Thursday, January 14, 2010

Giant Magnetic Field Between Binary Star System



"The form of the corona and the motion of the prominences suggest that it [the sun] is a magnet." -- George E. Hale, astronomer, 1913

Science Daily: Giant Magnetic Loop Sweeps Through Space Between Stellar Pair.

ScienceDaily (Jan. 14, 2010) — Astronomers have found a giant magnetic loop stretched outward from one of the stars making up the famous double-star system Algol. The scientists used an international collection of radio telescopes to discover the feature, which may help explain details of previous observations of the stellar system.

"This is the first time we've seen a feature like this in the magnetic field of any star other than the Sun," said William Peterson, of the University of Iowa.
The pair, 93 light-years from Earth, includes a star about 3 times more massive than the Sun and a less-massive companion, orbiting it at a distance of 5.8 million miles, only about six percent of the distance between Earth and the Sun. The newly-discovered magnetic loop emerges from the poles of the less-massive star and stretches outward in the direction of the primary star. As the secondary star orbits its companion, one side -- the side with the magnetic loop -- constantly faces the more-massive star, just as the same side of our Moon always faces the Earth.

29 comments:

KV said...

OIM,

Why would not post the pic of the magnetic field visualization at the Sci Daily site and post something about eclipse of double stars?

I bet Euclid could not explain either of the pics... Too many straight lines that appear curved in both pics...

Anaconda said...

KV:

Read this paper:

Advances in numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasmas

Part II. Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale

United States Department of Energy, Washington, DC, U.S.A.; Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, U.S.A.

Scientific paper

Professional qualifications of Dr. Anthony L. Peratt.

Please feel free to ask questions or pose objections.

KV said...

Anaconda,

I have known of Dr. Peratt and his work for some time. I believe I may have seen this paper before, but thanks for a pdf link. Here are my first impressions:

It does not state that there is no gravity (like OIM does), nor does it say that gravitational forces do not play...

It does make a case for accounting electromagnetic forces and their role in forming various aspects of our Universe. DOE funded this research shows that most sci/eng folks are not closed minded...

Specifically, take a look at the plasma ball pic on page 55. There is a source (inner ball) and there is a sink (outer glass surface) to support the filaments in the vacuum, and there is an external circuit powering the contraption. What you don't see here is that if I were to touch the outer glass surface, I direct filaments to the touched area. The issue is not the physics of the filament direction, but non-closeness of the plasma system, or it can be interfered with from outside... The Universe, by its very conceptualization, is unique without any external meddling (no god's finger touching the glass ball!), hence, it is not plasma universe.

Plasma as a forth state of the matter is disingenuous at best, as there are charged solids and liquids and we as life would not be possible without them.

It is easy to write down charge and current force equation if you do not have to justify the inert material needed to support these charges and currents… Electrical engineers do this all the time, go ask a guy who has to design the mechanics of a drill motor! And, when there is a failure, it is always mechanical! I believe Peratt is an excellent electrical engineer.

OilIsMastery said...

KV,

"It does not state that there is no gravity (like OIM does)"

I have never made that claim but interesting straw man fallacy.

FYI there is a difference between gravity (an ancient observation) and gravitation (a 17th century myth).

"The atoms, as their own weight bears them down...." -- Lucretius, philosopher poet, 54 B.C.

"...to establish it [gravitation] as original or primitive in certain parts of matter is to resort either to miracle or an imaginary occult quality." -- Gottfreid W. Leibniz, polymath, July 1710

"Thus, thinking as Newton did (i.e., that all celestial bodies are attracted to the sun and move through empty space), it is extremely improbable that the six planets would move as they do." -- Pierre L. Maupertuis, polymath, 1746

"Since Newton announced his universal law of gravitation, scientists have accepted and educators taught it, and rarely has it been questioned. Occasionally one has the temerity to say that gravitation is a myth, an invented word to cover scientific ignorance." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

"Newton attempted to explain the force of gravity on two hypotheses: the existence of a medium, or ether, and action at a distance. The first hypothesis he rejected as being physically absurd, the second as contrary to reason. Newton had, therefore, no theory of gravity." -- Melbourne G. Evans, physicist, 1958

"It was only the downfall of Newtonian theory in this century which made scientists realize that their standards of honesty had been utopian." -- Imre Lakatos, philosopher, 1973

KV said...

OIM,

Here are your words from your comment:

FYI there is a difference between gravity (an ancient observation) and gravitation (a 17th century myth).

which more than amply proves what I have stated about you in my previous comment.

Jeffery Keown said...

It's funny, this blog used to refer to the Myth of Gravity... then Oils backed off and said that Gravity existed, but it was magnetic.

He used super-cooled, superconducting carbon to "prove" this.

