Why is "electricity" the forbidden topic of astronomy?

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The empirical evidence you keep asking for is out there.</DIV></p><p>Which sprefic evidence (paper and page number please) do you personally find to be the most compelling evidence of "magnetic reconnection" theory?&nbsp; Feel free to cite anything from this paper or any paper you choose, but pick one page and/or one paragraph or result that you feel is the best supporting evidence of this theory.&nbsp; My time is valuable too, but if you pick an isue, I will address it (Maybe not till after work). </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are just too lazy to go look for it or too stubborn to read it. </DIV></p><p>No, actually if I was "lazy" I wouldn't come here to debate these points in cyberspace. While I have not read every single magnetic reconnection paper, I have read many, and most of the more recent ones.&nbsp; All of them tend to "assume" that magnetic reconnection is involved in the process that they are discussing, yet there is no emprical evidence that magnetic reconnection is a unique form of energy release. There isn't even an agreed upon physical model and there is no way to falsify the concept, unless this is the test that does it.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>Actually, I'll be happy to read that one paper for you if you point out to me where in the paper I can find the meat and potatoes of what you claim is there.&nbsp;&nbsp; I admit that I will finish with this paper before I read yours, but I will (eventually) read it if you can explain what makes it so important from your perspective.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>You're correct.&nbsp; You just posted it today however and I'm still at work.&nbsp; Be patient.&nbsp; I have to work for a living too. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. </DIV></p><p>People like me just keep the mainstream honest, and honestly, this paper was defintely not credible support for magnetic reconnection theory.&nbsp; I've defintely read more compelling papers on this topic.&nbsp;&nbsp; This one has been all too easy to pick apart because the results obviosly didn't match either of their models. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>I'll defintely listen to reason.&nbsp; I've admited making mistakes in the past and I've changed many of my beliefs over the past few years based on emprical science, new observation, and even due to conversations in cyberspace. &nbsp; There is however no particular "reason" behind falsifying both magnetic reconnection models and then turning around and attributing auroras to "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; That is not a "reasonable" scientific conclusion from these observations.&nbsp;&nbsp; There was never any physical connection shown in this presentation between auroral activity and 'magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Both models were falsified by their observations.&nbsp; What can I say?&nbsp;&nbsp; I didn't cause nature to rain on their parade, it just happened.&nbsp; You can blame me personally for the fact that mother nature didn't cooperate with mathematical theories and magnetic reconnection models. &nbsp; Stuff happens.&nbsp; That's why it's important that we all keep an open mind to new ideas (well EU theory is at least 100 years old) and new possible ways to intrepret data. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>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; Put up or shut up. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I have explained to you repeatedly that I can't falsify an infinite and changing set of "magnetic reconnection" theories.&nbsp; Put up a formula that you believe is an example of "magnetic reconnection" using any one of Maxwell's equstions.</p><p>If and when you get around to discussing this issue with tusenfem, I'll certainly follow the thread.&nbsp; Since you claim that there is such a thing as "magnetic reconnection" and I do not beleive it exists, the responsibility falls to you to demonstrate&nbsp; your claim.&nbsp; I can't disprove anything, you have to emprically demonstrate that your idea has merit.&nbsp; I have also asked you repeatedly which of Maxwell's equations could possibly allow for "magnetic reconnection" and you have avoided that direct questions like the plague.&nbsp; Care to offer us a mathematical model of "magnetic reconnection" that you believe does *not* violate any of Maxwell's equations?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&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.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:1.&nbsp; A Riemannian manifold2.&nbsp; A semi-Riemannian or Lorentzian manifold3.. An exhaust manifold <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I'll save my comments on GR for Derek in the other thread where the rest of the conversation is occuring and I'll keep this one focused on "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Please don't hijack my thread. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

You'll have to wait until Monday, I just got home and don't have journal access until I get back to the lab.&nbsp; The paper I gave was just the easy choice since it was one of the first search results and it had "evidence of reconnection" in the title, not because it was the best explanation.&nbsp; I assure you though that I will provide you with many articles when I return.&nbsp; I happen to work for someone who has studied the subject extensively(upwards of 10 years at the lab dealing with magnetospheric physics) and is far more qualified than I am, so i'll be asking him for some references. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have explained to you repeatedly that I can't falsify an infinite and changing set of "magnetic reconnection" theories.&nbsp; Put up a formula that you believe is an example of "magnetic reconnection" using any one of Maxwell's equstions.If and when you get around to discussing this issue with tusenfem, I'll certainly follow the thread.&nbsp; Since you claim that there is such a thing as "magnetic reconnection" and I do not beleive it exists, the responsibility falls to you to demonstrate&nbsp; your claim.&nbsp; I can't disprove anything, you have to emprically demonstrate that your idea has merit.&nbsp; I have also asked you repeatedly which of Maxwell's equations could possibly allow for "magnetic reconnection" and you have avoided that direct questions like the plague.&nbsp; Care to offer us a mathematical model of "magnetic reconnection" that you believe does *not* violate any of Maxwell's equations? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>This is not going to go away.&nbsp; You made an assertion.&nbsp; I gave you the lattitude to define magnetic reconnection yourself.&nbsp; You need to defend your positive assertion that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; The onus is definitely on you.&nbsp; You cannot duck the responsibility or attempt to shift it.&nbsp; That is not how science works.</p><p><font size="3">Put up or shut up.<br /></font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll save my comments on GR for Derek in the other thread where the rest of the conversation is occuring and I'll keep this one focused on "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Please don't hijack my thread. &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>OK since you can't answer this question either, I'll drop it and stay on the magnetic reconnection question that you can't or won't address.&nbsp; That one is not going away.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You'll have to wait until Monday, I just got home and don't have journal access until I get back to the lab. </DIV></p><p>Take your time, I have plenty going on at the moment to keep me busy for awhile. &nbsp; I'm just trying to understand why you personally find "magnetic reconnection" so compelling.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The paper I gave was just the easy choice since it was one of the first search results and it had "evidence of reconnection" in the title, not because it was the best explanation.</DIV></p><p>I assure you the title isn't necessarily indicative of the value of the content of the paper.&nbsp; I've seen papers that claimed "proof" (not evidence, "proof") of things in the titla that they didn't even provide any evidence for in the paper.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I assure you though that I will provide you with many articles when I return.</DIV></p><p>You'll only need one "good" one so you might start with one that you feel is a "heavy hitter".&nbsp; I will listen to reason. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I happen to work for someone who has studied the subject extensively(upwards of 10 years at the lab dealing with magnetospheric physics) and is far more qualified than I am, so i'll be asking him for some references. <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>It sounds as though you should be able to come up with some very useful links.&nbsp; I look forward to your response.&nbsp; Keep in mind that emprical evidence will do fine, whereas a purely mathematical paper is unlikely to completely sway me.&nbsp; That is because Chapman's theories were mathematically elegant, but they were a misleading set of equations that ultimately did not reflect reality.&nbsp; The struggle between emprical evidence and mathematical modeling alone has been something EU theorists have deal with for more than 100 years.&nbsp;</p><p>I fully accept that electron flows can cause aurora because Birkeland emrically demonstrated his point and he did not rely *only* on math alone.&nbsp; Alfven improved his mathematical models, but the emprical evidence had a greater affect on me personally. Some folks are more mathematically motivated like our friend DrRocket, while others like me tend to be more intersted in the devilish details of emprical physical science.&nbsp; IMO the proof in is the emprical tests, not necessarily the math. The math can be useful in helping us falsify various models, but in my book emprical science trumps math.&nbsp; Your mileage may vary. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is not going to go away.&nbsp; You made an assertion.&nbsp; I gave you the lattitude to define magnetic reconnection yourself.&nbsp; You need to defend your positive assertion that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; The onus is definitely on you.&nbsp; You cannot duck the responsibility or attempt to shift it.&nbsp; That is not how science works.Put up or shut up. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>You are funny somtimes.&nbsp; You seem to have faith that magnetic reconnection works, but you can't even cite a math formula that does work. &nbsp;&nbsp; Instead of taking the responsibility to demonstrate your point, which I'm sure you could easily do if you wanted to, and one actually existed, you&nbsp; instead shifted the burden of proof to me and want me to falsify every possible permeatation of "magnetic reconnection" theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; That logically cannot ever be done.&nbsp; It's a shifting of the burden of proof to epic proportions, and it's down right funny.&nbsp; </p><p>You can't even cite a math formula where magnetic reconnection occurs and doesn't violate Maxwell's equations, and you can't name the unique physical energy release mechanims of "magnetic reconnection' or explain how it is different from ordinary kinetic and electricial reconnection in plasma.&nbsp; Even still you seem to believe it happens in nature.&nbsp; Why?</p><p>You won't confront tusenfem on this issue at the mathematical level for fear of opening up Pandora's box, even though I said that I *would* attempt that kind of mathematical problem, and then you expect me to dispove the whole theory for you? &nbsp; Show me one of Maxwell' formulas where energy is gained by "magnetic reconnection". &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>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Which reconnection model passed the test?<br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Ok, Mr. "I try to address *all* the questions head on".&nbsp; I see, once again, you have avoided answering a direct question by answering a question with a question.&nbsp; More disingenuous tactics.&nbsp; That's ok.&nbsp; I'm rather used to it by now.&nbsp; Let me show you how to answer a question:</p><p><u><strong>Which reconnection model passed the test?</strong></u></p><p>None.&nbsp; The models presented were not reconnection models.&nbsp; The models presented were substorm evolution models.&nbsp; The data presented in the article, the teleconference and the peer reviewed paper was submitted to support substorm evolution.&nbsp; The data presented was NOT an attempt to support, verify or falsify magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; However, in the peer reviewed paper that has been accepted and published claims:&nbsp;</p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"The flow and field signatures at P1 are expected from a reconnection site first located Earthward, then retreating (or reappearing) tailward of P1, starting at `05:01 UT.&nbsp; The observed B component variations (B>0 tailward of the reconnection site; B<0 Earthward of it) are also classical Hall signatures of reconnection."&nbsp;</em></font></p><p>The paper also uses phrases such as: "<em><font color="#0000ff"><u><strong>IF</strong></u> the flows are due to reconnection...</font></em>" [emphasis mine].&nbsp; Terms like "<em><font color="#0000ff">signature of</font></em>" and "<font color="#0000ff"><em>suggest</em></font>" are riddled throughout the paper.&nbsp; "<em><font color="#0000ff">Which we interpret as</font></em>" also rears itself.</p><p>Another direct quote from the paper:</p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"Time history of events.&nbsp; The <u><strong>i</strong><strong>nferred</strong></u> reconnection onset...</em></font>" [emphasis mine]</p><p>They do present more evidence that a reconnection event occured and seem confident in concluding that a reconnection event triggered the substorm.&nbsp; However, the main thrust of the paper is not about reconnection.&nbsp; It is about the timing of events before, during and after the triggering event.<br /> </p><p>I'd also like to point out that Alfven's name was used at least 15 time over the course of 4 or 5 pages.&nbsp; His work was not neglected.</p><p>You claiming that because both the evolution models of substorms didn't follow precisely as predicted means that reconnection is falsified is analagous to claiming because we have yet to build a cold fusion reactor, cold fusion is falsified.&nbsp; It just doesn't make sense.</p><p>So, let's try this again:</p><p>How did they falsify that magnetic reconnection was involved? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, Mr. "I try to address *all* the questions head on". </DIV></p><p>For a guy that lives in a glsss house, you sure throw a lot of stones. Some of your comments are funny however so you definitely have redeeming qualitiies. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I see, once again, you have avoided answering a direct question by answering a question with a question.&nbsp; More disingenuous tactics.&nbsp; That's ok.&nbsp; I'm rather used to it by now.&nbsp; Let me show you how to answer a question:Which reconnection model passed the test?None.&nbsp; The models presented were not reconnection models.&nbsp; The models presented were substorm evolution models. </DIV></p><p>Split hairs often? You call that addressing the problem "head on"?&nbsp; LOL!&nbsp; Both models claimed "reconnection occurs here and in this order", and both of them were falsified.&nbsp; Care to explain why anyone on that panel believes that magnetic reconnection has anything at all to do with aurora?&nbsp; Birkeland showed the correlation between "current flow" and aurora, so where's the emprical test of magnetic reconnection around a sphere in a vacuum?&nbsp; Where are the useful predictions from magnetic reconnection theory?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The data presented in the article, the teleconference and the peer reviewed paper was submitted to support substorm evolution.&nbsp; The data presented was NOT an attempt to support, verify or falsify magnetic reconnection. </DIV></p><p>Yet repreatedly throughout the audio interview each and every member of that panel claimed that the cause of aurora was due to "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Why?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, in the peer reviewed paper that has been accepted and published claims:&nbsp;"The flow and field signatures at P1 are expected from a reconnection site first located Earthward, then retreating (or reappearing) tailward of P1, starting at `05:01 UT.&nbsp; The observed B component variations (B>0 tailward of the reconnection site; B<0 Earthward of it) are also classical Hall signatures of reconnection."</DIV></p><p>"Classical Hall signature of magnetic reconnection"?&nbsp; What are those?&nbsp; Care to elaborate?&nbsp; When did they *ever* physically (emptirically) demonstrate that Hall signatures happen in magnetic reconnection events?&nbsp; When did that become a "classic" signature, and how did it become a classic signature of magnetic reconnection?&nbsp; Talk about stacking the deck with clever verbiage.&nbsp; I guarantee you that there is no empircal link that was ever established an emprical link between these two things.&nbsp; That sounds remarkably like a monopole/inflation arguement to me. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The paper also uses phrases such as: "IF the flows are due to reconnection..."</DIV></p><p>What is physically "reconnecting" again?&nbsp; Explain the "physics" for us a bit.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[emphasis mine].&nbsp; Terms like "signature of" and "suggest" are riddled throughout the paper. </DIV></p><p>That wasn't riddled or even conveyed during the interview at all.&nbsp; The responses were very uniform and they were very misleading.&nbsp; Even when the interviewers asked the perfect questions, they were given a snow job.&nbsp; The only mildly correct answer was given at the very end of the interview when one member of the panel suggested to another that they try a current flow analogy to answer the question and they compared the events to a short curcuit.&nbsp; Never once did they call it "electromagnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Never once did they talk about the kinetic energy entering the system from the tail inside the electron flow, and they sort of glossed over the fact that they million mile per hour protons from the sun are also a form of "current flow".&nbsp; Never once did they mention Birkeland who did show us a valid emprical way to explain aurora, and they repeatedly attributed auroral actiivity to "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; It was as one sided of a audio interview as was humanly possible give the topic at hand.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Which we interpret as" also rears itself.</DIV></p><p>Yes, and it's their ugly interpretations that we're debating.&nbsp; I don't interpret the data that way.&nbsp; Birkeland did not interpret the data that way.&nbsp; Alfven did not interpret the data that way.&nbsp; Now what?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Another direct quote from the paper:"Time history of events.&nbsp; The inferred reconnection onset..." [emphasis mine]</DIV></p><p>You're certainly doing your best to excuse their inexcusable behavior during that interview process.&nbsp; The falsified both of their expected reconnection models and they still claimed that aurora were caused by magnetic reconnnection anyway.&nbsp; Why? What is the evidence they used to support that conclusion?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They do present more evidence that a reconnection event occured </DIV></p><p>Be specific.&nbsp;&nbsp; What evidence?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>and seem confident in concluding that a reconnection event triggered the substorm. </DIV></p><p>Yes, they confidently assume magnetic reconnection was involved in auroral activity and they confidently proclaimed it was involved in auroral activity throughout their paper and throughout the interview.&nbsp; Their confidence is woefully misgided particularly since both models bit the dust.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>However, the main thrust of the paper is not about reconnection.&nbsp; It is about the timing of events before, during and after the triggering event.</DIV></p><p>This would be considered a "clssic" example of a rationalization.&nbsp; That's not a head on way of dealing with this problem now is it?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'd also like to point out that Alfven's name was used at least 15 time over the course of 4 or 5 pages.</DIV></p><p>Yes, and politicians talk peace while engaging in war.&nbsp; So what?&nbsp; Alfven strongly criticized the theory of magnetic reconnection, particularly inside of a current sheet.&nbsp; He went so far as to call it pseudoscience.&nbsp; I guess their "tactic" is to associate magnetic reconnection theory with Alfven as many times as possible in the paper and hope like hell that nobody ever bothers to read Cosmic Plasma or ever gets interested enough in his work to actually study it for themselves.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm sure it's an effective tactic for awhile, but I've read how harshly Alfven treated the idea, particularly when applied in this specific scenario.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> His work was not neglected.</DIV></p><p>Yes it was.&nbsp; They neglected every part of his work in MHD theory that relates to "current carrying" plasma.&nbsp; Instead they smear his work by associating his name with a magnetic reconnection theory that he vehimently rejected as "pseudoscience".&nbsp; I'm not impressed with the name dropping and they didn't attrbute this to current flow as Alfven did, so your statement is demonstrateably incorrect.&nbsp; They certainly neglected a huge body of his work in MHD theory and plasma physics and cosmic plasmas in particular.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You claiming that because both the evolution models of substorms didn't follow precisely as predicted means that reconnection is falsified is analagous to claiming because we have yet to build a cold fusion reactor, cold fusion is falsified.&nbsp; It just doesn't make sense.So, let's try this again:How did they falsify that magnetic reconnection was involved? <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>That's an interesting analogy that you cited.&nbsp; In science, the burden of proof falls the one making the claim.&nbsp; We do not have any real evidence that cold fusion occurs, so we do not assume that it must occur in nature, and we require that anyone making this claim emprically demonstrate it in very controlled conditions.&nbsp; When did anyone ever demonstrate "magnetic reconnection" in very controlled conditions? Keep in mind that Alfven explicitly rejected the notion of "magnetic reconnection" inside of current carrying plasma.</p><p>If and when someone ever comes out with a useful product based on cold fusion or magnetic reconnection, I'll be the first one to buy it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Last time I checked no one was selling a useful product based on either of these principles. so there isn't much evidence they occur in nature.&nbsp; If and when that changes, send me a link to the product and I'll see if Walmart has it on sale.&nbsp; Until then the burden of proof falls to the ones making the claim and nobody on that panel demonstrated that aurora are caused by "magnetic reconnection". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>I prefer my herring pickled, but raw is ok, too.&nbsp; I enjoy sushi.&nbsp;&nbsp; However, I've really lost my taste for red herring and would prefer not to be fed anymore.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>So, let's try this once again.&nbsp; Maybe the third time's a charm.