Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

michaelmozina · Jun 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.(96.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot )</DIV></p><p>Well, you definitely made up that one on the spot.

  I'm sure that Anthony Peratt doesn't believe in "magnetic reconnection", so I doubt this is really something that most "plasma physicists" believe in to begin with.  It seems to be limited to a "few" of those folks, and mostly it's written about by astronomers, for astronomers.   </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I know it's an ad populum argument, but at what point do you scratch your head and question the majority as being wrong?  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.If it was so obvious, then why is 99.9% of plasma physicists out there ignoring what you claim is so obvious.  It makes no sense.  <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>If your figure wasn't purely made up, I might have some sympathy for you.  I think were we to break down this question into "plasma physicists" and "astronomers" in a more general sense, most of these papers are put forth by astronomers and not by folks who work with plasma every day.  I'm sure there are a few of those as well, but I don't believe it's as widespread outside of astronomy circles.</p><p>It didn't make much sense to me that even astronomers believed in these sorts of things until I discovered that most astronomers have not read Alfven's book Cosmic Plasma, so I really have no faith that they even understand his theories in the first place.    The one thing that all the magnetic reconection theories and papers share in common, is that none of them can describe the energy release signature that is unique to "magnetic reconnection'.  Furthermore, all emprical "tests" of this concept took place *inside* of a current sheet.  Alfven very specifically explained these types of kinetic and electrical interrations were in no way related to "magnetic reconnection".  I also know that most electrical engineers I've spoken with about "magnetic reconnection" were utterly appauled at the idea.    You can't take one group of individuals and claim that this group is somehow right by default.  Many experts disagree about the same exact topic.  That is why one test is worth a thousand expert opinions.  </p><p>Birkeland tested all his theories about aurora, solar wind and coronal loops in a lab.  He showed they were all related to electrical currents.   Nobody who aledges that "magnetic reconnection" is involved in these processes has ever emprically done that with "magnetic reconnection".  Why not?  I'll tell you why.  It cannot be done.  Every actual physical "test" of magnetic reconnection took place inside of a current sheet, and Alfven was quite explicit about this type of "reconnection".  It's kinetic and electrical reconnection that has nothing whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection".  </p><p>All the rest of the papers I read on this particular topic are all "point and compute" papers by astronomers.  In other words, they point to the sky, whip up a little mathematical model based on some notion of magnetic fields making and breaking connections, and they call that a "test'.  That is not a "test' at all.  That's mathematical myth making.  Birkeland showed the mainstream how to do this right over 100 years ago, based on only the science that was available to him at that time.  Even 100 years later these guys can't produce something similar that is based on 'magnetic reconnection"?  Come on!</p><p>FYI none of you really addressed the problems that Dr. Scott pointed out.  How many electrical engineers do you know that believe in "magnetic reconnection"? </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>

DrRocket · Jun 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I never said anything about doing this "without" a magnetic field.  That was your strawman.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">And you never said anything about doing it with a magnetic field.  That was my QUESTION, which you studiously avoided answering.  </font> </p><p> The more turns in the coil, the greater the amount of wire, and the more electrons you can stuff into the wire.  It's a volume issue.Not until the electrons in the primary coil stop moving.  </p><p><font color="#0000ff"> They stop moving as soon as the circuit is opened.  If you think it is a volume issue, then take Maxwell's equations and demonstrate where volume plays a roll.</font></p><p> 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.  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. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">This statement is utterly false and is directly contradicted by Maxwell's equations.  It is the variation in time of the magnetic field, not the field itself that induces current in the secondary.  A very large, but constant, magnetic field in the primary produces no responses whatever in the secondary.  That is why transformers work with AC current but not with DC current.</font></p><p> </p><p> Electrons in = electrons out - a few that are lost to 'heat'.  </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Electrons are not lost to heat.  It is simply electrons in = electrons out of a single circuit.  Which has little to do with the discussion at hand.</font> </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.  His beliefs essentially represent the mainstream's postion.  It is the issue. There is no evasion since this is the core issue of the debate.  Plasma is not "frozen".  It's not a solid.  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.  </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Magnetic fields, in a vacuum, are proportional to the current that generates them, i.e. charge times velocity  and not charge times velocity squared, which would be the case if it were kinetic energy that governed.  You really do need to study a bit of electrodynamics.  You have the physics a bit muddled. </font></p><p> No I'm not!  I'm not trying to cut and splice magnetic field lines!  He's not clueless about the math, but he blatently admits he's clueless about the physics of what's happening.  He gets the math to a degree, but he's completely ignorant of the physics.  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!  </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">The only person who has brought up a notion of cutting splicing magnetic field lines is you. All that I have heard the astrophysicists talk about is a change in the vector field that is the B field.  That change in the field is precisely what causes the voltage spike in old automobile ignition systems.  The change that they discuss when talking about reconnection is a bit more complicated, topologically, that what one sees when the field generated by current flow through a coil collapses, but seems to me no more mysterious.  When a magnetic field changes in time it creates an E-field and that will affect charged particles in a plasma, as wil the magnetic field directly through the Lorentz force if the particles are moving.  Since a plasma is nothing more than mobile charged particles, it will be affected by both fields.  The astrophysicists understand this quite well.  So did Alfven.</font></p><p> </p><p>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><font color="#0000ff">First off there is no such thing as "electrical theory" distinct from electrodynamics and Maxwell's equations.  Even ordinary circuit theory is derivable as an approximation from electrodynamics.  Second, any reasonably advanced electrodynamics, say Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics or Electrodynamics of Continuous Media by Landau and Liflshitz will discuss plasmas.  They even talk a bit about the approximations relevant to "frozen" field lines.  Neither Jackson nor Landau are naive regarding plasmas and Maxwell's equations.</font> </p><p>What?  Tusenfem noted this same thing, as did Don Scott in the paper I handed you eariler.  It's a basic tenet of electrical theory.  The "word salad" part came when tusenfem blighly handwaved away that tenet and claimed they "reconnect" anyway!  That's the word salad!   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!  They don't grok the physics behind the reconnection process </p><p><font color="#0000ff">The articles that I have seen regarding reconnection acknowledge the role played by currents in the plasma.  I think they grok the physics pretty well.</font></p><p>DrRocket. No they are not!  Where does Maxwell's set of equations allow you to cut and splice magnetic field lines?</p><p> <font color="#0000ff">You are the only one talking about cutting and splicing magnetic field lines.  </font></p><p>The word salad is coming from astrophysicists, not electrical engineers.  Alfven understood electrical theory.  He understood that magnetic "lines" were simply a human construct, not a physical thing.   Alfven was a *huge* critic of the idea of 'magnetic reconnection' in "frozen" plasma.  In fact he noted that when you combine the two idea together in plasma, it's pure pseudoscience.   The mainstream is not working with Maxwell's equations, or Alfven's MHD equations.  They're simply cludging both concepts, ignoring dE/dt entirely and trying to justify this silliness with computer models rather than emprical tests. </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">I don't know wherre this is coming from.  Is this part of your conspiricay theory?  As far as I can see the notions being discussed come directly from Maxswell's equations, and it is those equations that being solved to generate the computer simulations that you disparage.  Computer models are far more powerful than empirical "looks like" demonstrations from a laboratory, particularly when the basic theory has been verified in the laboratory itself.</font></p><p>It's not fooling anyone.  </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Apparently someone is fooling the hell out of you.</font> </p><p>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. 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</p><p><font color="#0000ff">It is completely possible to be both neutral and current-carrying.  Take any copper wire for instance.  It is in fact quite difficult, not impossible but difficult, to create a significant and long lasting charge separation.  This is precisely because, as you are fond of noting, the electromagnetic forces are quite strong.</font> </p><p>, namely they are missing the electrons that drive the process. 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.  </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Whyever would you conclude that?  It is in fact relatively difficult to heat a highly conductive substance by ohmic heating.  It is however, quite easy to increase the temperature of a gas by compressing it.  Now plasmas are both gaseous and highly conductive.  As such they can be compressed by magneteic fields.  </font></p><p>Why would you choose *not* to accept that paper I handed you earlier about the return currents in coronal loop activity?The information to verify these are electrical discharges is sitting right there in the public domain.  We observe million degree loops in the solar atmosphere that look remarkably like the discharge loops in Birkeland's solar model.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">"Looks like" is the height of pseudo-science.  If you want to be taken seriously, start with Maxwell's equations and show how your conlcusions follow from them.</font> </p><p>   We see x-rays and gamma-rays from these coronal loops.  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.  We see that Charles Bruce already established a connection between these high energy events and electrical discharges.  There's no mystery about these types of high energy events.  They simply involved the flow of electrons.  The only "mystery" is why the mainstream would ignore that flow of electrons in favor of a something Alfven called pseudoscience. </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">No one is ignoring the flow of either electrons or ions.  Quite the opposite.  Why are you so focused on only the electrons ></font></p><p><br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 19, 2008