That beeping you hear is Oils backing up.

OilIsMastery said...

Jeffery,

Gravity and gravitation are two different things.

Gravity is an ancient observation; gravitation is a 17th century myth.

KV said...

JK,

Please, listen to the beamfucked!

Fungus FitzJuggler III said...

Anmd why do they not accept that such phenomena also occur at larger distances, but they have simply not turned their radio telescopes to them? The detection seems to require a certain threshold, yet they appear to lack the imagination to accept that a theory based upon plasma and its observed scalable effects, means that observations below the threshold of their equipment is not possible but that that does not invalidate the theory for which there is other evidence, even in neARBY LABORATORIES.

Anaconda said...

KV:

I asked you to ask questions or pose questions.

Instead, your first meaningful comment: "...The Universe, by its very conceptualization, is unique without any external meddling (no god's finger touching the glass ball!), hence, it is not plasma universe."

What?

I'm sorry, that isn't intelligible.

You come across no better than OilIsMastery in his worst comments:

Complete jibberish.

You can do better than that...

And your next objection:

KV: "Plasma as a forth state of the matter is disingenuous at best, as there are charged solids and liquids and we as life would not be possible without them."

This is semantics, not a serious objection. Unless you are seriously asserting that Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory, doesn't understand plasma dynamics.

Are you questioning his understanding of plasma dynamics?

Perhaps, you should review Dr. Peratt's professional qualifications.

KV: "It is easy to write down charge and current force equation if you do not have to justify the inert material needed to support these charges and currents…"

KV, Dr. Peratt based his statements on plasma physics laboratory results, the known fact that plasma dynamics is scalable up to 14 orders of magnitude and likely many orders of magnitude larger than that and by observation & measurement conducted by in situ satellite probes within the solar system and increasingly beyond the solar system as magnetic fields and plasma flows have been observed as ubiquitous, resulting:

“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — A. L. Peratt

“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory

This dynamic results in Electric Double Layers, aka "magnetic reconnection".

See peer-reviewed scientific paper on "magnetic reconnection":

Magnetopause Reconnection Impact Parameters from Multiple spacecraft magnetic field measurements

Published in Geophysical Research Letters, 2009

Study the paper, note the plasma flows observed & measured, the electric fields and electric currents that result from this process called "magnetic reconnection" in the paper, but better described and explained as Electric Double Layers where charge seperation of electrons and ions is observed with "exhaust jets" that eject electrons and ions in opposite directions just as Electric Double Layers do.

Causing electric currents that form Birkeland currents that have been observed & measured causing the aurora.

NASA has confirmed these Birkeland currents calling them 'flux ropes'.

Electric Double Layers have been observed & measured in space.

Please, ask serious questions or raise serious objections.

Failure to do so, reveals that you as no better than what you accuse OilIsMastery of engaging in.

At this point you come across as being in denial.

I'm interested in actually understanding what is going on in the Universe beyond this planet.

After your inadequate and non-serious response I'm left wondering what your interest is.

Do ask serious questions or raise serious objections; I welcome your participation in meaningful discussion.

KV said...

Anaconda,

You stated:

Instead, your first meaningful comment: "...The Universe, by its very conceptualization, is unique without any external meddling (no god's finger touching the glass ball!), hence, it is not plasma universe."

but you then go on ranting:

What?

I'm sorry, that isn't intelligible.

Here is my question: how the fuck was it meaningful to you, that became unintelligible?

The punchline is plasma universe is a nonsense, and I don't have to ask questions like the three years old to satisfy your morbid ignorance.

Anaconda said...

Well, your comment in the face of reasonable critique, scientific evidence, and an attempt to engage you in discussion demonstrates you aren't serious.

You are a dumb fuck.

An arrogant dumb fuck.

Get to know it.

You are attracted to this website because you can vent your prejudice and closed-mind without fear of effective rebuttal.

But arrogant dumb fucks like you can't handle it when somebody sticks facts in your face that don't conform to your world-view.

You are akin to the dumb fuck Democratic leadership.

Confronted with facts and evidence you resort to shrill name calling.

Your kind got beat in the Massachusetts senate race.

Your unbridled arrogance will be your downfall.

KV said...

Anaconda,

Stop foaming and ranting.

Peratt's paper is good. Its interpetation by you is bad, real bad.

Plasma ball illustration proves that to sustain plasma you need a source - like black hole, and you need a enclosure where near vacuum is maintained, and above all, need external power source to close the circuit to flicker away until somebody starts finger-fucking with the ball.

OilIsMastery said...

Anaconda,

Keep on ranting!

=)

KV said...

OIM,

You must enjoy Anaconda ranting his morbid ignorance...

Anaconda said...

KV wrote: "Peratt's paper is good. Its interpetation by you is bad, real bad."

Well, I'll accept your back-peddling.

I didn't offer an interpretation: Rather, I made a very brief general summary:

"Dr. Peratt based his statements on plasma physics laboratory results, the known fact that plasma dynamics is scalable up to 14 orders of magnitude and likely many orders of magnitude larger than that and by observation & measurement conducted by in situ satellite probes within the solar system and increasingly beyond the solar system as magnetic fields and plasma flows have been observed as ubiquitous, resulting (two direct quotes from Dr. Peratt)"

And I did that because I wanted folks to read the paper as it speaks for itself (not my paraphrase of its content).

I wanted you to ask questions or raise objections so you would have to wrestle with the contents of the paper, the facts and evidence Dr. Peratt provided in his paper.

Instead, you make some very non-specific comments.

KV wrote: "...The Universe, by its very conceptualization, is unique without any external meddling (no god's finger touching the glass ball!), hence, it is not plasma universe."

KV wrote in response to my comment to the above quoted passage: "Here is my question: how the fuck was it meaningful to you, that became unintelligible?"

To answer your question, seriously, I didn't know what you meant or what was your point.

Could you rephrase your point or explain what you mean (I see that you have done so):

KV: "Plasma ball illustration proves that to sustain plasma you need a source - like black hole, and you need a enclosure where near vacuum is maintained, and above all, need external power source to close the circuit to flicker away until somebody starts finger-fucking with the ball."

(I'll address your comment below.)

And read the second paper on "magnetic reconnection", aka Electric Double Layers, because that paper reports observations & measurements which confirm Dr. Peratt's central contentions, namely:

“The moving plasma, i.e., charged particles flows, are currents that produce self-magnetic fields, however weak.” — A. L. Peratt

“An electromotive force [mathematical equation] giving rise to electrical currents in conducting media is produced wherever a relative perpendicular motion of plasma and magnetic fields exists.” — Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory

These quotes speak for themselves.

And as Dr. Peratt stated in the linked paper I provided in my initial comment, plasma flows and magnetic fields are ubiquitous in space.

So, electric currents (and electric fields) are also ubiquitous in space.

To answer your comment above: The ultimate source?

No one knows.

All we, humans, can do is observe & measure what is happening now.

And plasma processes are most definitely happening now in space.

The immediate source of the plasma dynamics in our solar system is the Sun.

Dr. Anthony Peratt's name for this system of plasma processes is the Plasma Universe (he does not subscribe to the 'Electric Sun' hypothesis of the Electric Universe).

What Science observes is that when plasma flows run through perpendicular magnetic fields charge speration is the result with concomitant electric currents.

Beyond our Sun?

Read Dr. Peratt's papers if you are interested.

(But I'll give you a hint: Each system at a succedingly larger scale produces charge seperation at increased scales and energy levels.)

KV said...

Anaconda,

Have you heard of Debye Length? It is about 0.000333 light-second for intergallectic medium, where distances are routingly measured in LIGHTYEARS.

Or, all the double layer bs of plasma universe is insignificant nusiance at the scale of the real Universe.

See I asked you a question! (Hint: the first sentence).

Anaconda said...

KV:

KV asked a question: "Have you heard of Debye Length?"

Yes, I have.

You are stating an often repeated argument.

KV wrote: "Have you heard of Debye Length? It is about 0.000333 light-second for intergallectic medium, where distances are routingly measured in LIGHTYEARS."

Which has no merit.

Why?

Sure, the Debye Length is thin (at plasma laboratory scales and solar system scales).

But it scales up just like the rest of electromagnetic properties.

(As Electric Double Layers, aka "magnetic reconnection", have been observed in the magnetotail and in the solar wind.)

See ACE news report for solar wind "magnetic reconnection": Magnetic Disconnection From the Sun

The link has a schematic which shows a "magnetic reconnection" site in the solar wind.

And this lead sentence from the report:

"Field line merging at the heliospheric current sheet (HCS) and the resulting disconnection of heliospheric magnetic field (HMF) lines from the Sun, has been controversial. The SWEPAM and MAG experiments on ACE have now obtained the first direct evidence for such merging and disconnection from the Sun. As illustrated by the figure on the left above..."

As all electromagnetic phenomenon are scale independent, is there some articulable reason why Debye Length doesn't also scale up in exactly the same way as all other electromagnetic phenomenon?

I'd sure like to hear it.

Without scientific evidence to back up your assertion, it's without scientific foundation or weight.

What scientific evidence is there that Debye Length does not scale up like all other electromagnetic phenomenon?

Anaconda said...

Oh, and I might add, Electric Double Layers, aka "magnetic reconnection", can be a sustaining and continuous process like many astrophysical phenomenon (see):

ACE News #105: Prolonged Reconnection at an Extended and Continuous X-line in the Solar Wind

Lead paragraph from the report;

"Magnetic reconnection [Electric Double Layers] is commonly invoked to explain a variety of space, solar, astrophysical and laboratory plasma phenomena. It has long been debated whether reconnection is fundamentally patchy in space and time or if, instead, it can occur in a quasi-stationary manner over an extended region in space. Direct evidence that reconnection commonly occurs in the solar wind is found in ACE observations of jetting Alfvnic plasma flows confined to magnetic field reversal regions. Multi-spacecraft measurements of such jetting plasma flows, known as reconnection exhausts, have suggested that they originate from quasi-stationary reconnection at extended reconnection sites (X-lines) in the solar wind. However, in events studied thus far one cannot conclusively rule out the possibility that reconnection was actually patchy in both space and time since in events studied to date each spacecraft typically encountered an exhaust for only a few minutes and sampled only a limited extent of the X-line."

KV said...

Anaconda,

The Debye length value I gave is for INTERGALECTIC space, and it is in lightsecond; intergalectic space is measured in lightyears. So, stop arm-waving and blowing foam.

Now another question: how far away is andromeda galaxy?

Anaconda said...

KV wrote: "The Debye length value I gave is for INTERGALECTIC space, and it is in lightsecond; intergalectic space is measured in lightyears."

All right, I'm game, what is the significance of the distance you provide?

KV wrote: "Now another question: how far away is andromeda galaxy?"


2.5 million light years.

Anaconda said...

KV wrote: "So, stop arm-waving and blowing foam."

I provided two ACE reports.

How is providing ACE reports "arm-waving and blowing foam"?

What specifically did I state in my last two comments do you consider"arm-waving and blowing foam"?

KV said...

Anaconda,

How many Debye lengths woud one accomodate from here to Andromeda? Please convert lightyears to lightseconds.

That is the number of double layers you would have, sorry, but all of them finger-fucking each other in the ball.

My last comment: plasma is part of the gravitational universe, and without the gravitational universe, you guys would not be able to talk about plasma, as average plasma is nearly 99% inert (uncharged) material. So, let us study plasma as part of the Universe and stop putting cart before the horse.

Anaconda said...

KV wrote: "How many Debye lengths woud one accomodate from here to Andromeda?"

It's apparent you don't understand the concepts, nor are you interested in understanding the concepts. And, more important the scientific evidence that supports those concepts.

No matter.

If one person's refusal to consider scientific evidence or even a group of peoples' refusal to consider scientific evidence was a bar to scientific progress, Man would still be a primative.

You are entitled to your closed-minded perspective.

Anaconda said...

KV wrote: "...as average plasma is nearly 99% inert (uncharged) material."

Do you have a citation to support the above assertion?

I won't hold my breath waiting.

KV said...

Anaconda,

Average plasma is only about 1% not 99%. Do your own research, start at Wiki. Yes, my florescence lamp may be much higher, but it is confined by design and has external circuit, and I can finger-fuck with it. Universe does not allow this.

Plasma science what Peratt practices is way much better than dopeheads full of morbid ignorance like you.

Anaconda said...

KV:

You are full of shit.

Can't provide any evidenciary support so you call names.

I, on the other hand, have scientific support for my position:

KV wrote: "Plasma science what Peratt practices is way much better..."

It so happens that Dr. Peratt agrees with the evidence that the Universe is 99.99% plasma.

The Universe Universe is over 99.99 plasma.

Note the supporting footnotes at the bottom of the webpage in the link (if you can wipe the drool off your chin).

Let's see, twenty footnotes with 11 Academic Books, and additional scientific papers.

I've linked this for you before, but I guess you're such a stupid piece of shit you forgot.

You're pathetic.

Apparently, you can't marshall a coherent argument so you resort to name calling and infantile jibberish.

You're a big man all right.

Face it, the other readers of this blog know you are all bluster and no brains.

You can't tangle with me on the facts and evidence because you know I kick the living shit out of you everytime you open your pie-hole.

KV said...

Anaconda,

You do your fucking research and be as morbidly ignorant you choose.

You can't even explain the plasma ball.

Do you want me to give a link to Wiki? I hope not! Just put plasma at Wiki.

Just as I do not invest by your opinions, nor do I care to understand plasma crap from you.

If you read Scott's paper (LH citation), you would understand that magnetism is a figment of plasma idiots like you.

Anaconda said...

The plasma ball is easy to understand. The electric current goes to your fingertip on the glass because that is the most conductive point on the glass surface -- it is interesting that the conductivity goes through the glass even though the glass, itself, is an insulating medium.