SAFIRE

[Higgsy]

Read the chapter in Peratt's book. If you're too lazy to do your own source work, so am I.
The failure of mainstream to acknowledge the role of double layers in cosmic plasma is as old as Hannes Alfvens.

As I thought. Another unsupported (and unsupportable) generic claim. A myth of the EU. Another example of EU proponents declining to quantify things (Why is that? I can't believe you're all innumerate. No-one is asking for highly sophisticated models, but physicists do order-of-magnitude calculations just to see if they're in the right ball park. Why won't you?). Another failure to support throwaway generalisations with anything specific. And you wonder why physicists won't take you seriously.

[GaryN]

Higgsy

OK, I'll bite. Can you give us a couple of specific examples where there is evidence for double layers forming in space

Double Layers in Astrophysics
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 013880.pdf

[Higgsy]

Higgsy

OK, I'll bite. Can you give us a couple of specific examples where there is evidence for double layers forming in space

Double Layers in Astrophysics
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi ... 013880.pdf

Nice selective quoting there bro. I ask “Can you give us a couple of specific examples where there is evidence for double layers forming in space, and where it is being severely neglected by scientists?”; and you send me to a NASA website. Excellent.

[Cargo]

This is quite funny. The entire body of mainstream astro-physic's ignore electricity and double layers at every possible turn. How about the Aurora, the Van Allen Betls, the magnetosphere, the Earth's "bowshock". They are all double-layer plasma phenomena.

But you see, the problem with your test is the 'and' part. They (mainstream) must ignore the first part, otherwise they could not do the second part. Therefore you statement will never be true. Because if the realize the first part, they can't do the second part.

[JP Michael]

And just in case Higgsy does actually have critical faculties (doubtful, based on his previous responses), he can do the work and check out a select few of the more interesting references out of Peratt's Physics of the Plasma Universe (and do, at least, read pp. 192-201 of Peratt's book, won't you, the part where he lists the four most blatantly obvious double layer phenomena in space plasmas - auroral circuit, solar flares, double radio galaxies/quasars, and cosmic radiation sourced from double layers in space plasmas).

H. Alfvén, "Double layers and circuits in astrophysics." IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 14:779 (1986)
P. Carlqvist, "On the Acceleration of energetic cosmic particles by electrostatic double layers," IEEE Transations on Plasma Science 14:794 (1986)
P. Michelsen & J.J. Rasmussen (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Plasma Double Layers. Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark (1982).
N. Singh, H. Thiemann & R.W. Schunk, "Plasma processes driven by current sheets and their relevance to the auroral plasma," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 14:805 (1986).
A.C. Williams & T.W. Moorehead (eds.), Double Layers in Astrophysics. NASA Conference Publication 2469 (1987).
A.C. Williams, "General Bohm and Langmuir conditions for a strong double layer in space plasmas," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 14:800 (1986)

So while Higgsy and the Einsteinologists waste more time and money searching (in vain) for their imaginary dark hobgoblins, fairy pulsars and neutron gnomes, we'll enjoy the breakthroughs in astrophysics provided by empirical investigation of observable, repeatable and falsifiable plasma phenomenon and the importance of double layers in cosmic plasma structures and their associated effects.

[Higgsy]

And just in case Higgsy does actually have critical faculties (doubtful, based on his previous responses), he can do the work and check out a select few of the more interesting references out of Peratt's Physics of the Plasma Universe, pp. 192-201:

H. Alfvén, "Double layers and circuits in astrophysics." IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 14:779 (1986)
P. Carlqvist, "On the Acceleration of energetic cosmic particles by electrostatic double layers," IEEE Transations on Plasma Science 14:794 (1986)
P. Michelsen & J.J. Rasmussen (eds), Proceedings of the Symposium on Plasma Double Layers. Risø National Laboratory, Roskilde, Denmark (1982).
N. Singh, H. Thiemann & R.W. Schunk, "Plasma processes driven by current sheets and their relevance to the auroral plasma," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 14:805 (1986).
A.C. Williams, "Double layers in astrophysics," Laser Particle Beams 5 (1987).
A.C. Williams, "General Bohm and Langmuir conditions for a strong double layer in space plasmas," IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 14:800 (1986)

What are you and Cargo trying to say? Originally you claimed, very magisterially but without support, that:

...the role of plasma double layers, especially in space, is severely neglected in mainstream cosmology and astronomy.