<p>Evidently the majority of the cirriculum in astronomy today is centered on gravity theory and/or Lambda-CDM theory.  Few if any astronmers have electrical engineering degrees, or much grasp of MHD theory.  Even after school, there is typically a great deal of specializing that goes on within the industry and few if any of the profressional astromomers I've met really had any knowleldge of Alfven or his theories beyond just a cursory knowledge of the topic.  I've yet to meet a single one that had his book Cosmic Plasma. </p><p>Almost every paper I have read on "magnetic reconnection" is purely "point and compute".   All the emprical testing I've seen done to date took place inside of a current sheet.  There is no need to resort to any new forms of "reconnection" inside of a plasma sheet.  Alfven already identified these types of kinetic and electrical reconnection processes. </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 · Jun 19, 2008

<p>FYI, I'll probably split my response to that last post.</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">And you never said anything about doing it with a magnetic field.  That was my QUESTION, which you studiously avoided answering.   </font></DIV></p><p>No, I've spent quite a bit of time answering your question and you've spent quite a bit of time twisting my words as well.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff"> They stop moving as soon as the circuit is opened. </DIV></font></p><p>No, they do not.  There is kinetic energy in the flowing electrons that ultmately ends up in second winding.  They don't stop moving immediately.  The fact they do stop is what causes the magnetic field to collapse ultimately, but it's not instantaneous in terms of electron speeds. </p><p><font color="#0000ff"> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you think it is a volume issue, then take Maxwell's equations and demonstrate where volume plays a roll.</DIV></font></p><p>I will admit that was probably not the best way for me to have phrased that statement.  The "volume" in that case had to do with the volume of electrons flowing in the windings, not the volume of the wire. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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.  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. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">This statement is utterly false and is directly contradicted by Maxwell's equations.  It is the variation in time of the magnetic field, not the field itself that induces current in the secondary.  A very large, but constant, magnetic field in the primary produces no responses whatever in the secondary.  That is why transformers work with AC current but not with DC current. </DIV></font></p><p>Well, this one was your own strawman and you sidestepped my main point.  If you put that coil together and don't put any electrons through any coil at all, it will never produce a spark.  Never!  The only way to get a spark out of it is to add electrons to it.  You will in fact have to break the connection to get it "spark", but without electricity to power up the coil in the first place, nothing is going to happen.  The only reason this works at all is because you *stored* electron energy in the coil and you released it.  If you don't ever hook up the primary coil to a power source, it's never going to spark.  It's all about the flow of electrons, and kinetic energy produced by that flow.  The magnetic field strength breaks down *as you remove power* from the primary coil, and this in turn induces movement in the secondary coil.  Without current, to power the event, nothing is going to ever happen at the spark end. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Electrons are not lost to heat. </DIV></font></p><p>Electrons do collide in plasma and some energy is lost to heat.  That is true in any conductor. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">Magnetic fields, in a vacuum, are proportional to the current that generates them, i.e. charge times velocity  and not charge times velocity squared, which would be the case if it were kinetic energy that governed.</DIV></font></p><p>Er, how do you figure it would be different if kinetic energy governed?  You'll have to explain that one.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <font color="#0000ff">The only person who has brought up a notion of cutting splicing magnetic field lines is you. </DIV></font></p><p>No, not me, tusenfem.  I simply quoted him, including the nifty little drawing he made.  They are talking about cutting and splicing the field lines DrRocket. That's exactly what they're claiming.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All that I have heard the astrophysicists talk about is a change in the vector field that is the B field.</DIV></font></p><p>And they keep leaving dE/dt out of the discussion!</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> That change in the field is precisely what causes the voltage spike in old automobile ignition systems. </DIV></font></p><p>Yes, and that "change" is produced by altering the current flow!</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The change that they discuss when talking about reconnection is a bit more complicated, topologically,</DIV></font></p><p>It's not only more "complicated", it's down right "undefined" on a physical level.  What is the exact energy release process that is unique to magnetic reconnection?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that what one sees when the field generated by current flow through a coil collapses, but seems to me no more mysterious. </DIV></font></p><p>It's so "mysterious" that Alfven rejected it outright.  Why is that?  Why wasn't Alfven a big proponent of "magnetic reconnection' then DrRocket?  What did he miss that tusenfem didn't?  Tusenfen can't even describe the physicsl processes, so far all he knows it's exactly as Alfven described it!</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When a magnetic field changes in time it creates an E-field and that will affect charged particles in a plasma, as wil the magnetic field directly through the Lorentz force if the particles are moving.  Since a plasma is nothing more than mobile charged particles, it will be affected by both fields.  The astrophysicists understand this quite well.  So did Alfven.</font> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Well, on this last point we both seem to agree.  Plasma definitely will be affected by both forces, but if you set one side of the equation to zero (i.e. ingore the current flow entirely), you'll never understand what's really going on in plasma.  Alfven noted that it was often useful to treat current flow as a "curl" of the magnetic field, but that there were times where you had to explicitiy look at the role of the particle physics side of what is going on.  Tusenfum (and all MR proponents) do not understand the physical side of what's happening and they usually freely admit it.</p><p>The only "tests" done on magnetic reconnection were done inside of a current sheet and Alfven specifically described those interactions in terms of particle physics and electrical interactions, not "magnetic reconnection".  He trashed the whole idea of magnetic reconnection and the whole notion of treating light plasma as 'frozen'.   Nobody seems willing to address that issue, or show emprically where Alfven made any mistakes.  Why is that?</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>

michaelmozina · Jun 19, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The word salad is coming from astrophysicists, not electrical engineers.  Alfven understood electrical theory.  He understood that magnetic "lines" were simply a human construct, not a physical thing.   Alfven was a *huge* critic of the idea of 'magnetic reconnection' in "frozen" plasma.  In fact he noted that when you combine the two idea together in plasma, it's pure pseudoscience.   The mainstream is not working with Maxwell's equations, or Alfven's MHD equations.  They're simply cludging both concepts, ignoring dE/dt entirely and trying to justify this silliness with computer models rather than emprical tests. </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">I don't know wherre this is coming from.  Is this part of your conspiricay theory? </DIV></font></p><p>No, other individuals like Dr. Don Scott have noted it too.  It's an industry specific problem.  I don't hear elecrtical engineers talking about "magnetic reconnection".</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As far as I can see the notions being discussed come directly from Maxswell's equations, and it is those equations that being solved to generate the computer simulations that you disparage. </DIV></font></p><p>Show me where his equations gain energy by having magnetic field lines "reconnect"?</p><p><font color="#0000ff"> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Computer models are far more powerful than empirical "looks like" demonstrations from a laboratory, particularly when the basic theory has been verified in the laboratory itself.</DIV></font></p><p>Well, they can be used or abused, depending on how you write the software.  Put garbage in and you get garbage out, just like every other software package.  In the real world magnetic lines don't "reconnect".  I'm sure a clever programmer can design a virtual world where they do, but in reality they don't actually reconnect.  As long as you tell a software program that they do, I'm sure it will "simulate" whatever you tell it to simulate, but that is *not* an emprical test.</p><p>The theory of "magnetic reconnection" has *not* been verified in a lab.  The only emprical "tests" of this idea specifically took place inside of a current sheet!  Alfven already defined these kinetic and electrical interactions, and it has nothing to do with "magnetic reconnection"!  There are no "tests" of this field line splicing idea that are in any way any different from ordinary electircal and kinetic energy releases in plasma.  It's utterly aggraving to suggest these ideas were "tested". They certainly have not been "tested".  WIKI claims this process can take place *without* a current sheet.  When was that done?  Alfven specifically rejected any magnetic reconnection theory that had any current flow or "curl" in the magnetic lingo.  All of the point and compute papers involve areas of space that have massive amounts of moving particles flowing though all the possible surfaces, so none of those papers deserves any attention according to Alfven.  None of that point and compute papers have a shred of emprical support.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is completely possible to be both neutral and current-carrying.  Take any copper wire for instance.  It is in fact quite difficult, not impossible but difficult, to create a significant and long lasting charge separation.  This is precisely because, as you are fond of noting, the electromagnetic forces are quite strong.</font> </DIV></p><p>You're dancing around the point.  If we had to look at a copper wire from a distance, and we observed that it's field strength increased and decreased, that is not evidence that "magnetic reconnection" is responsible for the energy transfer process that is going on inside the wire!  That's the whole point in a nutshell. The astronomers see the magnetic fields around coronal loops, but they refuse to acknowledge the current that creates that field!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">Whyever would you conclude that? </DIV></font></p><p>Because it's been done.  It happens all the time in nature too!</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is in fact relatively difficult to heat a highly conductive substance by ohmic heating.</DIV></font></p><p>Yet lightening heats plasma to very high temperatures here on Earth thousands of times a day.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is however, quite easy to increase the temperature of a gas by compressing it.</DIV></font></p><p>Now might that happen in light plasma like we find in the corona?  You expect to heat plasma to millions of degrees simply by compressing it?</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now plasmas are both gaseous and highly conductive.  As such they can be compressed by magneteic fields. </DIV></font></p><p>For hours on end?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why would you choose *not* to accept that paper I handed you earlier about the return currents in coronal loop activity?The information to verify these are electrical discharges is sitting right there in the public domain.  We observe million degree loops in the solar atmosphere that look remarkably like the discharge loops in Birkeland's solar model.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">"Looks like" is the height of pseudo-science.  If you want to be taken seriously, start with Maxwell's equations and show how your conlcusions follow from them.</font> </DIV></p><p>I assume from this response that you never actually read the paper I cited?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> We see x-rays and gamma-rays from these coronal loops.  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.  We see that Charles Bruce already established a connection between these high energy events and electrical discharges.  There's no mystery about these types of high energy events.  They simply involved the flow of electrons.  The only "mystery" is why the mainstream would ignore that flow of electrons in favor of a something Alfven called pseudoscience. </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">No one is ignoring the flow of either electrons or ions.  Quite the opposite.  Why are you so focused on only the electrons ></DIV></font></p><p>Technically any flow of charged particles is "current flow", so I'm not talking about just electrons.  There are however electrons involved in heating plasma to millions of degrees.  That is the point that the mainstream refuses to acknowledge, and that is why everything remains a "mystery" to them. </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 · Jun 19, 2008

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> We see x-rays and gamma-rays from these coronal loops.  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.  We see that Charles Bruce already established a connection between these high energy events and electrical discharges.  There's no mystery about these types of high energy events.  They simply involved the flow of electrons.  The only "mystery" is why the mainstream would ignore that flow of electrons in favor of a something Alfven called pseudoscience. <p> <font color="#0000ff">No one is ignoring the flow of either electrons or ions.  Quite the opposite.  Why are you so focused on only the electrons ></DIV></font></p><p>As an EU advocate, I can only see this response as a galactic sized rationalization.  It reminds me about that line from The Big Chill where the guy says "Rationalizations are more important that sex.  You can go for days without sex, but just try going a whole day without one juicy rationalization."</p><p>There is only one known force of nature that has been demonstrated to produce the following in the conditions of the corona:</p><p>A) Heat light plasma to millions of degrees.</p><p>B) Emit x-rays in light plasma.</p><p>C) Form stable filamentary shapes tha remain stable over extended periods of time. </p><p>D) Emit gamma rays</p><p>E) Pinch free neutrons from light plasma.</p><p>All of these things have been observed in the corona.  No amount of "pressure" is going to do that.  No amount of "non thermal equalibrium' is going to account for it either.  No amount of "magnetc reconnection" has ever done any of these things.</p><p>We know that electrical discharges occur on planets and that the larger the planet, the more powerful the discharges.  We know these occur in nature all the time.  We know that Bruce showed a speed propogation correlation between solar atmospheric events and electrical discharges.  The only way you can ignore this stuff is to rationalize it away as though it is uniportant for some reason, but in science, every clue is important, every observation is important.</p><p>We point Rhessi at the atmosphere of Earth and we see gamma rays from discharges in the atmosphere.  We see gamma discharges in the solar atmosphere and we say "I don't know".  Come on. This is a giant rationalization from where I sit.  The foot dragging is specifically related to the fact that the mainstream does not wish to acknowledge that flow of current that drives these million degree solar discharge events.   The only logical "energy source" is "current flow". The only physically impossible energy source is "magnetic reconnection" because that's never been shown to exist outside of a current sheet and normal physics explains current sheet interactions *without* magnetic reconnection.</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>

michaelmozina · Jun 19, 2008

Looking at your coil from a magnetic field perspective, the only "stored" energy in the magnetic field is in the form of kinetic electron flow.  The moment you turn off the flow of electrons, the magnetic field begins to collapse and that change in the field produces the flow in the other coil.   That stored energy is released to the other coil.   The whole process is still electrically driven, from beginning to end.  The only reason the field exists in the first place is because of the flow of electrons, and the reason it collapses is because we turned off that same flow.  There is no magnetic field without the kinetic flow of charged particles, and thus there is no "stored" energy in the magnetic field without electron flow. <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 · Jun 19, 2008

Magnetic fields, in a vacuum, are proportional to the current that generates them, i.e. charge times velocity  and not charge times velocity squared, which would be the case if it were kinetic energy that governed.</font></div><p> </p><p>Er, how do you figure it would be different if kinetic energy governed?  You'll have to explain that one

</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Classically kinetic energy of a particle is 1/2 mv^2, current is just a flow of charges and is charge density times velocity, a linear function of velocitiy.  The magnetic field is determined by current, in a solenoid it is in terms of amp-turns for instance.  Hence the magnetic field strength is a linear function of velocity and not proportional to the square of charge velocity as would be the case if it were governed by kinetic energy.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Click to expand...

michaelmozina · Jun 20, 2008

<p>The spark from a coil is ultimately an induction driven process, and induction processes are well understood and well described in MHD theory.   It's a bit ironic for you to be comparing "magnetic reconnection" to a purely induction driven process (because it is actually just induction and electrical flow in the final analysis).  It is also a bit amusing from my perspective because the "release" of energy that you believe is stored in the magnetic field is released in the form of high energy electron flow.    You cannot actually escape the electron flow, either as a power source that made it work in the first place, or it's release of energy in the form of electrical current.  Electromagnetic interactions are not simply "magnetic" events.  </p><p>There must be a huge current flow that drives the multimillion degree coronal loop events, and it's not a one time induction driven process because coronal loops can persist for hours on end.  There really aren't any "coils" in light plasma, other than the Birkeland currents that form as a result of the current flows within plasma.  The strength of the magnetic field is directly related to the amount of current running through it.  The whole thing is an electromagnetic process, but it's impossible to explain it purely in terms of "magnetism".  You'll need to discuss the current in those loops to understand them. </p><p>You really should sit down and read that article on coronal loops that I posted here a few days ago.  It's a good paper and it's a step in the right direction.   Of course Alfven was way ahead of them, and Birkeland was too, but hey, at least it's movement in the right direction.  They don't seem to be "mystified' by the process. </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 · Jun 20, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... Electromagnetic interactions are not simply "magnetic" events.  ...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p><img class="tex" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/8/2/f8254d80dd83f4ab12187af1a2d6b450.png" alt=" abla cdot mathbf{E} = rac { ho} {epsilon_0}" /></p><p> <img style="width:85px;height:16px" 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} = -rac{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 rac{partial mathbf{E}} {partial t} " /></p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

derekmcd · Jun 20, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course Alfven was way ahead of them, and Birkeland was too, but hey, at least it's movement in the right direction.  They don't seem to be "mystified' by the process. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Why do you always cite Alfven as the final authority on all things involving plasma physics?  I understand he deserved the Nobel for his work with MHD and that work had a major impact, but that doesn't mean that everything he subsequently discusses is automatically correct.</p><p>Einstein earned a Nobel for the photoelectric effect which was one of the founding fundamentals of quantum theory, but he certainly wasn't the final authority on quantum mechanics.   Weren't his interpretations wrong?  Same with his field equations for General Relativity.  That he wrote them didn't make him the final authority on cosmological models... wasn't he wrong there, too?  Nothing wrong with elevating these guys to idolic like status symbols, but there is certainly a limit to which their credit is deserved.</p><p>These guys aren't infallible.  Despite the impact they had in their particular fields, the theories thrive and grow on the work of many individuals working together striving towards a consensus.  That the originator of the theory doesn't agree with the direction the theory develops doesn't invalidate it.</p><p>You also mentioned Peratt as a another plasma physicist that doesn't agree with reconnection.  Well, gee... wouldn't that be obvious considering he was an understudy of Alfven?  And why, exactly, would Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma" be required reading for astrophysicists?  Just because it might be considered a seminal writing of his doesn't make it required reading. </p><p>Also, I think criticizing astronomers for not being well versed in plasma physics is a bit unfair.  No single person can be that well versed on everything.  That's when they rely on the resource of the community in which the direction of their focus takes them.  Electrical engineers are not the final authority on plasma physics just as plasma physicists are not the final authority on stellar evolution.  They all have to work together rely on each others strengths.  None, by themselves, will get very far when trying to figure out the big picture.  Relying on the work of one person seems to be a rather narrow approach in today's age with the wealth of knowledge that is accessible.</p><p>Just my opinion. </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 · Jun 20, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Classically kinetic energy of a particle is 1/2 mv^2, current is just a flow of charges and is charge density times velocity, a linear function of velocitiy.  The magnetic field is determined by current, in a solenoid it is in terms of amp-turns for instance.  Hence the magnetic field strength is a linear function of velocity and not proportional to the square of charge velocity as would be the case if it were governed by kinetic energy. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I wasn't trying to suggest that the magnetic field was directly related to the kinetic energy of the electron flow.  I was just trying to point out that there is a direct correlation between the movement of the charged particles and the strength of the  magnetic field.   The flowing nature of these particles is not taken into account in any "frozen" plasma concepts, and therefore such concepts are inapplicable in any event that involves the flow of electrons or charged ions for that matter.  The "reconnection" process inside of a current sheet is kinetic and electrical in nature, it is not "magnetic".  Magnetic fields do not make and break "lines' and thereby release energy.    Contrary to WiKI's claim, there cannot be any sort of 'reconnection" without a current sheet.  One cannot ignore the electron flow in these processes.  As long as the mainstream refuses to consider the obvious solution (electricity) they will never figure it out. </p><p>Plasma is never "frozen".  It typically requires extreme temperatures and it has kinetic component to it, like any ordinary gas.  Unlike any ordinary gas, it contains so much energy that electrons and protons and other ions flow freely.  There is kinetic pressure in all hot plasma, particularly plasma that is millions of degrees.  Treating plasma as "frozen", and ignoring dE/dt can only lead to erroneous results anytime that electrical current is present. There is nothing extraordinary about the "reconnection" process inside of a current sheet.  The reconnections are kinetic and electrical in nature however, not "magnetic".  The topography of the magnetic lines can change as the current flow inside the plasma threads changes, but the reconnection process is electrically driven, and so is the magnetic field strength.  The whole concept of "magnetic reconnection" is flawed.  It is flawed because MHD theory already explains such reconnection processes, and does so *without* any sort of "magnetic" reconnection. </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 · Jun 20, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why do you always cite Alfven as the final authority on all things involving plasma physics? </DIV></p><p>He wrote the theory.  I assume he understands it.  I've never met an astronomer that has even read Cosmic Plasma so I have zero confidence that every astronomer even begins to undestand MHD theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I understand he deserved the Nobel for his work with MHD and that work had a major impact, but that doesn't mean that everything he subsequently discusses is automatically correct.</DIV></p><p>If he is wrong, then it is up to someone to emprically demonstrate that he was wrong.  That has never happened.  He called "magnetic reconnection" "pseudoscience, and I see no evidence to the contrary. Every controlled "test" of the idea involved a current sheet and Alfven already explained these "reconnections" in terms of plasma physics and electrical theory.  He's never been proven wrong.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Einstein earned a Nobel for the photoelectric effect which was one of the founding fundamentals of quantum theory, but he certainly wasn't the final authority on quantum mechanics.   Weren't his interpretations wrong? </DIV></p><p>Which ones?  Would you have automatically assumed he was wrong about GR theory if you had no emprical evidence to support your claim?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Same with his field equations for General Relativity.  That he wrote them didn't make him the final authority on cosmological models... wasn't he wrong there, too?</DIV></p><p>No, I don't think so.  I don't think current cosmological models have anything at all to do with GR, gravity or Einsteins' theories.  I think he knew a lot more about his core gravity theory than current astronomers.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nothing wrong with elevating these guys to idolic like status symbols, but there is certainly a limit to which their credit is deserved.</DIV></p><p>The problem is that the mainstream astronomers haven't even properly studied his work before pronouncing themselves "experts" in the field.   Alfven was a recognized expert in MHD theory, whereas tusenfem is some sort of legend in his own mind.  Someone has to be the authority on a topic of MHD theory, and I guarantee you it isn't mainstream astronomers.  They're peddling pseudoscience according to Alfven.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>These guys aren't infallible. </DIV></p><p>Of course not. Then again I have no logical reason to *assume* he was wrong about anything related to MHD theory until I see emprical evidence to support it.  Thus far all I've seen are some current sheet experiments, computer models of things that don't really happen in nature, a lot of handwaving, an not one single physical explaination about what is physically unique about the energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection'. The so called "experts' on this topic can't even identify the unique physical energy release mechanism that is unique to magnetic reconnection.  Why should I believe astronomers are infallible on MHD theory?  </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Despite the impact they had in their particular fields, the theories thrive and grow on the work of many individuals working together striving towards a consensus.</DIV></p><p>Appeals to popularity are somehow better than appeals to authority now?

