| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
 |
|
Brian wrote:
| From someone else's conversation, I think this helps |
It is worth pointing out here that the Dynamo principle is based in hydrodynamics. It is a product of 'liquid motion' (specifically liquid metals) and is the proposed cause of the Earth's magnetic field. The Dynamo principle has not been successful in explaining magnetic fields in the Sun -- it has merely been inferred.
The article referenced in your post is by one Mathieu Ossendrijver of the University of Freiberg Germany. In a recent article for the journal 'Astronomy and Astrophysics Review' his conclusions about the 'Solar Dynamo' were:
| Remaining uncertainties about the nature of the deep-seated toroidal magnetic field and the 'Alpha' effect, and the forbidding range of length scales of the magnetic field and the flow have prevented the formulation of a coherent model for the solar dynamo | |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
This is the conclusion of one of the latest investigations into all current solar dynamo models from: (my highlighting)
Dynamo Models of the Solar Cycle
Paul Charbonneau
Published in 2005
Each and every one of the toroidal to poloidal mechanisms described relies on fundamentally non-axisymmetric physical effects, yet these must be 'forced' into axisymmetric dynamo equations for the mean magnetic field.
In particular, we still lack even rudimentary understanding of the process through which the diffuse, large-scale solar magnetic field produces the concentrated toroidal flux ropes that will later give rise to sunspots upon buoyant destabilization. This remains perhaps the most severe missing link between dynamo models and solar magnetic field observations.
Helioseismology has also revealed the existence of a significant radial shear in the outermost layers of the solar convective envelope. Even if the storage problem could be somehow bypassed, it does not appear possible to construct a viable solar dynamo model relying exclusively on this angular velocity gradient
Given the amount of effort having gone into building detailed dynamo models of the solar cycle, it is quite sobering to reflect upon the fact that the physical mechanism responsible for the regeneration of the poloidal component of the solar magnetic field has not yet been identified
The foregoing discussion has implicitly assumed that the dynamo process produces a mean, large scale magnetic field that then concentrates itself into the flux ropes that subsequently give rise to sunspots. High-resolution observations of the photospheric magnetic field show that even outside of sunspots, the field is concentrated in flux tubes
While the "Dynamo Effect" can and does produce magnetic field by simple mechanical means in fluids and some of the effect we see in the Sun can be attributed to this, they cannot produce the "magnatude" of varying strengths and intensities of the fields and the toroidal ring field which requires massive amounts of electrical energy to sustain.
All the effects of the dynamo are also reproduced by high intensity electrical means. And as high intensity electric fields can account for not only the dynamo effects but also all the other effects that the Dynamo Models can't it is a more applicable Model.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| The electrons are travelling within the sheath of a magnetic aligned field (Birkeland Current). The electrons in the current stream are isolated from the surrounding plasma. Inside the BC electrons flow; outside the BC neutral plasma/space. |
This is why I asked for a reference. I haven't a clue what this means and now I feel stupid for having to ask.
| How fast can particles be accelerated in a particle accelerator -- near light. |
Yes, but only by injecting zillions of watts of energy.
| Birkeland Currents are particle accelerators in space that do not require a huge magnetic torus to contain and accelerate the electrons. With billions of electrons in the current stream the containing 'torus' is self-generating. |
This is now getting frustrating. I thought we had previously established that the current gives rise to the magnetic field. The magnetic field cannot be used to accelerate the very same electrons that in moving are creating the magnetic field.
The item I quoted has the most promising model, in particular this:
"accelerated plasma will generate magnetic fields, without the intervention of a primary electric field. The magnetic field will then induce a secondary electric field"
So (in a straight line) we are talking about plasma (electrons) drifting through space at a sedate pace, the drifting (otherwise known as an electric current) causes a magnetic field (so no need for an external voltage source). In an accelerating scenario, this in turn (although I haven't confirmed this) causes a secondary electric field (current? Perpendicular to the original motion?). So electrical currents in plasma in space will behave differently and in complex ways in the presence of an (accelerating) force, whether gravitational or other magnetic field.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| Birkeland Currents field lines are not the Earth's magnetic field lines. They are separate field lines that stream into the poles from directly above each pole. They are separate from the Earth's magnetic field. The Earth's field lines deflect the Solar Wind around the globe creating the familiar teardrop shape of the magnetosphere. Solar Winds strike the Birkeland currents in space above the poles perpendicular to the flow and are aligned by the field where they stream into the poles. At the poles the Earth's magnetic field lines and the Birkeland currents intermingle which causes the auroras. |
That's a fine description... but it still doesn't answer it, KomoriMate. It seems the names of Birkeland and field-aligned currents have been taken in vain. Wiki says
"Birkeland noticed that an electron beam directed toward the terrella was guided toward the magnetic poles... He developed a theory in which energetic electrons were ejected from sunspots on the solar surface, directed to the Earth, and guided to the Earth's polar regions by the geomagnetic field where they produced the visible aurora...
Birkeland suggested that polar electric currents -- today referred to as auroral electrojets -- were connected toa system of currents that flowed along geomagnetic field linesinto and away from the polar region... Birkeland's vision of field-aligned currents became the source of a controversy that continued for a quarter of a century, because their existence could not be confirmed from ground-based measurements alone." |
Is that not so? Even the EU-flavoured Birkeland current articles says
"A Birkeland current generally refers to any electric current in a space plasma, but more specifically when charged particles in the current follow magnetic field lines (hence, Birkeland currents are also known as field-aligned currents). They are caused by the movement of a plasma perpendicular to a magnetic field...
Originally Birkeland currents referred to electric currents that contribute to the aurora, caused by the interaction of the plasma in the Solar Wind with the Earth's magnetosphere."
If Birkeland Currents field lines are not the Earth's magnetic field lines, then it surely left as a coincidence or irrelevance that, while current and magnetic fields are generally perpendicular, currents flowing from the Sun are deflected toward the Poles. Showing how this should be the case is surely what Birkeland won the Nobel prize for. Do EU-enthusiasts step over his dead body saying "the really important thing is that he gave us the inspiration for something else that we call Birkeland current, that has not actually been directly observed yet"?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| dust devils were discharging electrically to the ground. |
Electricity generated in a vortex does not make the vortex an electrical phenomenon.
| At the distance proposed for particles in space (1 metre) this force is inconsequential for like charges and too far away for attraction of opposite charges. |
Eh? You can't have it both ways. Is it important that particles are scattered throughout space something like a metre apart; or does it not matter a damn because even the strongest possible forces between them are negligible?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am reading this thread with fascinated interest. How old is this dialogue? Is it now a "dead issue"?
KomoroKid wrote:
| see my post in A Universe Without Albert on the other site. |
Which other site would that be?
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Komorikid wrote:
| The Birkeland currents snake through the diffuse particle of space, like long distance high voltage power transmission lines are surrounded by air. The permanent power source at this stage appears to be beyond the visible universe. They are permanent circuits linked to all stellar objects. |
What function do these Birkeland currents have. If they weren't there, would the universe fall apart?
By saying that "the permanent power source appears to be beyond the visible universe" do you mean to imply:
a. the visible universe as at this date and we might find it later on
b. some type of multiverse
c. the Hand of God, or
d. something else that I should be able to infer if I weren't so dumb
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| berniegreen wrote: | | I am reading this thread with fascinated interest. How old is this dialogue? Is it now a "dead issue"? |
None of the threads die. That's why they are not dated.
Can't help you with relativity though. I was once told that thinking about relativity is meaningless if you don't understand the math, because relativity is the math. The highest level I got to in math was 2nd-year applied calculus and I never got higher than a B-, ergo, I can't critique Einstein.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
admin
Librarian
|
|
|
|
| Which other site would that be? |
Our more speculative and restricted site for people who have presented evidence of being worthy. Nevertheless I will arrange for your membership.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
It seems Global Warming is about to have its thunder stolen. The world's single greatest hoax has fired up in Switzerland where particle physicists are about to "discover" the God Particle - The Higgs Boson.
The LHC (Largest Hoax in Creation) is the "Global Warming" of particle physics. It is the greatest undiscovered fraud since Global Warming. This massive hoax has been quietly siphoning off over $6 billion in mainly public funds for the last 30 years and the Emperor is about to be discovered naked.
It will find nothing. But you can guarantee that it will be spun as the greatest achievement of human endeavour. You can be assured that his particle will remain as invisible as the deity himself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
I agree.
| But you can guarantee that it will be spun as the greatest achievement of human endeavour. |
I agree.
I heard people were worried it would create a black hole and destroy the world. Then the news seemed to be just that they had switched the thing on. I never gathered when this black hole or boson was supposed to appear, i.e. when they're supposed to sigh and admit it didn't work.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
|
[Aside]Just been listening to a repeat of Kenneth Clark's Civilisation where he remarks that from Einstein onwards scientists entered into a "quasi-magical" relationship with the world traditionally occupied by artists. He also added that scientists should 'shut up'. And that one doesn't have to be young to dislike institutions. Yet he calls himself a 'stick-in-the-mud'. Rather forward-thinking I'd say. [Aside]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
Two steel balls (pinballs exactly the same size and weight) accelerated simultaneously from rest in an upward direction with the same force - one rapidly rotating (10,000 rpm) and the other non-rotating.
Is their arc of travel and time in motion the same?
Two steel balls (pinballs exactly the same size and weight) dropped simultaneously from the same height - one rapidly rotating (10,000 rpm) and the other non-rotating.
Will they strike the ground at the same time?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Komorikid wrote: | Two steel balls (pinballs exactly the same size and weight) accelerated simultaneously from rest in an upward direction with the same force - one rapidly rotating (10,000 rpm) and the other non-rotating.
Is their arc of travel and time in motion the same?
Two steel balls (pinballs exactly the same size and weight) dropped simultaneously from the same height - one rapidly rotating (10,000 rpm) and the other non-rotating.
Will they strike the ground at the same time? |
It seems the answer is "no" to both questions.
Looked at even casually, one can instantly see in the resulting time-lapse image (above) that the two pinballs did NOT fly along identical parabolic arcs (as they should have); unmistakably, the steel ball that was rotating (at ~27,000 rpm) flew higher ... and fell faster ... than the companion ball that was not rotating!
An experimental result in direct violation of everything physicists have thought they've known about both Newton's Laws and Einstein's Relativity ... for almost (in the case of Newton ...) three full centuries!
The above ~ 34-year-old image is a recent scan of one of the original "spinning ball photographs" from DePalma's own ~30-year-old files, contrast-adjusted in PhotoShop (with text and grid added), to bring out the data in the faded original. Nothing else has been added or altered.
What this photograph reveals is truly remarkable ... for, in direct violation of both Newton and Einstein, it SHOUTS that "inertial mass" and "gravitational mass" are NOT equivalent--
Thus violating the foundation of all modern physics in one elegantly simple experiment -- which anyone can safely repeat ... even at home!! |
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun2.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Komorikid
In: Gold Coast, Australia
|
|
|
|
So Newton's Laws of motion are violated and can only be held true in ONE frame of reference.
Thereby invalidating Einstein's Principle of Equivalence.
Inertial Mass is not equal to Gravitational Mass.
Gravity is neither universal nor constant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
