Debye length

[Michael Mozina]

I keep seeing really ridiculous arguments around the internet about the Debye length of various plasma imposing some type of limit on the distance that electrical fields can effect plasma and/or the distance that electrical current can travel through space. It's an utterly irrational argument, but the EU/PC haters keep parroting that same lame argument over and over again. For instance, I've seen the argument that the Debye length of the plasma in interplanetary space is approximately 10 meters, therefore it's impossible for electrical currents to pass very far through interplanetary space, or through solar wind, or name your plasma region of choice.

Here's an EU/PC hater quote that I read recently for instance:

For scales greater than the Debye length the plasma is quasi-neutral and electrostatic forces between ions and electrons are zero.

The concept of "quasi-neutrality" is meaningless in this context. You could say the same thing for an electrical discharge in the Earth's atmosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye_length

According to the Wiki article, interplanetary space and solar wind supposedly has a Debye length of about 10 meters, so the (false) argument goes that it's impossible for electrical current to be traveling from the sun to various planets. Variations of this same argument are applied to interstellar and intergalactic space as well. This is easily shown to be patently false however based on *mainstream* studies of "magnetic ropes"/"flux ropes". Currents in plasma travel through Birkeland currents (aka "magnetic ropes", "flux ropes") which are not at all limited by the "Debye length" of various plasma in space.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/s ... dec_themis

The discoveries include giant magnetic ropes that connect Earth's upper atmosphere to the Sun and explosions in the outskirts of Earth's magnetic field.

.....

Angelopoulos estimates the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10^14) Joules. That's approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake.

And of course we've also seen magnetic ropes connecting the sun to Saturn as well.

http://www.physics-astronomy.com/2017/0 ... -time.html

The distance from the Sun to Saturn is roughly 929 million miles so a 10 meter "Debye length" related to solar wind and interplanetary space is ultimately entirely irrelevant in terms of how far current can travel through interplanetary space, or any other type of plasma in space. The term "quasi-neutrality" is meaningless as it relates to the distance that currents can travel.

Current in space takes the form of "Birkeland currents" (aka "magnetic ropes") which can stretch between various objects in space, and various galaxies and clusters of galaxies in space.

The Debye length argument is scientifically irrelevant in terms of how far that electrical current can travel through Birkeland currents and how far it can travel between objects in space.

[antosarai]

Current in space takes the form of "Birkeland currents" (aka "magnetic ropes") which can stretch between various objects in space, and various galaxies and clusters of galaxies in space. .

Other than your words do you have any evidence it is so?

[jacmac]

Antosari:

Other than your words do you have any evidence it is so?

If one were to Google, Birkeland currents, magnetic ropes, or field aligned currents, you would discover ubiquity in both the currents in space and mainstream articles about them.

[Michael Mozina]

Current in space takes the form of "Birkeland currents" (aka "magnetic ropes") which can stretch between various objects in space, and various galaxies and clusters of galaxies in space. .

Other than your words do you have any evidence it is so?

https://www.popsci.com/technology/artic ... ears-away/
https://www.eso.org/public/usa/news/eso1438/
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6444/981
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... s-universe
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hu ... ce-slinky/
https://www.space.com/1940-space-slinky ... twist.html

The first article describes a Birkeland current that is evidently visible over *at least* 150 thousand *light years*, and that's just the part of the Birkeland current that they can observe from this distance.

The radio waves seen between the bridge that connects the galaxies in that third link is a "key prediction" of Peratt's models.

The alignment of quasars along the filaments is a tell-tale sign of the currents that sustain them, and they are aligned over *billions* of light years. We have all the work of Hannes Alfven, all the work of Anthony Peratt, and other mathematical models of Birkeland currents by Dr. Scott.

Define the term "evidence". There's certainly more evidence of Birkeland currents in space than there is for "dark matter".

What we can see is that *currents* can be aligned over *at a minimum* of many thousands of *light years* so the notion that the Debye length of plasma has any relevance in space plasma is utterly and patently absurd. There's no relevance at all as it relates to potential length of Birkland currents in space. They can literally be *billions* of light years long. The current that sustains them helps align the galaxies and align the quasars along their path. The mainstream has no explanation for that phenomenon, yet it's clear evidence to support Peratt's models.

[antosarai]

Thanks for the links, Mr. Mozina. Well appreciated.

[EtherQuestions]

Debye Length is an irrational argument, they are just plain ignoring other observed phenomena that demonstrates Birkeland Currents are not only possible but the most rational modern take we have available from many observations (e.g. magnetic ropes). Not to mention, what else is still unobserved?

They cling onto the smallest rationalizations, ignore the bigger picture and evidence that ruins their biased supposition.

Dark magical matter is on its way out, how long will they cling on.

[Michael Mozina]

Debye Length is an irrational argument, they are just plain ignoring other observed phenomena that demonstrates Birkeland Currents are not only possible but the most rational modern take we have available from many observations (e.g. magnetic ropes). Not to mention, what else is still unobserved?

They cling onto the smallest rationalizations, ignore the bigger picture and evidence that ruins their biased supposition.

Dark magical matter is on its way out, how long will they cling on.

It's really amazing how astronomers simply ignore the fact that the LCDM model *violates conservation of energy laws*, not just once with "space expansion" but a second time as well with "dark energy". Somehow *that* major failure to agree with the laws of physics doesn't matter to them. They overlook the fact that the BB model hasn't made a real successful "prediction" since it was originally conceived, hence the need for dark energy a few decades ago, inflation fudge factors, yada, yada, yada. They overlook the fact that their own model is *self conflicted* to the tune of over five sigma with the respect to the Hubble constant and ignore the fact that even *with* over 95 percent fudge factors, they *still* can't make their model work right with respect to correctly predicting the Planck data. They overlook the fact that their model fails every new high redshift observation, including the existence of massive and mature galaxies in the distant universe, massive quasars that defy their model, and there are no original population III stars to be found in the the distant universe. They ignore the fact that they have failed very single "test" of the dark matter claim to the tune of tens of *billions* of dollars. They overlook the fact that their model can't even explain where "dark energy" comes from, let alone explain how it retains a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.

Instead they make up the most ridiculous handwavy arguments for not checking out the alternatives to their pitiful model and whine about things that aren't even "real" to begin with.

The fact that we observe 150 thousand *light year* long "currents" in space blows their lame Debye length arguments out of the water, yet they don't even acknowledge their errors, they just keep repeating the same lame and false stuff over and over again because they heard it somewhere on the internet. Sheesh. It's no wonder why we're still living in the dark ages of astronomy, and it's no wonder why it took them 18 centuries to figure out that Aristarchus of Samos was right, and Ptolemy was pointless nonsense.

Astronomy today is full of con artists and liars. Astronomers *lie* to the public and their students when the claim that Edwin Hubble "proved" that the universe was expanding because Hubble ultimately *rejected* the idea of expansion in favor of tired light. Astronomers *lie* some more when they claim that "magnetic reconnection" is supported by MHD theory because Alfven flat out called the whole idea "pseudoscience". They lie when the use Doppler shift as a "bait and switch" device to support "space expansion" as a cause of redshift. They lie every time they claim that the LCDM model makes "accurate/successful predictions" when in fact it's never made a single successful prediction yet! The whole field of astronomy is full of charlatans and liars galore. They just make this dark crap up out of whole cloth. None of it is real. None of it is scientifically valid. None of it has any scientific merit whatsoever.

[EtherQuestions]

Astronomy today is full of con artists and liars. Astronomers *lie* to the public and their students when the claim that Edwin Hubble "proved" that the universe was expanding because Hubble ultimately *rejected* the idea of expansion in favor of tired light. Astronomers *lie* some more when they claim that "magnetic reconnection" is supported by MHD theory because Alfven flat out called the whole idea "pseudoscience". They lie when the use Doppler shift as a "bait and switch" device to support "space expansion" as a cause of redshift. They lie every time they claim that the LCDM model makes "accurate/successful predictions" when in fact it's never made a single successful prediction yet! The whole field of astronomy is full of charlatans and liars galore. They just make this dark crap up out of whole cloth. None of it is real. None of it is scientifically valid. None of it has any scientific merit whatsoever.

Thanks for the links! I have to say Michael I've observed you are constantly getting better at concisely putting forward your arguments and dissecting the LCDM fallacy in an extremely decisive way. The way you put forward your arguments seems to get 10x better every week, I can even show them to people who are less knowledgeable now and they can internalize your posts with ease.

Keep it up

(I hold my position you should be an article writer or video producer for the ThunderboltsProject. )

[Michael Mozina]

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 2.000.html

It's worth noting by the way that Peratt and Alfven nailed the current prediction, suggesting that intergalactic currents would range somewhere between 10^17 and 10^19 amps, and we now see filaments that carry 10^18 amps. That's an *accurate* prediction, and a real "prediction", unlike the postdicted nonsense that we get with the LCDM model.

In Physics of the Plasma Universe, Peratt points out on page 17 that electromagnetic forces are 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravitational forces, like the force between currents, so at the largest cosmological scales, gravity is actually a "bit player". This "bit player" status of gravity is actually confirmed by the mainstream since gravity is also a "bit player" at the largest scales in the LCMD model, which is what allows for "expansion" to occur in the mainstream model, and allows "dark energy" to overcome all the gravitational forces of the whole universe and drive acceleration.

[Michael Mozina]

I just checked, and apparently the individual in question that I quoted earlier in this thread seems to erroneously believe that EM force is somehow limited to individual "particles" rather than generated and transferred by entire *structures* like Birkeland currents. That does tend to explain a bit about why the individual is so naive about the effects of EM fields in space.

[antosarai]

(...) seems to erroneously believe that EM force is somehow limited to individual "particles" rather than generated and transferred by entire *structures* like Birkeland currents. (...)

How do you suppose EM force is generated?

[Michael Mozina]

(...) seems to erroneously believe that EM force is somehow limited to individual "particles" rather than generated and transferred by entire *structures* like Birkeland currents. (...)

How do you suppose EM force is generated?

Current.

[antosarai]

Well, I'm not a scientist but as I understand it, flow is not what generates hydraulic energy, that is difference in level; same as what generates electric energy is not current but charge separation.

Problem is, what process or processes or structures or whatever would be able to continuously, steadily, stably cause enough charge separation to support all demands of an electrodynamic universe all the time? I don't know, I'm not even able to begin to imagine it.

What I know or imagine doesn't really matter, sure, but from what I can see, read and hear, in stead of evading to grapple this question is central to the proposition of an electrodynamic universe to be taken seriously, to achieve any real traction.

Or perhaps I'm wrong and "current" is all the answer that's needed.

[Michael Mozina]

Well, I'm not a scientist but as I understand it, flow is not what generates hydraulic energy, that is difference in level; same as what generates electric energy is not current but charge separation.

The current that is flowing through the Birkeland currents generates magnetic fields around the currents which acts to attract or repulse other currents.

Problem is, what process or processes or structures or whatever would be able to continuously, steadily, stably cause enough charge separation to support all demands of an electrodynamic universe all the time? I don't know, I'm not even able to begin to imagine it.

What I know or imagine doesn't really matter, sure, but from what I can see, read and hear, in stead of evading to grapple this question is central to the proposition of an electrodynamic universe to be taken seriously, to achieve any real traction.

Or perhaps I'm wrong and "current" is all the answer that's needed.

Birkeland assumed that all suns were net "generators" of electrical energy via a "transmutation of elements" within the sun. Their negatively charged surface constantly interacts with a positively charged 'space" composed of high speed cosmic rays. Essentially every sun in the universe is a net generator according to Birkeland and Alfven, and it also acts as a "homopolar generator" (Faraday disk) according to Alfven. It's rotational spin energy is slowly being converted into electrical current via induction.


Even the mainstream model presumes that the sun's surface has a slightly negative charge due to gravitational separation of ions from electrons.

[antosarai]

So... the generators of the electric currents that energize the stars are... the stars themselves?