Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

Page 24 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... 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.&nbsp; I trust their math skills, but I trust their lab work even more.&nbsp; You and I have a somewhat different approach to science.&nbsp; I'm more of a "hands on" sort of person.&nbsp; I like to know how things work no only in terms of math, but in terms of physics and in terms of physical testing. &nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Math alone cannot tell us what reality is all about.&nbsp; Only measurements and physical emprical testing can tell us what is mere mathematical speculation and what is an accurate representation of reality.&nbsp; Computers can create virtual worlds from math alone.&nbsp; Reality however needs to be physically understood by physical tests. &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You are completely misconstruing the role of mathematics in physics.</p><p>Physical principles are formulated in the language of mathematics.&nbsp; But it is experimental evidence that confirms the validity of those principles.&nbsp; Once the principles are in place then mathematics can be used to make physical predictions.&nbsp; One can have great confidence in those predictions so long as the principles are applied within a know domain of validity (e.g. Newtonian mechanics is very accurate at speeds small with respect to the speed of light and within modest gravitational fields).&nbsp; But within a known range of validity,&nbsp;predictions rigorously derived using mathematics from well-established principles, such as Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's equations, are less prone to error than are simple laboratory experiments.&nbsp; Where laboratory experiments and direct observations are to be preferred is where either&nbsp;approximations are being used and the validity of the approximation is in doubt (e.g. frozen magnetic field lines) or where the validity of the basic principles themselves is in doubt (e.g. situations where Newtonian gravity is not adequate and general relativity is needed or where general relativity itself is in question).&nbsp; The reason for this is that the fundamental laws of physics and their mathematical framework have been tested time and again in experiments and that complete body of experimental work trumps any single other laboratory exercise, so long as one works within a known domain of validity.&nbsp; </p><p>BTW Birkeland's and Alfven's mathematics so far does appear to be sound, but it is also pretty basic.&nbsp; Neither Birkeland nor Alfven were mathematicians, but what mathematics they did use appears to be valid.&nbsp; In Birkeland's case a large fraction of modern mathematics did not even exist at the time that he did his work.</p><p>In situ measurements are good, but one must be careful when applying laboratory work and extrapolating it to problems on a much larger scale.&nbsp; That is precisely the situation in which one needs the fundamental laws of electrodynamics and mechanics bolstered by rigorous mathematics to make good physical conslusions.&nbsp; "Looks like" is not sound physics.&nbsp; You need the mathematics to reach real physical conclusions.</p><p>What one does with computers is, in many cases, not mathematics at all.&nbsp; It is simply an arithmetic exercise, and without the application of real mathematics and real physics can be quite misleading.&nbsp; The real work is in formulating the problem in terms of physical law, developing the necessary mathematical model, and then applying numerical analysis to approximate the mathematical model with a procedure than can be implemented in a digital computer.&nbsp; One also needs to do an error analysis to evaluate the output of that digital computer program before accepting the results as meaningful.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p>While I pretty much agree with everything you said, unlike Birkeland, the mainstream has never demonstrated a link between particle acceleration and "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp;&nbsp; Maxwell's equations don't even allow for the making and breaking of individual magnetic field lines.&nbsp; This stuff *can* be simulated on a computer of course, but it cannot be duplicated in a lab.&nbsp;&nbsp; Birkeland *emprically* demonstrated a physical connection between coronal loops and aurora and planetary rings and "electricity".&nbsp; When astronomers today talk about "magnetic reconnection", it's just like Chapman's theory.&nbsp; There is a mathematical model, and nothing in the way of emprical physical support.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The only phyiscal "test" of the idea took place inside of a current sheet, the one place that Alfven emphatically denied it could occur.&nbsp; The mainstream makes extraordinary claims that it cannot emprically support.&nbsp; The lack of emprical testing is what makes their position so weak.&nbsp;&nbsp; Like Chapman, they may understand how to use math, but like Chapman they also forgot to check their work in lab.&nbsp; Birkeland didn't make that mistake, nor did Alfven.&nbsp; I grant you that we may not be able to make in-situ measurements from distant positions in space, but every part of Alfven and Birkeland's EU theories have been verified in a lab in some physical manner.&nbsp; Birkeland went so far as to literally simulate the conditions he believed existed in space, and through that work he was able to verify his physical mathematical models.&nbsp; Without any emprical testing, there is no way to determine if a mathematical model is even applicable, let alone that it is "right".&nbsp; Chapman's math looked fine on paper, but it was inapplicable in the real world.&nbsp; That is why it is so important to *physically test* all theories.</p><p>The mainstream today has forgotten this part of "science".&nbsp; They have abandoned it almost entirely. &nbsp;&nbsp; There is no physical test of "inflation". or "dark" forces, nor is there any physical test of "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; A current sheet interaction is a kinetic an electrical reconnection process.&nbsp; It is not a "magnetic reconnection" process.&nbsp; Maxwell's equations don't allow for individual field lines to be cut and spliced.&nbsp; You might be able to "simulate' a scenario where they would "reconnect" in some virtual computer simulation, but in the real world only particles and electricity "reconnects".&nbsp; There is no legitimate substitute for emprical testing to be found in a computer simulation of a mathematical model.&nbsp; Only an emprical test can verify or eliminate a mathematical model as Chapman and Birkeland can both attest.</p><p>EU theory is founded upon three basic principles.</p><p>A) Mathematical modeling</p><p>B) In situ measurements</p><p>C) Emprical testing.</p><p>Birkeland personally did all three of these things. &nbsp; He didn't just offer us a mathematical model, he proved that it had merit in his physical tests and in his collection of in-situ measurements.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Chapman only did A), whereas Birkeland did all three.&nbsp;&nbsp; At no point has EU theory lacked a mathematical foundation.&nbsp; Alfven took Birkeland's basic work and expanded it significantly, but even starting with Birkeland, EU theory has always been founded in mathematics, and mathematical models. </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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p>http://www.physorg.com/news136127510.html</p><p>It seems that the Themis team has become the single biggest source of misinformation about the topic of "magnetic reconnection", and they had a very odd way of "interpreting" (spinning) their own data.</p><p>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/themis_power_media.html</p><p>This just so happens to be another classic example of how "electricity" has become the forbidden topic and how astronomers have ignored the obvious yet again.</p><p>I'll start my critique of this presentation with the audio presentation that Derick recommended in another thread.&nbsp; Rather than hijack Dericks thread I thought I would respond to this article, interview and paper in this thread so that we can keep everything nice and tidy and we keep my critique of the topic of magnetic reconnection limited to s single thread.</p><p>First of all the authors of the paper began with two models, *both* of which *require* some form of "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Talk about stacking the deck!&nbsp; There is no "null condition" possible in their "test" of the magnetic reconnection concept.&nbsp; It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition if you're a critic of "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; I found the audio presentation to be most enlightening.&nbsp; They selected two different magnetic reconnection models and ultimately they falsified both of them, and then they claimed that they had "resolved" the debate.&nbsp; How silly can they get?</p><p>First of all, let's look at the order of events that they outline in both of their models, and then let's see how their "predictions" panned out.</p><p><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/8/2/08802b31-92f3-4f62-a233-9ca921f11386.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>&nbsp;<br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/5/5/e5be9a8f-d810-4a58-a5e1-eb6c93b3af47.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/13/2784c248-2b60-44c3-9da3-cc63c75e0db2.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>&nbsp;The first two images show the "predictions" of the order of events in each of the magnetic reconnection models that they used.&nbsp; The last image is the actual order of events as recorded by the satellites.&nbsp; If you take a look at the actual series of events, these events didn't match either of their "predictions".&nbsp; Rather than noting that they had falsified both of their magnetic reconnection models, they "spun" the data and they claimed during the interview that they had resolved the debate!&nbsp; That is patently absurd!&nbsp; They actually falsifed both models!</p><p>This has to be the single biggest "rip off" of a finding that I've ever seen.&nbsp; Not only did they fail to actually demonstrate that one of the two magnetic reconnection models was superior to the other, they actually demonstrated that neither of the models was accurate. How and why they tried to pass this off as a decisive finding is simply beyond me.&nbsp; I have no words to accurately describe the silliness of this article and their paper.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>First of all they began with false dichotomy.&nbsp; There are certainly far more than two different ways to "interpret" this data.&nbsp; None of them bothered to mention Birkeland or Alfven or their 'predictions", and Alfven wrote a whole paper on this topic which they simply ignored. &nbsp; None of them bothered to mention the small fact that "magnetic reconnection" violates Maxwell's equations since his equations do not allow for magnetic field lines to be spliced, cut or to "reconnect" with another field.&nbsp;&nbsp; At the very end of the audio interview process they actually did try to use a current flow analogy to explain to the interviewers what was actually "reconnecting", but throughout the interview the continously used the term "magnetic field" rather than the correct term "electromagnetic field".&nbsp; They talked about the millions of amps that they observed flowing through the aurora, but they neglected to even consider an Alfven or Birkeland model, and they ultimately falsified both of their own theories! &nbsp; Neither of the order of event predictions they made panned out.&nbsp; The flow of energy began in the tail (electrons flowed into the Earth's magnetotail for the heliosphere) and then they flowed into the aurora, and eventually "they reconnected" (with postively charged ions) back in the middle of the tail.&nbsp;&nbsp; It was a "curent flow" event from start to finish.</p><p>The really incredible part of their audio presentation was the fact that they neglected to even mention the fact that they had actually falsified both of their magnetic reconnection models.&nbsp; Instead of noting that obvious point, they claimed that one of the two options had been eliminated in favor of the other one.&nbsp; They then claimed to have then found "a surprise".&nbsp;&nbsp; They could just as easily have favored the other theory that they claimed to have falsified and eliminated and ruled out the one that they selected because neither of their models accurately predicted the order of events.&nbsp; The order of events did not match either of their two models.&nbsp; In the end. their "choice" of a "winner" was totally and utterly arbitrary.&nbsp; Neither of their models actually passed the prediction test.&nbsp; This is a classic example of "fudging the numbers" to make something fit. Not only did they falsify one of their models, they actually falsified both of them.&nbsp; The "surprise" they found in their result was pure "spin".&nbsp;&nbsp; The real "surprise" is why they didn't just admit that both models had been falsified.&nbsp; </p><p>What a goofy presentation IMO!&nbsp; FYI, the really interesting part of the audio interview (quite long by the way) was listening to the way they tried to explain to the media what was actually "reconnecting", and the fact the ultimately used an electrical analogy in the end.&nbsp; They also used the term "magnetic rope" during the interview which by Alfven's MHD definition of a magnetic rope is a current carrying thread of plasma.&nbsp;&nbsp; All of their uses of the term "magnetic field" during that interview process was a pure form of misinformation.&nbsp; It neglects the particle flow that is already present in the field.&nbsp; It is an "electromagnetic field" that they are observing, not a "magnetic one". They noted the million mile per hour charged particle flow from the sun, but they neglected to call it a "current flow" until *after* the supposed "magnetic reconnection" event.&nbsp; That was really a sad interview and audio presentation and poor scientific presentation.&nbsp; I haven't read the paper yet, but if the audio version was any indication of the ridiculous nature of their presumed finding, I will have an absolute field day with their 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>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp; None of them bothered to mention the small fact that "magnetic reconnection" violates Maxwell's equations since his equations do not allow for magnetic field lines to be spliced, cut or to "reconnect" with another field.&nbsp;&nbsp;...Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You have made this statement repeatedly.&nbsp; But you have never clearly defined your terms and backed up the assertion with physics.&nbsp; The definitions being used by mainstream astrophysicists have absolutely nothing whatever to do with&nbsp;cutting and splicing of magnetic field lines.&nbsp; What is depicted in the video is a a change in the configuration of the magnetic field lines (and a magnetic field line is nothing more than a line the tangent to which is the direction of the vector at that point from the magnetic vector field).&nbsp; That change, while rapid, is smooth and nothing is being cut or spliced.&nbsp; The change is rather akin to what occurs with a plasma instability, which ought to be familiar to you.</p><p>So please at this time:</p><p>1.&nbsp; Provide your definition of magnetic reconnection in terms that can be directly related to Maxwell's equations.</p><p>2.&nbsp; Demonstrate clearly, with real no-kidding mathematics, how that definition in any way violates Maxwell's equations.</p><p>Please do not try to avoid the question by references to a "complete continuum" since the video clearly shows that the astrophysicists presenting the research understand that the magnetic field is indeed a continuous, and in fact smooth, vector field.&nbsp; Please also refrain from using the terms "cutting" and "splicing" outside of a framework in which you can define them mathematically and show that such cutting and splicing is in fact erroneous and part of the model being presented by the astrophysicists.&nbsp; And please do not try to avoid the question by references to Alfven's work unless you can quote specific responses to both item 1 and item 2 -- in other words you can reproduce Alven's work but not just make make vague references.</p><p>In short it is time to put up or shut up.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p>I understand your initial, defensive, emotional, knee-jerk reaction... I really do.&nbsp; I think if you set your emotions aside for a moment and listen to the teleconference again, you will find this really isn't about reconnection.&nbsp; Obviously, they are simply working with what mainstream considers to be the underlying mechanism.&nbsp; Whether their assumption is correct or not isn't what is really important here.</p><p>The significance of their findings are more to do with the timing of the events.&nbsp; I agree that they essentially faslified both their working models.&nbsp; They clearly admitted as much.</p><p>What is significant is that they were able to pinpoint where the "event" initiated and were able to time the resulting events.</p><p>While i agree with you about them relating the initial cause to magnetic reconnection, I think your assessments and criticisms are a bit over the top and unwarranted.&nbsp;&nbsp; He clearly said in the teleconference, when trying to explain reconnection, that it was still a poorly understood phenomena (or words to that effect).</p><p>I agree... I think he bungled his description of what a reconnection event is trying to put it into layman's terms, but still gave a fairly adequate assessment of the mainstream concesus.</p><p>Clearly, you disagree as to what the underlying cause of these events are, but when a scientist is asked about reconnection, how is he/she supposed to respond?&nbsp; Do you expect them to give an hour long dissertation on all the possible mechanisms and explain the debate?&nbsp; Or, like this guy did... explain the mainstream thoughts and add that it is essentially still a work in progress and not very well understood.&nbsp; I don't consider that misinformation.&nbsp;</p><p>Misinformation makes it appear as if it was deliberate and this is clearly not the case.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have made this statement repeatedly.&nbsp; But you have never clearly defined your terms and backed up the assertion with physics. </DIV></p><p>You have repeatedly ignored my request for you to demonstrate that magnetic field lines "reconnect" and release energy in the process.&nbsp; You're the one making the claim, and you've never demonstrated it.&nbsp; Where in Maxwell's equations do you get the idea you can cut and splice magnetic field lines and get energy?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The definitions being used by mainstream astrophysicists have absolutely nothing whatever to do with&nbsp;cutting and splicing of magnetic field lines.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Baloney.&nbsp; I watched tusenfems presentation, and I've read many papers on this topic.&nbsp; They talk about "storing energy" in magnetic fields that eventually "snap".&nbsp; The whole theory of magnetic reconncection is based on the idea of cutting and splicing magnetic field lines to release kinetic energy.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is depicted in the video is a a change in the configuration of the magnetic field lines (and a magnetic field line is nothing more than a line the tangent to which is the direction of the vector at that point from the magnetic vector field).</DIV></p><p>The magnetic field lines are composed of *flowing charged particles*, and these fields change their topology as current flows change their direction.&nbsp; &nbsp; This particular issue is quite interesting because Alfven himself had to deal with these concepts in exactly this scenario and he rejected the idea of magnetic reconnection outright under these conditions.&nbsp; You can't ignore the kinetic energy of the particle flow, either from the electrons coming into the tail from the heliosphere, or from the million mile per hour paricle whizzing by.&nbsp; There is no "magnetic" reconnection going on here, it's purely a kinetic and electrical reconnection process.&nbsp; Never once during the interview did these folks even *mention* the fact that these were *electromagnetic* fields, they kept calling me "magnetic fields".&nbsp; The amusing part was at the end of the interview.&nbsp; The interviewers were having a tough time understanding exactly what was reconnecting, and they finally used a current flow analogy to explain the concept.&nbsp; Up to that point, it had be "magnetic field" this, "magnetic field' that, magnetic everything.&nbsp; Never once did they call it an "electro*magnetic field.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That change, while rapid, is smooth and nothing is being cut or spliced.</DIV></p><p>Describe the process mathematically for me.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The change is rather akin to what occurs with a plasma instability, which ought to be familiar to you.So please at this time:1.&nbsp; Provide your definition of magnetic reconnection in terms that can be directly related to Maxwell's equations.</DIV></p><p>Gah!&nbsp; I can't do that because magnetic reconnection is not congurent with Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; You're the one claiming that "magnetic reconnection did it".&nbsp; It's up to you to demonstrate it.&nbsp; Birkeland already showed the emprical correlation between this sort of high energy behavior and changes to the current flow in his experiments.&nbsp; Nobody's done that for "magnetic reconnection" and the only test of that concept was done inside of a current sheet, the one place Alfven claimed it could not be applied!&nbsp; You're trying to shift the burden of proof to me, and I can't prove a negative.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>2.&nbsp; Demonstrate clearly, with real no-kidding mathematics, how that definition in any way violates Maxwell's equations.</DIV></p><p>Show me some "magnetic reconnection" math and we'll discuss it.&nbsp; Show me how it is unique and differernt from ordinary kinetic ane electrical interactions in plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please do not try to avoid the question by references to a "complete continuum" since the video clearly shows that the astrophysicists presenting the research understand that the magnetic field is indeed a continuous, and in fact smooth, vector field.</DIV></p><p>Then now the heck are they getting energy out of magnetic reconnection again?&nbsp; Why are they calling "magnetic reconnection" at all?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please also refrain from using the terms "cutting" and "splicing" outside of a framework in which you can define them mathematically and show that such cutting and splicing is in fact erroneous and part of the model being presented by the astrophysicists.</DIV></p><p>Please show me the mathematics that allow you to derive energy from "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp; And please do not try to avoid the question by references to Alfven's work unless you can quote specific responses to both item 1 and item 2 -- in other words you can reproduce Alven's work but not just make make vague references.In short it is time to put up or shut up. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Then it's time for you to put up some math to support your magnetic reconnection theory, something I've been trying to get you to do since your disccussion with Tusenfem began.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>You are attempting to shift the burden of proof to me, when you are the one making the claim. &nbsp; You're trying to claim that "magnetic fields" somehow "reconnect".&nbsp; Explain it mathmatically and we'll see how you think it works.&nbsp; Right now these claims are highly vague and I have absolutely no idea how you intend to make individual field lines ""reconnect".&nbsp; I need to see your work and you need to explalin it, not me.&nbsp; I'm not the one claiming that "magnetic reconnection did it".&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I understand your initial, defensive, emotional, knee-jerk reaction... I really do.&nbsp; I think if you set your emotions aside for a moment and listen to the teleconference again, you will find this really isn't about reconnection. </DIV></p><p>First of all, my response was not emotional, it was logical.&nbsp; They falsified both of their models.&nbsp; What can I say from a purely scientific perspective other than the fact that they actually falsfiied both of their "magnetic reconnection" models.&nbsp; Case closed.&nbsp; They resolved absolutely nothing other than to demonstrate that their current theories were flawed. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Obviously, they are simply working with what mainstream considers to be the underlying mechanism. </DIV></p><p>The underlying mechanism is "current flow", not "magnetic reconnection". &nbsp; I loved how they began with two models, both of which *assume* a magnetic reconnection process.&nbsp; &nbsp; They only way that "magnetic reconnection" could not have been involved is if they falsified both of them.&nbsp; They did!&nbsp; We now evidence that "magnetic reconnection" had nothing whatsoever do to with this event.&nbsp; That is because it is primarily a "current driven" event, not a magneticically driven events.&nbsp; The magnetic fields change as the current flow changes.&nbsp; It's not rocket science, it's simply electrical activity.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Whether their assumption is correct or not isn't what is really important here.</DIV></p><p>Yes it is!&nbsp; If their models are useless in their predictive abilities, then it's time for some new models!&nbsp; You can't falsify and theory and then claim it doesn't matter. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The significance of their findings are more to do with the timing of the events. </DIV></p><p>The timing of events was the only difference between their two models.&nbsp; In other words, both of them *assumed* magnetic reconnection was involved in this process, and neither of them accurately predicted the outcome.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree that they essentially faslified both their working models.&nbsp; They clearly admitted as much.</DIV></p><p>No they didn't.&nbsp; They claimed to have made an important break through in choosing between two competing models.&nbsp; They falsified them both, so that claim is ridiculous. They simply observed what Birkeland created in his lab.&nbsp; They observed the flow of electrons into the Earth's magenetotail, into the aurora, and then watched them "reconnect" with positively charged ions in the middle of the magnetotail.&nbsp; Every part of that event was driven by the flow of particles and specifically the flow of electrons from the heliosphere, into the magnetotail of Earth.&nbsp; Nothing about this event had anything whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection", and they demonstrated that point for us by falsifying both of the most popular magnetic reonnection theories.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is significant is that they were able to pinpoint where the "event" initiated and were able to time the resulting events.</DIV></p><p>It's only significant if you understand what you are observing.&nbsp; The initiation of the event in the back part of the magnetotail is expected in EU theory too, but then they never mentioned EU theory, now did they?&nbsp; They never once mentioned that magnetic reconnection had been disproved by their results, but that is exactly what they ultimately did.&nbsp; They falsified both theories.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>While i agree with you about them relating the initial cause to magnetic reconnection,</DIV></p><p>What evidence do they actually have that "magnetic reconnection" had anything to do with this event?&nbsp; Let me answer that for you since you don't like it wihen I ask you questions.&nbsp; The answer is "none".&nbsp; They have no evidence that magnetic reconnection is in any way responsible for these events and yet they claimed that was the case over and over and over and over again. They essentiallly ignored the implications of their own work and repeated claims that were clearly false.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think your assessments and criticisms are a bit over the top and unwarranted. </DIV></p><p>In what way?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>He clearly said in the teleconference, when trying to explain reconnection, that it was still a poorly understood phenomena (or words to that effect).</DIV></p><p>The "poor understanding" is related to the fact that "magnetic reconnection" never actually occurs in nature, and they don't understand that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree... I think he bungled his description of what a reconnection event is trying to put it into layman's terms, but still gave a fairly adequate assessment of the mainstream concesus.Clearly, you disagree as to what the underlying cause of these events are, but when a scientist is asked about reconnection, how is he/she supposed to respond?&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>The scientifically correct answer is that "magnetic reconnection" has been falsified by their work, and the "reconnection" is kinetic and electrical in nature.&nbsp; They failed to mention that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you expect them to give an hour long dissertation on all the possible mechanisms and explain the debate? </DIV></p><p>No, I expected them to note that they had falsified the two most common theories about "magnetic reconnection", and that some other non magnetic reconnetion process must be responsible for these events.&nbsp; They never did that.&nbsp; They kept making claims that were clearly false.&nbsp; Magnetic reconnection had nothing to do with these events and they proved it. &nbsp; Instead of stating this, they showed how emotionally attached they are to the concept of "magnetic reconnection" and continued to claim "magnetic reconnection did it".&nbsp; That's bizzare behavior no matter how you try to reationalize it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Or, like this guy did... explain the mainstream thoughts and add that it is essentially still a work in progress and not very well understood.&nbsp; I don't consider that misinformation.&nbsp;Misinformation makes it appear as if it was deliberate and this is clearly not the case.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Baloney. They falsified both of their "magnetic reconnection" modals yet they continued to claim that magnetic reconnection did it.&nbsp; That's about as misleading as one can possibly get.&nbsp; They literally blew both theories out of the water, yet clung to one of them anyway, and then made false claims about how magnetic reconnection was involved in this 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>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You have repeatedly ignored my request for you to demonstrate that magnetic field lines "reconnect" and release energy in the process.&nbsp; You're the one making the claim, and you've never demonstrated it.&nbsp;..&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Nice try at trying to wiggle out.&nbsp; But it won't work&nbsp;</p><p>Sorry, but I have not made a claim other than to say that I don't see any contravention of Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; My statement is merely the observations that a vector field can&nbsp;appear in&nbsp;many forms and a change in topology of the solutions to&nbsp;Maxwell's equations is no violation.&nbsp; They are after solutions to the equations. &nbsp;You, on the other hand made the clear statement that reconnection violates those equations, in just those terms.&nbsp; The onus is on you to back up your statement.&nbsp; Period. </p><p>So, one more time.&nbsp; Put up or shut up.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
U

UFmbutler

Guest
You claim to have read several papers on the topic, but I am finding this hard to believe.&nbsp; A simple AGU search(took me like 15 seconds) gave me hundreds of papers providing evidence of magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; Like this one, for example(http://www.agu.org/journals/ja/v105/iA11/2000JA900075/2000JA900075.pdf)&nbsp; I'm assuming you have permission to view it given that you claim to have read many others.&nbsp; Your style of argument is incredibly flawed.&nbsp; All you do when this guy gives you thought-out, reasonable, researched replies is cry out SHOW ME THE MATHEMATICAL PROOF.&nbsp; Not everything can be proven mathematically...do you understand how variable and chaotic the Earth's magnetosphere is?&nbsp; All we can say is that there is evidence of reconnection, strong evidence, so why should this scientific community believe the ramblings of some guy on a message board?&nbsp; How about you show us some proof of what you are saying? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nice try at trying to wiggle out.&nbsp; But it won't work&nbsp;Sorry, but I have not made a claim other than to say that I don't see any contravention of Maxwell's equations.</DIV></p><p>Show me equations then of "magnetic reconnection" that don't violate any of them.&nbsp; You've never shown me mathematically how any energy is released in "magnetic reconnection" so I can't "dispove" your claim.&nbsp; I can't come up with any math where "magnetic reconnection" actually occurs, so asking me to show you math related to magnetic reconnection is absurd.&nbsp;&nbsp; Magnetic reconnection is a myth.&nbsp; There is no math that will make it work.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> My statement is merely the observations that a vector field can&nbsp;appear in&nbsp;many forms and a change in topology of the solutions to&nbsp;Maxwell's equations is no violation.&nbsp; They are after solutions to the equations. &nbsp;You, on the other hand made the clear statement that reconnection violates those equations, in just those terms.&nbsp; The onus is on you to back up your statement.&nbsp; Period. So, one more time.&nbsp; Put up or shut up. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I have repeatedly asked you to provide me with a mathematical model of "magnetic reconnection" theory since your conversation with tusenfem.&nbsp;&nbsp; You refused to even ask him for a mathematical model even though I said I would tackle that particular mathematical model with you, provided that he wasn't violating laws of physics in the process, and he wasn't violating Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; You never provided us with any math.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you believe that "magnetic reconnection" happens, then you need to emprically and mathematically demonstrate that belief is true.&nbsp; I am not obligated to demonstrate a negative because that is impossible.&nbsp; You're trying to shift the burden of proof to me, when the burden is purely your own.&nbsp; Show me any math behind "magnetic reconnection" that violates none of Maxwell's equations. Even a mathematical model is no guarantee of accuracy.&nbsp; Just ask the guys and gals from the Themis team. They blew out both of their magnetic reconnection models, math or no math.</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>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Show me equations then of "magnetic reconnection" that don't violate any of them.&nbsp; You've never shown me mathematically how any energy is released in "magnetic reconnection" so I can't "dispove" your claim.&nbsp; I can't come up with any math where "magnetic reconnection" actually occurs, so asking me to show you math related to magnetic reconnection is absurd.&nbsp;&nbsp; Magnetic reconnection is a myth.&nbsp; There is no math that will make it work.I have repeatedly asked you to provide me with a mathematical model of "magnetic reconnection" theory since your conversation with tusenfem.&nbsp;&nbsp; You refused to even ask him for a mathematical model even though I said I would tackle that particular mathematical model with you, provided that he wasn't violating laws of physics in the process, and he wasn't violating Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; You never provided us with any math.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you believe that "magnetic reconnection" happens, then you need to emprically and mathematically demonstrate that belief is true.&nbsp; I am not obligated to demonstrate a negative because that is impossible.&nbsp; You're trying to shift the burden of proof to me, when the burden is purely your own.&nbsp; Show me any math behind "magnetic reconnection" that violates none of Maxwell's equations. Even a mathematical model is no guarantee of accuracy.&nbsp; Just ask the guys and gals from the Themis team. They blew out both of their magnetic reconnection models, math or no math. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You keep dodging the question.&nbsp; I will handle conversations with tusenfem on another board all by myself.&nbsp; I think that I can handle any mathematics that you can or in fact that he can.&nbsp; That is one of my specialities, and I spent rather a long studying the subject at a pretty advanced level. The next time I see any&nbsp;mathematics from you will be the first time.</p><p>And by the way I did show you quite a simple and practical example of how a change in the topology of a magnetic field can release energy.&nbsp; Remember the old automobile ignition systems with a coil and points ?&nbsp; And don't come back with your nonsensical argument that this is all the result of current switching -- of course current changes are involved.&nbsp; That is where magnetic fields come from.&nbsp; And despite your assertions as to what astrophysicists know and don't know, I assure you that they understand the connection between current and magnetic fields far better than do you.</p><p>Now, back to the original issue.&nbsp; You have stated that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; Prove it.&nbsp; the onus is on you to back up your assertion and not on anyone else to show that you are wrong.</p><p>Put up or shut up.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You claim to have read several papers on the topic, but I am finding this hard to believe.&nbsp; A simple AGU search(took me like 15 seconds) gave me hundreds of papers providing evidence of magnetic reconnection. </DIV></p><p>Please describe to me the unique physical energy release mechanism of "magnetic reconnection" that is emprically distinguishable from ordinary electrical and kinetic interactions in plasma.</p><p>Please provide us with a mathematical model to describe this process.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Like this one, for example(http://www.agu.org/journals/ja/v105/iA11/2000JA900075/2000JA900075.pdf)&nbsp; I'm assuming you have permission to view it given that you claim to have read many others. </DIV></p><p>And what about that paper are you suggesting is evidence of "magnetic reconnection"?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your style of argument is incredibly flawed.&nbsp; All you do when this guy gives you thought-out, reasonable, researched replies is cry out SHOW ME THE MATHEMATICAL PROOF. </DIV></p><p>I'd settle for *any* "evidence" at all.&nbsp; Math would be helpful of course, but I would easily settle for a physical model and an emprical test of concept without a mathematical model.&nbsp; Any evidence will do.&nbsp; A math formula alone would actually not do in the sense that mathematical models, like Chapman's model, often look good on paper, and work to a limited degree, but they don't reflect actions in the real world.&nbsp; I'd rather see an emprical test frankly, but if DrRocket wants to talk about the math, he needs to present a mathematical model and explain how it is physically unique and differnt from an ordinary electrical interaction in plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not everything can be proven mathematically.</DIV></p><p>I fully agree with you on this point.&nbsp; In fact I would argue that *nothing* can ever be "proven" by math alone.&nbsp; Many mathematical models have been mathematically sound yet physically inapplicable.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>..do you understand how variable and chaotic the Earth's magnetosphere is? </DIV></p><p>Yes, &nbsp; The solar atmosphere is even fore chaotic, but then electron flows tend to do that in plasma.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>All we can say is that there is evidence of reconnection, strong evidence,</DIV></p><p>What evidence?&nbsp; Both of their models were falsified by their own observations.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>so why should this scientific community believe the ramblings of some guy on a message board? </DIV></p><p>Because I'm right, and they even demontrated it for me.&nbsp; They falsified both the most common models of "magnetic reconnection", so we now know that magnetic reconnection was not involved in these events in any way shape or form.&nbsp; :)&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How about you show us some proof of what you are saying? <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>What more proof do you require than what they already provided for us in this presentation?&nbsp; They showed us two models, both of which bit the dust in the real world. &nbsp; They ultimately demonstrated that magnetic reconnection had nothing to do with this event and that all magnetic reconnection models related to the magnetosphere were useless when it came to making predictions.&nbsp; What else is there to discuss if both models were falsified and there are only 6 possible premiations to begin with? &nbsp; </p><p>These events were purely electrical in nature.&nbsp; Electrons flow from the heliosphere to the photosphere and protons and charged particles flow from the photosphere toward the heliosphere due to the charge separatation between them.&nbsp; The electrons comeing from the heliosphere entered the tail of the magnetosphere. They flowed along the outside plasma sheath and into the aurora.&nbsp;&nbsp; They then flowed out of the Earth and "reconnected" with positively charged ions in the middle of the magnetotail.&nbsp; The whole thing was driven by current flow and it has absolutely nothing whatsoever do with "magnetic reconnection" as this information ultimately demonstrates.&nbsp;&nbsp; Both of the popular magnetic reconnection models failed to accuately predict the sequence of events, so obviously magnetic reconnection theories are falsified by this observed sequence of events.&nbsp; The flow from completely different from either of the most popular theories, so these events cannot be related to "magnetic reconnetion" in any way, shape or form. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
U

UFmbutler

Guest
<p>"And what about that paper are you suggesting is evidence of "magnetic reconnection"?"</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Dude, did you even click the link?&nbsp; It even says in the TITLE, "Evidence of magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; The WHOLE THING is what I am suggesting is evidence. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"And what about that paper are you suggesting is evidence of "magnetic reconnection"?"&nbsp;Dude, did you even click the link?&nbsp; It even says in the TITLE, "Evidence of magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; The WHOLE THING is what I am suggesting is evidence. &nbsp; <br />Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>To praphrase Murray Gell Mann, "I see you've met Michael" .</p><p>(Gell Mann said to a reporter "I see you met Richard", as the reporter was beating feet down the hall after an encounter with Feynman.)<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First of all, my response was not emotional, it was logical.&nbsp; They falsified both of their models.&nbsp; What can I say from a purely scientific perspective other than the fact that they actually falsfiied both of their "magnetic reconnection" models.&nbsp; Case closed.&nbsp; They resolved absolutely nothing other than to demonstrate that their current theories were flawed. &nbsp; The underlying mechanism is "current flow", not "magnetic reconnection". &nbsp; I loved how they began with two models, both of which *assume* a magnetic reconnection process.&nbsp; &nbsp; They only way that "magnetic reconnection" could not have been involved is if they falsified both of them.&nbsp; They did!&nbsp; We now evidence that "magnetic reconnection" had nothing whatsoever do to with this event.&nbsp; That is because it is primarily a "current driven" event, not a magneticically driven events.&nbsp; The magnetic fields change as the current flow changes.&nbsp; It's not rocket science, it's simply electrical activity.Yes it is!&nbsp; If their models are useless in their predictive abilities, then it's time for some new models!&nbsp; You can't falsify and theory and then claim it doesn't matter. The timing of events was the only difference between their two models.&nbsp; In other words, both of them *assumed* magnetic reconnection was involved in this process, and neither of them accurately predicted the outcome.No they didn't.&nbsp; They claimed to have made an important break through in choosing between two competing models.&nbsp; They falsified them both, so that claim is ridiculous. They simply observed what Birkeland created in his lab.&nbsp; They observed the flow of electrons into the Earth's magenetotail, into the aurora, and then watched them "reconnect" with positively charged ions in the middle of the magnetotail.&nbsp; Every part of that event was driven by the flow of particles and specifically the flow of electrons from the heliosphere, into the magnetotail of Earth.&nbsp; Nothing about this event had anything whatsoever to do with "magnetic reconnection", and they demonstrated that point for us by falsifying both of the most popular magnetic reonnection theories.It's only significant if you understand what you are observing.&nbsp; The initiation of the event in the back part of the magnetotail is expected in EU theory too, but then they never mentioned EU theory, now did they?&nbsp; They never once mentioned that magnetic reconnection had been disproved by their results, but that is exactly what they ultimately did.&nbsp; They falsified both theories.What evidence do they actually have that "magnetic reconnection" had anything to do with this event?&nbsp; Let me answer that for you since you don't like it wihen I ask you questions.&nbsp; The answer is "none".&nbsp; They have no evidence that magnetic reconnection is in any way responsible for these events and yet they claimed that was the case over and over and over and over again. They essentiallly ignored the implications of their own work and repeated claims that were clearly false.In what way?The "poor understanding" is related to the fact that "magnetic reconnection" never actually occurs in nature, and they don't understand that.The scientifically correct answer is that "magnetic reconnection" has been falsified by their work, and the "reconnection" is kinetic and electrical in nature.&nbsp; They failed to mention that.No, I expected them to note that they had falsified the two most common theories about "magnetic reconnection", and that some other non magnetic reconnetion process must be responsible for these events.&nbsp; They never did that.&nbsp; They kept making claims that were clearly false.&nbsp; Magnetic reconnection had nothing to do with these events and they proved it. &nbsp; Instead of stating this, they showed how emotionally attached they are to the concept of "magnetic reconnection" and continued to claim "magnetic reconnection did it".&nbsp; That's bizzare behavior no matter how you try to reationalize it.Baloney. They falsified both of their "magnetic reconnection" modals yet they continued to claim that magnetic reconnection did it.&nbsp; That's about as misleading as one can possibly get.&nbsp; They literally blew both theories out of the water, yet clung to one of them anyway, and then made false claims about how magnetic reconnection was involved in this process. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Michael... come on!!!&nbsp; How can you expect to hold a civil conversation when you, once again, resort to the same debating tactics that I've complained about.</p><p>You have completely glossed over the meaning and intent of my entire post by systematically breaking down each individual sentence, taking out of context and twisting logic to form responses that aren't even remotely considering what it is i actually said.</p><p>Your methodology is truly bizarre and confusing.&nbsp; I can't even offer a debate to your responses because they are so far off from what my post entailed. </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>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They falsified both the most common models of "magnetic reconnection", so we now know that magnetic reconnection was not involved in these events in any way shape or form.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>How did they falsify that magnetic reconnection was involved?&nbsp; Their models were built around the timing of events.&nbsp; I agree that the timing of the events in both model didn't match reality.&nbsp; What did match, and what they are focusing on, is that the INITIAL event coincides with the location where a magnetic reconnection event (if applicable) would take place.</p><p>That is what is most significant.&nbsp; There is nothing here that disproves reconnection.&nbsp; That's your wishful thinking using twisted logic.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You keep dodging the question.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>No, you keep shifting the burden of proof.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I will handle conversations with tusenfem on another board all by myself. </DIV></p><p>I'll believe it when I see it.&nbsp; I guarantee you that he won't enjoy the conversation, and you learn a great deal in that conversation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think that I can handle any mathematics that you can or in fact that he can. </DIV></p><p>I'm quite certain that is the case as well.&nbsp; That's why I'd love to see that conversation happen.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is one of my specialities, and I spent rather a long studying the subject at a pretty advanced level.</DIV></p><p>I can tell, and so can everyone else.&nbsp; I have a great respect for your mathematical skills.&nbsp; Nobody doubts your mathematical skills, not even tusenfem.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The next time I see any&nbsp;mathematics from you will be the first time.</DIV></p><p>Ditto on the magnetic reconnection issue which I told you I would explore with you if you could provide me with a model that didn't violate laws of phyiscs.</p><p>I do however think that you place far too much weight on math, and far too little weight on emprical testing.&nbsp; Birkeland tested all of his aurrora theories in lab.&nbsp; He didn't just point to the sky and claim that "electrical current did it", he physically demonstrated it in a lab.&nbsp; That's better than math in my book. &nbsp; One test is worth a thousand expert opinions because many mathematical models (like Chapman's) seem to look good on paper and work out in a general way.&nbsp; Reality however doesn't necessarily seek the path of mathematical elegance.&nbsp; It functions in a fairly chaotic way, often ways that defy mathematical modeling.</p><p>IMO, you're so good at the math, and so comfrotable with math, that you've blinded yourself to other key parts of science, specifically the need for empirical testing.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And by the way I did show you quite a simple and practical example of how a change in the topology of a magnetic field can release energy. Remember the old automobile ignition systems with a coil and points?</DIV></p><p>Induction is not "magnetic reconnection" DrRocket and you know it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And don't come back with your nonsensical argument that this is all the result of current switching -- of course current changes are involved. </DIV></p><p>Fine, I'll just note that current flows are also involved in those Themis observations, and I'll note that induction is not magnetic reconection.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is where magnetic fields come from. </DIV></p><p>You're right about this point of course, but that is the part they are missing.&nbsp; They have million mile per hour charged particles and kinetic flows of electrons whizzing by, and ultimately reconnecting with one another, and they call this kinetic energy/current flow evert: "magnetic reconnection".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And despite your assertions as to what astrophysicists know and don't know, I assure you that they understand the connection between current and magnetic fields far better than do you.</DIV></p><p>Then show me.&nbsp; Of all the folks I've met in cyberspace, no one has impressed me more as it relates to their math skills.&nbsp; You of all people should be able to make your point mathematically and blow me away if there is a mathematical basis for this theory.&nbsp; Why don't you just do it and get it over with DrRocket?&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, back to the original issue.&nbsp; You have stated that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; Prove it.&nbsp; the onus is on you to back up your assertion and not on anyone else to show that you are wrong.Put up or shut up. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The only proof required are the equations you have already posted here several times now.&nbsp; Magnetic fields form and are treated as a full continuum in Maxwell's equations.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you believe there is a mathematical basis behind "magnetic reconnection"", then put it on the table and let's look at it.&nbsp; The math should not concern you personally in the least, so if there was a valid mathemical basis for the theory, I'm sure you owuld have put it on the table already.&nbsp; Since you have not, I can only assume that one does not exist. &nbsp; Perhaps you and tusenfum should discuss this point in full and I'll simply watch what happens.&nbsp; I suspect you'll be sorely disappointed with his phyiscal and/or mathematical model. </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>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How did they falsify that magnetic reconnection was involved?&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Both models failed to accurately predict the sequence of events and these are the two most "trusted" models in the industry.&nbsp; Clearly neither model is correct, and there is no evidence that 'magnetic reconnection" had anything to do with this event.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Their models were built around the timing of events. </DIV></p><p>And they were both falsified. &nbsp;&nbsp; They could have "guessed" at any of the 6 possible sequences and gotten it right by dumb luck in three tries. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I agree that the timing of the events in both model didn't match reality.&nbsp; What did match, and what they are focusing on, is that the INITIAL event coincides with the location where a magnetic reconnection event (if applicable) would take place.</DIV></p><p>What they are trying to sweep under the carpet is the fact that the second "prediction" of that model failed too. Ooops?&nbsp; Why not just admit that both of the popular models of magnetic reconnection have been falsifed and start looking elsewhere for answers?&nbsp; Did they even consider EU theory? No, of course not. That's the forbidden topic.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That is what is most significant. </DIV></p><p>That's a purely subjective choice on your part.&nbsp;&nbsp; They picked two different starting points so statistically speaking the first event was a given to match one of the two models.&nbsp; It failed the overall set of preditions however, even though they had a 33% chance of sucess by shear dumb luck.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is nothing here that disproves reconnection.&nbsp; That's your wishful thinking using twisted logic.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Both models were falfied. Denial of this fact won't make it any better.&nbsp; Neither model passed the observation test.&nbsp; Both are flawed. No model of magnetic reconnection accurately predicted these results, so there ia absolutely no evidence that magnetic reconnection had anything at all to do with these events.&nbsp; Period. </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>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, you keep shifting the burden of proof.I'll believe it when I see it.&nbsp;..<br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>You really will do anything to avoid having to directly the issue won't you?</p><p>YOU made the clear assertion that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; Now&nbsp; prove it.</p><p>Put up or shut up.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Both models failed to accurately predict the sequence of events and these are the two most "trusted" models in the industry.&nbsp; Clearly neither model is correct, and there is no evidence that 'magnetic reconnection" had anything to do with this event.</DIV></p><p>And how again does this diagnosis falsify reconnection?</p><p>The evidence supporting (not proving, mind you), is that the initiating event took place where one would expect to find magnetic reconnection event.&nbsp; Is this strong evidence... of course not.&nbsp; Not even compelling evidence.&nbsp; However, it IS evidence nonetheless.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And they were both falsified. &nbsp;&nbsp; The could have "guessed" at any of the 6 possible sequences and gotten it right by dumb luck in three tries.</DIV></p><p>Very true, what's your point?&nbsp; The point of the two models was to define <em><strong>where</strong></em> (not how) the event is initiated and the subsequent two event.&nbsp; The initiating event follows one of the models.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What they are trying to sweep under the carpet is the fact that the second "prediction" of that model failed too. Ooops?</DIV></p><p>From the teleconference: (exact quote might not be quite verbatim)</p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"There is a twist.&nbsp;&nbsp; That&nbsp; the exact sequence we were expecting for either of the models did not pan out."</em></font></p><p>How is this "trying to sweep under the carpet"?&nbsp;</p><p>Another gentleman goes on to explain the importance on being able to predict what is going to be injected, the timing of the injection and the hazards.&nbsp; This clearly shows the focus of what their models are trying to predict.&nbsp; It is significant because they have detected WHERE the initial event occurs.&nbsp; You might want to try to gloss over this point and manipulate their finding to fit your agenda, but if you apply even a smidgeon of critical thinking, you will see that you are taking this way too far. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Why not just admit that both of the popular models of magnetic reconnection have been falsifed and start looking elsewhere for answers?</DIV></p><p>They are not models of magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; How you come to this conclusion is beyond me.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Did they even consider EU theory? No, of course not. That's the forbidden topic.<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Why would they?&nbsp; It's not a competing theory in mainstream science.&nbsp; Besides, they are not overly concerned with "how" or "why" the event is happening.&nbsp; They are more concerned with "where" it begins.</p><p>I didn't respond to the last few sentence as I would have just been repeating myself.<br /></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>
 
U

UFmbutler

Guest
The empirical evidence you keep asking for is out there.&nbsp; You are just too lazy to go look for it or too stubborn to read it.&nbsp; I could spend all day scouring JGR and GRL for the countless papers proving that reconnection is not a "myth" as you call it, but aside from the fact that i'd get fired for working less than I already do, I know you wouldn't read them.&nbsp; Prove me wrong by typing in "magnetic reconnection" into the AGU search tab and just look over the papers. You obviously didn't even glance at the paper I sent.&nbsp; There's a reason why your "EU" theory doesn't get much credit...and I have a feeling it''s because it has people like you advocating it.&nbsp; You just keep demanding proof to make everyone look like they don't know what they're talking about, but in reality it's because they don't want to waste their time proving some nut wrong when he won't even listen to reason. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And how again does this diagnosis falsify reconnection?</DIV></p><p>Which reconnection model passed the test?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The evidence supporting (not proving, mind you), is that the initiating event took place where one would expect to find magnetic reconnection event. </DIV></p><p>No, the timing of events took place exactly where one would expect them to take place in EU theory, and it followed exactly the right eequence of events.&nbsp; The electons from the heliosphere flowed into the magnetotail into the outer sheaths of the magnetosphere.&nbsp; From there, they were carried along through the outer double layer sheaths up to the polse and into the auroras and then they flowed back our into the inside of the tail, just as Alfven "predicted".&nbsp;&nbsp; This event has nothing at all to do with "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; They falsified both magnetic reconnection models.&nbsp; This all all about following the flow of electrons through the plasmas of spacetime and there is no evidence that magnetic reconnection had anything to do with it.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is this strong evidence... of course not. </DIV></p><p>It's "evidence"" that both popular magnetic reconnection models are false.&nbsp; It's certainly not evidence in favor of "magnetic reconnection" theory in any way shape or form.&nbsp; Unless you figure the Earth itself is the energy source of the Aurora, you'd have to "predict" that the Aroroa would not be the first things to "light up" in any energy release event.&nbsp; You could easily eliminate that poiint as the source of the energy flow.&nbsp; That leaves only two logical locations to start from, and they covered both of those bases!&nbsp; Unless Earth is it's own energy source, they could not have "missed" on the first placement guess.&nbsp; That left only two possible locations for the next trasnfer of energy to occur, and they had a 50% chance of getting that part right as well just by guessing.&nbsp; There are only 2 possible ways that EU theory (or any other possible theory) might "squaek through" to reveal that magnetic reconnection didn't do it.&nbsp; They missed on both tries.&nbsp; Neither theory proved viable, but the EU theory is verified in these observations. &nbsp; What now? Do we continue to ignore Alfven's work and Birklend's work and Bruce's work and Peratt's work, or do we give EU theory another look?</p><p>IMO this information puts a serious nail in the coffin of "magnetic reconnection" theory.&nbsp; They ultimately missed with two different attempts to support the theory and in the end they simply verifed EU theory.&nbsp; I'm not surprised mind you, but I'm horrified that they didn't just admit that maybe it's time to try something else as a solution to these observations.&nbsp; Why don't we start with Alfven's work?&nbsp; He wrote about this subject quite exstensively.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Not even compelling evidence.</DIV></p><p>It is actually "evidence" of falsification of magnetic reconnection theory.&nbsp; It depends entirely on how one subjectively chooses to "interpret" the findings.&nbsp; I can't ever logically disprove that an infiinite number of magnetic reconnection theories are false.&nbsp; I certaintly can't disprove an endless number of variations which are changed every other week as the old theories fail test after test after test after test.&nbsp; I definitely can't falsify theories that get revised in an ad hoc manner to be postdicted to fit observations.&nbsp; Someone please tell me why we shouldn't look elsewhere for a solution when magnetic reconnection theory failed both "tests" even with a 50/50 change of getting it right by shear probability and one logical assumption. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, it IS evidence nonetheless.</DIV></p><p>The only thing it could be evidence of is that magnetic reconnection theory is virtually useless at predicting energy flows in space. EU theory on the other hand passes with flying colors.&nbsp; EU theory isn't trying to create millions of amps of current from reconnecting magnetic fields.&nbsp; The electron flow from the universe, and the protons flows from the sun are constant, but variable.&nbsp; The solar wind changes as the net negatively charged intergalactic winds buffet themselves against the sun's heliosheath, and they begin interacting with the sun's heliosphere and the sun's photosphere.&nbsp; The Earth sometimes becomes a conductor of the current flow. The electrons flow from the heliosphere, into the Earth's magnetotail, where they are conducted by the Earth's outer magnetosphere and channelled into the Aurora along with positively charged ions coming from the sun which flow in along the daylight side of the planet.&nbsp; The flow of energy in EU theory is spelled out in Alfven's work anytime anyone want's to read it.</p><p>There's nothing mysterious about this sequence of events.&nbsp; Even Birkeland's early work "predicts" and even simulated this Aurora behaviors over 100 years ago in controlled emprical tests. &nbsp; In his experiments, the flow of electrons was constant and they interacted differently with physical bodies depending on the relative charge of the outer surface and the magnetic field around the object.</p><p> Nobody has ever demonstrated that magnetic reconnection theory is in any way related to auroral activity or that it has any scientific merit whatsoever.&nbsp; Alfven was it's biggest critc.&nbsp; This Themis data only makes it less likely that magnetic reconnection theory has merit.&nbsp; How many times do we have to modify a broken theory to make it fit before we just throw it out and start over?&nbsp; I mean they did have a 50/50 shot of getting it right with two guesses just by assuming that the Earth isn't the source of energy for the Aurora.&nbsp; When should we modify a broken theory and when should we throw it away? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Very true, what's your point? </DIV></p><p>My point is that this team of 17 individuals from 7 different institutions should certainly have reconsiderred the entire concept of 'magnetic reconnection' since it failed to match either set of predictions.&nbsp; EU theory predicts this behavior and this sequence of events so why not just accept EU theory as a viable option now and just let go of magnetic reconnection theories? They' are obviously broken.&nbsp; They don't work.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; They don't predict the correct series of energy transfer events.&nbsp; Why now claim to the media that this was caused by magnetic reconnection when they clearly falsified both of their theories?&nbsp; This isn't logical behavior IMO, and certianly it's not scientifically neutral behavior.&nbsp; How does one falsify magnetic reconnection theory exactly if the rules change and the theory is changed in an ad hoc way to fit observation? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The point of the two models was to define where (not how) the event is initiated and the subsequent two event. </DIV></p><p>Um, you're missing a key issue here.&nbsp; They claimed that magnetic field "reconnection" caused this event.&nbsp; They showed absolutely no evidence that magnetic reconnection caused this behavior, in fact they falsified both of their models.&nbsp; It was rather ironic when they started with a false dichotomy and then they went on to demonstrate that it was in fact a false dichotomy.&nbsp; That was only slighly less amusing than the rationalizations that followed. :)</p><p>The bottom line here is that neither brand of magentic reconnection theory has been shown to have scienific merit.&nbsp; No brand of magnetic reconnection theory was connected to these auroral events, yet they claimed it was.&nbsp; Why did they all say that during the interview?</p><p>They ultimate resorted to explaining that millions of amps of current flow through the Aurora, but they neglected to point out that they surely could have existed in the system from start to finish and not have been "caused" by magnetic reconnection at all.&nbsp; There wasn't even a single peep on that point from the whole panel after both models were falsified?&nbsp; What gives?</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The initiating event follows one of the models. </DIV></p><p>Any externally driven guess would have fit and they covered both possible bases.&nbsp; One of their models had to match the first flow point unless the earth is the source of the electron flow. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From the teleconference: (exact quote might not be quite verbatim)"There is a twist.&nbsp;&nbsp; That&nbsp; the exact sequence we were expecting for either of the models did not pan out."How is this "trying to sweep under the carpet"? </DIV></p><p>They kept claiming that the auroras were caused by magnetic reconnection anyway!&nbsp; Come on!&nbsp; It was clearly not caused by magnetic fields "reconnecting" because they can't do that! &nbsp; Magnetic fields always form as a complete and full continuum.&nbsp; Only electons and particles and electricity can "reconnect".&nbsp; Magnetic reconnection had nothing to do with this event and yet that whole panel claimed that it did, over and over and over again.&nbsp; I lost count of how many times they said it.&nbsp; Care to count the times the said that during the interview and post the results for us for us?</p><p>When did they even mention Alfven, Birkeland, or any *other* theory besides magnetic reconnection as a possible cause of these events?&nbsp; When did the mention that magnetic reconnection was flasifed in both instances?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Another gentleman goes on to explain the importance on being able to predict what is going to be injected, the timing of the injection and the hazards. </DIV></p><p>And yet they all shrugged off the importance of the fact that neither theory usefully predicted the sequence of events, and no one on the panel mentioned any other possible "cause" of the event. &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This clearly shows the focus of what their models are trying to predict. </DIV></p><p>But they failed to predict it correctly. They were both falsified.&nbsp; Why then claim that magnetic reconnection was even involved in auroral activity? </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is significant because they have detected WHERE the initial event occurs.</DIV></p><p>Yes.&nbsp; Oddly enough I have a great deal of respect for the work that the Themis team has done in designing and bulding and launching and maintaining the Themis system and for making all these useful observations for us.&nbsp; I simply see no logical connection between any of the observed events and "magnetic reconnection". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> You might want to try to gloss over this point and manipulate their finding to fit your agenda, but if you apply even a smidgeon of critical thinking, you will see that you are taking this way too far.</DIV></p><p>I appreciate the results of their efforts as much as anyone else.&nbsp; In fact I would not even complain about the way this program has spent my tax dollars to this point in time.&nbsp; If however they keep falsifying magnetic reconnection models and they keep claiming that auroras are caused by magentic reconnection, I'm going to get tired of such papers pretty quickly.&nbsp; I think the guys that are doing the "interpreting" and the modeling of magnetic reconnection theory for the Themis program need to take a fresh look at EU theory and Alfven's work. &nbsp; I would definitely recommend they check out Birkeland's experiments.&nbsp; These events have nothing to do with magnetic reconnection and everything to do with "electricity". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They are not models of magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; How you come to this conclusion is beyond me.&nbsp;Why would they?&nbsp; It's not a competing theory in mainstream science.&nbsp; Besides, they are not overly concerned with "how" or "why" the event is happening.&nbsp; They are more concerned with "where" it begins.I didn't respond to the last few sentence as I would have just been repeating myself. <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Ok, so let me get this straight.&nbsp; It's ok by you that they "assumed" that magnetic reconnection did it, even though they falsified both of their models, givenh a 50/50 chance of getting it right just by assuming that the Earth isn't it own energy source?&nbsp; </p><p>They should have been concerned that both models failed and yet they continued to attribute the auroral activity to "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; That is false advertizing.&nbsp; They found no evidence of magnetic reconnection and plenty of supporting evidence for EU theory.&nbsp; I support and I fully respect the bulk of their work, but not their "interpretations".&nbsp; It's an odd feeling to say the least.&nbsp; It was even more odd to hear them all talk about how magnetic reconnection caused auroral activity right after they falsified both of their magnetic reconnection models. </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>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Which reconnection model passed the test?No, the timing of events took place exactly where one would expect them to take place in EU theory, and it followed exactly the right eequence of events.&nbsp;..Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I see that you have once again dodged responding to the issue that is on the table.&nbsp; To wit, your positive assertion that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; The onus is on you to prove your assertion.&nbsp; </p><p>Put up or shut up.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><br />&nbsp;While we wait, likely in vain, for you to provide proof of your assertions regarding magnetic reconnection, here is another question that might provide some comic relief.</p><p>You have claimed on several occasions to understand general relativity while providing evidence of nothing more than total ignorance of the subject.&nbsp; So, please, if you would explain the differences among:</p><p>1.&nbsp; A Riemannian manifold</p><p>2.&nbsp; A semi-Riemannian or Lorentzian manifold</p><p>3.. An exhaust manifold</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
If light waves/photons loose energy when they interact with matter/electrons, why is this not called a Redshift ?
Replies
17
Views
4K
Astronomy
jhixon
J
saraerdmann
Question Re: Innovative idea for using the Earth's magnetic field to propel spacecraft
Replies
3
Views
3K
Space Travel & SpaceX
billslugg
billslugg
S
Question How does Earth have a magnetic field when it doesn't meet the electromagnetic requirements (an iron core is insufficient)?
Replies
28
Views
4K
Cosmology
Classical Motion
Classical Motion
A
We have the capability now, why aren't we shooting for observations at 13.8 - to 14-billion light years from Earth?
Replies
3
Views
2K
Astronomy
Gibsense
Gibsense
Greenlight
Question Why is the horizon of the observable universe?
Replies
13
Views
3K
Cosmology
Atlan0001
A

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom