Science Daily: Discovery Of Warm Plasma Cloak Surrounding Earth, New Region Of Magnetosphere
ScienceDaily (Dec. 14, 2008) — A detailed analysis of the measurements of five different satellites has revealed the existence of the warm plasma cloak, a new region of the magnetosphere, which is the invisible shield of magnetic fields and electrically charged particles that surround and protect Earth from the onslaught of the solar wind.
The study was conducted by a team of scientists headed by Charles "Rick" Chappell, research professor of physics and director of the Dyer Observatory at Vanderbilt University and published this fall in the space physics section of the Journal of Geophysical Research. The northern and southern polar lights – aurora borealis and aurora australis – are the only parts of the magnetosphere that are visible, but it is a critical part of Earth's space environment.
"Although it is invisible, the magnetosphere has an impact on our everyday lives," Chappell said. "For example, solar storms agitate the magnetosphere in ways that can induce power surges in the electrical grid that trigger black outs, interfere with radio transmissions and mess up GPS signals. Charged particles in the magnetosphere can also damage the electronics in satellites and affect the temperature and motion of the upper atmosphere."
The other regions of the magnetosphere have been known for some time. Chappell and his colleagues pieced together a "natural cycle of energization" that accelerates the low-energy ions that originate from Earth's atmosphere up to the higher energy levels characteristic of the different regions in the magnetosphere. This brought the existence of the new region into focus.
The warm plasma cloak is a tenuous region that starts on the night side of the planet and wraps around the dayside but then gradually fades away on the afternoon side. As a result, it only reaches about three-quarters of the way around the planet. It is fed by low-energy charged particles that are lifted into space over Earth's poles, carried behind the Earth in its magnetic tail but then jerked around 180 degrees by a kink in the magnetic fields that boosts the particles back toward Earth in a region called the plasma sheet.
Chappell and his colleagues – Mathew M. Huddleston from Trevecca University, Tom Moore and Barbara Giles from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Dominique Delcourt from the Centre d'etude des Environments Terrestre et Planetaires, Observatoire de Saint-Maur in France – used satellite observations to measure the properties of the ions in different locations in the magnetosphere.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
8 comments:
SCIENCE DAILY ARTICLE LEAVES OUT HALF THE REALITY OF THE MAGNETOSPHERE
The article posted from ScienceDaily leaves out half of the processes involved in Earth's "magnetophere".
And any connection between plasma and electric currents between the Sun and the Earth.
"Tons of high-energy particles may flow through the opening...every 8 minutes [from the Sun to the Earth]." "It's called a flux transfer event or 'FTE [Birkeland currents],'" says space physicist David Sibeck of the Goddard Space Flight Center. "Ten years ago I was pretty sure they didn't exist, but now the evidence is incontrovertible."
The Official NASA news release goes on to state:
"Researchers have long known that the Earth and sun must be connected. Earth's magnetosphere (the magnetic bubble that surrounds our planet) is filled with particles from the sun that arrive via the solar wind and penetrate the planet's magnetic defenses. They enter by following magnetic field lines that can be traced from terra firma all the way back to the sun's atmosphere."
If Researchers have "long known that the Earth and Sun must be conneted" and NASA gives official confirmation of this fact, why does the ScienceDaily article fail to mention this "incontrobertible" electric flow between the Sun and the Earth?
Read the posted ScienceDaily article; not one hint is made of the established Birkeland currents connecting the Sun and the Earth and the continuous "flow" of this electric current.
Now, it may be simple stupidity, but I have an idea: It's too powerful a synthesis of the two seperate ideas. Placing the two ideas together no matter how logical or reasonable, raises all kinds of questions and undercuts the ScienceDaily's thesis, that the magnetophere does not react in a direct way with the Sun.
Heaven forbid the idea that the Sun and Earth act in concert as part of a larger electric circuit.
In fact, the article states the Earth ejects material out of its magnetosphere without mentioning the foregoing Birkeland currents inputs from the Sun, other than a vague and tangential, "solar wind", and even that is not mentioned as a contributor to the Earth's magnetophere:
"The other regions of the magnetosphere have been known for some time. Chappell and his colleagues pieced together a "natural cycle of energization" that accelerates the low-energy ions that originate from Earth's atmosphere up to the higher energy levels characteristic of the different regions in the magnetosphere. This brought the existence of the new region into focus.
The warm plasma cloak is a tenuous region that starts on the night side of the planet and wraps around the dayside but then gradually fades away on the afternoon side. As a result, it only reaches about three-quarters of the way around the planet. It is fed by low-energy charged particles that are lifted into space over Earth's poles, carried behind the Earth in its magnetic tail but then jerked around 180 degrees by a kink in the magnetic fields that boosts the particles back toward Earth in a region called the plasma sheet."
Notice the article refers to the outdated and misleading term, "solar storms" rather than the proper term, Birkeland currents, or even NASA's unethical term, "Flux transfer event." (NASA's annoucement is over a month and half old.)
"For example, solar storms agitate the magnetosphere in ways that can induce power surges in the electrical grid that trigger black outs, interfere with radio transmissions and mess up GPS signals. Charged particles in the magnetosphere can also damage the electronics in satellites and affect the temperature and motion of the upper atmosphere."
All the above discussion without mentioning the charged particles (ions and electrons) coming from the Sun and flowing into the Earth's magnetic field.
Surely, ScienceDaily can do better than that.
Is it stupidity or is it misleading obfuscation?
Editorial note: I apologize for the length of the comment, but it is important to point out the omissions in the article because this type of article and omissions is not an isolated incident.
SCIENCE DAILY ARTICLE "PUSHES" INCORRECT THEORY OF TORNADOES IN SPACE
(This article was linked in as a side, related article to the "Warm Plasm Cloak Discovered" article.)
Electric Universe theory has a compelling theory of tornadoes in space, but you wouldn't know it from reading an the article: solar storms, Physicists Spot Interstellar Shock Wave Using Spitzer Telescope, May 1, 2006 (SpaceDaily) -- "The spirals of a "space tornado" may be the first step in the formation of a new star. The structure, observed with NASA's Spitzer infrared telescope, is a shock wave created by a jet of material slamming on a cloud of interstellar gas and dust at more than 100 miles per second, heating the cloud and causing it to glow. Physicists say the jet may have been generated by magnetic fields."
Yes, the article states that, "the jet may have been generated by magnetic fields." But states the jet is a result of a "shock wave" and attempts to shoehorn magnetic fields as part of the Gravitational Model theory of astrophysics as opposed to clearly stating there is an alternative theory: The Electric Universe theory.
Here is an archived Picture of the Day piece: A "Tornado" in Space, February 10, 2006 (thunderbolts.info) -- "With the discovery of Herbig Haro objects, or “jetted stars”, astronomers have scrambled for explanations. But these stars, now observed by the hundreds, only accent a common and fundamental misunderstanding of space." (Notice the two seperate articles use the same picture.)
Compare the two articles. See if the Thunderbolts, Picture of the Day has a more compelling explanation (note, the thunderbolts article was published months before the SpaceDaily article).
From the SpaceDaily article: "The surprise turned out to be a shock-wave created by a jet of material flowing through a vast cloud of interstellar gas and dust. The jet slammed into neighboring dust clouds at more than 100 miles per second, heating the dust and causing it to glow."
Notice, while this was a "surprise" to gravitaional model astrophysicists, a new observation, the conclusion, "[The tornado]...turned out to be a shock-wave created by a jet of material flowing through a vast cloud of interstellar gas and dust." is stated as fact rather than theory!
The hubris to state in the same sentence the tornado was a "surprise", but we most definitely know what caused it, is amazing.
Particularly when a known alternative theory has produced a compelling hypothesis based on recognized principles of plasma physics proven by experiments in the laboratory.
Is a pattern of willful ignorance developing or is it something more?
You will need to examine Don Scott's comments on science and pseudoscience in his Electric Sky book - AIG News published a liberal discussion of that in issue 87, Feb 2007 lead aticle which is available from the AIG website:http://www.aig.org.au/assets/22/AIGNews_Feb07.pdf
Read the AIG article and then reassess your conclusions here. :-)
The link did not paste correctly
http://www.aig.org.au/assets/22/AIGNews_Feb07.pdf
SCIENCE DAILY ARTICLE MISSES "CIRCUIT" BETWEEN EARTH AND THE MOON
(This article was linked in as a side, related article to the "Warm Plasm Cloak Discovered" article.)
ScienceDaily has referenced in a series of articles, plasma, Earth's magnetosphere, magnetic fields in space, and charged particles, but has failed to "connect the dots" of these electric phenomenon to a well developed theory with a substantial body of scientific work derived from observation and measurement and confirmed by demonstrations of recognized principles in laboratory experiments. This theory is supported by a well recognized and published astrophysicist, Dr. Anthony Peratt, who works at the Los Alamos National Laboratories, and is an expert in plasma physics:
The theory is the Electric Universe or more broadly, Plasma Cosmology theory.
In addition the theory is recognized by The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or IEEE, which is an international non-profit, professional organization for the advancement of technology related to electricity. It has the most members of any technical professional organization in the world, with more than 365,000 members in around 150 countries.
Surely, with this kind of support and recognition for Electric Universe theory, ScienceDaily and other general interest science, media publications should inform their readers there is an alternative theory to the Gravitational Model.
But ScienceDaily doesn't.
This article is typical when ScienceDaily discusses the Earth's magnetosphere and charged particles: Moon Gets A Lashing From Earth's Magnetotail, April 21, 2008 (ScienceDaily) -- "...NASA-supported scientists have realized that something happens every month when the moon gets a lashing from Earth’s magnetic tail.
“Earth’s magnetotail extends well beyond the orbit of the moon and, once a month, the moon orbits through it,” says Tim Stubbs, a University of Maryland scientist working at the Goddard Space Flight Center. “This can have consequences ranging from lunar ‘dust storms’ to electrostatic discharges.”"
Of course, nowhere in the article is made mention of electric currents or the alternative Plasma Cosmology theory.
Here is the Picture of the Day article: Lunar Dust Levitation, June 11, 2008 (thunderbolts.info) -- "Static electric charge might help to explain the glowing haze sometimes seen rising 100 kilometers above the Moon’s horizon."
And:
The movement of the Moon through the ionized plasma affects the materials in the lunar regolith. Electrons accumulate and produce a negative charge on the ultra-fine dust particles, causing them to repel each other and drift off the surface.
Charge differential between the day and night side of the Moon might actually generate an ion “wind” flowing from the negatively charged night side into the more positively charged sunlit side."
"Charge differential," signifies a charge build up. Part of the "plasma cycle" in my opinion.
The ScienceDaily article finishes up with:
"Earth’s magnetotail isn’t the only source of plasma to charge the moon. Solar wind can provide charged particles, too; indeed, most of the time, the solar wind is the primary source. But when the moon enters the magnetotail, the solar wind is pushed back and the plasma sheet takes over. The plasma sheet is about 10 times hotter than the solar wind and that gives it more "punch" when it comes to altering the charge balance of the moon's surface. Two million degree electrons in the plasma sheet race around like crazy and many of them hit the moon's surface. Solar wind electrons are relatively cool at only 140 thousand degrees, and fewer of them zip all the way down to the shadowed surface of the moon's nightside."
Actually, this is a good explanatory passage, but making reference to the theory that encompasses electromagnetism in space would be more enlightening to the readers.
The moon is thought to not have an atmosphere because there is no hydrostatic pressure, but that doesn't preclude it from having a dusty ionosphere due to static charge. Nice.
Quantum_Flux:
Perhaps, it would be helpful for you to think of it as "charge build up" instead of "static charge".
Or, perhaps, it would be helpful to think of the charged body as a capacitor where electric charge builds up and is stored, then is released in a electric discharge event which creates an electric current.
It's helpful for me to keep in mind that as charge builds up in the form of negative electrons and positive ions, the "body" becomes unstable and in a state of electrical disequilibrium, it then "seeks" to become stable and gain equilibrium by having an electric discharge "event" which creates an electric current that drains off the build up of electric charge.
I hope this is helpful in terms of creating a picture in the mind's eye of the process.
Louis Hissink:
I read your link, and appreciate its message for the empirical scientific method.
I stand on my comments.
Please see my extended comment on your link on the Oil Is Mastery Post: Black Holes And Other Cosmic Mirages, December 13, 2008
Post a Comment