Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews112.html</p><p>This ACE article is a pretty good example of what Alfven called "pseudoscience' as it relates to the topic of "magnetic reconnection" theory.</p><p>Some quotes on this topic from Hannes Alfven from his book Cosmic Plasma.</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is no need for `frozen-in' field lines moving with the plasma, still less for `field-line reconnection' or `magnetic merging' . The magnetic field always remains static and not a single field line is `disconnected' or `reconnected'. The energy of a charged particle is given by Equation (6) . There is no 'field-line reconnection'<br />that can transfer energy to the particles or release energy in any other way.&nbsp; Other arguments against reconnection models are forewarded by Heikkila (1978). If the magnetic field varies with time, the geometry near the neutral points (points where B = 0) may change in a way that may be considered as the field lines disconnecting and reconnecting . It may be argued that in this case, the usual field-line reconnection formalism should be applicable . As will be shown in II .5 this is not correct . The fieldline reconnection theories are erroneous also in this case. </DIV></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>113 .3. `MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES<br />What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface . In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface.&nbsp; All theories of `magnetic merging' (or `field line reconnection') which do not satisfy tthis criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention .</DIV></p><p>The solar wind is filled with moving particles that have tons of kinetic energy associated with their movements.&nbsp; There is an *electrical* reconnection process in play as well as a *kinetic* particle reconnection process in play in the solar wind process, but there is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Maxwell's equations do not allow for magnetic lines to be cut and spliced or to act like electrical circuits.&nbsp; Moving charged particles can indeed "reconnect", but it is first and foremost a kinetic and electrical reconnection process.&nbsp; It is not a magnetic reconnection process.&nbsp; The term "magnetic reconnection" as it is being used in the ACE data "deserve no attention" according to Alfven.</p><p>All of these magnetic reconnection theories have two things in common.&nbsp;</p><p>1.&nbsp; They are based on a very poor understanding of electrical theory, since it is well understood in electrical theory that Maxwell's magnetic fields always form as a full continuum, without beginning and without end.&nbsp; In Maxwell's equations, they cannot be spliced or cut, or reattached to other lines or anything of the sort.</p><p>2.&nbsp; These theories are also based on an incredibly limited understanding of MHD theory and kinetic particle physics, and instead they are based on computer models that cannot be duplicated in a lab.&nbsp;</p><p>Charged particles in the solar wind are moving and flowing.&nbsp; They are not "frozen" or stationary.&nbsp; You can't treat this type of "reconnection" process as anything other than particle and electrical reconnection event.&nbsp; There is no excess energy released by "magnetic fields", since magnetic fields cannot be spliced to any other fields.&nbsp; There is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; It has simply become an industry buzzword for everything that is actually electrical and kinetic in nature.&nbsp;&nbsp; Unlike a lot of other aspects of Lambda-CDM theory that cannot be verified or falsified in a lab, this particular hypothesis could be and should be demonstrated in a lab *before* we point to distant observations and claim it's caused by "magnetic reconnection'.&nbsp; This misconcieved idea is causing a lot of headaches for the mainstream and it's affecting nearly every aspect of solar physics.</p><p>The easiest way to explain million degree plasma in an atmosphere is via an electrical discharge.&nbsp; The easiest way to explain gamma rays in a light atmosphere is also via electrical discharges.&nbsp; The easiest way to explain x-rays coming from iron atoms is via a discharge.&nbsp; The easiest way to explain neutron capture signatures in light plasma is also related to electrical discharges. &nbsp; The easiest way to explain a CME is with an electrical discharge.&nbsp; Nothing about these solar events should be the least bit mystifying.&nbsp;&nbsp; These would certainly not have perplexed Birkeland for even ten seconds.&nbsp; He would have easily been able to explain them and show how they directly related to his solar model.&nbsp; Bruce and Alfven could easily have explained these same events using the standard solar model.&nbsp; It really doesn't even matter which solar model you use, electrical discharges are certainly the culprit in these high energy events. </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews112.htmlThis ACE article is a pretty good example of what Alfven called "pseudoscience' as it relates to the topic of "magnetic reconnection" theory.Some quotes on this topic from Hannes Alfven from his book Cosmic Plasma.The solar wind is filled with moving particles that have tons of kinetic energy associated with their movements.&nbsp; There is an *electrical* reconnection process in play as well as a *kinetic* particle reconnection process in play in the solar wind process, but there is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Maxwell's equations do not allow for magnetic lines to be cut and spliced or to act like electrical circuits.&nbsp; Moving charged particles can indeed "reconnect", but it is first and foremost a kinetic and electrical reconnection process.&nbsp; It is not a magnetic reconnection process.&nbsp; The term "magnetic reconnection" as it is being used in the ACE data "deserve no attention" according to Alfven.All of these magnetic reconnection theories have two things in common.&nbsp;1.&nbsp; They are based on a very poor understanding of electrical theory, since it is well understood in electrical theory that Maxwell's magnetic fields always form as a full continuum, without beginning and without end.&nbsp; In Maxwell's equations, they cannot be spliced or cut, or reattached to other lines or anything of the sort.2.&nbsp; These theories are also based on an incredibly limited understanding of MHD theory and kinetic particle physics, and instead they are based on computer models that cannot be duplicated in a lab.&nbsp;Charged particles in the solar wind are moving and flowing.&nbsp; They are not "frozen" or stationary.&nbsp; You can't treat this type of "reconnection" process as anything other than particle and electrical reconnection event.&nbsp; There is no excess energy released by "magnetic fields", since magnetic fields cannot be spliced to any other fields.&nbsp; There is no such thing as "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; It has simply become an industry buzzword for everything that is actually electrical and kinetic in nature.&nbsp;&nbsp; Unlike a lot of other aspects of Lambda-CDM theory that cannot be verified or falsified in a lab, this particular hypothesis could be and should be demonstrated in a lab *before* we point to distant observations and claim it's caused by "magnetic reconnection'.&nbsp; This misconcieved idea is causing a lot of headaches for the mainstream and it's affecting nearly every aspect of solar physics.The easiest way to explain million degree plasma in an atmosphere is via an electrical discharge.