  Some things *require* empirical testing.  This one does.  It's never been shown that there is anything unique about the energy releases of a current sheet.  The are in no way related to "magnetic reconnection' according to Alfven.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That the originator of the theory doesn't agree with the direction the theory develops doesn't invalidate it.</DIV></p><p>And likewise the newbies that fancy themselves as smarter than Alfven don't invalidate his theories.  Someone needs to emprically demonstrate their case to demonstrate he was wrong.  That has never occured.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You also mentioned Peratt as a another plasma physicist that doesn't agree with reconnection.  Well, gee... wouldn't that be obvious considering he was an understudy of Alfven?</DIV></p><p>I have confidence that Peratt fully understands MHD theory, as does Los Alamos.  I have no confidence that astronomers understand even the physical processes that MHD theory relates to.  Most of them seem utterly oblivious to the electrical aspects of MHD theory.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And why, exactly, would Alfven's "Cosmic Plasma" be required reading for astrophysicists?  Just because it might be considered a seminal writing of his doesn't make it required reading.</DIV></p><p>Ignorance is free and cost's nothing in terms of time or effort.  It's free *and* easy.  Education takes time, money and effort.  Most people who want to understand a topic go to the source.  I always start at the source.  If they haven't read that book, then I know they have no clue what he really believes.  By the time he'd written this book, he had already begun to deal with all of these same misconceptions and he spelled out these misconceptions very clearly.  Most astronomers fall into these same pitflalls because they never bothered to education themselves from the source. IMO if you fancy yourself an expert in MHD thoery, you *should* have that book in your collection and you should refer to it often.  Peratt has actually written an easier to follow book, but if you think Cosmic Plasma is expensive, you don't even want to think about Peratt's book.   </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Also, I think criticizing astronomers for not being well versed in plasma physics is a bit unfair.</DIV></p><p>How can it be "unfair" if 99% of the universe is "plasma"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No single person can be that well versed on everything. </DIV></p><p>The best scientists usually have a rounded education.  If you expect to be an expert on Cosmology, you should know something about plasma physics and electrical theory. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's when they rely on the resource of the community in which the direction of their focus takes them. </DIV></p><p>Yes, but now they're relying on the word of folks like tusenfem for their information and that scares the heck of me.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Electrical engineers are not the final authority on plasma physics just as plasma physicists are not the final authority on stellar evolution.</DIV></p><p>MHD theory was written by a electrical engineer, so the final authority of plasma physics was in fact an electrical engineer.  I'd say the best living "expert" on the topic today is Peratt, but I think his backgound is actually "plasma physics", since it existed by the time he met Alfven, and it he studied it from Alfven.  </p><p>Keep in mind that only reason I pointed you toward electrical engineers is because you tried to suggest that plasma physicists were somehow 99% in the camp of "magnetic reconnection", and I pointed out that not all of them have faith in that concept and other related fields of science also lack belief in that idea.  </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They all have to work together rely on each others strengths. </DIV></p><p>Yes, but while tusenfem seems to feel "strong" in MHD theory (so much that he fancies himself as smarter than Alfven), a mere amatuer like myself can pick his arguments apart in an instant.  You're ultimately relying on someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about, at least in this case.  I've never seen *anyone* in *any field* create a "magnetic reconnection" reaction.  All I've ever seen are current sheet reconnection events that have nothing whatesoever to do with magnetic reconnection.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>None, by themselves, will get very far when trying to figure out the big picture.  Relying on the work of one person seems to be a rather narrow approach in today's age with the wealth of knowledge that is accessible.Just my opinion.  <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Here is where I think you're dead wrong.  IMO Birkeland got much further by himself than the mainstream has done in the 100 years that have followed.  Alfven understood even more than Birkeland, but he was *way* ahead of the mainstream today.  The so called 'experts' in MHD theory today are few and far between, and most of them don't have a clue what they're talking about IMO.  Every time I've had a conversation with someone who believes in magnetic reconnection I begin by asking them what is the physical energy release process that is unique to "magnetic reconnection".  Never once have I gotten a straight answer.</p><p>I'll take Birkeland by himself over any team of so called "experts", because Birkeland understood the value of in-situ measurements and most importantly *emprical testing*.  Somewhere along the line, astronomers stopped doing the empirical testing, and starting relying upon computers to do their "testing".  That isn't a "test", that is a lazy approach to science.</p><p>I remind you again that Birkeland showed the correlation between aurora and electrical currents over 100 years ago.  To date, not one single hotshot at Princeton has ever shown an emprical correlation between "magnetic reconnection" and the aurora, though they make that claim on their website.  That's a very lazy approach to science and all their experts are not equal to one Birkeland or one Alfven IMO.   They may *think* there is some link between magnetic reconnection and aurora, but none of them have ever demonstrated this claim, while Birkeland demonstrated his claims emprically, all by himself.  That counts for a lot in my book. </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 · Jun 20, 2008

<p>The major problem with "group think' is that it's far too easy to "go with the flow", and far too dangerous to be a rouge thinker.  Just look at Arp.  All you have to do is question authority and all your toys get taken away, and the mainstream publications begin to shun your work.</p><p>IMO this reliance upon others to be an "expert" is only making things worse.  If enough people tell me that "magnetic reconnection happens", and I never studied MHD theory, I miight just start to believe them.  If I study MHD theory for myselff however, I may decide that Alfven knew what he was talking about and I might not have any faith in the idea, even if people tell me contradictory things.  Without a solid education free from peer pressure, it's hard to figure out who's telling me the truth, and who's lying to my face.  With MHD theory one really needs a decent education from a true "expert" in the field.  IMO that would be Alfven or Peratt, and certainly  *not* tusenfem or any of the other so called "experts"" that peddle "frozen fields" and "magnetic reconnection" theories.   </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>

DrRocket · Jun 20, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The major problem with "group think' is that it's far too easy to "go with the flow", and far too dangerous to be a rouge thinker.  Just look at Arp.  All you have to do is question authority and all your toys get taken away, and the mainstream publications begin to shun your work.IMO this reliance upon others to be an "expert" is only making things worse.  If enough people tell me that "magnetic reconnection happens", and I never studied MHD theory, I miight just start to believe them.  If I study MHD theory for myselff however, I may decide that Alfven knew what he was talking about and I might not have any faith in the idea, even if people tell me contradictory things.  Without a solid education free from peer pressure, it's hard to figure out who's telling me the truth, and who's lying to my face.  With MHD theory one really needs a decent education from a true "expert" in the field.  IMO that would be Alfven or Peratt, and certainly  *not* tusenfem or any of the other so called "experts"" that peddle "frozen fields" and "magnetic reconnection" theories.     <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Astrophysicists are physicists.  Every physicists takes a class in electrodynamics.  If you look a typical textbooks for a graduate-level electrodynamcis class, for instance Jackson's <em>Classical Electrodynamics </em>or Landau and Lifshitz <em>Electrodynamics of Continuous Media</em> you will find a discussion of MHD.  You will even find Alfven mentioned when the approximations that result in the frozen magnetic fields are discussed.  This has absolutely nothing to do with freezing of plasma, which everybody understands is an ionized gas.  It has to do with dB/dt.</p><p>Now, I will admit that I have some serious questions about the approximations that result in the conclusion that dB/dt is effectively zero.  But I understand the nature of those questions and I understand the conditions that would have to be met in terms of spatial variatioin of the B field for the approximations to be valid.  I just don't yet understand why those conditions on the spatial variation are in fact satisfied, or if they are.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 20, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Astrophysicists are physicists.  Every physicists takes a class in electrodynamics.  If you look a typical textbooks for a graduate-level electrodynamcis class, for instance Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics or Landau and Lifshitz Electrodynamics of Continuous Media you will find a discussion of MHD.  You will even find Alfven mentioned when the approximations that result in the frozen magnetic fields are discussed.  This has absolutely nothing to do with freezing of plasma, which everybody understands is an ionized gas.  It has to do with dB/dt.Now, I will admit that I have some serious questions about the approximations that result in the conclusion that dB/dt is effectively zero.  But I understand the nature of those questions and I understand the conditions that would have to be met in terms of spatial variatioin of the B field for the approximations to be valid.  I just don't yet understand why those conditions on the spatial variation are in fact satisfied, or if they are. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>dB/dt will not be zero if dE/dt is not zero.   By ignoring dE/dt, tusenfem is attempting to justify a zero dB/dt, but in current carrying plasma that is only true if no current changes occur.  The current magnetic field strength of a coronal loop is based upon the movement of particles inside the plasma.  One can't ignore the physics of what's happening in the plasma and somehow comprehend the "big picture" of how it all works.  Alfven understood the "big picture" because he understood the physics of a current sheet.  Obviously that is not true of everyone that fancies themselves to be more knowledgeable on MHD theory than Alfven.</p><p>I'd say the cirrucullum needs to include more semesters of MHD theory, and it needs to add some electrical theory as well.  The gravity classes should IMO end where Einstein left them, and anything related to Lambda-CDM theory should be dropped entirely.   Cosmic Plasma should definitely be required reading, as should some undestsanding of Birkeland and Alfven's approach toward emprical (tested) science. </p><p>IMO these magnetic reconnection theories are "bush league" mistakes that could easily be elimintated by adding Cosmic Plasma to the cirrruculum.  Whatever they're being exposed to at the moment is not emprical plasma physics, but rather a cludged (and rather physically ignorant) brand of MHD theory that doesn't exist in reality.  In reality, plasma is never frozen.  dB/dt is never zero because dE/dt is never zero.    Coronal loops "reconnect" because they are electrically active and kinetically active Birkeland currents.  There's no mystery of what's going on inside those million degree plasma loops.  They work just like the threads of an ordinary plasma ball, only they are scaled to size by the massive amounts of current that flows through them.</p><p>As long as the mainstream keeps trying to oversimply everying to a "magnetic event", it will never understand the simple things, the kinds of things that Birkeland explained over 100 years ago.  Coronal loops were a logical "prediction" of his model.  He simulated them in his experiments, along with the cathode rays we observe flowing from the sun.   Why are all the astrophysicists of today struggling with something that Kristian Birkeland explained and simulated in controlled experimentation over 100 years ago?   I can only assume they are blissfully ignorant of the bulk of Birkeland's work and the bulk of Alfven's work as well.  I know they are all highly intelligent individuals so it has to be a problem in their educational process because these are not mysterious events to anyone who really understands plasma 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>

DrRocket · Jun 20, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>dB/dt will not be zero if dE/dt is not zero.  </p><p><font color="#0000ff">No, db/dt is non-zero precisely when E is curl free.  See the third of  Maxwell's equations.</font> </p><p>Edit:  Should be:  <font color="#0000ff">No, db/dt is zero precisely when E is curl free.  See the third of Maxwell's equation.</font></p><p>...  Obviously that is not true of everyone that fancies themselves to be more knowledgeable on MHD theory than Alfven.I'd say the cirrucullum needs to include more semesters of MHD theory, and it needs to add some electrical theory as well.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Exactly what, in your opinion, is "electrical theory"?</font> </p><p> In reality, plasma is never frozen. </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">No one, other than you, has ever mentioned the possibility of frozen plasma.  Plasma is most certainly not a solid.  In particular the surface of the sun is not a solid either, it is a plasma.</font></p><p> dB/dt is never zero because dE/dt is never zero.   </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Go look at Maxwell's third equation again.</font></p><p> ... IPosted by michaelmozina</DIV></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 23, 2008

<p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3045</p><p>This is another new paper that demonstrates all the magic things that astronomers are now trying to pin on "magnetic reconnection".   Evidently everything that is actually an electrical process is going to called "magnetic reconnection.  This one is rather outrageous too. Here we have "beams", almost identical to the cathode rays that Birkeland created in his lab being chalked up to "magnetic reconnection". </p><p> </p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We believe that the initial jet event evolved into a plume due to significant emerging magnetic flux causing a catastrophic <strong>magnetic reconnection on a relatively short time scale but over a large spatial area.</strong> This may allow dissipation of the magnetic energy budget of the structure over a short period of time with an associated ejection of a significant amount of material over a relative large spatial scale, unlike other jet-plume events that develop over intervals of several hours.</DIV></p><p>Come on!  This cathode ray was also "predicted" by Birkeland over 100 years ago.  It's not caused by "magnetic reconnection", it's a cathode ray!</p><p>Why must astronomers tap dance around the only logical and only emprically "proven" explanation for these very logical electrical discharges?  Why would they attempt to blame it on "magnetic reconnection" over  large spacial area?  They can't even create "magnetic reconnection" outside of a current sheet, so what they really mean is that electrical energy is flowing through this very large area.  Hello?  Why is it that everyone in this industry goes to such great lengths to avoid using the term "current flow"?  "Magnetc flux?  That's caused by current flow folks.   Why do the plasma plumes emerge?  It is not because of magnetic reconnection, but because plasma tends to follow the cathode rays from the surface. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>X-ray jets occur almost everywhere in the solar corona (see Shibata et al. 1992), in particular in the polar holes. They are characterized by their transient nature and often appear as collimated high-temperature emissive beam guided by open magnetic flux (length of 105 − 106 km and collimated widths of &sim; 104 km; see Cirtain et al. 2007). Cirtain et al.  (2007) reported that the plasma outflow speeds within X-ray jets range from &sim; 100 to &sim; 1000<br />km s−1 and that Alfv´en waves are responsible for the high outflow velocities.</DIV></p><p>Open magnetic flux beams?   What's wrong with the term "cathode ray"? </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 · Jun 23, 2008

<p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.2911</p><p>We haven't even seen the first images from this satellite, and we've never seen "dark matter" *ever* emit gamma rays in a controlled experiment, but these guys are already trying to point to the sky and claim "dark matter did it" without ever demonstrating anything in a controlled experiment.  Bah!  The easiest way to create gamma rays is with electrical discharges.  Rhessi has already documented them coming from electrical discharges in the Earth's atmosphere as well as from dishcarges in the solar atmosphere.  Gamma rays are not emitted from WIMPS because WIMPS have never been shown to exist in nature.  The industry of astronomy however has the cart before the horse again, and they're already pointing and writing software programs to 'test' their ideas.  Somewhere along the road to emprical science, astronomy lost it's way.   Today it points and computes and claims that is a "test".  That's not a "test", that is lazy science and mathematical myth making.  Show me that WIMPS exist.  Then show me they can create gamma rays, and *THEN* I'll be fine with such papers.   Without emprical support, this is just another "point to the sky and add math" exersize. </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>

origin · Jun 23, 2008

<p>Michael is a one of a kind.</p><p>He gets his but handed to him over and over, yet he keeps plugging on repeating the same fallacies over and over...  amazing.</p><p>What is really strange is that in Michael's mind he thinks that he is holding his own in this thread and actually making good points... amazinger</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> dB/dt will not be zero if dE/dt is not zero.  </p><p><font color="#0000ff">No, db/dt is non-zero precisely when E is curl free.  See the third of  Maxwell's equations.</font> </DIV></p><p>How is that any different than what I just said? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...  Obviously that is not true of everyone that fancies themselves to be more knowledgeable on MHD theory than Alfven.I'd say the cirrucullum needs to include more semesters of MHD theory, and it needs to add some electrical theory as well.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Exactly what, in your opinion, is "electrical theory"?</font> </DIV></p><p>It has predictable influence on plasma.  It can and does explain a host of the "mysteries" that the mainstream finds so perplexing, like multi-million degree coronal loops, solar wind acceleration, neutron capture signatures in the coronal loops, gamma rays from the bases of coronal loops, x-rays from the coronal loops, etc.  Did you ever even read that paper on return currents in coronal loops?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> In reality, plasma is never frozen. </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">No one, other than you, has ever mentioned the possibility of frozen plasma.  Plasma is most certainly not a solid.  In particular the surface of the sun is not a solid either, it is a plasma.</DIV></font></p><p>Tusenfem's treatment of "frozen" plasma is nonsense, and a perfect example of what's wrong with the mainstream position.  There is no such thing as 'frozen' light plasma.  If you ignore the kinetic energy of the electron flow, it's bound to be an enigma to you why coronal loops reach millions of degrees, and why cathode rays produce "jets".  The moment one realizes that Birkeland's experiments have value as it relates to these observations, the mystery isn't nearly as mysterious.   Birkeland did all of these things with 'electricity".  Nobody has ever done any of these things with "magnetic reconnection".   In fact "magnetic reconnection" has never been shown to be anything other than standard kinetic and electrical reconnections in a current sheet, and every empircal experiment has taken place inside of a current sheet.  Alfven explained the energy release events of a currents sheet *without* magnetic reconnection.  It's a red herring.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>dB/dt is never zero because dE/dt is never zero.   </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Go look at Maxwell's third equation again.</font></p><br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><p> </p><p>I looked at it again.  What about 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>

michaelmozina · Jun 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Michael is a one of a kind.He gets his but handed to him over and over, yet he keeps plugging on repeating the same fallacies over and over...  amazing.What is really strange is that in Michael's mind he thinks that he is holding his own in this thread and actually making good points... amazinger  <br /> Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Before DrRocket responds to my last response, how about you explain to me how my hat was handed to me?</p><p>When did anyone create plasma "jets" from "magnetic reconnection"?   You don't see any similarity at all between Birkeland's experiments and solar atmospheric activity? </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>

DrRocket · Jun 23, 2008

<p>Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">

dB/dt will not be zero if dE/dt is not zero.   <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff">No, db/dt is Edit [zero] precisely when E is curl free.  See the third of  Maxwell's equations.</font> </p></div><p> </p><p>How is that any different than what I just said?]</p><p> <font color="#ff0000">Curl involves only partial derivatives with respect to spatial variables.</font></p><p> </p><p>[Quote}Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">...  Obviously that is not true of everyone that fancies themselves to be more knowledgeable on MHD theory than Alfven.I'd say the cirrucullum needs to include more semesters of MHD theory, and it needs to add some electrical theory as well. <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Exactly what, in your opinion, is "electrical theory"?</font> </p></div><p> </p><p>It has predictable influence on plasma.  It can and does explain a host of the "mysteries" that the mainstream finds so perplexing, like multi-million degree coronal loops, solar wind acceleration, neutron capture signatures in the coronal loops, gamma rays from the bases of coronal loops, x-rays from the coronal loops, etc.  Did you ever even read that paper on return currents in coronal loops?

</p><p><font color="#ff0000">I did not ask what it can do, I asked what, in your opinion, it is.  Do you know ?  Where might I find a text on "electrical theory" distinct from Alfven's books ?  is it Kirchoff's circuit theory ?  Is it electrodynamics ?  It is Steinmetz machine theory ?  Is it the theory of network synthesis ?   Just WHAT do you consider to be "electrical theory" ?  I have a couple of shelves full of electrical engineering texts, and I would like to know which one to look at to find your version of "electrical theory".</font>   <font color="#ff0000">You seem to think that all electrical engineers would know what you mean, so tell me in electrical engineering terms what it is.  No references to Alfven, please, just to items from a standard electrical engineering curriculum.</font></p><p>

Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">In reality, plasma is never frozen.  <p> </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">No one, other than you, has ever mentioned the possibility of frozen plasma.  Plasma is most certainly not a solid.  In particular the surface of the sun is not a solid either, it is a plasma.</font></p></div><p> </p><p>Tusenfem's treatment of "frozen" plasma is nonsense, and a perfect example of what's wrong with the mainstream position.  There is no such thing as 'frozen' light plasma.  If you ignore the kinetic energy of the electron flow, it's bound to be an enigma to you why coronal loops reach millions of degrees, and why cathode rays produce "jets".  The moment one realizes that Birkeland's experiments have value as it relates to these observations, the mystery isn't nearly as mysterious.   Birkeland did all of these things with 'electricity".  Nobody has ever done any of these things with "magnetic reconnection".   In fact "magnetic reconnection" has never been shown to be anything other than standard kinetic and electrical reconnections in a current sheet, and every empircal experiment has taken place inside of a current sheet.  Alfven explained the energy release events of a currents sheet *without* magnetic reconnection.  It's a red herring.

</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Tusenfem's notion is not one of frozen plasma, but rather of a magnetic field that moves along with the plasma flow.  Basically with partial of B wrt time being equal to the vector Laplacian of the B field, i.e. the B field satislfying the partial differential equation called the diffusion equation or the heat equation.  </font></p><p>

Replying to:</p><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">dB/dt is never zero because dE/dt is never zero.    <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff">Go look at Maxwell's third equation again.</font></p><br />Posted by DrRocket</div><p>I looked at it again.  What about it? 

</p><p><font color="#ff0000">I take that you don't know what the curl of a vector field is.  It does not involve the time variable.  A vector field is curl free when the line integral around a closed path is zero, which is equivalent to it being derivable from a scalar potential function.  </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

DrRocket · Jun 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Actually I cheated on you a bit.  There is quite a bit of work involved, but if you do it you can find that a time variation in either the E or B field will induce a time variation in the other.  But the relationship is not straightforward, and the result is a propagating electromagnetic wave, at the speed of light.  </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

michaelmozina · Jun 23, 2008

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">Curl involves only partial derivatives with respect to spatial variables.</font></DIV> </p><p>It seems like you're splitting hairs here and ignoring my primary point.  My point is still valid.  If dE/dt is not zero, then dB/dt will not be zero.   Treating dE/dt as irrelevant is going to cause all sorts of confusion in current carrying plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">I did not ask what it can do, I asked what, in your opinion, it is.  Do you know ?  Where might I find a text on "electrical theory" distinct from Alfven's books ?  is it Kirchoff's circuit theory ?  Is it electrodynamics ?  It is Steinmetz machine theory ?  Is it the theory of network synthesis ?   Just WHAT do you consider to be "electrical theory" ?  I have a couple of shelves full of electrical engineering texts, and I would like to know which one to look at to find your version of "electrical theory".</font>   <font color="#ff0000">You seem to think that all electrical engineers would know what you mean, so tell me in electrical engineering terms what it is.  No references to Alfven, please, just to items from a standard electrical engineering curriculum.</font></DIV> </p><p>Obviously you're fishing for something here DrRocket but I don't know what more I can tell you.  None of Maxwell's equations suggest that magnetic fields make and break connections like electrical circuits.  In plasma, particularly light plasma, electrical flow will have a direct and predictable effect on plasma.  One of the things that electricity is known to do in plasma is to created heat and filaments and double layers and all theings we observe in spacetime.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">Tusenfem's notion is not one of frozen plasma, but rather of a magnetic field that moves along with the plasma flow.  Basically with partial of B wrt time being equal to the vector Laplacian of the B field, i.e. the B field satislfying the partial differential equation called the diffusion equation or the heat equation. </font></DIV> </p><p>The magnetic field isn't "frozen" either, it's moving and flowing just like the plasma.   Were it not for the movements of the charged particles in the plasma there wouldn't even be a magnetic field around a coronal loop in the first place.  Any change in dE/dt will result in a change in dB/dt as well.  The magnetic field strength is related to the strength of the current flow. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#ff0000">I take that you don't know what the curl of a vector field is.  It does not involve the time variable.  A vector field is curl free when the line integral around a closed path is zero, which is equivalent to it being derivable from a scalar potential function. </font></DIV> </p><p>You tend to make a lot of assumptions about what I know and don't know which are not true.  I fail to see how any of this falsifies my earlier claim:  Any change in dE/dt will also result in a change in dB/dt.   These equations do not falsify that claim so I'm unclear why you brought it up.</p><p>The point here is that all "empirical tests" of "magnetic reconnection" have involved a current sheet.  Alfven explained these kinetic and electrical interactions *without* any form of "magnetic reconnection''.  In fact he also claimed that any notion of magnetic reconnection inside of a current sheet was misleading and not worthy of serious consideration.  He also claimed that when you combined that idea with "frozen" types of theories, its was compounding the problem.  If the curl of the magnetic field is not zero, then we can safely ignore such claims according to Alfven.  Got any emprical test that shows that magnetic reconnection can happen *without* a current sheet as WIKI claims?</p><p>Tusenfem is never going to deal with your question DrRocket because he cannot.  There is nothing 'frozen" about light plasma like we find in the corona, and there is nothing "magnetic" about the reconnection process that takes place inside of a current sheet.  It's a kinetic and electrical process of reconnection, not a magnetic one.  The only reason the magnetic fields change is because the flow patterns of current inside the plasma change.   The only energy releases inside of a current sheet are kinetic and electrical in nature.  As Dr. Scott noted, magnetic fields form a full continuum, they don't make and break connections like eletctrical circuits nor do they release energy in any sort of line splicing.  Only particles and electricity can "reconnect', but electricity seems to be the one solution that the mainstream refuses to consider at all costs.   Instead of accepting the logical solution to these problems, they simply made up something that never occurs in nature.  </p><p>Name me one useful "prediction" about "magnetic reconnection' that would allow us to test for a unique form of energy release called "magnetic reconnection"?  There isn't one!  Nobody can explain the physical energy release process that is unique to "magnetic reconnection", so for all they know it's electricity and kinetic energy that's driving this energy release process.  </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>

Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

origin

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page