Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 241 to 270 of 273

Thread: 13 Years Later [plasma science]

  1. #241
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    ... would it be coherent, single filaments of the same size as Verschuur found? or would they - perhaps - break up into much finer, and more complicated, structures?
    Thanks for the links Nereid. I think I was just reading something from the publications section of the UCLA-LAPD facility http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/ (which I can't pull up at the moment for some reason) that was arguing for just that, i.e. more complicated structures, or "structures within structure"

  2. #242
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    I said that the two Galactic Ridge temperatures are explained by 2 different energetic plasma source while the non thermal emission (Filaments)are explained by the Bennett Pinch.

    Actually, no you didn't. I just went through all your answers to me after I asked the question. And there is no answer to that question.
    Post 168 page 6

  3. #243
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    265
    Sounds like near-infrared is the way to go:

    Emission Lines in the Near Infrared: Tracing the Violent ISM
    Jae-Joon Lee1, Bon-Chul Koo2 and the GEMS03 team
    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.2874.pdf

    Sta
    rs are closely linked to the inter-stellar medium (ISM) around them...the formation and evolution of stars, particularly massive ones, must be understood in the context of their interaction with the ISM.

    Infrared observations suffer less from extinction, and therefore are better suited to studying the ISM near massive stars...the near-infrared is visible from the ground with the high spatial or spectral resolution critical to probing the kinematics of gas.

    Jets and outflows signify star formation...jets and outflows in star-forming regions provide estimates on essential parameters of star formation (e.g. star formation efficiency) and shed light on the physics of cloud collapse and star formation in giant molecular clouds. Individually, jets and outflows pin-point the locations of protostars, helping us to understand the formation of stars

    Our preliminary results show that [Fe II] emission is rather common among those SNRs [supernova remnants], showing bright filaments and knots...The measured radial velocities of these bright [Fe II] features suggest the emission is not from fast-moving ejecta of the progenitor stars but more likely from circumstellar matter...These observations lead us to speculate that the [Fe II] emission is from dense circumstellar structures that existed before the supernova explosion...The circumstellar structure may arise from the interaction of fast winds of Wolf-Rayet stars with slow, dense winds from a prior red supergiant phase, or it may arise from episodic mass loss associated with interacting binary stars or luminous blue variables...Additionally, we searched for faint [Fe II] emission knots with high radial velocities, which could be candidates for fast moving ejecta in young core-collapse SNRs. We have detected [Fe II] knots showing velocities of several hundred km/s, and we are investigating the origin of these features.
    Seems like a pretty good example of science journalism too

  4. #244
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Post 168 page 6
    Mea Culpa, you're right. As you were not answering the questions put to you, I missed it and probably confused it with the following referring to the Galactic ridge:

    "How do the plasma universe guys (Peratt, Verschuur, etc) explain the specific thermal emissions. Please point out the pertinent papers containing the calculations".

    Since this also has no answer, just consider it as taking the place of question 12.

  5. #245
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Mea Culpa, you're right. As you were not answering the questions put to you, I missed it and probably confused it with the following referring to the Galactic ridge:

    "How do the plasma universe guys (Peratt, Verschuur, etc) explain the specific thermal emissions. Please point out the pertinent papers containing the calculations".

    Since this also has no answer, just consider it as taking the place of question 12.
    I don't see the revelance to that question ?Even in the Yusef-Zabehi paper they dont bother to provide any calculations about that.-Your question sounds like show us calculations explaining why our Sun (a thermal emissions source )is there (?).
    Last edited by Don J; 2012-Apr-22 at 02:28 AM. Reason: precision

  6. #246
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    I don't see the revelance to that question ?Even in the Yusef-Zabehi paper they dont bother to provide any calculations about that.-Your question sounds like show us calculations explaining why our Sun (a thermal emissions source )is there (?).
    Then I suggest you go back to Post #166, where the question originates. And the question is from the Belmont and Tagger (BT) paper. Specifically, it was shown prior to the BT paper(Muno et al. 2004) that the 0.8 keV emission was consistent with a supernova origin. However, the 8.0 keV emission did not have a consistent mechanism. The entire BT paper is an explanation of BT's model of the 8.0 keV emission. They also honestly point out where there may be problems with their model, but they also point out how other parts of the model may compensate.

    In the conclusion there is this: This process not only provides the necessary power, but is also able to bring the gas to the observed temperature of 8 keV, which turns out to be the one where this process is most efficient.

    Yep, the calculations in their model show the process is most efficient at 8 keV, and that just happens to be the temperature at which the higher thermal emission occurs.

    So provide those EU/PU calculations showing how numerical results of those calculations are consistent with the 0.8 keV and the 8.0 keV emission observations.

