Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

So when a plasma is forming an electric current, it's not neutral electrically, is it?

You're misunderstanding neutrality. A neutral plasma has approximately equal numbers of positive and negative charge carriers, so that externallly there is not a primary electrostatic effect. Usually the electrons are the light negative charge carriers and ions (protons) are the heavier positively charged carrier.

Obviously in a plasma they can move and have different effects.

A current would be a phenomenon occurring in a plasma, where there is a net charge imbalance in motion, for instance a group of electrons moving one direction without the positive charged ions moving simultaneously.

There is such a thing as a non-neutral plasma: physics.ucsd.edu...

mbkennel

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

So when a plasma is forming an electric current, it's not neutral electrically, is it?

You're misunderstanding neutrality. A neutral plasma has approximately equal numbers of positive and negative charge carriers, so that externallly there is not a primary electrostatic effect. Usually the electrons are the light negative charge carriers and ions (protons) are the heavier positively charged carrier.

Obviously in a plasma they can move and have different effects.

A current would be a phenomenon occurring in a plasma, where there is a net charge imbalance in motion, for instance a group of electrons moving one direction without the positive charged ions moving simultaneously.

There is such a thing as a non-neutral plasma: physics.ucsd.edu...

Exactly thats how solar wind occurs for example a magnetic field causes a separation of particles.

mbkennel
There is such a thing as a non-neutral plasma: physics.ucsd.edu...

Therefore, plasmas cannot be defined as electrically neutral.

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

So when a plasma is forming an electric current, it's not neutral electrically, is it?

From a distance, yes there are still equal numbers of positive and negative charges in the plasma, even if the charges happen to be moving (which is what an electric current is, moving charges).

Up close you will find that something is inducing the current flow, which could be something like an electric field, and up closer you can find individual positively and negatively charged particles which are not neutral.

But if the number of positive and negative charges don't approximately cancel out (which is what we mean when we say it's electrically neutral overall), then it's not a plasma.

In this sense, the "neutrality" is a matter of scale. On a small enough scale plasma is never neutral because you can find individual charged particles. On a large scale it's always neutral because they cancel each other out. Make sense?

Arbitrageur
But if the number of positive and negative charges don't approximately cancel out (which is what we mean when we say it's electrically neutral overall), then it's not a plasma.

That's not true according to

mbkennel
There is such a thing as a non-neutral plasma: physics.ucsd.edu...

I think it's misleading to focus on the charges balancing each other if this is accurate:

In many cases interactions between the charged particles and the neutral particles are important in determining the behavior and usefulness of the plasma. The type of atoms in a plasma, the ratio of ionized to neutral particles and the particle energies all result in a broad spectrum of plasma types, characteristics and behaviors. These unique behaviors cause plasmas to be useful in a large and growing number of applications important to our lives and to the world around us.

www.plasmacoalition.org...

Mary Rose
I think it's misleading to focus on the charges balancing each other if this is accurate:

In many cases interactions between the charged particles and the neutral particles are important in determining the behavior and usefulness of the plasma. The type of atoms in a plasma, the ratio of ionized to neutral particles and the particle energies all result in a broad spectrum of plasma types, characteristics and behaviors. These unique behaviors cause plasmas to be useful in a large and growing number of applications important to our lives and to the world around us.

www.plasmacoalition.org...

When ever you look at smaller and smaller areas one charge will be greater than another but the only way to create a non neutural plasma is in a lab. a non neutural plasmas can consist of purely electrons, pure ion plasmas, and pure positron plasmas. This can be done for example by using centrifugal force. But it is not the natural state of plasma since all plasma will contain protons neutrons and electrons. Now if we look at smaller area you could have say 3 electrons together that area would be negatively charged but as we expand outward other particles would negate that charge. If we had equal number of red blue and white marbles in a glass we would see areas where there are marbles of the same color touching each other but when we look at the entire glass we have exactly the same number of each. Does that make sense?

dragonridr
the only way to create a non neutural plasma is in a lab.

reply to post by Mary Rose


The definition of a plasma as I've been saying all along is somewhat loosely defined, but here is the loose definition:

Plasma

Definition

Plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles (i.e. the overall charge of a plasma is roughly zero).

The fact that you can make something in a lab that has some properties of plasma but not others doesn't quite negate that loose definition IMO.

Furthermore, for every rule you can always find an exception, but this doesn't necessarily prove the rule false. For example if I say the 2nd law of thermodynamics is true, I say this in spite of the fact an experiment has been performed in a lab where the second law was violated. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is still true, and the exception doesn't make the second law false, it just means we found an exception. Likewise, I don't think making something in the lab that's not electrically neutral means it is false that plasma is electrically neutral. It's an exception, and according to dragonridr, not one we found in nature, but one we created in a lab.

Mary Rose
I think it's misleading to focus on the charges balancing each other if this is accurate:

What about that quote leads you to say that?

reply to post by dragonridr


Yes, but I doubt that the only way to create a non neutural plasma is in a lab.

However, let's get back to the OP:





The fact is, astronomers are astounded and puzzled.

But proponents of the Electric Universe theory are not astounded and puzzled.

reply to post by dragonridr


What exactly did I claim that has been proven wrong, and please provide links with quotes to back up your claims.

I have backed up everything I have stated as fact with links.

Mary Rose
reply to post by dragonridr

 

Yes, but I doubt that the only way to create a non neutural plasma is in a lab.

However, let's get back to the OP:

The fact is, astronomers are astounded and puzzled.

But proponents of the Electric Universe theory are not astounded and puzzled.

Here you go read this it will give you an idea how these ribbons form.if you have any questions just ask and will take a look at it.It wasnt unexpected it was just alot bigger than we thought it would be.
www.webpronews.com...

www.isciencetimes.com...

dragonridr
It wasnt unexpected it was just alot bigger than we thought it would be.

Apparently the electric universe proponents want us to believe that any surprise at all by mainstream science proves that the sun is powered by electricity and not fusion.

Arbitrageur

dragonridr
It wasnt unexpected it was just alot bigger than we thought it would be.

Apparently the electric universe proponents want us to believe that any surprise at all by mainstream science proves that the sun is powered by electricity and not fusion.

It's called anomaly hunting.

One of the most common and insidious bits of cognitive self-deception is the process of anomaly hunting. A true anomaly is something that cannot be explained by our current model of nature – it doesn’t fit into existing theories. Anomalies are therefore very useful to scientific inquiry because they point to new knowledge, the potential to deepen or extend existing theories.

For example, the orbit of Mercury could not be explained by Newtownian mechanics – it was a true anomaly. It and other anomalies hinted at the fact that Newton’s laws of motion were incomplete in a fundamental way. This recognition eventually led to Einstein’s revolution of relativity theory.

Pseudoscientists – those pretending to do science (maybe even sincerely believing they are doing science) but who get the process profoundly wrong, use anomalies in a different way. They often engage it what we call anomaly hunting – looking for apparent anomalies. They are not, however, looking for clues to a deeper understanding of reality. They are often hunting for anomalies in service to the overarching pseudoscientific process of reverse engineering scientific conclusions.

theness.com...

Throw in a bit of cherry picking

Cherry picking, when used figuratively, refers to selective extraction of points in an argument in order to refute or affirm them while ignoring others which will not support the point(s) being made. Often, these cherry-picked factoids or references will be over-extrapolated and oversold to give the impression that they are representative, when they are not.
rationalwiki.org...

Add a dash of incompetence

The Dunning-Kruger effect, named after David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University, occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence - or specifically, their incompetence - at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimate themselves. Put more crudely, they're too stupid to realize they're stupid. The inverse also applies: competent people tend to underestimate their ability compared to others and is known as 'impostor syndrome'.
If you have no doubts whatsoever about your brilliance, you could just be that damn good. On the other hand...
rationalwiki.org...

Perhaps a sprinkle of confirmation bias

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.
Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.
Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.
As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.
www.sciencedaily.com...

Shake and stir well for a wholesome serving of crank magnetism

Crank magnetism is a term popularized by physiologist and blogger Mark Hoofnagle to describe the propensity of cranks to hold multiple irrational, unsupported or ludicrous beliefs that are often unrelated to one another.[7] Crank magnetism may be considered to operate wherever a single person propounds a number of unrelated denialist conjectures, poorly supported conspiracy theories, or pseudoscientific claims. Thus, some of the common crank characteristics (see above)— such as the lack of technical ability, ignorance of scientific terminology, and claims that alternative ideas are being suppressed by the mainstream— may be operating on and manifested in multiple orthogonal assertions. For example, Hoofnagle's fellow blogger Orac has discussed crank magnetism in relation to the writings of British columnist Melanie Phillips, who denies anthropogenic global warming and who has promoted Intelligent Design and the discredited view that the MMR vaccine causes autism in children.[8] Blogger Luke Scientiæ has commented on the relationship between the number of unrelated claims that magnetic cranks make and the extent of their open hostility to science.[9] He has also coined the phrase "magnetic hoax" in relation to hoax claims that attract multiple crank interpretations.[10]
en.wikipedia.org...(person)#Crank_magnetism

dragonridr
www.webpronews.com...

From your link:

The new paper, published this week in The Astrophysical Journal, proposes that the ribbon is in an area where neutral hydrogen atoms from solar wind cross the galactic magnetic field, stripping away their electrons and changing them into charged ions. The particles then become trapped in the ribbon regions by vibrations in the magnetic field.

From "IBEX—Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun | Space News":




Are the paper and the video talking about the same magnetic field?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

I read that and I've had ice cubes in my drink and I call that a liquid with solid ice cubes in it. But my point about plasma is the definition would be more clear if it was defined the way you are implying, that if we could say a mixture of 99% gaseous uncharged particles and 1% charged particles was 99% gas and 1% plasma, but we don't use plasma that way...we call the whole thing a plasma. Part of the reason for this is that the charged particles have some properties similar enough to a gas that it mixes readily with a gas, which is why I couldn't understand you denying it was similar to a gas.

I never denied that plasma mixes with gas, or has some similar properties. Again, you keep trying to put words in my mouth in order to create straw man arguments.

Are you implying that a plasma discharge is 99% gas, and 1% plasma? If so, please provide some evidence.

It is my theory that the magnetic field is a plasma based structure.

In our current scientific understanding of a magnetic field, we don't know what it is, and anyone who claims different doesn't understand the reality of our current scientific understanding.

reply to post by GetHyped

The Dunning-Kruger effect, named after David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University, occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence - or specifically, their incompetence - at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else.

This describes to a T, the emotional attitude of those upset that some discuss strange and interesting areas like plasma, that don't fit into current mainstream science.

Got a mirror?

reply to post by Mary Rose


I think you have a point, a plasma is not really electrically neutral, but institutionalized science seems to need to see plasma as electrically neutral.

We know so little about plasma, we don't have good definitions of the many types of plasma.

All protons in plasma are described as hydrogen, and it seems that the idea that not all protons, or all electrons, are the same, is something that can not be considered. We have no idea why Oxygen and Nitrogen are so different, even though they are next to each other on the periodic table.

I think it would be much more accurate to describe most plasmas as being electrically balanced, or having a charge which is balanced, but capable of reaction.

poet1b
In our current scientific understanding of a magnetic field, we don't know what it is, and anyone who claims different doesn't understand the reality of our current scientific understanding.

We also don't have an understanding of what causes gravity yet the standard cosmological model centers around it.

poet1b
I never denied that plasma mixes with gas, or has some similar properties. Again, you keep trying to put words in my mouth in order to create straw man arguments.

Are you implying that a plasma discharge is 99% gas, and 1% plasma? If so, please provide some evidence.

Pot meet kettle.

I talked about the mix of charged and uncharged particles in Earth's atmosphere at 65 km, and you completely ignore that and ask for evidence about "discharge" which is a term I didn't use in the context of plasma and gas mixing. Here is a reminder of what I said:

Arbitrageur
So my take is, that at high concentrations of charged particles the term "plasma" is well understood, but at low concentrations, it gets a little bit fuzzy, because, what is "significant"? It's unknown to me, because the degree of significance can vary with the type of observation made. Therefore I can't tell you if it's 1 hour after sunset or 3 hours after sunset or whatever that the atmosphere at 65 km turns from a plasma into a gas, if it even was really a plasma to begin with. When solar activity is low it might not be a plasma in the first place.

I didn't mention the word "discharge", I mentioned atmosphere at an altitude of 65 km. Now who is putting words in who's mouth? By the way this type of obfuscation tactic seems to be popular among EU proponents. They often try to twist and distort things mainstream scientists say.

Now do you agree you made the comment about liquids and solids together (which they don't seem to mix in my drink like charged and uncharged particles can be mixed in the lower parts of Earth's ionosphere). If I misinterpreted what you were trying to say when you mentioned that, please clarify the point you were trying to make. Dragonridr didn't seem to understand what you were trying to say either so forgive me for trying to interpret something you may have not expressed clearly, if I misinterpreted.

Mary Rose
We also don't have an understanding of what causes gravity yet the standard cosmological model centers around it.

And in spite of that our interplanetary spacecraft seem to go precisely where we expect them to go based on the gravity model so it definitely works locally whether the cause is known or not. One exception was the Pioneer anomaly and some people tried to introduce new physics to explain it (which kind of defeats the worn out argument of scientists not being willing to explore new ideas), but ultimately the explanation was found using our existing knowledge of physics, after we constructed a sophisticated enough model of what the spacecraft was actually doing.