2010-12-10, 11:01 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by sol invictus Open any plasma physics textbook, or type it in to google, and you'll get a correct definition. I've already addressed the issue of "debye length" and explained why it is moot here.
2010-12-10, 11:02 D'rok	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Both good questions. You mean you don't know either answer?
2010-12-10, 11:06 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by tusenfem Wrong, the Debye length does not "shield current" it shows over which length a charge in a plasma still has an electrostatic effect. You can't even get your definitions correct. Right, over which length the current "shields" itself by accumulation of positive ions around it. This is not complicated stuff. I'd go into more detail here to help you understand "debye length", but it appears you already understand it from the passage above. Why do you keep insisting it's wrong if you keep providing support that it is right? Your definition up there matches mine precisely. woo Originally Posted by tusenfem Too bad that you don't understand that these double layers that he is talking about are current carrying double layers, and can only exist by the grace of these currents. um...again you agree with me and then tell me I'm wrong? Which is it, am I right or am I wrong? Originally Posted by tusenfem e.g. magneto-acoustic double layers. For somebody unfamiliar with plasmas, there's a tendency to refer to them in familiar terms, like "acoustic". This is a class of properties that has no relevance in terms of plasma, plasmas don't obey the same rules as ostensibly "neutral" reality, such as the thin lithosphere-atmosphere boundary layer where all known life exists.
2010-12-10, 11:08 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by D'rok You mean you don't know either answer? I absolutely do not know the mass of the sun or any good method to derive it. Samples might be helpful. Or we could just assume a mass based on its volume and assume that the entire volume is calcium-rich and iron-rick rock like at the surface. There are problems with this, though. Stars form in z pinches. Z pinches are known to separate matter by species according to their electrical properties, so the interior of the sun is most likely concentric shells of sorted matter, just like the interior of the Earth seems to be. In any case the sun's mass is not relevant to electric star models. Electric star models aren't bound by the constraint of every star undergoing spontaneous fusion, so there is no minimum mass requirement, no exotic and unproven behaviors to limit. In other words, mass is a serious issue for stellar fusionists, because their models rely on a strictly ordered set of masses to produce stars. The electric star model imposes no such artificial constraints on the study of stars.
2010-12-10, 11:12 D'rok	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann I absolutely do not know the mass of the sun or any good method to derive it. Samples might be helpful. Or we could just assume a mass based on its volume and assume that .the entire volume is calcium-rich and iron-rick rock like at the surface There are problems with this, though. Stars form in z pinches. Z pinches are known to separate matter by species according to their electrical properties, so t,rhe interior of the sun is most likely concentric shells of sorted matte just like the interior of the Earth seems to be.
2010-12-10, 11:13 Ziggurat	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Plasmas indeed ignore gravity, as they are affected many orders of magnitude more strongly by electromagnetic forces. Gravity is mooted. And what do you think happens to a plasma in a gravitational field if there is no electric or magnetic field?
2010-12-10, 11:13 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Reality Check Perrat's debunked model. Which model of Peratt's are you claiming is "bunk"?
2010-12-10, 11:15 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Ziggurat And what do you think happens to a plasma in a gravitational field if there is no electric or magnetic field? The nature of plasmas precludes this circumstance. This is like asking what do you think happens to an ice cube when you remove it from a blast furnace. An ice cube would never form in a blast furnace.
2010-12-10, 11:20 dasmiller	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann The nature of plasmas precludes this circumstance. This is like asking what do you think happens to an ice cube when you remove it from a blast furnace. An ice cube would never form in a blast furnace. So, are man-made satellites formed by Z-pinches? Do they have some large static charge that we don't know about?
2010-12-10, 11:22 ben m	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann I absolutely do not know the mass of the sun or any good method to derive it. Samples might be helpful. Or we could just assume a mass based on its volume and assume that the entire volume is calcium-rich and iron-rick rock like at the surface. Or we could determine the law of gravity using Cavendish-like experiments, learn that gravity generates a force F=gmM/r^2 where M is the Earth's mass, then measure F and r. Then you do the same thing for the Sun. If you're concerned that "we can't measure forces near the Sun because of possible EM effects", then ... well, do the measurement on a neutral test mass inside a Faraday cage. The "possible EM effects" will go away and the gravitational force will remain. Do you agree? Do you want to see the results of measurements of the Sun's gravitational force on an EM-shielded neutral object? 'Cause that's a really good way of measuring the gravitational mass of the Sun.
2010-12-10, 11:24 Ziggurat	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann The nature of plasmas precludes this circumstance. No it doesn't. A plasma can be neutral. And even if the plasma itself isn't neutral, its center of mass motion won't depend on any internal fields, and nothing about a plasma can change what external fields you apply. Quote: This is like asking what do you think happens to an ice cube when you remove it from a blast furnace. An ice cube would never form in a blast furnace. Except that you can form plasmas in the absence of electric fields. All you need is high temperatures.
2010-12-10, 11:36 W.D.Clinger	Originally Posted by Tubbythin They don't need to pick who to believe. They can do the calculations for themselves. They can, for example, calculate the ratio of gravitational to electrostatic forces on a proton from a star of charge 1e. They will find that the gravitational force is something like 20 orders of magnitudes stronger than the electrostatic one. Something like, indeed. It's closer to 21 orders of magnitude, though. Originally Posted by Arthur Mann False. Your denial of a straightforward calculation that anyone can duplicate seems pointless. It just confirms the phenomenon noted by sol invictus without answering his question. Originally Posted by Ziggurat The calculation is rather easy to perform. So why don't you do it and show us all Tubbythin is wrong? Or if you can't, we could do it for you. Just say the word. When he says the word, we should all post our independent calculations so he can see they were computed independently. Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Plasmas indeed ignore gravity, as they are affected many orders of magnitude more strongly by electromagnetic forces. Gravity is mooted. Our calculations, involving nothing more than freshman-level Physics 101 (Newtonian mechanics) and 102 (electromagnetism), say otherwise. By the way, I'm not implying that everyone here understands this stuff at the freshman level. Originally Posted by sol invictus Why is it that "electric universe" proponents never know anything at all about basic electrodynamics? The research necessary to answer that question may be forbidden by our membership agreement.
2010-12-10, 11:47 sol invictus	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann The sun and all the planets are charged bodies able to interact electrically, therefore gravity is mooted, attempts to derive the masses of planets using gravity models and the observed orbits can not succeed except by accident. I particularly like this quote ("accident"). It's a perfect example of Poe's law. Around 400 years ago, when people like Galileo, Kepler, Brahe, and Newton combined to show how the orbits of the planets could be understood quantitatively (using Newton's laws of gravity and motion), it sparked the Enlightenment, the single greatest revolution in the recorded history of human thought. All because they got lucky, apparently.... so it's back to the dark ages for all of us!!
2010-12-10, 11:48 dasmiller	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Something like, indeed. It's closer to 21 orders of magnitude, though. Of course the answer depends strongly (linearly) on the mass of the star. But when I plug in a 1-solar-mass star, I get 9.8E20, so I'm guessing that's what you used, too. But then, we haven't taken into account the compelling refutation of our approach and results: Originally Posted by Arthur Mann False.
2010-12-10, 11:54 tusenfem	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Right, over which length the current "shields" itself by accumulation of positive ions around it. This is not complicated stuff. I'd go into more detail here to help you understand "debye length", but it appears you already understand it from the passage above. Why do you keep insisting it's wrong if you keep providing support that it is right? Your definition up there matches mine precisely. woo No, the current cannot be shielded as it creates a magnetic field and thus the effect of a current remains. Why would a current collect positive charge around itself? Do you think that currents are ony carried by electrons? You way off then, check the diamagnetic current in a plasma. Both electrons and protons are current carriers in a plasma, though sometimes in approximations of plasma phyisics, the ions are considered a non-moving neutralizing background. So, just like MM does not understand plasmas (insisting that current carrying plasmas cannot be neutral) you don't understand plasmas either (claiming that Debye screening is working on currents). For an EU proponent you have to learn more of basic electrodynamics and plasma physics. Originally Posted by Arthur Mann um...again you agree with me and then tell me I'm wrong? Which is it, am I right or am I wrong? The fact that you claim that Debye screening "hides currents" is ridiculous. However, I recognize that this comes from your perception that a current is a stream of negative charges, which is obviously wrong. You also seem to claim that the existence of double layers proves Debye screening wrong, but that is incorrect. A current carrying double layer is created by an instability (e.g. the non-linear development of the Buneman instability) and the reason why the DL is there is because when the current increases the particle's thermal energy is no longer enough to sustain the current density, and thus an electric field in the DL is created to accelerate the particles and sustain the current density. The DL is there because through the current the plasma is forced to create a large scale charge separation, which in general is unnatural for a regular homogeneous plasma. Originally Posted by Arthur Mann For somebody unfamiliar with plasmas, there's a tendency to refer to them in familiar terms, like "acoustic". This is a class of properties that has no relevance in terms of plasma, plasmas don't obey the same rules as ostensibly "neutral" reality, such as the thin lithosphere-atmosphere boundary layer where all known life exists. Ohhhh I guess you do not know the theory developed by a certain Alfvén (I think he got the Nobel prize for it) where the plasma is described as a fluid, it is called magnetohydrodynamics (short MHD). Interestingly, a plasma behaves very much as a fluid (or a gas, but the two are basically the same) and thus there can be sound waves, there can be combinations such as magnetoacoustic waves. Let's see in Alfvén & Fälthammar "Cosmical Electrodynamics" on page 76 the magneto-acoustic waves are discussed: Originally Posted by A&F As a consequence there exist compression waves—magneto-sonic waves or magneto-acoustic waves—that can propagate across the magnetic field by means of the combined action of the hydrostatic and magnetic pressures . or if we would look at Peratt "Physics of the Plasma Universe" (discussing a.o. double layers) we find: Originally Posted by Peratt Page 176: The BGK solutions include double layers, electrostatic shocks, ion-acoustic solitons, and nonlinear wave trains of any potential form. age 188: the oblique magnetized DL will drift at velocities up to the ion acoustic speed. So, you may think your very clever, and may think that I am just a deluded sheep in the flock of mainstream plasma physicist, but are you really going to say that Alfvén, Fälthammar and Peratt are talking nonsense in their books? Well that would be the EU shocker of the week.
2010-12-10, 12:25 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann False. Oh really, so at 1 mm, 1 m, 1 km, 100,000 km, 109, etc... the EM force is as strong as the gravitational force? Really?
2010-12-10, 12:28 W.D.Clinger	Originally Posted by dasmiller Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Something like, indeed. It's closer to 21 orders of magnitude, though. Of course the answer depends strongly (linearly) on the mass of the star. But when I plug in a 1-solar-mass star, I get 9.8E20, so I'm guessing that's what you used, too. You got me there. It is, after all, my favorite star of all time. I actually got 9.6e20, which is close enough for our calculations to confirm each other but distant enough to demonstrate that the calculations were independent: Code: (begin (define G 6.674e-11) ; m^3/kg/s^2 (gravitational constant) (define m1 1.98892e30) ; kg (mass of sun) (define m2 1.672621637e-27) ; kg (mass of proton) (define r 1.5e10) ; m (approximately 1 AU) ; Newton's law (define Fg (/ (* G m1 m2) (* r r))) ; N = kg m / s^2 (define k_e 8.987551787e9) ; N m^2 / C^2 (Coulomb force constant) (define q1 1.602176487e-19) ; C (charge of proton) (define q2 q1) ; C (charge of star assumed 1e) ; Coulomb's law (define Fe (/ (* k_e q1 q2) (* r r))) ; N (/ Fg Fe)) 9.623634361270242e20 Originally Posted by dasmiller But then, we haven't taken into account the compelling refutation of our approach and results: Originally Posted by Arthur Mann False.
2010-12-10, 12:35 dasmiller	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger You got me there. It is, after all, my favorite star of all time. I actually got 9.6e20, which is close enough for our calculations to confirm each other but distant enough to demonstrate that the calculations were independent: Ah, you were using more digits than I. In particular, I was using a proton mass of 1.7E-27 kg, which explains the bulk of the difference. I pay a little extra for the larger protons, but I think it's worth it
2010-12-10, 12:38 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Citation for what? Source for what? Paper or journal containing what? If you need my help to do even the most basic research such as where a famous person works or what their occupation is, I'm afraid you're going to fail, because I'm not going to help you. Citataion for that being a quote from Perrat? Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Originally Posted by Tubbythin If he said that then he's wrong. He did say it, and he has decades of researching plasmas in the lab to back it up. I think I'll let the readers decide who they think is wrong. Peratt, a respected physicist of Los Alamos National Laboratory, or you, an anonymous BBS poster. Originally Posted by Tubbythin Please provide a direct quote. Gladly: Originally Posted by Anthony L. Peratt, plasma physicist If the dominant form of matter [he means plasmas, which he calls the dominant, fundamental state of matter] were subject to the electromagnetic force as well as to the force of gravity, gravity would be swamped by the more compelling pulls and tugs of electromagnetism. [/ So far it is apparent you don't understand the theories that you claim to support. So look in Perrats paper, what value does he use for the EM force in the model, does it bear any relationship to reality?
2010-12-10, 12:43 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann False. False. That's readily explained. It's because you're beginning with assumption and ignoring any evidence that falsifies those assumptions. It matches reality, of course. Then we can discuss it, what was the value of the EM field that Perrat used and what is the interstellar field? His is much larger than the actual measured one.
2010-12-10, 12:45 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann No, you misunderstand it. It's the distance at which a plasma discharge (such as a birkeland current) can hide itself from remote observation by "shielding" itself with positive ions. It's a local effect, beyond which it doesn't apply, so at vast distances (such as those between stars) it is moot. You'd know this if you actually learned what the term meant. Then it is not a plasma effect and no you are wrong.
2010-12-10, 12:49 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann I'm sorry, which model was that again? Well lets see teh first one is about Cygnus A which has a much high field strength than our galaxy.
2010-12-10, 12:51 Dancing David	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Science requires observation, but it also requires experiment. If you have observation without experiment, you fail, you are not doing science. Apparently you don't understand reality either, I shall lurk and watch you lie about physics as well. No observation no science. Falsifiability is the only key.
2010-12-10, 14:08 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann Plasmas indeed ignore gravity, as they are affected many orders of magnitude more strongly by electromagnetic forces. Gravity is mooted. This is one of the fundamental properties of matter. Tell me, what experiments have you performed to verify plasmas are not so unaffected by gravity? What experiments have you performed that demonstrate electromagnetic forces do not dominate? I've measured the gravitational constant G. For example. Now, are you familiar with Coulomb's law? Are you familiar with Newton's law of gravity? They're all you need to show that you are wrong.
2010-12-10, 14:11 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann See above where I prove mathematically that laboratory experiments of solar flares scale very nicely with the observed phenomenon. You clearly didn't since you gave no evidence whatsoever why the scaling factor should be linear. None. And they clearly weren't lab experiments of solar flares either.
2010-12-10, 14:14 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann I absolutely do not know the mass of the sun or any good method to derive it. Samples might be helpful. Or we could just assume a mass based on its volume and assume that the entire volume is calcium-rich and iron-rick rock like at the surface. There are problems with this, though. Stars form in z pinches. Z pinches are known to separate matter by species according to their electrical properties, so the interior of the sun is most likely concentric shells of sorted matter, just like the interior of the Earth seems to be. Except for the rather fatal flaw that stars form from the interstellar medium and we know from the spectral lines (the same ones we observe in our laboratories) that the interstellar medium is dominated by hyrdrogen and helium. Quote: In any case the sun's mass is not relevant to electric star models. Electric star models aren't bound by the constraint of every star undergoing spontaneous fusion, so there is no minimum mass requirement, no exotic and unproven behaviors to limit. In other words, mass is a serious issue for stellar fusionists, because their models rely on a strictly ordered set of masses to produce stars. The electric star model imposes no such artificial constraints on the study of stars. I'm sorry, I have no idea how to put this more politely... what are you talking about?
2010-12-10, 14:27 Tubbythin	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Something like, indeed. It's closer to 21 orders of magnitude, though. You're right. I actually gt 9.6*1020 which is near enough 1021. When I wrote the response to Arthur all I could remember was that it was something * 1020 and I couldn't be bothered at the time to go find the post and check and I figured it was better to underestimate than over-estimate.
2010-12-10, 14:42 dasmiller	deleted
2010-12-11, 00:34 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by dasmiller So, are man-made satellites formed by Z-pinches? I'd ask you the same question, for the same reason. Are they?
2010-12-11, 00:37 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by ben m gravity generates a force Wait, gravity generates a force or gravity is a force? Is it a force generating a force? Can you use the force? Originally Posted by ben m do the measurement on a neutral test mass inside a Faraday cage. What measurement are you suggesting here? I'm really not at all certain. Originally Posted by ben m The "possible EM effects" will go away and the gravitational force will remain. Experiments demonstrating the banishment of electromagnetic effects? Originally Posted by ben m Do you agree? With you? I can say with confidence, no, even without really knowing what it is you're saying. Originally Posted by ben m Do you want to see the results of measurements of the Sun's gravitational force on an EM-shielded neutral object? No. Originally Posted by ben m 'Cause that's a really good way of measuring the gravitational mass of the Sun. Is it?
2010-12-11, 00:39 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Ziggurat A plasma can be neutral. False. Originally Posted by ben m And even if the plasma itself isn't neutral, its center of mass motion won't depend on any internal fields, and nothing about a plasma can change what external fields you apply. False. Originally Posted by ben m Except that you can form plasmas in the absence of electric fields. All you need is high temperatures. False.
2010-12-11, 00:44 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Something like, indeed. It's closer to 21 orders of magnitude, though. False. Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Your denial of a straightforward calculation I'm not denying any calculations, I'm suggesting you don't really have a grasp of this material. Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Our calculations, involving nothing more than freshman-level Physics 101 (Newtonian mechanics) and 102 (electromagnetism), say otherwise. In defiance of GR, presumably, with such strict adherence to "newtonian mechanics". I guess a newtonian mechanic is who you call when your newtonian breaks. Neither "newtonian mechanics" nor GR offer any coherent explanation for the pioneer anomaly. If you can come up with one you might win the Nobel prize.
2010-12-11, 00:47 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by dasmiller Of course the answer depends strongly (linearly) on the mass of the star. False. Electromagnetic forces will always dominate plasmas. The observable universe is over 99% plasma. Electromagnetic forces dominate the universe. QED
2010-12-11, 00:47 Ziggurat	Originally Posted by Arthur Mann With you? I can say with confidence, no, even without really knowing what it is you're saying. Evidently you don't really know what anyone is saying. And yet you remain certain. And you don't even see a problem with that.
2010-12-11, 00:48 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by tusenfem No, the current cannot be shielded as it creates a magnetic field and thus the effect of a current remains. If you're suggesting you can still remotely detect these currents, you're right, we can and do detect them remotely.
2010-12-11, 00:50 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Dancing David Oh really, so at 1 mm, 1 m, 1 km, 100,000 km, 109, etc... the EM force is as strong as the gravitational force? Really? No, it's many times stronger, and the force between two charged bodies, or even between two birkeland currents, falls off simply with distance, not with the square of the distance. So EM is not only dominant, it's dominant on every scale, and at every distance. Gravitation is a stark misunderstanding of this fundamental property of matter, electrical and magnetic properties, not some metaphysical gibberish masquerading as science.
2010-12-11, 00:52 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Dancing David So far it is apparent you don't understand the theories that you claim to support. opinions vary
2010-12-11, 00:53 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Dancing David Then it is not a plasma effect and no you are wrong. False.
2010-12-11, 00:54 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Dancing David Well lets see teh first one is about Cygnus A which has a much high field strength than our galaxy. I'm sorry, you're modeling Cygnus A how?
2010-12-11, 00:56 Arthur Mann	Originally Posted by Dancing David Apparently you don't understand reality either, I shall lurk and watch you lie about physics as well. no reason to call me a liar just because I think you're misguided Originally Posted by Dancing David No observation no science. Falsifiability is the only key. Science relies on falsifiability, to be sure. It also relies on observation and experiment. It also relies on the apparent fact that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and on every scale. If you suggest an idea that only applies at certain scales or at certain energies or certain distances or to a certain mass, you are straying off into imaginary territory.