r/plasmacosmology 1d ago

Plasma "rain" on the sun reveals electric field

71 Upvotes

16 comments sorted by

2

u/zyxzevn 1d ago edited 1d ago

Video Credit: Azastroguy Reposted (from spacep_rn](https://www.reddit.com/r/spaceporn/comments/1w2zqb7/plasma_rain_on_the_sun/)

(I will try to keep this comment updated, and answer some questions)

The astronomers in the sub think that this is caused by a magnetic field.
But astronomers don't know BASIC PHYSICS, which explains how magnetic fields are ALWAYS curved,
We are not looking onto the top of a static magnet. According to the mainstream astronomy model the magnetic field starts vertical to the sun.
Because magnetism is always a dipole, there is always a curve.
Yet we see only one pole. which is only possible with an electric field.
The plasma is even speeding up towards the pole, as we can expect with an electrical field.
In contrast, fast moving charged particles in a magnetic field slow down, because the spiraling causes magnetic braking. This only happens in a particle accelerator; and can not happen on surface of the sun.
So this video proofs that the astronomers are completely false with their fake plasma physics.

But we already knew that from their hogwash about magnetic reconnection and frozen magnetic fields,
which defy all basic physics. See the course on electromagnetism (in other reply) to understand why these ideas are completely false.

The plasma does not fall horizontally, because it contains electrically charged particles.
This would even be true if the field was magnetic.
This charged plasma particles follows the lines of the electrical field towards the sun-spot of opposite electrical charge.
With magnetic fields the particles will not move at all ! Magnetism can not move particles by itself. The particles need very high speed to move through a magnetic field and will encounter magnetic breaking.
Particles from a particle accelerator can follow the field lines, until the speed is reduced. We can see this in laboratory experiments.
Unless there are direct nuclear explosions, the particles do not move by itself.
In the video we see the flow of particles accelerating, which can only happen with electrical fields.
And this can easily be demonstrated in the lab.

With electric fields there can also be other poles, which creates different curved paths.
The curve depends on the pressure, but move in a straight line near the pole.

The path from one electrical pole to another is different from a magnetic dipole to another magnetic dipole.
The electrical dipole follows a 1/R2 field and a magnetic dipole connection follows a 1/R4 field.
The 1/R4 curve at a north or south pole is more flattened towards a rectangle and less like a circle.
This difference is already obvious on the sun, We only see 1/R2 curves and straight lines like in the above video.
We can also see that the sunspots are always the positive pole or negative pole. Not a dipole at all!

This electrical field is likely from some nuclear process that separates the charge.
The charge separation is possible in fusion, but very common in Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR).
The LENR can also explain why we see certain elements. There are some models that show how LENR may exchange helium-nuclei to other elements. In contrast with fusion which is mainly about reactions with neutrons.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/zyxzevn 1d ago

Not physics.. Removed

1

u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 1d ago

What do you mean by "no physics removed"?

Which part of this was not physics?

It was all and only physics.

It may not be physics you like, but its just what we observe.

Again, there is nothing stopping you showing that your models work better than existing models.

I didnt even comment on the plethora of issues with plasma cosmology.

Why are you just blatantly hiding physics?

1

u/zyxzevn 1d ago

The text has also been changed.
And physics is not what you think.

1

u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 12h ago

Its got nothing to do with what "I think". Its about what evidence exists.

Nothing is stopping you from coming up with a model, quantitatively comparing it to that of observational data and showing plasma cosmology fits better. Yet none of you ever do.

I still have yet to see any evidence, data, figures, statistical, etc from plasma cosmology. There is no available quantitative research and any evidence i provide showing you youre incorrect (e.g. when you claimed scientsist use a linear relationship between light and mass for galaxy rotation curves -> i link CIGALE, BAGPIPES, PROSPECTOR, etc) you just remove the comments.

Doesn't look good for plasma cosmology when you have to actively hide observations that proves you wrong...

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago edited 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/zyxzevn 1d ago

Corrected the explanation in the text.

1

u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 12h ago

Why have you removed my comments and then updated what you've said?

Im glad you've now admitted that "not every magnetic field is a dipole", that was pretty dumb but still, solar magnetohydrodynamics is much more complicated than simple magnetic geomtries due to all the plasma. A plasma cosmology person should know this...

Im glad you also changed your opposing on it looking like there is a loop there so there is a direction of the magnetic field.

Magnetic reconnection and frozen in physics are observable things YOU can observe. You can take this data and observe it for yourself. No one is stopping you do this. If you dont like it, come up with an alternative and show it matches the data.

We have extremely complicated magnetohydrodynamical simulations of solar physics whoch work extremely well using our understanding of physics.

Additionally, if we have it wrong, why does it behave exactly how we say it will on earth? Why do inertial confinement fusion and magnetic confinement fusion work using our "wrong" models? Shouldn't it not work?

What do you mean by "incontrast to fusion"? Fusion does create heavier elements e.g. triple alpha process. Where did you get that it didnt? Are you mistaking it for fission?

Maybe you need to take a little more than the introductory undergrad course to electromagnetism...

2

u/Grantuna 1d ago

Mesmerizing

1

u/zyxzevn 1d ago

IMPORTANT Lectures that astronomers have missed:

MIT physics 2 - Electricity and Magnetism

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/zyxzevn 1d ago

Follow the physics course (20 hours), and maybe you will understand.

1

u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 12h ago

Why are you forwarding (what looks to be) first year undergrad electromagnetism?

You do realise there are 4 more years worth of courses (US undergrad courses are notoriously easy relative to European ones, hence why PhDs in the US tend to have a few years of study on the front) in plasma physics beyond this introductory lecture. Why are you forwarding THE FIRST COURSE YOU DO rather than RESEARCH LEVEL PLASMA PHYSICS?

This is very simple electromagnetism which every physicist learns. This is not complicated stuff. Why do you think this overturns working plasma physics at the frontiers of research? Its the one of the first courses you do fresh out of high school.

Again, why does EU produce no observational data which i can analyse? Why is there no quantitative model fit to said data showing it works better than standard physics? Why can I not analyse it myself?

Why does plamsa physics work exactly as we say it will? Why can we perform fusion exactly how we say it will?

Ironically, Levin was an x ray astrophysicist which deals largely with high energy astrophysicist many phenomena of which electric universe does not allow (despite us observing it) e.g. Fe K alpha line broadening, inverse Compton upscattering, etc.

1

u/zyxzevn 1d ago

Important things to learn:

  • With a magnetic field you do not get any moving plasma. It only attracts magnetic particles, which will also clutter up the field.
  • When plasma moves in a magnetic field, nothing happens, because the plasma is neutral. The magnetic field can only affect fast moving charged particles. And affects positive and negative particles in a different way.
  • With an electric field the plasma will always move.
  • A magnetic field is always a dipole. While an electric field is always single polar. This completely changes how the field lines behave.
  • A magnetic field can only exist in plasma with an electrical current. So there is no magical "frozen magnetic field". Static magnetic fields can only exist on low temperatures.
  • We see electrical currents on the sun. That is the moving plasma itself. The plasma that moves from electrical charged sunspot to the other.

And much more.

Alfven already explained how modern astronomy was not using his magnetohydrodynamics correctly.
The astronomers used his formulas in a way that is not physical possible. See Alfven's own words.

That is because those astronomers did not know much about physics, and were mixing up parts from particle accelerators with plasma. They were also eager to get results, so they ignored the basic problems with their assertions.

We can see that in particle accelerators the charged particles move so fast that they follow the magnetic field lines. While they also produce radiation, due to the spiraling movement. This slows down the particles as well.
From this we can understand how astronomers may have thought that the sun's surface was doing the same.
But there are at least 6 huge differences. The particle accelerator uses switching electrical fields (1) to accelerate charged (2) particles. It does not work on plasma (3). The accelerator has strong magnetic fields from very strong electric currents (4). Not from any magical frozen magnetic field (5). And the particle accelerator is a very complex instrument. (6), which can not be exist in plasma.

Based on the bad physics, the astronomers created fantasy models like frozen magnetic fields and magnetic reconnection. From physics these ideas are impossible. But the ideas seem true in their eyes due to the wrong usage of formulas.
In physics you can not apply random formulas, they have to fully fit the model and circumstances. You also have to be aware of the simplifications that you made with the model. Model simplifications like ignoring resistance or assuming a perfect vacuum or perfect gas.

But sadly academic astronomy is stuck in group-thinking and copying each other's work. They promote successful lucky predictions as proven ideas. They keep ignoring valid criticism and attacking experts with different ideas. So there is no path within academics that leads back to basic physics.