<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just an aside, Michael, but I would say by DrRocket's own frequent postings, he is a Physicist, not an Astronomer. And the study of this area under discussion would be Magnethydrodynamics, not per se Astronomy. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Point noted. Keep in mind that MHD theory is ultimately a particle physics theory so it's really right up his alley, whereas astronomers tend to specialize in certain fields, and they don't necessarily have the same understanding of particle physics theory or electrical theory. When we get do to describing the energy release process of "electrical discharnges" (not magnetic reconnection), we really have to start to think in terms of partical physics and electrical current. </p><p>There's a problem when astronomers point a satellite system like Rhessi at Earth and observe gamma rays and isolate them to electrical discharges in Earth's atmosphere, and then they point thst same equipment at the solar atmosphere, observing gamma rays in the solar atmosphere, and they don't put two and two together. </p><p>http://currents.ucsc.edu/04-05/02-21/flashes.asp</p><p>http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/09/02_flares.shtml</p><p>The simplest and easily way to explain this solar "surprize" is to simply explain these events as electric discharges as Bruce did 50 yaars ago. I don't really understand why the obvious and most likely "cause" of these emission is the one thing that astronomers refuse to consider. How can that be possible? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I hear you Wayne, I really do. I just don't know how to be more specific. I can't help but notice that the mainstream astronomy publications are unwilling to publish EU material, and they publish paper after paper of misinformation and outright false information related to MHD theory. All the articles and papers I read from the Cluster team and the Hinode team are pushing "magnetic reconnection' as a source of high energy particles. There is no such thing as "magnetic reconection". The only thing going on in these high energy current sheet energy release events are electrical reconnections and kinetic transfers of energy. Even when we observe Birkeland currents in space, all the quotes in the article speak only of the 'magnetic helix". Sooner or later it's hard not to see this oversimplification of everything as being "magnetic" as being intentional. It seems the one word that cannot be mentioned and is never mentioned in these articles is 'electricity". How can coronal loops and solar atmospheric discharges be a 'mystery" today when Birkeland figured them out 100 years ago and Bruce wrote about them 50 years ago? The IEEE publications have certianly figured this stuff out. Why is it that the mainstream astronomy publicatons haven't figured it out as well? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Lets consider a few possibilities. One is that 98% of the "industry" is right, and you are wrong.</p><p>I think you are imagining insults that do not exist...just my opinion.</p><p>As I've stated before, I don't consider IEEE a great source on astronomical subjects; I've seen a lot of, ummm, less than stellar papers in IEEE land. Perhaps they are the ones not in touch with reality? </p><p>Sure the're empirical, within the confines of a lab. Extrapolating that to the cosmos appears to be far beyond what their peer review process weeds out. And your insistance that people who study this their whole lives (the extrapolation thing) are ignorant fools has worn so thin to be ridiculous. </p><p>The "industry" is more than happy to accept new untried ideas, if they make sense. The neon sun, and invisible currents (undetectable except by magic) regulating the structure of the universe do not meet that test; not even close, IMHO.</p><p>Your strident protestations of a conspiracy make your pleading easy to move to the dustbin. Sadly, that is my opinion at this time.</p><p>I've read every post you made, and probably will, but your credibility has made it for amusement only.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just an aside, Michael, but I would say by DrRocket's own frequent postings, he is a Physicist, not an Astronomer. And the study of this area under discussion would be Magnethydrodynamics, not per se Astronomy. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>Actually, although I have picked a tiny bit of physics here and there, I am by education a combination of a mathematician (magic ?) and an electrical engineer. I am definitely not an astronomer, but if you were to confuse me with one I would take it as a complement and not as an insult. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Actually, although I have picked a tiny bit of physics here and there, I am by education a combination of a mathematician (magic ?) and an electrical engineer. I am definitely not an astronomer, but if you were to confuse me with one I would take it as a complement and not as an insult. </p><p> Posted by <em>DrRocket</em></DIV></p><p>Hmm. Well, your posting(s) suggested that your background was strict Physics, so run with that ball! <br /> </p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/10/11/3a0ed336-11b0-40a4-ab43-bc136cf2377c.Medium.gif" alt="" /></p><p>[Note - my background was in Electronics, though as an Engineering Tech, then Biomedical Engineering; then majored in Planetary Science and Atmospheric Physics...most of which escapes me nowadays] </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
I find it rather interesting that Einstein's cosmological constant and Alfven's magnetic reconnection have followed quite similar paths. Both initially accepted their ideas, though with reservation. After their initial acceptance, they were shown that they weren't necessary. They then accepted they weren't necessary, but did not flatout reject them. Under certain conditions, they were still relavent. Only later in life, after their theories developed, did they completely reject the notions calling them "absurd" or "ugly". After their passing, their initial notions of their respective ideas are widely accepted with only a small percentage in dissent. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's a problem when astronomers point a satellite system like Rhessi at Earth and observe gamma rays and isolate them to electrical discharges in Earth's atmosphere, and then they point thst same equipment at the solar atmosphere, observing gamma rays in the solar atmosphere, and they don't put two and two together. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Doesn't that have to do with the density of the plasma within the magnetic field? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/74950-frozen-magnetic-field-lines.html Thie explanation clearly demonstrates exactly why your industry is having so much trouble, and why it's so confused. I don't know who tusenfem is, but evidently he understand ths math behind MHD theory really well, but he doesn't understand properties of plasma at all. Plasma is not a "perfect" conductor of electrical current. n will never be zero. J will always exist in the real world.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You neglected to quote his next paragraph:</p><p><em>"One thing you will have to keep in mind, though, is that this is an approximation. Although the resistivity of the plasma is very small, it will never truly be zero. Thus, the frozen in condition does not hold indefinitely. There is something called the diffusion time scale, at what rate a magnetic field can diffuse through a conductor, which is dependent on η. The smaller η the longer the diffusion time. So, one can only assume frozen in fields on timescales shorter than that diffusion time (something which sometimes gets forgotten, also by scientists)."</em> </p><p> </p><p>It appears to me that he clearly understands the resistivity will never be zero despite your claim he doesn't. Classic example of cherry picking and quote mining. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you take his starting point, E + V X B = mu *Jwhich is basically Ohm's law, and let mu tend to zero you cannot conclude that E + V X B tends to zero. What you can conclude is that J could get really big. Think about the circuit analog, which is just E = IR. If the resistance goes to zero, you don't get to conclude that E also tends to zero. You may instead get a very large current.<br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /></p><p>I'm might be out of my depth here, but why would the current density have to scale up if the magnetic field line is moving with the plasma? I can understand what you are saying using Ohm's law, but does that really apply to plasma in a moving magnetic field line?</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Lets consider a few possibilities. One is that 98% of the "industry" is right, and you are wrong.</DIV></p><p>Wrong about which topic? Magnetic reconnection? Dark energy? Inflation? EU theory in general? Does 98% of the industry even believe in all these things? FYI, I suppose it's possible that Alfven might be wrong about "magnetic reconnection", but everything I read suggests that he was correct on this topic. How should I decide if not via emprical testings? Inflation was purely a figment of Guth's imagination, just like his monopolie problem and his "free lunch" theory. One emprical test could easily resolve our difference on all these topics, but alas this is the one thing astronomers can never come up with. IMO one test is worth a thousand expert opinions, because the experts often have different opinions. Alfven denied flatly that "magnetic reconnection" ever occured He called it pseudoscience in fact. If he was wrong, let the "industry" demonstrate it in a controlled test of concept. Is that really too much to ask? Is it my fault the only "tests" they've done of this concept are specifcally designed to create a current sheet inside the plasma? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think you are imagining insults that do not exist...just my opinion.</DIV></p><p>Well, I certainly didn't imagine the bannings I received for supporting emprical physics at astronomy websites. I didn't imagine the fact that the mainstream publications never print EU material. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As I've stated before, I don't consider IEEE a great source on astronomical subjects; I've seen a lot of, ummm, less than stellar papers in IEEE land.</DIV></p><p>This is sort of a meaningless put down if you have no specifics to offer. I could say the same for the APJ, Nature, SCIAM, etc. All publications print some funky stuff sometimes. I'm afraid that writing off a whole publication for a few bad articles seems a bit extreme. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Perhaps they are the ones not in touch with reality?</DIV></p><p>How might we tell who's lost touch with reality? In reality (as in empirical physical testing), nothing like "magnetic reconnnection" happens in a controlled experiment. In "reality" nothing like inflation exists. In "reality", "dark energy" is never found to do anything to anything in any emprical test. </p><p>On the other hand, in reality, electricity certainly does exist. It has a direct effect on nature and on plasma. The natural universe is mostly made of plasma. I'd say it's not the IEEE that's lost touch with reality, it's the APJ and the industry itself. Astronormy as an industry has changed radically since I got out of college and it doesn't seem to have been a change for the better IMO. I never hard of "dark energy' in college. I never heard of inflation either. These things got "popular" only in the past 30 years or so, yet in all that time, nobody has ever shown any emprical evidence of inflaiton or DE. There are purely imaginary, er "hypothetical" entities, even after all these many years since they were first proposed. What's a skeptic to think? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sure the're empirical, within the confines of a lab. Extrapolating that to the cosmos appears to be far beyond what their peer review process weeds out.</DIV></p><p>I don't follow you. They do publish cosmology material and they do weed out material. These papers however are typically based on *known* forces of nature and *real* things that really show up in a real physics lab.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And your insistance that people who study this their whole lives (the extrapolation thing) are ignorant fools has worn so thin to be ridiculous.</DIV></p><p>I'm afraid that's the fate of a "lot"" of scientists, particularly in the astronomy industry. Many old ideas now look to be pretty ignorant and pretty foolish, even though many people supported these ideas in the past, and spend their whole lives studying the idea. The fact people spend their whole lives believing in something does not mean they are correct. Alfven spend his whole life studying plasma cosmology theory too, yet you dont' seem to think he was correct. Was a Nobel prize winning scientist merely an "ignorant fool"? </p><p>Being wrong or right is not sign of someone's intelligence, their scientific abilities, or anything of the sort. It's mostly due to bad information, like the claims of "magnetic reconnection" we see going on 30 years after Alfven dismissed the idea in the harshest of terms. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The "industry" is more than happy to accept new untried ideas, if they make sense.</DIV></p><p>I'd say they're down right gullible recently. They "tried out" inflation, yet no known vector or scalar field in nature has properties that are anything remotely like inflation. How does something like that "make sense" in any emprical way? They keep trying that dead old horse of "magnetic reconnection" too, but Alfven called it psuedoscience. How does that "make sense" when electrical currents can easily explain these very same phenomeon? I don't need magnetic reconnection to explain acceleration of charged particles. I don't need magnetic reconnection to explain x-rays and gamma rays in the corona. How does "magnetic reconnection" even make sense when the father of the physics theory it is based upon called the idea pseudoscience? How can that make an empirical sense?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The neon sun,</DIV></p><p>The neon photosphere is only one part of a much more complicated solar model, and that's the least of my concerns frankly. The problem goes a lot deeper and it's much bigger than a mere rejection of a solar model by some amateur. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and invisible currents (undetectable except by magic)</DIV></p><p>Electrical currents are not "invisible". They create very observable events. the create specific shapes in plasma, including that magnetic helix shape you guys are so fond of. It's called a 'Birkeland current". There's nothing "magical' or "invisible" about electircal current. They show up in a lab too, unlike infliation and unlike DE and unlike magnetic reconnection. I can't empirically test DE, inflation or magnetic reconnection in a lab, and show you they exist and explain the physics behind them. I can however emprically demonstrate that electrical currents exist in nature, and electricity can easily be show to be visible in electrical disharges in planetary atmpospheric activity and high energy discharge activity in the suns atmosphere too. Electricity is not magic. It's a known force of nature and we can test for it emprically.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>regulating the structure of the universe do not meet that test; not even close, IMHO.</DIV></p><p>Well, it's perfectly acceptable that you have opinions Wayne. It's not acceptable that the mainstream publications shun the topic of EU theory altogether. If MOND theory deserves consideration, inflation and DE deserve consideration, then surely an emprical science, and a pure emprical theory deservres scientific consideration.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your strident protestations of a conspiracy make your pleading easy to move to the dustbin. Sadly, that is my opinion at this time.I've read every post you made, and probably will, but your credibility has made it for amusement only. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Well Wayne, you're certainly entitled to your opinons, but since astronomers can seem to explain even simple things like solar wind acceleraton and coronal loop activity, I assure you that the credibility of your industry isn't what you think it is, at least not from the outside looking in. Birkeland could have easily explained these very obvious electrical processes over 100 years ago, in fact he simulatied them in his experiments in a lab! The way it looks from this side of the aisle is that your industry has forgotten emprical physics and as a result it has lost a whole lot of credilibily over the last 30 years. It's not just me that feel this way, people are noticing. I'm certainly not alone in my criticisms. <br /> </p><p>http://www.cosmologystatement.org/</p><p>Maybe it's not the IEEE that's lost touch with "reality' at all. Nothing they publish is beyond emprical testing. Even if EU theory is wrong, it'e "real". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I find it rather interesting that Einstein's cosmological constant and Alfven's magnetic reconnection have followed quite similar paths.</DIV></p><p>I guess it's easier to muck around in their work when they aren't alive to stop astrommers from doing it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Both initially accepted their ideas, though with reservation. After their initial acceptance, they were shown that they weren't necessary. They then accepted they weren't necessary, but did not flatout reject them. Under certain conditions, they were still relavent. Only later in life, after their theories developed, did they completely reject the notions calling them "absurd" or "ugly". After their passing, their initial notions of their respective ideas are widely accepted with only a small percentage in dissent. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Actually that isn't really true of Alfven's work at all. He never supported the idea of "magnetic reconnection", not ever. He did try to use an handy allegory ('frozen magnetic fields") to attempt to explain some dense plasma behaviors, but never did he try to apply that idea to light plasma, or current carrying plasma either. In fact it irked him no end when people tried to suggest "magnetic reconnection" as an energy source or to treat light plasma as being "frozen" in any way.. It wasn't even a good allegory in dense plasma since even dense plasma is typically hot, the particles move, and it usually has lots of kinetic energy. He never however embraced the idea of "magnetic reconnection". In fact he adamently opposed it. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You neglected to quote his next paragraph:"One thing you will have to keep in mind, though, is that this is an approximation. Although the resistivity of the plasma is very small, it will never truly be zero. <strong>Thus, the frozen in condition does not hold indefinitely. </strong>There is something called the diffusion time scale, at what rate a magnetic field can diffuse through a conductor, which is dependent on η. <strong>The smaller η the longer the diffusion time. So, one can only assume frozen in fields on timescales shorter than that diffusion time (something which sometimes gets forgotten, also by scientists)." </strong> It appears to me that he clearly understands the resistivity will never be zero despite your claim he doesn't. Classic example of cherry picking and quote mining. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Emphasis mine.</p><p>The only reason there is a magnetic field in the plasma is because it is carrying current and/or there is movement of some other charged particle. There is *NEVER* anything "frozen" about a magnetic field in light plasma, ever! Look at a plasma ball in operation. The thread might look "stable" and the magnetic fields around the threads might look "stable", but plasma moves and flows with current, it is never "frozen". The idea you can even treat light plasma as ever being "frozen" is ridiculous, particularly when you try to apply it to light plasmas like a magnetopshere or a solar atmosphere. There is no timescale on which you can treat these fields as "frozen". because it is the movement of electrons that generate the field in the first place! Plasma is not a solid. It is *never* frozen, and treating it that way is bound to cause a great deal of confusion.</p><p>You also missed several other gems when *you* went cherry picking...</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Naturally I do not know what you know, but I will give you the basics of the Petchek mechanism. Here you have a magnetic field with one direction at z < 0 and another at z > 0</DIV></p><p>Petchek's mechanism is "pseudoscience" according to Alfven because Alfven knew full well that magnetic fields form a full continuum, they don't make and break connections like electricity and particles.</p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Note, that field lines are not real objects, they only give the direction of the magnetic field. However, one can find from Maxwell's equations that field lines cannot be cut. But then you have to take into account that we are dealing with a region where the total field disappears, and thus talking about field lines does not make sense anymore.<br /> <br /> However, in the end you end up with the following situation:<br /> <br /> <div> <div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Code:</div> <pre class="alt2" style="margin:0px;padding:6px;width:640px;height:50px;text-align:left"><--------- /---------<<br /> />---------/ --------- /></pre> </div><p>and you see that the topology has changed.<br /> <br /> This is in a nutshell magnetic reconnection.</DIV></p><p>There in a nutshell is a completely irrational and false idea. First he claims correctly that Maxwell's equations do *not* allow for magentic field lines to be "cut", spliced, reconnected or otherwise connected to any other magnetic field line. They are always treated as a full continuum by Maxwell, without beginning or end. He then goes on to claim at the zero location it somehow doesn't apply? What? Baloney! It *ALWAYS* applies. In electrical engineering magnetic lines *never* make or break connections, only *REAL PARTICLES* can do that, not magnetic lines. His whole speal about magnetic reconnection is pure misinformation. Alfven called it pseudoscience. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm might be out of my depth here, but why would the current density have to scale up if the magnetic field line is moving with the plasma? I can understand what you are saying using Ohm's law, but does that really apply to plasma in a moving magnetic field line? <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Any moving charged particle is technically considered a "current flow", so yes, it would always apply to plasma moving inside of an *electro*magnetic field. Magnetic fields in plasma are not "sterile". They exist only because the current flow (movement of charged particles) exists. You can't take the curernt flow out of the equation by setting one side of th equation to zero because J will always move toward infinity, not towards zero, and the electron flow will not ever truly be "frozen", the particles will all be moving, and they will all contain various amounts of kinetic energy. </p><p>Alfven highly regretted ever using the term "frozen" as it relates to plasma. Some astronomers took that analogy literally and started trying to apply it to *every* plasma interaction possible. There were a few instances where it was a handy teaching mechnism to treat the current flow inside the plasma as a 'curl' of the magnetic field, but that flow of energy is kinetic in nature, it's never "frozen", and the magnetic field is *caused by* the current flow. Astronomers like tusenfem keep trying to ressurrect what Alfven called pseudoscience, because they fail to recognize the real particles and the real kinetic energy that is "reconnecting" inside the plasma. Magnetic fields always form a full and complete continuum, and they are not "real lines" in any physical sense. They cannot make and break connections in Maxwell's equations as tusenfem himself correctly explains. He then handwaves away one of the most important aspects of electrical theory and proceeds to describe a form of 'magnetic reconnection" that Alfven called pseudoscience.</p><p>Alfven had a fundamental understanding of electrical theory as well as a fundamental understanding of the underlying kinetic particle physics processes that were in play inside of the plasma. At no time did he ever suggest that tusenfem's concept of 'magnetic reconnection" was accurate. In fact he went out of his way to explain the theoretical pitfalls that were common in his time, and that still persist today. If you don't consider the movements of plasma and the kinetic energy of the current flow, then you might easily think that this (or any discharge) is a "magnetic" event. Only if you have a bit more understanding of electrical theory and MHD theory can you rightly understand this fundamentally "current flow"" process. Magnetic fields in light plasma like the corona and like we find in interstellar space are a direct result of the current flow inside the plasma. </p><p>Astronomers today treat the universe as a net "neutral" environment, when in fact the whole physical universe is carrying electrical currents. As a result they can't explain simple things like coronal loops that Birkeland even "predicted" with his electrical theories and his laboratory simulations. He literally created the same "loops" in the atmosphere we observe in today's solar satellite images. Alfven saw similar x-ray images from Skylab like the red Yohkoh image on the right and he also attributed these high energy photons to electrical processes. Dr Charles Bruce even documented the speed of propogation of these solar events and lightening leader speeds we observe here in Earth's atmosphere. </p><p>Make no mistake, Birkeland's experiments actually "predicted" the existence of coronal loop discharges in the solar atmosphere. Bruce explained the connection of these events to electrical discharges in the solar atmosphere. Alfven explained all the math and particle physics processes involved. Why is the mainstream still scratching it's collective head 100 years later? I'll tell you why, because 'electricity' is the forbidden topic in astronomy today.</p><p>Evidently it's quite a blow to the collective ego to think that a guy from 100 years ago knew more about astronomy that many astronomers today. Birkeland had no trouble at all demonstrating his theories in a lab. Why is the mainstream still struggling with this issue today? It's really a "no-brainer" since there is no other known force of nature that might explain those x-rays, gamma-rays and neutron capture signatures from light plasma in the solar atmosphere. Only electricity could do that and has been documented to do all those things in those kinds of conditions. </p><p> <br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/1/14/91daef02-ab58-49bd-aeaf-13d1ecc8428f.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /> </p><p>We point Rhessi at Earth and see gamma rays from "electrical discharges" in the Earth's atmosphere. We point the same satellite at the solar atmosphere, see gamma rays and say "I don't know, maybe "magnetic reconnection did it". Hoy Vey!</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Electric fields have been looked for. If there was a charge on the sun there would be a field that has never been seen.</DIV></p><p>IMO this statement is the epitomy of ignorance since every "magnetic field' he's ever observed in space is a direct result of the current flow he's never seen. Gah!</p><p>Those million degree coronal loops stick out like a giant sore thumb. Those solar wind particle being accelerated away from the photosphere towards the heliosphere have been observed. Those "magnetic ropes" (current carrying Bennett Pinches) traveling from the Sun to the Earth have been "observed". The evidence is literaly all around this guy and he claims it's never been observed. Man, oh man, oh man is the astronomy industry in trouble. Birkeland easily could have explained those 'coronal loops' and he could have shown us how his emprical tests "predicted" they would exist. 100 years later, this guy can't find a shred of evidence that currents flow inside our solar system. Sheesh.....</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>You're ultimately on to the right issue. The idea you can treat plasma as 'frozen' is only ever going to be useful over millisecond timelines since plasma is not a solid and it's motions will be influenced by the flow of electrons in the Birkeland current. The twisting effect is a direct result of the interactions between the electrons and the EM field created by the current flow.</p><p>Where astronomers go astray is by taking this frozen analogy much further than a few milliseconds, and applying it to conditions that are utterly inapplicable. They attempt to apply the idea of "frozen" to light, current carrying plasmas over timelines of hours, where clearly the analogy does not apply.</p><p>Since plasma is not a solid, the idea of "frozen" is really only useful in very short timescales in very dense, and cool plasmas. Any amount of heat will add kinetic energy to the system and create 'pressure' as the plasma moves around, and light plasma in the corona is a completely inappropriate place to apply these "frozen' ideas. </p><p>The reason tusenfem believes in "magnetic reconnection' is because he is ignorant of the kinetic energy flowing through the current thread, and ignorant of the kinetic energy in the plasma in the moving thread. Magnetic fields always form a complete continuum, and only particles and electiricty can "reconnect". If one is ignorant of the kinetic energy in the electrons and the ions in the tornado of the current thread, then it might "seem" like magnetic fields are 'reconnecting'. If one recognizes that there is current flow inside the thread, and the ions are moving in a corkscrew pattern around in the thread, then one can see that it is kinetic energy and electrical reconnection that is taking place in these light plasma events, not "magnetic reconnection". Only someone who really doesnt' understand either the particle mechanics of what's happening and who doesn't understand electrical theory at all could claim that "magenetic reconnection" is occuring in these events. Alfven was right, this claim of magnetic reconnection is pure psueudoscience based on a poor understanding of electrical theory and a poor understanding of the mechanical movements of the particles of plasma and the electrons that flow through the plasma. </p><p>Magnetic reconnection is pure myth. I'm sure they can get a computer to model the idea, and even get it to fit with some observations, but they'll never be able to recreate this effect in lab, because in the real world, magnetic fields always form a full continuum (even in the null points) and only particles and electricity can "reconnect". </p><p>Be careful DrRocket. They'll eventually resent you for busting their show, and you'll end up being banned for nothing more than defending emprical physics. 
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As far as we know, there is no charge on the Sun. If there would be a charge, the the solar wind would quickly transport any such net charge away from the Sun.</DIV></p><p>Gah. That's why we see solar wind acceleration, and why we see He+2 favored over He+1 by 20+ to 1 ratios. These postively particles do transport such a net plus charge away from the sun! This statement is either pure denial, or it's based on pure ignorance, one or the other. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The problem is not the theory but the application. The EU wants to do away with gravity as the dominating force on larger scales, because the electromagnetic force is 10<sup>39</sup> stronger. That this only holds for two free electrons they will easily forget. Electrodynamics is importent in space physics and astrophysics, but not everything is electric.</DIV></p><p>Nobody ever claimed otherwise. Nobody in EU theory is trying to get rid of gravity or suggest it plays no role in events in space. We're simply pointing out that electrical activity play an *important* role in a wide ranges of observations in space, from solar wind acceleration, to coronal loop activity, to "magnetic helixes" in space. Nobody claimed "everthing" is electric.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The answer you got on thunderbolts on reconnection goes back to the theory of exploding double layers by Hannes Alfvén. These, however, have never been observed, although it seemed like an interesting idea when he proposed it. (actually I guess you will find a paper of mine if you search for exploding double layers).</DIV></p><p>What?!?!? It's "observed" in every single CME event. It's "OBSERVED" all the time in nature. What is never "observed" in nature is "magnetic reconnection"! These kinds of statements really irk me because they are not only false, they are ridiculously false, and obviously false and since they ban everyone that might set them straight, there's nobody to counter this sort of pure misinformation. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>5. I basically do not care that Alfvén at one point decided that he did not like the frozen in field anymore, measurements show that it is a very good approximation for a lot of problems in space physics. Even great thinkers can be wrong now and then,</DIV></p><p>Then emprical physics should be able to demonstrate it! Here we see the real "problem". This person has simply 'decided"" that he's more of an expert on plasma physics than the guy that wrote the theory! Gah.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>6. The limit on the current density is important, because too strong currents develop various kinds of instabilities, which are or are not observed in the space plasma under consideration.</DIV></p><p>Except in those million degree coronal loops!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>At the same time, for very strong currents there has to be a driver and electromotive force working, which needs to be specified.</DIV></p><p>The electromotive force is called "induction".</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>7. So in all, during processes observed in space physics, we can basically say that 90% of the time the frozen in field condition is valid. And rest assured that the space physicist are highly aware of the fact that frozen-in has an expiration date written on it, <em>please use before end of XXX</DIV></em></p><p>In 99.9999999% of all cases is it completely *inappropriate* to treat light plasma like it's "frozen". This statement clearly demonstrates that this individual is misapplying MHD theory and has no clue how to explain a coronal loop because he's ignorant of the current flow that heats the plamsa to millions of degrees. He's no "expert" on MHD theory, and cetainly not more of an "expert" than Alfven. His ego might like to think he understands the topic, but he clearly missed all the most important aspects of MHD theory and he's practiciing pseudoscience just like Alfven said.</p><p>Plasma is not "frozen". It's not a solid. It moves and flows and creates filaments. Even an amateur like me can pick apart his mistakes, and his notion he's more of an expert on MHD theory than Alfven is ridiculous. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Lockheed_Martin_And_NASA_Ames_Team_Selected_To_Design_New_Solar_Mission_999.html</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IRIS fills a crucial gap in our ability to advance Sun-Earth connection studies by tracing the flow of energy and plasma through a dynamic interface region between the solar corona and heliosphere, where all but a few percent of the non-radiative energy leaving the Sun is converted to heat and radiation.<span class="BTX"><p> Magnetic fields and plasma exert comparable forces in this region, and IRIS is uniquely suited to provide the observations necessary to pinpoint the physical forces at work in this little understood piece of real estate near the surface of the Sun.</p><p> "With IRIS we have a unique opportunity to work with our colleagues at NASA Ames to pool the expertise of each of our organizations and put together a nimble and robust design for a mission that will provide significant missing pieces in our understanding of energy transport on the Sun," said Dr. Alan Title, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center solar physicist and IRIS principal investigator.</DIV></p><p>You'll notice that LMSAL wants to study the region between the corona and the heliosphere, but they are still only discussing and acknowledging the "magnetic" fields in this region, not the *electro*magnetic fields. The easiest way to explain solar wind acceleration in the corona towards the heliosphere is to assume that the heliosphere is more negatively charged than the photosphere. As long as Dr. Title and his group only recognize the "magnetic" fields in this region, and they refuse to acknowledge the *electrical current* that produces these "magnetic" fields in light plasma, they will continue to remain mystified by a simple charge attraction process, and simple electrical discharge processes. It would be a pity to spend another 100 million on solar research without acknowleding the current flow that produces these "magnetic" fields IMO. If they intend to continue to ignore the current flow that flows in these magnetic field lines, it's rather pointless IMO to spend another 100 million on another satellite to study the sun. They'll be as mystified by it's data as they are mystified by high resolution Hinode images and current solar wind data from WIND instruments. They will never understand this process without acknowledging the current flows that drive these processes.</p><p>FYI DrRocket, the reason tusenfem directed his last post at you is because you busted his magnetic reconnection show. You are correct that he's utterly ignoring dE/dt, and he's incapable of addressing that issue. It's a big enigma to him how he might address that issue and he realizes you know what you're talking about now. You concern him.</p><p>I get the feeling he's going to simply ignore that issue now and he'll hope that you never bring it up again. Plasma isn't "frozen". He can't treat it like a solid. He can't ignore the current that flows through it. As long as the mainstream continues to misrepresent MHD theory and they continue to ignore dE/dt, then they will continue to be remain mystified by every high energy solar event. The mainstream can't explain these sorts of high energy atmospheric events without recognizing the current flow that caused them to occur. They could spend another 100 million on another new satellite system and I guarantee you that they'll still be trying to explain these events with 'magnetic reconnection" in "frozen" plasma. </p><p> </p></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701</p><p>It seems that some folks are finally starting to "get it", and they are finally acknowledging these discharge events *as discharge events*. Finally! You might mention to tusenfem and Nereid that ATM'ers have presented *plenty* of math to support their case,</p><p>Mystery solved. Of course it was solved 100 years ago by Birkeland, solved again by Dr. Charles Bruce, and also by Alfven, but hey, these folks can take credit too. EU theory is the only way these discharge events will ever be fully understood. You can't treat light plasma like it's "frozen", or that it has no changes in dE/dt. The problem tusenfum is having in understanding these processes is directly related to the fact that he forgot to include dE/dt! Ooooops! I'd post this article for Nereid so she can find some real math to support EU theory, but alas I can't. Maybe you can mention it to her? </p><p> </p><br /><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
EU theory is the only way these discharge events will ever be fully understood. You can't treat light plasma like it's "frozen", or that it has no changes in dE/dt. The problem tusenfum is having in understanding these processes is directly related to the fact that he forgot to include dE/dt! Ooooops! I'd post this article for Nereid so she can find some real math to support EU theory, but alas I can't. Maybe you can mention it to her? </p><p> </p><br /><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p>http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/10jun_solarprobe.htm?list1065474</p><p> <BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong>Mystery #1</strong>—the corona: If you stuck a thermometer in the surface of the sun, it would read about 6000<sup>o</sup> C. Intuition says the temperature should drop as you back away; instead, it rises. The sun's outer atmosphere, the corona, registers more than a million degrees Celsius, hundreds of times hotter than the star below. This high temperature remains a mystery more than 60 years after it was first measured.</DIV></font></p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701</p><p>Mystery #1 is "solved".</p> <p><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Mystery #2</strong>—the solar wind: The sun spews a hot, million mph wind of charged particles throughout the solar system. Planets, comets, asteroids—they all feel it. Curiously, there is no organized wind close to the sun's surface, yet out among the planets there blows a veritable gale. Somewhere in between, some unknown agent gives the solar wind its great velocity. The question is, what?</DIV></font></p><p>It's the charge separation between the heliosphere and the photosphere that accelerates the protons and charged helium atoms in the solar wind! Mystery #2 solved as well.</p><p>Do you think I could get NASA to call of this particular project and send me a small portion of what they would have had to spend "solving" these mysteries? </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you think I could get NASA to call [off] this particular project and send me a small portion of what they would have had to spend "solving" these mysteries? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Your arrogance is astounding, especially in light of your obvious lack of knowledge on these subjects.</p><p> </p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Your arrogance is astounding, especially in light of your obvious lack of knowledge on these subjects.</p><p> </p><p><br /><br /> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your arrogance is astounding, especially in light of your obvious lack of knowledge on these subjects. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Don Scott has written an excellent book that explains these phenomenon called "The Electric Sky".</p><p>I'm not the one that lacks knowledge or understanding of these events origin. Evidently your whole industry lacks knowledge of these events. The coronal loop activity was pegged as being related to electrical discharges by Dr. Charles Bruce over 50 years ago. Birkeland created similar coronal loops in his experiments over 100 years ago. Alfven looked at the x-ray images of the sun from Skylab and suggested they were related to disharges over 30 years ago. There's no mystery as to why the corona is so hot. It's electrically active. </p><p>The solar wind acceleration was something that Kristain Birkeland cvould have easily explained to NASA over 100 years ago. It's simply due to a charge separation between the relatively negatively charged heliosphere, and the relatively positively charged photosphere. The only real "mystery" to me is why the mainstream is resisting the single most logical and only tested method to explain such observations. Electricity is the forbidden topic of your industry, and therefore everything is a big mystery to you folks. That doesn't mean it's a mystery to Don Scott, or Hannes Alfven or Charles Bruce, or even little ol' me.</p><p>That paper on coronal loops lays out the math for you origin. It's not just me that's noticing the electrical activity that is repsonsible for that high temperature corona, and the solar wind acceleration. The electrical "solution' to these issues has been on the table for many years now, but for whatever reason, your industry simply won't accept it.</p><p>Rhessi has observed gamma rays from discharges in the Earth's atmosphere. The same satellite sees gamma rays at the base of coronal loops since these are discharges in the solar atmosophere. The only mystery to me is why you folks won't accept the obvious solution to what is really not a very complicated issue. Only electrical discharge activity has been associated with all the high energy events we see in the solar atmosphere. It has been known to heat plasma to high temperatures. It has been known to pinch neutrons from plasma as Rhessi has also observed in coronal loop activity. It has been know to cause plasma to emit x-rays and gamma-rays here in the Earth's atmosphere. We see that bigger planets like Saturn have much stronger discharges in it's atmosphere than here on Earth. The most logical explanations for these two mysteries is electrical current and charge attraction. That however is the one thing your industry refuses to even consider because "electricity" is the forbidden topic of your industry today. Birkeland actually "predicted' we would observe these phenomenon based on controlled experimentation. I don't know how you could possibly just brush that small little fact aside and not consider it, but that's exactly what your whole industry is currently doing! </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your arrogance is astounding, especially in light of your obvious lack of knowledge on these subjects. <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>FYI, an obvious "prediction" of a charge separation between the heliosphere and the photosphere would be the lighter, more positively charged ions would be more easily accelerated and therefore we would expect He2+ to be more abundant than HE1+ in solar wind activity. Lo and behold, we find that He2+ is more than 20 times more abundant than He1+, and more abundant than any other element other than protons. This logical "prediction" of an EU explanation has already been verified by WIND instruments. About all I can say at this point is that I really don't know why these issues are so mysterious to you personally or to your industry as a whole, expecially since Bruce documented the sucess of his discharge theories over 50 years ago, and Birkeland predicted both of the these phenomenon over 100 years ago. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080611-sunspot-activity.html</p><p>This article that talks about the correlation between temperatures on Earth and sunspot activity, and today's images of the sun, show the correlation between coronal loop activity and sunspot activity and how it all relates to the temperatures on Earth. The graph below shows this temperature correlation as it relates to the sea temperatures on Earth. I'll try to locate the source of the graph when I get off work, but this graph shows the correlation between sunspot activty and temperatures on Earth pretty nicely.</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/10/2/9a21cc28-6c58-4510-b241-d1b433a34f69.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p>http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/LATEST/current_eit_195.mpg<p>http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/LATEST/current_mdi_igr.mpg </p><p><br />Today's SOHO images show the connection between the active coronal loop activity we observe in 195A (green image) and the sunspot formation that is taking place in this active region. You'll notice that the active region in the 195A that rotates toward us over the horizon is positioned around the sunspot in the orange image. There is a direct correlation between the activity we observe in 195A and the sunspot formation, but these coronal loops are significantly *hotter* than the regions around them. They emit heat, and they emit a lot of excess heat. The sunspots in the photosophere form as a result of the activity electrical activity on the surface. It is typically presumed that the dark regions of the umbra are significantly cooler than the rest of the photosphere because the brightness of the photosphere is always associated with it's temperature. IMO that is a false assumption. </p><p>IMO the photosphere emits the most visible light because it is mostly composed of neon with other ions running through it, not because the photosphere radiates as a "black body". The umbra is composed of uwelling silicon plasma from the double layer below the photophere which has been heated by the coronal loops. The penumbral filaments are simply the edges of the neon plasma layer. That is why they all end at a very specific depth.</p><p>The coronal loop activity is the "cause" of this sunspot actiivty, and it is the excess energy emitted from these coronal loops that we "feel' here on Earth, and that heat the Earth during these active phases. The sunspots form around these active regions, so an increase of discharge events in coronal loop activity results in an increase in sunspot activity. </p><p>The layers of plasma beneath the photosphere are cooler than the photosphere, the chromosphere and the corona, which is why we observe lower temperatures inside of sunspots, but the overall energy output is directly related to the amount of coronal loop activity taking place in the atmosphere.</p><p>Right now the sun is very quiet. There's only one really active area going on right now, right in the sunspot region. Sometimes we will observe coronal loop activity without sunspot formation, but we never see sunspot formation without coronal loop activity. These coronal loops are electrified "magnetic ropes". There is a lot of current running though them. They are providing the excess heat in the sun's active phases, and when they die down, temperatures on Earth decrease.</p><p>It's not really that sunspots are causing the change in temperature on Earth, it's just that a significant increase in coronal loop activity is often accompanied by sunspots which form in these active regions. There is a good correlation between sunspot numbers and temperatures on Earth, but there is also a good correlation between sunspots and coronal loop discharges as well. It's the coronal loop energy that we feel here on Earth, not the descreased temperatures in the umbra. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/stereoimages/solarjets.shtml</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A unique polar coronal jet observation was made on June 7, 2007. Analysis of the images from the two distinct viewpoints of the STEREO spacecraft reveals an unmistakable helical structure in the jet. These pioneering, multi-viewpoint observations from STEREO provide the first conclusive evidence for the jet's helical geometry.</DIV></p><p>FYI, these helical Birkeland currents flowing off the sun were something that Birkeland himself "predicted" with his solar model. He observed that his solar model would send out pencil like cathode rays. The helix shape is the classic shape of a Birkeland current flowing through plasma. The most disconcerting part of this article is the following statement:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A recent theoretical model of jet initiation conjectures that the twisting of magnetic fields is the key element that explains the helical geometry of the jet.</DIV></p><p>Computers can be used to "model" almost anything. It's very easy to get these helix shapes to form in laboratory plasma using electical current as the driving force behind the process. Was that ever done emprically in a lab *without* using electrical current as the motive force behind the process?</p><p>I can't help but believe that "magnetic reconnection" is now being used to try to replace everything that must otherwise require electrical current to actually work. When did these folks ever actually test their math in the lab? Since when did a magnetic field create tightly spiraled structures in plasmaa in the abanse of electrical current?</p><p>IMO astronomers today rely far too heavily on computer models and mathematical constructs and they do far too little work in the lab in terms of emprical testing. These are classic signs of Birkeland currents in plasma. That helix shape, and the tight nature of the ray over a large distance is a dead give way that electrical currents are responsible for these events. Why is it that Birkeland's emprical experiments were completly ignored in this 'explanation'? How does one know if their "magnetic reconnection" computer models have any value when it comes to real plasma and how real plasma actually behaves in the real world? Does anyone ever actually emprically "test" any of these claims in a lab before writing papers related to "magnetic reconnection"? The answer is clearly "no". These cathode rays were produced by Birkeland in a lab over 100 years ago. He could have easily explained these same events in terms of current flow, and he could have even showed how these rays manifested themselves in his controlled experiments. It's the lack of emprical testing in the astronomy industry today that is preventing any real progress from occuring in solar physics. The corona is highly electrically active, as is the surface of the photosphere. These kinds of events are easily explained using Birkeland's model, and it has the advantage of having been emprically tested in controlled laboratory conditions. Chapman's mathematical models were used for a long time and yet they were not accurate, and Birkeland's model eventually won the debate. These "magnetic reconnection" models are also untested and will never be able to reproduce these types of observations in any sort of controlled test. As long as no one ever bothers to test these mathematical constructs in a lab, I'm sure they work great on paper. The real problem is that mainstream is using Chapman's method of doing "science", namely with a paper and pencil and nice math formula. The formula may work great on paper (or a computer model), but it will never work in the lab. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews56.html</p><p>FYI, this ACE data verifies Alfven's unipolar inductor model which "predicts" there to be an influx of electrons in the polar regions. These electrons are not 'backscattered" in any way, but rather they are a result of the induction forces that come into play due to the rotation of the sun's magnetic field inside of a plasma. The "strahls" described in this article are simply "cathode rays," the same sorts of cathode rays that Birkeland created in his lab over 100 years ago. </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 177
-
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
-
Aurora activity is just getting started. Here's why the best northern lights are yet to come.
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Blue Origin stacks huge New Glenn rocket ahead of 1st launch (photo)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
Watch November full moon rise today in free livestream
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram