peer review. MRx has been dealt with already in this thread. I recommend you watch Dr. Eric Lerner's videos, in the latest of which he demonstrates that the JWST AND the ALMA telescope have shown the Big Bang to be seriously challenged.
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

mcfc16
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:52 pm

Re: When Physicists DON'T Focus Their Lives On DM

Unread post by mcfc16 » Sat Dec 17, 2022 11:02 pm

jackokie wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 10:52 pm @mcfc16 "Overwhelming evidence for dark matter"? Then where is it? The EU model accounts for the observed rotational velocity of galaxies and a great deal more, like the hexagonal shape of the auroras at the poles of Jupiter and Saturn. Do you think "dark matter" is responsible for that as well? I'm with Richard Feynman's when he says

"The test of all knowledge is experiment." ~ Richard P. Feynman

The material you've posted here, like so much of consensus physics these days, requires misunderstanding the phenomena, with some handwaving tossed in; there is little rigor and no credible experiments, but lots of Appeals to Authority and gatekeeping with peer review. MRx has been dealt with already in this thread. I recommend you watch Dr. Eric Lerner's videos, in the latest of which he demonstrates that the JWST AND the ALMA telescope have shown the Big Bang to be seriously challenged.
I told you where it is. The lensing observations of colliding galaxy clusters. Where have your non-physicists dealt with this?
There is little rigor and no credible experiments, but lots of Appeals to Authority and gatekeeping with peer review. MRx has been dealt with already in this thread.
There are plenty of experiments. Lying about it does not make them go away. And nobody has dealt with MR. Nobody here is sufficiently qualified to even understand what it is. Could you PLEASE link to the plasma physicist who is saying MR does not happen?
I recommend you watch Dr. Eric Lerner's videos, in the latest of which he demonstrates that the JWST AND the ALMA telescope have shown the Big Bang to be seriously challenged
Since when did the clown Lerner become a Dr.? Last I saw, he had never got beyond a BSc. I am better qualified in plasma physics.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: When Physicists DON'T Focus Their Lives On DM

Unread post by BeAChooser » Sun Dec 18, 2022 12:18 am

mcfc16 wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 11:02 pm Since when did the clown Lerner become a Dr.? Last I saw, he had never got beyond a BSc. I am better qualified in plasma physics.
Ian w ... is that you?

Cargo
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: When Physicists DON'T Focus Their Lives On DM

Unread post by Cargo » Sun Dec 18, 2022 12:47 am

colliding galaxy clusters
Doctor mcfc16, we have a Red Shift problem. How do you plan to hide it?
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

mcfc16
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:52 pm

Re: When Physicists DON'T Focus Their Lives On DM

Unread post by mcfc16 » Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:12 pm

Cargo wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 12:47 am
colliding galaxy clusters
Doctor mcfc16, we have a Red Shift problem. How do you plan to hide it?
What redshift problem is that? Please be specific.

mcfc16
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:52 pm

Re: When Physicists DON'T Focus Their Lives On DM

Unread post by mcfc16 » Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:13 pm

BeAChooser wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 12:18 am
mcfc16 wrote: Sat Dec 17, 2022 11:02 pm Since when did the clown Lerner become a Dr.? Last I saw, he had never got beyond a BSc. I am better qualified in plasma physics.
Ian w ... is that you?
You didn't answer the question. When did Lerner obtain a PhD? Answer: he didn't.

ForumModerator
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:59 am

Re: When Physicists DON'T Focus Their Lives On DM

Unread post by ForumModerator » Sun Dec 18, 2022 5:08 pm

mcfc16 wrote:When did Lerner obtain a PhD? Answer: he didn't.
We all respect the effort that goes into earning a PhD. However, the Truth does not require, as a prerequisite, any degree or participation in the academic establishment's peer review process.
Do you summarily dismiss and refuse to consider the published material of the Thunderbolts Project on the grounds that the authors do not have the necessary academic credentials and/or peer reviewed papers?

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: When Physicists DON'T Focus Their Lives On DM

Unread post by jackokie » Sun Dec 18, 2022 6:02 pm

@mcfc16 Charles Darwin's degree was a Bachelor of Arts from Christ’s College, Cambridge - nothing to do with biology. So I take it you'll call Darwin a crackpot and join the multitudes who discredit his crackpot theory. :D
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

Cargo
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: When Physicists DON'T Focus Their Lives On DM

Unread post by Cargo » Mon Dec 19, 2022 6:32 am

mcfc16 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:12 pm
Cargo wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 12:47 am
colliding galaxy clusters
Doctor mcfc16, we have a Red Shift problem. How do you plan to hide it?
What redshift problem is that? Please be specific.
The Doctor's solution then is to ignore it because he's unknowingly ignorant I assume. I'll wait until after you discover Seeing Red.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

mcfc16
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:52 pm

Re: When Physicists DON'T Focus Their Lives On DM

Unread post by mcfc16 » Mon Dec 19, 2022 12:38 pm

Cargo wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 6:32 am
mcfc16 wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 2:12 pm
Cargo wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 12:47 am
colliding galaxy clusters
Doctor mcfc16, we have a Red Shift problem. How do you plan to hide it?
What redshift problem is that? Please be specific.
The Doctor's solution then is to ignore it because he's unknowingly ignorant I assume. I'll wait until after you discover Seeing Red.
How can I ignore something that doesn't exist, and that you cannot spell out in scientific terms?

mcfc16
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:52 pm

Re: When Physicists DON'T Focus Their Lives On DM

Unread post by mcfc16 » Mon Dec 19, 2022 1:28 pm

ForumModerator wrote: Sun Dec 18, 2022 5:08 pm
Do you summarily dismiss and refuse to consider the published material of the Thunderbolts Project on the grounds that the authors do not have the necessary academic credentials and/or peer reviewed papers?
No. I dismiss it having looked at it and found it to be scientifically impossible. I do not have time to go through every single erroneous claim that they make, so perhaps you could be specific as to which particular claims you think are most worthy of investigation?

I'll start with the so-called electric sun 'model', as proposed by Juergens (a civil engineer) and further modified by Scott (an electrical engineer).

In this 'model', at least according to Scott, the solar wind is a current solely composed of ions (there are a couple of videos where he makes this silly claim). Well, that is impossible, as I have quoted Alfven as saying, previously;
The correlation of the magnetic storms and aurorae with the solar activity indicates that they are due to some agent emitted from the sun. As this agent causes magnetic and electric disturbances on the earth, it probably consists of charged particles. But, as Schuster has shown, the emission of a sufficient amount of particles, all having the same sign, is impossible because it would give rise to an enormous space charge. This difficulty is avoided if the emitted agent is assumed to consist of the equal amount of positive and negative particles.
Consequently the general nature of the current system during the main phase of a magnetic storm must be somewhat as follows. The stream approaching the earth contains positive and negative charge in equal amounts so that the electric current is zero.
Through the action of the magnetic field of the earth the paths of the positives and of the negatives become differentiated, but until the particles reach the forbidden region, the space charge is always zero because the positives and negatives neutralize each other.
Bolding mine.

And apart from Alfven and Schuster's peer-reviewed explanations of why that is impossible, we have ~ 60 years of in-situ detections of the solar wind which show them to be correct.

Secondly, we have the claim, as modified by Scott, that there are electrons drifting in to power the Sun! Also impossible. Not only are they not detected, and would be*, there is no mechanism by which they can enter the heliosphere. As long as you understand basic plasma physics, that is.

*(Scott's claim, I believe, is that they are travelling at half-rat power, maybe a few cms per second, and therefore will not register on a spacecraft's detectors! He fails to realise that the velocity with which they will hit the detectors includes the velocity of the spacecraft itself. Which is usually not inconsiderable. If they were there, they would be detected.)

The solar wind is a quasi-neutral mixture of ions and electrons, as Alfven explained. It also carries the Sun's magnetic field with it all the way to the heliopause, where it piles up against the ISM field. An electron, or any other charged particle, cannot simply ignore that field and carry on towards the Sun! This is basic EM and plasma physics. Any charged particle, moving at half-rat power, will simply be picked up by the field, and sent back to whence it impossibly came, even if it somehow got past the piled-up field at the heliopause. The only things that you are getting into the heliosphere are neutrals, and charged particles with relativistic energies. Cosmic rays, in other words. We know the flux of them. It isn't enough to power much of anything.

So, right out of the box, Juergens and Scott have made schoolboy level errors in plasma physics that a qualified plasma physicist would not make. And would have pointed out to them had they ever bothered to submit such an impossible 'model' to peer-review.

Scott then further displays his lack of relevant expertise when he tries to explain neutrino detections which, amazingly, he knows must come from fusion! He posits that it occurs on the surface of the Sun and/or in the atmosphere. Of course, any nuclear physicist will tell you that it is neither hot enough nor dense enough for p-p fusion there. And we know, from the neutrino energy spectra, that ~ 99% of them come from the first step in the p-p chain**. I believe Scott and Thornhill claim that the fusion is of 'heavy' elements. Where is the spectra to show this in the neutrino data?
More to the point, such impossible fusion would produce gamma rays at very specific frequencies. Line emission, in other words. It isn't there. On the other hand, it is a good thing that it isn't there. Such gamma rays from ~ 4.5 billion years of constant emission would have left this planet as an uninhabitable rock. We would not have evolved.

Scott further claims that we cannot invoke flavour changing for neutrinos, because we can't measure the neutrinos at both ends of the path to Earth. This is highly unscientific. We have measured flavour changing on Earth.***

** Neutrinos from the primary proton–proton fusion process in the Sun
Borexino Collaboration (2014)
https://collaborate.princeton.edu/en/pu ... -in-the-su (free access)

*** https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34443695

To summarise, Scott and Juergens show a level of ignorance of plasma physics and nuclear physics that would not be shown by those qualified in the relevant fields. This would have been pointed out to them if they had attempted to publish such nonsense in a peer-reviewed journal. My contention is that they knew this very well, and that is why it was never submitted to peer-review.

ForumModerator
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:59 am

Re: When Physicists DON'T Focus Their Lives On DM

Unread post by ForumModerator » Mon Dec 19, 2022 7:43 pm

mcfc16 wrote:Secondly, we have the claim, as modified by Scott, that there are electrons drifting in to power the Sun! Also impossible.
How could you detect the electron drift in the interplanetary medium, if you are not looking for it and are working from the a priori assumption that it cannot exist?
The Interplanetary medium is composed of a tenuous plasma. A cubic meter of this space would qualify as a vacuum by earthly manufacturing standards, but it still contains electrons as well as other particles in motion. The electric sun theory requires that the net flow of electrons be toward the Sun...Scott uses the term "drift." Space probes are not set up to determine if there is an overall electron drift to the Sun. Of course this would be a test of an electric sun theory. But, afaik, no such test has been done.
If it could be conclusively shown that this drift is impossible or does not exist then the theory will have been falsified and it would be time to move on to some other theory to explain the source of solar power.
With regard to the 'drift', your use of the word "Impossible" is simply a biased decree!

we have the claim, as modified by Scott, that there are electrons drifting in to power the Sun! Also impossible. Not only are they not detected, and would be*, there is no mechanism by which they can enter the heliosphere.

Interstellar electrons entering the solar system have been detected by the Voyagers.
NASA wrote:...Voyager has detected a 100-fold increase in the intensity of high-energy electrons from elsewhere in the galaxy diffusing into our solar system from outside...
from: NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge
Perhaps, you should immediately contact NASA and point out to them that there is "no mechanism" to explain their observation, so therefore they must be mistaken.
Perhaps you can troll the comment section on the NASA website.

Scott's electric sun model requires that electrons from interstellar space enter the heliosphere and drift toward the Sun. That does not mean that all electrons in the interplanetary medium are moving toward the Sun. Scott is speaking of a net drift. So in the seemingly chaotic motions of electrons the net motion would be to the Sun. It would require an concerted effort by any space agency to detect this net drift. That has not been done. I am sure that Scott et al would come up with an experimentum crucis to determine the existence of this drift or not; if NASA or other space agency would approach him for a plan.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest