Despite the headaches I may cause the astronomical community, there is a star named after this blog, DWAHTS26 (2026 being the year it was named).
It is visible from where I live.
Showing posts with label Astronomy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Astronomy. Show all posts
This site has a star named after it!
In times of universal deceit, truth is a crime. Censorship should be banned.
Who and what are you not able to openly criticise? Thats who Id like to hear about. Fact checking is propaganda by the very nature of the act.
A resources post. SI Units And Constants In Physics.
Regarding standardised physics: The effort to make precise and unambiguous the task of quantifying nature (matter, numbers and material properties) and establishing the inherent relationships (+-√÷×% etc) we need SI Units.
SI units, or the International System of Units, are the modern metric system and the global standard for measurement, consisting of seven base units: the meter (length), kilogram (mass), second (time), ampere (electric current), kelvin (thermodynamic temperature), mole (amount of substance), and candela (luminous intensity).
The NIST reference on constants, units and uncertainty is HERE
- See also
- Wall Chart and Wallet Card of the 2022 constants
- Background information related to the constants
- Links to selected scientific data
- Previous Values (2018) (2014) (2010) (2006) (2002) (1998) (1986) (1973) (1969)
Find the correlation coefficient between any pair of constants
In times of universal deceit, truth is a crime. Censorship should be banned.
Who and what are you not able to openly criticise? Thats who Id like to hear about. Fact checking is propaganda by the very nature of the act.
The Wrong Cosmology in detail. Unpacking the Lambda CDM Standard Model
I am hosting an article published: October 31, 2024 3.05pm SAST by Prof. Konstantinos Dimopoulos of Lancaster University. This article represents the Standard Model or Lambda CDM Model of cosmology. However, I put forward that this standard model is garbage. It is not only fundamentally flawed, but wrong on basically every account.
It follows logically than when your base assumptions are wrong then all the reasoning that follows which is based on those assumptions is also likely to be wrong. Each assumption has its own post on my blog (search "assumptions in science").
Here is their wrong story:
How did everything begin? It’s a question that humans have pondered for thousands of years. Over the last century or so, science has homed in on an answer: the Big Bang.
This describes how the Universe was born in a cataclysmic explosion almost 14 billion years ago. In a tiny fraction of a second, the observable universe grew by the equivalent of a bacterium expanding to the size of the Milky Way. The early universe was extraordinarily hot and extremely dense. But how do we know this happened?
Let’s look first at the evidence. In 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that distant galaxies are moving away from each other, leading to the realisation that the universe is expanding. If we were to wind the clock back to the birth of the cosmos, the expansion would reverse and the galaxies would fall on top of each other 14 billion years ago. This age agrees nicely with the ages of the oldest astronomical objects we observe.
The idea was initially met with skepticism – and it was actually a sceptic, the English astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the name. Hoyle sarcastically dismissed the hypothesis as a “Big Bang” during an interview with BBC radio on March 28 1949.
This is article is part of our series Cosmology in crisis? which uncovers the greatest problems facing cosmologists today – and discusses the implications of solving them.
Then, in 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected a particular type of radiation that fills all of space. This became known as the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. It is a kind of afterglow of the Big Bang explosion, released when the cosmos was a mere 380,000 years old.
History of the universe
NASA
The CMB provides a window into the hot, dense conditions at the beginning of the universe. Penzias and Wilson were awarded the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery.
More recently, experiments at particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have shed light on conditions even closer to the time of the Big Bang. Our understanding of physics at these high energies suggests that, in the very first moments after the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces of physics that exist today were initially combined in a single force.
The present day four forces are gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. As the universe expanded and cooled down, a series of dramatic changes, called phase transitions (like the boiling or freezing of water), separated these forces.
Experiments at particle accelerators suggest that a few billionths of a second after the Big Bang, the latest of these phase transitions took place. This was the breakdown of electroweak unification, when electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force ceased to be combined. This is when all the matter in the Universe assumed its mass.
Barred spiral galaxy NGC 1672
Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies were moving away from one another. NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)-ESA/Hubble Collaboration
Moving on further in time, the universe is filled with a strange substance called quark-gluon plasma. As the name suggests, this “primordial soup” was made up of quarks and gluons. These are sub-atomic particles that are responsible for the strong nuclear force. Quark-gluon plasma was artificially generated in 2010 at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and in 2015 at the LHC.
Quarks and gluons have a strong attraction for one other and today are bound together as protons and neutrons, which in turn are the building blocks of atoms. However, in the hot and dense conditions of the early universe, they existed independently.
The quark-gluon plasma didn’t last long. Just a few millionths of a second after the Big Bang, as the universe expanded and cooled, quarks and gluons clumped together as protons and neutrons, the situation that persists today. This event is called quark confinement.
The Sun
The early universe was extremely hot and dense, much like the centre of the Sun. NASA/SDO
As the universe expanded and cooled still further, there were fewer high energy photons (particles of light) in the universe than there had previously been. This is a trigger for the process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). This is when the first atomic nuclei – the dense lumps of matter made of protons and neutrons and found at the centres of atoms – formed through nuclear fusion reactions, like those that power the Sun.
Back when there were more high energy photons in the universe, any atomic nuclei that formed would have been quickly destroyed by them (a process called photodisintegration). BBN ceased just a few minutes after the Big Bang, but its consequences are observable today.
Observations by astronomers have provided us with evidence for the primordial abundances of elements produced in these fusion reactions. The results closely agree with the theory of BBN. If we continued on, over nearly 14 billion years of time, we would reach the situation that exists today. But how close can we get to understanding what was happening near the moment of the Big Bang itself?
Alice experiment
The Large Hadron Collider’s Alice experiment can generate quark-gluon plasma. Maximilien Brice / Cern, Author provided (no reuse)
Scientists have no direct evidence for what came before the breakdown of electroweak unification (when electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force ceased to be combined). At such high energies and early times, we can only stare at the mystery of the Big Bang. So what does theory suggest?
When we go backwards in time through the history of the cosmos, the distances and volumes shrink, while the average energy density grows. At the Big Bang, distances and volumes drop to zero, all parts of the universe fall on top of each other and the energy density of the universe becomes infinite. Our mathematical equations, which describe the evolution of space and the expansion of the cosmos, become infested by zeros and infinities and stop making sense.
We call this a singularity. Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity describes how spacetime is shaped. Spacetime is a way of describing the three-dimensional geometry of the universe, blended with time. A curvature in spacetime gives rise to gravity.
But mathematics suggests there are places in the universe where the curvature of spacetime becomes unlimited. These locations are known as singularities. One such example can be found at the centre of a black hole. At these places, the theory of general relativity breaks down.
Panchromatic view of galaxy cluster MACS0416
The universe cooled as it continued to expand. NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, J. Diego (Instituto de Física de Cantabria, Spain), J. D’Silva (U. Western Australia), A. Koekemoer (STScI), J. Summers & R. Windhorst (ASU), and H. Yan (U. Missouri).
From 1965 to 1966, the British theoretical physicists Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose presented a number of mathematical theorems demonstrating that the spacetime of an expanding universe must end at a singularity in the past: the Big Bang singularity.
Penrose received the Nobel Prize in 2020. Hawking passed away in 2018 and Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously. Space and time appear at the Big Bang singularity, so questions of what happens “before” the Big Bang are not well defined. As far as science can tell, there is no before; the Big Bang is the onset of time.
However, nature is not accurately described by general relativity alone, even though the latter has been around for more than 100 years and has not been disproven. General relativity cannot describe atoms, nuclear fusion or radioactivity. These phenomena are instead addressed by quantum theory.
Theories from “classical” physics, such as relativity, are deterministic. This means that certain initial conditions have a definite outcome and are therefore absolutely predictive. Quantum theory, on the other hand, is probabilistic. This means that certain initial conditions in the universe can have multiple outcomes.
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), as observed by the Planck mission.
Tiny differences in the CMB tell us about the age, expansion and contents of the universe. ESA and the Planck Collaboration
Quantum theory is somewhat predictive, but in a probabilistic way. Outcomes are assigned a probability of existing. If the mathematical distribution of probabilities is sharply peaked at a certain outcome, then the situation is well described by a “classical” theory such as general relativity. But not all systems are like this. In some systems, for example atoms, the probability distribution is spread out and a classical description does not apply.
What about gravity? In the vast majority of cases, gravity is well described by classical physics. Classical spacetime is smooth. However, when curvature becomes extreme, near a singularity, then the quantum nature of gravity cannot be ignored. Here, spacetime is no longer smooth, but gnarly, similar to a carpet which looks smooth from afar but up-close is full of fibres and threads.
Thus, near the Big Bang singularity, the structure of spacetime ceases to be smooth. Mathematical theorems suggest that spacetime becomes overwhelmed by “gnarly” features: hooks, loops and bubbles. This rapidly fluctuating situation is called spacetime foam.
Black hole
At singularities, such as at the centres of black holes, the classical theory of relativity breaks down. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Jeremy Schnittman
In spacetime foam, causality does not apply, because there are closed loops in spacetime where the future of an event is also its past (so its outcome can also be its cause). The probabilistic nature of quantum theory suggests that, when the probability distribution is evenly spread out, all outcomes are equally possible and the comfortable notion of causality we associate with a classical understanding of physics is lost.
Therefore, if we go back in time, just before we encounter the Big Bang singularity, we find ourselves entering an epoch where the quantum effects of gravity are dominant and causality does not apply. This is called the Planck epoch.
Time ceases to be linear, going from the past to the future, and instead becomes wrapped, chaotic and random. This means the question “why did the Big Bang occur?” has no meaning, because outside causality, events do not need a cause to take place.
In order to understand how physics works at a singularity like the Big Bang, we need a theory for how gravity behaves according to quantum theory. Unfortunately, we do not have one. There are a number of efforts on this front like loop quantum gravity and string theory, with its various incarnations.
Spacetime foam
Near the Big Bang singularity, spacetime takes on a structure similar to foam. NASA/CXC/M.Weiss
However, these efforts are at best incomplete, because the problem is notoriously difficult. This means that spacetime foam has a totemic, powerful mystique, much like the ancient Chaos of Hesiod which the Greeks believed existed in the beginning.
So how did our expanding and largely classical universe ever escape from spacetime foam? This brings us to cosmic inflation. The latter is defined as a period of accelerated expansion in the early universe. It was first introduced by the Russian theoretical physicist Alexei Starobinsky in 1980 and in parallel, that same year, by the American physicist Alan Guth, who coined the name.
Inflation makes the universe large and uniform, according to observations. It also forces the universe to be spatially flat, which is an otherwise unstable situation, but which has also been confirmed by observations. Moreover, inflation provides a natural mechanism to generate the primordial irregularities in the density of the universe that are essential for structures such as galaxies and galaxy clusters to form.
Theory vindicated
Precision observations of the cosmic microwave background in recent decades have spectacularly confirmed the predictions of inflation. We also know that the universe can indeed undergo accelerated expansion, because in the last few billion years it started doing it again.
What does this have to do with spacetime foam? Well, it turns out that, if the conditions for inflation arise (by chance) in a patch of fluctuating spacetime, as can occur with spacetime foam, then this region inflates and starts conforming to classical physics.
Alan Guth
Professor Alan Guth, from MIT, describes inflation as a theory of the ‘bang’ of the Big Bang. JUAN CARLOS CARDENAS / EPA IMAGES
According to an idea first proposed by the Russian-American physicist Andrei Linde, inflation is a natural – and perhaps inevitable – consequence of chaotic initial conditions in the early universe.
The point is that our classical universe could have emerged from chaotic conditions, like those in spacetime foam, by experiencing an initial boost of inflation. This would have set off the expansion of the universe. In fact, the observations by astronomers of the CMB suggest that the initial boost is explosive, since the expansion is exponential during inflation.
In March 20 of 2014, Alan Guth explained it succinctly: “I usually describe inflation as a theory of the ‘bang’ of the Big Bang: It describes the propulsion mechanism that we call the Big Bang.”
So, there you have it. The 14 billion year story of our universe begins with a cataclysmic explosion everywhere in space, which we call the Big Bang. That much is beyond reasonable doubt. This explosion is really a period of explosive expansion, which we call cosmic inflation. What happens before inflation, though? Is it a spacetime singularity, is it spacetime foam? The answer is largely unknown.
In fact, it might even be unknowable, because there is a mathematical theorem which forbids us from accessing information about the onset of inflation, much like the one that prevents us from knowing about the interiors of black holes. So, from our point of view, cosmic inflation is the Big Bang, the explosion that started it all.
In times of universal deceit, truth is a crime. Censorship should be banned.
Who and what are you not able to openly criticise? Thats who Id like to hear about. Fact checking is propaganda by the very nature of the act.
In Defence Of The Electric Universe
.png) |
| Electricity in space means electromagnetism must join gravity to replace the failing Standard Model |
Mainstream Cosmology rejects the Electric Universe premise that electric current can exist in space in a meaningful way. By meaningful I mean it plays a major role in the morphology and dynamics of all that matter we see up there. A role that the Electric Universe (EU) proponents claim only increases with scale. The Establishment surrounding the space sciences is already arranged around principles that would be toppled like a line of dominos if these currents were validated since the consequences of a fundamental principle being replaced is that it takes with it an avalanche of established dogma. More importantly it takes down the bureaucracy involving any related research and academic institutions based on them. They have skin in the game and can be characterized as being almost ideologically opposed to the idea of electric current in space. They don't see it as possible in a grand and ordered fashion as causative agent, they occasionally acknowledge the current of galactic jets and occasionally even give a reading, but those articles are quickly swept under the rug and for a long time they will be mum on the topic other than the occasional comment which doesn't go beyond a few isolated discharges, usually regarding the gas giants and their relationships with their moons.
From where I am standing, the real myth is one of a charge neutral universe or the perception that an overall charge is required, rather than dynamic and evolving charge separation creating all opportunity for life, form and function. With that in mind, Please be on the look-out for understated sarcasm in the words to follow. I have opted for that tone in my writing because it is the only way I can imagine communicating how absolutely commonsense and well evidenced the Electric Universe positions are and why those who lazily conflate these positions with actual nonsense thinking such as the "flat earth" movement are all guilty of the groupie mindset in the argument from authority. Anyone who has taken the time to without being drawn into having to justify each in detail in this article which would make it one thousand pages, that is what my site if for and you will have no problem finding material on each fundamental principle.
Now, the term "Electromagnetism" exists for a reason. That reason is quite simply that electricity and magnetism are 2 sides of the same coin, and no means is apparent to me that is available allowing cosmologists to make calculations of these fields without calculating current, not since Hannes Alfven realised that the biggest mistake of his life had been the idea that "frozen in" fields could be used in the Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) calculations that he invented and won the Nobel Prize for. He ended up suggesting cosmologists AVOID using his mathematics due to space plasmas indifference to the beauty of the calculations and refusal to co-operate.
More fundamentally I struggle to see how to introduce magnetic fields (now discovered EVERYWHERE in space) into the most important cosmological calculations, the Friedman Equations, without electric moving charge and messing up their figures. Regarding the current aspect, it must be noted that even in remnant magnetism in iron or loadstone, it needs an electrical circuit with + and - charge separation and equalization for orientation to establish its polarity when first becoming magnetized, that is why we can work out pole shifts by the polarity of magnetized rocks or loadstone.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING A MAGNETIC CHARGE, ONLY ELECTRIC CHARGE.
This is overlooked by certain repeat-offender cosmologists who will always insist the magnetic fields, somehow "frozen in "without the benefit of magnetizable iron or moving charge, are what induce the currents, and everything works "like a dynamo", always pure theory, always lurking unseen in the middle of some or other celestial body like a big genie of the lamp granting electromagnetic wishes.
It often seems they go out of their way to avoid any topic that reveals just how obvious the evidence is supporting EU principles and rather than debate they ignore or worse. Sometimes they debunk based on awful strawman arguments and a horrible, misunderstood theory they put forward as EU. That's how the nonsense rumors get out, and once people discover that you think the Electric Universe is at a minimum on the right track, there is always someone who will say something along the lines of "So you don't believe in gravity?" They will of course say this even though they are standing next to me....and we are both standing firmly on the ground rather than floating off into space.... somehow.
Sometimes there is a look of bemused anticipation on their faces, perhaps they are expecting me to wow them with some obscure case to be made for why the downward force we all experience is simply an illusion? You know, like a party-trick gag or a flat earth argument.
Instead, I'll say something that must be a bit of a letdown in that regard, such as "Gravity exists whether I believe in it or not". If I want to make it known that such a question is actually irritating and I don't enjoy having accusations thrown at me even if posed as questions, I'll answer a question with a question. Ideally it should be with a similarly loaded question that is designed to lead them to the discovery that their assumption/question stems from their misunderstanding rather than my own, such as "Who the hell wouldn't believe in gravity?
If it is someone I know who values the scientific method but perhaps just forgot for a moment that I am not a complete idiot, I may say something like "Not only DO I believe in it but I can get a direct measurement in two minutes using my bathroom scale, and report instead that it is consensus science that is the party that does not believe in the force of gravity). Nothing like a twist in any plot to keep it interesting.
So, my weight, that's direct evidence, not in degrees of curvature but in KG. Ignoring this evidence of gravity being a mutually attractive force between massive bodies would involve saying it doesn't exist. This is so even when qualified in a proud voice stating that it is because actually an imaginary fabric of spacetime (which uses gravity to explain gravity) tells matter how to behave.
How exactly it tells matter anything is beyond me since no means is put forward. Presumably it does so by using its only property, a concept (geometry) instead of any force or method to exchange energy since no means is put forward to explain how such a fabric exerts material influence over matter directly. As far as I know the concept of mathematics does not have a driving force influencing the material world with material properties through mass as gravity does operating as a force, or how it mitigates these material properties once a moving body has motion, i.e. energy and this concept is now tasked with dealing with momentum and inertia.
Also, there is no evidence for any "fabric" or "manifold", and the other aspect of it (the four coordinate system of 3 spatial dimension plus time) has been around forever. It's called a "rendezvous" and was never dependent on the genius of Einstein since it is self-evident. That's the problem with "thought experiments", they are oxymoronic (or is it just moronic? I get confused sometimes). Put another way, it is EITHER a thought OR an experiment, it can't really be both, let's face it. That's kind of the whole point of experiments.
Another thing about the fabric of Spacetime is that it is not falsifiable. These are not minor details. If you don't believe me then look up the definition of "Pseudoscience". Are you picking up what I'm putting down?
So, let's be serious here for a minute. Are we really supposed to drop the notion that gravity is a force and replace it with pseudoscience? Because that's what imagined ideas in theoretical physics, such as the "fabric of spacetime" become after a cultural shift snatches them from where they belong (as a theory) the moment we insist it's our best science, trumping direct evidence and direct measurements. That's right, gravity itself may also be a theory but it does not presuppose 2 steps and 2 theoretical models/mechanics/dynamics/ sets of structure. It only deals in the tangible reality of mutual attraction because that is what it ultimately manifests as and that is what is measured. There is a word for that: Force.
Are you beginning to get a sense of just how much projection is going on here? The reputation of the EU model is the projected guilt by thousands of space science establishment groupies throwing shade on effective and efficient solutions. It is treated as fringe simply to reduce the threat factor and avoid having to engage simply because the Electric Universe angle does address (and very often solves) the most perplexing Lambda CDM mysteries. The strawman debunking clips that pop up on the internet are very weak and serve only to dish up lies that can be seen to be debunked. There is never any debate because there is always and only one outcome, and it is not pretty for the standard model.
This scenario describes the public understanding of science community and perhaps academics and administrators. Publicly and culturally, this is damaging but it's not unusual from any group protecting access to public funding, tenure, reputation or perhaps those looking to conceal nepotism or advance their careers. As a result, silly misunderstandings in the broader public are baked into every aspect of EU. It's not all malice, part of it is surely stemming from assumptions resulting from theoretical science having crossed over firmly into La-la Land.
I would need to write an entire book to address all of these, and that is something I am seriously considering doing, because in doing so the opportunity to clear up misunderstandings is only half the benefit. The other benefit of these clarifications is exposing the baseless sorcery posing as astrophysics when Lambda CDM Cosmology has framed the way the physics is understood and therefore expressed mathematically. Ever since Maxwell's equations and later Tesla, society has built power grids and a whole computerized world of technology though the mastery of the extremely well tested science of electromagnetism, whether electrical, electronic, electrostatic or electrodynamic.
I put it to you that this trumps evidence-free theoretical science with no industry or engineering based on it and which cannot be reproduced in labs. We need to leave our emotional attachment at the door when it comes to black holes, a big bang, dark matter, strange matter, dark energy and all the other borderline supernatural phenomena the standard model has cultivated over the years. No new physics is required, known physics has simple explanations for all of these and more. What does the guiding principle of science, Occam's Razor, tell us?
 |
| Not every earth day is the same precise 24-hour period, and our year is also influenced in the tiniest way by certain external factors. What's amazing is that there is a consistent correction towards mean on all these anomalous disturbances, meaning that whatever is mitigating celestial motion in accordance with the stability our simulations cannot achieve, it's also a major part of why the universe is as it is today. We get to understand that without puzzling over how a single unbalanced force (gravity greates) |
I've touched on the gravity issue and how the EU obviously accepts it. They simply commit the unforgivable sin of proposing that a single unbalanced force cannot manifest a stable, well-ordered universe of filamentary structure and the cosmic web, it would quickly descend into chaos. And that is exactly what simulations show, even at densities where matter is dense enough for gravity to dominate, like right near the surface a trillion-ton rock such as a planet or moon. What leaps out at us in a gravity only universe is not only that there is only 4% of the required matter to generate enough of it, but because even at 100% the morphology would still be completely wrong. Gravity forms spheres, it does not form filaments, a torus or discs. A complex spiral arm rotating structure bears no resemblance to an orbital system. Even orbits themselves need a mitigating force for long term stability and to explain how the earth jumps back into its revolution and rotation timeframe since each day is not exactly the same length of 24 hours (see image above). It can be disturbed, i.e. after CMEs and solar flares it is affected by tiny amounts.
Gravity is much more influential at planetary scales where matter is dense, compared to galactic scales where gravity play no role at all. However a single unbalanced force relying on the precise orbital mechanics our rocket scientist calculate for space missions is so unlikely as to basically be impossible, a mitigating force is required and the resonance or potential gradient relating to charge keeps a stable and consistent influence on the orbit and rotation of planets and moons.
Thats barely touching the gravity issue or explaining the basics of why magnetic fields and self-contained plasma magnetic entities can explain, or actually REQUIRE the morphology of the universe to be as it is. Another main tenant of the Electric Universe is that in order for these other forces to contribute there must be a facilitation for charge movement and charge separation in space, in other words, electric current. This is either partially accepted by some in the mainstream, usually with no appreciation of the extent or consequence of it, or it is rejected outright for reasons that I can only explain as a source of what almost seems like self-satire.
You should make up your own mind. Perhaps you can detect the comedy value in the mainstream rejection of the Electric Universe claim essential to their principles, i.e. that there is electricity in space. Do so with your own assessment of their objections summed up in the below 4 points. It reads like satire but ultimately this is the absurd reality right now.
- Despite the Universe being filled with radiation which ionizes all the gas out there to the state of plasma (even if only 1% ionized plasma conducts), Plasma has the charged particles to some degree liberated from the usual stable atomic state so to some degree made up of charged particles, in ions and electrons. Groups of flowing charged particles always result in an electric current with a magnetic field around it. Only electric current produces magnetic fields, hence the term "electromagnetism". Remember that there are no electric currents in space – but there are however magnetic fields oddly enough, they are EVERYWHERE and their origin is an enduring mystery which nobody has ever been able to solve.
- The Solar Wind is charged particles. They move against the suns gravity and keep accelerating beyond the orbit of Neptune in the suns vast field, the same way we accelerate charged particles on earth in our colliders, using magnetic fields. Coincidently. the Definition of Electric Current is moving charged particles; therefore, apart from near the planets, no electric current is present in the solar system, just moving charge and magnetic fields....
- We use electricity to produce radio waves, microwaves, visible light, X-rays and Gamma Rays on Earth. All of these are found in space, each created by different and borderline supernatural sources since no electric current can exist in space.
- Charged particles from the sun interact with our ionosphere to form very specific Birkeland Currents called Aurora. MOVING charged particles arrive from the sun in the solar wind which we measure, and thus far cannot find any evidence of electric current in space.
So far, we have only dipped our toe into these waters, new data is coming in literally every day supporting EU principles and getting standard model proponents to contemplate starting from scratch because every other new observation "breaks science" (Actually science is fine, it's their model being falsified on a weekly basis that breaks their hearts and channels denial based scorn into the competition through projection) a book covering this topic would practically write itself!
Click HERE for this site's homepage.
A full list of sources and citations for Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmology, Particle Physics and Theoretical Physics can be found HERE. If you are curious and want an extensive database of scientifically rigorous alternatives to the tired collapsing current dogma, then you are in luck.
In times of universal deceit, truth is a crime. Censorship should be banned.
Who and what are you not able to openly criticise? Thats who Id like to hear about. Fact checking is propaganda by the very nature of the act.
The Suns Connection To Its Birkeland Current
.png) |
| Our stars connection to the galactic current sheet is most evident during an eclipse |
There are, of course, no "Butterfly Nebulae" as asserted by the Consensus Cosmology school devoted to the LAMBDA-CDM Standard Model. Or rather I should say there are such nebulae, but they are not the exploding peculiarities they are put forward as.
Regular readers or readers familiar with Plasma Cosmology or EU Cosmology will of course understand that when we interpret polarized light far beyond the butterflies' wings in a variety of EM spectrum frequencies, we detect magnetic fields tracking cosmic filaments flanking an anode focus (known as a Z-Pinch or Bennet Pinch in Plasma Cosmology). In The Main header pic above the bottom left image best shows how double layer plasma Birkeland Currents beautifully impinge on a focus point which becomes a star. Any abundance of matter in the right spot could draw nearby current towards itself if no competition is around to interfere, and by the same token the mass accumulated in the center can also be ejected if the current snakes about to violently for the magnetic fields to hold the concentrated mass in place. The Cosmic Webb is made out of ionized plasma. In space the ambient radiation ionizes everything. It follows logically that treating everything in kinetic terms and as noble gasses is to ignore long established principles of plasma physics in a universe that is over 99% plasma.
Gravity does not form filaments even if we pretend that such things as dark matter exist. They dont of course, the electrodynamic realities out are inescapable consequences of physics, obvious, reproducible easily in labs and dont rely on theoretical physics or mumbo jumbo theories that are so obviously nonsense sorcery that they jump from the page and begin having unsolicited intercourse with your brain. IE they fuck with your mind, and somewhere there is someone laughing at taking the piss all these years. And yet, use plasma astrophysics and hey presto, all the mysteries are easily solved. Plasma Cosmology accounts for 100% of matter in the universe with no public funding. The Lambda CDM model lost 95.4% of matter and energy in the universe over fifty years while blowing a trillion dollars of your money. Magnetic fields are everywhere in space, tracking galactic arms for a reason. Only electric currents cause magnetic fields, even in remnant magnetism as with some iron ore. The ionized plasma is an excellent conductor. All stellar winds are moving charged particles. The definition of electric current in precisely that, moving charged particles, in turn producing the orderly magnetic fields. The charge density is very weak in intergalactic space but very vast, it only enters glow mode (like the plasma in a neon tube when current is passed through it) as the filament narrows, and it enters arc mode, like an arc welder, or bolt of lightning, when the charge of an entire Birkeland Current becomes the anode focus as a star, and just as hard to stare at.
Read More about the Electric Sun Model to take the principles further, HERE
OR
Read about Prof Donald Scotts Birkeland Current Model HERE.
NB* Professor Scott's mathematical model of a Birkeland Current.
OR
Find out the basics on Plasma and EU Cosmology HERE or find out WHY ITS SUPERIOR TO LAMDA CDM CONCORDANCE COSMOLOGY.
Sources for Astronomy, Cosmology and Astrophysics can be found HERE
(And Below)
Click HERE for the Homepage
___________________________________________________________________________________
The fact that there could be a mix-up between spectrum lines for elements/molecular and lines in air with chemistry vs vacuum vs in denser plasmas with micro fields changes everything. Astrophysicists have no idea what is going on in the sun. They use purely physics, no chemistry, and their model treats the sun as an ideal gas not dense enough for chemistry despite acknowledging the magnetic fields everywhere, they treat it as a mysteriously magnetized gas.The Chromosphere & Second Solar Spectrum: Monitoring the Chemical Playground of the Sun!Is the Sun a Gas? The Standard Solar Model Explained!Is the Corona at MILLIONS of degrees?J.S. Ames, The Spectrum Researches of Professor J.M. Eder and E. Vallenta, Astrophys. J. 1895, 1, 443-446.M. Saha, Ionization of the Solar Chromosphere, Phil. Mag. 1920, 40, 479-488.J.A. Anderson, The Vacuum Spark Spectrum of Calcium, Astrophys. J. 1924, 59, 76-96. https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1924A...
C.M. Olmstead, Sun-Spot Bands Which Appear in the Spectrum of a Calcium Arc Burning in the Presence of Hydrogen, Astrophys. J., 1908, 27, 66-69. https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1908A...A.V. Demura, Physical Models of Plasma Microfield, Int. J. Spectros. 2010, 671073, pp42. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijs/...
H. Zirin, The mystery of the chromosphere. Solar Phys., 1996, v. 169,
G. Tsiropoula G., et al. Solar fine-scale structures I. Spicules and other small-scale, jet-like events at the chromospheric level: Observations and physical parameters. Space Sci. Rev. 2012, 169, 181–244.
P.M. Robitaille, The Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Model of the Sun and the Solar Atmosphere IV. On the Nature of the Chromosphere, Progress Phys. 2013, 3, L15-L21. http://www.ptep-online.com/2013/PP-34...
D. Nield, How Paint and a Speaker Could Explain The Physics of The Sun's Plasma Jets, March 13, 2022.
Spicules in H-AlphaCredit: Big Bear Solar Observatoryλ
J.O. Stenflo and C.U. Keller, New Window for Spectroscopy, Nature 1996, 382(6592), 588.
J.O. Stenflo and C.U. Keller, The Second Solar Spectrum. A new window for diagnostics of the Sun, Astro. Astrophysics 1997, 321, 927-934.
J.O. Stenflo et al., Anomalous polarization effects due to coherent scattering on the Sun. Astron. Astrophys. 2000, 355 789-803.
J.O. Stenflo, Polarization of the Sun’s continuous spectrum, A & A, 2005, 429, 713-730. https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf...
P.M. Robitaille, Polarized Light from the Sun: Unification of the Corona and Analysis of the Second Solar Spectrum – Further implications of a Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model, Progr. Phys. 2015, 11(3), 236-245.
Second Solar SpectrumA.M. Gandorfer, High Resolution Atlas of the Second Solar Spectrum, Istituto ricerche solari Aldo e Cele Daccò, Locarno.
The fact that there could be a mix-up between spectrum lines for elements/molecular and lines in air with chemistry vs vacuum vs in denser plasmas with micro fields changes everything. Astrophysicists have no idea what is going on in the sun. They use purely physics, no chemistry, and their model treats the sun as an ideal gas not dense enough for chemistry despite acknowledging the magnetic fields everywhere, they treat it as a mysteriously magnetized gas.
The Chromosphere & Second Solar Spectrum: Monitoring the Chemical Playground of the Sun!
Is the Sun a Gas? The Standard Solar Model Explained!
Is the Corona at MILLIONS of degrees?
J.S. Ames, The Spectrum Researches of Professor J.M. Eder and E. Vallenta, Astrophys. J. 1895, 1, 443-446.
M. Saha, Ionization of the Solar Chromosphere, Phil. Mag. 1920, 40, 479-488.
J.A. Anderson, The Vacuum Spark Spectrum of Calcium, Astrophys. J. 1924, 59, 76-96. https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1924A...
C.M. Olmstead, Sun-Spot Bands Which Appear in the Spectrum of a Calcium Arc Burning in the Presence of Hydrogen, Astrophys. J., 1908, 27, 66-69. https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1908A...
A.V. Demura, Physical Models of Plasma Microfield, Int. J. Spectros. 2010, 671073, pp42. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijs/...
H. Zirin, The mystery of the chromosphere. Solar Phys., 1996, v. 169,
G. Tsiropoula G., et al. Solar fine-scale structures I. Spicules and other small-scale, jet-like events at the chromospheric level: Observations and physical parameters. Space Sci. Rev. 2012, 169, 181–244.
P.M. Robitaille, The Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Model of the Sun and the Solar Atmosphere IV. On the Nature of the Chromosphere, Progress Phys. 2013, 3, L15-L21. http://www.ptep-online.com/2013/PP-34...
D. Nield, How Paint and a Speaker Could Explain The Physics of The Sun's Plasma Jets, March 13, 2022.
Spicules in H-Alpha
Credit: Big Bear Solar Observatoryλ
J.O. Stenflo and C.U. Keller, New Window for Spectroscopy, Nature 1996, 382(6592), 588.
J.O. Stenflo, Polarization of the Sun’s continuous spectrum, A & A, 2005, 429, 713-730. https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf...
P.M. Robitaille, Polarized Light from the Sun: Unification of the Corona and Analysis of the Second Solar Spectrum – Further implications of a Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model, Progr. Phys. 2015, 11(3), 236-245.
Second Solar Spectrum
A.M. Gandorfer, High Resolution Atlas of the Second Solar Spectrum, Istituto ricerche solari Aldo e Cele Daccò, Locarno.
NIST Atomic Spectra Database Lines Form
NIST lines dataSolar Fraunhofer Spectrum with assignmentsDigital Fraunhofer SpectrumSolar abundance data
2022 Geology/ cratersRobert Hawthorne Jr.
Professor Scott's mathematical model of a Birkeland Current.
NASA (Birkeland Currents)
NIST lines data
Solar Fraunhofer Spectrum with assignments
Digital Fraunhofer Spectrum
Solar abundance data
Fujii, R.; Iijima, T.; Potemra, T. A.; Sugiura, M.
1981-01-01
Seasonal variations of large-scale Birkeland currents are examined in a study of the source mechanisms and the closure of the three-dimensional current systems in the ionosphere. Vector magnetic field data acquired by the TRIAD satellite in the Northern Hemisphere were analyzed for the statistics of single sheet and double sheet Birkeland currents during 555 passes during the summer and 408 passes during the winter. The single sheet currents are observed more frequently in the dayside of the auroral zone, and more often in summer than in winter. The intensities of both the single and double dayside currents are found to be greater in the summer than in the winter by a factor of two, while the intensities of the double sheet Birkeland currents on the nightside do not show a significant difference from summer to winter. Both the single and double sheet currents are found at higher latitudes in the summer than in the winter on the dayside. Results suggest that the Birkeland current intensities are controlled by the ionospheric conductivity in the polar region, and that the currents close via the polar cap when the conductivity there is sufficiently high. It is also concluded that an important source of these currents must be a voltage generator in the magnetosphere.
High altitude observations of Birkeland currents
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Russell, C. T.
1977-01-01
Several models of field-aligned currents (Birkeland currents) in the magnetosphere are discussed, and high altitude observations of these currents, carried out with the aid of highly eccentric earth-orbiting spacecraft of the OGO and IMP series, are reviewed. The essential roles of Birkeland currents are identified: they relieve charge imbalances, transmit stresses, and lead to particle acceleration anomalous resistivity.
The effect of Birkeland currents on magnetic field topology
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Peroomian, Vahe; Lyons, Larry R.; Schulz, Michael
1996-01-01
A technique was developed for the inclusion of large scale magnetospheric current systems in magnetic field models. The region 1 and 2 Birkeland current systems are included in the source surface model of the terrestrial magnetosphere. The region 1 and 2 Birkeland currents are placed in the model using a series of field aligned, infinitely thin wire segments. The normal component of the magnetic field from these currents is calculated on the surface of the magnetopause and shielded using image current carrying wires placed outside of the magnetosphere. It is found that the inclusion of the Birkeland currents in the model results in a northward magnetic field in the near-midnight tail, leading to the closure of previously open flux in the tail, and a southward magnetic field in the flanks. A sunward shift in the separatrix is observed.
Ionospheric and Birkeland current distributions inferred from the MAGSAT magnetometer data
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Zanetti, L. J.; Potemra, T. A.; Baumjohann, W.
1983-01-01
Ionospheric and field-aligned sheet current density distributions are presently inferred by means of MAGSAT vector magnetometer data, together with an accurate magnetic field model. By comparing Hall current densities inferred from the MAGSAT data and those inferred from simultaneously recorded ground based data acquired by the Scandinavian magnetometer array, it is determined that the former have previously been underestimated due to high damping of magnetic variations with high spatial wave numbers between the ionosphere and the MAGSAT orbit. Among important results of this study is noted the fact that the Birkeland and electrojet current systems are colocated. The analyses have shown a tendency for triangular rather than constant electrojet current distributions as a function of latitude, consistent with the statistical, uniform regions 1 and 2 Birkeland current patterns.
Anderson, B. J.; Korth, H.; Waters, C. L.; ...
2014-05-07
The Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment uses magnetic field data from the Iridium constellation to derive the global Birkeland current distribution every 10 min. We examine cases in which the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) rotated from northward to southward resulting in onsets of the Birkeland currents. Dayside Region 1/2 currents, totaling ~25% of the final current, appear within 20 min of the IMF southward turning and remain steady. In the onset of nightside currents occurs 40 to 70 min after the dayside currents appear. Afterwards, the currents intensify at dawn, dusk, and on the dayside, yielding a fullymore » formed Region 1/2 system ~30 min after the nightside onset. Our results imply that the dayside Birkeland currents are driven by magnetopause reconnection, and the remainder of the system forms as magnetospheric return flows start and progress sunward, ultimately closing the Dungey convection cycle.« less
The relationship of total Birkeland currents to the merging electric field
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Bythrow, P. F.; Potemra, T. A.
1983-01-01
Magsat data were used to examine the behavior of Birkeland currents during 1100-2000 UT in consecutive orbits passing near the dawn-dusk meridian. The field was measured with a three-axis fluxgate instrument with a resolution of within 0.5 nT, with the sampling occurring every 1/16th sec. A total of 32 crossings of the Northern Hemisphere auroral zone were available for analysis. The changes in the magnetic readings were correlated more closely with variation in the IMF parameters than to the latitudinal width of the changes. Evidence was found for a relationship between the reconnection electric field and the intensity of the large-scale Birkeland current system. The total conductance of the auroral zone was calculated to be about 18.7 mhos.
Ionospheric convection inferred from interplanetary magnetic field-dependent Birkeland currents
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Rasmussen, C. E.; Schunk, R. W.
1988-01-01
Computer simulations of ionospheric convection have been performed, combining empirical models of Birkeland currents with a model of ionospheric conductivity in order to investigate IMF-dependent convection characteristics. Birkeland currents representing conditions in the northern polar cap of the negative IMF By component are used. Two possibilities are considered: (1) the morning cell shifting into the polar cap as the IMF turns northward, and this cell and a distorted evening cell providing for sunward flow in the polar cap; and (2) the existence of a three-cell pattern when the IMF is strongly northward.
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Coxon, John C.; Rae, I. Jonathan; Forsyth, Colin; Jackman, Caitriona M.; Fear, Robert C.; Anderson, Brian J.
2017-06-01
We conduct a superposed epoch analysis of Birkeland current densities from AMPERE (Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment) using isolated substorm expansion phase onsets identified by an independently derived data set. In order to evaluate whether R1 and R2 currents contribute to the substorm current wedge, we rotate global maps of Birkeland currents into a common coordinate system centered on the magnetic local time of substorm onset. When the latitude of substorm is taken into account, it is clear that both R1 and R2 current systems play a role in substorm onset, contrary to previous studies which found that R2 current did not contribute. The latitude of substorm onset is colocated with the interface between R1 and R2 currents, allowing us to infer that R1 current closes just tailward and R2 current closes just earthward of the associated current disruption in the tail. AMPERE is the first data set to give near-instantaneous measurements of Birkeland current across the whole polar cap, and this study addresses apparent discrepancies in previous studies which have used AMPERE to examine the morphology of the substorm current wedge. Finally, we present evidence for an extremely localized reduction in current density immediately prior to substorm onset, and we interpret this as the first statistical signature of auroral dimming in Birkeland current.
Relationship between Birkeland current regions, particle precipitation, and electric fields
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
De La Beaujardiere, O.; Watermann, J.; Newell, P.; Rich, F.
1993-01-01
The relationship of the large-scale dayside Birkeland currents to large-scale particle precipitation patterns, currents, and convection is examined using DMSP and Sondrestrom radar observations. It is found that the local time of the mantle currents is not limited to the longitude of the cusp proper, but covers a larger local time extent. The mantle currents flow entirely on open field lines. About half of region 1 currents flow on open field lines, consistent with the assumption that the region 1 currents are generated by the solar wind dynamo and flow within the surface that separates open and closed field lines. More than 80 percent of the Birkeland current boundaries do not correspond to particle precipitation boundaries. Region 2 currents extend beyond the plasma sheet poleward boundary; region 1 currents flow in part on open field lines; mantle currents and mantle particles are not coincident. On most passes when a triple current sheet is observed, the convection reversal is located on closed field lines.
Upward electron beams measured by DE-1 - A primary source of dayside region-1 Birkeland currents
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Burch, J. L.; Reiff, P. H.; Sugiura, M.
1983-01-01
Measurements made by the High Altitude Plasma Instrument on DE-1 have shown that intense upward electron beams with energies from about 20 eV to about 200 eV are a common feature of the region just equatorward of the morning-side polar cusp. Computations of the currents carried by these beams and by the precipitating cusp electrons show excellent agreement with the simultaneous DE-1 magnetometer measurements for both upward and downward Birkeland currents. The data indicate that cold ionospheric electrons, which carry the downward region-1 Birkeland currents on the morning side, are accelerated upward by potential drops of a few tens of eV at altitudes of several thousand kilometers. This acceleration process allows spacecraft above those altitudes to measure routinely the charge carriers of both downward and upward current systems.
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Anderson, Brian J.; Korth, Haje; Welling, Daniel T.; Merkin, Viacheslav G.; Wiltberger, Michael J.; Raeder, Joachim; Barnes, Robin J.; Waters, Colin L.; Pulkkinen, Antti A.; Rastaetter, Lutz
2017-02-01
Two of the geomagnetic storms for the Space Weather Prediction Center Geospace Environment Modeling challenge occurred after data were first acquired by the Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment (AMPERE). We compare Birkeland currents from AMPERE with predictions from four models for the 4-5 April 2010 and 5-6 August 2011 storms. The four models are the Weimer (2005b) field-aligned current statistical model, the Lyon-Fedder-Mobarry magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulation, the Open Global Geospace Circulation Model MHD simulation, and the Space Weather Modeling Framework MHD simulation. The MHD simulations were run as described in Pulkkinen et al. (2013) and the results obtained from the Community Coordinated Modeling Center. The total radial Birkeland current, ITotal, and the distribution of radial current density, Jr, for all models are compared with AMPERE results. While the total currents are well correlated, the quantitative agreement varies considerably. The Jr distributions reveal discrepancies between the models and observations related to the latitude distribution, morphologies, and lack of nightside current systems in the models. The results motivate enhancing the simulations first by increasing the simulation resolution and then by examining the relative merits of implementing more sophisticated ionospheric conductance models, including ionospheric outflows or other omitted physical processes. Some aspects of the system, including substorm timing and location, may remain challenging to simulate, implying a continuing need for real-time specification.
Dominant modes of variability in large-scale Birkeland currents
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Cousins, E. D. P.; Matsuo, Tomoko; Richmond, A. D.; Anderson, B. J.
2015-08-01
Properties of variability in large-scale Birkeland currents are investigated through empirical orthogonal function (EOF) analysis of 1 week of data from the Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment (AMPERE). Mean distributions and dominant modes of variability are identified for both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Differences in the results from the two hemispheres are observed, which are attributed to seasonal differences in conductivity (the study period occurred near solstice). A universal mean and set of dominant modes of variability are obtained through combining the hemispheric results, and it is found that the mean and first three modes of variability (EOFs) account for 38% of the total observed squared magnetic perturbations (δB2) from both hemispheres. The mean distribution represents a standard Region 1/Region 2 (R1/R2) morphology of currents and EOF 1 captures the strengthening/weakening of the average distribution and is well correlated with the north-south component of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). EOF 2 captures a mixture of effects including the expansion/contraction and rotation of the (R1/R2) currents; this mode correlates only weakly with possible external driving parameters. EOF 3 captures changes in the morphology of the currents in the dayside cusp region and is well correlated with the dawn-dusk component of the IMF. The higher-order EOFs capture more complex, smaller-scale variations in the Birkeland currents and appear generally uncorrelated with external driving parameters. The results of the EOF analysis described here are used for describing error covariance in a data assimilation procedure utilizing AMPERE data, as described in a companion paper.
Kristian Birkeland - The man and the scientist
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Egeland, A.
1984-01-01
A review is presented of Birkeland's outstanding contributions to auroral theory and, in particular, to the foundation of modern magnetospheric physics. Birkeland's first years in research, after a study of mathematics and theoretical physics at the university, were concerned with Maxwell's theory, the investigation of electromagnetic waves in conductors, wave propagation in space, an energy transfer by means of electromagnetic waves, and a general expression for the Poynting vector. Experiments with cathode rays near a magnet in 1895, led Birkeland to the development of an auroral theory. This theory represented the first detailed, realistic explanation of the creation of an aurora. Attention is given to experiments conducted to verify the theory, the discovery of the polar elementary storm, and the deduction of auroral electric currents. Birkeland's background and education is also considered along with his personality.
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Gustafsson, G.; Potemra, T. A.; Favin, S.; Saflekos, N. A.
1981-10-01
Principal oscillations of the TRIAD satellite are studied in 150 passes and are identified as the librations of a gravity-stabilized satellite. The libration periods are T(O)/2 and T(O)/(3) exp 1/2, where T(O) is the orbit period of about 100 min. The amplitude and phase change over periods of a few days, sometimes vanishing altogether, and these attitude changes are numerically evaluated and removed. Data from three consecutive passes spanning over three hours show a magnetic profile which extends as far as 10 deg in latitude from a single region 1 Birkeland current sheet, confirming the permanent and global nature of large-scale Birkeland currents.
Birkeland, Kristian (1868-1917)
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Murdin, P.
2001-07-01
Birkeland was a Norwegian physicist, born in Oslo. In 1900, he identified and then simulated the charged electron-magnetic flux tube connection between the Sun and Earth that produces the aurora. He studied the zodiacal light during expeditions to the Sudan and Egypt. Birkeland committed suicide in a depression associated with the rejection of his auroral theories by his contemporary established...
Kristian Birkeland, The First Space Scientist
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Egeland, A.; Burke, W. J.
2005-05-01
At the beginning of the 20th century Kristian Birkeland (1867-1917), a Norwegian scientist of insatiable curiosity, addressed questions that had vexed European scientists for centuries. Why do the northern lights appear overhead when the Earth's magnetic field is disturbed? How are magnetic storms connected to disturbances on the Sun? To answer these questions Birkeland interpreted his advance laboratory simulations and daring campaigns in the Arctic wilderness in the light of Maxwell's newly discovered laws of electricity and magnetism. Birkeland's ideas were dismissed for decades, only to be vindicated when satellites could fly above the Earth's atmosphere. Faced with the depleting stocks of Chilean saltpeter and the consequent prospect of mass starvation, Birkeland showed his practical side, inventing the first industrial scale method to extract nitrogen-based fertilizers from the air. Norsk Hydro, one of modern Norway's largest industries, stands as a living tribute to his genius. Hoping to demonstrate what we now call the solar wind, Birkeland moved to Egypt in 1913. Isolated from his friends by the Great War, Birkeland yearned to celebrate his 50th birthday in Norway. The only safe passage home, via the Far East, brought him to Tokyo where in the late spring of 1917 he passed away. Link: http://www.springeronline.com/sgw/cda/frontpage/0,11855,5-10100-22-39144987-0,00.html?changeHeader=true
.
Nordic cosmogonies: Birkeland, Arrhenius and fin-de-siècle cosmical physics
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Kragh, Helge
2013-09-01
During the two decades before World War I, many physicists, astronomers and earth scientists engaged in interdisciplinary research projects with the aim of integrating terrestrial, solar and astronomical phenomena. Under the umbrella label "cosmical physics" they studied, for example, geomagnetic storms, atmospheric electricity, cometary tails and the aurora borealis. According to a few of the cosmical physicists, insights in solar-terrestrial and related phenomena might be extrapolated to the entire solar system or beyond it. Inspired by their research in the origin and
Fujii, R.; Iijima, T.; Potemra, T. A.; Sugiura, M.
1981-01-01
Seasonal variations of large-scale Birkeland currents are examined in a study of the source mechanisms and the closure of the three-dimensional current systems in the ionosphere. Vector magnetic field data acquired by the TRIAD satellite in the Northern Hemisphere were analyzed for the statistics of single sheet and double sheet Birkeland currents during 555 passes during the summer and 408 passes during the winter. The single sheet currents are observed more frequently in the dayside of the auroral zone, and more often in summer than in winter. The intensities of both the single and double dayside currents are found to be greater in the summer than in the winter by a factor of two, while the intensities of the double sheet Birkeland currents on the nightside do not show a significant difference from summer to winter. Both the single and double sheet currents are found at higher latitudes in the summer than in the winter on the dayside. Results suggest that the Birkeland current intensities are controlled by the ionospheric conductivity in the polar region, and that the currents close via the polar cap when the conductivity there is sufficiently high. It is also concluded that an important source of these currents must be a voltage generator in the magnetosphere.
High altitude observations of Birkeland currents
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Russell, C. T.
1977-01-01
Several models of field-aligned currents (Birkeland currents) in the magnetosphere are discussed, and high altitude observations of these currents, carried out with the aid of highly eccentric earth-orbiting spacecraft of the OGO and IMP series, are reviewed. The essential roles of Birkeland currents are identified: they relieve charge imbalances, transmit stresses, and lead to particle acceleration anomalous resistivity.
The effect of Birkeland currents on magnetic field topology
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Peroomian, Vahe; Lyons, Larry R.; Schulz, Michael
1996-01-01
A technique was developed for the inclusion of large scale magnetospheric current systems in magnetic field models. The region 1 and 2 Birkeland current systems are included in the source surface model of the terrestrial magnetosphere. The region 1 and 2 Birkeland currents are placed in the model using a series of field aligned, infinitely thin wire segments. The normal component of the magnetic field from these currents is calculated on the surface of the magnetopause and shielded using image current carrying wires placed outside of the magnetosphere. It is found that the inclusion of the Birkeland currents in the model results in a northward magnetic field in the near-midnight tail, leading to the closure of previously open flux in the tail, and a southward magnetic field in the flanks. A sunward shift in the separatrix is observed.
Ionospheric and Birkeland current distributions inferred from the MAGSAT magnetometer data
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Zanetti, L. J.; Potemra, T. A.; Baumjohann, W.
1983-01-01
Ionospheric and field-aligned sheet current density distributions are presently inferred by means of MAGSAT vector magnetometer data, together with an accurate magnetic field model. By comparing Hall current densities inferred from the MAGSAT data and those inferred from simultaneously recorded ground based data acquired by the Scandinavian magnetometer array, it is determined that the former have previously been underestimated due to high damping of magnetic variations with high spatial wave numbers between the ionosphere and the MAGSAT orbit. Among important results of this study is noted the fact that the Birkeland and electrojet current systems are colocated. The analyses have shown a tendency for triangular rather than constant electrojet current distributions as a function of latitude, consistent with the statistical, uniform regions 1 and 2 Birkeland current patterns.
Anderson, B. J.; Korth, H.; Waters, C. L.; ...
2014-05-07
The Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment uses magnetic field data from the Iridium constellation to derive the global Birkeland current distribution every 10 min. We examine cases in which the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) rotated from northward to southward resulting in onsets of the Birkeland currents. Dayside Region 1/2 currents, totaling ~25% of the final current, appear within 20 min of the IMF southward turning and remain steady. In the onset of nightside currents occurs 40 to 70 min after the dayside currents appear. Afterwards, the currents intensify at dawn, dusk, and on the dayside, yielding a fullymore » formed Region 1/2 system ~30 min after the nightside onset. Our results imply that the dayside Birkeland currents are driven by magnetopause reconnection, and the remainder of the system forms as magnetospheric return flows start and progress sunward, ultimately closing the Dungey convection cycle.« less
The relationship of total Birkeland currents to the merging electric field
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Bythrow, P. F.; Potemra, T. A.
1983-01-01
Magsat data were used to examine the behavior of Birkeland currents during 1100-2000 UT in consecutive orbits passing near the dawn-dusk meridian. The field was measured with a three-axis fluxgate instrument with a resolution of within 0.5 nT, with the sampling occurring every 1/16th sec. A total of 32 crossings of the Northern Hemisphere auroral zone were available for analysis. The changes in the magnetic readings were correlated more closely with variation in the IMF parameters than to the latitudinal width of the changes. Evidence was found for a relationship between the reconnection electric field and the intensity of the large-scale Birkeland current system. The total conductance of the auroral zone was calculated to be about 18.7 mhos.
Ionospheric convection inferred from interplanetary magnetic field-dependent Birkeland currents
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Rasmussen, C. E.; Schunk, R. W.
1988-01-01
Computer simulations of ionospheric convection have been performed, combining empirical models of Birkeland currents with a model of ionospheric conductivity in order to investigate IMF-dependent convection characteristics. Birkeland currents representing conditions in the northern polar cap of the negative IMF By component are used. Two possibilities are considered: (1) the morning cell shifting into the polar cap as the IMF turns northward, and this cell and a distorted evening cell providing for sunward flow in the polar cap; and (2) the existence of a three-cell pattern when the IMF is strongly northward.
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Coxon, John C.; Rae, I. Jonathan; Forsyth, Colin; Jackman, Caitriona M.; Fear, Robert C.; Anderson, Brian J.
2017-06-01
We conduct a superposed epoch analysis of Birkeland current densities from AMPERE (Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment) using isolated substorm expansion phase onsets identified by an independently derived data set. In order to evaluate whether R1 and R2 currents contribute to the substorm current wedge, we rotate global maps of Birkeland currents into a common coordinate system centered on the magnetic local time of substorm onset. When the latitude of substorm is taken into account, it is clear that both R1 and R2 current systems play a role in substorm onset, contrary to previous studies which found that R2 current did not contribute. The latitude of substorm onset is colocated with the interface between R1 and R2 currents, allowing us to infer that R1 current closes just tailward and R2 current closes just earthward of the associated current disruption in the tail. AMPERE is the first data set to give near-instantaneous measurements of Birkeland current across the whole polar cap, and this study addresses apparent discrepancies in previous studies which have used AMPERE to examine the morphology of the substorm current wedge. Finally, we present evidence for an extremely localized reduction in current density immediately prior to substorm onset, and we interpret this as the first statistical signature of auroral dimming in Birkeland current.
Relationship between Birkeland current regions, particle precipitation, and electric fields
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
De La Beaujardiere, O.; Watermann, J.; Newell, P.; Rich, F.
1993-01-01
The relationship of the large-scale dayside Birkeland currents to large-scale particle precipitation patterns, currents, and convection is examined using DMSP and Sondrestrom radar observations. It is found that the local time of the mantle currents is not limited to the longitude of the cusp proper, but covers a larger local time extent. The mantle currents flow entirely on open field lines. About half of region 1 currents flow on open field lines, consistent with the assumption that the region 1 currents are generated by the solar wind dynamo and flow within the surface that separates open and closed field lines. More than 80 percent of the Birkeland current boundaries do not correspond to particle precipitation boundaries. Region 2 currents extend beyond the plasma sheet poleward boundary; region 1 currents flow in part on open field lines; mantle currents and mantle particles are not coincident. On most passes when a triple current sheet is observed, the convection reversal is located on closed field lines.
Upward electron beams measured by DE-1 - A primary source of dayside region-1 Birkeland currents
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Burch, J. L.; Reiff, P. H.; Sugiura, M.
1983-01-01
Measurements made by the High Altitude Plasma Instrument on DE-1 have shown that intense upward electron beams with energies from about 20 eV to about 200 eV are a common feature of the region just equatorward of the morning-side polar cusp. Computations of the currents carried by these beams and by the precipitating cusp electrons show excellent agreement with the simultaneous DE-1 magnetometer measurements for both upward and downward Birkeland currents. The data indicate that cold ionospheric electrons, which carry the downward region-1 Birkeland currents on the morning side, are accelerated upward by potential drops of a few tens of eV at altitudes of several thousand kilometers. This acceleration process allows spacecraft above those altitudes to measure routinely the charge carriers of both downward and upward current systems.
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Anderson, Brian J.; Korth, Haje; Welling, Daniel T.; Merkin, Viacheslav G.; Wiltberger, Michael J.; Raeder, Joachim; Barnes, Robin J.; Waters, Colin L.; Pulkkinen, Antti A.; Rastaetter, Lutz
2017-02-01
Two of the geomagnetic storms for the Space Weather Prediction Center Geospace Environment Modeling challenge occurred after data were first acquired by the Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment (AMPERE). We compare Birkeland currents from AMPERE with predictions from four models for the 4-5 April 2010 and 5-6 August 2011 storms. The four models are the Weimer (2005b) field-aligned current statistical model, the Lyon-Fedder-Mobarry magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulation, the Open Global Geospace Circulation Model MHD simulation, and the Space Weather Modeling Framework MHD simulation. The MHD simulations were run as described in Pulkkinen et al. (2013) and the results obtained from the Community Coordinated Modeling Center. The total radial Birkeland current, ITotal, and the distribution of radial current density, Jr, for all models are compared with AMPERE results. While the total currents are well correlated, the quantitative agreement varies considerably. The Jr distributions reveal discrepancies between the models and observations related to the latitude distribution, morphologies, and lack of nightside current systems in the models. The results motivate enhancing the simulations first by increasing the simulation resolution and then by examining the relative merits of implementing more sophisticated ionospheric conductance models, including ionospheric outflows or other omitted physical processes. Some aspects of the system, including substorm timing and location, may remain challenging to simulate, implying a continuing need for real-time specification.
Dominant modes of variability in large-scale Birkeland currents
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Cousins, E. D. P.; Matsuo, Tomoko; Richmond, A. D.; Anderson, B. J.
2015-08-01
Properties of variability in large-scale Birkeland currents are investigated through empirical orthogonal function (EOF) analysis of 1 week of data from the Active Magnetosphere and Planetary Electrodynamics Response Experiment (AMPERE). Mean distributions and dominant modes of variability are identified for both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Differences in the results from the two hemispheres are observed, which are attributed to seasonal differences in conductivity (the study period occurred near solstice). A universal mean and set of dominant modes of variability are obtained through combining the hemispheric results, and it is found that the mean and first three modes of variability (EOFs) account for 38% of the total observed squared magnetic perturbations (δB2) from both hemispheres. The mean distribution represents a standard Region 1/Region 2 (R1/R2) morphology of currents and EOF 1 captures the strengthening/weakening of the average distribution and is well correlated with the north-south component of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF). EOF 2 captures a mixture of effects including the expansion/contraction and rotation of the (R1/R2) currents; this mode correlates only weakly with possible external driving parameters. EOF 3 captures changes in the morphology of the currents in the dayside cusp region and is well correlated with the dawn-dusk component of the IMF. The higher-order EOFs capture more complex, smaller-scale variations in the Birkeland currents and appear generally uncorrelated with external driving parameters. The results of the EOF analysis described here are used for describing error covariance in a data assimilation procedure utilizing AMPERE data, as described in a companion paper.
Kristian Birkeland - The man and the scientist
NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)
Egeland, A.
1984-01-01
A review is presented of Birkeland's outstanding contributions to auroral theory and, in particular, to the foundation of modern magnetospheric physics. Birkeland's first years in research, after a study of mathematics and theoretical physics at the university, were concerned with Maxwell's theory, the investigation of electromagnetic waves in conductors, wave propagation in space, an energy transfer by means of electromagnetic waves, and a general expression for the Poynting vector. Experiments with cathode rays near a magnet in 1895, led Birkeland to the development of an auroral theory. This theory represented the first detailed, realistic explanation of the creation of an aurora. Attention is given to experiments conducted to verify the theory, the discovery of the polar elementary storm, and the deduction of auroral electric currents. Birkeland's background and education is also considered along with his personality.
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Gustafsson, G.; Potemra, T. A.; Favin, S.; Saflekos, N. A.
1981-10-01
Principal oscillations of the TRIAD satellite are studied in 150 passes and are identified as the librations of a gravity-stabilized satellite. The libration periods are T(O)/2 and T(O)/(3) exp 1/2, where T(O) is the orbit period of about 100 min. The amplitude and phase change over periods of a few days, sometimes vanishing altogether, and these attitude changes are numerically evaluated and removed. Data from three consecutive passes spanning over three hours show a magnetic profile which extends as far as 10 deg in latitude from a single region 1 Birkeland current sheet, confirming the permanent and global nature of large-scale Birkeland currents.
Birkeland, Kristian (1868-1917)
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Murdin, P.
2001-07-01
Birkeland was a Norwegian physicist, born in Oslo. In 1900, he identified and then simulated the charged electron-magnetic flux tube connection between the Sun and Earth that produces the aurora. He studied the zodiacal light during expeditions to the Sudan and Egypt. Birkeland committed suicide in a depression associated with the rejection of his auroral theories by his contemporary established...
Kristian Birkeland, The First Space Scientist
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Egeland, A.; Burke, W. J.
2005-05-01
At the beginning of the 20th century Kristian Birkeland (1867-1917), a Norwegian scientist of insatiable curiosity, addressed questions that had vexed European scientists for centuries. Why do the northern lights appear overhead when the Earth's magnetic field is disturbed? How are magnetic storms connected to disturbances on the Sun? To answer these questions Birkeland interpreted his advance laboratory simulations and daring campaigns in the Arctic wilderness in the light of Maxwell's newly discovered laws of electricity and magnetism. Birkeland's ideas were dismissed for decades, only to be vindicated when satellites could fly above the Earth's atmosphere. Faced with the depleting stocks of Chilean saltpeter and the consequent prospect of mass starvation, Birkeland showed his practical side, inventing the first industrial scale method to extract nitrogen-based fertilizers from the air. Norsk Hydro, one of modern Norway's largest industries, stands as a living tribute to his genius. Hoping to demonstrate what we now call the solar wind, Birkeland moved to Egypt in 1913. Isolated from his friends by the Great War, Birkeland yearned to celebrate his 50th birthday in Norway. The only safe passage home, via the Far East, brought him to Tokyo where in the late spring of 1917 he passed away. Link: http://www.springeronline.com/sgw/cda/frontpage/0,11855,5-10100-22-39144987-0,00.html?changeHeader=true
.
Nordic cosmogonies: Birkeland, Arrhenius and fin-de-siècle cosmical physics
NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
Kragh, Helge
2013-09-01
During the two decades before World War I, many physicists, astronomers and earth scientists engaged in interdisciplinary research projects with the aim of integrating terrestrial, solar and astronomical phenomena. Under the umbrella label "cosmical physics" they studied, for example, geomagnetic storms, atmospheric electricity, cometary tails and the aurora borealis. According to a few of the cosmical physicists, insights in solar-terrestrial and related phenomena might be extrapolated to the entire solar system or beyond it. Inspired by their research in the origin and
In times of universal deceit, truth is a crime. Censorship should be banned.
Who and what are you not able to openly criticise? Thats who Id like to hear about. Fact checking is propaganda by the very nature of the act.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)