Giant Magnetic Loop Sweeps Through Space Between Stellar Pair

[Jarvamundo]

http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2010/algol/

[renormalised]

Very interesting article, but this in no way proves anything that you might believe in. Anyone with half a brain and enough astrophysical knowledge would know that there'd be some sort of magnetic interaction between the two stars. For a start, they orbit rather close to one another and I think it can be fairly certain that the magnetospheres of both stars are interacting. The boundary sheaths between the oppositely aligned magnetic hemispheres of both stars would be intertwined for a start, as well. I would also say that there is a torus of highly ionised gas connecting both stars and a very highly charged flux tube confining that torus of material. You have almost the same sort of situation with the interaction between Jupiter and Io, except in the case of the two stars it'll most likely be a bit more complicated.

Like I've told you 1000 times, yes, plasmas do play an important part in space but not at the scales you think, nor in some of the situations you might believe they do.

[xelasnave]

No no no this is evidence of gravity push:lol::lol::lol:

I find the matter most interesting and thanks for posting.

alex:):):)

[renormalised]

But where is it pushing to?? Huh Alex:):P

[xelasnave]

I was attempting to take into account special relativity:eyepop: and point out how different observers observe things ..er differently :rolleyes:... It was my attempt my effort at a little joke:D... Seriously I did not look at it to make push fit the observation:)... I have retired my quest for TOE content that I was right all along:lol::lol::lol:.

I think it is great that we get to keep up with such discoveries and observations nothing more.

alex:):):)

[renormalised]

I know mate... I was just having a bit of fun with you:):P

[Jarvamundo]

Thanks Alex,

We should all keep in mind that these large magnetic structures are MANY times larger than the celestial bodies they interact with.

Also, magnetic fields can ONLY be formed from electric currents. There is a massive amount of electrical current flowing between these bodies.

Carl is correct, similar Birkeland currents have been found between Saturn and Jupiter and their moons.

The Birkeland Current was named after Kristian Birkeland, who both discovered that the Aurora was powered by giant electrical currents from the Sun, by conducting a Polar expedition, setting up measuring stations, and almost dieing in the process. He then returned to build a model of this, and experimentally verified the behavior in a lab.

Birkeland and his teralla experiment:http://www.aldebaran.cz/actions/2002_aurora/various/birkeland.jpg

Some more birkeland currents: http://www.google.com.au/images?q=birkeland+current (http://www.google.com.au/images?q=birkeland+current)

It should be noted at the time, the British mathematician Sydney Chapman, from his desk, unleashed a violent attack on Birkelands theories formed from his expedition and lab experiment, even attacking him well after his death.

THEN: We launched space satellites equipped with Langmuir probes, to actually measure these electrical currents... monster currents.

Birkeland was again verified, and now appears famously on overseas currency.

In the face of mathematical certainty he was a pioneer of empirics, that we still benefit from today.

It's funny that todays astronomers still give "Birkeland Currents" wild names from: Space tornados, rubber bands, flux tubes. I think this is just good old marketing, or just denial of the only thing that can cause a magnetic field to form. Electrical current.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/image09/090429currents.jpg

Next time you receive an astronomer louding preach 'rubber band flux tube', you'll be well equipped for a revealing question of Birkeland Current history, which forms common knowledge amongst some radio astronomers and plasma cosmologists. It's easy. It's just current down a wire, like those in your house, and like the fluro tubes in the ceiling.

[renormalised]

No Alex, it's not a denial of anything. It also takes a magnetic field to generate an electric current...remember your high school physics.

As far as the names goes, you can call them anything you like. That's neither here nor there.

[renormalised]

Just thinking....I wonder how much current is traveling down the flux tube/s. Could figure it out from the intensity of the xray and radio emissions. Be interesting to find out.

[Jarvamundo]

The potential of an e-field, or 'charge separation' can cause the movement of a charged particle, and the establishment of an electrical current. It is this movement that establishes a magnetic field, as described by Faraday, and in relationships described Lenz.

In this example, it is charge separation that initiated the m-field.

Yes correct a magnetic field can also then distribute it's energy into and electric current. To initially, at the very start create the m-field charge separation is required. In this sense the m-field can be thought of as the 'decay' field, this helps when moving into the study of dielectrics and electrostatics.

I find cross-discipline nomenclature is very important for progress, my comments highlighted by concern for this, much work has been done in lab plasma physics over the past 50 years. It will assist to use common nomenclature, and minimize creative inventions, something which lets face it, modern astronomy has a talent for.

Be careful Carl, you're starting to sound like a plasma cosmologist.

Professor Anthony Peratt from JPL, has developed what is known as the encyclopedia for analyzing the empirics in the way your good intuition is leading.

Anthony Peratt - http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Plasma-Universe-Anthony-Peratt/dp/0387975756

Anthony of course was student and colleague of Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven, who established much of the tools we use today.

No matter your resistive opinions of myself, the crew over at thunderbolts have assisted me in the same questions you now ask curiously. I do not come from there, i started here at IIS, i had the same questions, they had *some* references to material noted above.

We might just find a common character in both our senses of passionate curiosity.

[Steffen]

I thought we had debunked that statement in an earlier thread a while ago. Static magnetic fields do exist in the absence of electric current, just like static electric fields exist in the absence of magnetic flow.

Cheers
Steffen.

[renormalised]

There's more chance of the Universe collapsing in on itself immediately after I finish this sentence than of that ever happening:)

Since the above event never occurred (since I am writing another sentence), there's the answer to that question:)

About Perrat's book....way out of my league...at $850 a pop.

[renormalised]

I was waiting for someone to post that...spot on.

[Jarvamundo]

Static magnetic fields do exist in the absence of electric current
** If one continues to ignore the charged particle movement, in this case the electron around the nucleus, providing the current. Albeit not slightly more than a freshman level study. Professor Lewin has a good, free lecture series on this from MIT.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02-electricity-and-magnetism-spring-2002/

static electric fields exist in the absence of magnetic flow.
** Yes as mentioned...charge potential can exist before the 'decay field' (m) becomes involved... these are the conditions that give rise to the initiation of an electric current in plasma.

The psudeo-skeptic debunkathon reflects a side of science i don't think the good audience of curious slightly brighter than most laymen here appreciate. One might begin to wonder if any insightful thread creations or sharing of information or research might ever come from the serial debunkers that preside here.

Re $850 - one might find the inspiration to search for Peratt's free published IEEE papers.

To see the farm is to leave it. The best to you all.

[renormalised]

That MIT link is very handy....couple of good courses on there I might have a look at.

[Steffen]

You're misunderstanding the lecture if you're assuming that ferrormagnetism (for example) is caused by the material's electrons conspiring to form an electric current which in turn creates a magnetic field. Those electrons have an intrinsic magnetic moment, and in ferromagnetic materials there is an imbalance of magnetic moment per atom. Sure, electrons are charged particles, but even neutral particles are believed to have an intrinsic magnetic momentum.



I assure you there is nothing pseudo about my scepticism, and I choose to ignore the scorn and derision you're sending my way.

Cheers
Steffen.

[adman]

Alex - most of these arguments go way over my head - but this one doesn't seem to make sense - can you expand on this for me...?

Adam

[renormalised]

What he's trying to say, erroneously, is that it that the movement of the electrons about the nucleus of the atom is creating an electric current which forms the field.

Problem is, the atoms in most materials are actually electrically neutral, as the balance of charge between the electron cloud around the atoms and the nucleus is about equal. The electrons of an atom usually come in pairs whose spin is up and down (can't have two of the same spin in the same orbital...(Pauli Exclusion Principle)). If the orbitals are filled with up/down pairs, the dipole moment of the atoms is effectively zero. An atom will only show a magnetic moment if the orbitals are partially filled...i.e. some of the orbitals have only one of the electrons in a pair, either up or down. What happens with ferromagnetic materials is that the electrons in the atoms become predominately up or down in those partially filled shells...and that, along with the charge carried by the electron creates the field. They usually align themselves to the prevailing magnetic field they find themselves in, or are forced into that alignment via physical processes. They form what are called magnetic domains within the material...small magnets, if you will.

An electric current implies a flow of electrons. Try measuring the current in a ferromagnetic material. You won't find one.

[Jarvamundo]

The gentlemen here appear ignorant of Ampere's solution, consistent with the classical electrodynamic model. The Ampre' Model, which can be found from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet "Two models for magnets: magnetic poles and atomic currents"

Here, I have described an Amperian Current.

That they leap to ferri, ferro, and magnetic domains, shows they have leapt beyond this understanding into a larger scope, for which their contribution is not incorrect.

Closer investigation of the mentioned model will give Carl his answer of why ferromagnetic material displays no current.

We can then go on to all things quantum, but essentially we are moving beyond what is required to explain observed phenomena that is in relation to this astronomical re-discovery, that is the Birkeland Current.

Cranky resistive debunking is simply not adding to our collective understanding of the thread on topic. Adam i thankyou for your polite approach, in the form of a question or query, of which i can try to point to what may help, or not. I can only try.

I look forward to see some insightful new discoveries, threads, and information sharing that will soon be appearing from these other obviously passionate apologists. or not?

Much like you all i am just a curious layman, sharing some interesting discoveries with relevant references, go research for yourselves, and make a contribution.

Edit: See above wonderful MIT lecture series, or http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
Beyond this, good luck with your individual investigations.

[marki]

This is effectively the basis for NMR spectroscopy.

Mark

[renormalised]

Doesn't matter what you tell him or point him to go to, you have the bull by the tail. I suggest that for the both of you, you pick up a book or two on basic physics and read up on magnetism....specifically ferromagnetism, which I am talking about. It has nothing to do with Ampere's models or any other model to do with electrical currents or electromagnetism. Alex, the simple fact that you do not understand what you believe you are talking about is clearly demonstrated in your attempt to try and make out that I don't know what I am talking about.

As you're so fond of pointing out, a simple look up of the said subjects anywhere on the net will bare out what I have written above.

Adam, if you want to know about all forms of magnetism, have a look at these pages...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramagnetism

and if you want to get more specific, read this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_moment

and if you want to know the clincher to this whole argument, here it is...



That highlighted portion is what produces ferromagnetism and what I and a number of others were talking about and trying to impress upon Alex (with no success)....not some ill and misinformed informed deference to point 1.




(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism)

[Jarvamundo]

To familiarize the fundamentals from the men who pioneered classical electro-dynamics you'll have to go back to the early days of a company called General Electric, particularly Charles Proteus Steinmetz (in white) seen here with a very special man known to most here.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/PostImages/200809/Steinmetz_Einstein_4C3B2626-A0EB-24D5-9E7B1ABB4967C66F.gif

What many people do not know, is that often in modern texts, this photo has been repeatedly doctored to have someone removed from it.

Ohh how the history of science can often be erased.

Here is the original photo, without the missing man.
http://www.divus.cz/images/umelec/tes04.jpg

10 points if you can name the man who was doctored out.

Unfortunately when dealing with the writings of Steinmetz, the man G.E. employed to come and study the 'missing mans' machines, quantum and c-limit causality cannot calculate some of his work.

All is not what it seems when you read all the way back to these gentlemen's original texts, i've had to dust of 1920's leather bound presses to see where some decisions of history were made.

Alex (the other alex) made a good point in another thread... Read wide, and trust no body with your personal investigations.

[astroron]

Adolf Hitler ( Schickelgrubber)

[Jarvamundo]

Hah! Close...

Here's a clue... Einstein's old man lost an absolute packet of cash, and his company failed as a result of this missing man's inventions.

[renormalised]

And now we devolve to conspiracies. What next, Alex.

In actual fact, trying to debate with you is a waste of time. You have been repeatedly shown the errors in your logic and the misinformed opinions you so dearly cling to are so far out on the fringe, that they, despite all the attempts at making out as though they have some viable alternative basis to clearly accepted science, are not only pure speculation at best, but horribly bad science for the most part at their worst.

Let's all look at the people who are the epicentre of this farce and charade.

David Talbott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Talbott)...received a B.S. (how appropriately put) degree in education and political science. Then did (maybe) one year of graduate studies in Urban Studies. An inveterate Neo-Velikovskian and publisher of a number of books based on Velikovsky's ideas. No formal training in any real science, yet he has repeatedly written on subjects related to astrophysics, planetary geology, celestial mechanics etc, in his books about catastrophism and alternate histories.

Wallace Thornhill (http://www.velikovsky.info/Wallace_Thornhill)...earned a degree in physics and electronics at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and began postgraduate studies. Before entering university he had been inspired by Immanuel Velikovsky's best-selling book, Worlds in Collision. Another Neo-Velikovskian.

Eric Lerner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner)...Self styled "plasma physicist" (actually only has an undergraduate degree, a B.A. in physics). Eric Lerner is a principal in The Focus Fusion Society an organization that actively solicits funds in the form of donations from the public for research into plasma fusion energy systems. He is also a principal of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc which in its own words is a “consulting and communication corporation specializing in applications of plasma physics” which is raising funds by privately offering shares in itself. He's also a science writer and his written quite a number of sci-fi works, as well as fringe science subjects.

Don Scott (http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm)...Retired professor of Electrical Engineering (electronics and semiconductor engineering).

Anthony Peratt...A professor of physics (plasma physics). Works at JPL.


Of all of them, only 2 (Peratt and Scott) could be considered learned enough to even consider taking any notice of. Even here, their ideas have been roundly criticised by the vast majority of their peers simply because they're making out pure speculation as having some veracity as an alternative to mainstream theories. However, they do have the runs on the board, so far as their reputations and credentials are concerned, and are respected to a greater or lesser extent in their own fields. However, that does not make their pronouncement on plasma cosmology anymore correct or fundamental than any other piece of speculation. The are wholly unproven, despite protestations to the contrary.

The others are no more than undergraduates who flunked out of anything more onerous and have no qualifications to really speak of in any of the fields they care to pontificate about. Their own ideas have not only been roundly refuted by mainstream science, even many of their own "alternative history/catastrophism" theorists have criticised their ideas, and the ideas of their progenitor Immanuel Velikovsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky)(whom, btw, was a psychiatrist by profession). Their ideas hold about as much currency as tarot cards, horoscopes and the tooth fairy. They're nutcases.

If you want to read about Plasma Cosmology, go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology)

[Jarvamundo]

Carl what are you on about?

I was discussing classical electro dynamics, not plasma.... If you care to look at the last post i wrote to you, i actually said you were correct about your quantum mechanics! Stop being a goose. Settle down or treat yourself to a leave of absence from this thread which is obviously causing yourself some form of discomfort. vote with your mouse.

If you don't like this thread... go start your own with something interesting.

Now... There is still 10 points on offer.

Or... if you don't want some biased defendist filth where "Science_Apologist (http://www.velikovsky.info/wiki/images/thumb/1/16/Joshua-schroeder.jpg/256px-Joshua-schroeder.jpg)" (a big bang defendant and wikipedia controller) maintains and excludes contributions from the above authors... so those who like a wiki-insulated view of the word can find their rantspiration.

Go to the horses mouth...
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/TheUniverse.html
Los Alamos National Laboratory . Est. 1943.
Operated by Los Alamos National Security, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy
National Nuclear Security Agency
Washington, D.C.

Told ya scientific history was interesting... we are seeing it unfold here... amazingly human...

Now... 10 points?

[KenGee]

it's fridges all the way down guys. If you could look into a electron you would see an Atomic fridge (Like the space fridges we talked about before only smaller) now on those fridges there are tiny fridge magnets. Hope this clears things up for everyone.

[JD2439975]

Nikola Tesla is the third man...oh to be an assistant in his lab.