  7. #247
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post

    In the conclusion there is this: This process not only provides the necessary power, but is also able to bring the gas to the observed temperature of 8 keV, which turns out to be the one where this process is most efficient.

    Yep, the calculations in their model show the process is most efficient at 8 keV, and that just happens to be the temperature at which the higher thermal emission occurs.

    In the conclusion there is this: This process not only provides the necessary power, but is also able to bring the gas to the observed temperature of 8 keV, which turns out to be the one where this process is most efficient.


    Without any calculations i was able to tell you that the source of the specific thermal emissions is an energetic plasma source.

  8. #248
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post

    In the conclusion there is this: This process not only provides the necessary power, but is also able to bring the gas to the observed temperature of 8 keV, which turns out to be the one where this process is most efficient.


    Without any calculations i was able to tell you that the source of the specific thermal emissions is an energetic plasma source.
    Without the slightest bit of understanding what that actually means. Tensor is asking you to prove my last statement wrong.

  9. #249
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post

    In the conclusion there is this: This process not only provides the necessary power, but is also able to bring the gas to the observed temperature of 8 keV, which turns out to be the one where this process is most efficient.


    Without any calculations i was able to tell you that the source of the specific thermal emissions is an energetic plasma source.
    I didn't ask you for what the source of the specific thermal emissions were did I? I asked for the PU/EU calculations showing how the EU/PU model can produce specific numerical results that are consistent with the 0.8 keV and 8.0 keV emission observation.

    And what do you provide for and answer? A qualitative answer, with no calculations. And that is the whole problem with this thread, isn't it? We've asked you for the specific calculations from the EU/PU model, and you avoid providing them. Since you seem to still be participating in the thread, I present the previous questions I asked before. I've made the correction to question 16, by putting the correct question in that slot.

    I've made 12 posts since post 166. So you have either ignored or inadequately answered almost three questions per my post. The following are questions that have been either unanswered, or the answers where not to the questions that I asked (a frequent problem was I asked for specific number for a paper after 2000 and you gave a reference to a paper prior to 2000).

    From post #166
    1. Since these papers go back three and a half to nine years, certainly, the plasma universe people have been able to provide the quantitative explanations to at least the levels in both papers. Can you point me to those?

    2. I'd really be interested in you pointing to some plasma universe paper showing how the molecular clouds, identified in the Belmont and Tagger paper, would affect those ~350 Mpc long Birkeland currents (or filaments) or even the Verschuur filaments.

    3. Or what value, exactly, either the Birkeland Currents or the Verschuur Fillaments get for either a magnetic field or current with the cloud velocities found in the paper? Can you point to something in the plasma universe papers?

    4. For that matter, can you point to something in the plasma universe papers that even acknowledges the clouds and their velocities? How about the expected global geometry of the Birkeland Currents or Verschuur Fillaments?

    5. So, can you point out, in some plasma universe publication or paper, how they explain, say, the non-thermal spectrum, or if they accept it, how they explain how it's produced, numerically?

    6. Or, if they don't accept those observations as molecular clouds, what they think those observations indicate.

    7. Or, again, if they don't accept the observations as molecular clouds, what exactly is the observation indicating velocity for those clouds.

    From post #172

    8. How do the plasma universe guys (Peratt, Verschuur, etc) explain the specific thermal emissions. Please point out the pertinent papers containing the calculations.

    9. And the plasma universe people's quantitative calculations are, where? For instance, the model and calculations in the Yusef-Zadeh paper explains why thermal gas doesn't affect the spectral index away from the galactic plane. What you gave is nothing more than a qualitative explanation.

    10. And your evidence mainstream theoreticians aren't working on low budgets?

    From post #173

    11. Is this like the plasma universe people explaining you just have to have a dense plasma and a dense magnetic field or a not dense plasma or not strong magnetic field. You know, tuning the free parameters.

    From post #179

    I'll start with a comment that you wrote a whole paragraph that was completely wrong. Now, back to the questions:

    12. 90%? I would love to see a reference for that. Let's see, Baryon Density is 0.046 and Dark Matter Density is 0.227. That makes regular matter 17% of the universe. Where do you get 90% was missing?

    13. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain about the mainstream playing with mixes, when the EU/PU people do the same thing with the density of plasma and the strength of the magnetic fields, to explain filaments?

    14. Why do you keep avoiding the answers?

    15. What spectral index does the Bennett Pinch predict?

    16. "How do the plasma universe guys (Peratt, Verschuur, etc) explain the specific thermal emissions(in reference to the galactic ridge). Please point out the pertinent papers containing the calculations".

    17. When are you going to present specific numerical predictions and estimates, along with the calculations, that are consistent with observations?

    18. Why can't the EU/PU people do that? Why can't the EU/PU people show the calculations they are using, for specific observations?

    19. Why don't they provide us with the comparison between their calculations and the observations?

    20. And why do you keep avoiding answering the questions Don? Afraid the answers are going to weaken your claims?

    21. From post #187

    22. This whole thread was about plasma science and what it predicted, not the mainstream? How about we get back to the OP and you answer the questions on EU/PU

    From post #197

    23. Yeah, and Peratt's specific numerical calculations that are applicable to the masses and star formation rates in the center of the galaxy are, where? Not just some equations in some book, the calculations themselves.

    From post #200

    24. A specific non-thermal numerical prediction, from Peratt's model, based on the mass and the types of stars seen in the galactic center. Along with the shape and strength of the magnetic field, since you didn't answer this question before. And how exactly do the stars in the galactic center affect the shape and strength of the magnetic field, according to Perat?.

    25. If Peratt's model is so good, why hasn't someone, somewhere shown that, Peratt's model can be numerically consistent with the observations?

    26. With all those EU/PU types that think the model is valid, why can't they provide the calculations showing the model is numerically consistent with the observations?

    27. Since you think the model is so good, why don't you show us how Peratt's model can be numerically consistent with the observations?

    28. What Yusef-Zabehi did in his paper was to develop his model, showed the calculations he did, and then compared his answers numerically to the observations. Where are the equivalent numerical comparison for Peratt's model?

    From post #228

    29. How many times have we asked for specific numerical data, and a comparison to the data from you, with no results? Why do you expect us to live up to a standard that you don't live up to?

    From post #230

    30. Show specific, numerical, calculations from a Peratt paper, using Peratt's model, that has been peer reviewed, and compare those calculations to the observations in the paper. Come on Don, you asked for papers, I provided them. Now it's your turn. Until you do, you haven't shown anything.

    31. Are you afraid that if you actually did provide the actual numerical answers, you'd find out that what you've been pushing doesn't stand up?

    32. So do you want to point out exactly where in that model it explains the exact numerical frequencies M31 should be emitting?

    So whats the big deal about not answering these Don? Is it a case of you know that answers will destroy the faulty idea you're trying to present?

  10. #250
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    I didn't ask you for what the source of the specific thermal emissions were did I? I asked for the PU/EU calculations showing how the EU/PU model can produce specific numerical results that are consistent with the 0.8 keV and 8.0 keV emission observation.

    And what do you provide for and answer? A qualitative answer, with no calculations. And that is the whole problem with this thread, isn't it? We've asked you for the specific calculations from the EU/PU model, and you avoid providing them.
    Because the data needed for that kind of calculations do not seem to be freely available or accessible to the general public. These data seem accessible only for authorized professional in the field .As you mentioned you seem to have difficulty to access them.... this fact was also pointed out by Quotation in post 239.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Actually, I'm trying to find all the data. I've found some scattered data, but most papers list the catalogs where they get the data from and I'm not hooked into many of the catalogs. Give me a couple of more days and I'll see how far I can get.

  11. #251
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Because the data needed for that kind of calculations do not seem to be freely available or accessible to the general public. These data seem accessible only for authorized professional in the field .As you mentioned you seem to have difficulty to access them.... this fact was also pointed out by Quotation in post 239.
    And what for those calculations are not in the paper itself? Did you look at the referenced papers at the end of the paper? And even then, why didn't you say this at the beginning? I could buy this a lot easier than you dancing around making it look like you were trying to do everything you could to avoid answering the question. I could have even helped you look for the data.

  12. #252
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    And what for those calculations are not in the paper itself? Did you look at the referenced papers at the end of the paper? And even then, why didn't you say this at the beginning? I could buy this a lot easier than you dancing around making it look like you were trying to do everything you could to avoid answering the question. I could have even helped you look for the data.
    Wait,I thought the question was if i can provide the calculations made by the EU/PU crowd ...
    I have said that the reason they have not produced these calculations was probably because these data were not accessible to the general public.
    Now you are asking me to do these calculations ?Sorry, but i do not have the qualification to do that ....I think Peratt is the guy you should contact for that. Thanks!

  13. #253
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by quotation View Post
    Thanks for the links Nereid. I think I was just reading something from the publications section of the UCLA-LAPD facility http://plasma.physics.ucla.edu/ (which I can't pull up at the moment for some reason) that was arguing for just that, i.e. more complicated structures, or "structures within structure"
    You're welcome.

    And note that the YZ paper I cited was just one, of dozens (if not hundreds) on this topic.