In the next sentence you referred to Chapter 5 of Peratt's textbook which

is dedicated to the topic with extensive literature from the last ~40+ years.

Of course, this is all a little strange. How can there be an extensive literature on the one hand and neglect on the other?

So I challenged you to give us a couple of specific examples where there is evidence for double layers forming in space, and where it is being severely neglected by scientists? That should be easy, if your assertion that "the role of plasma double layers, especially in space, is severely neglected in mainstream cosmology and astronomy."

But you declined to do so pointing me again at Peratt's Chapter 5. I have read Peratt's chapter and it really doesn't answer the question. He lays out some physics of double layers, and gives a couple of potential applications in astrophysics, and it has, as you say above, quite a few references, some of which you repeat in this post. But how does this extensive literature demonstrate neglect?

Cargo then piped up:

The entire body of mainstream astro-physic's ignore electricity and double layers at every possible turn. How about the Aurora, the Van Allen Betls, the magnetosphere, the Earth's "bowshock". They are all double-layer plasma phenomena.

Well a blind man would see that that argument is based on two unsupported assertions, a) that these phenomena are fundamentally driven by double layer processes and b) that double layers (and electricity! ye gods!) are ignored by astrophysicists. They might be or they might not, but Cargo offers no evidence, no argument to support the assertions. I suppose, in this community, you are accustomed to taking these things as self-evident truths.

So let's look at some references:

F. S. Mozer, S. D. Bale, J. W. Bonnell, C. C. Chaston, I. Roth, and J. Wygant, “Megavolt Parallel Potentials Arising from Double-Layer Streams in the Earth’s Outer Radiation Belt,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 235002 (2013)

R. E. Ergun, L. Andersson, D. S. Main, and Y.-J. Su, C. W. Carlson, J. P. McFadden, and F. S. Mozer, Parallel electric fields in the upward current region of the aurora: Indirect and direct observations, Physics of Plasmas 9:9, 3685-3694

M. Temerin, K. Cerny, W. Lotko, and F. S. Mozer, Observations of Double Layers and Solitary Waves in the Auroral Plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1175

J.E. Borovsky, Double layers do accelerate particles in the auroral zone. Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 1054–1056 (1992). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.1054

R.E. Ergun, L. Andersson, D. Main, Y.J. Su, D.L. Newman, M.V. Goldman, C.W. Carlson, A.J. Hull, J.P. McFadden, F.S. Mozer, Auroral particle acceleration by strong double layers: The upward current region. J. Geophys. Res. 109(A18), A12220 (2004). doi:10.1029/2004JA010545

Verheest, F., Cattaert, T. & Hellberg, M.A. Compressive and Rarefactive Electron-Acoustic Solitons and Double Layers in Space Plasmas. Space Sci Rev 121, 299–311 (2005)

D.S. Main, D.L. Newman, R.E. Ergun, Double layers and ion phase-space holes in the auroral upward-current region. Phys. Rev. Lett. 97(18), 185001 (2006). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.185001

D.S. Main, D.L. Newman, R.E. Ergun, Conditions for establishing quasistable double layers in the Earth’s auroral upward current region. Phys. Plasmas 17(12), 122901 (2010). doi:10.1063/1.3520058

G. Marklund, T. Johansson, S. Lileo, T. Karlsson, Cluster observations of an auroral potential and associated field-aligned current reconfiguration during thinning of the plasma sheet boundary layer. J. Geophys. Res. 112, A01208 (2007)

Hossen, M.A., Hossen, M.R. & Mamun, A.A. Modified Ion-Acoustic Shock Waves and Double Layers in a Degenerate Electron-Positron-Ion Plasma in Presence of Heavy Negative Ions. Braz J Phys 44, 703–710 (2014)

Rolf Boström, Georg Gustafsson, Bengt Holback, Gunnar Holmgren, Hannu Koskinen, and Paul Kintner, Characteristics of Solitary Waves and Weak Double Layers in the Magnetospheric Plasma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 82 1988

MK Hudson, FS Mozer, Electrostatic shocks, double layers, and anomalous resistivity in the magnetosphere - Geophysical Research Letters, 1978

Lysak, R., & Hudson, M. (1987). Effect of double layers on magnetosphere–ionosphere coupling. Laser and Particle Beams, 5(2), 351-366
Anssi Mälkki, Hannu Koskinen, Rolf Boström and Bengt Holback, On theories attempting to explain observations of solitary waves and weak double layers in the auroral magnetosphere, Physica Scripta, Volume 39, Number 6

Raga, A. C., Bohm, K. H., & Solf, J., A new test of bow-shock models of Herbig-Haro objects
Astronomical Journal (ISSN 0004-6256), vol. 92, July 1986, p. 119-124

D. L. Newman, L. Andersson, M. V. Goldman, R. E. Ergun, and N. Sen, Influence of suprathermal background electrons on strong auroral double layers: Vlasov-simulation parameter study, Physics of Plasmas 15:7

Some of these are from the era of Peratt's book 28 years ago (where there was already an extensive 40 year literature, as you say), and some are more recent. There are, of course, many more. So I would say that both of you have failed to demonstrate the original assertion about the "severe neglect" of the role of double layers in space.

[Cargo]

It's staring you and every mainstream scientist right in the face. Cue the Big Bang, Black Holes, Neutron Stars, Dark 'Things', gravity waves, the list goes on and on. I could quote block hundreds of mainstream popular papers for years and years. But why should I, you can read them every week on Science.com or whatever. That is the neglect you seek.

[JP Michael]

It's staring you and every mainstream scientist right in the face. Cue the Big Bang, Black Holes, Neutron Stars, Dark 'Things', gravity waves, the list goes on and on. I could quote block hundreds of mainstream popular papers for years and years. But why should I, you can read them every week on Science.com or whatever. That is the neglect you seek.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Higgsy seems to be missing the point that, to this day, in spite of decades of impressive forays in empirical understanding of our cosmos, plasma cosmology remains a persecuted and neglected minority amongst the mainstream, even amongst my own circle of creationists whom should be the most willing to appraise and accommodate models that refute Big Bang hocus-pocus and dark fairy magic. So the persecution of the dissidents goes across the board, wheresoever the Einsteinologists happen to hold power.

A quote from the horrendously biased, mainstream-promoting, pox-on-critical-thought Wikipedia:

Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology ... In contrast, the current observations and models of cosmologists and astrophysicists explain the formation, development, and evolution of astronomical bodies and large-scale structures in the universe as influenced by gravity (including its formulation in Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity) and baryonic physics.

...

Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology reject it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as current cosmological theory. Very few papers supporting plasma cosmology have appeared in the literature since the mid-1990s.

That, right there, is an excellent summary of mainstream neglect of plasma cosmology, the importance of double layers in space being but a smaller subset of that paradigm, due primarily to their a-priori commitments to Einsteinology's gravitation-primary universe.

And now the EU physicists create an iron anode in a vacuum of hydrogen gas that produces, at will, self-containing plasma double layers and other interesting plasma regimes, and the Einsteinologists jump up and down and stamp their feet and cry and complain that that just isn't how the universe is supposed to work and it can't be happening and there must be alternative (gravitational?) explanations. Yep, surely, no neglect of the role of double layers in plasma to be seen here.

The sooner you release your mind from your Einsteinian prison, the sooner you'll see the glowing, double-layered SAFIRE plasma light, Higgsy.

[Michael Mozina]

So I challenged you to give us a couple of specific examples where there is evidence for double layers forming in space, and where it is being severely neglected by scientists? That should be easy, if your assertion that "the role of plasma double layers, especially in space, is severely neglected in mainstream cosmology and astronomy."

You've gotta be kidding me, right? It is extremely easy to demonstrate. Double layers and exploding double layers, are severely rejected as it relates to solar physics! In fact, electric field are always relegated to *secondary* effects of magnetic field topology changes and MRX models. For crying out loud!

Not only has a sustained, hot, full sphere solar corona, and solar flare activity been simulated in a lab for more than a full century based on circuit theory, double layers, and exploding double layers, MRx theory has been entirely incapable of producing even a sustained full sphere solar corona in a real lab experiment!

There are *at least* three blatantly obvious double layers in the solar atmosphere including the million degree corona, the 10,000 degree chromosphere and the 5800 degree photosphere, each with their own electrical properties and their own unique heat signatures. You can't duplicate *any* of that with your beloved MRx model but it's been done with both an anode *and* a cathode solar model for more than a full century.

Please. You can't be serious.

[Higgsy]

It's staring you and every mainstream scientist right in the face. Cue the Big Bang, Black Holes, Neutron Stars, Dark 'Things', gravity waves, the list goes on and on. I could quote block hundreds of mainstream popular papers for years and years. But why should I, you can read them every week on Science.com or whatever. That is the neglect you seek.

What has any of this got to do with double layers? I know that you don't accept all these concepts, and you are offended by the fact that they are discussed in the popular press, but this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand which is demonstrating that scientists ignore double layers in cases where there is evidence for their existence in space. So, nice rant, but doesn't get you any closer to justifying JP's wild claim.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

But it still doesn't justify your magisterial statement. You claimed that astrophysicists "...the role of plasma double layers, especially in space, is severely neglected in mainstream cosmology and astronomy" and I challenged you. You still haven't been able to justify that claim.

Higgsy seems to be missing the point that, to this day, in spite of decades of impressive forays in empirical understanding of our cosmos, plasma cosmology remains a persecuted and neglected minority amongst the mainstream, even amongst my own circle of creationists whom should be the most willing to appraise and accommodate models that refute Big Bang hocus-pocus and dark fairy magic. So the persecution of the dissidents goes across the board, wheresoever the Einsteinologists happen to hold power.

So it's not really the neglect of double layers in astrophysics that gets your goat either - that was just a placeholder for your frustration with the fact that physicists regard EU ideas as so much woo. We now see what your motivation is - it isn't actually science at all, but adherence to explanations that lend support to your religious convictions.

But you had multiple chances to justify your specific claim about double layers being unfairly neglected and you blew it. That's why EU proponents are not taken seriously in science.

A quote from the horrendously biased, mainstream-promoting, pox-on-critical-thought Wikipedia:

Plasma cosmology is a non-standard cosmology ... .

That, right there, is an excellent summary of mainstream neglect of plasma cosmology, the importance of double layers in space being but a smaller subset of that paradigm, due primarily to their a-priori commitments to Einsteinology's gravitation-primary universe.

A priori? The idea that large scale cosmology is dominated by gravitational effects is a conclusion from the science. I don't see anyone on this forum sufficiently numerate or informed to challenge that conclusion.

The sooner you release your mind from your Einsteinian prison, the sooner you'll see the glowing, double-layered SAFIRE plasma light, Higgsy.

Safire? What little value it ever had has been lost in the pursuit of dodgy claims.

[Higgsy]

So I challenged you to give us a couple of specific examples where there is evidence for double layers forming in space, and where it is being severely neglected by scientists? That should be easy, if your assertion that "the role of plasma double layers, especially in space, is severely neglected in mainstream cosmology and astronomy."

You've gotta be kidding me, right? It is extremely easy to demonstrate. Double layers and exploding double layers, are severely rejected as it relates to solar physics!

Just repeating it, doesn't make it so.

Not only has a sustained, hot, full sphere solar corona, and solar flare activity been simulated in a lab for more than a full century

A solar corona has never been simulated in a lab anywhere ever.

based on circuit theory, double layers, and exploding double layers, MRx theory has been entirely incapable of producing even a sustained full sphere solar corona in a real lab experiment!

A sustained full sphere solar corona has never been produced in a lab experiment anywhere ever.

There are *at least* three blatantly obvious double layers in the solar atmosphere including the million degree corona, the 10,000 degree chromosphere and the 5800 degree photosphere, each with their own electrical properties and their own unique heat signatures. You can't duplicate *any* of that with your beloved MRx model but it's been done with both an anode *and* a cathode solar model for more than a full century.

Blatantly obvious? Really? How do you demonstrate their existence and the consequence of that existence?

[Michael Mozina]

Just repeating it, doesn't make it so.

Denying it doesn't make you look credible either Higgsy. Even you have expressed "doubt" that SAFIRE experiments produce double in this very thread (one post was actually lost along the way), in spite of the fact that you can actually see them with your own eyes in their videos. Furthermore, all high energy solar atmospheric events are described using "magnetic reconnection", not circuit theory, double layers and exploding double layers. How can you even deny this?

A sustained full sphere solar corona has never been produced in a lab experiment anywhere ever.

A simulation of a sustained full sphere solar corona certainly has. Even SAFIRE demonstrated that the double layers around their sphere were hotter than the sphere itself. Birkeland simulated a corona in a lab over a full century ago. You will *never* simulate one based on 'magnetic reconeection" however.

Blatantly obvious? Really? How do you demonstrate their existence and the consequence of that existence?

I can demonstrate it based on their various heat signatures, and via laboratory simulations. Your denial of these empirical facts speaks volumes. Your entire industry is shy when it comes to laboratory evidence. You ignore all NULL results related to your dark matter claims, and you ignore all evidence of double layers from laboratory experiments *and* from direct observation of three different temperature gradients in three different layers of the solar atmosphere. You have *no* explanation for any of it, let alone any way to simulate it in a lab based on MRx models.

You're either suffering from a severe case of cognitive dissonance, or you're pulling my leg, one or the other. There''s no rational way that you can deny the fact that mainstream refuses to acknowledge the role of double layers in solar physics. You're doing it in this very thread in fact!

But it still doesn't justify your magisterial statement. You claimed that astrophysicists "...the role of plasma double layers, especially in space, is severely neglected in mainstream cosmology and astronomy" and I challenged you. You still haven't been able to justify that claim.

I certainly had no problem demonstrating it with respect to solar atmospheric physics. Your denial routine just makes you look desperate.

So it's not really the neglect of double layers in astrophysics that gets your goat either - that was just a placeholder for your frustration with the fact that physicists regard EU ideas as so much woo. We now see what your motivation is - it isn't actually science at all, but adherence to explanations that lend support to your religious convictions.

No, it's your industry's aversion to circuit theory and double layers that creates the frustration. It's also outrageously ironic that you would refer to a model that is based on laboratory experimentation and pure empirical physics as a "religious conviction", while simultaneously peddling a cosmology model that begins and ends with two pure "acts of faith" on the part of the believer in two cause/effect claims which have no hope whatsoever of *ever* being demonstrated in a controlled laboratory experiment, specifically space expansion and space acceleration. Sheesh. 95 percent of your model is based on metaphysical nonsense and you actually have the gall to refer to empirical physical alternatives as a "religious conviction"? Wow. Talk about serious cognitive dissonance problems, not to mention pure projection on your part. You blew up the irony meter again.

[JHL]

...peddling a cosmology model that begins and ends with two pure "acts of faith" on the part of the believer in two cause/effect claims which have no hope whatsoever of *ever* being demonstrated in a controlled laboratory experiment, specifically space expansion and space acceleration.

Has the mainstream model purported to deal with spontaneous existence? Don't know; just asking.

[Michael Mozina]

...peddling a cosmology model that begins and ends with two pure "acts of faith" on the part of the believer in two cause/effect claims which have no hope whatsoever of *ever* being demonstrated in a controlled laboratory experiment, specifically space expansion and space acceleration.

Has the mainstream model purported to deal with spontaneous existence? Don't know; just asking.

As far as I can tell, it depends on whom you ask. Laurence Krauss seems to believe that something came from nothing (or close to it). The whole LCDM model it a metaphysical catastrophe. It dovetails into multiverse theory via eternal inflation according to some astronomers. To hear some of them tell the story of creation however, gravity (which is a geometric curvature in GR, not a force or a from of energy) somehow cancels out all the energy of the universe, while simply ignoring the use of energy over time problem. There's no rhyme, nor reason, nor any logic to any of it. It's simply a metaphysical creation mythos which defies the laws of physics. It actually defies the conservation of energy laws twice, first with "space expansion", and again with dark energy which miraculously retains a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.

[JHL]

The whole LCDM model it a metaphysical catastrophe.

Except philosophically, the whole existence model - as fractured as it stubbornly remains in each subsequent era - is also a catastrophe. The quantum plane or realm is sufficiently fuzzy to beggar belief that drilling into it will somehow produce a Magic Turtle Particle supporting Everything; the origin models are sheer self-defeating constructs; the self-energizing cosmological engine, while more logical as a steady state system, hasn't given clues to how it does that, and so on. The universe is this little whisp which turgid old light takes billions of years to traverse.

Surely only E=mc^2, the end. How much more speculative can they be.

Proclamations of these functions are therefore as foolhardy as the weekly throwing up of hands by astrophysicists and cosmologists, aside from the delight watching it induces, is common. Here comes another and another and another.

So we're left with our Dancing Wu Li masters, an antique that at least had to its credit wonder, a component of honest awe that all the chin rubbing among our latter day faithful Big Bang absolutists somehow refuses to grasp.

It's all in the mind (making it an artful experience - maybe it needs a soundtrack*). Moving it to an official dogmatic agency and charging admission and various penances for attendance is just plain goofy.

*https://youtu.be/mE3cWKUzczc