&nbsp; Oh, wait... this is the 4th time.&nbsp; Ah well, let's give it a whirl anyway.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <p>How did they falsify that magnetic reconnection was involved?</p> <p>&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>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You are funny somtimes.&nbsp; You seem to have faith that magnetic reconnection works, but you can't even cite a math formula that does work. &nbsp;&nbsp; Instead of taking the responsibility to demonstrate your point, which I'm sure you could easily do if you wanted to, and one actually existed, you&nbsp; instead shifted the burden of proof to me and want me to falsify every possible permeatation of "magnetic reconnection" theory.&nbsp;&nbsp; That logically cannot ever be done.&nbsp; It's a shifting of the burden of proof to epic proportions, and it's down right funny.&nbsp; You can't even cite a math formula where magnetic reconnection occurs and doesn't violate Maxwell's equations, and you can't name the unique physical energy release mechanims of "magnetic reconnection' or explain how it is different from ordinary kinetic and electricial reconnection in plasma.&nbsp; Even still you seem to believe it happens in nature.&nbsp; Why?You won't confront tusenfem on this issue at the mathematical level for fear of opening up Pandora's box, even though I said that I *would* attempt that kind of mathematical problem, and then you expect me to dispove the whole theory for you? &nbsp; Show me one of Maxwell' formulas where energy is gained by "magnetic reconnection". &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>One more time.&nbsp; You stated quite clearly that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; That ought to imply that you can take a definition, and I allowed you to phrase that definition yourself so that you can't claim that the definition is either incorrect or rigged, and demonstrate a violation of Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; That does not require to falsify every possible permeation of anything.&nbsp; It requires to show why a particular phenomenon violates any of the four equations that are called Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; You said that such was the case.&nbsp; Nobody put the words in your mouth.&nbsp; You have the latitude to formulate any sensible definition of reconnection that is consistent with that which you are decrying.</p><p>And I can for instance prove that all magnetic field lines form closed loops, and hence falsify the statement that there are open field lines (and magnetic reconnection theories do not postulate open field lines).&nbsp; So if I did that I would be proving a negative, which you say is impossible.&nbsp; Want to see me do it ?&nbsp; OK here it is, I just quote the this particular one of Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; div B = 0, QED.&nbsp; Now it is again&nbsp;your turn.</p><p>&nbsp;<font size="3" color="#000000">Put up or shut up.</font><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I prefer my herring pickled, but raw is ok, too.&nbsp; I enjoy sushi.&nbsp;&nbsp; However, I've really lost my taste for red herring and would prefer not to be fed anymore.&nbsp;So, let's try this once again.&nbsp; Maybe the third time's a charm.&nbsp; Oh, wait... this is the 4th time.&nbsp; Ah well, let's give it a whirl anyway.&nbsp; How did they falsify that magnetic reconnection was involved? &nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>They clearly demonstrated that both popular theories related to "magnetic reconnection" failed to predict any accurate results.&nbsp; They falsified both concepts!&nbsp;&nbsp; Astronomers who use pure observational "tests" must at least then acknowledge when a theory has "failed" to pass it's "tests of concept".&nbsp; </p><p>The thing is, that never actually happens in astronomy today.&nbsp; Today what we see is an endless process of moving the goal posts and "postictions" that are made to fit the results.&nbsp; In this specific instance, the notion of "magnetic reconnection" was never demonstrated in controlled conditions.&nbsp; Alfven excluded any notion of magnetic reconnection inside of a current sheet and the only controlled test of concept occured inside a current sheet and used a device that "stored" it's energy in "electrcal energy", not "magnetic fields.&nbsp; At no time has any link between "mangetic reconnection" and particle acceleration ever been emprically established.&nbsp; Both models used in "magnetic reconnection" were falsified by their results. &nbsp;</p><p>The problem is there is no way to "kill off" a really bad theory in this industry.&nbsp; Alfven himself criticised this theory, going so far as to call it pseudoscience.&nbsp; That's a pretty hostile attitutde toward the idea if you ask me.</p><p>Today however, papers and interviews like this are trying to "rewrite history".&nbsp; They actively attempt to assocate Alfven's name with an idea that he loathed and criticized.&nbsp; That's about the single most dishonest tactic that I've ever seen.&nbsp; You complain about my tactics when all I do is ack you a question.&nbsp; What about that tactic?&nbsp; How is that "OK"?</p><p>Birkeland showed an emprical physical link between "current flow" and aurora.&nbsp; Today astronomers are attempting to claim that these events are caused not by current flow, but rather by "magnetic reconnection", something the father of MHD theory referred to as "psueudoscience". &nbsp;&nbsp; Nobody bothered to mention that point during the interview, or during the paper. Nobody mentioned *his actual beliefs on this topic* even though he wrote about it extensively and often.&nbsp; How about that spin "tactic"?&nbsp;&nbsp; Pure coincidence they never mentioned his beliefs on this particular topic while using his name to promote a totally different theory?</p><p>How about addressing some of these points head on for me and explain why these folks all made the same claim, a claim that has never been emprically demonstrated?&nbsp; Why haven't they duplicated Birkeland's empirical experiments with Aurora using "magnetic reconnection"?</p><p>IMO this is just sloppy science.&nbsp; Birkeland didn't just point at the aurora and claim "magnetic reconenction did it".&nbsp; He aaid to hiimself "current flow did it", and then created numberous emprical experiments to show the emprical correlation between current flow and aurora around spheres in a vacuum.&nbsp; A hundred years later, astronomers are attempting to rewrite history, without so much as a single empricel experiment of "magnetic reconnection", with no physical model defined that is physically unique to 'magnetic reconnection" and dispite the fact that Alfven called the idea "pseudoscience".&nbsp; Can you honestly tell me that you don't see a problem here? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One more time.&nbsp; You stated quite clearly that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; That ought to imply that you can take a definition, and I allowed you to phrase that definition yourself so that you can't claim that the definition is either incorrect or rigged, and demonstrate a violation of Maxwell's equations. </DIV></p><p>http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/27/4287017/04287080.pdf?temp=x</p><p>Dr. Don Scott told you the same thing and you never addressed any of his points.&nbsp; Care to do so, or shall we go round and round and round?</p><p>Which of Maxwell's equations provides astronomers with a method to generate energy from "magnetic reconnection"?&nbsp; Give me something to work with, or let it go, but quit acting like a kid.&nbsp; I cannot disprove a negative.&nbsp; Is there a mathematical formula for "magnetic reconnection" that does not violate Maxell's equations?&nbsp; Being a mathematically inclined individual, you should easily be able to answer this question with a real mathematical answer.&nbsp; Do you have one, yes or no? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/27/4287017/04287080.pdf?temp=xDr. Don Scott told you the same thing and you never addressed any of his points.&nbsp; Care to do so, or shall we go round and round and round?Which of Maxwell's equations provides astronomers with a method to generate energy from "magnetic reconnection"?&nbsp; Give me something to work with, or let it go, but quit acting like a kid.&nbsp; I cannot disprove a negative.&nbsp; Is there a mathematical formula for "magnetic reconnection" that does not violate Maxell's equations?&nbsp; Being a mathematically inclined individual, you should easily be able to answer this question with a real mathematical answer.&nbsp; Do you have one, yes or no? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I have dealt with Herr Scott on a least two occasions in this thread.</p><p>Yes, you can prove a negative, and in this case you should feel obligated to do so.&nbsp; I guess we are going to to round and round.&nbsp; You made a very clear assertion.&nbsp; I have asked you to prove&nbsp; that assertion.&nbsp; Since you made the assertion and since itis quite clear, the onus is on you to prove it.&nbsp; Period.&nbsp; Evading the question, attempting to answer a question with a question, and trying to change the subject simply will not work.</p><p>Your assertion was that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; You are now obligated to demonstrate a violation of those equations by magnetic reconnection.</p><p><font size="4">Put up or shut up.</font></p><p>Added in edit:</p><p>Before you reply to this post with another evasion consider this.&nbsp;&nbsp; They won't go away. &nbsp;I can pretty much guarantee that you will see the challenge posted regularly until you provide a satisfactory response.&nbsp; You have a limited number of choices:</p><p>1.&nbsp; You can ignore&nbsp;the calls for you to prove your point&nbsp;and risk the possibility of being completely discredited by a clear attempt to avoid defending an undefendable assertion.</p><p>2.&nbsp; You can continue to provide non-seqitar responses and again lose any remaing credibility that you might have.</p><p>3.&nbsp; You can "put up" and provide an objective proof of your assertion that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations and gain a great deal of credibility -- IF you can produce such a proof.</p><p>4.&nbsp; You can "shut up" and concede that you cannot produce such an argument and that perhaps the astrophysicists who are investigating magnetic reconnection are in fact pursuing valid physics.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/themis/auroras/themis_power.html</p><p>Let's look at NASA's press release now and notice what they are claiming and what they are misrepresenting.</p><p><br /><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"We discovered what makes the Northern Lights dance," said Dr. Vassilis Angelopoulos of the University of California, Los Angeles. Angelopoulos is the principal investigator for the THEMIS mission.</DIV> </p><p>No, he did not.&nbsp; Birkeland "discovered" the culprit 100 years ago.&nbsp; It's called "current flow.."&nbsp; Unlike Dr Agnelopoulos, Birkeland created emprical experiments to verify his belief that elecrical currents powered the aurora.&nbsp; They are trying to no rewrite history *without* an emprical test of concept and with absolutely nothing in terms of emprical physics to support their claim. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>These observations confirm for the first time that magnetic reconnection triggers the onset of substorms.</DIV></p><p>There's the claim again. They claimed to have "confirmed this for the first time".&nbsp; They falsified both models and then spun the failed results as as a "confirmation" of magnetic reconnection theory.&nbsp; That's is absolutely false, and absolutely misleading. They falsified both of the magnetic receonection models that they "tested".&nbsp; &nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The discovery supports the reconnection model of substorms, which asserts a substorm starting to occur follows a particular pattern.</DIV></p><p>But it absolutely did *NOT* follow the predicted "pattern" in any way shape or form.&nbsp; In fact it didn't match either "pattern" and magnetic reconection failed both tests. Talk about misrepsentation of fact!</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This pattern consists of a period of reconnection, followed by rapid auroral brightening and rapid expansion of the aurora toward the poles.</DIV></p><p>This order of events directly conflicted with both of their models.&nbsp; This data never supported "magnetic reconnection" and NASA should be ashamed of having this misinformation on their website.</p><p>Kristian Birkeland demonstrated an emprical connection between "current flow" and aurora around spheres in a vacuum.&nbsp; No one has ever done that with "magnetic reconnection" and they never will.&nbsp; No emprical test of magnetic reconnection to date ever "stored energy" in magnetic fields.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; All the energy that was sorted in magnetic reconnections 'tests" was stored in the form of electrons. &nbsp; This whole statement from NASA is false, embrassing and completely misleading.&nbsp; Not only did they falsify both models the "predictions" of both theories were falsified and neither model matched any predicted "pattern" of energy release.&nbsp; The whole thing is purely a false statement and easily refuted.&nbsp; Never a word was mentioned about Birkeland work.&nbsp; Not a word was mentioned about Alfven's critical viewpoints of "magnetic reconnection".&nbsp; Shame on NASA. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have dealt with Herr Scott on a least two occasions in this thread.</DIV></p><p>No you didn't.&nbsp; You handwaved away at it, and that's about it.&nbsp; You can play this game as long as you like DrRocket, but unless you have a mathematical model of "magnetic reconnection" that doesn't violate Maxwell's equations, Dr. Scott's understanding of electrical engineering remains unchallenged.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, you can prove a negative, and in this case you should feel obligated to do so. </DIV></p><p>No one can disprove an idea, nor in science is the onus of responsibily upon the skeptic to disprove the idea.&nbsp; You have the scientifc method standing on it's head.&nbsp; I am not obligated to disprove the theory of magnetic reconnection, you are obligated to demonstrate that it works.&nbsp; Whine all you like, but that is the way the scientific method works.</p><p>If you believe that there is a formula for magnetic reconnection that does not violate Maxwell's equations, in spite of Dr. Scott's objections, then provide one.&nbsp; Otherwise you're just wasting both your time and my time.&nbsp; </p><p>It's really ironic that I'm the one that claims magnetic reconnection is not real science, and tusenfem tells you that it has merit, yet you won't ask him to give you a single formula that doesn't violate Maxwell's equations for fear of what you might hear, yet you expect me to come up with a formula that I do not even believe exists!&nbsp; This is purely irrational behavior on your part.&nbsp; If you and tusenenfem believe that magnetic reconnection theory doesn't violate Maxwell's equations, go over and ask him go provide us with a formula so we can evaluate it.&nbsp; I can't give you something that I do not believe exists, nor am I obligated to do so.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...&nbsp; This is purely irrational behavior on your part.&nbsp; If you and tusenenfem believe that magnetic reconnection theory doesn't violate Maxwell's equations, go over and ask him go provide us with a formula so we can evaluate it.&nbsp; I can't give you something that I do not believe exists, nor am I obligated to do so. <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>There is nothing irrational on my part whatever, and either you know that or you should.&nbsp; Tusenfem and a thread&nbsp;in another forum are irrelevant. &nbsp;You made the statement that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; All that I have asked is that you specifically demonstrate that it violates one of those equations, any one.&nbsp; It was your statement, made on several occasions.&nbsp; It is therefore your obligation to prove that your statement is correct. &nbsp;Either prove it, retract it or stand totally discredited.&nbsp; This has absolutely nothing to do with a formula.&nbsp; "Formulas" are only part of science in the movies and in the minds of those who understand nothing whatever of science.</p><p>You made a clear assertion.&nbsp; Now it is time to</p><p><font size="5">Put up or shut up.</font></p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is nothing irrational on my part whatever, and either you know that or you should.&nbsp; Tusenfem and a thread&nbsp;in another forum are irrelevant. &nbsp;You made the statement that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; All that I have asked is that you specifically demonstrate that it violates one of those equations, any one.&nbsp; It was your statement, made on several occasions.</DIV></p><p>And I posted a paper for you that explained the whole problem and you ignored it.&nbsp; What's wrong with Dr Scott's presentation?&nbsp; Which of Maxwell's equations allow you to gain energy by "magnetic reconnection"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> It is therefore your obligation to prove that your statement is correct. </DIV></p><p>Which I did for you when I cited Scott's paper, the one you keep ignoring.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Either prove it,</DIV></p><p>Which I already did.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>retract it or stand totally discredited. </DIV></p><p>The only way you could possibly "discredit" me is by producing a mathatical expression of "magnetic reconnection", which did not violate his formulas.&nbsp; I know for a fact that you will never do that, nor will tusenfem.&nbsp; Nothing like "magnetic reconnection" actually occurs in nature and there is no mathematical expression of "magnetic reconnection" that does not violate Maxwell's equations because all of Maxwell's equations treat the magnetic field as a full and complete continuum, without beginning and without end.&nbsp; The "lines"" of a magnetic field cannot "reconnect" themselves, only particles and electiricty can do that.&nbsp; Dr. Scott explained the whole thing.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This has absolutely nothing to do with a formula. </DIV></p><p>Sure it does. There are any number of possible mathatical models that you might produce to describe "magnetic reconnection" &nbsp; I could not possibly guess at even one of them because I do not believe such things exist in nature nor than eny exist which do not violate Maxwell's equitions. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Formulas" are only part of science in the movies and in the minds of those who understand nothing whatever of science.</DIV></p><p>Leave it to you to focus on a single word and ignore the topic at hand.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You made a clear assertion.&nbsp; Now it is time toPut up or shut up.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>The only way you could possible gain any credibility or for me to lose any credibility on this topic is for you to produce a mathematical model of magneticv reconnection that does not violate Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; We both know full well that you will never ever, *EVER* come up with one.&nbsp; Who do you think you're kidding?&nbsp; It's time for you to produce something that demonstrates that I am wrong or to admit that I'm right.&nbsp;&nbsp; You of all people should have the mathematical skills to produce a solution that demonstrates my claim to be false if in fact it is false.&nbsp; Dr. Scott already explained to you why "magnetic reconnection" violaties electrical theory and you can decide to actually read the paper anytime you choose.&nbsp; Clearly you haven't or you wouldn't be asking lowely ol' me for an explanation since you already have an explanation from a professor of electrical engineering which was published in a magazing devoted to electrical engineering and it passed the peer review process. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p>Scotts paper does not address the question&nbsp; He sets up a false strawman, but does not even address that with Maxwell's equations beyond the fact that magnetic lines form closed loops which as I have stated is accepted by everyone.&nbsp; So Scott's rather silly paper does nothing to suport your contention that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; Apparently it is you who have not read, or at least not understood Scott's paper.&nbsp; The task remains for you to back up your statement that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations.</p><p><strong><font size="5">Put up or shut up.</font></strong></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They clearly demonstrated that both popular theories related to "magnetic reconnection" failed to predict any accurate results.&nbsp; They falsified both concepts!&nbsp;&nbsp; Astronomers who use pure observational "tests" must at least then acknowledge when a theory has "failed" to pass it's "tests of concept".&nbsp; {snipped irrelavent commentary}. </DIV></p><p>I, actually, agree with the above quote.&nbsp; Although, Mr. Semantic D. Nitpicker (me) would change the words "theories" and "concept" to "models" and "timelines" respectively.&nbsp; I would also change the phrase "predict any accurate results" to "predict the exact results".&nbsp;&nbsp; One model did predict where the trigger event would occur... they just got the other two events wrong to which they DID acknowledge.<br /><br />I also think you are overplaying the significance of these two models.&nbsp; They are really nothing more than "chicken or the egg" type models.&nbsp; The significance is that they found out which came first.&nbsp; The science behind both the chicken and the egg is already accepted in these models.&nbsp; Magnetic reconnection is already assumed to be a valid process.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /><br />Their interpretation of the data is that magnetic reconnection was the triggering event supported by readings of the two probes nearest to the event.&nbsp; Of course they are going to claim magnetic reconnection did it if they believe they have the supporting data.<br /><br />Yes, indeed... they got the subsequent two events backwards, but that doesn't falsify the triggering event that is supported by data.<br /><br />By my logic, I fail to see how they falsified magnetic reconnection as a valid process.<br /><br />Is my logic flawed?&nbsp; I honestly don't understand your logic claiming that they <strong><em>falsified</em></strong> magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; Now, if you claimed they didn't <em><strong>verify</strong></em> magnetic reconnection did it, I might agree.&nbsp; I think it's pretty clear they didn't falsify it.</p><p>Could you simplify your answer for me?&nbsp; Maybe start out by saying "Magnetic reconnection was falsified by/due to/because of (<u>enter data here</u>).&nbsp; You claimed they falsified magnetic reconnection, let's not lose sight of what you actually claimed. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Alfven himself criticised this theory, going so far as to call it pseudoscience.&nbsp; That's a pretty hostile attitutde toward the idea if you ask me.Today however, papers and interviews like this are trying to "rewrite history".&nbsp; They actively attempt to assocate Alfven's name with an idea that he loathed and criticized.&nbsp; That's about the single most dishonest tactic that I've ever seen.&nbsp; You complain about my tactics when all I do is ack you a question.&nbsp; What about that tactic?&nbsp; How is that "OK"?</DIV></p><p>I don't understand the logic here, either and I'm assuming the two questions you ask are more rhetorical than actually wanting an answer.&nbsp; I'll try to answer them regardless.<br /><br />I, personally, don't see any disingenuous tactics driven by some hidden agenda.&nbsp; First of all, they never refer to it as "Alfven's Magnetic Reconnection"... THAT would be wrong.&nbsp;&nbsp; All they used in the paper were Alfven Waves and Alfven Speeds.<br /><br />Second, I find it perfectly acceptable to use legitimate, scientific terms in a legitimate,&nbsp; scientific paper.&nbsp;&nbsp; Perfectly acceptable tactic. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Birkeland showed an emprical physical link between "current flow" and aurora.&nbsp; Today astronomers are attempting to claim that these events are caused not by current flow, but rather by "magnetic reconnection", something the father of MHD theory referred to as "psueudoscience".</DIV></p><p>Huh?&nbsp; As far as I know, mainstream is in complete agreement that aurora are caused by current flow in magnetic field lines.&nbsp; Unless I am completely misunderstanding something here, the debate is over what triggers the current flow.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody bothered to mention that point during the interview, or during the paper. Nobody mentioned *his actual beliefs on this topic* even though he wrote about it extensively and often.&nbsp; How about that spin "tactic"?&nbsp;&nbsp; Pure coincidence they never mentioned his beliefs on this particular topic while using his name to promote a totally different theory?</DIV></p><p>I fail to see how you consider that "spin".&nbsp; This paper is not some dissertation presenting the history of aurora.&nbsp; They are presenting data to support a claim.&nbsp; They are under no obligation to present all dissenting views in their paper.&nbsp; That is a completely absurd notion.&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>How about addressing some of these points head on for me and explain why these folks all made the same claim, a claim that has never been emprically demonstrated?&nbsp; Why haven't they duplicated Birkeland's empirical experiments with Aurora using "magnetic reconnection"?</DIV></p><p>I believe I have addressed these questions in some of my statements above.&nbsp; If not, could you be a bit more specific with your questios?&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IMO this is just sloppy science.&nbsp; Birkeland didn't just point at the aurora and claim "magnetic reconenction did it".&nbsp; He aaid to hiimself "current flow did it", and then created numberous emprical experiments to show the emprical correlation between current flow and aurora around spheres in a vacuum.&nbsp; A hundred years later, astronomers are attempting to rewrite history, without so much as a single empricel experiment of "magnetic reconnection", with no physical model defined that is physically unique to 'magnetic reconnection" and dispite the fact that Alfven called the idea "pseudoscience".&nbsp; Can you honestly tell me that you don't see a problem here? <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Could you point me to a link with some literature on Birkeland's model of Aurora or Alfven's for that matter?&nbsp;&nbsp; I may well be confused about something.&nbsp; Would I be wrong in assuming that Birkeland assumed a direct flow of current from the sun to the Earth's poles via the magnetid field lines with no intermediate mechanisms?</p><p>As far as I know, everyone agrees that Aurorae are a direct result of Birkeland currents.&nbsp; The debate is over what is creating the driving mechanisim for these current flows.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I'll get to your other post concerning the press release when I can.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Scotts paper does not address the question&nbsp; He sets up a false strawman, but does not even address that with Maxwell's equations beyond the fact that magnetic lines form closed loops which as I have stated is accepted by everyone. </DIV></p><p>No, it's not "accepted by everyone" or nobody would be talking about "magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; You're in pure denial at this point.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So Scott's rather silly paper does nothing to suport your contention that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations.</DIV></p><p>Yes, it does.&nbsp; It shows that Maxwell's equations *require* that magnetic fields form as a complete and full continuum. They don't make and break connections like particles and electrictiy. This paper is written by an electrical engineer, and you have never shown a flaw in his work.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Apparently it is you who have not read, or at least not understood Scott's paper.&nbsp; The task remains for you to back up your statement that magnetic reconnection violates Maxwell's equations.Put up or shut up. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Scott's paper does address this issue.&nbsp; You are simply in pure denial at this point.&nbsp; FYI, sooner or later you're going to run out of font size options.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>The one simple way to end this debate is for you to offer us a mathematical model of "magnetic reconnection" that does not violate Maxwell's theory.&nbsp; For a guy that fancies himself to be quite the mathematicsl wiz, you're certainly having a tough time producing a single mathematical model of magnetic reconnection that doesnt' violate Maxwell's equations.</p><p><font size="7">Do you think other people are starting to notice?</font>&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>....&nbsp; You are simply in pure denial at this point.&nbsp; FYI, sooner or later you're going to run out of font size options.&nbsp;&nbsp; The one simple way to end this debate is for you ...equations.Do you think other people are starting to notice?&nbsp; &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Sorry. You made the assertion.&nbsp; It is up to you to prove it. You cannot shift the burden of proof.&nbsp; I may run out of font size options, since there are only finitely many choices.&nbsp; But the onus remains on you.&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't have to prove that magnetic connection is a real phenomena.&nbsp; I have not said that it occurs.&nbsp; I have said that I see no violation of Maxwell's equations, perhaps because I have been unable to find one, perhaps because none exists.&nbsp; You on the other hand have made the positive assertion that magnetic reconnection does indeed violate Maxwell's equations.&nbsp; You have said it several times, and never with proof.&nbsp; Now I ask you to prove it.</p><p><strong><font size="6">Put up or shut up.</font></strong><br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I, actually, agree with the above quote.&nbsp; Although, Mr. Semantic D. Nitpicker (me) would change the words "theories" and "concept" to "models" and "timelines" respectively.&nbsp; I would also change the phrase "predict any accurate results" to "predict the exact results".&nbsp;&nbsp; One model did predict where the trigger event would occur...</DIV></p><p>One of the two "models" they presented had to match the first "prediction" as long as the Earth itself was not responsible for auroral activity.&nbsp;&nbsp; They covered both of the other bases so there's nothing "miraculace" about getting the first one right in two guesses.&nbsp; They claimed there was a "pattern" that was verified.&nbsp; What "pattern"?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>they just got the other two events wrong to which they DID acknowledge.</DIV></p><p>No, actually did&nbsp; did not acknowledge this point. They claimed to have predictied a "pattern".&nbsp; They did not.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I also think you are overplaying the significance of these two models.</DIV></p><p>And likewise I think you are intentionallly downplaying the significance of striking out on both of them.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They are really nothing more than "chicken or the egg" type models.&nbsp; The significance is that they found out which came first.&nbsp; The science behind both the chicken and the egg is already accepted in these models. </DIV></p><p>What "science"?&nbsp; You can't even offer a physical model of the idea, and DrRocket has never provided us with a mathematical presentation of "magnetic reconnection" that doesn't violate Maxwell's equations. What "science" are you talking about?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Magnetic reconnection is already assumed to be a valid process. </DIV></p><p>Yes, and that's the problem.&nbsp; Birkeland didn't just point to the aurora and claim "electricity did it".&nbsp; He took his idea to the lab and he showed how spheres in a vacuum behave when bombarded with electrons.&nbsp; When did these guys ever do anything to emprically demosntrate this claim?&nbsp; Keep in mind that Alfven rejected any form of "magnetic reconnection" in current carrying plasmas and there has never been a test of this idea outside of current carrying plasma. &nbsp; No one on the planet seems to be able to come up with a physical explanation for ''magnetitc reconnection" so as far as anyone knows, it's simply normal particle and electrical reconnection in plasma and has nothing whatsoever to do witth "magnetic reconnection". </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Their interpretation of the data is that magnetic reconnection was the triggering event supported by readings of the two probes nearest to the event. </DIV></p><p>How did the two probes eliminate standard electrical flow as being the cause of this event?&nbsp; When did they duplicate Birkeland's aurora experiments using "magnetic reconnection" as the driving mechnanism? &nbsp; Indentify mechanism that "stores" magnetic energy in light plasma.&nbsp; The fact that they never bothered to show any emprical correlation between magnetic reconnection and aurora as Birkeland makes these claims look like couch potato pseudoscience just as Alfven suggested.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Of course they are going to claim magnetic reconnection did it if they believe they have the supporting data.Yes, indeed... they got the subsequent two events backwards, but that doesn't falsify the triggering event that is supported by data.</DIV></p><p>Then how exactly does one go about falsifying this idea?&nbsp; You can't claim that an uncontrolled observation is a "test" of the idea, falsify both of models based on these observations and then claim that magnetic reconnection did it anyway!&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>By my logic, I fail to see how they falsified magnetic reconnection as a valid process.</DIV></p><p>If this is not a falsification for "magnetic reconnection" then how might anyone *ever* falsify this theory?&nbsp; What "test" did "magnetic reconnection" ever pass with flying colors?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is my logic flawed?&nbsp; I honestly don't understand your logic claiming that they falsified magnetic reconnection.&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>I honestly have no idea how you expect anyone to falsify the concept if observersal "tests" are going to be ignored and no one can even offer us a physical model to work with.&nbsp; What's it going to take to kill this beast?&nbsp; Alfven himself tried to slay it, but it just won't die no matter how many "tests" it fails.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Now, if you claimed they didn't verify magnetic reconnection did it, I might agree.</DIV></p><p>Then why is NASA claiming just the opposite? Why did they claim that they found a predicted "pattern""?&nbsp; What patttern?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I think it's pretty clear they didn't falsify it.</DIV></p><p>Then I think it's pretty darn clear it can never be falsified by these sorts of pure observational "tests".&nbsp; I think it darn hypritical to claim that pure observations are a form of emprical testing, and then to simply ignore the fact that the theory failed that "test".&nbsp; What does it take to falsify a "point at the sky" theory exactly?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Could you simplify your answer for me?&nbsp; Maybe start out by saying "Magnetic reconnection was falsified by/due to/because of......</DIV></p><p>...the fact that it is utterly useless at "predicting" anything, and both popular models failed these observationsl "tests" that astronomers seem to think are a valid way of "testing" such theories.&nbsp; You can't bend the rules of emprical science, skip the lab tests in favor of observational "tests" and then ignore the outcome of the "test".&nbsp; This is outrageous behavior.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>You claimed they falsified magnetic reconnection, let's not lose sight of what you actually claimed.</DIV></p><p>If one attempt to use a "point at the sky" method of "testing" a theory, one can't just ignore the outcome!&nbsp; If pure observation alone is enough to "test" a theory, and "verify"" a theory, then it should also be used to falsify the same theory!&nbsp; You can't have your cake and eat it too.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't understand the logic here, either and I'm assuming the two questions you ask are more rhetorical than actually wanting an answer. </DIV></p><p>Actually I'd llike someone from NASA to answer this question, or someone who's name is on that paper.&nbsp; I'd love to hear them defend this paper and this interview publicly.&nbsp; I'd settle for a good answer from anyone, but I seriously doubt there is one.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'll try to answer them regardless.I, personally, don't see any disingenuous tactics driven by some hidden agenda. </DIV></p><p>Both models *failed* their "test".&nbsp; It is intellectually dishonest to claim you found a "pattern" that you expected when the "pattern" that was found did *not* match the "prediction".&nbsp; That's not only intellectually dishonest, it borders on scientific fraud IMO.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>First of all, they never refer to it as "Alfven's Magnetic Reconnection"... </DIV></p><p>No, they just mentioned his name more than a dozen times and neglected to mention that he was critical of the whole concept.&nbsp; You call that intellectually honest behavior?</p><p>I'm getting tired so I'll stop here for now.&nbsp; The bottom line here is no "pattern" was found that matched their "predictions".&nbsp; To claim that they found predicted patterns is false.&nbsp; They are making false claims on an official NASA website that are easily demontrated to be false.&nbsp; How can that be acceptable behavior in your book?</p><p>What exactly is it going to take to falsify any "point at the sky" (uncontrolled observation) theory?&nbsp; If NASA intend to attempt to verify a theory from pure observation then it has a moral obligation to falsify the same theories exactly the same way.&nbsp; The fact of the matter is that they falsified both models yet claimed to have found a "pattern". That is a pure fabrication and an outright distortion of the truth.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>From the NASA website:</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>These observations confirm for the first time that magnetic reconnection triggers the onset of substorms. <strong>The discovery supports the reconnection model of substorms, which asserts a substorm starting to occur follows a particular pattern</strong>. This pattern consists of a period of reconnection, <strong>followed by rapid auroral brightening</strong> and rapid expansion of the aurora toward the poles. </DIV></p><p>This "pattern" was never "predicted" by their models, so it cannot possible "confirm" their models!&nbsp; This is pure rationalization, pure misinformation and an utterly false statement.&nbsp; Never once did they actually "predict" the pattern they observed.&nbsp;&nbsp; NASA should be ashamed of this behavior. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p>I've posted links to Birkeland's work here in this thread several times now and there are many links to his work on my website.&nbsp; I'll round them up for you again in the morning. </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>