    The structure of the ISM has been probed using a wide range of observational techniques, involving both emission and absorption of electromagnetic radiation in the radio, microwave, FIR, MIR, NIR, optical (a.k.a. visual), and UV parts of the spectrum. While the sorts of HI observations Verschuur's papers tend to be focussed on are certainly interesting, they are far from being a full description of the observed behaviour of the ISM.

    A corollary: any physical model - involving CIV, say - proposed to account for HI observations should also address observations in other parts of electromagnetic spectrum, even if only to show that 'non-detection' is what's expected (from the model).

  14. #254
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    Um, I think you may be mis-reading something ...

    In the Peratt model of the formation of (ordinary) galaxies, there is a pair of Birkeland currents (or filaments); where they approach each other closely, they form the nucleus of the galaxy. This is shown rather clearly here.

    May I suggest that you read what I write more carefully?
    The animation show the moment before both filaments ends up to finally forming one nucleus.full description of the process is in the full text.
    Um, no.

    The animation does NOT show "the moment before both filaments ends up finally forming one nucleus", and the "full description of the process is" NOT "in the full text"!

    Furthermore, the papers from which this website text is drawn - Peratt, Anthony L., "Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 763-778, and Peratt, Anthony L., "Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets", IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 639-660 - make it quite clear that the two plasma filaments ("of width ~35 kpc and separation ~80 kpc") do not coalesce, or collide.

    As indeed they cannot, given what they are.

    Here's what Peratt says:
    Quote Originally Posted by Peratt
    Collision does not occur because the repulsive force of the counterparallel azimuthal currents becomes equal to, then exceeds, the attractive force at separations of the order of the plasma radii.
    In addition, Peratt's model follows a very definite timeline; the spiral shape emerges at a particular range in the simulations, and persists only for a while (he uses several different time scalings, but they are all of the order of 1 time step ~10^11 seconds). During the range of time steps in which there is a clear spiral pattern in the simulation, the two plasma filaments are both shown, quite distinctly, in the corresponding images.

    This is pretty fundamental, Don J, the physics here are at the very heart of Peratt's model.

    Did you actually read those two Peratt papers, Don J? Did you understand them?

  15. #255
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    13,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid
    It does?

    Would you please show - explicitly - where the material states this.

    Using the data in the various sources, what is the timescale for the formation of a single nucleus?
    Page 150
    http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00150.000.html
    So, although you do not say so directly, you admit your earlier post contained a falsehood.

    And you did not answer my last question ("what is the timescale for the formation of a single nucleus?"). I infer, from reading the three papers, that the reason you did not is that you cannot. Not least because Peratt himself made no such statement, or claim.

    Please, Don J, take the time to read the whole paper. Pay particular attention to Figure 1.

    Then read the two 1986 papers, carefully, paying particular attention to the actual physics of the model. I'm more than happy to have a discussion with you on this material; however, I would like you to put enough effort into reading it, yourself, so that you actually understand it.

  16. #256
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Wait,I thought the question was if i can provide the calculations made by the EU/PU crowd ...
    I have said that the reason they have not produced these calculations was probably because these data were not accessible to the general public.
    Yep, more dancing. Yep, I did ask about EU/PU papers showing the calculations. But you didn't answer. But, there is data in the paper. So they could have used that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Now you are asking me to do these calculations ?Sorry, but i do not have the qualification to do that ...
    Well, when I asked about the non-thermal emission in the YZ paper, you said

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    The individual non-thermal filaments are produced by the Bennett Pinch effect.
    Exactly what calculations did you do, and what specific numerical results did you get from those calculations, which were consistent with the YZ paper observations that allowed you to make that statement in the specific case of the YZ paper, if you do not have the qualifications to do those calculations?


    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    I think Peratt is the guy you should contact for that. Thanks!
    He's not here, you are. And you are the one that claims that Peratt's model actually works. Although since you now claim you can't do the calculations, it appears that your support of Peratt's model is more because you think it looks better, not because you have actually done any work to check it.

  17. #257
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
    Um, no.

    The animation does NOT show "the moment before both filaments ends up finally forming one nucleus", and the "full description of the process is" NOT "in the full text"!



    Here's what Peratt says:
    Collision does not occur because the repulsive force of the counterparallel azimuthal currents becomes equal to, then exceeds, the attractive force at separations of the order of the plasma radii
    That quote is from
    Page 3 section (3)
    The transition from double radio -galaxies to spiral galaxies.
    I see that you have stopped the lecture at that quote go further when he explain how a quasar is formed as they spiral inwards ...note the key word isTransition there is different transition starting from double radio -galaxies to...to....to....finally spiral galaxies.
    http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/AdvancesII.pdf

  18. #258
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Yep, more dancing. Yep, I did ask about EU/PU papers showing the calculations. But you didn't answer. But, there is data in the paper. So they could have used that.

    Well, when I asked about the non-thermal emission in the YZ paper, you said
    The individual non-thermal filaments are produced by the Bennett Pinch effect.


    Exactly what calculations did you do, and what specific numerical results did you get from those calculations, which were consistent with the YZ paper observations that allowed you to make that statement in the specific case of the YZ paper, if you do not have the qualifications to do those calculations?
    You make reference to my reply in
    Post 168 page 6
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Now, maybe the plasma universe describes the two observations with just one model. I'd be more than happy to hear or read how the plasma universe can exactly explain the the two different thermal emissions on the galactic ridge (Belmont and Tagger), while still explaining the individual non-thermal filaments(F. Yusef-Zadeh).
    The two different thermal emissions on the galactic ridge are explained by 2 different energetic plasma source... The individual non-thermal filaments are produced by the Bennett Pinch effect..

    I easely came to that answer only from a basic lecture of Peratt material.No calculations involved.I have not even read Belmont and Tagger paper before giving the answer. BTW I still have not read Belmont and Tagger paper.
    Last edited by Don J; 2012-Apr-23 at 04:47 AM. Reason: Fixing a quote

  19. #259
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    You make reference to my reply in
    Post 168 page 6

    The two different thermal emissions on the galactic ridge are explained by 2 different energetic plasma source... The individual non-thermal filaments are produced by the Bennett Pinch effect..
    And the Bennett pinch effect calculations showing the Bennett pinch is consistent with the 8 keV

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    I easely came to that answer only from a basic lecture of Peratt material.No calculations involved.
    Which means you haven't shown the Bennett pinch effect as describe by Peratt can match the specific thermal observations with numerical results from calculations. Thank you for verifying that Peratt's model cannot match specific numerical observations. That's what we've been waiting for.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    I have not even read Belmont and Tagger paper before giving the answer. BTW I still have not read Belmont and Tagger paper.
    You quoted one sentence and left out the rest of the post where I asked for the specific calculations. Here's the rest of the post that you left off:

    Since these papers go back three and a half to nine years, certainly, the plasma universe people have been able to provide the quantitative explanations to at least the levels in both papers. Can you point me to those?

    I'd really be interested in you pointing to some plasma universe paper showing how the molecular clouds, identified in the Belmont and Tagger paper, would affect those ~350 Mpc long Birkeland currents (or filaments) or even the Verschuur filaments. Or what value, exactly, either the Birkeland Currents or the Verschuur Fillaments get for either a magnetic field or current with the cloud velocities found in the paper? Can you point to something in the plasma universe papers? For that matter, can you point to something in the plasma universe papers that even acknowledges the clouds and their velocities? How about the expected global geometry of the Birkeland Currents or Verschuur Fillaments?

    I fully understand that the plasma universe may make different predictions or have different interpretations of the observations, than appear in these papers. So, can you point out, in some plasma universe publication or paper, how they explain, say, the non-thermal spectrum, or if they accept it, how they explain how it's produced, numerically? Or, if they don't accept those observations as molecular clouds, what they think those observations indicate. Or, again, if they don't accept the observations as molecular clouds, what exactly is the observation indicating velocity for those clouds.


    Since you provided no references with specific numerical calculations or results, this is another case of you not showing Peratt's model matches specific numerical observations. Thank you again for verifying Peratt's model is useless.

    Oh, and again, it appears that your support of Peratt's model is more because you think it looks better, not because you have actually done any work to check it. This of course is based on your claim on not being able to do the calculations

  20. #260
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Since you provided no references with specific numerical calculations or results, this is another case of you not showing Peratt's model matches specific numerical observations. Thank you again for verifying Peratt's model is useless.

    Oh, and again, it appears that your support of Peratt's model is more because you think it looks better, not because you have actually done any work to check it. This of course is based on your claim on not being able to do the calculations
    (1)As I have expected if i cannot do the calculations myself that prove Peratt model is useless.Talk about a circular reasonning. LOL.

    In their conclusion Yusef-Zadeh point out some aspect of their speculative model.
    Both strong and weak magnetic field lines in the ISM of the Galactic center region are considered to be illuminated by the relativistic particles of the cluster but each has its own difficulties.

    In particular, we argue that present observations place strong constraint

    on the idea that strong, pervasive magnetic field with a poloidal geometry is distributed in the the Galactic center region.

    That mean Yusef-Zadeh paper is in contradiction with other in the mainstream who claim the contrary.

    Oh!And you have still not provided any peer rewieved papers which falsified Peratt's model contrary to your claims.

    (1)You can continue your little game.... but without me.I give up.
    Last edited by Don J; 2012-Apr-23 at 06:52 AM.

  21. #261
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    (1)As I have expected if i cannot do the calculations myself that prove Peratt model is useless.Talk about a circular reasonning. LOL.
    Nope, it proves your conclusions based on the model are useless.

    You can't identify anything as conforming to the model if you can't calculate how it should behave according to the model.

    "It looks like" is not enough. "It's obviously the same" isn't good enough either. If you came to the answer easily, without calculating, your result IS useless.

    You came to play in our playground you get to play by our rules.

    Do the math or show where the math has been done for you.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  22. #262
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    (1)As I have expected if i cannot do the calculations myself that prove Peratt model is useless.Talk about a circular reasonning. LOL.
    I suggest you go back and read it. I didn't say it was useless because YOU didn't DO the specific numerical calculations, I said you didn't provide the specific numeral calculations. Peratt's followers must be able to do them, if they think it such a good model, so there should be plenty of papers out there with all the calculations.


    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    In their conclusion Yusef-Zadeh

    snip...

    claim the contrary.
    No, it means it places constraints on the idea, not that it contradicts it. If it contradicted it, they would say the other models aren't possible. In this case, they are saying the observations have to fit within a very specific and very small numerical range.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    Oh!And you have still not provided any peer rewieved papers which falsified Peratt's model contrary to your claims.
    Sure we have. Every paper we presented falsified Peratt's model. You didn't provide any kind of support, either another paper with SPECIFIC NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS AND COMPARISONS TO THE OBSERVATIONS, or those same SPECIFIC NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS AND COMPARISONS TO THE OBSERVATIONS by yourself. Since you claim you can't do it yourself, you would have to find it by someone else. You haven't, so the model is falsified. You don't seem to realize that it's not for us to falsify Peratt's model, it up to him, his followers, of in this case you, since you are defending it, to present specific, numerical, calculations and comparisons to observations, to show that Peratt's model is consistent with observations. If those type of calculations haven't been done by Peratt, his followers, or you, since you are defending it, the model, as it stands, is falsified, until someone does those SPECIFIC NUMERICAL CALCULATIONS AND COMPARISONS TO THE OBSERVATIONS, which shows the observations are consistent with Peratt's model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    (1)You can continue your little game.... but without me.I give up.
    Well, you claimed you were done before, then came back and again did what you could to avoid answering the questions put to you. That looks more like playing a game.

  23. #263
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    38,585
    OK, I've had more than enough.

    Don J, this has gone round-and-round for far too long. You are not fooling anyone; you are advocating ATM in S&T. Normally, I would either close this thread or move it to ATM, but you didn't even start this thread. quotation and others are having a legit discussion and I don't want to stop that. And I am not going to spend an hour trying to untangle the two discussions. So here is what we are going to do...

    Don J, you are not allowed to post any more in this thread, not even to respond to anything that has been asked of you. If you wish to discuss this topic, you need to start your own thread. I will not infract you now, but if you post in this thread again, or advocate ATM outside of ATM, you will be severely infracted.

    If you, or anyone else, has a problem with this decision, Report this post.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  24. #264
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by quotation
    To me, one likely area of investigation might be the bright spots, or kinks, YZ noted. (Note that similar bright spots were of interest to Verschuur, but their very brightness precluded Gaussian decomposition). To some, they seem to resemble z-pinches, but we'll need data (as suggested earlier by Nereid) such as electron temps, densities, magnetic info etc. etc. We can profile a z-pinch with such terms, as has been done many times in the laboratory, such that we'd have a baseline for comparison, but where do we get the raw astronomical data, and even if we saw comparable profiles, would they be meaningful?
    Actually, I'm trying to find all the data. I've found some scattered data, but most papers list the catalogs where they get the data from and I'm not hooked into many of the catalogs. Give me a couple of more days and I'll see how far I can get.
    Ok, here's part of it . 17 data sets (look in the lower left) for the IR range. Since the YZ paper uses the 2MASS survey, this is the explanatory supplement to the 2MASS survey. Other data sets can also be used. Check the specifics for each data set under that data set. Here is Galactic Bulge Survey source table. This paper outlines some data, methods, observations, etc of the Galactic Bulge Survey. Here is the ROSAT catalogue, along with access and explanatory instructions. This may be handy as the GBS is cross referenced with the ROSAT. Other data is available in the other papers that are referenced in the YZ paper. I'm not sure what else you may need. Let me know and I'll be happy to either help or do some searching for you.

  25. #265
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    265
    Thank you Tensor. That could take awhile to get through. Let me see what I can come up with. Think I'll start here THE GALACTIC BULGE SURVEY: OUTLINE AND X–RAY OBSERVATIONS to maybe figure out what to do with the rest of it. Should see ya in about a month (that's a dog month) or so

  26. #266
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by quotation View Post
    Thank you Tensor. That could take awhile to get through. Let me see what I can come up with. Think I'll start here THE GALACTIC BULGE SURVEY: OUTLINE AND X–RAY OBSERVATIONS to maybe figure out what to do with the rest of it. Should see ya in about a month (that's a dog month) or so
    Well, that's not all of it either. I'm still looking for a few other sources, some paper references, and a couple of other things before I pass the rest along to you.

  27. #267
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    265
    Thanks again Tensor. I started plowing through the Buldge paper and found a couple areas of interest, e.g.:
    ...finds roughly one–third to be soft sources, largely stars, and two–third to be hard sources, including many AGN and a few CVs...
    The discovery of a large number of IPs [intermediate polars] with INTEGRAL (Scaringi et al. 2010) may be indicating that the fraction of IPs among the CVs [cataclysmic variables] is substantially larger than was previously thought.
    These CVs are kind of interesting as I noticed that terms like "z-pinch" and "exploding double layers" quickly seem to disappear in the literature after the "Peratt-era". I can only guess that as we got real observations out in space we found that the situation (as it always seems to do with plasma) was immensely more complicated than that noted in a laboratory when dealing with "pure" plasma. From what I can tell, we started attributing "explosive" (energetic/bright) phenomena to magnetic reconnection (MR), but even then it wasn't a simple 1:1 of say MR = exploding double layer (or z-pinch). I actually stumbled upon a thread in another forum where Tuesenfem, Neried and somebody named Suede were talking about this some years ago. I followed a link to some of Tusenfem's papers where for example MR is defined as follows (pretty much like the wiki def too):
    Magnetic reconnection (MR) is a fundamental physical process which was proposed to explain changes in magnetic field topology and associated conversion of magnetic to kinetic energy in laboratory, space and astrophysical plasmas [e.g. Birn and Priest, 2007].
    Then in another paper (Study of reconnection-associated multi-scale fluctuations with Cluster and Double Star, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.1829.pdf)
    they identify something called current disruption:

    On the other hand, the substorm triggering scenario called current disruption (CD) invokes kinetic instability processes...
    The CD scenario offers a possibility to explain both the dipolarization and the tailward movement of dipolarization front without invoking reconnection associated flow breakings or flux pile-up...CD is associated with kinetic instabilities in rather localized regions. It was shown by Lui (2004) that a local kinetic theory of instabilities can account for the excited waves exhibiting large growth for long enough time even within a thin current sheet
    It's hard for me to imagine that the various "current disrupting" terminologies aren't somehow related to the "basics" as outlined by Alven and Peratt for example, but again I'm guessing the complexity of regular matter intermixed with plasma, associated turbulence etc. hasn't somehow contributed to the lexicon we find today. I mean if it had been a simple "double layer" explosion I think Tusenfem would've recognized it as such since he worked on those extensively for some time...what have I gotten myself into, lol
    Last edited by quotation; 2012-Apr-25 at 05:51 PM. Reason: spelling

  28. #268
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,467
    Quote Originally Posted by quotation View Post
    Then in another paper (Study of reconnection-associated multi-scale fluctuations with Cluster and Double Star, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.1829.pdf)
    they identify something called current disruption:

    It's hard for me to imagine that the various "current disrupting" terminologies aren't somehow related to the "basics" as outlined by Alven and Peratt for example, but again I'm guessing the complexity of regular matter intermixed with plasma, associated turbulence etc. hasn't somehow contributed to the lexicon we find today. I mean if it had been a simple "double layer" explosion I think Tusenfem would've recognized it as such since he worked on those extensively for some time...what have I gotten myself into, lol
    Yeah, that's "my" paper, well 7th author that is. Just a quick reply, I will not be in full mode again until after May day.
    Current disruption as mentioned here is a process that happens in the cross-tail current of the Earth's magnetotail. Simply explained: A plasma instability close to the Earth, at about 10 Earth radii down the tail, will actually disrupt the cross tail current, diverting it from perpendicular to the magnetic field lines in the tail to field aligned currents out of the current sheet of the magnetotail. This sets off a process that will lead to a reconfiguration of the magnetotail's magnetic field, including reconnection further down the tail between 20 and 30 Earth radii.

    Now reconnection and current disruption are not "exploding double layers", the latter have never been seen in nature actually. And interestingly, there was a paper not too long ago, but I don't remember which one (will have to check on JREF because I used it overthere) where it was shown that such strong double layers will not exist in nature but that a split up in smaller double layers is preferred in plasmas. Magnetic reconnection can also not be a "Z-pinch" because this pinch will only bring together equally directed magnetic fields, and thus there is no way to get any re-configuration of the magnetic field.

    I think the best review at the moment about reconnection is the Yamada, Kulsrud & Ji review paper in Reviews of Modern Physics. But mind you this is 62 pages! (pdf available)

    Suede was a clear EU proponent, as there have been so many. Unfortunately, plasma physics is full of things that are totally counter intuitive and therefore without a good education on the topic one is prone to go into the wrong direction with trying to interprete what is actually going on.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  29. #269
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    265
    While trying to work through some of the data provided by Tensor, I decided to take a break, so tried the Yamada, Kulsrud, Ji link above. It was behind a paywall, and being notoriously cheap, I went up to arxiv, where I didn't find that particular paper, but after a search on Kulsrud found a very cool white paper from the Topical Group on Plasma Astrophysics of the American Physical Society entitled Plasma Physics Processes of the Interstellar Medium, 2009. It was only 7 pages long, but packed alot of information into those 7 pages. Here are some of the highlights, but it's well worth a quck read for a look at what may be ahead:
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.4181.pdf
    We are particularly interested in interstellar medium (ISM) phenomena which can be described by the laws of plasma physics. This is appropriate since nearly all of the ISM phases possess sufficient ionization for plasma behavior.

    It is entirely possible that the most important discovery in astronomy of the next decade will not come from an astronomical telescope, but from a physics laboratory experiment.

    The coming years will be a golden era for interstellar magnetism studies, due to recent advances in radioastronomical techniques such as rotation measure synthesis...as well as the prospect of major new radio telescopes which are being planned or are under construction.

    ...turbulence almost certainly plays an important role in the astrophysics of the ISM. Turbulence-associated magnetic field fluctuations govern the diffusion and propagation of charged particles in the galaxy...interstellar turbulence is almost certainly responsible for determining fundamental transport coefficients such as viscosity, resistivity, and thermal conductivity. Knowledge of the values of these transport coefficients is crucial for developing credible mathematical
    models of the ISM.

    To understand the evolutionary processes which govern the interstellar medium, it is necessary to know its basic physical properties, and the variation in these properties from one place to another. These basic properties consist of the fundamental “plasma parameters” such as electron density, elemental composition, ionization fraction, magnetic field strength, electron temperature, ion temperature, and (if possible) the functional form of the electron and ion distribution...

    Magnetic field reconnection is one of the foremost topics in basic plasma physics and astrophysical plasma physics. The importance of reconnection in astrophysics is that the considerable energy in magnetic fields can be released, plasma flows generated, and perhaps particles accelerated in electric fields generated in the reconnection regions...It seems that magnetic reconnection and its associated current sheets must arise in the interstellar medium. Faraday rotation measurements of extragalactic radio sources show random variations from one line of sight to another...

    Observational research could consist of additional, higher spatial-density Faraday rotation measurements of extragalactic radio sources to identify regions of high magnetic shear...These regions could then be inspected for other anomalies, such as enhanced heating or plasma flows
    .
    The Interstellar Medium in a Can: Laboratory Experiments of Relevance to ISM Astrophysics
    Here's a list of the authors:
    Steven Spangler (University of Iowa),
    Marijke Haverkorn (Netherlands Foundation for Research in Astronomy),
    Thomas Intrator (Los Alamos National Laboratory),
    Russell Kulsrud (Princeton University),
    Alex Lazarian (University of Wisconsin),
    Seth Redfield (Wesleyan University), and
    Ellen Zweibel (University of Wisconsin)
    Last edited by quotation; 2012-Apr-28 at 07:58 PM. Reason: added link, d'oh!

  30. #270
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    7,467
    Quote Originally Posted by quotation View Post
    While trying to work through some of the data provided by Tensor, I decided to take a break, so tried the Yamada, Kulsrud, Ji link above. It was behind a paywall, and being notoriously cheap, I went up to arxiv, where I didn't find that particular paper, but after a search on Kulsrud found a very cool white paper from the Topical Group on Plasma Astrophysics of the American Physical Society enti ... [snip]
    that's why I mentionend "pdf available." an IM would suffice ...
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

Similar Threads

  1. Neutrinos/Plasma in space, charged plasma exchange between bodies.
    By utenzil in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2011-Sep-06, 02:04 PM
  2. 7 Years of Opportunity on Mars and a Science Bonanza
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2011-Jan-25, 03:40 AM
  3. Mars Science Laboratory Mission Delayed Two Years
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2008-Dec-04, 07:20 PM
  4. Science in 10, 20 and 50 years?
    By The_Radiation_Specialist in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 2008-Dec-03, 05:47 PM
  5. Common Sense Science and Plasma Cosmology
    By SeanU in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2007-May-03, 09:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: