<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, like I said above, by implicitly assuming that E and B are growing exponentially in time, it is rather logical that you cannot take out the displacement current. </DIV></p><p>That is also true everywhere inside of this solar system where currents often drive the events in question, like solar wind acceleration, coronal discharges, etc. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Note, that to be complete you need to also include an equation for the current density J, which you derived from Maxwell’s law, but naturally also has to obey that J = n<sub>e</sub> v<sub>e</sub> q<sub>e</sub> + n<sub>i</sub> v<sub>i</sub> q<sub>i</sub>, and drive this field just a little bit in time, and you will get into problems, with he velocity of the particles becoming c.</DIV></p><p>Coincidently CME's tend to "get in trouble" too as charged particles become accelerated to 1/3 of the speed of light. Is that a pure coicidence there DrRocket, or do you think that perhaps we need to pay attention to the current density and what it does to charged particles? </p><p>I guarantee you that tusenfum won't make any mathematical mistakes that you or someone else doesn't correct in short order. I also guarantee you that he's going to assume no signfiicant current flow in space which is where his primary problem actually lies. Any math errors will be dealt with. Any suggestion that there is current flow involved will be summarily rejected because the moment he acknowledges that current flow is there, it's not longer a "magnetic reconnection" process, it's a kinetic and electrical reconnection process.</p><p>You'd think that a guy would notice that CME's generate high speed particles and electrical currents do too. The fact they won't put 1 and 1 together is really frustrating if you're an EU proponent. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
- Status
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Did you have a specific problem in mind?Let's start with a few observations. There's a basic problem here with *assuming* that every problem one might make is related to their *mathematical presentation*. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">From this I assume that you either cannot or will not phrase your responses precisely in the language of physics, which is mathematics. </font></p><p>In my experience that is almost never the case in astronomy. Astronomers tend to weed out math problems from their work, but they never weed out bad ideas. For instance, "inflation" used to work out beautifully on paper to show how we got a homogeneous layout of matter. The problem is that inflation doesn't exist in nature, and now we know that matter is not homogenously distrubuted. </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">The question that was being addressed was the MHD approximation of neglecting the displacement current term in Maxwell's equations so as to permit a valid assumption of frozen magnetic field lines. This notion was in fact pioneered by Alfven and is valid under some circumstances. The point is to determine what such circumstances might be. Alfven seemed to think that it was a valid approximatin for heavy and medium plasmas such as found in solar physics.</font></p><p>It doesn't matter how much math you might look at, the problem is not related to the math in the first place. The problem is related to the *idea* that the math is being applied to. How does that relate to MHD theory? Our friend "agrees" that we must be careful on how we apply our math and our approximations.He now makes a claim that happens to be false. Every single paper written about "magnetic reconnection" fails to be "careful" about where they attempt to apply their ideas. They *assume* that no currents exist in the phenomenon they are studying, or they *assume* that "magnetic reconnection" occurs in a current sheet, or both.</p><p> <font color="#0000ff">The subject was frozen magnetic field lines and neglect of dE/dt. What is the relevance of magnetic reconnection in this context ? </font></p><p> They are not "careful" in the least about determining where we might try to apply these ideas and where we should abandon them entirely. Alfven got upset when folks tried to apply these ideas to "light plasma" and to current sheets, but that has not stopped the mainstream from making exactly the same mistakes today that they made in his time.Alfven specifically attacked the notion of magnetic reconnection where the "curl" of B was not 0. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">One reason that the curl of B might not be zero is if one cannot neglect the displacement current. And conditions under with one can neglect the displacement are the subject of the thread in another forum which you seem to be addressing.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><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} " /></font></p><p> He specfically claimed you could not apply these ideas to a current sheet. The mainstream still does these things on a regular basis. In fact the whole of interplanetary space is a bad place to attempt to desribe "frozen" field lines of plasma because solar wind and highly charged partcles are accelerating and moving through all surface planes at over a million miles per hour. That has never stopped the mainstream from trying to apply these ideas to interplanetary conditions however.Most papers on "magnetic reconnection" present a mathematical model. The question is not whether or not that model has any mistakes, but whether it actually occurs in nature, and whether it should be applied in this instance. The mathematical calculations that you and tusenfem might come up with will be "fixed" as people from the peanut gallary begin to comment on whatever calculations you two might post. What won't be "fixed" however is the fact that the plasmas of space are not "neutral", but rather they are "current carrying" plasma. It's not that the math is wrong, it's that the math is inaplicable, or that the idea itself is false.</p><p> </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">The "math" to which you seem to be objecting is Maxwell's equations. If you reject those , then we have absolutely nothing to talk about. </font></p><p>Alfven very carefully explained exactly why "magnetic reconnection" could not be applied to a current sheet. He carefully explained why it could not be applied to current carrrying events in general. That has never stopped the mainstream from doing these things anyway. They are making exactly the same mistakes today that they have been making since the very start. They have treated "light" plasma as "frozen", and they continue to misrepresent "magnetic reconnection" as being a part of MHD theory when Alfven himself completely rejected the concept, particularly and most specifcally in the conditions in which it is still being applied.In short DrRocket, it's not tusenfem's math that is incorrect, it is his *premise* that is false. The *only* time you can ignore E is if E is non existent. In interplanetary space, E is never non existent. </p><p> <font color="#0000ff">I have no idea what statements you are talking about. You seem to be making them up as you go just to have something to be angry about. No one has even remotely hinted that E is being ignored. The question is whether it is safe to ignore dE/dt and they are most certainly not the same thing. </font></p><p><br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font color="#0000ff">From this I assume that you either cannot or will not phrase your responses precisely in the language of physics, which is mathematics. </DIV></font></p><p>Huh? Since when has anyone explained the "physics" behind "magnetic reconnection"? What is the unique energy release mechanism that is physically unique to "magnetic reconnection" so we might look at how folks then applied the math? You can't do math and simply ignore the physical model enitrely. It is not required that I demonstrate that coronal loops, planetary aurora and solar and planetary surface discharges are related to "electrical current". That's already been done by Birkeland himself over 100 years ago. When the mainstream starts claiming that "magnetic reconnection did it", it becomes beholden upon them to do this in a physically tangible and emprically demonstrateable way. That's never happened. Math can be useful in explaining the physical processes, but those processes must be identified physically, and they must be corroborated *emprically*. This is not simply about mathematics, it's about physical reality, and how it actually operates *emprically*. A computer can build virtual worlds that have nothing to do with "reality". Mathematical models alone cannot tells us the difference between reality and virtual reality, only emprical tests can do that. The only emprical tests of "magnetic reconnection" took place inside of a current sheet, the one place that Alfven absolutely and positively rejected as psuedoscience. He explained these interactions in terms of electrical and kinetic interactions of the plasma particles. This is not really even a math problem because Alfven has explained the math. It's a bad *assumption* that is being made by the mainstream. Magnetic fields do not make and break connections like electrical circuits and subatomic particles. </p><p>Where is the math that allows the mainstream to cut and splice individual magnetic field lines like our friend tusenfum is doing?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <font color="#0000ff">The question that was being addressed was the MHD approximation of neglecting the displacement current term in Maxwell's equations so as to permit a valid assumption of frozen magnetic field lines. This notion was in fact pioneered by Alfven and is valid under some circumstances. The point is to determine what such circumstances might be. Alfven seemed to think that it was a valid approximatin for heavy and medium plasmas such as found in solar physics. </font></p><p></DIV></p><p>Yes, and he regretted ever trying to even use that concept which has since been misunderstood, misrepresented, and misused ever since. He went out of his way to explain the limitations (the range) of such analogies and he absolutely rejected it's use with the notion of magnetic reconnection, or in any transaction with current flow involved. That has not prevented the mainstream from trying to apply the concept to every light plasma, current carrrying plasma scenario that they find. They are like a one trick pony, a guy with a sledgehammer that only understands how to use a sledgehammer. MHD theory has an *electrical* aspect too, and the mainstream simply ignores it entirely. No wonder they are so confused. Tusenfum rightly notes that Maxwell's equations do not allow us to cut and splice magnetic field lines, but then he rationalizes it away and does it anyway! Sheesh!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <font color="#0000ff">The subject was frozen magnetic field lines and neglect of dE/dt. What is the relevance of magnetic reconnection in this context ? </font></p><p></DIV></p><p>The ideas seem to go hand in hand. Neglecting dE/dt can only lead to confusion since all the particles are moving and flowing inside of a current sheet. The easiest way to explain strong magnetic field lines in plasma is to assume that there is current involved. That current flow creates kinetic energy and particles can "reconnect". Magnetic field lines don't do that, and no plasma is actually "frozen", nor is any plasma a "perfect" conductor. These are extreme concepts that have only limited uses, yet the mainstream's "frozen" sledgehammer approach continues, right into light plasmas,, and current carrying plasmas too.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> They are not "careful" in the least about determining where we might try to apply these ideas and where we should abandon them entirely. Alfven got upset when folks tried to apply these ideas to "light plasma" and to current sheets, but that has not stopped the mainstream from making exactly the same mistakes today that they made in his time.Alfven specifically attacked the notion of magnetic reconnection where the "curl" of B was not 0. </p><p><font color="#0000ff">One reason that the curl of B might not be zero is if one cannot neglect the displacement current. And conditions under with one can neglect the displacement are the subject of the thread in another forum which you seem to be addressing.</font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><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} " /></font></p><p></DIV></p><p>Show me math where magnetic field lines can now "reconnect" and somehow do the job of dE/dt, because that is exactly what the mainstream is trying to do. They are trying to explain elecrical discharges as "magnetic reconnection". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He specfically claimed you could not apply these ideas to a current sheet. The mainstream still does these things on a regular basis. In fact the whole of interplanetary space is a bad place to attempt to desribe "frozen" field lines of plasma because solar wind and highly charged partcles are accelerating and moving through all surface planes at over a million miles per hour. That has never stopped the mainstream from trying to apply these ideas to interplanetary conditions however.Most papers on "magnetic reconnection" present a mathematical model. The question is not whether or not that model has any mistakes, but whether it actually occurs in nature, and whether it should be applied in this instance. The mathematical calculations that you and tusenfem might come up with will be "fixed" as people from the peanut gallary begin to comment on whatever calculations you two might post. What won't be "fixed" however is the fact that the plasmas of space are not "neutral", but rather they are "current carrying" plasma. It's not that the math is wrong, it's that the math is inaplicable, or that the idea itself is false.</p><p> <font color="#0000ff">The "math" to which you seem to be objecting is Maxwell's equations. If you reject those , then we have absolutely nothing to talk about. </font></p><p></DIV></p><p>What?!? How does your response even address my point? Alfven did not reject Maxwell's equatins, he used them to explain the interactions inside a current sheet with them. He realize like tusenfem that Maxwell's equestions don't allow us to cut and splice magnetic field lines and gain energy in that process. He rejected any sort of 'magnetic merging" ideas inside of a current sheet. Did Alfven reject or accept Maxwell? Did he reject magnetic merging? (Note: These questions aren't about me)</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> <font color="#0000ff">I have no idea what statements you are talking about. </font></p><p></DIV></p><p>I just posted them! How can you not know which statements I'm talking about when I've posted them in this thread a dozen times and refered you to Dr. Scott's paper at least as many times and it quotes Alfven on this topic too.</p><p><font color="#0000ff"></DIV>You seem to be making them up as you go just to have something to be angry about. </DIV></font></p><p>You seem to be ignoring them as you go just so you don't have to deal with them intellectually. I'm not angry Dr Rocket, I'm amazed.</p><p><font color="#0000ff"> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No one has even remotely hinted that E is being ignored. </DIV></font></p><p>Except tusenfem who keeps setting it to zero and splicing magnetic field lines like the mainstream is constantly trying to do.</p><p><font color="#0000ff">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff">The question is whether it is safe to ignore dE/dt and they are most certainly not the same thing. </font></p><p><br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />It's not a matter of "safety", it's a matter of understanding. You can't conceptually understand what's happening inside the current sheet if you don't recognize the role of the current and the kinetic energy of the current, and the force behind the current. The mainstream remains mystified by things Birkeland explained and empricallly demonstrated over 100 years ago because they *refuse* to acknowledge the current flows that drive these high energy processes. Bireland had no problem explaining high energy coronal loops on the sun. He expained planetiary aurora using current flow as the driving mechanism as well. He certainly understood the concept of accelerating solar wind as my sig line can attest. At no time was he ever "mystified" by the obvious. The only reason that tusenfum and the mainstream believe in "magnetic reconnection" is because they are in big time denial of the role of electrical current in these 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>
There's a paper in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society journal on magnetic studies of a few stars very similar to our sun (including 18 Sco). It reportedly confirms a lot of mainstream theories.. I don't have any more details and all I know about the authors is that they're from the Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Toulouse Tarbes, the Laboratoire d'Etudes Spatiales et d'Instrumentation en Astrophysique, and the Max-Planck Institute for Solar-System Research. They used an instrument on the Berrnard Lyot telescope at the Pic du Midi. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's a paper in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society journal on magnetic studies of a few stars very similar to our sun (including 18 Sco). It reportedly confirms a lot of mainstream theories.. I don't have any more details and all I know about the authors is that they're from the Laboratoire d'Astrophysique de Toulouse Tarbes, the Laboratoire d'Etudes Spatiales et d'Instrumentation en Astrophysique, and the Max-Planck Institute for Solar-System Research. They used an instrument on the Berrnard Lyot telescope at the Pic du Midi. <br />Posted by nimbus</DIV></p><p>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119880517/abstract</p><p>http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1290v2.pdf<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119880517/abstracthttp://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1290v2.pdf <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV>That's the one.. I hoped it might be of some use in the discussion.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There's a paper in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society journal on magnetic studies of a few stars very similar to our sun (including 18 Sco). It reportedly confirms a lot of mainstream theories..</DIV></p><p>Welcome to the discussion by the way, and thanks for the link. I'll read the paper today and comment when I've read it. In the mean time, which theories specifically does this paper confirm in your opinion? How exactly does light plasma "store" magnetic field energy and how does it deliver it to the atmosphere of a star?</p><br /><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ABSTRACT<br />From a set of stellar spectropolarimetric observations, we report the detection of sur-<br />face magnetic felds in a sample of four solar-type stars, namely HD 73350, HD 76151,<br />HD 146233 (18 Sco) and HD 190771.</DIV></p><p>Likewise we see surface magnetic fields on our own star due to the discharge patterns in the solar atmosphere. It would seem likely to me that all stars have atmospheric discharges. </p><p>The other thing they seem to be studying is the rotation rate of the object in question. In Alfven's induction model, we would expect that a faster spinning object would be likely to produce more induction currents and it would tend to produce a overall current flow that was higher than a slower spinning object. It will be interesting to see what they find as I get into the body of the paper. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(a) The magnetic energy of the large-scale field increases with rotation rate.</DIV></p><p>Ooops, I didn't even have to finish the abstract to get my answer. 
This would be highly congruent with Alfven's induction model. Confirmation of models seems to depend on which model one uses. In other words, I'm not sure how they intend to explain this using a standard solar model yet, but it's highly congruent with any induction based model one might use. The faster the spin, the greater the induction currents and the stronger the magnetic field as a result. Keep in mind that what they are calling "magnetic energy" is caused by the current flows inside the plasma. The large scale field would naturally increase as the overall induction energy increases. The faster the spin, and the larger the object, the greater the induction currents. This seems like strong confirmation of Alfven's solar model if you ask me.</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>
This would be highly congruent with Alfven's induction model. Confirmation of models seems to depend on which model one uses. In other words, I'm not sure how they intend to explain this using a standard solar model yet, but it's highly congruent with any induction based model one might use. The faster the spin, the greater the induction currents and the stronger the magnetic field as a result. Keep in mind that what they are calling "magnetic energy" is caused by the current flows inside the plasma. The large scale field would naturally increase as the overall induction energy increases. The faster the spin, and the larger the object, the greater the induction currents. This seems like strong confirmation of Alfven's solar model if you ask me.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p>FYI, it's a relatively busy day at work and it will take some time today for me to digest this paper, but I can tell you already that I really like the paper. While I suspect I won't "interpret" these findings in quite the same way, the information they provide in this study is phenomenonal in terms of raw data and interesting facts. It's really good stuff. I already have a lot of respect for their approach and their study of rotation speeds, even if I don't necessarily interpret the data the same way. It seems to me that there is a useful conversation to be had as it relates to explaining coronal loop effects via this same kind of spin speed method, particularly in any electrical induction (Alfven) solar model. I do find this particular paper to be quite a wealth of useful information as it relates to Alfven's induction theories too. Thanks again for posting this paper to the thread. It seems like a very appropriate addition to the thread.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>The physics discussion is over my head. I only hope you two can get to the bottom of your disagreements constructively </p><p>I do save the whole discussion periodicaly, so the worst case scenario is that I and any other readers will know where to start from in the future.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
</p><p>I do save the whole discussion periodicaly, so the worst case scenario is that I and any other readers will know where to start from in the future.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div><p>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080716-magnetic-galaxies.html</p><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'><font><font><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial">Scientists think galactic magnetic fields start from <strong>tiny magnetic seeds,</strong> perhaps created inside stars or quasars, and are then amplified over time as the turbulent movement of galactic gas, stirred up by stellar explosions, and the galaxy's rotation cause the magnetic fields to grow. This standard picture, however, can only account for strong magnetic fields that build up slowly over time. The new finding means scientists must come up with an improved explanation for how magnetic fields build up inside galaxies in the young universe such as those Miniati and his team observed.</DIV></font></font></font></font></p><p>I beg their pardon? Magic magnetic seeds? Come on. The *ONLY* thing that causes magnetic fields are electrons and flowing moving charged particles. What in the world is a "magnetic seed"? Where can I get one? How does the galaxies movement "make them grow" exactly?</p><p>This article is another great example of the exclusion of electricity from the topic of astronomy. The easiest and simplest was to explain magnetic fields is with electical current. Magnets are not "seeds" and they don't "grow" in size by spinning them. How is this idea even logical, let alone "scientific"? When has anyone made a magnetic "seed" grow by 'spinning" it? </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080716-magnetic-galaxies.htmlI beg their pardon? Magic magnetic seeds? Come on. The *ONLY* thing that causes magnetic fields are electrons and flowing moving charged particles. What in the world is a "magnetic seed"? Where can I get one? How does the galaxies movement "make them grow" exactly?This article is another great example of the exclusion of electricity from the topic of astronomy. The easiest and simplest was to explain magnetic fields is with electical current. Magnets are not "seeds" and they don't "grow" in size by spinning them. How is this idea even logical, let alone "scientific"? When has anyone made a magnetic "seed" grow by 'spinning" it? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Articles written by journalists are not scientific. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Articles written by journalists are not scientific. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>It's one thing for an uniformed journalist to write this stuff, but it's pretty clear he/she got the terminology from the author of the paper being cited. Having worked as a journalist in high school, I have some sympathy for Space.com's staff writers, but come on. </p><p>What the heck is a "magnetic seed"? How does it grow? I mean this stuff sounds positively ridiculous. The only thing that causes magnetic fields are electrons and the movement of other charged particles. There is no such thing as a "magnetic seed", and you can't make a magnetic "seed" grow simply by moving the magnet. The whole idea of magnetic seeds that "grow" from movement is utterly preposterous unless you're talking about induction currents like Alfven was doing.</p><p>The one "scientific" finding that is actually revealed by this study is the fact that the *electrical currents* that power these strong magnetic fields around galaxies has remained pretty constant over time. Of course they didn't actually report that finding or make that finding because they never bothered to even mention the one possible "cause" of these magnetic fields, namely the current flow that creates them. </p><p>The only reason this magnetic field strength is "surprising" to the mainstream is because they ignore the currents that drive the magnetic fields. There's no mystery about what causes these fields and it has nothing to do with "seeds" that grow. It's called "electricity", the one forbidden topic of astronomy. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... The only reason this magnetic field strength is "surprising" to the mainstream is because they ignore the currents that drive the magnetic fields. There's no mystery about what causes these fields and it has nothing to do with "seeds" that grow. It's called "electricity", the one forbidden topic of astronomy. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>This is getting ridicuous. It seems that their are two basic arguments here and nothing more. Those two arguments, specifically go something like this:</p><p>1. "The mainstream" doesn't understand that magnetic fields come from currents so ...</p><p>This argument is patently false, as the mainstream relies on Maxwell's equation and classical electrodynamics, which are taught to every astronomer and astrophysicist on the planet, and the source of magnetic fields is quite well know. Not only is electrodynamics well known but so is plasma physics and the work of Alfven. No one disputes that magnetic fields are the result of the motion of charged particles. This of often accompanied by some rant regarding magnetic reconnection, when magnetic reconnection is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. It is then followed by an equally ridiculous rant to the effect that energy is not stored in magnetic fields, when all knowledgeable physicists, including Alfven recognize that magnetic fields do indeed store and release energy -- the very principle of magnetic induction and the basis of automobile ignition systems for many years.</p><p>It is probably true that some of Alfven's work has at some time in the past been misapplied by "the mainstream". The notion of frozen magnetic fields cannot be applied willy-nilly without regard for underlying assumptions. Alfven correctly pointed out limitations of that approximation, and he was correct. He was also correct in noting that it is a valid approximation under the proper circumstances. This fact is recognized by "the mainstream". </p><p>2. Some completely bogus notion that large scale energy in the universe is supplied by unseen and undetected electrical currents is put forth -- for instance the notion that the stars, including the sun, are powered, not by fusion but rather by an external electrical current (Alfvenis probably spinning in his grave over this one). When it is shown that such a situation would create ginormous magnetic fields that simply don't exist that factis ignored. The absurd notion presented is then supported by a totally non-quantitative argument that boils down to "Birkeland showed" or "Alfven said" but with no supporting facts offered. Alfven and Birkeland did good scientific work, but that work has been hijacked by the EU community and twisted beyond recognition or simply misapplied. Or worse yet, adopted without critical thinking and used inappropriately. The electrical comet theory is another variation on this theme. Ditto for galaxies being held together with electromagnetic forces -- no response when it was ponted out that the paper supporting this notion had the forces in the wrong direction to be effective.</p><p>In no case are valid quantitative physical arguments, using real physics and real equations, offered to support the tenets of so-called EU theory. Nor is any quantitative empirical data offered. Mathematics, which is the language of physics, is not only absent, but its use is denigraded. In fact no non-pictorial evidence is every offered. Physics is not based on "looks like", but rather on the explanation of phenomena via the use of a compact body of principles, backed by a large quantity of empirical evidence and the use of clearly defined mathematical models. "EU theory" is thus the antithesis of science.</p><p>If the EU community would like to be taken seriously, and shed it reputation as a bunch of ill-informed wackos, then it ought to put forth reasoned physical arguments, based on classical electrodynamics (ala Maxwell) and known plasma physics (ala Alfven). Papers such as the one by Scott posted earlier in this thread simply don't cut the mustard. Arguments against a strawman version of what the "mainstream" knows or doesn't know are irrelevant. What is needed is a real physical prediction -- complete with numbers and mathematics -- that can be verified by real physical observation. Complaining about what someone else is doing, whether it be a magnetic reconnection model or anything else is not relevant. A solid EU prediction of a new phenomena or fact followed by confirmation with real measurement is what is needed. Lacking such eveidence the EU community is likely to continue to be regarded as a laughing stock, and with good reason.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is getting ridicuous. It seems that their are two basic arguments here and nothing more. Those two arguments, specifically go something like this:1. "The mainstream" doesn't understand that magnetic fields come from currents so ...This argument is patently false, as the mainstream relies on Maxwell's equation and classical electrodynamics, which are taught to every astronomer and astrophysicist on the planet, and the source of magnetic fields is quite well know. </DIV></p><p>If that were the case DrRocket, then the cause of coronal loops, CME's, the million degree corona, and solar wind acceleration would not be "mysterious" to the mainstream. The fact they can't figure it out, simulate these things like Birkeland and explain simple things like this suggest that they aren't nearly as familiar with electricity as someone from 100 years ago. Birkeland simulated coronal loops. He "predictied" solar wind acceleration. How can these be great "mysteries" to the mainstream if they are so versed in electrical theory? Why are they claiming "magnetic reconnection" did it, when Alfven flatly denied it had anything to do with plasma physics?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not only is electrodynamics well known but so is plasma physics and the work of Alfven.</DIV></p><p>That's simply not true in my experience at all. Most of them have never studied any of of Alfven's work. Most of them have never read any of his books. How can they be versed on plasma physics and Alfven's work and still claim "magnetic reconection did it"? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No one disputes that magnetic fields are the result of the motion of charged particles.</DIV></p><p>No one (from the mainstream) ever talks about the *current flow* that this movement creates! I never see the APJ or Nature publish anything related to EU theory, current flows in plasma, or anything of the sort. It's all "magnetic reconnection" this, magnetic reconnection that, magnetic yada yada yada. I never see them write about the *current flow*, EVER. They don't even talk about "ELECTROmagnetic" influences, only "magnetic" ones.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This of often accompanied by some rant regarding magnetic reconnection, when magnetic reconnection is completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. </DIV></p><p>It is not irrelevant to this discusion, it is in direct violation of what Alfven taught about plasma physics, and it's the thing that the mianstream is trying to use to replace electrical energy as the driving force of these high energy events.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is then followed by an equally ridiculous rant to the effect that energy is not stored in magnetic fields, when all knowledgeable physicists, including Alfven recognize that magnetic fields do indeed store and release energy -- the very principle of magnetic induction and the basis of automobile ignition systems for many years.</DIV></p><p>That energy is "stored* in electrons and current flow DrRocket, it's not just "magnetic" in origin. Even you induction example is nothing remotely like "magnetic reconnection". The only thing *stored* in the magnetic field is found in kinetic energy and particles. It's not just a "magnetic" event, it's an *ELECTRO*magnetic storage process, particularly in light plasma like we find in an atmosphere.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is probably true that some of Alfven's work has at some time in the past been misapplied by "the mainstream". </DIV></p><p>Tusenfem is still doing it today DrRocket. The misaplication has never ended.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The notion of frozen magnetic fields cannot be applied willy-nilly without regard for underlying assumptions. </DIV></p><p>But they are applied willy-nilly in physical conditions that are utterly inapporpriate, like the interplanetary medium where charged particles are whizzing by at a million miles per hour. These kinds of things were completely shunned by Alfven, but the mainstream is still doing it!</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven correctly pointed out limitations of that approximation, and he was correct. </DIV></p><p>Indeed. The problem is that the mainstream never listened.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He was also correct in noting that it is a valid approximation under the proper circumstances. </DIV></p><p>Those "proper circumstances" are never met. The mainstream applies these ideas to light, hot, electrically conductive plasma. That is irrational behavior.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This fact is recognized by "the mainstream". </DIV></p><p>No it's not or they wouldn't try to apply these ideas to light, hot, electrically active plasmas!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2. Some completely bogus notion that large scale energy in the universe is supplied by unseen and undetected electrical currents is put forth</DIV></p><p>What are you talking about when you say "unseen" and "undetected". Did you notice those multimillion degree coronal loops? What do you figure makes that plasma heat up to tens of millions of degrees DrRocket?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>-- for instance the notion that the stars, including the sun, are powered, not by fusion but rather by an external electrical current (Alfvenis probably spinning in his grave over this one).</DIV></p><p>No EU proponent I'm personally aware of claims that fusion is not in any way involved in powering the sun. EU proponents on whole simply don't claim that fusion is the *ONLY* source of energy!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>When it is shown that such a situation would create ginormous magnetic fields that simply don't exist that factis ignored. </DIV></p><p>Nobody ignored it DrRocket, you simply tried to *oversimply* the issue. You also *assume* that the *measured magnetic field of the sun* comes from an internal process rather than a current carrrying process.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The absurd notion presented is then supported by a totally non-quantitative argument that boils down to "Birkeland showed" or "Alfven said" but with no supporting facts offered. </DIV></p><p>What? How about those "jets" we see in hinode images that Birkeland predicted would occur? How about those million degree coronal loops that Birkeland predicted and even simulated to some degree? What "facts" are you willing going to ignore? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven and Birkeland did good scientific work, but that work has been hijacked by the EU community and twisted beyond recognition or simply misapplied. Or worse yet, adopted without critical thinking and used inappropriately.</DIV></p><p>Boloney. EU proponents simply see the value of their *WHOLE BODY OF WORK*, and they don't ignore the parts they don't want to hear. Coronal loops and electrical solar discharges are not a mystery to EU proponents because we read Birkeland's work. We saw for ourselves how he simulated these events. We know how charged solar wind particles can accelerate away from the sun because we read how Birkeland did this in his lab. We all realize his work is applicable to modern "mysteries" of the sun. The lack of critical thinking comes only from the mainstream when they refuse to study his work fully, they refuse to do the work he did and simulate anything in emprical testing, and they refuse to do science the way science is supposed to be done. Birkeland was a real "scientist" and so are EU proponents today. Birkeland certainly would not be "mystified" by all the things that "mystify"" the mainstream today as it relates to solar and planetary activity.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The electrical comet theory is another variation on this theme. </DIV></p><p>Er, because you say so? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ditto for galaxies being held together with electromagnetic forces </DIV></p><p>I don't recall anyone claiming EM forces "held them together', only that it influences their behavior and has recongizable effects on them.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>-- no response when it was ponted out that the paper supporting this notion had the forces in the wrong direction to be effective.</DIV></p><p>That's only because that particular paper was trying to explain these EM fields as an *INTERNALLY DRIVEN PROCESS*. Change the direction of the current and it's no longer a problem. Alfven didn't have that problem.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In no case are valid quantitative physical arguments, using real physics and real equations, offered to support the tenets of so-called EU theory. </DIV></p><p>Baloney. You simply ignored the papers you didn't like including ARI's redshift paper and that paper about return currents in the solar atmosphere. There wa plenty of mathematical support in both of those presentations and you simply ignored it.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nor is any quantitative empirical data offered. </DIV></p><p>That is absolutely false! Have you read nothing from Alfven or Peratt? Have you read nothing I've posted here? Birkeland offered *emprical* support for everything he proposed. The mainstream has utterly abandoned emprical theory,and empirical testing. Birkeland showed an emprical connection between coronal loops and "current flow". The mainstream points to the sky claiming "magnetic reconnection did it" and they refuse to test any of these ideas in a lab. The only "test" of "magnetic reconnection" done to date occured in a current sheet, the one place Alfven specifically claimed it could not possibly apply.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Mathematics, which is the language of physics, is not only absent, but its use is denigraded. </DIV></p><p>Nobody is denigrating the use of math. The only thing I have denigrated is the use of math *without* doing any emprical testing and *without* emprical support. Math related to elves, inflation and dark things is pointless because none of these things exist in nature. Physics does not apply to things that do not emprically exist. Applying math to such things is an excersize in futility. That's the only weird behavior that I have ever denigrated.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>In fact no non-pictorial evidence is every offered.</DIV></p><p>False. You just ignored all the data, pretty pictures, math and the whole set of data you don't like. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Physics is not based on "looks like", but rather on the explanation of phenomena via the use of a compact body of principles,</DIV></p><p>Birkeland already did that. You ignored it. Alfven did it too. So did Peratt. You simply ignore what you don't like, picture, math and everything else that contradicts your current beliefs.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>backed by a large quantity of empirical evidence and the use of clearly defined mathematical models. </DIV></p><p>Notice all those emprical *tests* that Birkeland conducted? When was that ever done with "magnetic reconnection"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"EU theory" is thus the antithesis of science.</DIV></p><p>This statement is so false, it's hard to believe it came out of your mouth. EU theory is based on plasma physics and emprical testing. It is the epitomy of science. "infaltion", "Dark energy", "dark matter", and magnetic reconnection theories are the antithesis of real science. Show me one useful product that works on inflation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If the EU community would like to be taken seriously, and shed it reputation as a bunch of ill-informed wackos, then it ought to put forth reasoned physical arguments, based on classical electrodynamics (ala Maxwell) and known plasma physics (ala Alfven).</DIV></p><p>Since the mainstream utterly ignored Alfven, never bothered to even read his book "Cosmic Plasma", what makes you think that they will listen to anyone, ever? The notion of labaling everyone who promotes EU theory as a "wacko" only shows how irrational people like you can be.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Papers such as the one by Scott posted earlier in this thread simply don't cut the mustard. </DIV></p><p>Because you don't like the implication of the fact you can't cut and splice magnetic field lines?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Arguments against a strawman version of what the "mainstream" knows or doesn't know are irrelevant.</DIV></p><p>This is no "Strawman" arguement DrRocket. They continue to try to cut and splice magnetic field lines. That doesn't occur in nature. Only particles and electricity "reconnect". Magnetic fields always form as a full and complete continuum and they don't release energy by "reconnecting".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is needed is a real physical prediction -- complete with numbers and mathematics -- that can be verified by real physical observation. </DIV></p><p>That's been done ad nausium, starting with Birkeland himself. He "predicted" coronal loops. He "predicted" accelerating solar wind. He "predicted" cathode rays too. Lots of these things have been verified by real physical observation. You simply ignored it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Complaining about what someone else is doing, whether it be a magnetic reconnection model or anything else is not relevant.</DIV></p><p>It is relevant when folks claim that "magnetic reconnection did it" rather than "current flow did it".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A solid EU prediction of a new phenomena or fact followed by confirmation with real measurement is what is needed. Lacking such eveidence the EU community is likely to continue to be regarded as a laughing stock, and with good reason. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The fact you consider it a "laughing stock" only shows how irrational your attitude has become. You can't explain solar wind acceleration, you can't explain million degree coronal loops, x-ray jets or any of the important solar aspects that directly related to "current flow". Birkeland could not only "explain" them, he "predicted" them from emprical experimentation. They have been verified in solar satellite images. The only "laughing stock" around here is the mainstream. They promote inflation, dark forces, magnetic reconnection, and host of things that simply are irrational, make believe things, that simply do not exist in nature. In 100 years EU theory will be the dominant theory and your position will seem about as credible as a flat earth theory. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p>[Paraphrase] BLAH BLAH BLAH ... Posted by michaelmozina [Paraphrase]</p><p>Your response contains not one quantifiable physical argument, not one shred of data, not one prediction nor means by which one might be obtained -- no physics whatever. It does contain the usual strawman argument about what "mainstream" astophysicist know and don't know. You have just proved my point.<br /> </p><p>If you really think that you know something, why not produce an argument based on physics? Maxwell's equations would be a good place to start. The next point that you make using the techniques of classical physics will be the first one. That would, however, require you to produce real numbers and use that dreaded art -- mathematics. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[Paraphrase] BLAH BLAH BLAH ... Posted by michaelmozina [Paraphrase]Your response contains not one quantifiable physical argument, not one shred of data, not one prediction nor means by which one might be obtained -- no physics whatever. It does contain the usual strawman argument about what "mainstream" astophysicist know and don't know. You have just proved my point. If you really think that you know something, why not produce an argument based on physics? Maxwell's equations would be a good place to start. The next point that you make using the techniques of classical physics will be the first one. That would, however, require you to produce real numbers and use that dreaded art -- mathematics. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Are you for real? Talk about pure denial on your part DrRocket....</p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?return_req=no_params&&author=Alfven,+H&db_key=</p><p>http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?return_req=no_params&&author=Peratt,+A&db_key=PHY</p><p>How about just responding to the recent Arxiv paper I posted here for you a few weeks ago? </p><p>http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701</p><p>EU theory has been fully mathematically documented, *and* it's also been emprically tested, starting with the earliest work of Kristian Birkeland.... </p><p>http://ia340919.us.archive.org/2/items/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdf</p><p>Then of course there's the book of Alfven's that you don't own and haven't ever commented on.....</p><p>http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Plasma-Astrophysics-Science-Library/dp/9027711518</p><p>You cannot actually believe that EU theory is not mathematically expressed DrRocket. Either you are complete ignorant of those many hundreds of papers by Alfven and Peratt and Bruce and many many others, or you are in pure denial, it's one or the other. Which is it?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Are you for real? Talk about pure denial on your part DrRocket....http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?return_req=no_params&&author=Alfven,+H&db_key=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?return_req=no_params&&author=Peratt,+A&db_key=PHYHow about just responding to the recent Arxiv paper I posted here for you a few weeks ago? http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1701EU theory has been fully mathematically documented, *and* it's also been emprically tested, starting with the earliest work of Kristian Birkeland.... http://ia340919.us.archive.org/2/items/norwegianaurorap01chririch/norwegianaurorap01chririch.pdfThen of course there's the book of Alfven's that you don't own and haven't ever commented on.....http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Plasma-Astrophysics-Science-Library/dp/9027711518You cannot actually believe that EU theory is not mathematically expressed DrRocket. Either you are complete ignorant of those many hundreds of papers by Alfven and Peratt and Bruce and many many others, or you are in pure denial, it's one or the other. Which is it? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I have read Alfven's earlier book Cosmical Electrodynamics and it certainly contains the mathematics to relate plasma physics to Maxwell's equations. However, there is absolutely nothing in that book that reflects the tenets that you have espoused for EU theory. I would not put Peratt's name in the same sentence with Alfven's. I have looked at Pereatt's work, and to put it kindly am not impressed.</p><p>The referent paper on return currents in coronal loops doesn't surprise me much. Clearly the sun is largely plasma, and moving plasma is a current. I think everybody would agree that solar physics embodies a great deal of current flow. So what ?</p><p>I am probably ignorant of many of the hundreds of papers by Alfven and most especially by Peratt. The papers by Alfven that I have read do not support your version of EU. The stuff that I have seen by Peratt is not what I would call high quality, and I intend to stay ignorant of the rest of his nonsensical work.</p><p>You have once again ducked the issue of supporting YOUR arguments with clear quantitative physics. Making vague references to the literature, and in most cases providing nothing more than a bibliography for Alfven or Peratt and not a single clear reference to much of anything, is no substitute for a clear statement directly from you. I have concluded that you must not have the wherewithall to make such statements.</p><p>If I an am in denial, please make it clear what it is that I am denying. The only item that I can identify that I have clearly denied is your credibility. You might regain some credibility with a clear, succinct, quantitative argument in favor of your specific brand of EU.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have read Alfven's earlier book Cosmical Electrodynamics and it certainly contains the mathematics to relate plasma physics to Maxwell's equations. However, there is absolutely nothing in that book that reflects the tenets that you have espoused for EU theory.</DIV></p><p>That is exactly why I posted a link for you to Cosmic Plasma where he lays out all the basic tenets of EU theory. Ignorance is not bliss.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would not put Peratt's name in the same sentence with Alfven's. </DIV></p><p>Alfven himself and Los Alamos seem to respect him quite highly. I don't suppose you've actually read his book?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have looked at Pereatt's work, and to put it kindly am not impressed.</DIV></p><p>Which work specifically, and why were you not impressed?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The referent paper on return currents in coronal loops doesn't surprise me much.</DIV></p><p>Me either, but then again, it seems to be quite the surprise to the mainstream. Where do those currents come from and where do they go? Why is the corona hotter than the photosphere by OOMS? What drives those million degree cornonal loops, gamma ray emission, neutron fusion reactions in the atmosphere? Electricity! That is however the one forbidden topic of astronomy, at least as it relates to mainstream publications.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Clearly the sun is largely plasma, and moving plasma is a current. I think everybody would agree that solar physics embodies a great deal of current flow.</DIV></p><p>No, actually they treat it as being "neutral" all the time. It is in fact "current carrying" plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> So what ?I am probably ignorant of many of the hundreds of papers by Alfven and most especially by Peratt.</DIV></p><p>It's easy to be unipressed by someone if you've never read the bulk of their work. It's easy to miss a lot if you only read someone's earlier work and neglect the bulk of it. Alfven lays out the tenets of EU theory in Cosmic Plasma. Peratts book is actually an easier read, but it is out of print and the cost is simply astronomical. </p><p>I wouldn't be so cavalear about Peratt without reading his book. He's quite impressive actually. I suspect that's why Los Alamos labs hired him.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The papers by Alfven that I have read do not support your version of EU. </DIV></p><p>Then read Cosmic Plasma. I does support EU theory. The fact you've only read his earliest book is not my fault.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The stuff that I have seen by Peratt is not what I would call high quality,</DIV></p><p>I doubt you've "seen" much then.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and I intend to stay ignorant of the rest of his nonsensical work.</DIV></p><p>This is the sort of ignorance by decree that I've never understood. I can appreciate that some folks like to remain ignorant but then why in the world would you attempt to discredit EU theory and never bother to actually educate yourself. It makes you look silly.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have once again ducked the issue of supporting YOUR arguments with clear quantitative physics. </DIV></p><p>Are you somehow under the illusion that I personally am responsible for quantifying all the physics of EU theory for you personally? Are you serious? When you can study from the masters, why in the world would settle for understanding something from some guy in cyberspace? You can't be serious.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Making vague references to the literature, and in most cases providing nothing more than a bibliography for Alfven or Peratt and not a single clear reference to much of anything, is no substitute for a clear statement directly from you. </DIV></p><p>This isn't "personal" in the first place DrRocket, why are you expecting me personally to do math for you? Why would you even want me to do that for you when you have far better ""experts" to choose from? Why do I personally need to do the math for you? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have concluded that you must not have the wherewithall to make such statements.</DIV></p><p>First of all, you refused to confront Tusenfem about his magnetic reconnection nonsense which is the one place I said I would attempt the math with you, assuming he could actualy not violate any basic tenets of physics in the first place. Now you seem to expect to mathematically jump on command about some unspecified topic and you have somehow "concluded" stuff about me like you concluded stuff about Peratt and stuff about Alfven, specifically from a place of pure ignorance. I can't help willful ignorance even if I wanted to.</p><p>Secondly, even if I personally could not do all the math you personally might require (I admit I've only been into EU theory for less that four years), it's entirely possible and probable that Alfven and/or Peratt have already done that for you, you simply refuse to study their work. Your personal education is not my responsibiliy and my personal ignorance is no barometer or "truth" in the first place.</p><p>Conclude what you like about whomever you might like, but you're only fooling yourself, particularly if you never study the topic. I personaly pointed you toward all sorts of materials on this topic that explain this topic far better than I could personally ever hope to explain it to you. If you refuse to educate yourself on the topic, then you only withhold truth from yourself. EU theory is pure emprical physics, specifically plasma physics applied to large scales. Birkeland has done more math for you in that one volume I cited than Tusenfem has ever done for you, but somehow you seem to believe tusenfum, even without ever asking him any serious quesitons about magnetic reconnection. You're quite an interesting character my friend.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I an am in denial, please make it clear what it is that I am denying. </DIV></p><p>You mean besides those million degree coronal loop discharges in the solar atmosphere? Let's start with Birkeland's work. I gave you full access to his work, math and all, yet you make claims that EU theory lacks math. What in the world are you thinking? How about Alfven's Book Cosmic Plasma? Are you going to read it before claiming he never layed out the tenets of EU theory?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only item that I can identify that I have clearly denied is your credibility. </DIV></p><p>Define "credible" for me. I find it "increadible" that you ignore the fact that electrical currents are necessary to create million degree coronal loops, and that you won't put two and two together when it comes to discharges in the atmosphere of Eather that generate gamma rays and the gamma ray discharge events in the solar atmosphere. I find it increadible that you won't accept that current flow would explain solar wind acceleration and a milllion degree corona. I find it incredible that you've denied the wealth of mathematical material that exists on this topic and that you've somehow focused your attention on lil' ol me. How credible is that behavior?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You might regain some credibility with a clear, succinct, quantitative argument in favor of your specific brand of EU. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Oh for goodness sake, I did that with the PDF file of Birkeland's work. I offered you Alfven's Cosmic Plasma book as well. I fail to see what makes you think that I personally must do this all for you. Science doesn't work that way. How about reading Birkeland's work for me and tell me what's wrong with it. You don't even have to purchase anything to educate yourself to his material, and surely he's a more "credible" scientist than some guy you met in cyberspace.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
</p><p>I wouldn't be so cavalear about Peratt without reading his book. He's quite impressive actually. I suspect that's why Los Alamos labs hired him.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The papers by Alfven that I have read do not support your version of EU. </DIV></p><p>Then read Cosmic Plasma. I does support EU theory. The fact you've only read his earliest book is not my fault.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The stuff that I have seen by Peratt is not what I would call high quality,</DIV></p><p>I doubt you've "seen" much then.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and I intend to stay ignorant of the rest of his nonsensical work.</DIV></p><p>This is the sort of ignorance by decree that I've never understood. I can appreciate that some folks like to remain ignorant but then why in the world would you attempt to discredit EU theory and never bother to actually educate yourself. It makes you look silly.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have once again ducked the issue of supporting YOUR arguments with clear quantitative physics. </DIV></p><p>Are you somehow under the illusion that I personally am responsible for quantifying all the physics of EU theory for you personally? Are you serious? When you can study from the masters, why in the world would settle for understanding something from some guy in cyberspace? You can't be serious.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Making vague references to the literature, and in most cases providing nothing more than a bibliography for Alfven or Peratt and not a single clear reference to much of anything, is no substitute for a clear statement directly from you. </DIV></p><p>This isn't "personal" in the first place DrRocket, why are you expecting me personally to do math for you? Why would you even want me to do that for you when you have far better ""experts" to choose from? Why do I personally need to do the math for you? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have concluded that you must not have the wherewithall to make such statements.</DIV></p><p>First of all, you refused to confront Tusenfem about his magnetic reconnection nonsense which is the one place I said I would attempt the math with you, assuming he could actualy not violate any basic tenets of physics in the first place. Now you seem to expect to mathematically jump on command about some unspecified topic and you have somehow "concluded" stuff about me like you concluded stuff about Peratt and stuff about Alfven, specifically from a place of pure ignorance. I can't help willful ignorance even if I wanted to.</p><p>Secondly, even if I personally could not do all the math you personally might require (I admit I've only been into EU theory for less that four years), it's entirely possible and probable that Alfven and/or Peratt have already done that for you, you simply refuse to study their work. Your personal education is not my responsibiliy and my personal ignorance is no barometer or "truth" in the first place.</p><p>Conclude what you like about whomever you might like, but you're only fooling yourself, particularly if you never study the topic. I personaly pointed you toward all sorts of materials on this topic that explain this topic far better than I could personally ever hope to explain it to you. If you refuse to educate yourself on the topic, then you only withhold truth from yourself. EU theory is pure emprical physics, specifically plasma physics applied to large scales. Birkeland has done more math for you in that one volume I cited than Tusenfem has ever done for you, but somehow you seem to believe tusenfum, even without ever asking him any serious quesitons about magnetic reconnection. You're quite an interesting character my friend.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If I an am in denial, please make it clear what it is that I am denying. </DIV></p><p>You mean besides those million degree coronal loop discharges in the solar atmosphere? Let's start with Birkeland's work. I gave you full access to his work, math and all, yet you make claims that EU theory lacks math. What in the world are you thinking? How about Alfven's Book Cosmic Plasma? Are you going to read it before claiming he never layed out the tenets of EU theory?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The only item that I can identify that I have clearly denied is your credibility. </DIV></p><p>Define "credible" for me. I find it "increadible" that you ignore the fact that electrical currents are necessary to create million degree coronal loops, and that you won't put two and two together when it comes to discharges in the atmosphere of Eather that generate gamma rays and the gamma ray discharge events in the solar atmosphere. I find it increadible that you won't accept that current flow would explain solar wind acceleration and a milllion degree corona. I find it incredible that you've denied the wealth of mathematical material that exists on this topic and that you've somehow focused your attention on lil' ol me. How credible is that behavior?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You might regain some credibility with a clear, succinct, quantitative argument in favor of your specific brand of EU. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Oh for goodness sake, I did that with the PDF file of Birkeland's work. I offered you Alfven's Cosmic Plasma book as well. I fail to see what makes you think that I personally must do this all for you. Science doesn't work that way. How about reading Birkeland's work for me and tell me what's wrong with it. You don't even have to purchase anything to educate yourself to his material, and surely he's a more "credible" scientist than some guy you met in cyberspace.</p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div><p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... I did that with the PDF file of Birkeland's work. .... <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Actually you didn't. You gave a reference to a web site that supposedly contains a link to Birkeland's work, but despite several attempts I could not get that file to actually download. I was able to see enough to conclude that Birkeland did some real science, particularly with respect to the aurora, but not enough to see any clear connection with solar physics or cosmology. In fact, I still rather doubt that connection. </p><p>Edit: I tried the site again this evening, and this time it was working and I did download Birkeland's account of his expedition.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is exactly why I posted a link for you to Cosmic Plasma where he lays out all the basic tenets of EU theory. ...Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you posted a link to Cosmic Plasma I missed it in the midst of the rest of the verbage. If you would post it again I would be happy to take a look. But please make a short post with that link clearly evident. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Plasma-Astrophysics-Science-Library/dp/9027711518 </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Actually you didn't. You gave a reference to a web site that supposedly contains a link to Birkeland's work, but despite several attempts I could not get that file to actually download. I was able to see enough to conclude that Birkeland did some real science, particularly with respect to the aurora, but not enough to see any clear connection with solar physics or cosmology. In fact, I still rather doubt that connection. Edit: I tried the site again this evening, and this time it was working and I did download Birkeland's account of his expedition. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>IMO Birkeland was the quintessential emprical scientist. The guy hiked around the most formidable and hostile environments on Earth to collect in-situ measurements to then compare with his emprical experiments. He had no problem expressing his ideas in mathematical detail, and he could integrate and find derivatives with the best of them. Chapman's ideas were purely mathematical in nature, and lacked emprical and in-situ support. Math alone is no barometer of "truth". It wasn't until the 1970's that in-situ satellite evidence confirmed what he learned from from in-situr measurements on Earth. </p><p>The emprical experimentation that Birkieland performed is the real strength of this work. He didn't rely upon mental theories and mathematics alone. Instead he took an empirical approach and confirmed his ideas with emprical tests. That's the real "science" behind his work. </p><p>Astronomers today are like Chapman. They don't "test" their theories in a lab. Nobody has for instance shown a correlation between "magnetic reconnection" and particle acceleration the way that Birkeland showed the correlation between "current flow" and these events. Birkeland "proved" emprically that current flows were involved in Aurora, coronal loop activity and atmospheric activity around all physical bodies in space. I assure you that the math is there DrRocket, starting with Birkeland's earliest work. He was willing to use math to support his ideas, but he did not rely *only* upon math alone as did Chapman. The reason that Birkeland's work proved to be superior to Chapman is due to the fact that Birkeland went to greater lengths than Chapman. He did the math, the lab work *and* took measurements from the most hostile envrionments on the planet. Chapmen played around wtih a few mathematical formulas that turned out to be highly misleading.</p><p>Math alone is not a barometer of "truth" DrRocket. I realize that your math skills may always be superior to mine, but I highly doubt you're even in the league of Birkeland and Alfven because I've seen their math. I trust their math skills, but I trust their lab work even more. You and I have a somewhat different approach to science. I'm more of a "hands on" sort of person. I like to know how things work no only in terms of math, but in terms of physics and in terms of physical testing. I'm afraid you're going to get stuck in Chapman's predicament if your only barometer of "truthiness" is how elegantly the math may be presented to you. Make no mistake, Birkeland's math was important, but his in situ measurements and his emprical testing was even more important and even more impressive. Math alone cannot tell us what reality is all about. Only measurements and physical emprical testing can tell us what is mere mathematical speculation and what is an accurate representation of reality. Computers can create virtual worlds from math alone. Reality however needs to be physically understood by physical tests. </p><p> </p><p> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Plasma-Astrophysics-Science-Library/dp/9027711518 <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Amazon.com does seem to have the book for a price. But you forgot to include your Visa card number. <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 177
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
-
-
Question Educating Space to Toddlers to Pre-Adolescence?
- Started by NeoViking
- Replies: 10
-
Blue Origin stacks huge New Glenn rocket ahead of 1st launch (photo)
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 5
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram