Birkeland Currents

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Birkeland Currents

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri May 06, 2016 7:16 pm

Please consider,

Miles' Birkeland Currents paper misses the mark.
160. Birkeland Currents. I show that these currents must pass through the Earth. 11pp.
http://milesmathis.com/birke.pdf
First published August 17, 2013.

Miles begins with Wikipedia - which shows a schematic of the Birkeland or Field-Aligned Currents and the ionospheric current systems they connect to:


Granted, Miles shows that the diagrammed current flow is wrong, because it is. It is also true that this Birkeland Current discription doesn't resemble any Birkeland current description I ever saw at the Thunderbolts forum. http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/index.php.

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/issues.html
Issue 2 (April), PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, Volume 11 (2015)
Donald E. Scott, Birkeland Currents: A Force-Free Field-Aligned Model

The fundamental vector calculus definition of a force-free, field-aligned current in space is expanded in cylindrical coordinates to directly obtain the Bessel partial differential equation that specifies the magnetic field created by such a current. This result is often called the Lundquist solution. A simple but detailed derivation is included here. The physical properties of the resulting intricate magnetic field structure are described. The cause of its characteristic counter-rotation and counter-flows are identified. ... .
and a second source;

Cosmic Power Lines Part 1 | EU2015, ThunderboltsProject
Donald Scott, Published on Feb 3, 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JST8NHoAAcA

Don Scott's Birkland currents are axially concentric counter-rotating cylindrical spiraling flows. When that current carrying structure is pinched, matter begins to condensate. When Don Scott's current flows into the earth's poles, aurora are created. My only criticism of Don Scott's version of Birkeland currents is that it is missing the essential two way current flow, when used, for example, in describing aurora. I'm sure that throws off the single sided Bessel function, and, I suppose, Don's estimate of orbital radii, etc.

Both these sources are newer than Miles' paper. Birkeland currents are now better defined. Please note that the video includes counter-rotating concentric flows that, seems to me, should fit into Miles model. I'll see if I can read and understand the paper better before making any wags.
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Birkeland Currents

Post by LongtimeAirman on Fri May 06, 2016 8:25 pm

This one may be easier (?).

http://electric-cosmos.org/BirkelandFields.pdf
Magnetic Fields of Birkeland Currents
D. E. Scott, Ph.D. (EE)

Abstract: The fundamental vector calculus definition of a force-free, field-aligned, Birkeland current is expanded in cylindrical coordinates to obtain the partial differential equations (DEs) that yield the magnetic field created by such a current. ... .
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Birkeland Currents

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Oct 27, 2016 2:21 am

The abstract alone reads like more mainstream gibberish. Is Don getting worse in his old age? Is he still unable to define electricity or magnetism, physically? He's starting to read more like Hawking than not.

I used to be a huge EU guy, then I asked their top people what electricity was and they couldn't tell me. Same with magnetism. That's actually how I found Mathis to begin with; he's the only person who's ever been able to answer this.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Birkeland Currents

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Oct 27, 2016 2:24 am

"...to obtain the partial differential equations (DEs) that yield the magnetic field created by such a current..."

Equations don't yield magnetic fields, real physical events do. What is a "partial differential equation"? Either it's a DE or it's not. This is just more hedging and soporific language to hide a lack of fundamental physics and understanding. In short, I don't trust these guys to plug in a light bulb anymore, much less tell us how it works.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Birkeland Currents

Post by LongtimeAirman on Thu Oct 27, 2016 10:04 am

Jared, Thanks for your feedback. I interpreted Don's cylindrical current flows as charge channels, and developed that idea elsewhere here at the site. Feel free to take that apart too. Obviously I'm still an idealistic EUer at heart. I think Miles can save them. And so, beatings will continue until morale improves.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Birkeland Currents

Post by Jared Magneson on Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:45 pm

Hah haaaaa! That's quite funny, your ending sentence. Not laughing at you, but with you. I'm also cool with many of the EU ideas and theories still, but the ones which contradict Mathis's explosionary tactics just don't hold water to me anymore. While his paper on Birkeland Currents is a bit dated, I think many of his points still stand.

For example, none of the EU people can tell you what electric current is, along with electric charge or magnetism. Nor could Birkeland. To them it's just a flow of energy sans mass, at this point still. They haven't made the leap to discovering the photon, even though they can see with their own eyes it is in fact a real particle. Everything we see tells us this, as well as vision existing at all. It's not electrons hitting our ocular nerves, nor neutrons or protons.

All that said, I have no problem agreeing with your interpretation that Don't flows are charge channels. They're certainly channeling energy in distinct patterns and directions, and they certainly are no streams of protons and neutrons, although some may be carried along for the ride in certain circumstances (such as the electron). That and the whole, you know, glowing part of it all (such as the auroras) makes a pretty good case for photons.

Jared Magneson

Posts : 229
Join date : 2016-10-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Birkeland Currents

Post by LloydK on Fri Oct 28, 2016 9:01 pm

Charles Chandler has done some excellent criticizing of Scott's and maybe Thornhill's EU theories on the TB forum. He was never able apparently to make much sense of MM's ideas or to accept them, though he didn't entirely reject them either. He preferred to deal more with the macrocosm and didn't want to get much into the microcosm. But he does get into it a little.

I guess I'd better look up some links to post here for you/s.

Here's a good post at https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=81108&sid=915593b45e10fb7f85901995d7f31993#p80962
Lloyd wrote: "Wouldn't Bridgman's calculation still apply, which shows that an undetected current would be way too weak to produce the Sun's radiation?"
Charles replied: "I think that this only applies to any model with a galactic [electric] current [such as the EU model has], which necessarily would pass by the space-based instrumentation. In my model, and in Bob's plasmoid model, the charges have already recombined within the first 10 solar radii, and thus show no current by the time they get out to where the instruments are."


Here I quoted Thornhill's EU theory with 7 points or so and Charles responded.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=10457&start=15&sid=69352a8f71e656bc9c6fe4161daa1d49#p78343
He kind of summed up like this, but what he said before this seemed more informative to me; this is just a teaser.
The Universe is definitely Electric, but not the way the EU initially conceived it. OK, so what? Does that make me a bad person? Very Happy -- Here I should like to point out that Thornhill showed a diagram of Hannes Alfven's concept of the solar circuit, which laid the foundation for Don Scott's solar model. But for Alfven, the Sun was a generator, while for Scott, it's a motor. So here's a petty little EE disagreeing with a Nobel laureate.

Another post: I'll quote the whole thing, as it's short.
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=78391&sid=97676678f179ea75fafc4e244cbe0dfc#p78275
Lloyd wrote:
The Anode models don't seem to specify what generates the interstellar or intergalactic electric currents,
nick c wrote:
PLASMA!
Charles replied:
Yes, but what is the electromotive force? In other words, what got the plasma moving? Or to put it another way, if I asked you what causes electric currents in copper wires, you might say "electrons", but the answer that I was looking for was "electrostatic potentials". Smile So what creates the E-fields that motivate plasma drifts? There has to be a charge separation mechanism in there somewhere, and that's what we're questioning.


One more: an excerpt, but read the whole thing at the link.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=82241&sid=482be024cdbae3cb13752b47ed5f4c4d#p82241
Both the Earth and the quiet Sun have toroidal fields, and both have the same problem invoking a dynamo explanation: the rotation is consistent, while the magnetic polarity flips. I know less about the Earth, but in the Sun, there is a straight-forward explanation: torsional oscillation. If the Sun is made of charged double-layers, it's multiple dynamos, and the overall field is just the net result after all of the fields superimposed. Due to torsional oscillation, the layers speed up and slow down with respect to each other. If they are charged, the polarity of the overall field will flip.

On his website, Charles has a short paper called Atoms, Stars, & Galaxies at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6630 , in which he explains that the electric force is responsible for formation of each of them. That's about as far as he has ventured into the microcosm. He thinks photons have no mass.

LloydK

Posts : 428
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Birkeland Currents

Post by LloydK on Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:38 pm

CC has a good detailed theory that electrically charged denser Debye cells in space implode after filamenting and being struck by supernova shocks and UV, leading to formation of electrical double layers of matter that form stars and planets. He thinks EDP, electron degeneracy pressure, in inner layers squeezes out electrons, which then float upward to form a negative layer over an inner positive layer. Electric tidal forces then cause waves in a boundary layer where electrons recombine with positive ions and produce solar power or planetary heat.

His theory is much more thorough than anyone else's that I know of at the macrocosmic level and doesn't seem to have many flaws. I'd like to see if MM's microcosmic theory is somehow combinable with CC's macrocosmic.

LloydK

Posts : 428
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Birkeland Currents

Post by LongtimeAirman on Sat Oct 29, 2016 10:01 pm

.
Hi Lloyd, I haven't had any time to sit with this. My first reaction/answer.

The great mystery in all EU models (what little I know anyway), anode, cathode, debeye cell, (and Birkland currents too), is that they all must account for observed current flows in one way source/sink models.

Only Miles allows that all matter is interconnected; the interconnection - charge channels - is a constant exchange of b-photons. The channel exists on all scales, between all charge particles, in both directions. The true source of "current".
.

LongtimeAirman
Admin

Posts : 612
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Birkeland Currents

Post by LloydK on Mon Oct 31, 2016 8:24 pm

Hey, Airman, do you have time to check out my new thread on the Triboelectric effect at http://milesmathis.the-talk.net/t239-triboelectric-effect-very-important ? I'm looking for anyone's input on that. I think if MM's model can explain attraction between "positive" and "negative" charges, then CC's model and MM's model can be combined into a more complete model. Steven Rado had a source/sink model for aether that I think was pretty good. His theory was called aethrokinematics. He's the one who explained that fast moving objects make lower pressure areas than stationary and slow moving objects, which is another possible explanation of gravity, as I discussed a couple years or so ago.

LloydK

Posts : 428
Join date : 2014-08-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum