Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

reply to post by Mary Rose


You mean the way they painstakingly explain the flaws and misconceptions in your understanding and support their arguments with empirical facts? You and KrzYma consistently demonstrate a level of scientific illiteracy that even a high school student would be ashamed of yet you have the hubris to tell others that they are wrong? You credulously accept the nonsensical claims presented by some lone crank in a youtube video for no other reason than because he's "counter-mainstream". Your minds are so firmly shut it's beyond belief.

GetHyped
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

You mean the way they painstakingly explain the flaws and misconceptions in your understanding and support their arguments with empirical facts? You and KrzYma consistently demonstrate a level of scientific illiteracy that even a high school student would be ashamed of yet you have the hubris to tell others that they are wrong? You credulously accept the nonsensical claims presented by some lone crank in a youtube video for no other reason than because he's "counter-mainstream". Your minds are so firmly shut it's beyond belief.

sure ? tell me what I said that is wrong.
let me give you an example what dragonridr said

Just like our supercolliders a magnetic field pushes the particle to higher speeds.

please give me an explanation on how a magnetic field can accelerate charged particles.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Where does a lightning bolt happen? In a gas called the atmosphere.

ROTFLMAO

Wow, you know nothing about lighting, or plasma.

So we should call rain liquified gas?

reply to post by dragonridr


No, not at all.

Some people just don't ever get it.

KrzYma

GetHyped
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

You mean the way they painstakingly explain the flaws and misconceptions in your understanding and support their arguments with empirical facts? You and KrzYma consistently demonstrate a level of scientific illiteracy that even a high school student would be ashamed of yet you have the hubris to tell others that they are wrong? You credulously accept the nonsensical claims presented by some lone crank in a youtube video for no other reason than because he's "counter-mainstream". Your minds are so firmly shut it's beyond belief.

sure ? tell me what I said that is wrong.
let me give you an example what dragonridr said

Just like our supercolliders a magnetic field pushes the particle to higher speeds.

please give me an explanation on how a magnetic field can accelerate charged particles.

So your under the impression a magnetic field cant move charged particles now? You do realize the auroras we see is particles that get trapped within a magnetic field. As far as proof a magnetic field can accelerate particles ever heard of a rail gun? The metal ring is a collection of particles that moves really fast when a magnetic field is applied. Then there is generators you know the thing that we use to create electricity so when you turn on a light you can see. Well generators create electricity by using whats called the The Lorentz Force a charged particle interacts with the magnetic field. This creates whats called Electromotive force through electromagnetic induction.This goes back to an experiment by Michael Faraday in 1831. Here im tired of explaining basic concepts just read this.

micro.magnet.fsu.edu...

If your going to argue for electric universe you need to understand basic principles in science but i will tell you what show me a scientific paper showing the sun is run by electricity and not fusion we can discuss it.

"Where does a lightning bolt happen? In a gas called the atmosphere."

poet1b
ROTFLMAO

Wow, you know nothing about lighting, or plasma.

So we should call rain liquified gas?

So you're saying lightning doesn't happen in the atmosphere? Also I'm not sure why you'd question whether cooling down a gas can form a liquid, that does happen when you take a cold bottle out of the refrigerator, you see small condensation droplets form on the bottle and yes it was previously gas that's now been liquefied by hitting the cold bottle.

As dragonridr said, the discharge of lightning through the atmosphere is what forms the plasma when it strips the electrons off the molecules in the atmosphere.

poet1b
reply to post by dragonridr

 

No, not at all.

Some people just don't ever get it.

To me it looks more like dragonridr gets it and you don't.

dragonridr

KrzYma

GetHyped
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

You mean the way they painstakingly explain the flaws and misconceptions in your understanding and support their arguments with empirical facts? You and KrzYma consistently demonstrate a level of scientific illiteracy that even a high school student would be ashamed of yet you have the hubris to tell others that they are wrong? You credulously accept the nonsensical claims presented by some lone crank in a youtube video for no other reason than because he's "counter-mainstream". Your minds are so firmly shut it's beyond belief.

sure ? tell me what I said that is wrong.
let me give you an example what dragonridr said

Just like our supercolliders a magnetic field pushes the particle to higher speeds.

please give me an explanation on how a magnetic field can accelerate charged particles.

So your under the impression a magnetic field cant move charged particles now? You do realize the auroras we see is particles that get trapped within a magnetic field. As far as proof a magnetic field can accelerate particles ever heard of a rail gun? The metal ring is a collection of particles that moves really fast when a magnetic field is applied. Then there is generators you know the thing that we use to create electricity so when you turn on a light you can see. Well generators create electricity by using whats called the The Lorentz Force a charged particle interacts with the magnetic field. This creates whats called Electromotive force through electromagnetic induction.This goes back to an experiment by Michael Faraday in 1831. Here im tired of explaining basic concepts just read this.

micro.magnet.fsu.edu...

If your going to argue for electric universe you need to understand basic principles in science but i will tell you what show me a scientific paper showing the sun is run by electricity and not fusion we can discuss it.

please stop turning my words around, it was you who said magnetic fields accelerate particles

go back to class 1 electromagnetism and you will learn that magnetic fields change the trajectory (Lorenz force) of a moving particle but not accelerate it's velocity.

Lorenz force can not change the speed, can not change the kinetic energy because it is always perpendicular to the velocity vector it can only change the direction of the velocity.

How do you get any acceleration in this ??

You want to tell me how a generator works ??
Why shall I listen if you lack in basic knowledge about electricity ?

Walter Lewin, Professor of Physics at MIT will teach you what you don't know
this is lecture 13, start with lecture 1 so you will get all

it begins at 1:50

reply to post by Arbitrageur


So you are going to continue to claim that because lighting happens within our atmosphere, it must be an ionized gas?

Cause it sure looks like that is what you are claiming, and it is completely ridiculous.

Oh, and water in the air isn't a gas. It is still a liquid, just a tiny amount of liquid.

Dust in the air isn't a gas either.

Aircraft fly in our atmosphere, does that make them a gas? How about birds?

reply to post by KrzYma


Actually i know him and you're misunderstanding what hes saying.Hes talking about particle interactions not accelaration of particles. Look to make this simple if you want to accelerate a particle using magnetism we have whats called the lorentz force this is taught in first year physics so obviously you havnt had any physics courses. So start with this and than we can discuss this further im not going to bother to argue about basic principles in science that have been proved in hundreds of experiments. If you want to discuss one of these experiments fine but it requires a basc knowledge of science so you can start here.

en.wikipedia.org...

Oh just curious how you think particle accelerators work see they use magnetic fields and by turning them on and off we call this fluctuating we can cause particles to accelerate. But im curious how you think it happens do they just magically speed up?

dragonridr
reply to post by KrzYma

 

Actually i know him and you're misunderstanding what hes saying.Hes talking about particle interactions not accelaration of particles. Look to make this simple if you want to accelerate a particle using magnetism we have whats called the lorentz force this is taught in first year physics so obviously you havnt had any physics courses. So start with this and than we can discuss this further im not going to bother to argue about basic principles in science that have been proved in hundreds of experiments. If you want to discuss one of these experiments fine but it requires a basc knowledge of science so you can start here.

en.wikipedia.org...

Oh just curious how you think particle accelerators work see they use magnetic fields and by turning them on and off we call this fluctuating we can cause particles to accelerate. But im curious how you think it happens do they just magically speed up?

edit on 3/4/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

I see you don't know how to stop talking nonsense

here, very easy to understand cartoon how a particle accelerator works.
Watch it twice if something is unclear...

poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

So you are going to continue to claim that because lighting happens within our atmosphere, it must be an ionized gas?

The amount of ionization in the atmosphere is a function of altitude, as suggested in the following model, though it varies with the day/night cycle and other factors so this is a little over-simplified:

An Introduction to HF propagation and the Ionosphere

In that graph radiation from the sun is the energy source that causes the ionization but natural lightning can cause ionization also, as can artificial lightning like from a Tesla coil, or other energy sources.

You can see that at some altitudes, particularly low altitudes the amount of ionization is near zero, but a particular altitude it's near 100%. At other transitional altitudes, the atmosphere consists of a a mixture of ionized and non-ionized gases. We call the ionization region the ionosphere though as the graph suggests there's not really a sharp cutoff point at which the ionization begins or ends.

It must be fairly obvious that as the pressure in the atmosphere decreases with altitude, so also does the density of the air, reducing the number of atoms per unit volume. This effect is shown in the first graph (right), which illustrates typical gas density against height in km.

The sun bombards us from above with electromagnetic rays that are absorbed when they hit atoms, and so, as illustrated in the second graph (radiation intensity versus height in km), the radiation intensity is highest at high altitude, and decreases to almost nothing at the surface of the earth.

Ionization

Imagine, as Sydney Chapman did, that there must be some relationship that expresses the combination of these two effects. There must be some point, illustrated in the third graph, where the balance of high enough numbers of atoms is balanced with still high enough radiation, and a peak should be expected in the level of ionization of the atmosphere. You see this in the third graph, peaking at about 300km.

The ionization is a process whereby some molecules are getting ionized from solar radiation and others are recombining.

Because the energy from the sun varies daily and seasonally, the ionosphere is never static. The sun also has times of extreme activity, causing storms and severe disruption to propagation.

The ionosphere is far from homogeneous, and not only does the amount of charge vary with height, but so does the mixture of gases, as illustrated in the picture. Because at different heights different gases are present, and because at these heights different solar radiation may be available, different chemical reactions take place.

As previously mentioned, the rate of ionization depends on the density of atoms and intensity of radiation, but it also depends on the actual chemistry involved. Some reactions take place quickly, or cause higher ionization, while others act more slowly or result in less ionization.

The rate of subsequent recombination depends only on the density of the ionosphere (how close the atoms are), and what the chemical process is. The sun has little to do with it. So, the electron concentration varies with height, giving us different layers, affected in different ways by the sun, and with different radio properties.

One question that we can ask is, if the atmosphere near the surface is completely non-ionized, so we call it a gas, and at 300km it's completely ionized so we call it a plasma, at what precise altitude does it transition from being a gas to a plasma? As the graph shows it's hard to define such a precise altitude. In contrast, if you compare the transition from liquid to gas like at the surface of water, it's much easier to define a transition point, because any bubbles of gas quickly rise in water. Ionized and non-ionized molecules can coexist at say 85km and don't have the tendency to separate like liquids and gases do.

The ionized part of the atmosphere does have interesting properties which have been studied by HAARP and are discussed at the above link with respect to propagation of radio waves.

Oh, and water in the air isn't a gas. It is still a liquid, just a tiny amount of liquid.

It depends. If it's completely clear it's usually a gas we call water vapor, but if you see fog there could be tiny droplets of liquid water suspended in the atmosphere, so either/or, depending on conditions like the dew point.

reply to post by KrzYma

I'm not sure if you understand the video you posted. It's saying that if the magnetic field didn't accelerate the charged particles sideways so they travel in a circle, they would go in a straight line, and the LHC wouldn't work without acceleration from the magnetic field.

Yes, physicists call this a form of acceleration, though it's 90 degrees to the direction of travel, so this terminology could be confusing to a layman who might think acceleration must always be in the direction of travel.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

reply to post by KrzYma I'm not sure if you understand the video you posted. It's saying that if the magnetic field didn't accelerate the charged particles sideways so they travel in a circle, they would go in a straight line, and the LHC wouldn't work without acceleration from the magnetic field. Yes, physicists call this a form of acceleration, though it's 90 degrees to the direction of travel, so this terminology could be confusing to a layman who might think acceleration must always be in the direction of travel.

yes, I'm talking about kinetic energy that can not be transferred from the magnetic field, so no acceleration. The Lorenz Force acts on its direction of travel not they distance over time.
All that can accelerate a charge particles is an electric field. Magnetic field gives them a direction, but not the speed !

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Plasma is subatomic, a gas is not. The lightening bolt is plasma, with some gas particles.

www.plasmacoalition.org...

Lightning arises from electrical charges residing on soft hail and
ice crystals that move about in the air. When positive and
negative charges accumulate in separate regions, large voltages
can develop between the charged regions and between one
charged region and the ground. When this voltage becomes large
enough – in the range of 50 to 500 million volts – the air in
between may become significantly ionized and form a plasma
column, the electrically-conducting channel we see as lightning.

An electric arc is plasma.

Plasma exists far outside of our atmosphere.

KrzYma

go back to class 1 electromagnetism and you will learn that magnetic fields change the trajectory (Lorenz force) of a moving particle but not accelerate it's velocity.

Lorenz force can not change the speed, can not change the kinetic energy because it is always perpendicular to the velocity vector it can only change the direction of the velocity.

How do you get any acceleration in this ??

The magnetic field needs to be time-dependent as in a railgun (in which case there is an electric component)

A static magnetic field will behave as you describe, and change only the direction but not the magnitude of the particle's kinetic energy.

poet1b
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Plasma is subatomic, a gas is not. The lightening bolt is plasma, with some gas particles.

www.plasmacoalition.org...

Lightning arises from electrical charges residing on soft hail and
ice crystals that move about in the air. When positive and
negative charges accumulate in separate regions, large voltages
can develop between the charged regions and between one
charged region and the ground. When this voltage becomes large
enough – in the range of 50 to 500 million volts – the air in
between may become significantly ionized and form a plasma
column, the electrically-conducting channel we see as lightning.

An electric arc is plasma.

Plasma exists far outside of our atmosphere.

Is english a second language for you? Im not trying to be funny or insulting im serious because you apparently misread your own quote. Basically lightening is a huge electrical discharge from positive to negative Earth's atmosphere consists of 21% oxygen (O2) and 78% nitrogen (N2). During an electrostatic discharge, the intervening atmosphere become electrically overstressed. The diatomic oxygen molecules are split, and then recombine to form ozone (O3). So the act of lightening super heating the air creates the plasma by the way you do realize the light we see is the second strike dont you?

reply to post by dragonridr


Your the one with reading comprehension problems.

Try again.

in the range of 50 to 500 million volts – the air in
between may become significantly ionized and form a plasma
column, the electrically-conducting channel we see as lightning.

Plasma is what you see.

reply to post by poet1b


The vivid white light we associate with lightning is an example of incandescence with a temperature in the order of 30,000 K, its colors also stem from gas excitations of gas molecules in the atmosphere. When these particles are super heated part of the energy is released as light. This also leads to the creation of ozone as oxygen recombines to form O3. This gas is a plasma left behind from the electrons superheating the air molecules. Just as your statement points out yet you continue to misunderstand, As you stated you said plasma dont exist in our atmosphere well they do. And there created by the static discharge that flash of light we see as it travels through the air molecules. At this point i dont even know why were having a discussion about this its basic science. It is a known fact we can create plasma with an electric discharge but the plasma doesnt create the electric discharge. Because any ionised gas will be electrically neutral until we force it to interact by using a magnetic field for example.The sun creates ionized particles in the heat of the sun. They are not created by electricity in the sun but the fusion process. This is also why we end up with nuetrinos which by the way cannot be created using electricity.

reply to post by dragonridr


Sorry, but you are the one who doesn't understand.

Plasma is not a gas. Some still refer to it as an ionized gas, because this was a theory that has since been proven wrong. Plasma is subatomic structure.

Here, read up on the facts.

www.viewsfromscience.com...

I have never stated this.

As you stated you said plasma dont exist in our atmosphere

I never made any such statement. IMO, plasma is electricity, fire, all forms of energy. Electrical flow is plasma flow, electrons not a part of the atomic structure is a plasma, moving through a medium.

Plasma Arc welding is electricity which is plasma. Mainstream science is so brainwashed that they just can't see it.

Just as there are gases and liquids in solids, solids and gases in liquids, and solids and liquids in gases, there is also the fourth state of matter, plasma.

There probably are more types of plasma, than there are elements.

Like so many others you are so programmed to see things in the way you were told way back then, that you can't accept or acknowledge that these things were wrong. Clearly, from your posts, you are unable to recognize that plasma is a different state of matter, that plasma is not a gas, it just goes against everything that you were taught in school, that there are only 3 states of matter.

poet1b
Plasma exists far outside of our atmosphere.

As I said our atmosphere can have varying percentages of the gas molecules within it ionized. If 100% of the molecules are ionized it's a plasma. But what if only 1% of the gas molecules are ionized? Or 0.01%? At what precise ratio of unionized to ionized molecules does the atmosphere transition from being a gas to a plasma? At what altitude does the plasma begin? This actually changes from day to night as the D layer of the ionosphere comes and goes with the effects of solar radiation.

The atmosphere is pretty thin in the ionosphere, but it's still considered part of the upper atmosphere. In fact here is what Wiki says is the altitude of the ionosphere:

The ionosphere is a region of the upper atmosphere, from about 85 km (53 mi) to 600 km (370 mi) altitude

And here is how wiki defines the highest layer of the atmosphere:

The exosphere is the outermost layer of Earth's atmosphere (i.e. the upper limit of the atmosphere). It extends from the exobase, which is located at the top of the thermosphere at an altitude of about 700 km above sea level, to about 10,000 km (6,200 mi; 33,000,000 ft). The exosphere merges with the emptiness of outer space, where there is no atmosphere.

So if you use those definitions that the atmosphere extends to 10,000 km, and the ionosphere is from 85km to 600km, you would call the ionosphere part of the atmosphere and not say it's above it.

I guess you could define atmosphere differently but even the top of mount Everest doesn't have enough atmosphere to sustain human life without supplemental oxygen. So where do you think the top of the atmosphere is and where do you think the plasma begins, and why does the D layer of the ionosphere switch on and off if it's not the gas in the atmosphere getting temporarily partially ionized and recombining from day to night?

reply to post by poet1b


No plasma isnt a gas its ionized particles Trust me we have known about the 4 states of mater since long before you and i were born. It was discovered in 1879 by a man by the name of William Crookes aparently your school system really sucked. the funny part is you seem to think you discovered something new thats just so funny. Now what are you talking about you talk in circles making little sense. Im hoping this made more sense when you wrote it like what is this sentence.

Just as there are gases and liquids in solids, solids and gases in liquids, and solids and liquids in gases, there is also the fourth state of matter, plasma.

Then theres this whole plasma to you is apparently anything that produces heat or light or in any way shape or form is energy sorry the universe disagrees with you. By the way humans produce heat light and guess what electricity as well so i guess were plasma as well. To think humans arent carbon based life forms where plasma based life forms wow guy. Here i think you need to read what plasma is then maybe we can get you back to reality where science likes to hang out instead of some crazy plasma universe websites who have no understanding of the real world.

physics.about.com...