&nbsp; The easiest way to explain gamma rays in a light atmosphere is also via electrical discharges.&nbsp; The easiest way to explain x-rays coming from iron atoms is via a discharge.&nbsp; The easiest way to explain neutron capture signatures in light plasma is also related to electrical discharges. &nbsp; The easiest way to explain a CME is with an electrical discharge.&nbsp; Nothing about these solar events should be the least bit mystifying.&nbsp;&nbsp; These would certainly not have perplexed Birkeland for even ten seconds.&nbsp; He would have easily been able to explain them and show how they directly related to his solar model.&nbsp; Bruce and Alfven could easily have explained these same events using the standard solar model.&nbsp; It really doesn't even matter which solar model you use, electrical discharges are certainly the culprit in these high energy events. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Where, specifically, is the error in the article that you posted.&nbsp; Are the observations in error ?&nbsp; If so, how ?</p><p>Is the mathematical model used to interpret the data in error ?&nbsp; If so, are Maxwell's equations wrong ?&nbsp; Are the numerical solutions incorrect ?&nbsp; What changes should be made in the model to bring it into compliance with known physics ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>113 .3. `MAGNETIC MERGING' THEORIES<br />What we have found means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume only if no electric current crosses the surface . In the terminology of the magnetic field description, this means that we can describe plasma phenomena inside a finite volume<strong> only if the perpendicular component of the curl is zero at every point of the surface.</strong>&nbsp; All theories of `magnetic merging' (or `field line reconnection') which do not satisfy tthis criterion are misleading or erroneous, and deserve no attention .</DIV></p><p>There are *charged particles* flowing perpendicular to all points on all the possible surfaces DrRocket. &nbsp; This type of of "magnetic reconnection" is either erroneous or misleading based upon the teachings of the guy that wrote the theory.&nbsp; The onus of responsibility is on these individuals to make their case in a lab, under controlled conditions,&nbsp; *before* trying to claim something that is physically impossible according to Maxwell's equations.</p><p>You'll notice that tusenfem hasn't ever addressed your quesions and he won't ever get around to doing it because Nereid has sucessfully derailed that conversation and tusenfem can't deal with your objections so he's laying low and hoping you go away.&nbsp; I noticed you intentionally asked him again on Friday, and I notice he has intentionally ignored you since then. </p><p>Not every error is mathematical DrRocket.&nbsp; I can create a software program to simulate things that do not exist in nature and the mathematical presentation may be 100% accurate.&nbsp; There's probably nothing at all wrong with their math or it would never have made it to print. When astronomers are wrong in a published paper, it's almost never related to the math (those errors are typically caught during the peer review process.&nbsp;&nbsp; The problem is always in the *REAL EMPIRICAL PHYSICS* that was never done. &nbsp;&nbsp; Like tusenfem, these ACE folks ignored the kinetic movement of particles and these particles are actually doing the "reconnecting".&nbsp; It has nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; It's a fundemantal error on their part related to plasma physics and the movement of physical particles in plasma, not their math.&nbsp; They assumed that "magenetic reconnection" exists in a scenario where Alfven specifically rejected it.&nbsp; This is why one physical test is worth a thousand expert opinions, because lot's of folks claim to be "experts", and often their statements disgree.&nbsp; On this topic, the mainstream is specifically making a claim and they didn't demonstrate it emprically.&nbsp;</p><p>The simplest, easiest and most obvious way to explain solar&nbsp; wind accleration is to assume the solar model that Alfven assumed, and to use "current flow" to explain these high energy events. &nbsp; Instead of taking the simple path and the easy path, they chose one that defies Maxwell's theories entirely, and that Alfven referred to as pseudoscience.&nbsp; How then can an amatuer like me figure out who's model is accurate when the mainstream utterly refuses to demonstrate any of this in a lab? Computer modeliing is not a valid substitute for emprical controlled testing.&nbsp; This is one physical theory that can and should be put to an emprical test.&nbsp; Where is it? </p><p>&nbsp;</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://www.srl.caltech.edu/ACE/ACENews/ACENews103.html</p><p>Notice how the solar injection of electrons "beams" in so called "ramp" events results in CME events 78% of the time? </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The highest associated CME velocities (> 1500 km/s) occur almost exclusively with ramp events.</DIV></p><p>In other words, the highest CME velocities were directly related to the strength and duration of the influx of electrons into the sun in "ramp" events.&nbsp; The highest velocities occured where the electron beam flow was relatively constant instead of just a short "spike" in the flow.&nbsp; </p><p>How can all this electrical activity simply be ignored by the mainstream? &nbsp;&nbsp; I'm simply blown away at all the various pieces of information that exists out there in the different space programs which fully support Birkeland's/Alfven's electrical model of solar atmospheric activity.&nbsp; How can these types of data be sitting out there in ACE news clippings and yet NASA still claims to be unaware of what accelerates the solar wind? <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-frown.gif" border="0" alt="Frown" title="Frown" /> </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There are *charged particles* flowing perpendicular to all points on all the possible surfaces DrRocket. &nbsp; This type of of "magnetic reconnection" is either erroneous or misleading based upon the teachings of the guy that wrote the theory.&nbsp; The onus of responsibility is on these individuals to make their case in a lab, under controlled conditions,&nbsp; *before* trying to claim something that is physically impossible according to Maxwell's equations.... <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Just what, specifically,&nbsp;is being claimed that is impossible according to Maxwell's equations ?&nbsp; And how is it contrary to Maxwell's theory ?&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just what, specifically,&nbsp;is being claimed that is impossible according to Maxwell's equations ?&nbsp; And how is it contrary to Maxwell's theory ?&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdf</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Donald E. Scott received the Bachelor&rsquo;s and Master&rsquo;s degrees from the University of Connecticut, Storrs, and the Ph.D. degree from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, all in electrical engineering.</DIV></p><p>Don explains the problem with "magnetic reconnection" from an electrical engineering perspective.&nbsp; Maxwelll's equations don't allow for magnetic field "lines" to be cut and spliced together.&nbsp; The whole idea of magnetic reconnection is based on a poor understanding of electrical theory, and a poor understanding of particle physics.&nbsp;&nbsp; Moving particles have kinetic energy.&nbsp; Electirical circuits "reconnect". &nbsp; Magnetic field lines do "reconnect", only particles and electricity do that. </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://members.cox.net/dascott3/IEEE-TransPlasmaSci-Scott-Aug2007.pdfDon explains the problem with "magnetic reconnection" from an electrical engineering perspective.&nbsp; Maxwelll's equations don't allow for magnetic field "lines" to be cut and spliced together.&nbsp; The whole idea of magnetic reconnection is based on a poor understanding of electrical theory, and a poor understanding of particle physics.&nbsp;&nbsp; Moving particles have kinetic energy.&nbsp; Electirical circuits "reconnect". &nbsp; Magnetic field lines do "reconnect", only particles and electricity do that. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>No, he doesn't.&nbsp; He sets up a knocks down a straw man.</p><p>Show me a specific paper on magnetic reconnection and then show me where it violates Maxwell's equations.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, he doesn't.&nbsp; He sets up a knocks down a straw man.Show me a specific paper on magnetic reconnection and then show me where it violates Maxwell's equations. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Let's start with a very simple example that focuses on the specific problem.&nbsp; This same "assumption" is made in many papers, but understanding the exact issue is going to be required before we can proceed.</p><p>From our friend tusenfem:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now in the flat region in the middle the total magnetic field will be zero in this simple but realistic model, and actually there is no field exactly in the centre.</DIV></p><p>The field is just a "field".&nbsp; The notion of "lines" is really an intangible human concept.&nbsp; The field itself however is always a "full continuum" in Maxwell's equations. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thus there is a possibility that the field lines re-arrange themselves.</DIV></p><p>This is the unsupported claim, and the crux of the problem with 'magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; The magnetic field themselves cannot "rearrange" themselves.&nbsp; Only particles do that.&nbsp; Only electricity does that.&nbsp; Magnetic fields are really simply a function of the current flow inside the plasma. &nbsp; The particle rearrange themselves, and "reconnect', not the magnetic fields!&nbsp; Grr.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, the exact micro physics of this re-arranging/re-connecting is not know. </DIV></p><p>Correction:&nbsp; It is evidently not known to this specific individual.&nbsp; Alfven could easily have explained the physics to him, and does so in chapter 2 and 3 of Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; I suspect he did so in your book too.&nbsp; It's "particles" (ions) and "electrons" that are reconnecting.&nbsp; This individual is evidently ignorant of the physics involved, but there is a real physical "reconnection" occuring inside the current sheet, but it kinetic and electrical in nature.&nbsp;&nbsp; The "magnetic fields" are simply along for the ride, and are a function of the current flow of moving charged particles.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Note, that field lines are not real objects,</DIV></p><p>The particles are real objects, real atomic and subatomic things that exist in nature. The magnetic field "line" however is simply a human construct, and it has nothing to do with the energy releases that are occuring inside the current sheet.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>they only give the direction of the magnetic field.</DIV></p><p>The direction of the magnetic field, and the "strength" of the magnetic field is directly related to the flow of particles.&nbsp; You can't exclude the current flow when describing "magnetic lines' inside of plasma.&nbsp; That's like looking at a lightening bolt and trying to claim it's powered by "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; It's an electrically driven phenomenon, composed of moving particles inside the plasma.&nbsp; To only think of this energy release event it terms of magnetic fields can only lead to serious confusion.&nbsp; it was evidently happening way back in Alfven's day too, and tried his best to correct their mistake, but evidently some folks just don't fully understand the "physics" of what is happening inside the plasma, even though Alfven himself understood it perfectly and was able to convey those ideas to even an amateur like myself.&nbsp; Of course it requries that one read Alfven's materials, and few individuals seem to have done so.&nbsp; Most fancy themselves to be quite the experts on MHD theory and don't seem to understand anything about the particle physics processes that it describes.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, one can find from Maxwell's equations that field lines cannot be cut.</DIV></p><p>There, he said it himself.&nbsp; Yep.&nbsp; That's what Maxwell's equations imply alirght.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.</DIV></p><p>In other words it doesn't make sense to *HIM* anymore.&nbsp; It makes perfect sense to anyone who understand the phyiscs behind these events.&nbsp; Birkeland could have explained them to tusenfem and showed him how it works in a real experiment.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, in the end you end up with the following situation:<br /> <br /> </p><div style="margin:5px20px20px"> <div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px">Code:</div> <pre class="alt2" style="border:1pxinset;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>That in a nutshell is a bunch of baloney!&nbsp; That is what Alfven called "pseudoscience".&nbsp; Only someone who does not understand the particle physics processes that are occuring inside the current sheet, and only someone who is completely ignorant of electrical theory would claim this was a "magnetic reconnection" process.&nbsp; Evidently this individual understands the basics about electrical theory since he rightfully noted that Maxwell's equations don't allow for magnetic fields to be spliced.&nbsp; He obviously doesn't understand the physics involved however, since he also stated as much. &nbsp; The problem DrRocket is that these people are ignoring dE/dt, and thus they "don't get it".&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>You can never treat light plasma as though it is "frozen".&nbsp; You can never ignore the kinetic energy of the electrons and ions that flow in the plasma.&nbsp; You can certainly never apply "frozen" ideas to the region between the photosphere and the heliosphere since it is composed of flowing waves of moving charged particles.&nbsp; No one who understands the physical mechanics of what is happening in the current sheet is going to claim this is "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; This is simply particle physics and electrical reconnection, not magnetic reconnection.&nbsp;&nbsp; The term "magnetic reconnection" is often now used to simply refer to standard electrical discharges through plasma, while everyone who makes such a claim is ignorant of the physical process that releases energy in "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; It's not a 'magnetic" reconnection at all.&nbsp; It's simply particles slamming into one another and electrons flowing through plasma.&nbsp; It's not a mystery to anyone who understands the physics behind MHD theory.&nbsp; Tusenfem is confused because he does not understand the physics.&nbsp; He ignored the implication of Maxwell's equations too!&nbsp;&nbsp; If even I can see tusenfems mistake, then he is clearly not more enlightenend on the topic of MHD theory than Hannes Alfven, and his problem stems from not studying Alfven's work properly.</p><p>&nbsp;</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>I'm sure that an intelligent computer programmer could "simulate' that "magnetic reconnection" thing tusenfem describes *without* ever understanding the particle physics involved, and then 'simulate" what happens in "magnetic reconnecion" and somehow get it to work.&nbsp; That is because a computer can be told to do anything.&nbsp; It can be told that magnetic field lines "reconnect" and it simulate the idea, even if that never occurs in the real world.&nbsp;</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>

 

[michaelmozina]

The only emprical test of "magnetic reconnection" did not "store" energy in the magnetic field.&nbsp; It stored it's energy in the experiment in the form of electrons that were released all at once and used to generate massive magnetic fields for a short period of time.&nbsp; The moment that electrons stopped flowing, the experiment came to an end quite abruptly.&nbsp; The massive magnetic field generated by the moving electrons, caused the plasma to move too, and it generated currents inside the plasma.&nbsp; This kinetic movement of particles then released more energy in the plasma.&nbsp; When we look at the papers on these emprical experiments, none of them professes to understand the unique energy release mechanism behind "magnetic reconnection", because there isn't one.&nbsp; It's purely an *electromagnetic* event full of moving particles.&nbsp; Any papers that claim that magnetic fields "store" energy" are purely misleading.&nbsp; There is nothing "stored" in the magnetic field.&nbsp; The magnetic field is simply a function of the movment of the charged particles, nothing more.&nbsp; The flow of current generates the field.&nbsp; The field generates movement in the plasma.&nbsp; The movement in the plasma causes things to bunp into one another and kinetically interact with the surrounding plasma.&nbsp; There is nothing "unque" about "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; It is simply an astronomers misunderstood concept based on a poor understanding of MDH theory and electrical theory. <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>

 

[DrRocket]

Are you saying that the notion of energy in a magnetic field is meaningless ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Are you saying that the notion of energy in a magnetic field is meaningless ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>No, I'm saying that the notion of the kinetic energy of the *moving* electrons and *moving* ions is also very important to MHD theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; To ignore these aspects of MHD theory is bound to lead to all sorts of misconceptions.&nbsp; Alfven maticulously points out these pitfalls in Chapters 2 & 3 in Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; I'm guessing that since your earlier book has no mention of "magnetic reconnection", it wasn't much of an issue when his first book was written.&nbsp; Obviously that changed somewhere between the first and second book because Alfven spends a lot of time trashing the idea of magnetic reconnection in Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp;</p><p>Alfven makes a clear distinction between the things that can be understood by the "field" (magnetic) view of MHD theory, and he clearly distinguishes the boundary conditions where the "particle" or electrical side of MHD theory must also be taken into account.&nbsp; In some instances the electrical flow can play a more important and a more fundamental role than the magnetic field. &nbsp; If you were to measure the magnetic field around a filament in an ordinary plasma ball while in operation, it would indeed seem to form relatively stable magnetic fields in the plasma.&nbsp; If however you don't consider the electrical energy that powers the process, one might never understand how it actually works.&nbsp; That's the problem with the mainstream position in a nutshell.&nbsp; They don't know how it works, and that is because they are ignoring the electrical aspect of MHD theory entirely.&nbsp; These energy release processes are not caused by "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Magnetic fields always form a full continuum and they do not make and break "lines" nor can these lines be spliced to other magnetic fields.&nbsp; Only particles can move and flow and generate that kind of heat in light plasma.&nbsp; Only electrical energy is going to explain those mulitimillion degree coronal loops, those gamma rays and neutron capture signatures.&nbsp; These are fundamentally electrically driven processes in plasma and can be shown to be caused by electrical flow inside of plasma.</p><p>One can't simply ignore the electron flow and the kinetic physics of what's really going on in these events.&nbsp; These are particle reconnections, and electrical reconnections, not "magnetic reconnections".&nbsp; There is no such thing as a "magnetic reconnection'.&nbsp; The very idea s that magnetic field lines can be cut and spliced defies Maxwell's equations and MHD theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no need for "magnetic reconnection" in MHD theory since there are obvious and simple ways to explain these high energy releases in plasma.&nbsp; MHD theory does *NOT* support the notion of "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp;&nbsp; You might be able to model the idea on a computer, but you'll never get plasma to actually behave that way in a controlled experiment. &nbsp;</p><p>The silly part here DrRocket is that electrical currents have already been shown to cause plasma to emit x-rays, gamma-rays, release free neutrons, etc, all the same things that we regularly observe in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; There is no need to resort to weird or exotic phenomenon to explain these simple discharge events.&nbsp;&nbsp; All we need is some simple electrical current and all of these discharge emissions make total sense.&nbsp; We can also explain solar wind acceleration and a host of other observered phenomenon in space using an electrical (particle) MHD theory.&nbsp; All that is required to makes sense of these things is to simply accept the idea that the observation in question has an electrical component.&nbsp; That however is the one thing that the mainstream refuses to consider, so they make up industry buzzwords and pretend that it somehow ties back into MHD theory.&nbsp; Nothing could be further from the truth.&nbsp; Hannes Alfven actively criticized the whole concept of magnetic reconnection and one of it's biggest critics. Alfven understood electrical theory and the "particle" aspect of what was going on inside the plasma.&nbsp; He would not have been "mystified" by particle acceleration in a plasma sheet like our friend tusenfem. </p><p>&nbsp;</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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, I'm saying that the notion of the kinetic energy of the *moving* electrons and *moving* ions is also very important to MHD theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; To ignore these aspects of MHD theory is bound to lead to all sorts of misconceptions.&nbsp; Alfven maticulously points out these pitfalls in Chapters 2 & 3 in Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp; I'm guessing that since your earlier book has no mention of "magnetic reconnection", it wasn't much of an issue when his first book was written.&nbsp; Obviously that changed somewhere between the first and second book because Alfven spends a lot of time trashing the idea of magnetic reconnection in Cosmic Plasma.&nbsp;Alfven makes a clear distinction between the things that can be understood by the "field" (magnetic) view of MHD theory, and he clearly distinguishes the boundary conditions where the "particle" or electrical side of MHD theory must also be taken into account.&nbsp; In some instances the electrical flow can play a more important and a more fundamental role than the magnetic field. &nbsp; If you were to measure the magnetic field around a filament in an ordinary plasma ball while in operation, it would indeed seem to form relatively stable magnetic fields in the plasma.&nbsp; If however you don't consider the electrical energy that powers the process, one might never understand how it actually works.&nbsp; That's the problem with the mainstream position in a nutshell.&nbsp; They don't know how it works, and that is because they are ignoring the electrical aspect of MHD theory entirely.&nbsp; These energy release processes are not caused by "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Magnetic fields always form a full continuum and they do not make and break "lines" nor can these lines be spliced to other magnetic fields.&nbsp; Only particles can move and flow and generate that kind of heat in light plasma.&nbsp; Only electrical energy is going to explain those mulitimillion degree coronal loops, those gamma rays and neutron capture signatures.&nbsp; These are fundamentally electrically driven processes in plasma and can be shown to be caused by electrical flow inside of plasma.One can't simply ignore the electron flow and the kinetic physics of what's really going on in these events.&nbsp; These are particle reconnections, and electrical reconnections, not "magnetic reconnections".&nbsp; There is no such thing as a "magnetic reconnection'.&nbsp; The very idea s that magnetic field lines can be cut and spliced defies Maxwell's equations and MHD theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no need for "magnetic reconnection" in MHD theory since there are obvious and simple ways to explain these high energy releases in plasma.&nbsp; MHD theory does *NOT* support the notion of "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp;&nbsp; You might be able to model the idea on a computer, but you'll never get plasma to actually behave that way in a controlled experiment. &nbsp;The silly part here DrRocket is that electrical currents have already been shown to cause plasma to emit x-rays, gamma-rays, release free neutrons, etc, all the same things that we regularly observe in the solar atmosphere.&nbsp; There is no need to resort to weird or exotic phenomenon to explain these simple discharge events.&nbsp;&nbsp; All we need is some simple electrical current and all of these discharge emissions make total sense.&nbsp; We can also explain solar wind acceleration and a host of other observered phenomenon in space using an electrical (particle) MHD theory.&nbsp; All that is required to makes sense of these things is to simply accept the idea that the observation in question has an electrical component.&nbsp; That however is the one thing that the mainstream refuses to consider, so they make up industry buzzwords and pretend that it somehow ties back into MHD theory.&nbsp; Nothing could be further from the truth.&nbsp; Hannes Alfven actively criticized the whole concept of magnetic reconnection and one of it's biggest critics. Alfven understood electrical theory and the "particle" aspect of what was going on inside the plasma.&nbsp; He would not have been "mystified" by particle acceleration in a plasma sheet like our friend tusenfem. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>So you do accept that energy can be stored in magnetic fields.&nbsp; Correct ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So you do accept that energy can be stored in magnetic fields.&nbsp; Correct ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>How would you suggest we go about storing energy in "magnetic fields" inside of light plasma like we might find in the corona DrRocket?&nbsp; How might we constrain this "magnetic energy" in 'tubes" or loops or 'ropes" inside light plasma?&nbsp; Why wouldn't we begin with the obvious solution and presume that these are current driven events?&nbsp;&nbsp; Is the energy of an electrical discharge on Earth "stored" in magnetic fields?&nbsp; What evidence do you have that the energy that generates those million degree coronal loops in the solar atmosphere are created from "stored" magnetic energy? </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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How would you suggest we go about storing energy in "magnetic fields" inside of light plasma like we might find in the corona DrRocket?&nbsp; How might we constrain this "magnetic energy" in 'tubes" or loops or 'ropes" inside light plasma?&nbsp; Why wouldn't we begin with the obvious solution and presume that these are current driven events?&nbsp;&nbsp; Is the energy of an electrical discharge on Earth "stored" in magnetic fields?&nbsp; What evidence do you have that the energy that generates those million degree coronal loops in the solar atmosphere are created from "stored" magnetic energy? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Is that a yes or a no ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is that a yes or a no ? <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The energy that makes up the "magnetic field" of a coronal loop is "stored" inside of the current flows.&nbsp; It's kinetic in nature DrRocket.&nbsp;&nbsp; There's nothing really "stored" in these magnetic fields around light plasma. The strength of the magnetic field is a function of the current flow. &nbsp; Current flow is the driving mechanism, even on the "magnetic reconnection" tests done here on Earth.&nbsp; There is no 'stored" magnetic energy that might explain multimillion degree coronal loops that sustain themselves for hours on end.&nbsp; These are current driven proceses, and kinetic energy processes.&nbsp; Its like asking me do I believe (yes or no) that magnetic energy is "stored" and somehow released in a discharge in the Earth's atmosphere.&nbsp; The answer is no.&nbsp; The electrical energy coming from the heliosphere is "stored' and then released into the interstellar plasma. &nbsp; In reality there is always current flowing through the corona and solar atmosphere and the whole area between the heliosphere and the photosphere. </p><p>The basic problem DrRocket is that mainstreamers are attempting to explain every energy release in the solar atmosphere as though it must come from the sun itself.&nbsp; In reality, the currents that power these events come from an a source that is external to the heliosphere, namely the interstellar winds that buffet the heliosphere.&nbsp; There are induction processes in play as well, and the whole thing is filled with moving charged particles.&nbsp; As long as the mainstream *refuses* to acknowledge the currents that drive these events, they will forever remain 'mystified' by the simplest things.&nbsp; Keep in mind that Birkeland could have easily explained all of these great solar "mysteries" based on the equipment he could find in 1908, and a few emprical tests he did in his lab.&nbsp; He actually created electrical discharges in the his simulated solar atmosphere that look almost identical to coronal loops we see in satellite images of the sun.&nbsp; There's no mystery here DrRocket other than the mystery of why "electricity" is the forbidden topic of astronomy.</p><p>Keep in mind that the paper I posted here the other day on coronal loops is there for the mainstream to read any time they are interested in learning about coronal loops.&nbsp; They aren't a mystery.&nbsp; They're logical observations when you add electicity to plasma.&nbsp; That solar wind acceleration is no mystery either.&nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven and Birkeland both predicted these things would occur and Birkeland actually simulated the entire process.&nbsp; </p><p>How's that for a long winded answer?&nbsp; &nbsp;</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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The energy that makes up the "magnetic field" of a coronal loop is "stored" inside of the current flows.&nbsp; It's kinetic in nature DrRocket.&nbsp;&nbsp; There's nothing really "stored" in these magnetic fields around light plasma. The strength of the magnetic field is a function of the current flow. &nbsp; Current flow is the driving mechanism, even on the "magnetic reconnection" tests done here on Earth.&nbsp; There is no 'stored" magnetic energy that might explain multimillion degree coronal loops that sustain themselves for hours on end.&nbsp; These are current driven proceses, and kinetic energy processes.&nbsp; Its like asking me do I believe (yes or no) that magnetic energy is "stored" and somehow released in a discharge in the Earth's atmosphere.&nbsp; The answer is no.&nbsp; The electrical energy coming from the heliosphere is "stored' and then released into the interstellar plasma. &nbsp; In reality there is always current flowing through the corona and solar atmosphere and the whole area between the heliosphere and the photosphere. The basic problem DrRocket is that mainstreamers are attempting to explain every energy release in the solar atmosphere as though it must come from the sun itself.&nbsp; In reality, the currents that power these events come from an a source that is external to the heliosphere, namely the interstellar winds that buffet the heliosphere.&nbsp; There are induction processes in play as well, and the whole thing is filled with moving charged particles.&nbsp; As long as the mainstream *refuses* to acknowledge the currents that drive these events, they will forever remain 'mystified' by the simplest things.&nbsp; Keep in mind that Birkeland could have easily explained all of these great solar "mysteries" based on the equipment he could find in 1908, and a few emprical tests he did in his lab.&nbsp; He actually created electrical discharges in the his simulated solar atmosphere that look almost identical to coronal loops we see in satellite images of the sun.&nbsp; There's no mystery here DrRocket other than the mystery of why "electricity" is the forbidden topic of astronomy.Keep in mind that the paper I posted here the other day on coronal loops is there for the mainstream to read any time they are interested in learning about coronal loops.&nbsp; They aren't a mystery.&nbsp; They're logical observations when you add electicity to plasma.&nbsp; That solar wind acceleration is no mystery either.&nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven and Birkeland both predicted these things would occur and Birkeland actually simulated the entire process.&nbsp; How's that for a long winded answer?&nbsp; &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So, in the old automobile ignition systems, those using a coil and a set of points, yoiu would say that energy is not stored in the magnetic field.&nbsp; But then what causes the spark ?&nbsp; It occurs when the current is interrupted;i.e. when the current is stopped so the energy cannot be in the kinetic energy of the electrons.&nbsp; It is released when the magnetic field collapses (i.e. goes to zero).&nbsp; That seems to me to pretty clear physical evidence of the capability of a magnetic field to store energy.&nbsp; And yes, the magnetic field is initially created by a current flow, but as we have discussed all magnetic fields arise in that fashion in some way.</p><p>By the wayl, in your rejection of energy storeage in magnetic fields you have also rejected Maxwell's equations, from which that storeage can be derived and quantified.&nbsp; And there is no need to point point out that the E-field also plays a role, since a time-varying B-field will create and E-field.</p><p>One reason that mainstream astronomers do not accept that the sunis not powered by an external current is that currents of sufficient magnitude to power the sun do not exist. If they did they would be readily detectable by the magnetic field that they would create.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Tsurugi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> One reason that mainstream astronomers do not accept that the sunis not powered by an external current is that currents of sufficient magnitude to power the sun do not exist. If they did they would be readily detectable by the magnetic field that they would create.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Damn, and I was just about to ask, "where do I plug in?"&nbsp; My power bill sucks. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Tsu</p><p> </p><p><em>"If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough."</em> </p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;So, in the old automobile ignition systems, those using a coil and a set of points, yoiu would say that energy is not stored in the magnetic field.&nbsp; But then what causes the spark ? </DIV></p><p>The dissipating kinetic energy of the moving electrons in one side of the coil creates induction currents in the other.&nbsp;&nbsp; The "storage" of energy in that case is also "kinetic" in nature.&nbsp; You aren't "storing" anything in a "frozen" medium.&nbsp; There is movement of electrons that create induction currents in the secondary coil.&nbsp;&nbsp; When you're talking about the "magnetic fields", you are treating them as some sort of "frozen" process. &nbsp; Nothing could be further from the truth.&nbsp; It's the kinetic flow of charged particles that are creating that "magnetic field" you're observing.&nbsp; The only "storage" happening in that magnetic field is in the form of kinetic energy, in that case in the kinetic energy of the electrons.</p><p>The mainstream's position is based on the flawed belief that magnetic fields are somehow "frozen".&nbsp; They are not "frozen" at all.&nbsp; They are caused by the presense of moving streams of charged particles.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>In plasma that moving flow of charged particles forms filamenary structures.&nbsp; At some point there are kinetic interactions inside the plasma.&nbsp; The charged particles electrially and kinetically 'reconnect' in the plasma.&nbsp; It is however at it most fundamental level a *kinetic* and an electrical reconnection process.&nbsp; It has nothing to do with the "magnetic fields".&nbsp; The magnetic field in light plasma exists because of the movement of these charged particles.&nbsp; To treat this process as 'frozen' is to completely and utterly and fundamentally ignore the physics of what is really happening inside the plasma.&nbsp; That's all Tusenfem is doing.&nbsp; By ignoring dE/dt, and by treating the magnetic flekd s as being "frozen', he's uttterly blinded himself to the mechanical physics of what's really going on.&nbsp; Alfven clearly explalins these points in his book Cosmic Plasma, and I would therefore have to believe that Tusenfem has never read the book.&nbsp; People who fancy themselves as MHD "experts" should at least understand the fundamental physics of MHD theory.&nbsp; Tusenfum is clearly clueless about the physics of what's happening, but Alfven was not, nor was Birkeland.&nbsp; They understood the kinetic energy aspect of "eletrical" and "particle" reconnection.&nbsp; The understood something about electrical theory too.&nbsp; Magnetic fields in plasma are not sterile.&nbsp; They are created by the movement of charged particles.&nbsp; There is a kinetic component related to the electron flow that the mainstream is simply oblivious to.</p><p>I went back to read about these early "magnetic reconnection" "experiments", and they all take place in a current sheet.&nbsp; There is nothing "magnetic" about this "reconnection" process.&nbsp; It is fundamentially an electrical and kinetic event.&nbsp; To suggest this is "magnetic reconnection" is to claim that because we see a magnetic field around a copper wire, and we can watch it grow stronger and weaker over time, the power saw is powered by 'magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; That is an absurd idea.&nbsp; The magnetic fields form as a full and complete continuum around the stream of charged partlcles.&nbsp; The magnetic fields are without beginning and without end.&nbsp; Maxwell's equations don't allow them to be spliced to other field lines.&nbsp; That is a ridiculous idea.&nbsp; It is also an utterly unnecessary idea since the kinetic energy of the charged particles will easily explain this "reconnection" process in a current sheet. &nbsp;</p><p>The bottom line here DrRocket is that the mainstream is stuck between a rock and a hard place.&nbsp; The unvierse is *electro*magnetic in nature and they don't want to admit it.&nbsp;&nbsp;</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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p>

The dissipating kinetic energy of the moving electrons in one side of the coil creates induction currents in the other.&nbsp;&nbsp; The "storage" of energy in that case is also "kinetic" in nature.&nbsp; </p><p><font color="#0000ff">So, how, without the use of a field concept, does kinetic energy here (in a coil), induce kinetic energy there (in the circuit that contains the spark plug)?&nbsp; And how is the kinetic energy in the coil linked to the number of turns in the coil ?</font></p><p>&nbsp;You aren't "storing" anything in a "frozen" medium.&nbsp; There is movement of electrons that create induction currents in the secondary coil.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">But the&nbsp; induction current is created with the current in the primary STOPS.</font></p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; When you're talking about the "magnetic fields", you are treating them as some sort of "frozen" process. &nbsp; Nothing could be further from the truth.</p><p>&nbsp;<font color="#0000ff">Look real hard at what I said.&nbsp; You will not find the word "frozen" anywhere.&nbsp; You are evading the issue.</font></p><p>...&nbsp; It has nothing to do with the "magnetic fields".&nbsp; The magnetic field in light plasma exists because of the movement of these charged particles.&nbsp; To treat this process as 'frozen' is to completely and utterly and fundamentally ignore the physics of what is really happening inside the plasma.&nbsp; That's all Tusenfem is doing.&nbsp; By ignoring dE/dt, and by treating the magnetic flekd s as being "frozen', he's uttterly blinded himself to the mechanical physics of what's really going on.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Tusenfem seems to be stuck on a point related to the approximations used to justify the notion of a frozen field.&nbsp; I think that point needs to be addressed.&nbsp; However, he is rather far from clueless about electrodynamics and Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; You are the one who seems to be ignoring them.</font>&nbsp;</p><p>...&nbsp; The magnetic fields form as a full and complete continuum around the stream of charged partlcles.&nbsp; The magnetic fields are without beginning and without end.&nbsp;&nbsp;Maxwell's equations don't allow them to be spliced to other field lines.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;<font color="#0000ff">You keep repeating this statement like some sort of religious mantra.&nbsp; It is nothing but word salad.&nbsp; What Maxwell's equations show is that the magnetic field is a smooth vector field with everywhere zero divergence, and variation in time determined by the curl of the electric field.&nbsp; That is quite well understood by almost everyone, including astrophysicists.</font></p><p>&nbsp;That is a ridiculous idea.&nbsp; It is also an utterly unnecessary idea since the kinetic energy of the charged particles will easily explain this "reconnection" process in a current sheet. &nbsp;The bottom line here DrRocket is that the mainstream is stuck between a rock and a hard place.&nbsp; The unvierse is *electro*magnetic in nature and they don't want to admit it.&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff">What is ridiculous is your idea of their idea.&nbsp; I see the mainstream as trying to work, quite explicitly, with Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; I see you as ignoring them behind a blizzard of meaningless word salad.&nbsp; It you have a beef with what they are saying, phrase it precisely using Maxwell's equations.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">In case you have forgotten them, here they are</font></p><p><img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/8/2/f8254d80dd83f4ab12187af1a2d6b450.png" alt="
abla cdot mathbf{E} = frac {
ho} {epsilon_0}" /></p><p>&nbsp;<img style="width:91px;height:19px" class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/5/7/6/57619c6a86c79e56ac806faf21502c90.png" alt="
abla cdot mathbf{B} = 0" width="103" height="25" /></p><p><img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/9/c/a/9cab6787646062d6e658cd1e83ad468f.png" alt="
abla imes mathbf{E} = -frac{partial mathbf{B}} {partial t}" /></p><p><img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/3/4/b34a1a09a308b90bbc6218fdd2e3157a.png" alt="
abla imes mathbf{B} = mu_0mathbf{J} + mu_0 epsilon_0 frac{partial mathbf{E}} {partial t} " /></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> So, how, without the use of a field concept, does kinetic energy here (in a coil), induce kinetic energy there (in the circuit that contains the spark plug)? </DIV></p><p>I never said anything about doing this "without" a magnetic field.&nbsp; That was your strawman.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And how is the kinetic energy in the coil linked to the number of turns in the coil?</DIV></p><p>The more turns in the coil, the greater the amount of wire, and the more electrons you can stuff into the wire.&nbsp; It's a volume issue.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>But the&nbsp; induction current is created with the current in the primary STOPS. </DIV></p><p>Not until the electrons in the primary coil stop moving.&nbsp;&nbsp; This coil conversation is a bit off topic IMO since plasma isn't a solid like a coil, and the *POWER SOURCE* of every coil is *electricity*, not magnetic fields.&nbsp; The magnetic fields are simply the result of the current flow, and without current flowing into the primary coil, you won't get anything out the secondary one.&nbsp; Electrons in = electrons out - a few that are lost to 'heat'. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Look real hard at what I said.&nbsp; You will not find the word "frozen" anywhere.&nbsp; You are evading the issue.... </DIV></p><p>No, you personally are not using that term, but tusenfem is using that term and other "magnetic reconnection" papers are based on exactly the same concepts that tusenfem is espousing.&nbsp; His beliefs essentially represent the mainstream's postion.&nbsp; It is the issue. There is no evasion since this is the core issue of the debate.&nbsp; Plasma is not "frozen".&nbsp; It's not a solid.&nbsp; It moves and flows and it's composed of charged particles. That movement of charged particles will create "magnetic fields", but it's a kinetic energy process that is responsible for these "magnetic" fields. &nbsp; </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Tusenfem seems to be stuck on a point related to the approximations used to justify the notion of a frozen field.&nbsp; I think that point needs to be addressed.&nbsp; However, he is rather far from clueless about electrodynamics and Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; You are the one who seems to be ignoring them.&nbsp;...</DIV></p><p>No I'm not!&nbsp; I'm not trying to cut and splice magnetic field lines!&nbsp; He's not clueless about the math, but he blatently admits he's clueless about the physics of what's happening.&nbsp; He gets the math to a degree, but he's completely ignorant of the physics.&nbsp; He first claims Maxwell's equations do not allow us to cut and splice magnetic field lines, and then he handwaves away the whole thing and does it anyway!&nbsp; Come on DrRocket, I'm not the the one violating the tenets of electrical theory, and I'm not oblivious about the physicsl processes going on inside the plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You keep repeating this statement like some sort of religious mantra.&nbsp; It is nothing but word salad.</DIV></p><p>What?&nbsp; Tusenfem noted this same thing, as did Don Scott in the paper I handed you eariler.&nbsp; It's a basic tenet of electrical theory.&nbsp; The "word salad" part came when tusenfem blighly handwaved away that tenet and claimed they "reconnect" anyway!&nbsp; That's the word salad!&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What Maxwell's equations show is that the magnetic field is a smooth vector field with everywhere zero divergence, and variation in time determined by the curl of the electric field.&nbsp; That is quite well understood by almost everyone, including astrophysicists.</DIV></p><p>No, it's not understood by them or Tusenfem wouldn't be so out to lunch about the physics involved in this reconnection process in a current sheet!&nbsp; They don't grok the physics behind the reconnection process DrRocket.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is ridiculous is your idea of their idea.&nbsp; I see the mainstream as trying to work, quite explicitly, with Maxwell's equations.</DIV></p><p>No they are not!&nbsp; Where does Maxwell's set of equations allow you to cut and splice magnetic field lines?</p><p>The word salad is coming from astrophysicists, not electrical engineers.&nbsp; Alfven understood electrical theory.&nbsp; He understood that magnetic "lines" were simply a human construct, not a physical thing.&nbsp;&nbsp; Alfven was a *huge* critic of the idea of 'magnetic reconnection' in "frozen" plasma.&nbsp; In fact he noted that when you combine the two idea together in plasma, it's pure pseudoscience. &nbsp; The mainstream is not working with Maxwell's equations, or Alfven's MHD equations.&nbsp; They're simply cludging both concepts, ignoring dE/dt entirely and trying to justify this silliness with computer models rather than emprical tests.&nbsp; It's not fooling anyone.&nbsp; I can cite Alfven's objections to "magnetic reconnection" till I'm blue in the face, but that won't stop people like tusenfem from cludging MHD theory and Maxwell's theories as well. </p><p>By treating the plasmas of space as "neutral" rather than as "current carrying" plasmas, the mainstream is missing the most important aspect behind these electrical prcocesses, namely they are missing the electrons that drive the process. </p><p>DrRocket, you and I know perfectly well that the easiest way to explain million degree plasma sitting in an atmosphere is to assume that it has electrical current running through it.&nbsp; Why would you choose *not* to accept that paper I handed you earlier about the return currents in coronal loop activity?</p><p>The information to verify these are electrical discharges is sitting right there in the public domain.&nbsp; We observe million degree loops in the solar atmosphere that look remarkably like the discharge loops in Birkeland's solar model. &nbsp; We see x-rays and gamma-rays from these coronal loops.&nbsp; We see neutron capture signatures coming from these loops. We see gobs of high energy discharges from these loops as we would see in any discharge.&nbsp; We see that Charles Bruce already established a connection between these high energy events and electrical discharges.&nbsp; There's no mystery about these types of high energy events.&nbsp; They simply involved the flow of electrons.&nbsp; The only "mystery" is why the mainstream would ignore that flow of electrons in favor of a something Alfven called 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>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>Makes for cool T-shirts</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><img src="http://shadowalkers.net/Images/Shirts/L_LordSaid.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="423" height="480" /> </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>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Makes for cool T-shirts&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> </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>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>I'm a little concerned that 99.9% of all plasma physicists out there might be wrong while the .1% that disagree don't even work in the field of plasma physics and only cite a few quotes from Alfven to back up their claims.</p><p>(96.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" />)</p><p>I know it's an ad populum argument, but at what point do you scratch your head and question the majority as being wrong?&nbsp; No doubt that all these plasma physicists out there that work with reconnection know who Alfven is and have access to the same library of knowledge that the proponets against reconnection have.</p><p>If it was so obvious, then why is 99.9% of plasma physicists out there ignoring what you claim is so obvious.&nbsp; It makes no sense.&nbsp;</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>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p>Don't you understand....It's a Conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</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>