Evidence for Donald Scott's filament model

[seasmith]

?
So is only one half of the Gould's Belt visible from Earth at the winter solstice, and only the other half of the Belt visible from Earth at the summer solstice
?

[Solar]

Finally located the Gould Belt Survey website and it’s Publications page. Going to have to look at these “starless cores” as relates star formation while lounging through the docs over there.

Doesn't it seem a little odd that, from Earth's spatially trivial parallax to something So Distant, would be exhibited such a large difference in appearance, via our local/seasonal 'tilt', relative to the viewing aperture ?
Wouldn't that disparity suggest a more local correlation ?

Yes. The description of perspective for the Gould Belt there above and below the two images is conveying two perspectives of orientation from our local correlation.

Our viewing geometry presents an interesting view as southern spring allows us to peer into the steepest tilt of where one ‘side’ of the circumference of the Gould Belt’s own 18 degree tilt is further embedded into the more dense plasma of the galactic disc proper. There is more activity there (left image).

On the opposite end of that; northern spring viewing geometry ("less impressive) reveals where the Gould belt’s own tilt extends slightly out of the galactic plane and the plasma density of the galactic disc is a bit more tenuous there; with decreased activity; slightly less plasma to interact with. So, the tilt of Gould’s Belt “(it tips farthest above the Galactic plane in Scorpius and farthest below in Orion)" - is a noticeable thing that way. "The Sun is displaced from the ellipse center toward the Scorpius-Centaurus OB association.”

Along with this perspective the paragraph below the two images shares the relationship of the Gould Belt and its production of stars in the spiral arm (Local arm) in general. They're shifting the perspective there to the Belt, stars, molecular clouds and its activity in the spiral arm overall. This perspective is unrelated, but a secondary and complementary, to the one described above the images because its describing what the Gould Belts is doing at its location in the Local arm.

?
So is only one half of the Gould's Belt visible from Earth at the winter solstice, and only the other half of the Belt visible from Earth at the summer solstice
?

No, not really. Images like Figure 1 Gould Belt diagram (from here) are showing the more active side of the belt which tilts down ~18 degrees into the more dense plasma of the galactic plane. If you were Flash Gordon and ran around to the other side of the globe northward the view would be less exciting because you would be looking towards where the Belt tips upward out of the galactic plane. Note also Figure 2 on that page depicting our solar system off centered. The previous reference says we're closer to the Sco-Cen complex (the side of the Gould Belt tipped furthest up out of the galactic plane) with Ori constellation nearly opposite (the side that tilts further into the galactic plane).

This is like realizing that for someone living on the equator; when they look directly straight 'up'; because of their position on the globe, they are actually looking more so 'straight across' the plane of the solar system. LOL!

Any one else seeing anything interesting in there?

The dynamic might present something akin to a larger scale Galactic Chimney version of the “ring of fire” around supernova 1987a.

Well yes, I did say that was speculation.

Speculation? http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1202/ ... o1032a.jpg
The blue hourglass shape is like the the local chimney. The central pink ring is like Gould's Belt. The White spot at the center is like the Pleiades. The sun would lie within that central pink circle, but off center. (We are inside the local chimney,The stars of Gould's belt completely encircle us,and when we look in the direction of the center of the local chimney axis,we see the Pleiades cluster).
Remember too, when we look out along the chimney axis, we see that north galactic spur (arc of radio emission)? That is one of those huge pink rings in the 1987A.jpg

One humorous note: To the mainstream, the supernova1987A remnant and the local chimney were formed in the same way. It was old stars going supernovae for the chimney too. What I'm getting at,is they'd even agree that for Gould's belt, " The dynamic might present something akin to a larger scale Galactic Chimney version of the “ring of fire” around " 1987A

Solar, does this help with your mapping?

Yes; exactly! Its the scalable aspect of the plasma-electrodynamics that suggest a larger scale of similar (if not the same) activity.

[celeste]

I think this picture http://www.astronomynow.com/news/n1202/ ... o1032a.jpg is also the best one to use to explain the Pleiades distance problem. With even the idea that plasma MAY bend light, let's look at the problem. You live within the confines of that central pink ring (Gould's Belt), but off center. You are looking towards that white spot at the center (Pleiades). Your measurements depend on light from background stars (over a small angular range),all taking equally straight paths to you. I think you see not only why we would have a problem for measuring the Pleiades distance, but also why we did NOT notice such a discrepancy (relative vs direct parallax) for other stars around us,in other directions.

[Kinneas]

Does it happen with anyone else? That whenever you are about to type, Dr. Scott. You have, Rocky Horror clips run through your head. "Dr. Scott!" "Janet!" "Brad!" Crowd: "Rocky!" "Uhhh!"

How appropriate the man working on such things happens to be called, "Dr. Scott!"

His presentation on the Filament Model, this topic/forum and you folks are amazing.

: Sings : ~~...We return to Transylvania! Prepare the transit beam! ~~

[Michael Mozina]

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/685 ... _1_281.pdf
They are looking at molecular "clouds", and having trouble matching up their magnetic field measurements (Faraday rotation and OH Zeeman). They suggest "Perhaps the Faraday rotation samples an envelope....surrounding the molecular cloud" It would help too, if we had more free electrons out in these Faraday screens, surrounding the molecular cores. The big problem is " It would seem to be difficult to construct a model with strong magnetic fields in the Faraday screen regions and weak magnetic fields in the molecular regions". Indeed,what kind of "cloud" model would have a weak magnetic field at the core,and a stronger one at some larger radius?

http://electric-cosmos.org/BirkelandFields.pdf Here is a model where the magnetic field comes on with a bang at some minimum radius, NOT r=0. Also, we'd expect our free electrons not to be distributed evenly across the "cloud", but in "envelope"(s)

I don't think there is a more straight forward solution to their problem, than Donald Scott's model. Agree?

FYI, I could use some help trying to make heads or tails out of the criticisms of Scott's paper being articulated by SelfSim at Christianforums:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7754178 ... st66059378

Further, Scott also gets his knickers in a knot by apparently likening a 'minimum energy configuration' with a 'force free magnetic field'.

The fundamental preferred motion of a charged particle in space, free of external E and M fields, is a straight line, which then establishes a circular magnetic field orthogonal to the path axis. (Ie: the same as for a long, straight piece of current carrying wire on Earth). The field strength then decreases as the inverse of the radial distance from the path trajectory (or wire). This state is described by Newton's 1st Law, where the preferred state for any particle having mass in free space is either stationary, or moving at a constant velocity in a straight line, unless acted on by an external force.

There are thus no "z" or "theta" components of the B field, as suggested by Scott's equations 7, 8, 9 and 10.

His failing is in not recognising that the fundamental preferred state of a charged particle moving in free space, cannot be a 'force free magnetic field' configuration, as this requires an external magnetic field/external system energy (the green circular lines in the diagram), which then establishes the helical charged particle trajectory.
(This is all proven empirically in the lab, what's more ... ...)

Scott's paper is a complete 'Physics fail'!
Reply With Quote

Does anyone even understand the argument he's trying to make?

[Zendo]

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/685 ... _1_281.pdf
They are looking at molecular "clouds", and having trouble matching up their magnetic field measurements (Faraday rotation and OH Zeeman). They suggest "Perhaps the Faraday rotation samples an envelope....surrounding the molecular cloud" It would help too, if we had more free electrons out in these Faraday screens, surrounding the molecular cores. The big problem is " It would seem to be difficult to construct a model with strong magnetic fields in the Faraday screen regions and weak magnetic fields in the molecular regions". Indeed,what kind of "cloud" model would have a weak magnetic field at the core,and a stronger one at some larger radius?

http://electric-cosmos.org/BirkelandFields.pdf Here is a model where the magnetic field comes on with a bang at some minimum radius, NOT r=0. Also, we'd expect our free electrons not to be distributed evenly across the "cloud", but in "envelope"(s)

I don't think there is a more straight forward solution to their problem, than Donald Scott's model. Agree?

FYI, I could use some help trying to make heads or tails out of the criticisms of Scott's paper being articulated by SelfSim at Christianforums:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7754178 ... st66059378

Further, Scott also gets his knickers in a knot by apparently likening a 'minimum energy configuration' with a 'force free magnetic field'.

The fundamental preferred motion of a charged particle in space, free of external E and M fields, is a straight line, which then establishes a circular magnetic field orthogonal to the path axis. (Ie: the same as for a long, straight piece of current carrying wire on Earth). The field strength then decreases as the inverse of the radial distance from the path trajectory (or wire). This state is described by Newton's 1st Law, where the preferred state for any particle having mass in free space is either stationary, or moving at a constant velocity in a straight line, unless acted on by an external force.

There are thus no "z" or "theta" components of the B field, as suggested by Scott's equations 7, 8, 9 and 10.

His failing is in not recognising that the fundamental preferred state of a charged particle moving in free space, cannot be a 'force free magnetic field' configuration, as this requires an external magnetic field/external system energy (the green circular lines in the diagram), which then establishes the helical charged particle trajectory.
(This is all proven empirically in the lab, what's more ... ...)

Scott's paper is a complete 'Physics fail'!
Reply With Quote

Does anyone even understand the argument he's trying to make?

I've bolded the most obvious flaws in his argument.

He says that the "fundamental" preferred motion of a charged particle is a straight line when there is no E or M fields present. Well there in lies the problem of his argument. A free flowing charged particle is already by definition influenced by at least an E field (on earth an M field too), if not the particle would not be ionized and "free flowing" in the first place...

Then he goes on to talk about the motion of an electron in a current carrying wire. He already contradicted him self here: the wire would not be leading current if there was no electric field applied over the wire

Have him find you an example of a flowing charged particle that is not influenced by either an E or an M field and then we can talk.

The theta component of the magnetic field is well described in plasma physics, the wikipedia article should suffice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinch_(plasma_physics)

Furthermore, what he fails to realize is that the flow of charges them selves are the source of the circular magnetic fields written in the diagram.

Force-free magnetic fields is simply the condition in a plasma when the Lorentz force is zero or close to zero as so it might as well be disregarded (i.e When the charge is moving parallel with the magnetic field or when the magnetic pressure on the plasma is negligible).

[celeste]

FYI, I could use some help trying to make heads or tails out of the criticisms of Scott's paper being articulated by SelfSim at Christianforums:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7754178 ... st66059378

Further, Scott also gets his knickers in a knot by apparently likening a 'minimum energy configuration' with a 'force free magnetic field'.

The fundamental preferred motion of a charged particle in space, free of external E and M fields, is a straight line, which then establishes a circular magnetic field orthogonal to the path axis. (Ie: the same as for a long, straight piece of current carrying wire on Earth). The field strength then decreases as the inverse of the radial distance from the path trajectory (or wire). This state is described by Newton's 1st Law, where the preferred state for any particle having mass in free space is either stationary, or moving at a constant velocity in a straight line, unless acted on by an external force.

There are thus no "z" or "theta" components of the B field, as suggested by Scott's equations 7, 8, 9 and 10.

His failing is in not recognising that the fundamental preferred state of a charged particle moving in free space, cannot be a 'force free magnetic field' configuration, as this requires an external magnetic field/external system energy (the green circular lines in the diagram), which then establishes the helical charged particle trajectory.
(This is all proven empirically in the lab, what's more ... ...)

Scott's paper is a complete 'Physics fail'!
Reply With Quote

Does anyone even understand the argument he's trying to make?

Michael and zendo, There is an irony in this objection. What his last paragraph hints at (the "green lines"...then establishes the particle trajectory), is the very reason why Scott's model works. It's what all of us have been missing the whole time. It's not that Donald Scott failed to recognize this, but he was the first to recognize this. The critic has unknowingly stated the basis for Scott's model.
We all knew that a single charged particle moving through space should generate an azimuthal field. We all made the mistake of thinking that more particles moving together, just makes a larger azimuthal field. We forgot that the azimuthal field from one particle, becomes part of the field for the rest of the particles. Oops! Fortunately Scott (and ironically his critic),are setting us straight.

[Zendo]

Michael and zendo, There is an irony in this objection. What his last paragraph hints at (the "green lines"...then establishes the particle trajectory), is the very reason why Scott's model works. It's what all of us have been missing the whole time. It's not that Donald Scott failed to recognize this, but he was the first to recognize this. The critic has unknowingly stated the basis for Scott's model.
We all knew that a single charged particle moving through space should generate an azimuthal field. We all made the mistake of thinking that more particles moving together, just makes a larger azimuthal field. We forgot that the azimuthal field from one particle, becomes part of the field for the rest of the particles. Oops! Fortunately Scott (and ironically his critic),are setting us straight.

My point was only that he is that the commenter was making flawed arguments from the very start.

The B-field present was always known, but it's how the realization of how the whole varying B-filed pitch angle works which makes Don Scott's model so cool.

As far as my understanding goes what Don Scott is saying is that this image: http://www.electricyouniverse.com/eye/t ... -lines.jpg

of a Birkeland current is incomplete and only applies for small radi of the helical current flow.

With increasing radius of the current flow the magnetic pitch angle is constantly changing, where 0 and 180 degrees azimuth of the B-field represents the Lorentz force on the particles being 0 (where the plasma bunches up) and everything less or above being where the Lorentz force on the particle pushes it in one or the other direction. So in essence what he is saying is that changing of current flow radi is the reason for the sweeping of plasma into a filamentary structure.

This really opens up a more complete and dynamic picture of what could be happening in a Birkeland current.

I like Don Scott's approach because just by looking at one of the varying paramters of the current he was able to see a plausible solution as to why we see the filamentary structures in plasma flows on all scales.

Peace

[celeste]

As far as my understanding goes what Don Scott is saying is that this image: http://www.electricyouniverse.com/eye/t ... -lines.jpg

of a Birkeland current is incomplete and only applies for small radi of the helical current flow.

That picture came from piecing together two extreme cases, without building a bridge between them. We know that if we fire individual charged particles along a background magnetic field (ignoring the effect of other particles in the stream), we get paths just like the inner spirals in that diagram. We also know that if we have a stream of charged particles moving together (current in a wire), we end up with an azimuthal field around it,also shown in that diagram . In this case, we are ignoring the individual particles, and only focused on the collective stream.

[Millennium]

Thanks everyone for this dialog on the topology of the local neighborhood, gould belt, orion spur. I hope to put together some clear and useful illustrative-maps of the greater and lesser filaments, starstreams, kinematic associations of our neighborhood in the coming weeks ... and spark some more definitive measures of their AstroElectronic circuit parameters ...

https://www.facebook.com/groups/296087350585943